O Canada - What’s a gal gotta do?
Saturday, March 6th, 2010
What’s a gal gotta do to be included in the words of her national anthem?
There they were – Maelle and Christine, Kaillie and Heather, Hayley and Shannon – Canada’s Olympic sweethearts, flushed with triumph, draped in gold medals and owning the podium on our behalf.
But as our hearts swelled with pride to the sounds of O Canada, the lyrics reminded us once again that no matter how you slice it, if you’re sporting double x chromosomes, “In all thy sons command” just doesn’t cut it.
Never mind the bloggers and commentators who insist that the word “sons” refers to women as much as men. Let them check their dictionaries. Ask them how it feels to substitute the word “daughter” in Rudyard Kipling’s memorable line, “And you’ll be a man, my daughter.”
Or consider what the average TV viewer denied the dubious pleasure of watching My Three Sons in the 1960s would conclude if they came across the title of the show in their local TV guide today: What are the chances they’d assume the program was about three female offspring, or even two boys and a girl?
Zero. The chances are zero. You can trust me on this one, I’ve tried it at home. And at work. Teaching business writing at a community college in the late 1990s, I encouraged hundreds of students to embrace the power of precise language. Every year I’d invite my classes to close their eyes and picture an image to accompany Robert Browning’s famous words:
“Man’s reach must exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?”
When quizzed afterwards about the image that had popped into their heads, male and female students alike typically described one of three things: a) some guy in a suit climbing a corporate ladder; b) a major basketball star shooting hoops, or c) Michelangelo’s Adam reaching out to God on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Go figure.
People are quite literal in response to language. On hearing the word “kangaroo”, we invariably picture not a dog or a horse, but a kangaroo. Amazing, I know. And words like “statesman” or “mankind” also elicit images of men.
Research backs this up. Words matter. Just ask scabs and terrorists – or (ahem) replacement workers and freedom fighters.
I get that Canadians are emotional about the perceived threat to our national anthem. But the backlash against changing a word or two so it no longer leaves out the majority of the population has been stunningly short on reasoned argument or cogent analysis.
“You’re messing with tradition,” cried some (evidently unaware that the original 1908 lyrics were gender neutral, and all sorts of other changes were made in the 1980s).
“Don’t try to distract us from the important issues,” howled others. (And I agree there are lots of other pressing matters. But ensuring that our national anthem uses language that reflects Canada’s enshrined equality principles? Also important.)
Then there was the regrettable, “How dare this government do something for women’s equality?!” And believe me, I sympathize with the “too little too late” reaction, the “no way you’re winning me over with such an obvious ploy” response.
But here’s the thing: if a program or policy aims to make this country fairer and more just, in a substantive or symbolic way, the political stripe of the party proposing it should be irrelevant. Standing in the way of progress for purely partisan reasons is part of what’s wrong with Canadian politics in the first place. (Even politicians know that.)
A longer version of this post was published in today’s Ottawa Citizen
<http://www.ottawacitizen.com/sons/2648928/story.html>
If you’re at all sympathetic to the views expressed, please forward the link to others, and email your MP and your local newspaper to say so.