Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?

Subject: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: Tony Burns
Date: 07 Aug 01 - 09:26 PM

I'm sure this has been discussed before but I couldn't find it.

I'd like to learn and lead the song When All Men Sing. (Couldn't find it in DT.)

The lyrics do provide for discussion as they reflect the attitude of a different age. While one could argue that "all men" could mean "all mankind" it could also be seen as a little lame and the verse that says "man and boy" could add weight to an argument that says the song is sexist. So, what do folks do? Sing it as is? Rewrite it to be more politically correct? "When we all sing" seems to fit pretty well and other changes could be made.

There are two parts to this discussion. 1) The particular song and 2) what to do in general.

I know of one person who modified a song to remove the 'god words'. To make it more secular I presume.

This may be a no-win situation. If the words aren't modified you offend a specific camp and if you do modify you offend the purist.

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: khandu
Date: 07 Aug 01 - 09:42 PM

Screw PC!

khandu

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: khandu
Date: 07 Aug 01 - 09:44 PM

Let the offended be offended! khandu

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 07 Aug 01 - 09:58 PM

I'd go along with slight changes, an example. In Lizzy Linsy I've left out the first name of "Ronald" MacDonald because I have sometimes lost myself in laughter along with others. In the shanty "Johnny Come Down To Hilo" I changed the phrase "a big buck nigger" to "a big buck sailor". The spirit of the song is still there with out any lost to the song . As to major changes, you could walk into a hornet's nest, not an easy call (how's that for skirting the topic, sorry). If you are concerned with PC to start with, you'll probably make a god choice anyway. Barry

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 07 Aug 01 - 09:59 PM

These songs were made when the world was a different place, and people's ideas about it, and about their place in it, was very different from the way many of us see things now.  If you feel the need to change this frankly inoffensive song to suit your own, or your audience's, preconceptions about the way the world is, or should be, then that is your right.  What is not your right, of course, is to do that without saying that you have done so, saying why, and specifying the changes you have made.  I'm sure that you understand that.  A century and more ago, the notorious Dr. Bowdler re-wrote Shakespeare to make his naughty plays conform to a then-current model of correctness; Shakespeare's works survive, while Dr. Bowdler is remembered only as a vague synonym for ignorant, presumptuous censorship.  Food for thought, I guess.

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: Nancy King
Date: 07 Aug 01 - 10:23 PM

I think this kind of question needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

There are the songs about love relationships, in which it sounds a bit strange for a female singer to profess love for "her" (or a male singer for "him") and in which a pronoun or two can be discreetly changed and it sounds fine. I've done that in several cases. Some other songs don't lend themselves so easily to this kind of sex-change operation, and end up sounding awkward or just wrong. Those I just reluctantly shelve, or in some cases, sing them as is.

In this particular case, I'd sing the words as they are. This song is not about men-and-women, it is about people. Specifically, about people singing together. I don't believe it was intended to exclude anyone. The words are really quite powerful, and changing it to "when we all sing," or something like that, I really think waters it down too much. Perhaps a few words of introduction can make it clear to the audience that it is intended to be inclusive.

I have heard this sung in large groups, and it's really great. Has it been recorded?

Cheers, Nancy

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: Bert
Date: 07 Aug 01 - 11:08 PM

I would sing it exactly as it is. In the English language the noun men is inclusive of women, whereas women have their word to themselves.

If any person complains, then they are obviously not conversant with our language. So have some fun with them and demand that they also change words like menstruation.

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: ddw
Date: 07 Aug 01 - 11:27 PM

I'm with Khandu on this one — there are few things I find more offensive than the PC morons who haven't figured out that words are not their enemies. If you're that squeamish about reality (past or present), then maybe folk music and blues are not what you really want to sing, since they deal with a lot of the nitty-gritty of life.

That said, of course, you're free to do anything you want — even if it makes you a jerk.

cheers,

david

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: mg
Date: 07 Aug 01 - 11:44 PM

Sing as is. Change words like "n" but leave things as they are as much as possible. My personal preference is to never ever make a sex change. It drives me crazy when that is done...how do you know what the more or less standard version is? mg

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: GUEST,Denise:^)
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 12:09 AM

I've found that changing words to their 'PC counterparts' often weakens a song. (Example: Rise Up Singing's wimpy "Just My Hands," to replace the powerful "One Man's Hands--" and, for the record, I use RUS quite a bit, and think it's a great resource. They just flubbed on this one.)

I have asked my 5- & 6-year-old students about the meanings of songs that use the word 'man' or 'men,' in the "whole human race" sense, just to get their perspective. In 15 years of teaching, I've never--NOT ONCE--had a student think that it meant only men and not women.

I'd agree that there's no need to sing racially offensive words, when any other descriptive term would do (I like that 'sailor' mentioned above!), but as for the man/woman thing, forget it. To neuter a song is to parody it, or to turn it into a shallow copy of it's former self. It generally just sounds silly.

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: katlaughing
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 12:23 AM

I prefer to hear "humankind" or something like that, when it fits, but I would want to know about the older lyrics and respect their historical significance. I am more particular about racist terms, though, than gender.

The idea of the whole thing was that women never were included or mentioned and we wanted to raise our daughters to feel of more value than women had been in society up to the sexual revolution. So, as a mother of two women, I appreciate it when someone is at least sensitive about this.

I used to be a lot more rabid. **BG** BUT, back in '99, we had a terrific discussion about PC and came to the conclusion that it has been usurped by extremists and that some of us prefer "ethically conscious" instead.

Another good discussion was on racist songs.

I also agree with Barry.

Thanks,

kat

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: GUEST,Denise:^)
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 12:54 AM

I still maintain--politely and respectfully, of course-- that replacing 'man' with 'human' or 'person' nearly always weakens a song, or, worse, makes it a parody of itself.

I think, if something is *that* offensive to you, it's time to pick a new song to sing...

Unless, of course, your goal *is* to be amusing!

Denise:^)

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: SeanM
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 01:58 AM

Heck, just do what you would be comfortable singing, or what your audience will be comfortable with (if you are performing for a paying crowd that you expect to treat that way).

If you change it, you may get heat for messing with lyrics as they were written. If you leave it the way it is, you may get heat for offending sensibilities.

Whatever happens, it's gotta be you that has to live with the results. If the lyrics bother you, by all means change 'em to something that doesn't (with proper explanations) or just sing something else entirely. We don't have to look your face in the mirror when you justify your decision to yourself after the performance.

Just my opinion.

M

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: sledge
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 02:44 AM

If some folks are so offended by such minor things as the use of "man" in an old song rather than a more all encompassing phrase, maybe they should be wrapped in cotten wool and kept somewhere nice and warm in Fluffyland where nothing bad ever happens.

Sledge

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 02:45 AM

Nancy - it has been recorded by Derek Gifford on his 'Wine Women and Song' cassette or else it's the other one I have and can't remember the name of it.

I have occasionally changed gender in song, along with first person participle (I said to my young love instead of my young love said to me) and no one has really noticed, but it makes more sense to me.... Then I went and wrote a song with me as first person and male!! It doesn't matter a pair of fetid dingoes kidneys what gender you are or sing about, but you need to guauge your audience as to who is likely to object your form of 'Bowdlerising'. It might be OK in your ordinary singaround, but a festival singaround might be a bit different.

LTS

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: GUEST,Mike (Mainbrace)
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 04:22 AM

I would agree with Barry.A change when a word or phrase is would be considered OFFENSIVE , because there is a reason to do so.But if you give way to the extreme view.....How many great songs would have to remain " unsung".In the case of " When all men sing" I have to confess to having a personal Bias.The man who wrote it( SCOWIE) is a Very Close freind. But in it's wider sense the expresions "man..mankind..brother ..brotherhood " have no Gender. You also have to accept that some songs will be written about specifically the role of men OR women in life or history( in Working roles for examample.).You would have to be very carefull not to destroy a song in the process of changing it. To avoid Gender as the issue......I am opposed to Fox-Hunting....Whaling, for example but PLEASE don't let these songs Die!I have this theory that songs have a life of their own , we merely carry them down the years.They survive all kinds of abuse including the words being changed and people who use them for effect( folk? rock etc)But they survive and actively look for people to sing them.( How many have found "A Song"repeatedly "getting" your attention via arecording ; a book; a singing session ?)SONGS ARE A GREAT GIFT Lets be very carefull before we start "changing them" a good test is ..WILL IT BENEFIT THE SONG?????The Folk process has in many cases been at work for decades and the song then settles down in a form that survives maybe for generations.We the suddenly know whats best for the song?????Time I got off my soap box...Mike

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: nutty
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 04:40 AM

Well said Mike.
It's a shame Scowie does not have a computer --- he'd love to get his teeth into some of these discussions

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: GUEST,MC Fat
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 04:42 AM

I once was asked to a benefit gig for some ultra leftie group my harmonica player was involved in. We played 'the blues' hardly the most PC of songs but it was an opportunity for a performance and I thought that made it worthwhile. On checking the venue the organiser said just as we were leaving 'Hey guys remember no sexist songs'. I went ballistic 1. How do you de-sex the blues changing the lyrics to 'He's a trucking little babe don't you know' doesn't work 2. No-body, but no-body tells me what or what not I perform. I refused to do the gig. As Malcolm says these are from another era and you can't re-write the history books overnight. Leave them as they are.

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: GUEST,KingBrilliant
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 04:59 AM

I'm in favour of making changes for a variety of reasons. I'd change something that could be offensive, not because I mind offending, but because something that rings out as offensive in the current context can skew the balance of the song.
I'll change the sex of the parties in the song if it makes sense to do so - and sometimes it can add a new twist to a song. I heard Courting is a Pleasure sung as a man - but it has a different flavour sung as a woman. I prefer to sing the latter. However, Flora (a similar-ish song about betrayal) I wouldn't feel happy to change, and it doesn't bother me at all to sing it - I think it is quite obvious to the audience when a female is singing 1st person as male & hence singing about still loving 'her' is not incongruous.
Another song I've adapted is Banks of the Ohio - in which a vengeful woman kills her lover 'I'll let no man take liberties, if he will not then marry me'. I don't think a variant hurts the original at all.
I'll also change lyrics if they don't scan with the way I sing the tune.
I'll also make up some words if I don't know a whole song, or add/chop verses if the song seems too short/long.
For me it is more important to sing than to exactly reproduce a song.
For the particular song under discussion I personally would sing it as it is - but if you are happier singing a changed version then go for it. There is nothing worse than trying to sing something that bothers you in some way - it restricts the flow.
In general I'm heavily in favour of changing things for whatever reason applies. I like to hear variant tunes and lyrics - its part of what makes a performer/performance individual.
I dare say there are bad variants, but then there are bad 'reproductions' as well.

kris

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: KitKat
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 06:09 AM

Dear Tony

I've nver heard of this song, but the words are so lovely I'd really like to hear it. Where can I hear the tune or a recording of it?

Pat

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: Tony Burns
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 06:49 AM

Great input folks! Keep it up.

For those that asked about where to hear it. I got it from Johnny Collins "Pedlar of Songs" CD. If you go to his discography page you can hear the first verse but you miss the power of the chorus.

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: Midchuck
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 07:06 AM

....Rise Again, That her name not be lost to the knowledge of people...

F*** THAT S***!

Peter.

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: Noreen
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 07:28 AM

I'm with Bert (and Midchuck!). This is NOT a sexist lyric, and When we all sing doesn't have the power of When all men sing.

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: KingBrilliant
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 08:06 AM

Having gone back & actually read the full lyrics (OK - I should have done that to start with) - this song seems like its about times when a group of men (male voices) are singing together at work and relaxing throughout the rural. I can't see any reason why this should be considered sexist. The meaning of the song would change substantially if you uni-sex-ise it. I don't think the changed version would be as strong and evocative - but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't be allowed to sing it that way....don't think there would be much point though. The sex of the observer is not specified - so its not as if there's that reason to change it in order for a woman to sing it.

Kris

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: KingBrilliant
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 08:07 AM

sorry - missing word - throughout the rural year.

Kris

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: GUEST,Paul Burke
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 08:46 AM

Allow me to put in a word for Bowdlerization. Without the good Doctor and his followers, it could never have been said of Desdemona that she ".. played the trumpet in bed.."

Seriously, though, there is a huge difference between avoiding singing "all de darkies am a weepin'" and objecting to "To the begging I will go" because it suggests that beggars are on the scrounge. And as for "all persons", what about the perdaughters?

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 09:47 AM

"In the English language the noun men is inclusive of women" - not any more in usage, and rightly so. But that doesn't mean that you can't explain that it used to and then sing the song anyway. MY kids wonder where the women are in songs about "men" - and rightly so. Same as songs that use the word Gay to mean Happy, when children nowadays think you mean Gay, the way the word is used (usage defining meaning, to me, rather than some dusty old grammar primer that would define it as all-inclusive) today, which means homosexual; I just explain that it used to mean happy and keep going. Why not include the history?

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: MMario
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 10:20 AM

The rule as taught in English - and I just checked with three practicing English teachers --is that the feminine is exclusive of the male gender - but the masculine is always inclusive of the femaleunless defined to show exclusivity or modiefied to show exclusivity. "Men of England" = inclusive "Male inhabitants of England" = exclusive.

That's the way the language functions. So unless and until that basic function of the language is changed...like it or lump it "men" refers equally to women - but "women" excludes all men.

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: Grab
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 10:27 AM

If anyone can be offended by that, then they're NOT offended by that in particular, they're just looking for an excuse to get shirty and your song happens to be such an excuse. Sod'em.

Graham.

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: LR Mole
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 10:45 AM

Fetid dingo's kidney?

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 11:00 AM

There is a disconnect in the English Language. It is imprecise about the meaning of "men". This can lead to personal interpretations wildly out of synch with other interpretations. The attempt to make people aware of this particular ambiguity is intelligent and rational and works towards greater precision and understanding in the English language. Saying that "when all men sing" is more powerful than "when we all sing" is simply a personal idiosyncracy and needs a lot more explanation behind it. Is it more powerful because when you sing "when all men sing" you visualize a group of men working together, whereas when you sing "when we all sing" you visualize men and women singing together? Why is the one image more 'powerful' than the other, because it is more focussed and less diverse? There is a lot of power in a single focus, witness the extremes of fanaticism on either side of a political fence or religious issue. However just because something is powerful doesn't mean that it is the best thing that can be said or sung at any moment.

This is not an old, old song where you can excuse the language on the basis of popular usage at the time of writing. It was written when the issue of exclusive and inclusive language was around and being discussed.

For all those people who have freely expressed their opinions that those who can be offended at the imprecise and changable use of the word men to mean either men and women or only men are idiots, lacking in intelligence, wit or humour. You're all a load of fucking language dinosaurs lacking in a flexibility of imagination and the humour or wisdom to create a real change in society no matter how many Woody Guthrie, protest songs you may wish to sing.

Hope you don't mind, nothing personal you understand, just needed to get it off my chest.

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: KingBrilliant
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 11:01 AM

No thanks Mole - just had one.

Kris

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 11:06 AM

Just to keep stirring: I agree that 'men' and 'mankind' includes women too, but I suspect that it was the males of the species that made the rule.

And if it is so all-inclusive, why don't we say 'boy' when we are speaking of children?

I have said many times that I think that we should teach ourselves to say 'woman' when we want to include every one- after all, 'man' is in woman (pun accepted!).

Frankly, I think the male of the species is more fragile than the female- and perhaps a contributing factor is their knowledge of past sins? LOL

Ebbie

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: Bert
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 11:22 AM

Mrrzy, men includes everyone, even nowadays.
Gay does mean happy, well almost, for one can be happy but not necessarily gay.

And gross still means big, and momentarily does not mean soon, despite the fact that other people use the words differently. Of course, eventually ignorance will win out and these words will change, but that will only happen when a couple of generations have died out and the original meanings have been forgotten.

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: KingBrilliant
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 11:29 AM

Part of the reason why 'when all men sing' works better for me than 'when we all sing' is the flow of the sounds in the words. I find the former a more pleasing sequence of sounds to form physically.
The actual meaning is not the whole picture - I believe that the sequence of sounds & how they flow from one to the next can make a huge difference to a song. I'd find it harder to make the second option sound right.

Kris

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: RWilhelm
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 11:54 AM

I think most people understand that old songs have to be taken in the context their place and time of origin. Singing an old song as written is an act of preservation not an endorsement of old values.

On the other hand, a bad line can ruin a song for a modern audience. I do a song recorded in the 1920's called "Tear it Down." As recorded it includes the line "Every time I hit her she hollers 'police'". It's an otherwise upbeat song and rather than put an ugly image in people minds I change it to "Every time I see her she hollers 'police'". Since the joke is meant to be on the singer version 2 works better in the 21st Century. Not PC, just common sense.

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 12:21 PM

I recently sang Dick Darby at a participant night at fiddletunes and I didnt give it much thought until I was in the middle of the tune and wondered how people will react to some of the lyrics.

ie. .. my wife she is humpy, she bumpy my wife is the devil, shes black, and no matter what I may do with her her tongue it goes clickety clack

... or I dipped her 3 times in the river and carelessly bade her good day.

now the audience was appreciative and I got a good round of applause but I couldnt help but wonder if the song may have been a little UnPC for them. Now I just like the song and I like Tommy Makems rendition of it, it just wouldnt do to change it and it would be a loss not to perform it and it certainly in no way implies that the performer espouses spousal abuse. Just because you sing it doesnt mean you feel that way. (I suppose I should have made an introductory comment before singing the tune = but I dont even think thats necessary.)

I realize the origins of the political correctnes thing and I certainly agree that its not fair that Mr. does not indicate marital status whereas Mrs. Miss does so Im certainly in favour of Ms. and similar words that are exclusive of women and that ought to change. On the other hand it can go to some stupid extremes. ie. the person that edited some text (that said the Russian writer Pushkin had black ancestors) changed black to African American!

it happened to me personally, I few years ago I entered a particular sculpture in an art exhibit and since we were requested to do a little writeup. now my piece was cast iron (about 15inches): a bone (femur) at one end and highly polished wrench on the other end. The theme I am interested in is "Man and Nature" the organizer of the show called me up and she managed to convince me to edit my statement and I went along with it. But in the end Man and Nature was changed to Humanity and Nature (which to me even though its PC has a different meaning) and other elements were changed too such as Western Civilization was changed to Civilization. Now all these changes were made rather hurriedly over the phone at work but after the catalogue was printed and the show was over and successful for me (my piece went on to the provincial show and received an honourable mention) I felt that my statement was completely altered because some idiot felt it wasnt pc. .. oh yeah, and unidentified guest go fuck yourself.

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: sophocleese
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 12:27 PM

Oh dear, I've just given the Mudcat another try and I come across this thread. A lot of very strange conflicting points here.

King Brilliant suggests that as she reads the song she thinks it refers to rural men, not women, therefore its okay to keep the original wording just as you would in a song about women spinning wool. In this discussion about the same song others say that you should keep the wording as written because 'man' in this context means both men and women and that is regular usage. So has everybody who has written to this thread read the lyrics to the song or are they spouting out without knowing what they talk of? What would happen if we had a discussion about what this particular song means and the use of the word 'men' in this particular song.

It has been suggested that keeping the present wording preserves an old song. But actually I haven't yet been able to find a date of when the song was written. It is not a very old song, possibly no older than I am and I haven't hit 40 yet.

If we all agree that it is a song about men, not women, (do you see how clumsy this particular quirk of the English is? ) then we can agree with King Brilliant's thinking. If we cannot agree that it is a song about men and only men then we can give suggestions to Tony about how he should proceed with the song.

The use of the word 'man' to mean both men and women is fading as a new generation grows up with the argument about what it means continuing around them. Personally I prefer to search for other ways to talk of the entire race of humans rather than a use a word which can mean one thing one time and another at a different time. As an experiment I asked my husband what he saw in his mind when I gave him the phrase "when we all sing" and what he saw when I gave him the phrase " when all men sing". For the first phrase he saw a bunch of folkies, men and women, singing together. For the second phrase he saw The Men of the Deep. Clearly I took the phrase out of context but I do think it is telling that the two phrases which should be synonymous do not spawn the same image.

I heard Johhny Collins sing it last Friday. He prefaced his performance of it with any apology to all who might be offended in the audience by the words. This seems a sensible way to do it: acknowldege the ambiguity and the confusion but keep the sound that seems to work. Have fun singing it.

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 12:41 PM

Laughin' My head off Barry! That happened to me during Leezie Lindsay as well. Two seconds after "Ronald MacDonald" I burst out laughing and screwed up the whole song! Talk about the power of advertising! Well I caved in to the Big Mac and "Ronald" has become "Donald" forevermore.

One problem for those who DO mix "Commie/Pinko" songs with traditional ones (as I do) is that often there are people in the audience who are just waiting to jump on a word or phrase, and loudly let you know about it. Unless you can match their agressiveness REALLY quickly, the performance can go down hill rapidly. I've found that singers "from across the pond" can deal with it much better than American or Canadian ones can. We simply don't have words equivalent to "Bollocks, Shite", or my favourite, "Oi! Shut yer Gob!"

Rick

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: nutty
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 01:15 PM

I think there are two different issues here.....

Traditional songs ( unless you are a purist) are fair game and have probably been changed many times already.
Modern songs(like "When all men sing") have been written by someone who is still alive and who should be consulted ( as a matter of courtesy ) before any changes are made.

As a woman I have no problems with the words of when all men sing - I do not believe it excludes women rather it encompasses them as part of " mankind ".But I would have problems if someone changed the words of my songs simply because THEY believed they were not politically correct. My reaction would be that if they don't like the song they don't have to sing it. Similarly, those who are offended by such lyrics don't have to listen.

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: katlaughing
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 01:15 PM

Good points, sophocleese.

Having just read the words, in full, I wouldn't change any of the words. I would take it as a song about men and their work and them singing about. If you wanted to balance it, you might add another song, from the women's perspective about their work, such as the Weaver's Reverie bu Bob Coltman. It's on Folk Legacy's Golden Ring Reunion CD. Here's a bit that Sandy Paton posted about it:

The song is based on a letter written by one Harriet Farley, a mill girl, that was printed in The Lowell Offering, an in-house factory publication - 1840 or so.

kat

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 03:29 PM

I don't like war and whaling, and I don't understand fox hunting, but I still sing and enjoy a lot of the songs associated with these activities. They are "of their time" and should be treated as such, in the same way as we excuse children on the grounds of innocence, or for those who are believers in the Bible, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do",. Too much PC is a dangerous thing; please remember that a closed mouth gathers no feet.

Jock

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: GUEST,Denise:^)
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 03:35 PM

Note that I'm still smiling, but...

You can't convince me that it's better to water down a song by saying "person" than it is to broaden your horizons a bit and think that "man" might just include you, as well. (I'll bet, as a kid, you needed a 'personal invitation' to join the class in every activity, too: "Students, get out your science books. Mary, get out your science book--didn't you hear me?)

And, I'm sorry, but,
"Rise again, rise like a steeple,
That her name not be lost to the knowledge of people"
is so absolutely ridiculous that I can't believe anyone even proposed it!! (It scans crummy, too.) Our group has done 'Mary Ellen Carter' HUNDREDS of times--and NEVER has any one--man, woman, child--EVER objected to, or even mentioned, the line in question.

(Okay, one guy did come up and ask us if they ever *did* get the ship up, but other than that...)

There are lots of songs out there, folks! If one doesn't suit you, pick another that will!

But, really--steeple, people? Come on!

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: GUEST,Willa
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 04:10 PM

Mike(Mainbrace) I don't know whether you've heard Harvey Andrews' song 'Anon', but it expresses more or less your sentiments.
'I had something to say about life in my day, so I wrote a song, and somewhere the sound of it goes round and round to be lost and then found'
It's on the CD 'The Gift'; great stuff.

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: katlaughing
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 04:11 PM

(I'll bet, as a kid, you needed a 'personal invitation' to join the class in every activity, too: "Students, get out your science books. Mary, get out your science book--didn't you hear me?)

Don't know who you were directing that at, but it is pretty rude in the middle of a decent, non-personal discussion.

kat

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: GUEST,Denise:^)
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 04:18 PM

Directing it at anyone who cannot tell that they are part of mankind.

There gets to be a point where standing up for one's rights--the rights of one's race, one's sex, one's self--has been accomplished, and to push it further is mere silliness.

I'd say that anyone declaring themselves to be beyond the boundaries of mankind is kinda silly.

It was not a personal 'you.' It was a general 'you.'

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: katlaughing
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 05:56 PM

Thanks for the clarification.

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 07:02 PM

Mole - fetid dingo's kidneys... a phrase borrowed from the great Douglas Adam's Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy... absolutely pointless and meaning nothing, bit like the whelk's chance in a supernova....

LTS

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: Noreen
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 07:44 PM

An earlier thread, containing the harvested lyrics and discussion can be found by clicking on Lyr Add: When All Men Sing

Subject: RE: Sexist lyric? Change it or ....?
From: Gloredhel
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 08:14 PM

If anyone wants the point of view of one of today's "kids" (late teens, actually), changing "man" or "mankind" or anything like that is not worth screwing up the poetry of lyric. I've known ever since I could read that "men" in some contexts could mean me too. Don't change it. The poetry, the sentiment, and the flow of the words are so much more important than the actual words. And the usage of "men" to mean both men and women is not antiquated. The youth of today, of which I am one, still know that it has more than one defenition, although, I admit, I'm not exactly your average teenager, or I wouldn't be in this conversation.