THINK

Double Think, Wishful Think, …...Think?

It's a mad world. Natasha Devon, former government mental health guru, told a meeting of girls' school headmistresses (oops!) that they shouldn't address girls as girls or ladies but as pupils or students. Why? Because that reminds females (is that OK?) of their gender, which in Devon's view could cause said females great anxiety and mental health problems. Corresponding cautions should apply to boys' (oops again) schools.  No more boys' or girls' schools, only pupils'schools.

Unfortunately (in my view) the same problem arises with the use of the words «she», «her», «he» and «his». So obviously these words should be avoided too. What then? We'd presumably have to refer to all individuals as «it». But this, of course, could be interpreted as dehumanising people, objectifying them, which could definitely cause anxiety and mental health problems. Then again there is the problem of names. Some names are gender neutral, such as Lesley. However some aren't; have you ever met or heard of a boy called Agatha or a girl called John? So, to avoid mental health problems should we ban all gender-specific names or be compelled to use girls' names for boys and boys' names for girls, just to get rid of gender bias? Difficult one that.

Fortunately we Brits don't have the problem that Romance langage speakers have of every noun having a gender. Then we would really be in trouble, with anything sentient. So what can we conclude. One suggestion I have is that government mental health advisors should be tested for mental health problems before being appointed. Another is that Ms (can I use that; …….M, It?) Devon should get a life.

Elsewhere a mother has asked a school to ban the Sleeping Beauty fairy story because the Prince kissed Beauty while she was asleep, without first asking her permission. I suppose, by the same criterion, we could ban most literature written before 1950. What exciting lives some people live! More seriously, what has been said about people who want to ban books?

It is easy to make fun of such misguided people but, even if they are well intentioned, they do their cause no favours. There are still some serious issues in male/female interractions and the ridicule these people invite tends to trivialise these issues.

Things sentient do not include animals, according to media coverage of the government's proposal to exclude Article 13 of the Lisbon Treaty from the Bill on leaving the EU now going through Parliament. Article 13 places an onus on governments to take animal welfare into account when creating new legislation so this onus would be excluded. The media coverage proclaims that the government thereby believes that animals are not capable of having feelings (causing God knows what mental health problems to people; animals may not be aware of media coverage). Michael Gove, shining knight of all lovers of the truth(?), is outraged at what he calls this distortion of the truth. Of course the government is concerned about animal welfare, he says; in fact, exclusion of Article 13 provides an opportunity for the government to create even more protection for animals than that provided by Article 13. (This, like everything else, will be better after Brexit). What he didn't specifically state, in his determination to clarify the exact truth, was that of course the government won't have to consider animal welfare (that onus will be on the animal owner) and won't have to create stronger legislation. It could create stronger legislation or it could completely ignore the issue and place animal owners in a difficult if not possible position. But what government, determined to cut all costs to the bone, would do that?

Well, let's have a little look at Gove's overriding concern for the truth, at his rôle in the Brexit campaign for instance; the little matter of the £350 million for the NHS? Do the sayings a kettle calling the pot black and leopards not being able to change their spots come to mind? Ah well, who ever accused politicains of honesty?

It really is a mad, mad world.

Remembrance And Education

Remember, Remember

I have fun explaining to the French why we Brits celebrate November the 5th. After all, celebrating an attempt to blow up the democracy of which we are all so proud is ironic in a very British way. We didn't go through it this year in the English conversation class as we had already done that last year. Then I explained that although traditionally it should be Guy Fawkes who was burned there had been local variations. In the village in which my mother lived, for instance, it used to be the Pope who got burned. That would be politically incorrect nowadays of course and, anyway, I find the idea of religions persecuting one another rather obscene. However, I think the idea of burning (in effigy) someone almost unversally disliked has some merit. Anyone for Trump, Boris Johnson, Theresa May……?

It is also a time to remember the dead in both world wars of course: the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month. For some reason I keep meaning to investigate, the ceremony in the village is at 12;00. I seem to remember that that changed from 11.00 a few years ago and I think it must be because winter and summer time didn't exist at the time of WW1, so 11.00 then would be 12.OO now. Maybe someone decreed the change in the last few years but I still don't know for sure. Anyway the ceremony went off almost smoothly in the village, when the names of those from the village who were killed are read out individually followed by the words «mort pour la France». I find it quite moving. At the end (before the obligatory communal aperitif) the children at the village school sing the Marseillaise. They were to be accompanied by the music but, enthusiastic as they were, they started off well in advance of the music and the singing and the music never really got together again. A shame, I suppose, but it had a very sympathetic Clochemerle feel to it. Perhaps that is how it should be, a living and improvised contrast to the otherwise formal proceedings to remember the dead.

Education

The last couple of English conversation classes have been particularly good, running seamlessly for 90 minutes. At the beginning of the one this evening I proposed an idea I had had and checked with Steve that we should offer the class toipics for conversation (generally of their choice) but that we should start with education. After all, we have all been through it (and may be continuing it) so we all have experiences, good or bad, to talk about. The idea went down well. Steve and I will provide a vocabulary beforehand to help the discussion along.

The idea came back to me while I was helping my son compose a rather sensitive letter. I well remember offering to read my daughter's thesis before she submitted it when she was at university and her refusal because, she said, I would criticise her grammar. Grammar was not in question when I was helping my son but niceties of expression and pereption were. Language can be such a supple and nuanced instrument for communication that I feel more than ever that the period when it was «taught» (in English schools certainly and, I gather, in French schools too) as simply free uncritical expression was almost criminal. Just tick the right box, or Eats Shoots And Leaves, if you know the book.

Cold Snap

I gather there has been a cold snap in the weather in the UK and so has there here, although the cold during the day is only evident if the wind is blowing (it's the Mistral) and you are not sheltered from it. However, snow has been falling on the summit of Mt Ventoux for the past week and that doesn't usually happen until around mid-December. I hope this doesn't herald a harsh winter but I think I'm now going to have to protect the plants I have that will not survive a hard frost.