"Mother" and "Father" Erased at British University

[smac97]

Here:

Quote

Universities have traditionally played an important role in preparing young people for a life outside academia. These days, though, it appears that many institutions are more interested in lecturing their academics than teaching students — especially when it comes to using the right kind of language.

That perhaps explains why the University of Manchester in England released on Wednesday a new ‘Guide to inclusive language’ for its staff, made by its ‘equality, diversity and inclusion team’. The guide aims to tell those working at the university ‘how to use inclusive language to avoid biases, slang or expressions that can exclude certain groups’ and has been added to the uni’s house style page, which means academics will be told to follow the guidance when writing for the university.
...
Arguably though it’s on gender where the most radical changes take place. From now on gender-neutral terms are in vogue in Manchester, which means that ‘man’, ‘woman’, ‘mother’ and ‘father’ are no longer appropriate for use in university materials, to be replaced by ‘individuals’ and ‘guardians’. Cockburn imagines that things might become tricky this weekend when Brits celebrate Mother’s Day, which will presumably now have to be styled ‘Guardian’s Day’.

Amusingly, the logic also applies to other words too. Researchers will now be told to make the following updates to their vocabulary:

• Artificial or synthetic, rather than man-made
• Humankind, not mankind
• Workforce, not manpower
• We provide cover or staff, rather than to ‘man’

It’s been a tough few years for academics who don’t subscribe to this kind of nonsense. Cockburn can only hope that Manchester University employees will, err, staff the barricades against this latest attempt to police their language.

In 1995 the Brethren warned the world that "the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

There are many ways the family can disintegrate. 

We as a society can decouple sex and procreation from marriage.

We can radically re-define marriage.

We can demean and disparage the role of fathers and fatherhood.

We can create perverse incentives to discourage people from entering into marriage.

We can declare that children belong to the government or community, not to their family/parents (hat tip, Melissa Harris-Perry).

We can openly call for the destruction of marriage as an institution.

And now we are erasing from our vocabulary the very words we use to formulate ideas about marriage and family, like "father," "mother," "sister," "brother," "husband," "wife," "man," "woman."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Robert F. Smith]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

........................

We as a society can decouple sex and procreation from marriage.....................

Yeh, but what about those who reason that marriage is primarily about sex and procreation -- therefore asking why bother with a ceremony?  Is there some other value to marriage, apart from sex and procreation?  Statistics show currently that fewer people are marrying or even not living together without benefit of clergy, and they are not having children.  In fact we have never had fewer people getting together at all.  When sex, procreation, and marriage are no longer in vogue, what do we replace them with?

The new Orwellian language prescriptions may lead to a society which dies of loneliness and lack of replacements.  Well, at least we will have woke social norms.

[Ahab]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here:

In 1995 the Brethren warned the world that "the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

There are many ways the family can disintegrate. 

We as a society can decouple sex and procreation from marriage.

We can radically re-define marriage.

We can demean and disparage the role of fathers and fatherhood.

We can create perverse incentives to discourage people from entering into marriage.

We can declare that children belong to the government or community, not to their family/parents (hat tip, Melissa Harris-Perry).

We can openly call for the destruction of marriage as an institution.

And now we are erasing from our vocabulary the very words we use to formulate ideas about marriage and family, like "father," "mother," "sister," "brother," "husband," "wife," "man," "woman."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

So this is what proper, educated, English-speaking people are advising these days, is it.  Well I for one will simply refuse to follow their counsel in favor of a better way to speak and to think of how things should be, notwithstanding the advice of those Brits.

Edited March 11, 2021 by Ahab

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Quote

We as a society can decouple sex and procreation from marriage.

Yeh, but what about those who reason that marriage is primarily about sex and procreation -- therefore asking why bother with a ceremony?

Are you asking this from a religious perspective?  Or a civil/governmental one?  Both?

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Is there some other value to marriage, apart from sex and procreation? 

Yes.  Quite a few.

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Statistics show currently that fewer people are marrying or even not living together without benefit of clergy, and they are not having children. 

Yes.

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In fact we have never had fewer people getting together at all.  When sex, procreation, and marriage are no longer in vogue, what do we replace them with?

Robots? 

More government oversight/supervision/regulation in our lives?  

"{C}alamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets?"

The 2006 movie Children of Men was, I think, meant as a cautionary tale, not as a How-To guide.

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The new Orwellian language prescriptions may lead to a society which dies of loneliness and lack of replacements.  Well, at least we will have woke social norms.

Yep.  We need each other.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MorningStar]

I have a friend who's a midwife and she left an organization because they decided to stop using the word "mother" in childbearing. This is madness. 

[JustAnAustralian]

Happening over here too

Source

Quote

“It is therefore recommended to use the terms ‘breast/chest feeding’ and ‘human/parent’s milk’, rather than ‘breastfeeding’ and ‘mother’s milk’ to describe lactation,” the handbook states.

“When discussing childbirth, use the terms ‘gestational’ or ‘birthing’ parent rather than ‘mother’, and the terms ‘nongestational’ or ‘nonbirthing’ parent rather than ‘father’.”

 

They say they are only recommendations rather than mandates, but it won't take much for it to be forced.

[Duncan]

I think the Brethren had in mind divorce and in the US apparently gay marriage as the downfall of modern society, the rest if the world moves on just fine. if one university changed their manual and it bothers you that much, then don't go that university.  FWIW I do we even know what "ancient prophets" foretold the downfall of society is caused by the disintegration of the family? Family is a fluid term, even in the church and over time. I am not worried one iota.

"There are many ways the family can disintegrate. 

We as a society can decouple sex and procreation from marriage.

We can radically re-define marriage.

We can demean and disparage the role of fathers and fatherhood.

We can create perverse incentives to discourage people from entering into marriage.

We can declare that children belong to the government or community, not to their family/parents (hat tip, Melissa Harris-Perry).

We can openly call for the destruction of marriage as an institution."

Does any of that come from that manual?

 

I think it's presumptuous for for the US, and I love you all, to tell others how to live when like 1000 Americans die everyday from covid, solve your problems before you start mucking around others, people dying and the government or shear arrogance is unwilling or unable to do anything about it. You know what else "disintegrates" the family, death

Edited March 11, 2021 by Duncan

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Happening over here too

Source

They say they are only recommendations rather than mandates, but it won't take much for it to be forced.

I think this is going to be a harder mountain to climb than trying to get people to not use Mormon (and I considered that is unlikely to be successful unless the presidents of the Church for the next two generations back it fully rather than the on and off again usage we have had for the past 40 years or so....going by memory).  Unless it is easier to write and say, I don’t see casual conversation changing much and that is where it needs to change to stick.

[ksfisher]

19 minutes ago, Duncan said:

You know what else "disintegrates" the family, death

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/primary-3/lesson-35-temples-and-eternal-families?lang=eng

 

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And now we are erasing from our vocabulary the very words we use to formulate ideas about marriage and family, like "father," "mother," "sister," "brother," "husband," "wife," "man," "woman."

No “we” aren’t. A few elite universities are. I suppose they will also have to deal with their many “Dame” and “Sir” professors who will have to drop their honorary titles.

[Duncan]

Just now, ksfisher said:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/primary-3/lesson-35-temples-and-eternal-families?lang=eng

 

I don't know what i am supposed to be looking at here?!

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Here:

In 1995 the Brethren warned the world that "the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

There are many ways the family can disintegrate. 

We as a society can decouple sex and procreation from marriage.

We can radically re-define marriage.

We can demean and disparage the role of fathers and fatherhood.

We can create perverse incentives to discourage people from entering into marriage.

We can declare that children belong to the government or community, not to their family/parents (hat tip, Melissa Harris-Perry).

We can openly call for the destruction of marriage as an institution.

And now we are erasing from our vocabulary the very words we use to formulate ideas about marriage and family, like "father," "mother," "sister," "brother," "husband," "wife," "man," "woman."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Human desire and nature creates families, makes moms out of women, dads out of men and parents out of people. 

Yet, family also comes in many forms away from the (relatively new) nuclear model: Adoption. Multigenerational. Same-sex couples. Platonic partners. Single parents. Step-parents. Adult siblings raising minor siblings. Etc...

These non-nuclear forms broaden the adaptability of people and society. Where the nuclear family ideal might separate young adults from otherwise functioning households, leave older folks to live without support, leave single people to live alone without wanting to be alone, leave orphans without homes, and single parents without as much support, other forms can do the opposite. 

Non-nuclear families having dignity does not remove dignity from nuclear families. Families of loving people who care for each other enriching their lives have inherent value. For themselves and society.

All family forms create more options and more options provide avenues for people to meet needs of more people, oftentimes the needs of the least of these.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Human desire and nature creates families, makes moms out of women, dads out of men and parents out of people. 

Human sexual activity, also.  And human will and consent.  And human interaction and cooperation.  And human physiology.  

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Yet, family also comes in many forms away from the (relatively new) nuclear model: Adoption.

Not really.  Adoption has been around a long time.

So has the "nuclear model."

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Multigenerational.

Same here.

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Same-sex couples.

This, not so much.  Same-sex couples cannot reproduce.  And same-sex marriage is largely a recently-minted innovation.

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Platonic partners.

I'm not sure what this means.

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Single parents. Step-parents. Adult siblings raising minor siblings. Etc.

Variations on a theme.

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

These non-nuclear forms broaden the adaptability of people and society.

But are these forms of equal capacity in terms of procreating and raising children?  Nope.

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Where the nuclear family ideal might separate young adults from otherwise functioning households, leave older folks to live without support, leave single people to live alone without wanting to be alone, leave orphans without homes, and single parents without as much support, other forms can do the opposite. 

Sure.

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Non-nuclear families having dignity does not remove dignity from nuclear families.

I agree.

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Families of loving people who care for each other enriching their lives have inherent value. For themselves and society.

I agree.

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

All family forms create more options and more options provide avenues for people to meet needs of more people, oftentimes the needs of the least of these.

And yet the nuclear family is the optimum form of family.  Two parents in the home are better than one or none.  A father in the home is better than no father.  A mother in the home is better than no mother.  And so on.

In any event, the article in the OP seems to be wiping out the very concept of "family," whether nuclear or otherwise.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

... When sex, procreation, and marriage are no longer in vogue, what do we replace them with?

Video games?    (At first, I thought I would just throw that out there as one of my occasional cheeky retorts, but then I thought, Well, with the advent of AI that realistically [at least in some ways] mimics human interaction [though it's a poor facsimile], while such things are not "games" per se, actually, for better or for worse [probably the latter], that's not far off the mark.)

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The new Orwellian language prescriptions may lead to a society which dies of loneliness and lack of replacements.  Well, at least we will have woke social norms.

indeed.  It would seem that many of us have replaced genuine worship in favor of worshiping at Our Lady of Perpetual Offense, and it would seem that we're headed for a world in which poor facsimiles of genuine interaction replace the real thing, all in the name of political correctness and of not giving offense.

[Kenngo1969]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

[Meadowchik]: "... platonic parenting ..."
 

[Smac97]: "I'm not sure what this means."

I started a thread on the phenomenon a few months back, but it didn't get much attention or traction.  Basically, it's for people who want to have a child [together] but do not want to be husband and wife or each's "significant other."

 

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not really.  Adoption has been around a long time.

She is, I believe, saying the nuclear family is a relatively new construction and then lists other forms of families and how they are formed.

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And yet the nuclear family is the optimum form of family

I disagree.  I think the optimum form is the family compound (individual family and personal living spaces along with shared social areas) where aging grandparents can both contribute and be cared for, additional adults are able to help care for children, single family members are not left on their own when sick, etc.

Nuclear families on their own are more susceptible to financial ups and downs and lack of support of a parent or parents on injured.

Edited March 11, 2021 by Calm

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I disagree.  I think the optimum form is the family compound (individual family and personal living spaces along with shared social areas) where aging grandparents can both contribute and be cared for, additional adults are able to help care for children, single family members are not left on their own when sick, etc.

Nuclear families on their own are more susceptible to financial ups and downs and lack of support of a parent or parents on injured.

Just curious if what I have is what you would call a family compound type of situation.  My wife and I sold our house in the country and are now living in the sme house with one of our sons while the other son and his wife and their baby live 3 houses away in the same neighborhood.  My wife and I have our own bedroom still, though, but we share the cooking/kitchen spaces and the gathering room with our son in the same house where our single son also has his own bedroom.  And on occassion all 6 of us also share the gathering and cooking spaces in both of the houses.

[Meadowchik]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not really.  Adoption has been around a long time.

All of those other forms have been around a long time. The nuclear family as the ideal, however, is a relatively new concept in many regions of the world, but isn't even the ideal in many parts of the world, and never has been in many parts of the world. It certainly is not the historical formula for households in general.

 

56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And yet the nuclear family is the optimum form of family. 

 

Why is mother, father, and children better than mother, father, and grandparent(s)?

58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Two parents in the home are better than one or none.  A father in the home is better than no father.  A mother in the home is better than no mother.  And so on.

Nope, this is not necessarily true. Sometimes it is better for mother and father to not live together, sometimes it is better for one or both to not be a caregiver. 

Beyond that, a caregiver is better than no caregiver. One healthy parent relationship is better than none. Two healthy parent relationships is better than one. Healthy parents with a healthy support system of other caregivers in the household can be better than just the parents.

I think that the optimum is that, first, children are cared for in healthy environments. Second, that people care for each other in healthy environments including healthy households. 

This concern over more inclusive vocabulary seems like moral panic. It seems better to me to focus on not hindering healthy relationships, and helping people have access to healthy environments. 

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

I disagree.  I think the optimum form is the family compound (individual family and personal living spaces along with shared social areas) where aging grandparents can both contribute and be cared for, additional adults are able to help care for children, single family members are not left on their own when sick, etc.

Nuclear families on their own are more susceptible to financial ups and downs and lack of support of a parent or parents on injured.

I guess I don't differentiate between Nuclear Families and Nuclear Families Plus Grandparents.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I guess I don't differentiate between Nuclear Families and Nuclear Families Plus Grandparents.  

Thanks,

-Smac

How many grandparents are living with at least one of their children from first child to death in the American culture of the Church?  Visit a lot, live in the same town or close by sure.  In the same house or next door, not that many from what I have seen though many move in with one of their children’s family when they can’t care for themselves...and often see that as a personal failure rather than a step forward.  And it is not just grandparents, but aunts and uncles, especially single ones that can benefit in terms of companionship, shared resources, etc.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Calm

[MiserereNobis]

Deleted: My question was already addressed. I should have read the whole thread first.

Edited March 11, 2021 by MiserereNobis

[Ahab]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I guess I don't differentiate between Nuclear Families and Nuclear Families Plus Grandparents.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't usually either except when wondering what my living accommodations will be like in heaven when I will supposedly be living with our father in heaven along with a WHOLE LOT of other people who supposedly will, too.

A room with my wife, just the 2 of us, would be very nice, I think, as long as it is a nice room, but maybe my wife and I will get a big wing of the mansion of our Father with all of our children and grandchildren close by.

Or will each married couple get their own house with as many rooms added on as they want to add, I wonder.

We're all going to need a comfortable chair to sit in, at least, unless we're supposed to be standing up all of the time.

So many things to wonder about, some times, that is hopefully already figured out by at least one person in our family.

[rodheadlee]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

How many grandparents are living with at least on of their children from first child to death in the American culture of the Church?  Visit a lot, live in the same town or close by sure.  In the same house or next door, not that many from what I have seen though many move in with one of their children’s family when they can’t care for themselves...and often see that as a personal failure rather than a step forward.  And it is not just grandparents, but aunts and uncles, especially single ones that can benefit in terms of companionship, shared resources, etc.

This is true only in America. Every culture we have visited by sail boat has the enlarged nuclear family. It works really well in Polynesia. A lot of them have 4 generations in one house/compound as well as the graveyard on the same property.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Video games?    (At first, I thought I would just throw that out there as one of my occasional cheeky retorts, but then I thought, Well, with the advent of AI that realistically [at least in some ways] mimics human interaction [though it's a poor facsimile], while such things are not "games" per se, actually, for better or for worse [probably the latter], that's not far off the mark.)

indeed.  It would seem that many of us have replaced genuine worship in favor of worshiping at Our Lady of Perpetual Offense, and it would seem that we're headed for a world in which poor facsimiles of genuine interaction replace the real thing,

Virtual reality anyone?

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

all in the name of political correctness and of not giving offense.

All in the name of human fragility.