It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

PC preschool bans words 'him' and 'her'

page: 11
34
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Words have meaning. Meaning is by definition, definitional. No word, no meaning. You can't describe something that does not have a word. That's what words are.

I just happen to be a person born into a woman's body. That in order for someone to relate to me, they must think of me as a female and subsequently hope that to them that means I might be a person (debateable considering history and most cultures) is exactly the problem.

Literally at the beginning of the previous century there were debates on whether females where a Person. So yes, words have meaning, and having no pronoun for "that person" is absolutely a LIMITATION of the mind.

You may refer to me as Ma'am. Rest assured, that for some people that term is not one that indicates their assumption of my personhood. It is a reference to my PLACE. A place I refuse to be limited to merely for want of a damn word.




posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by primus2012
 


That word was a Title or an Honourific. It is not a pronoun.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Is it really that bad for people to be molded by society? Think of it this way. Would you rather fit in with society and be successful, or become 'liberated' and live a less than happy life because you are not accepted?

It is one thing if an adult chooses the latter, but by bringing children up to defy society you are making it much harder for them to be successful in the future. They do not have a choice in the matter. I would rather have my child raised like everyone else and decide to be different, so that at least when he is not excepted by society it is his/her doing and not someone elses.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by guessing
 


I'm sorry. So I'm only allowed to speak about people I know in person in a single person format? Gosh - with 7 billion people on the planet, that might be even more limiting.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by granpabobby

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Whoa whoa whoa. Are you telling me that they are now trying to infiltrate the gay agenda into preschools. Yep just as I have been saying this is the anti-christ's plan to make humanity gender neutral and just wilfully follow and obey the order of the antichrist.


God created Adam and Eve
Not
Adam and Steve
I have even herd of books like.My two Dads pre-school books

Jesus is comeing..only this time..HE IS ANGRY
/



Yeah - people are starving, children are uneducated, but Butt Sex will be His top priority.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by joshter
Yikes! Now that's an issue right there. That's almost killing a childhood, taking out fairytale stories. Batman is a fairytale story too... without the wicked witches and friendly forest animals. Both genders get a kick out of those stories.

Issues like homosexuality and divorce are, in my opinion, things children shouldn't be thinking about. Those are stressful thinking processes that I don't think children can handle, most adults can't handle them.

Well, not to be rude, but your opinion does not matter to all the kids who are thinking about how they like the same sex more than the opposite. I am not gay myself, but I have a few gay friends and the common thing they say is that they "always knew".

A few public examples: Figure skater Johnny Weir knew when he was six justjared.buzznet.com...

Broadway perfomer Nick Adams knew when he was five: www.nj.com...

Best selling author Jodi Picoult knew her son was gay when he was three www.dailymail.co.uk...

And knowing, from an early age, that the possibility to love someone of the same sex exists does not mean you have to chose that.
edit on 27-6-2011 by pimpinette because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by pimpinette
 


Yes but bearded women are still quite controversial, and while Ive seen feminist ranting concerning body hair, growing yourself a beard isnt quite in mainstream fashion yet!

Thats another point thought.... where's the transgender families? Being transsexual or transgender is pretty old news these days so you'd think they would throw a couple of those in too.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 



For some reason, psychologists have always had this love affair with androgeny.


One could easily turn the tables on psychologists and say their profound fascination with sexuality is a reflection of their own inner fantasies and problems!

In other words, they are fascinated by it, for the same reason we are all fascinated by sex, except they turn the binoculars on us, and use perceived expertise or authority to make us question our own urges and behaviors, when really it is their fascination with the subject that has created the issue to begin with. Self-fulfilling agenda. In my opinion no psychological study can ever be unbiased, and therefore can never be very useful.

I have some friends of friends (a male gay couple) that are attempting to raise their adopted child without any sexual stereotypes, and it is more of a challenge for them than the child. My two sons like pink shoes, and water guns, and barbie dolls, and remote control 4x4 trucks. In reality, the more the parents fiddle with things, the more screwed up the kid becomes.

Just embrace whatever they seem to have an affinity for, and give them every opportunity to excel in their natural areas. I have no fear whatsoever that my sons will become gay, and if I am wrong, at least they will be well-rounded and capable of defending themselves better than most straight men!



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Imagine a world where we just 'are' instead of carrying the weight of all these labels, and the historical baggage that comes with them.

It's worth the effort, even if it helps just a few.

Taking away socially inflicted gender pressure is a good thing, in my opinion.

It will keep our pre pubescent homosexual kids from destroying their self esteem before they ever even get to own a sexual identity.

Kudos, Preschool!



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
I had a very interesting conversation about this sorta thing....

I believe that as time goes on, the human species will eventually evolve in 'bisexual' creatures, erasing the gender line altogether.

The precursors are legal gay marriage and instances like this article, and no, its not some NWO propaganda thing, in my opinion.

Guys are wearing 'skinny jeans, two ear pearcing, etc...Girls are dressing more tomboyish...its just like when paper started fazing out into digital, cash fazed out into credit cards ( eventually turning into microchip) school is now taught online, and so on .

Its just evolution.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Interesting experiment, but I don't think it will have any real effect. Previous experiments have shown that kids still conform to gender roles to a certain degree even when told to do whatever they want. Although I don't necessarily believe the people in charge of this are Marxists or anything sketchy, I still think everyone referring to each other as "friend" has a kind of creepy, cultish vibe to it. Kinda gives you flashbacks to the U.S.S.R. with everyone going "comrade" all the time. It also reminds me of Ned Flanders, for some reason.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 



For some reason, psychologists have always had this love affair with androgeny.


One could easily turn the tables on psychologists and say their profound fascination with sexuality is a reflection of their own inner fantasies and problems!

In other words, they are fascinated by it, for the same reason we are all fascinated by sex, except they turn the binoculars on us, and use perceived expertise or authority to make us question our own urges and behaviors, when really it is their fascination with the subject that has created the issue to begin with. Self-fulfilling agenda. In my opinion no psychological study can ever be unbiased, and therefore can never be very useful.

I have some friends of friends (a male gay couple) that are attempting to raise their adopted child without any sexual stereotypes, and it is more of a challenge for them than the child. My two sons like pink shoes, and water guns, and barbie dolls, and remote control 4x4 trucks. In reality, the more the parents fiddle with things, the more screwed up the kid becomes.

Just embrace whatever they seem to have an affinity for, and give them every opportunity to excel in their natural areas. I have no fear whatsoever that my sons will become gay, and if I am wrong, at least they will be well-rounded and capable of defending themselves better than most straight men!


And kudos to you for standing up for the right thing.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
This gender-neutrality has been going on for years. The difference between HS graduates 15 or 20 years ago vs. those of today is astounding. Today, they have sensitive "feelings" and get all butt hurt if they are reprimanded for anything. They have no manners, no respect and no clue how to treat a lady. No idea what sex they are supposed to be attracted to. There are more bi-sexuals in high school today than every before.

There is nothing wrong with the natural tendencies of men and women. But of course, while they are doing this in school, have the balanced out child custody issues in the courts? Hell no! Women still get custody the vast majority of the time even though she makes less money and has fewer means to provide for the children. If they really thought that we were "equal", then we wouldn't have that disparity.

Does anybody remember when women used to cry about being used as "sexual objects" in porn and how demeaning it was? Now they embrace the very thing they protested against. There are more women in porn today than every before, allowing themselves to be degraded to new levels. This is what they fought for; and they got what they wanted. No respect, equality, etc. yet they now cry and piss and whine because they make more than their partner! They bitched about it for years and now they're pissed because in many instances they make more. Now they WANT their significant other to make more than them. You just can't win.

This is all of society causing these issues. If you raise boys to not differentiate between men and women, then they won't be treated any differently as adults. If you want the "ladies" to be treated like one of the guys, then that is how they will be treated. The next time you wonder what happened to chivalry, look no further than our school system and our liberal society in general.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Someone has WAY too much time on their hands if they are thinking up nonsense like this......



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Man... touchy subject to respond to...

If it were in an experimental class environment I think it's a neat idea. However, I think banning words is just another form of imposition, so that's a little sketchy (do not say him/her...?). It's only a subject that any gender communications class centers on. Gender roles are pretty enforced globaly. I wonder if children could cope with that subject naturally, without so much suggestion from society. Maybe relationships as a whole would be better off if we didnt think we "had" to be, or be seen a certain way, to be acceptable. It's plenty tough to live as it is without thinking you have to be this or that to be whole/happy.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by General.Lee
 


Another "the world ain't right and I can't be polite because women be outta place" argument. Love it.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


so it all comes back to your belief that most men think less of women? i would disagree.

do you enjoy being a woman?



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Aeons
 


so it all comes back to your belief that most men think less of women? i would disagree.

do you enjoy being a woman?


This is completely pointless to this discussion. Though I do find the continual attempt to derail to a personal discussion, or the attempt to make this discussion and "either-or" fallacy to be interesting, in that it speaks to your intent.

Words have meaning. The entire reason for these sorts of thought experiments being done by people is purely for the want of a pronoun in which to refer to another human without needing to refer to their genitals.

Other languages have it. English doesn't, while at the same time English spanning the cultures most desiring a way to reference a person without needing to use their gender.

The juxtaposition of the language limitation and the cultural paradigm are utterly at odds with one another.

I would love to be able to write a piece in which I could use an inclusive third-person pronoun for one person, in which I do not need to default to "he" or indiosycratically switch-hit between using he/she or even bastardize writing with s/he.

The ridiculous problem people have with a non-gendered single person pronoun speaks volumes about how frightened people are of the whole idea. Do all the people in these other language/cultures who have a non-gender single person pronoun suddenly find themselves incapable of living as males and femles? Apparently not.

This is isn't an either/or situation. You can have a pronoun to refer to another person without losing your precious "she" "he" needs that your so terrified that without the World will end.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by guessing
 


I'm sorry. So I'm only allowed to speak about people I know in person in a single person format? Gosh - with 7 billion people on the planet, that might be even more limiting.


Actually you can speak about anybody anyway you like.

Also you can do whatever you want.

None of my concern or business and I have no interest.

Its my turn to be sorry.. Pity me...



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Kids have a tendency to not pay attention to the roles adults create for them anyway. I never wore jeans, always wore dresses, but still climbed trees and played with the boys. I also played with dolls. I even built my own clubhouse out of old firewood when I was eight. My point is, I am all woman today. I never needed anyone telling me I didn't have to fit into "gender roles". I don't even think we had that terminology in my area in the seventies. I was simply allowed to be who and what I was. As long as I followed the rules like don't steal, don't fight and NEVER back talk Gramma, I was fine. The only one I remember specifically being related to my gender is not pulling up my dress on purpose in places like church or the store because it was "unladylike". Doing that would have gotten me a smack on the butt and blue jeans, so I never did. Now girls make a really good living running around flashing people their butts. They're called pop stars. Poor Gramma is probably rolling over in her grave

They should just let nature take its course and not interfere with the kids just being kids. This PC stuff has gone way too far and will be the death of us all I think. Just because something isn't politically correct doesn't mean it isn't true. People forget that.

And I agree with BigFurryTexan. We should be working on weeding out our less than noble behaviors than worrying about boys playing with dolls or girls playing with Tonka trucks.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join