UN says ‘husband’ & ‘wife’ are now politically incorrect terms

[New World Explorer]

At a time when millions of married couples around the world are feeling the strain of being holed up together due to the pandemic, the United Nations has decided to remove the words “husband” and “wife” from our speech.

In case anyone thought that the social justice warriors would take a much-needed hiatus from their crusading against wrong-think, especially at the height of a pandemic, think again. This week, UN bureaucrats found clever new ways to divide and alienate the global population at a time when social-distancing rules have already turned people into strangers.https://www.rt.com/op-ed/489259-un-husband-wife-politically-incorrect/  (my take on this, the world is sinking fast...!)

[Thesauron]

5 hours ago, New World Explorer said:

the United Nations has decided to remove the words “husband” and “wife” from our speech.

Are they really removing it from your speech or language? Don’t you think that’s a misunderstanding?

 

rt.com is Kremlin’s propaganda tool. mediabiasfactcheck.com lists it as a questionable source. 

[New World Explorer]

38 minutes ago, Thesauron said:

Are they really removing it from your speech or language? Don’t you think that’s a misunderstanding?

 

rt.com is Kremlin’s propaganda tool. mediabiasfactcheck.com lists it as a questionable source. 

Please google it .... ? (google UN husband, wife) 

Others are also reporting this. 
UN released the list ..not RT. (From time to time they report real news LOL )

Whatever media we quote, it’s still part of this system ....KOTN or False prophet ...what’s the difference LOL ? 
 

 

Edited May 21, 2020 by New World Explorer

[Thesauron]

Please google it .... ? (google UN husband, wife) 
Others are also reporting this. 
UN released the list ..not RT. 

Whatever media we quote, it’s still part of this system ....KOTN or False prophet ...what’s the difference LOL ? 
 

 

The difference is that they report matters that support the government they are the tools of.

The idea with the list is not to eradicate words from your vocabulary, but within a working environment, you could talk about a “police officer” rather than a “policeman” since both men and women could hold the office, and it would be odd to assume the person is a man.

Perhaps your colleague is lesbian and is married to a person of the same gender. It is a thing that happens today. The word ‘spouse’ is less charged than assuming a woman has a husband. It doesn’t mean we agree with marrying someone of the same gender.

So I get why they are publishing this list of suggestions. In many workplaces it is already in force.

[Brother_Bliss]

Seems like a suggestion more than a mandate. If you are unsure about someone's gender, then use gender neutral language. Makes sense to me.

 

And then of course, it also makes sense that when gender has been determined, then go back to using the language in the left column 😉

[blue-jay]

1 hour ago, Dismal_Bliss said:

 

 

And then of course, it also makes sense that when gender has been determined, then go back to using the language in the left column 😉

Unless it's a woman 😂

[Miss Bea]

As I was reading this morning’s text, I thought, in 750 years, when we tell ones who were never in this system, just how far gone things were, and what we lived through. It will be hard to believe. 
Truly.. 

[BenJepthah]

6 hours ago, Thesauron said:

Are they really removing it from your speech or language? Don’t you think that’s a misunderstanding?

 

rt.com is Kremlin’s propaganda tool. mediabiasfactcheck.com lists it as a questionable source. 

I saw this on the UN website. It’s meant for use in official UN communication. It’s intent was to somehow support Gender equality initiatives.However, it is a false premise to think that the term “ husband “ is somehow unequal to the term “ wife”.  Or that using the term “ spouse” somehow changes anything of substance in the reality of the individual. In fact when using Spouse in official documents it is possible that the practice  might actually mask an undesired trend.

[BenJepthah]

1 hour ago, Miss Bea said:

As I was reading this morning’s text, I thought, in 750 years, when we tell ones who were never in this system, just how far gone things were, and what we lived through. It will be hard to believe. 
Truly.. 

Things like : An online video chat service hiring a man who identifies as a woman who identifies as a doe ( a deer a female deer) that wears antlers ( a feature of a male deer ) to moderate the communications of others online? Stuff like that? 

5 hours ago, Dismal_Bliss said:

Seems like a suggestion more than a mandate. If you are unsure about someone's gender, then use gender neutral language. Makes sense to me.

 

And then of course, it also makes sense that when gender has been determined, then go back to using the language in the left column 😉

Why the “ left” column. Are you an anti rightist? 😜

[hatcheckgirl]

It’s already the case in my employment with a government department. We have been “trained” to use genderless nouns, such as partners and spouse instead of husband and wife. 

 

I have to laugh when I have elderly customers who insist they have a wife or husband because to them partner sounds like you are defacto and not married. Similarly, some ethnic cultures also prefer being a referred to as a wife or husband, as it is morally wrong for them to be partnered rather than married.

 

You can’t win.

[Shawnster]

18 hours ago, New World Explorer said:

the United Nations has decided to remove the words “husband” and “wife” from our speech.

Guess the point is, though, that the UN has not removed those terms from our speech.  They cannot remove any terms from anyone's speech.  The UN has no authority over what we say or terms we use.  There is no fine or punishment imposed for continued use of those terms.

 

In fact, even the UN statement itself does not mention removing those terms entirely.  The suggestion is to not use those terms when gender is unknown or when speaking to a group.  

 

 

[Katty]

I would not be so quick to believe that the UN only means to promote these words just for use in a UN context. UN Women has a page on Twitter and it looks completely rife with inter sectional feminism. Intersectional feminists have a way of weaving their ideology and trying to infiltrate every space. They ruined movies last year, ruined comic books, ruined TV shows, are trying to ruin video games, and no telling what they plan to ruin next. But people like this are incredibly manipulative and will gaslight people to death. They may not force people to use their language, but can easily call people who refuse to use their terms racist, sexist, or some other ist or phobe. That's generally how they operate: through ad hominems and emotional blackmail.

I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but there is a disturbing trend infiltrating the media, including children's cartoons, that gender doesn't matter, that gender is nothing more than a human made construct, and a man and a woman are interchangable beings. I mean this idea has been pushed so hard in last years films with so many genderbent films or, at the very least, films with women playing the kinds of roles men used to play. Cartoons use art design to convey characters whose gender you can't tell just by looking at them. Try  a google image search of She Ra: princess of power vs original She Ra. Can you tell what gender any of these characters are? I can't for most of them. The world is working incredibly hard to subvert the idea of gender, so why would it be surprising that any organization would want to remove gendered language from the common vocabulary?

Thing is, by subverting gender, the world is introducing many Un-Christian and outright dangerous ideas. We know that a man and a woman are not interchangeable beings. We know that your gender is a huge determiner of your role in the congregation and in your family as a Christian. The Bible makes it clear "The man is the head of the woman". Men have roles of headship and oversight in the congregation, and we all know this, but the world paints this idea as being oppressive to women. The world is painting the idea of a woman raising children, the nurturing of the next generation of humans as being oppressive labor. In fact I had seen and infographic the same UN Women had put out complaining how women do the brunt of child rearing work, because these people seem to think that this important role is somehow demeaning to women. What can be more important, next to serving Jehovah and giving him glory, than the human assignment to fill the earth with their offspring?

 

Edited May 22, 2020 by Katty

[New World Explorer]

Donut .....sounds very masculine, hope they do not suggesting calling it donutto? LOL 

 

Walking away very afraid ....

Edited May 22, 2020 by New World Explorer

[Brother_Bliss]

8 hours ago, Katty said:

Try  a google image search of She Ra: princess of power vs original She Ra. Can you tell what gender any of these characters are?

So I just did this. Wow! You're right. She Ra could be a He Ra or a Xi Ra for all we know, lol

[EccentricM]

Wait... mankind to humankind.... human... human...

 

Oh no!

Edited May 26, 2020 by EccentricM

[Bek]

On 5/22/2020 at 10:16 AM, Katty said:

I would not be so quick to believe that the UN only means to promote these words just for use in a UN context. UN Women has a page on Twitter and it looks completely rife with inter sectional feminism. Intersectional feminists have a way of weaving their ideology and trying to infiltrate every space. They ruined movies last year, ruined comic books, ruined TV shows, are trying to ruin video games, and no telling what they plan to ruin next. But people like this are incredibly manipulative and will gaslight people to death. They may not force people to use their language, but can easily call people who refuse to use their terms racist, sexist, or some other ist or phobe. That's generally how they operate: through ad hominems and emotional blackmail.

I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but there is a disturbing trend infiltrating the media, including children's cartoons, that gender doesn't matter, that gender is nothing more than a human made construct, and a man and a woman are interchangable beings. I mean this idea has been pushed so hard in last years films with so many genderbent films or, at the very least, films with women playing the kinds of roles men used to play. Cartoons use art design to convey characters whose gender you can't tell just by looking at them. Try  a google image search of She Ra: princess of power vs original She Ra. Can you tell what gender any of these characters are? I can't for most of them. The world is working incredibly hard to subvert the idea of gender, so why would it be surprising that any organization would want to remove gendered language from the common vocabulary?

Thing is, by subverting gender, the world is introducing many Un-Christian and outright dangerous ideas. We know that a man and a woman are not interchangeable beings. We know that your gender is a huge determiner of your role in the congregation and in your family as a Christian. The Bible makes it clear "The man is the head of the woman". Men have roles of headship and oversight in the congregation, and we all know this, but the world paints this idea as being oppressive to women. The world is painting the idea of a woman raising children, the nurturing of the next generation of humans as being oppressive labor. In fact I had seen and infographic the same UN Women had put out complaining how women do the brunt of child rearing work, because these people seem to think that this important role is somehow demeaning to women. What can be more important, next to serving Jehovah and giving him glory, than the human assignment to fill the earth with their offspring?

 

Sister Katherine, you have hit the nail on the head! That is what my research has led me to conclude too. Feminism is a secular or, simply put, an atheist philosophical thing that goes back to Darwinism. They say since there is no God, humans evolved and gradually constructed society, marriage, gender, gender roles, language etc. But it saddens me when I see brothers and sisters, who have not researched the philosophical underpinnings of feminism, rush to defend various feminism, making me look as if I am a crazy caveman from a "very patriarchal" region. 

 

 

 

Edited May 27, 2020 by Bek

[EccentricM]

4 hours ago, Bek said:

Sister Katherine, you have hit the nail on the head! That is what my research has led me to conclude too. Feminism is a secular or, simply put, an atheist philosophical thing that goes back to Darwinism. They say since there is no God, humans evolved and gradually constructed society, marriage, gender, gender roles, language etc. But it saddens me when I see brothers and sisters, who have not researched the philosophical underpinnings of feminism, rush to defend various feminism, making me look as if I am a crazy caveman from a "very patriarchal" region. 

 

 

 

There is a balance to be had. Man is a spiritual head who represents Christ, and in turn Jehovah, as a "spokesperson", not as someone who is the "master" of his wife, telling her what she can and can't do in her life, but rather the male is for lack of better terms the "manager" who passes the word down from the CEO, and operates on those princibles.

 

In some socities, this has been abused, and people twist the Bible to make it look like we can boss women around, have them bow to us or that we can slap them around, where that is taking the scriptures out of context and using God's word as a tainted blunt instrument to make the opposite sex into our slaves.

 

 

Edited May 27, 2020 by EccentricM

[EccentricM]

4 hours ago, Bek said:

Darwinism.

You'd think followers of Dawinism would look to nature, and conclude men have the right to beat or rape women to bare children, since that happens with most mamals in nature. Animals don't ask for permission, they are arranged in packs, herds and flocks with a clear hierarchy, in most cases male dominated. So that really doesn't line up either. Really, these "contructed things" should be seen as a part of the evolutionary proccess if you think about it, just that it's expressed in human intellect, as opposed to being purely instinctual.

 

Yet these people claim to operate on "facts".

Edited May 27, 2020 by EccentricM

[BenJepthah]

1 hour ago, EccentricM said:

You'd think followers of Dawinism would look to nature, and conclude men have the right to beat or rape women to bare children, since that happens with most mamals in nature. Animals don't ask for permission, they are arranged in packs, herds and flocks with a clear hierarchy, in most cases male dominated. So that really doesn't line up either. Really, these "contructed things" should be seen as a part of the evolutionary proccess if you think about it, just that it's expressed in human intellect, as opposed to being purely instinctual.

 

Yet these people claim to operate on "facts".

Accurate.  If you doubt it just look at the behaviors of Apes and Dolphins. These animals are often promoted as peaceful egalitarian intelligent creatures. They actually are intelligent but also warlike and murderous and rapacious. Humans alone view these traits with disdain. So much for Darwin. 

[Bek]

@EccentricM, yes I agree with you on the CEO bit. I am currently reading Genesis and learnt a few days ago that a Christian husband is not a boss and a Christian wife is a not a servant. They are complementary partners, but the husband still has the final say. I knew that a woman is a gift from God for man to take care, cherish and love her. 

 

I mentioned Darwinism only to say that the origins of today's many philosophies are in atheism. I did not mean that feminism has roots in the theory of evolution.  

[tekmantwo]

On 5/21/2020 at 6:13 AM, Thesauron said:

In many workplaces it is already in force.

Back in the '80's when I was an Operating Engineer mechanic/weldor the Union implemented that change.

 

We were no longer HDR combo(Heavy Duty Repairman, combination mechanic/weldor)

 

We were now HDR (Heavy Duty Repair Person)

[BenJepthah]

2 minutes ago, tekmantwo said:

Back in the '80's when I was an Operating Engineer mechanic/weldor the Union implemented that change.

 

We were no longer HDR combo(Heavy Duty Repairman, combination mechanic/weldor)

 

We were now HDR (Heavy Duty Repair Person)

That part of removing gender from language isn’t objectionable . But a Husband and a Wife are different in their function. Each is a title describing a particular role every bit as distinct and gender dependent as Mother and Father. Obviously the gender equality police would love to do away with Mother And Father and replace them with Parental Units. ( Conehead reference) Not because they are concerned about women but because it makes the LGBTQ crowd happy. 

[BenJepthah]

55 minutes ago, Bek said:

 

I mentioned Darwinism only to say that the origins of today's many philosophies are in atheism. I did not mean that feminism has roots in the theory of evolution.

Your not misunderstood. Atheism embraces Darwinism only at its own convenience. Feminism also embraces Atheism and Darwinism only at its own convenience. Observations of the Natural world correspond with Nothing in Atheism and only some of Darwinism. And only obliquely with Feminism. The Natural world only Perfectly matches one belief system. 

[BenJepthah]

2 hours ago, EccentricM said:

 

 

In some socities, this has been abused, and people twist the Bible to make it look like we can boss women around, have them bow to us or that we can slap them around, where that is taking the scriptures out of context and using God's word as a tainted blunt instrument to make the opposite sex into our slaves.

What is ignored is the reality that the conditions set by Jehovah in the Law Covenant and refined in the progress of the true Christian Congregation have always been more protective of people than the conditions in the world of the time. Atheists live to condemn the Bible but when cornered into answering which of the cultures of the ancient world they would rather live in as a wife , a child, or a slave. They are forced to admit that life for even animals was superior under the Law Covenant. 

[EccentricM]

@BenJepthah Exactly, Jehovah has always worked in a "context". Jesus even said Jehovah allowed certain things because the Hebrew/human society back then was not "ready" or capable of living up to certain standards of conduct (like only having a single wife) because they were a very "hard" culture

 

Makes me wonder what the new scrolls will say, in accordance to how society has changed since the times the New Testament was written, and how things will be tailored to us, and where the "true perfect ideal" will be in regards to conduct and life in general.

Edited May 27, 2020 by EccentricM