Feature
- Do You Hate Your Partner, Too?
- California Teen Avoids Heavy Sentencing by Passing the Buck
- Wanna Buy Your Teenager a Padded Push-Up Bra?
- Vampires in Texas!
- These Guys Are As Bad As Westboro Baptist Church
- Funny Letters Sent to Women's Magazines
- Women's Ski Jumping: Still Not a 'Real' Sport
- Will the World Be Pro-Choice Soon?
- Are We Getting Too Lazy to Even Divorce?
- Forever 21's Maternity Line: Glamorizing Teen Pregnancy?
That’s the scuttlebutt over at Salon.com’s “Broadsheet” blog. Naturally, the potential change is related to all the attention America’s hat got during the Olympics. Still. First Canada shows off a freakin’ awesome women’s hockey team, etc., writes Salon.com’s Tracy Clark-Flory, and now it pursues a progressive cause like this one. Cheer.
This week the government called for neutralization of the line “True patriot love in all thy sons command,” because, really, what about all the daughterly patriotism, huh? Plus, says University of Calgary prof Dr. Lisbeth Donaldson:
”…it was kind of insulting for Canada’s many female Olympic winners to have to sing such an outdated line. She told the Globe and Mail: “Given that women comprised 43 percent of the total Canadian contingent and received about 80 percent of the total medals … isn’t it time to change the Canadian national anthem to be more inclusive?”
It seems the Canadian government tried to make a similar revision way back in 2002, but nothing came of it. And it could go that way again. Certainly everyone’s not happy about it, like Stephen Harper’s ex-chief of staff, Tom Flanagan, who told the Globe and Mail:
“…it’s a bad idea to start rewriting national anthems and other national symbols every generation in response to passing trends in public opinion.”
And I thought Canadians were polite! Here’s to a gender-neutral anthem, Canada — you can do it.
You Might Also Like ...
-
-
17
This might be the stupidest thing I’ve read on this blog. Changing the anthem because it might offend a tiny minority of nitpickers is just ridiculous.
Ditto. It reminds me of the people who want to change America’s national anthem because it is “too violent”.
They have already decided against changing the anthem. A poll concluded that 73% of Canadians wanted to keep ‘in all thy son’s command’ rather than change it to something more gender neutral.
I don’t think this is true. There might have been some sort of radio poll where 73% of Canadians didn’t want to change the lyrics, but unless I missed, there hasn’t been a referundum asking our opinion, so there was no actual decision made from the people.
This seems really silly. A actually agree with the person quoted above, that we shouldn’t change national symbols to fit passing gender trends. Yes, I realize gender equality is not a passing trend, but I’m hoping the oversensitivity to gender is.
The anthem actually used to be gender neutral, and then was changed to ‘in all thy sons command’. Those who want ti changed just want to revert to the original anthem.
I don’t think it is just quibbles to suggest that the anthem should be made gender neutral. I think it is important that our language reflectes our beliefs, and I don’t see gender equality as a passing theme (in reality, if it was changed to something gender neutral, it would never be changed back again, would it?). Language is important in developing ideologies (as Orwell showed us to the extreme in 1984).
That being said, a lot of Canadians are frustrated that our federal government is making an issue of this instead of the many other problems that we actually want to see fixed. Stephen Harper is using this as a tactic to increase his favour with women’s groups, but he just made huge cuts to the Status of Women act, and wanted to remove the word ‘equality’ because he claimed it was not relevant any more. Which is BS. Much like Stephen Harper.
Ah, see the fact that it was previously different changes this a lot. That’s really strange that it was changed from something gender-neutral to something that wasn’t. When did that happen?
Well, it was brief. And the proposed alternate lyric is
“thou dost in us command” which is even more archaic than the daughter-ignoring, and even I (a lover of archaic) find it inelegant. But it’s not happening. Reaction was quick enough, and from women too, that it just wasn’t worth pursuing.
Yes because gender equality is just a dumb trend that will hopefully go away.
?!?
Oooh…interesting subject. This comment might get a bit long. In my language learning and living abroad (UK, Sweden, Denmark) and comparing with back home (Germany) I noticed one major difference in how femininsts had influence on language use.
In Germany, when somebody addresses a group of people, the person has to make sure to address males and females (in speaking and writing). E.g. if a CEO is doing a speech, s/he has to say “Dear male employees and female employees” (or the other way around; in German; “Liebe Mitarbeiter und Mitarbeiterinnen”). In a letter to all customers, a company would have to write “Dear male custumer, dear female customer” (which results in German in rediculus forms like this: “Liebe(r) Kunde/Kundin”). Every title has a male and female form and they both have to be mentioned in official and public communication (or as our chancellor says “Liebe Bundesbürger und Bundesbürgerinnen” – Obama might just say “Dear citizens”).
I never saw anything like this in any other language. Here in Denmark it seems that people think the oposite, that if there’s only one job title (or whatever titles/decriptions there might be), then both men and women are equal under this decription. A male and a female title, on the other hand, just point out that there is a difference.
I realise that it might have something to do with the use of male, female and neutral articles in the German language, but still, I find this use of language just silly (makes it almost impossible to write good and elegant copies….).
Maybe I’m just a nerd, but what do you think? What is the better solution?
Yeah, I think you have a valid point. Luckily, in English it’s not so much of an issue–we can just say “dear employees” or “dear customers” without having any kind of gender-specific tag.
If you speak a gendered language, it is good practice to not take for granted professions as any particular gender.
But that is one of the things I hate about gendered languages. I totally see no benefit at all in having to deal with masculine and feminine forms. I’m a big fan of one-thought-one-word, and leave the pronouns equal.
And then German with its *three* forms. Brutal.
Mireee, Mireee where art thou?
Seriously?
I think women have more things to be worried about then our national anthem being “gender specific”
And since when have women actually THOUGHT about the anthem until some friggin’ Olympics?
Excuse me while I go tend to the women who are being beaten and demorilized by their husbands and their bosses.
Frak you crazy, nitpicking idiots. We have more things to worry about in today’s society.
This type of argument simply isn’t valid.
For example, why should anyone bother concerning themselves with women who are being beaten when there are people who are starving to death on the streets? Then why should we bother with the homeless, when there are millions dying of AIDS?
Introducing a non-related escalated situation in attempt to invalidate an original argument doesn’t work.
Personally, there are piles of issues that I would prefer to see our government deal with instead of focusing on the National Anthem. I’d prefer that they worry about poverty instead of repairing roads, or about increasing health care benefits before establishing trade deals with foreign countries. But in reality, all of these things are important, and need to be dealt with. I include the National Anthem in my list of things I would like dealt with. It’s just extremely low on the list. Actually, maybe the lowest thing on the list.
I agree with this, and I’d like to add that I have thought about the fact that the National Anthem is gender specific. Every time I hear it. And I watch hockey, so it happens a lot.
This from “Knowledgerush”. We seem to change our anthem quite a lot really.
The official English version is based on a poem written by Robert Stanley Weir in 1908; it is not a translation of the French. Changes to the English version were made in 1968 following recommendations made by a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons. The National Anthem Act of 1980 added a religious reference to the English lyrics.
So if we changed it for God why wouldn’t we change it for women–I worship them a whole lot more than I do God.