Sweden Moves Towards Gender Neutrality [Support Thread]

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

Casual Shinji:
Gender neutral words and toys!? Wha-... why?

When did it happen that being called 'he' or 'she' is suddenly not done?

Looks like worldpeace can only be achieved by forcing everyone to be the same. No distinction, no flavor, just a saltless grey society.

Well, when one gender's values get pushed for time immemorial as not only more desirable, but are more rewarded and heralded in society, a pushback had to happen. Nobody said it would be pleasant.

Like it or not, distinctions and flavors lead people to dominate, destroy, and exploit one another. Just a question if you think the benefits of it are worth it.

Casual Shinji:
We must all be the same, look the same, and act the same to avoid offending anyone. If only equality and sameness weren't... the same.

...

Oh right, they're not!

So which distinction is the superior?

So who should serve and who should rule? Who are the users and who are the used?

If you want to go with the old ways, you might as well answer that question. You're going to have to.

ImmortalDrifter:

OhJohnNo:

ImmortalDrifter:

I don't support "gender roles". I do support genders though :D

Oh no, I wasn't referring to you. But when it seems like a significant number of people in the thread actually believe that separate can be equal, I get worried.

Well here's the funny thing. They can be. "Gender Deconstruction" is inherantly sexist. You view genders as inequal so you intend to destroy them. If you viewed genders as equal then the pronoun wouldn't matter because they would already be equal right? I believe in individuality (regardless of the ensuing paradox) and gender is a part of what defines who we are. Does that mean that either gender is locked into "roles" or whatever? Of course not. I grew up looking to my mom as the breadwinner. She went to college, got a job, ripped stereotypes in half like fucking phonebooks, and she still prefers to be called a she. She didn't need to hide behide neutral gender rhetoric to be awesome, she did it while being a goddamn woman. That is my opinion, feel free to disagree. But I have too much respect for women (and men, fuck the police) to disenfranchise them with defensive labels they don't need.

Good Day to you sir :D

Fuck yeah. Dont people already know that anyone can grow up to be anything these days? You dont have to be called something else to get a permission to do it, just do it.

And by the way, what are we supposed to call a transgender? Like male to female for example? We call "she", right? Like, thats what a transgender is, isnt it? A person that switched gender? So then we call it the gender that the person currently assumes instead of using a genderless term.

Trucken:
I'm a Swede, and even though I'd usually respect the OP's request to keep this thread positive by simply moving along, I refuse to since this 'hen' business is completely stupid.

First of all, men and women are different. That's just a fact. We think differently, act differently, and that's not bad. We should celebrate the fact that we are different instead of trying to force everyone into being the same grey sludge with no identity.

Secondly, these gender-neutral words are already a complete and utter failure since they aren't neutral. 'Hen' is the feminine term, 'hum' is the masculine term. If there are feminine and masculine terms of a gender-neutral word then how the fuck can it be neutral?

Let boys be boys and girls be girls. And if the boys want to play with GI Joe's and the girls want to play with My Little Pony's they should be able to do that without some whackjob telling them that it's wrong because they aren't acting gender-neutral.

So which identity is superior and should be in control? They can't be different and the same.

Casual Shinji:
No I think we believe different can be equal.

Except it's not.

Someone will be in control. Someone will be in the dominant seat. Only question is who in that scenario.

LollieVanDam:

Trucken:
I'm a Swede, and even though I'd usually respect the OP's request to keep this thread positive by simply moving along, I refuse to since this 'hen' business is completely stupid.

First of all, men and women are different. That's just a fact. We think differently, act differently, and that's not bad. We should celebrate the fact that we are different instead of trying to force everyone into being the same grey sludge with no identity.

Secondly, these gender-neutral words are already a complete and utter failure since they aren't neutral. 'Hen' is the feminine term, 'hum' is the masculine term. If there are feminine and masculine terms of a gender-neutral word then how the fuck can it be neutral?

Let boys be boys and girls be girls. And if the boys want to play with GI Joe's and the girls want to play with My Little Pony's they should be able to do that without some whackjob telling them that it's wrong because they aren't acting gender-neutral.

So which identity is superior and should be in control? They can't be different and the same.

No they can't, but they can be different and equal, which is the point of gender equality. It's not something that will happen quickly, but will happen eventually. This however is simply giving up on that and trying to promote homogeneity when the fact is everyone is and always will be different.

LollieVanDam:

So which distinction is the superior?

So who should serve and who should rule? Who are the users and who are the used?

If you want to go with the old ways, you might as well answer that question. You're going to have to.

And this is why we can't have nice things.

Why does one have to be superior to the other? Take cars for instance, a compact car is superior to a 4x4 jeep gas consumption wise but is inferior when driving on snow or other dodgy surfaces. So at the end there is no real superior one they're just different.

Those who should rule are those are the most fit to rule, and in this case it doesn't even have to be a gender. Like most societies where feminists haven't gone bonzo have proven you can have male and female leadership coexisting without destroying gender roles because not every male and female is the same despite trends.

generals3:

And this is why we can't have nice things.

Why does one have to be superior to the other?

Because things are different.

Take cars for instance, a compact car is superior to a 4x4 jeep gas consumption wise but is inferior when driving on snow or other dodgy surfaces. So at the end there is no real superior one they're just different.

But when gas consumption is a more valuable trait than being able to drive on snow, one is superior to the other. And since the compact has the superior trait, it too is superior.

The story of gender right there in one sentence. Male values are, and always will be, more rewarded and viewed as more valuable.

Eh.

Stuff like this is great in theory, but it can have terribly unexpected consequences if implemented poorly. Equality seems to be a more appropriate goal to me as opposed to enforced androgyny. This sort of stuff can start a slippery slide if society isn't careful.

But, i'll reserve judgement until I see the effects and have a closer look at what's actually happening. It'll probably be a while before we see anything meaningful come out of this either way I suspect.

edit -

I'm wondering if the OP's request that everyone express the same opinion in this thread has something to do with the subject matter.....

I guess i'll have to open a thread to discuss that.

Fnuff:
"Hurr durr oh no don't take my gender away" said the bumbling idiots while steadily clutching their private parts.

As if there was some leftwing-feminazi conspiracy out to neutralize everything they hold dear and identify with, oh my.

Seriously though, the word is only meant to be used for situations when a gender-specific pronoun isn't necessary or if you don't know the gender of the person in question. It's not a word that was just made-up either, it's been around since the '60s.

OT:

Feminism isn't about forcing people to ignore the biological differences between the sexes, it's about the fact that everyone is equal despite these differences. It's also about not forcing people into a stereotypical gender role just because they were born with a certain set of genitals.

Please disregard my subpar use of the english language. :3

Referring to people who disagree with you as being retarded is kind of insulting and sort of exactly what many criticizes feminists for seeing as it is nowadays part of the so called "establishment". I agree that it is stupid to think in terms of a leftwing feminazi conspiracy as you called it. But at the same time you people really need to cut down on the black and white thinking and the instant "dehumanization" of people who disagree with your flights of fancy. It does you no favors and alienates many people who fundamentally agree with you.

LollieVanDam:

But when gas consumption is a more valuable trait than being able to drive on snow, one is superior to the other. And since the compact has the superior trait, it too is superior.

The story of gender right there in one sentence. Male values are, and always will be, more rewarded and viewed as more valuable.

If that's the story of gender rights than women obviously have never been oppressed. Why? Because what is most valuable depends on the situation. In certain situations certain traits are preferred than others. You won't convince some dude living in the middle of nowhere who has to take dirt roads to get anywhere that a compact car is superior. And that's the whole point, certain typically feminine traits will be preferred in certain instances. And let's also not forget the whole purpose of equality of rights and opportunity is to judge people on their actual traits and not genitalia which suggests they may have certain traits. To take the car analogy, you may have compact cars which drink gas like mad trucks while having jeeps that have a reasonable consumption. Choosing a compact car which has a consumption of 10L/100km over a jeep which has one of 9L/100km because you assume compact cars use less gas would be stupid. Just like it would be stupid not to hire a female scientist who is better than a male one because you assume males are better at science. And it is the latter which has to be fought.

I find it funny how many people in this thread are treating the word "hen" as if it has female connotations. In the English language, yes, it's a female chicken so obviously it's a female word. However, in the Swedish language, it's obviously a brand new neutral word. I don't see why anyone should have a problem with the word itself unless they actually speak the language and know more about it's root than I do.

As far as the stuff surrounding this (taking away toys), sorry to go against your wishes OP but that is simply ridiculous. Why are they depriving children of happiness in an attempt to make them all the same? They are taking away kid's self expression and that is just plain wrong.

Seriously though, what did you want to see? A thread full of "good job them" and "I agree with this." Seems kind of boring if everyone has the same opinion because there's no point in responding if every person is saying roughly the same thing.

generals3:

If that's the story of gender rights than women obviously have never been oppressed. Why? Because what is most valuable depends on the situation. In certain situations certain traits are preferred than others.

And guess how often female traits are preferred?

And let's also not forget the whole purpose of equality of rights and opportunity is to judge people on their actual traits and not genitalia which suggests they may have certain traits. To take the car analogy, you may have compact cars which drink gas like mad trucks while having jeeps that have a reasonable consumption. Choosing a compact car which has a consumption of 10L/100km over a jeep which has one of 9L/100km because you assume compact cars use less gas would be stupid. Just like it would be stupid not to hire a female scientist who is better than a male one because you assume males are better at science. And it is the latter which has to be fought.

Here's the thing; at that point, it sounds like one should be fighting the anti-feminists who insist up and down about male biological and psychological differences, and how that makes one side better suited to rule, as well as the anti-feminists who insist those differences they went at length to prove are present are more desirable for a prosperous society.

Yet they rarely get fought. Only the feminists and the gender neutrality crowd get it from your school of thought. I find it confusing.

Where are the people like you when Vox Day or Dick Masterson are running their mouth, I have to ask?

Product Placement:

Mangod:
Off topic: The swedish name for "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" is "Män som hatar kvinnor" (trans: Men who hate women). If we were then to apply this gender neutral term it would become "Hen som hatar hen"... which just sounds silly.

What? No. That's not how it works. Basically, what the Swedes did was introduce a word that can work as a gender neutral alternative for "him/her", which in English is "it". The Swedish title of that story is "Men who hate women", just like you said; not "He who hate her", which in Swedish would be "Han som shater hon".

Your argument is essentially that since there's now a gender neutral pronoun, the Swedes would now replace all their nouns with this new pronoun. Isn't that essentially a Smurf language?

One: Are you a swede? Because I am.

Two: The swedish word for men is "män", and the word for women is "kvinnor". But the new gender neutral word hen does not have a plural form (yet), ergo, if the story "Män som hatar kvinnor" had been named wih the aforementioned term hen, it would indeed have become "Hen som hatar hen". Or "hennor".

Third: the above is a reference to a swedish comedy sketch show, Partaj (Party), which made fun of the overly PC nature of the term by having a sketch wherein a librarian was rewriting all the books in a library to remove any references to gender.

Fourth: No, a Smurf language would involve us randomly replacing random words with the word Smurf (or whatever we would end up using). See the Family Guy smurf sketch for examples:

LollieVanDam:

Here's the thing; at that point, it sounds like one should be fighting the anti-feminists who insist up and down about male biological and psychological differences, and how that makes one side better suited to rule, as well as the anti-feminists who insist those differences they went at length to prove are present are more desirable for a prosperous society.

Yet they rarely get fought. Only the feminists and the gender neutrality crowd get it from your school of thought. I find it confusing.

Where are the people like you when Vox Day or Dick Masterson are running their mouth, I have to ask?

I'm not sure who makes those assumptions because i've never been confronted with them. The people who point towards the differences usually do so to illustrate how silly it is to try to make two biologically different groups act exactly the same way.

So how can i fight an enemy which i haven't seen nor heard from? Maybe the reason why they don't get fought is because they aren't as influential or loud as feminists.

(and who is Vox Day or Dick Masterson?)

generals3:

LollieVanDam:

Here's the thing; at that point, it sounds like one should be fighting the anti-feminists who insist up and down about male biological and psychological differences, and how that makes one side better suited to rule, as well as the anti-feminists who insist those differences they went at length to prove are present are more desirable for a prosperous society.

Yet they rarely get fought. Only the feminists and the gender neutrality crowd get it from your school of thought. I find it confusing.

Where are the people like you when Vox Day or Dick Masterson are running their mouth, I have to ask?

I'm not sure who makes those assumptions because i've never been confronted with them. The people who point towards the differences usually do so to illustrate how silly it is to try to make two biologically different groups act exactly the same way.

So how can i fight an enemy which i haven't seen nor heard from? Maybe the reason why they don't get fought because they aren't as influential or loud as feminists.

(and who is Vox Day or Dick Masterson?)

Vox Day

http://www.voxday.blogspot.com/2013/04/is-reality-misogynistic.html

Dick Masterson

http://www.amazon.com/Dick-Masterson/e/B001JS6RAO/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1

holy_secret:
It seems like everyone has missed the point.

Hen is not a replacement for Han & Hon (He and She), it is there as an alternative when you're not talking abour specific genders. It's more like replacing the pronoun 'it' or 'that', when refering to a human being whose gender you don't know, instead of having to say it or him/her.

Here's an example of how it would be used:
"I'm pretty sure a transgendered person would be offended if people called him/her 'hen'."
You could say "called it him/her", but that would be rude as hell.

So stop whining about PCness and stuff. You're missing the point.

With that said, I'd like to say that I find that hen to be stupid. Stupid and grammatically incorrect.

On that topic, what the hell do you call a transgender person in English?

LollieVanDam:

Vox Day

http://www.voxday.blogspot.com/2013/04/is-reality-misogynistic.html

Dick Masterson

http://www.amazon.com/Dick-Masterson/e/B001JS6RAO/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1

Ok, that Vox Day guy is a misogynistic prick, but come on! That Dick Masterson book is obviously satire.

Did you read the synopsis, or customer reviews at all, or just automatically assume it was straight up manifesto of woman hatred?

Poe's law in effect I guess.

Risingblade:
On that topic, what the hell do you call a transgender person in English?

You call them whatever gender they identify as.

Darken12:
If you vehemently disagree with gender deconstructivism and its goals, please hit the back button or close the tab. You are completely free to start your own thread on the matter to bemoan these terrible news.

[h2]This thread is intended as a positive take on the matter. It is not intended to condemn or derogate these practices, but to show our support. This is a positive thread. If you oppose these practices, please create your own thread for that. Thank you.

I was actually more or less with you until I got to that part.

NO. BAD DISCUSSION. I WANT NO DISCUSSION. ONLY CIRCLEJERKING.

Anyway, aside from that, I suppose I support it.

I don't think it's going to work and if it does, it's going to take many generations, but yeah. It generally seems like a small step in the right direction.

Sunrider84:

Here is where I wish sarcasm had its own font!
Now get your ass on steam every now and then, will ya? I know you hate my guts, but it's been ages since we talked!

Pssht, whatchu talkin' about, I'm on Steam right now! >_> (Of course that's cos my friend wanted me to play Borderlands 2 with her... I FORGET TO LOG IN ALRIGHT? *flings herself on a fainting couch in a pique*)

Darken12:
I would like to thank OhJohnNo for bringing this up to my attention. You deserve all the credit.

I have selected an array of websites that tell the same story from different angles, and focusing on different issues. You may peruse these at your leisure:

From Slate. From Care2. From The Economist.

The highlights reel, for those without the time or inclination to read the full articles:

    * Sweden has incorporated a pronoun ("hen"), which is intended to be gender-neutral (as opposed to "han" and "hon", which are the feminine and masculine pronouns).
    * Sweden does not intend to eliminate masculine and feminine pronouns from use, but to incorporate the gender-neutral pronouns as an alternative when gender is irrelevant (as is in almost every facet of life).
    * Other advances towards gender neutrality include a reformation of pedagogy, the education system, children toys and children books.

This is a cause for celebration for those of us who seek the systematic destruction and deconstruction of gender in society, and these news fill my heart with much-needed hope and joy. It is my sincerest hope that this ushers a new wave of change and progress in the world.

Since I know how these types of threads go and I don't want to see it locked because people can't tolerate divergent opinions, I have one thing to politely request of everyone:

If you vehemently disagree with gender deconstructivism and its goals, please hit the back button or close the tab. You are completely free to start your own thread on the matter to bemoan these terrible news.

This thread is intended as a positive take on the matter. It is not intended to condemn or derogate these practices, but to show our support. This is a positive thread. If you oppose these practices, please create your own thread for that. Thank you.

I've only read the OP as I'm too lazy to read the whole thread, but if no counter-opinions are allowed then where's the discussion value? Isn't that the number one rule on the Escapist unless it's a joke thread? Why should this thread exist if it forbids any discussion on the matter?

I like countries like Sweden and Finland and Scandinavia in general for their policies regarding gender. They're one of the most gender progressive places in the world. Moreso certainly than the United States. That isn't to say that sexism and privilege and patriarchy have all ended there.

But some seriously major strides have been made. As someone from the United States this has garnered a lot of my respect.

Darken12:

If you vehemently disagree with gender deconstructivism and its goals, please hit the back button or close the tab. You are completely free to start your own thread on the matter to bemoan these terrible news.

This thread is intended as a positive take on the matter. It is not intended to condemn or derogate these practices, but to show our support. This is a positive thread. If you oppose these practices, please create your own thread for that. Thank you.

So you're not so much looking for a discussion as you are an echo chamber to further reinforce your own opinion without the inconvenience of anyone trying to offer a differing one?

ImmortalDrifter:

TacticalAssassin1:

Darken12:

If you vehemently disagree with gender deconstructivism and its goals, please hit the back button or close the tab. You are completely free to start your own thread on the matter to bemoan these terrible news.

This thread is intended as a positive take on the matter. It is not intended to condemn or derogate these practices, but to show our support. This is a positive thread. If you oppose these practices, please create your own thread for that. Thank you.

In other words, no dissenting opinions allowed. How interesting.

I was just about to mention that. Very, very childish.

Edit: Upon a bit of thought I realized that this "Gender neutrality" thing is honestly a bit backwards. Simply acknowledging that there is not a difference is equality. By attempting to remove gender specific terms, it kinda implies that you believe there is strong differences between genders. If you didn't think that way you wouldn't mind gender specific pronouns because you would acknowledge the difference is arbitrary.

Not only that, but you are openly admitting you think that gender neutrality is inherently "better" and thus by banning traditional words, you are discriminating against those who may think otherwise.

These types of issues are such a huge can of worms. It's very easy to say "equality for all!" and then implement that under the guise of "doing the right thing" however it does not take into account the fact that the people who oppose it are being excluded.

Intolerance of intolerance is still intolerance.

This seems like more of a general language fix, not having a gender neutral pronoun seems like an easy way to create confusion in everyday conversation.

My opinion on the gender neutrality issue probably comes across a lot less liberal than others here because I'm all for gender equality but I fail to see why neutrality is the highest goal for gender progressivism. Creating unisex toys and incorporating new words may have an effect on the social aspects of gender but there are still biologic differences between girls and boys that are set in stone.

I don't really see what's wrong with genders having distinct differences in strengths and interests.

themyrmidon:
Is this allowed? If I were to offer a dissenting opinion (which I would) would I fall victim to moderation, simply because the owner of the thread wants it to be a place were everyone pats everyone else on the back? If not then the original post needs moderation to facilitate discussion, rather than just self-congratulation.

I have no problems with stating opinions neutrally. What I want to avoid is a flame war, as they are against the rules of the board and yet they keep happening. Nothing I am advocating is against the rules of the board, I am merely strongly encouraging people to stay neutral or positive as a positive reinforcement to avoid flame wars.

Loonyyy:
Good work guys. You've managed to turn a request to avoid the moaning and flaming into your motivation to moan and flame.

One day, I'm going to find a way to address a controversial topic in a way that does not sire a flame war. There must be some way I can phrase it.

Loonyyy:
I like the idea of the toy stores mixing things up indiscriminately, not so sure about the schools removing items because they feel the children act in gendered ways with them, and I thought that the children's novel was rather silly, until I read the interview excerpts, which were much more enlightening.

Personal anecdote time, my primary school actually banned trading cards because they were the source of an incredibly amount of fighting, disputing and a whole array of problems. Rather than consuming manpower and resources dealing with all that individually, the school just banned them. It's possible that's what happened here.

CrossLOPER:
I really don't understand why behavioral divides bother people so much.

Divergent opinion is fine. As it was quoted earlier in the thread, the board rules emphasise HOW you say things, not what. The intent is to avoid flame wars that get threads locked. The request at the end of the post states A) the intention of the thread (support/positive), which you are not required to follow, but would be polite and courteous if you did, B) a deterrent to avoid flame wars, and C) a reminder for people to stay polite.

Sir Thomas Sean Connery:
I was actually more or less with you until I got to that part.

NO. BAD DISCUSSION. I WANT NO DISCUSSION. ONLY CIRCLEJERKING.

Clearly I must edit the OP, as it is sending the wrong message. Dissenting opinion is allowed, so long as it does not devolve into a flame war.

V da Mighty Taco:
I've only read the OP as I'm too lazy to read the whole thread, but if no counter-opinions are allowed then where's the discussion value? Isn't that the number one rule on the Escapist unless it's a joke thread? Why should this thread exist if it forbids any discussion on the matter?

Counter-opinions are allowed, so long as they are expressed politely and within the boundaries of the forum rules.

KeyMaster45:
So you're not so much looking for a discussion as you are an echo chamber to further reinforce your own opinion without the inconvenience of anyone trying to offer a differing one?

Firstly, there is plenty of discussion to be had while maintaining a neutral or positive attitude. Secondly, counter opinions are allowed, so long as they are within board rules.

LollieVanDam:

Casual Shinji:
Gender neutral words and toys!? Wha-... why?

When did it happen that being called 'he' or 'she' is suddenly not done?

Looks like worldpeace can only be achieved by forcing everyone to be the same. No distinction, no flavor, just a saltless grey society.

Well, when one gender's values get pushed for time immemorial as not only more desirable, but are more rewarded and heralded in society, a pushback had to happen. Nobody said it would be pleasant.

Like it or not, distinctions and flavors lead people to dominate, destroy, and exploit one another. Just a question if you think the benefits of it are worth it.

For the benefits of free will? Uhm yeah, I would say so. Mutual respect by way of forcing everyone to say and be the same holds no value. Only by accepting we're different from eachother and that that's okay gives it value.

And that pushback did happen, it's called feminism.

OP has been updated with a clarification of the thread intentions. Please feel free to voice your disagreements politely.

Darken12:
Personal anecdote time, my primary school actually banned trading cards because they were the source of an incredibly amount of fighting, disputing and a whole array of problems. Rather than consuming manpower and resources dealing with all that individually, the school just banned them. It's possible that's what happened here.

But it says in one of the articles they got rid of them because the boys 'gender coded' them and preferred them over the other toys.

Genocidicles:

Darken12:
Personal anecdote time, my primary school actually banned trading cards because they were the source of an incredibly amount of fighting, disputing and a whole array of problems. Rather than consuming manpower and resources dealing with all that individually, the school just banned them. It's possible that's what happened here.

But it says in one of the articles they got rid of them because the boys 'gender coded' them and preferred them over the other toys.

Yes, and this may have caused fighting and trouble as those toys were valued precisely because they are gender-coded as male. There is a strong undercurrent in most of society to overvalue and praise things or qualities that are seen as male (ambition, aggression, strength, fortitude, etc), and to devalue and denigrate what is female (except under highly specific circumstances, such as motherhood and caretaking). It's possible that the toys were overvalued because they were seen as male, and therefore were the source of excessive strife among kids.

I'm not saying this is what happened, I'm merely offering a theory. I'd agree that if they were removed simply because they were favoured by boys (and this brought no strife whatsoever) then the decision was somewhat hasty.

Atrocious Joystick:

Fnuff:
"Hurr durr oh no don't take my gender away" said the bumbling idiots while steadily clutching their private parts.

As if there was some leftwing-feminazi conspiracy out to neutralize everything they hold dear and identify with, oh my.

Seriously though, the word is only meant to be used for situations when a gender-specific pronoun isn't necessary or if you don't know the gender of the person in question. It's not a word that was just made-up either, it's been around since the '60s.

OT:

Feminism isn't about forcing people to ignore the biological differences between the sexes, it's about the fact that everyone is equal despite these differences. It's also about not forcing people into a stereotypical gender role just because they were born with a certain set of genitals.

Please disregard my subpar use of the english language. :3

Referring to people who disagree with you as being retarded is kind of insulting and sort of exactly what many criticizes feminists for seeing as it is nowadays part of the so called "establishment". I agree that it is stupid to think in terms of a leftwing feminazi conspiracy as you called it. But at the same time you people really need to cut down on the black and white thinking and the instant "dehumanization" of people who disagree with your flights of fancy. It does you no favors and alienates many people who fundamentally agree with you.

I never used the term "retarded" nor would I ever in a situation such as this. "Idiot" is something I use very loosely, and I'm sorry if anyone is offended by my use of that particular word. I guess I'm just so very tired of seeing people criticize something for all the wrong reasons.

It's kind of cute though that you tell me to ease up on the black and white thinking while using the term "you people".

Darken12:
*Snip*

You specifically said "This thread is intended as a positive take on the matter. It is not intended to condemn or derogate these practices, but to show our support. This is a positive thread. If you oppose these practices, please create your own thread for that. Thank you."

That quote specifically states that any opinions condemning Sweden's decision are not allowed, which counter arguments inherently are meant to do. You also specifically kept repeating that only positive takes and support of the matter were allowed, and anyone who opposes Sweden's practices should just make their own thread. There is no misreading that - you're OP clearly made counter-arguments and disagreeing forbidden. A thread dedicated entirely to supporting only one side of an issue has no discussion value by it's very nature, hence people's issues with your OP.

If you wanted to not have a flamewar, you should have just said to keep things mature and that you don't want this to get locked due to flamewars. Banning opposing viewpoints is only going to make things worse and greatly increase the likely hood of the thread getting locked, which is counterproductive to want you apparently want. I'd definitely suggest editing the OP if your intent was simply not to have a flamewar.

EDIT: Just saw the edit to the OP, which was done while I was typing this post. The OP is now much better and actually has discussion value now. Kudos to Darken for fixing that.

V da Mighty Taco:

Darken12:
*Snip*

You specifically said "This thread is intended as a positive take on the matter. It is not intended to condemn or derogate these practices, but to show our support. This is a positive thread. If you oppose these practices, please create your own thread for that. Thank you."

That quote specifically states that any opinions condemning Sweden's decision are not allowed, which counter arguments inherently are meant to do. You also specifically kept repeating that only positive takes and support of the matter were allowed, and anyone who opposes Sweden's practices should just make their own thread. There is no misreading that - you're OP clearly made counter-arguments and disagreeing forbidden. A thread dedicated entirely to supporting only one side of an issue has no discussion value by it's very nature, hence people's issues with your OP.

If you wanted to not have a flamewar, you should have just said to keep things mature and that you don't want this to get locked due to flamewars. Banning opposing viewpoints is only going to make things worse and greatly increase the likely hood of the thread getting locked, which is counterproductive to want you apparently want. I'd definitely suggest editing the OP if your intent was simply not to have a flamewar.

I never said they were not allowed, I was merely hoping to keep the thread as positive, friendly and supportive as possible. After the massive backlash, I decided to clarify what I meant, as apparently politely requesting people to stay positive is some sort of capital offence.

A positive thread has plenty of discussion value. Discussion is not wholly limited to whether you are for or against something. People can be for something and still discuss the intricacies of the matter. In this case, we could discuss what other measures could be taken, if this could be applied to the English language, the country's take on children education (as I'm discussing with another poster) and so on.

As a Norwegian (neighbor of Sweden) I can't personally see what's wrong with "dem" ("them", but also "mr" and "mrs" and "ms" interchangeably) which has been used to replace han/hun in Norwegian, Danish and Swedish speech since, well, forever. However, if a need was spotted and they moved on it, obviously it's not my place to say that the need was stupid or the solution redundant. The Scandinavian countries rarely pull political nonsense for no good reason, so someone had to feel this was needed at some point.

Also, I thought Scandinavia was already "perfect" (I know nothing is perfect) when it comes to gender equality, hell Norway was the first country on earth to let women vote and has a demand on companies to try to get 50% women representation in every boardroom.

I think this is more the result of running out of ideas rather than implementing a useful solution to a problem, since "hen" sounds pretty funny and weird if you know Swedish.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked