"To waste, to destroy, our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by rights to hand down to them."~ Theodore Roosevelt (Message to Congress, Dec. 3, 1907)
There is no more constant active interevention. You are just teaching them to use different pronouns. They are being taught in the same way, by example.I'm not splitting hairs. That's how children learn language. Point stands, constant active intervention, as is needed to deprive a child of gendered pronouns, is not needed for a child to learn normal language. The former is engineering, the latter is a normal process.
We can promote the social norms that we have applied to gender roles or not. Either way, we are just as guilty of indoctrinating, engineering actively teaching or whatever charged word you want use.
And they only need exposure to different pronouns and they will pick them up.There's a difference between normal interaction and a specific lesson. Children can learn languages via normal interaction with the speakers of a language as they develop without the need for specific lessons. They don't have to be specifically taught the use or meaning of gendered pronouns, they only need exposure to their use in normal interactions and they pick them up.
You have not shown that passing on a language or culture with gender pronouns and gender assigned roles is any different than passing on one without them. In many other languages they assign gender to all sorts of things. In English we do not. Is that because English is taught with more active intervention?The exceptions, as I already mentioned, are irregular forms and such, but that's not the majority of the language. Proper writing and written grammar are taught with specific lessons as well, because they are learned differently than a spoken language. Humans evolved to speak language at an early age, writing, by comparison, is relative new on the scene.
Much of a culture is learned the same way as spoken language. To suppress a part of it, such as nerfing gender roles altogether, requires active intervention (social engineering).
Last edited by BayToBay; 06-29-11 at 09:14 AM.
If that would have happened to me, I would come back 20 years later and kill them all. Any parent who does that should have their penis cut off and their vaginas filled with concrete.
I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.
Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.
no, we're not, and I've already explained the distinction between the two many times.We can promote the social norms that we have applied to gender roles or not. Either way, we are just as guilty of indoctrinating, engineering actively teaching or whatever charged word you want use.
glad you agree w/ me now. they only need exposure.And they only need exposure to different pronouns and they will pick them up.
Go ahead and name a single culture that has no gender roles. Obviously, intervention/meddling is necesary to prevent them from being picked up. The same is not true to learn them normally.You have not shown that passing on a language or culture with gender pronouns and gender assigned roles is any different than passing on one without them.
No, that's just a feature of our language-- and the fact that we lost the use of gendered nouns happened on its own, not because of active intervention. In 1000 years, English may have them again.In many other languages they assign gender to all sorts of things. In English we do not. Is that because English is taught with more active intervention?
And in any case, gendered nouns, gendered pronouns, and cultural gender roles are not the same thing. You're grasping at everything now aren't you?
Last edited by other; 07-07-11 at 12:33 PM.
In fact, I don't see any reason to go beyond the stance of "why should I care about this at all?"
I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.