“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar
One of the nation’s leading universities has warned students not to use the term “marriage” when referring to a well-known maths theorem because some people may find it offensive.
A lecturer at the University of New South Wales in Sydney has courted criticism after she told students not to refer to Phillip Hall’s mathematic theory: “Hall’s Marriage Theorem’’ in an assignment.
The theorem, devised in 1935 relies on the example of matchmaking men and women in monogamous, heterosexual marriages to represent two distinct sets.
UNSW honours student Sean Lynch told Sky News that his lecturer asked students not to label the theorem in an assignment because of its “homophobic implications.”
Mr Lynch said that while same sex marriage was never explicitly mentioned, it is clear what staff members were referring to.
No word on whether "Mr. Lynch" was required to change his name.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar
That's certainly over the top. A better option would be for the lecturer to say that if the theorem had been developed in today's world, other words might be used, but "marriage" in the context of 1935 was a reasonable reflection of the existing milieu, and that it is historically accurate to keep the terminology, while understanding that it has no implications whatsoever for modern gender politics.
Have we reached the end of social justice theory yet?
What's next? Learning through study is white ideology and systemic racism? Building muscle through lifting weights is white ideology and systemic racism?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar
Sent from my penis using wankertalk. "The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007. "Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that.. "Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt. "I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
Svartalf wrote:Meritocracy is indeed about whiteness, even the US first "black" president is half white.
I can even predict that half of the genome of the US first female president will come from a male.
There is no way for you to predict that. That's assuming gender! Problematic!
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar
JimC wrote:That's certainly over the top. A better option would be for the lecturer to say that if the theorem had been developed in today's world, other words might be used, but "marriage" in the context of 1935 was a reasonable reflection of the existing milieu, and that it is historically accurate to keep the terminology, while understanding that it has no implications whatsoever for modern gender politics.
I daresay that marriage is a reasonable reflection on existing milieu. And, even if it isn't, so what?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar
JimC wrote:That's certainly over the top. A better option would be for the lecturer to say that if the theorem had been developed in today's world, other words might be used, but "marriage" in the context of 1935 was a reasonable reflection of the existing milieu, and that it is historically accurate to keep the terminology, while understanding that it has no implications whatsoever for modern gender politics.
I daresay that marriage is a reasonable reflection on existing milieu. And, even if it isn't, so what?
I meant the implication in the OP that "marriage" was automatically between man and woman only. In the 1935 context, that was the norm - using the term to name the theorem is historically accurate, and should not imply that the broader modern definition is wrong...
JimC wrote:That's certainly over the top. A better option would be for the lecturer to say that if the theorem had been developed in today's world, other words might be used, but "marriage" in the context of 1935 was a reasonable reflection of the existing milieu, and that it is historically accurate to keep the terminology, while understanding that it has no implications whatsoever for modern gender politics.
I daresay that marriage is a reasonable reflection on existing milieu. And, even if it isn't, so what?
And even if different words were chosen, so what?
Sent from my penis using wankertalk. "The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007. "Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that.. "Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt. "I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
Svartalf wrote:But it is, a theorem is by definition demonstrated and immutable, it the 1935 theorem was correct, then the current definition must be wrong.
Must it?
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
It's not just that one theorem that's problematic. All of science is problematic, because "Instead of promoting the idea that knowledge is constructed by the student and dynamic, subject to change as it would in a more feminist view of knowledge, the syllabi reinforce the larger male-dominant view of knowledge as one that students acquire and use make [sic] the correct decision." http://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewconten ... ontext=tqr Women inherently are disadvantaged in subjects involving the application of reason, logic and the scientific method, because those aren't feminist ways of approaching knowledge and learning.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar
