This is totally ridiculous. I'm for gender equality as much as the next person, but nobody is being harmed by this song. It doesn't harm anybody's opportunities. In fact, it's totally benign. What it is, is a symbol.
I suppose that's what the beef is. They think it's a symbol of male dominated patriarchal society, translated from the French in 1890, they feel that it should be updated. They feel that womens' role in the formation of Canada should be acknowledged. They feel that women's rights are being violated by this song.
First of all, women are seen to be inclusive in 'sons'. Certainly when I sing the song, and think about that part of it, I never think, oh, yeah, the boys have it good, the women are worthless. What I think is something more like including all people. There's also the historical reasons to keep 'sons'. Which I don't really buy. It's not really a big significant historical thing. But why change it for no good reason? I would think that these women have better things to worry about.
As it stands now, the big fuss they are putting up is indicative of nothing but the pettiness of womens' rights groups, and the mockery that political correctness has become. They are hurting their own cause by exposing themselves to criticism. Surely they must have better things to fight about. The national anthem should be the last of their concerns.
i don't know if these forms are separated by like, article or whatever, but this is in response to your july 16th article (i know... it was over a month ago... but i've been busy.)
calvin, that's one of the most fucked up things i've ever heard you say.
"As it stands now, the big fuss they are putting up is indicative of nothing but the pettiness of womens' rights groups," maybe you, as a son, are unable to grasp the whole idea, but women have been trying to gain equality for hundreds of years. if you were a woman, wouldn't you want to be recognized as a person?
while i agree that sometimes the movement does go to extremes at times, the line in the song IS outdated. written no doubt by a man, hundreds of years ago when women were good for little more than sweeping the floor and cooking the dinner. in countries today, in the year 2001 women are still treated as objects. mutilated, sold, or simply given away in exchange for a barrel of potatos. in some islamic countries women are not allowed to venture out in public without a male relative or husband, lest she be stoned to death by whomever might see her. and even with a male relative, she must be fully covered from head to toe in layers of clothing in the hot hot sun.
i feel a rant coming on, so i'm going to stop now. but i'm deeply offended by your article.
jones
I'm not against women and men being equal at all. But if I were a woman, I'd rather see my wages being the equal of a man's wages than changing the words to some song. Some things are worth fighting for. Some aren't.
Calvin