Romance in Politics, and Vice Versa

Over here in the US of Holy Shit, we have a few problems. A few, big, huge giant, honking seven hundred billion dollar problems. Add to that a light-your-pants-on-fire contested presidential race (aren’t you glad I write a romance blog and not political punditry? I know I am) and you have one very exhausted Sarah who is more than ever grateful for every opportunity to take refuge in the “yes, it will end happily” world of the romance novel. The billionaires, they don’t lose their shirts or invest in sub prime mortgages in Harlequin Presents’ world. They don’t need no stinkin’ Dow. Their money is inherited and, since they’re worldy wise and brilliant, probably collecting more interest sitting in shoeboxes under the bed.

Anyway, over here, it’s crazy pants time. The election is a little over a month away, there’s debates on television (note: I think any candidate who does not answer the damn question asked of them should lose time to talk. There should be a moderator with time docking power, is all I’m sayin) and signs and ads everywhere, and the tension is only going to increase. Which leads me to my next question:

How do you feel about authors discussing politics? A few authors have emailed me privately with videos and links, and I’ve discussed the current presidential race over email with heaps of people, but more than once, I’ve had someone remark that they feel awkward saying anything on their blogs about the political situation. One author said she didn’t feel like she was in a position to get political: whereas it’s ok for actors to embrace activism, for authors of commercial fiction, it’s not ok at all.

My general reaction is, “Why not? Go for it. If you have something to say, say it.” Yes, it may alienate some readers. Yes, it may mean that people who don’t politically agree with you vow never to buy your books again! (Yeah, says I. Riiiight. I’ll believe it when I have access to their bookstore buying history.) Yes, it might raise a particular kerfuffle, but in the long run, these folks live in the same world I do and I am very curious as to what they think. But I mentally keep it separate from their work. They as people do a lot more in a day than merely writing the books I read. So of course they have things to say about taxes and war and expenditure and governmental oversight, etc.

But yet there’s that reticence. And I get it – I totally get it. But I am never comfortable keeping my own mouth shut because it might be better for someone else. John Scalzi agrees. When asked if fiction writers should write about politics, he replied:

The reader who believes a fiction author should keep his or her opinions to themselves is effectively (if generally unintentionally) saying “You exist only to amuse me. You are not allowed to do anything else.” To which the only rational response is: blow me.

I’m not going to hesitate to add my voice to the national dialogue on any subject just because someone somewhere might not be happy with what I have to say. And more to the point, I think it is bad and dangerous thinking for people to suggest that fiction writers should have to live in a black box of opinion.

[My apologies for not being able to remember who sent me that link. But you’re awesome!]

I concur heartily, and do want to hear what people think, or, at least, read about it. I think it’s a cousin to the Romancelandia culture of Be Nice Or Else that silences romance authors on the subject of politics when authors wish to discuss it – though obviously if you’d like to not talk about it, that’s totally understandable.

I’m always dumbstruck, though, by the idea that someone who sends me a video or web page that has to do with their political opinion often includes a “if you don’t support this person, I hope I didn’t offend you.” I am rarely offended if you disagree with me. Telling me I’m a horrible person with no moral compass because I disagree with you, well, that’s obnoxious to be sure. But disagreement itself isn’t offensive – just like offending someone isn’t the same as assaulting them (TM Robin). I hate that two people with different political viewpoints keep quiet when around one another because they might…disagree. Argue. Debate. Oh, shit, dialogue. That’s just terrible. Can’t have that. Holy crap.

So if you’re an author who is very politically exercised right now, do you keep silent on the subject? Do you keep your political commentary in a specific environment, such as your personal non-author-related blog? Does your political activism on your author blog extend to encouraging voting and political involvement but not discussions of a particular candidate? Does the relative prominence of your name as an author mean you’re less likely to be outspoken about your personal feelings about the current campaigns? Or do you prefer that romance be a politics-free zone, from the authors to their blogs?

What’s the fallout if an author you like takes a political stand that you don’t like, and really, does it matter? Is an absence of politics the only way to go when you’re trying to sell something, because we’re so polarized that alienating the sales base is bad idea jeans? What’s your take?

 

Categorized:

Random Musings

Comments are Closed

  1. snarkhunter says:

    With the exception of Fox, the networks are all liberally-skewed, no matter how objective they claim to be.

    Diane—you know, I have always believed this to be true, but have recently come to question that belief. And what made me question that belief? Bristol Palin.

    The news outlets, liberal-leaning and conservative-leaning (which is to say all of them and then Fox, respectively), fell over themselves to say that it showed Sarah Palin’s normalcy, that her family deserved privacy, blahblahblah.

    But then I imagined another young woman, about Bristol’s age when she was really in the public eye, and what would’ve happened if she’d gotten pregnant. I’m thinking of Chelsea Clinton. And if Chelsea had gotten pregnant, the media would have excoriated the Clintons. They’d have been strung up in the town square as proof of our country’s declining morality. And while Fox might’ve led the charge (with General Bill O’Reilly at their head), CNN and all of the other networks would’ve followed. (MSNBC, which is really the Fox of the left, would have brought up the rear.)

    Think I’m exaggerating? Why is it that when a Republican politician is caught out engaging in illegal sexual behaviors (Mark Foley, anyone?), there’s little more than a few days’ worth of commentary and relatively few repercussions. But when Clinton, who is admittedly not someone I’d want to be alone in a room with, participates in consensual sexual activities with another adult, there’s literally a years-long federal investigation, with the media salivating after the scandal. (And, yeah, he lied under oath. But let’s not pretend that was the real reason why the majority went after him.)

    In short, I am not sure I believe in the media’s bias (with a few notable exceptions, including MSNBC, Fox, and, yeah, Air America, which doesn’t even pretend to be unbiased). The media as a whole are looking for ratings, and they’ll do what it takes to get those ratings. Party politics be damned.

  2. Jana Oliver says:

    Kathleen
    I one of those who believe you should speak truth to power, no matter whether they be Dems or Republicans. Not that they listen, mind you (smirk) but it does make me feel I’m doing something, at least. Besides voting, that is.

    Jana

  3. Robin says:

    IMO the widespread belief that the media has a liberal bias is one of the most successful—and politically profitable—lies of the last 30 years.  I mean, we still believed this after we found out that the New York Times sat on the domestic spying story FOR A YEAR at the request of the White House, after it took the British Observer and the BBC to break the story of voter purging (i.e. perfectly legitimate voters—mostly democrats, mostly Blacks—purged from the voting rolls) in Florida during the 2000 election (as well as other instances of state purging during the 2004 election), after CBS edited those McCain interviews to cover some of the worst mistakes, after ABC and the Washington Post got caught omitting poll information that was favorable to Obama during some of their poll reporting on the two presidential candidates.

    For a more detailed list of examples, check out Eric Alterman’s book “What Liberal Media?  The Truth About Bias in the News.”  Of course Alterman’s been dismissed by some as a liberal operative, but that’s part of the beauty about the liberal bias argument.  It’s more subtle beauty is that the media is so sensitive to this oft-repeated refrain is that they now go out of their way to NOT look biased, which pushes them in another direction entirely.

    So much of the US media is corporatized these days, I think we need to re-think the whole notion of politics as it relates to the *production* and *consumption* of news:  the lack of real competition among media outlets, the way profit impacts corporate-owned, conglomeratized media, and the fundamental tensions between democracy and the free market, and the way those tensions intersect right at the point of the mainstream press.

  4. Diane/Anonym2857 says:

    In short, I am not sure I believe in the media’s bias (with a few notable exceptions, including MSNBC, Fox, and, yeah, Air America, which doesn’t even pretend to be unbiased). The media as a whole are looking for ratings, and they’ll do what it takes to get those ratings. Party politics be damned.

    Snarkhunter,

    I agree with your breakdown about some media outlets being more biased than others. I also agree that the main goal is ratings.  However, I don’t think the two points have to be mutually exclusive.  I’m more inclined to believe that there is media bias – just that ratings and revenue will always trump that bias.  They’ll all lead with the story that will get them the ratings, but will still manage to skew it to their way, at least as much as they possibly can.

    As to the Bristol/Chelsea comparison, it’s impossible to know how that would have panned out.  It would probably depend on how the Clintons had handled it.  Undoubtedly, the Bill O’Reilleys of the world would have had a field day with it regardless, but I would hope (she says in best Polyanna voice, LOL) that most of the media would do largely what was done this time – make their snarky comments, point out any hypocrisies they think they see, then leave the kids out of it. Especially since it really could happen in any family, regardless of politics, these days, so there’s not a lot of room to throw rocks amid all the glass.  Besides, I think that part of the reason the media backed off relatively quickly, harsh though they were (or not harsh enough if you wish), in regard to Bristol was because of the example that the Clintons set with Chelsea.  Their policy always was to ‘say what you want about them, but leave their little girl out of it.’ I respected them (and anyone else in the same position) for doing that. I still remember the SNL skit that took place shortly after the Clintons came into office in which Wayne and Garth made some comments about how Chelsea lacked the ‘hotness’ of previous White House daughters, but she was young and hopefully she’d outgrow her homeliness. I remember cringing when I watched, as I could just imagine how hurtful that would be to a pre-teen girl, but I doubt it was specifically said out of political malice. Hillary went all medieval on the network, and it was edited out by the time the west coast feed aired.  Mega props to her for defending her kid.

    And I personally believe that when a politician or other public person of trust, regardless of party, is caught in illegal/unethical behavior, they should be publicly called out and shamed at very least for their hypocrisy, and even booted out of office and/or prosecuted if the offense is egregious enough to warrant it.  Should they have impeached Clinton? I dunno.  My gut reaction is that it sets a really bad example when the highest ranking politician commits perjury and is allowed to get away with it, so yeah – there was reason. But it was also definitely a witch hunt, and a costly one at that. Ironically, had he just said, ‘yeah, I did it – get over it,’ rather than denying it and daring them to prosecute, it probably would have ended right there.  At least from a legal perspective. The media would have kept it going, regardless, and spun it toward whatever direction gave them the best ratings.

    So, yes, there’s definitely bias, IMO (and Robin, I would cynically consider Alterman a liberal operative, just like there are plenty of conservative operatives out there who will promote it from the other side). It’s the nature of the beast. Like when CS Lewis, discussing a different ‘beast’ in The Screwtape Letters , explains how the devil is so successful:  it’s really easy to go about the devil’s work when no one believes in the devil anymore.

    I just think we should all think more critically, and be a bit more open-minded in what we see, read, and hear.  Not so open-minded that our brains leak out, but at least have enough room in there to be able to think about the other POV, process and weigh it against our own inclinations, rather than just discounting it w/o consideration.

    But that’s digressing from the point of whether authors and celebrities should share their political views, eh?  Not to mention no doubt raising the blood pressure of the Clinton fans, which I honestly wasn’t even trying to do… sorry.  I’ll shut up now.

    Diane

  5. Diane/Anonym2857 says:

    well damn.  that’s what I get for attempting to put codes in there.

    Sorry for all that bold type, everyone.

    Diane
    stepping away from the keyboard now…

  6. snarkhunter says:

    I just think we should all think more critically, and be a bit more open-minded in what we see, read, and hear.

    I totally agree with this point. I just disagree with the assumption that ALL media (except Fox, of course) automatically have a liberal bias. Bias, yes. Absolutely. But a total liberal bias? Even if all journalists skew left, there would still be a contingent of good, honest journalists who would try keep that out of their reporting.

    I also feel this way b/c of the supposed liberal bias of academia. Yes, the majority of college professors are left-leaning, and I know there have been instances of anti-conservative bias against both students and faculty, both of which are and should be unacceptable. However, I am also aware, as someone within the culture, that being left-leaning does not automatically make one biased. Or, perhaps more accurately, owning one’s biases at least means one can, like the honest journalist, do one’s best not to let them interfere with teaching. So when I hear that 75% of college professors (or whatever it is) are Democrats, I fail to see how that’s a problem, unless there’s definitive proof—or ANY proof!—that all or even most of those people are discriminating against conservative voices in the classroom.

  7. Tina C. says:

    IMO the widespread belief that the media has a liberal bias is one of the most successful—and politically profitable—lies of the last 30 years

    The following is a quote from a column in my local newspaper from a minister that writes a Faith & Values column every Saturday.

    Among the questions I frequently get is, ”How can you, being a minister, justify writing for the lying, godless-heathen, liberal media conspiracy?“

    Sometimes it’s, ”How can you, being a minister, justify writing for the lying, godless-heathen, conservative media conspiracy?“

    Another variation goes, ”You seem like decent guy. I know you didn’t produce that despicable column on your own. Your evil editors made you say that, didn’t they?“

    I’m sorry to burst anyone’s paranoiac bubble, but let me go on the record here: There is no lying, godless-heathen, media conspiracy—liberal or conservative.

    Any given carload of journalists can’t agree about where to stop for lunch, much less on a vast unilateral plot.

    Also, in my 20 years of writing opinion columns for newspapers, both as a staff writer and, now, as merely a twice-monthly freelance contributor, I can’t recall one instance in which an editor has told me what I must or can’t say.

    Paul Prather, “This is the truth:  I wrote this myself”

    I rather think that he’s right—trying getting more than a couple of people to agree on the simplest thing, let alone a vast conspiracy involving thousands of people, is like trying to herd cats.  How would they enforce such an agenda?  How would they keep the disgruntled and/or undoctrinated from breaking ranks?  Wouldn’t you have to churn out your reporters and pundits in some sort of Stepford Leftie Reporter factory to achieve such widespread results?  Unfortunately, as seen in “experiments conducted by political scientist John Bullock at Yale University,” “misinformation can exercise a ghostly influence on people’s minds after it has been debunked—even among people who recognize it as misinformation. In some cases, correcting misinformation serves to increase the power of bad information.”  The Power of Political Misinformation

    It leaves me baffled as to what anyone can do to dispell the myths, misinformation, and outright lies.

    The news outlets, liberal-leaning and conservative-leaning (which is to say all of them and then Fox, respectively), fell over themselves to say that it showed Sarah Palin’s normalcy, that her family deserved privacy, blahblahblah.

    But then I imagined another young woman, about Bristol’s age when she was really in the public eye, and what would’ve happened if she’d gotten pregnant.

    As to the Bristol/Chelsea comparison, it’s impossible to know how that would have panned out.  It would probably depend on how the Clintons had handled it.  Undoubtedly, the Bill O’Reilleys of the world would have had a field day with it regardless, but I would hope (she says in best Polyanna voice, LOL) that most of the media would do largely what was done this time – make their snarky comments, point out any hypocrisies they think they see, then leave the kids out of it

    I don’t know—you’ve got one basis of comparision to how they might have reacted.  Think Jamie Lynn Spears.

    What Bill O’Reilly said about Bristol Palin:

    “Millions of families are dealing with teen pregnancy, and as long as society doesn’t have to support the mother, father or baby, it is a personal matter. Some Americans will judge Governor Palin and her family, and she will have a hard time running for vice president if there is much more chaos. For the sake of her and her family, we hope things calm down. This country needs a vibrant policy debate, not a soap opera.”

    What O’Reilly said about Jamie Lynn Spears:

    “On the pinhead front, 16-year-old Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant. The sister of Britney says she is shocked. I bet. Now most teens are pinheads in some ways. But here the blame falls primarily on the parents of the girl, who obviously have little control over her or even over Britney Spears. Look at the way she behaves. And by the way, the mother, Lynne Spears, has reportedly already sold pictures of the upcoming baby of her 16-year-old for a million bucks. Incredible pinhead.”

    Two things—you can say, “Well, that’s just Bill O’Reilly.”  True, but it’s not like he was the only one jumping on that particular bandwagon.  He wasn’t even the most egregious.  And second, of course, is that Sarah Palin isn’t Lynne Spears by any stretch of the imagination.  But really, does anyone think that O’Reilly would have fallen closer to the Bristol Spears commentary if it had been Chelsea Clinton than to the Jamie Lynn Spears version?  He and others of his ilk would have vilified her, the Clintons, and their entire “liberal, left-wing” constituency for attempting to further corrupt the youth of America.  Meanwhile, I somehow doubt that the rest of the media would have been much kinder.  But maybe that’s just my cynicism showing.

  8. Lee Rowan says:

    “it’s almost impossible, in this country, to be a woman, to be a gay woman, to be a gay woman in upper middle management in the corporate world, to be a gay woman who writes historical romance (with gay and straight characters) and NOT be political. “

    TTThomas..I’ll have to look up your writing.  Congratulations to you both—beautiful wedding!

    Do I stop buying books or films if someone supports a cause I find repellent?  Absolutely.  No Curves, no Mall-Wart, no Gibson—I stopped reading one mystery writer when she had yet another ‘crazed environmentalist’ as a villain.  (To me, an eco-terrorist is someone who poisons a river with cyanide while mining the gold upstream.  I like this planet.)

    To the “liberal media bias” folk (and thank you, Robin, for the references)—95% of the media is owned by the 5 corporations that own the Republican party—-which, I agree, is not what it was when I started voting and could in good conscience vote for people in both parties.  “Conservative” used to mean something worthwhile back then; there were moderates and liberals and conservatives in each party.

    I am, for the record, socially liberal and fiscally moderate.  I don’t think either party has a perfect record.  But I think the Republicans have been hijacked by the Dominionists, and those people are determined to turn the US into a religious state (I would not say “Christian” because they essentially are old-testament fundamentalists.)  Sarah Palin belongs to one such church; the Human Rights Campaign went to Alaska to find some of her ‘gay friends’ (

    ) and could hardly find anyone willing to speak on-camera.

    Liberal media?  In 2000, I was appalled at the TV images of republicans storming the polling place in Dade County and interfering with the elections. It made me think of Brownshirts.  By 2004, ads for Democrats were censored in Columbus, Ohio, where I lived—the Republican-owned network stations literally would not air ads that rebutted the false claims being made against Democratic candidates.  Same in 2006.  In 2008, the only place one could find out that journalists were being barred from the GOP convention and even arrested (Ellen Goodman was arrested and held for days) was on the Internet.  We saw the war in Vietnam, in the 70’s; it galvanized the nation.  Today…?  How many thousands dead, and we don’t even see the flag-draped coffins, and Ted Koppel is blacked out when he wishes only to read a list of the war dead.  Censorship is a reality, and many people do not even realize it’s happening.

    And, please—can we let Franklin Roosevelt—who only got the country out of its last Republican depression—rest in peace?  The issue at hand is the last 8 years of economic disaster, and it wasn’t Bill Clinton’s blow job that caused that, though any minute now I expect someone to claim it was.  If we want Pols Behaving Badly, how about Warren G Harding, darling of Marion, Ohio, who scammed the nation with the Teapot Dome scheme—more rich boys skimming off the cream for themselves—and knocked up his teenage mistress in the Oval Office?  Republicans have a monument to him up in Marion that looks like a damned Greek shrine.  Do I care about WGH?  Not in the slightest; his shenanigans have no relevance to the current mess and neither do JFK’s.  I’m just fed up with the one-sided snark.

    Back to what TTT said; I am female and married to a woman, the finest human being I have ever known; we moved to Canada to legalize our relationship after a bunch of liars pushed an anti-gay-marriage amendment through in Ohio.  Liars?  Yes.  There were ads circulating that told deadbeat dads they’d be free of child support and alimony if Issue 1 passed, and that was only one of the many false claims being made… just the way equality opponents are now spreading rumors in California that churches will lose tax-exempt status if the anti-equality amendment fails.  And gee, isn’t it interesting?  During the casino scandal, it came out that they’d used the gay-marriage issue to “bring out the crazies” to vote them into office.  That is a direct quote from the record of one of the Republicans involved in the casino bribery scheme.

    Look at the tactics:  The “Obama is a terrorist/Muslim/BLACK, OMG!! propaganda is not based on facts.  But the fact is that McCain was indeed involved in the Keating scandal and got off damned lightly, he has voted with Bush on nearly every issue and he is running on a platform that promises business as usual.  And his running mate is no more qualified to be President than I am to fly a 747. 

    By the way, everything that I have mentioned above can be substantiated with research.  The Ohio vote scams are things I personally witnessed.

    Re actors/writers/etc expressing an opinion—if Ahnold can run for Governor, why the hell shouldn’t Al Franken rn for Congress? My view is that writers often do what’s called “Research” as part of our job; that is, we find out facts.  Actors often travel to places most of us never see, and their observations can inform their actions.  Do “entertainment” people have opinions?  Sure.  Can any human being be mistaken?  Absolutely.  But… do we not, if we have any ability at all to communicate, have a responsibility to communicate when we see wrongdoing occur?

    I believe we do.

    I put information about my books and my writing on my website.  If that’s all anybody wants to know about me, that’s just fine.  If they feel a need to know more about me—that’s their choice.

    My livejournal is more personal, and hell, yes, it’s political.  Bland and chirpy just ain’t my style.  My life is political—and it is a life, not a lifestyle.

    I have left the land where I was born for the same reason my grandfather left Europe ninety years ago—to find a country where I could live with the same civil rights as any other person, because the government has, over the past 8 years, turned “faith and values” into code for “I want everyone to live by my tiny-minded fundamentalist beliefs and YOU’D BETTER DO WHAT I SAY.”  Am I angry that the bully-boy attitude of the “southern strategy” has allowed a few of the very rich to loot the entire nation?  You bet.  Am I angry that the attitude in Congress has become “We’ve got to do this FAST!  instead of “We had better do this RIGHT?”  Yup.

    And it’s interesting that the response is so often, “Oh, you Democrats are so ANNNGRY!”  Or, if one is not angry, the Democrats are wusses.  Just shut up and do what you’re told… or shut up and entertain me—same difference.

    There are times when anger is an appropriate response.  Even the Dalai Lama says anger can be helpful if it motivates one to stand up against injustice.  I can imagine the average Joe or Susan in Colonial America…. ‘Oh, that Patrick Henry—he’s so angry!  Why can’t he just shut up and pay the tea tax?’

    Might I lose readers for speaking out?  It’s possible—there are Log-cabin Republicans who have so identified with the party that sells glbt folk out every time that they continually make excuses for it, like a beaten wife keeping an ugly secret. The Republican party used to believe in privacy, in fiscal responsibility, and in respecting the other party—at least some of the time.  Now it believes in demonizing anyone who disagrees.

    But most of my books are about gay men living in repressive times… the sort of times the neocon-fundies would like us to go back to.  And y’know—if they write the laws, nobody would be able to buy my books if they wanted to. 

    From where I stand, I’d better speak up now while I still can.  The Equal Rights movement has a slogan: “Silence = Death.”  It’s never been more true.

    “choice95” … Yep.  Speaking out is a choice.  No regrets.

  9. Beautifully said, Lee.

  10. Sparky says:

    *applauds* well said Lee, well said indeed

  11. Rebecca says:

    I’m coming late to the party (no pun intended) but I wanted to respond to something Aby said about teachers mentioning political preferences in the classroom, because it’s an issue I’ve dealt with a lot personally, and I know from experience that it’s not as clear cut as people outside the profession think.

    I’m a high school English teacher.  Aside from the fact (that someone mentioned earlier) that practically all valid literature has a political point of view which needs to be explained and discussed with the students, and which they will relate to more easily if they can relate it to current events, I have faced open curiosity from the kids about who I am supporting in various elections.  As in, a senior who is about to turn 18 saying, “So, Miss, who are you voting for?”  (I have also had students ask me about my religious beliefs, and say “Miss, do you believe in God?”  “Miss, do you believe masturbation is a sin?”  etc.)  In those circumstances, I have tried to develop what I believe is an ethical (and what I KNOW, thanks to a course in education law, is a legal) response: I answer the question, as concisely and directly as possible, and PREFACE the statement with: “This is JUST a personal opinion.  I am NOT speaking as a teacher, but as a PRIVATE CITIZEN, whose opinion is of NO special value beyond anyone else’s.”

    I think this is a reasonable response, because it steers a course between two important values: on the one hand, I believe my students have the right to debate important issues with adults without having us slam the door to discussion in their face.  On the other, as a teacher in a public school I am a “state agent.”  That means that any speech I make *with the imprimatur of the school* can be construed an official endorsement of a position, to an essentially captive audience.  (FYI, this is the argument against teacher-led prayer in schools, as opposed to a teacher being a faculty advisor of a *student* led prayer group.)

    But these are relatively straightforward problems, that anyone with a little good will can solve.  The more subtle ones come up because I teach language, and language itself is political.

    For example: I assume that everyone agrees in theory that students should be taught to write without errors, and that teachers should correct mistakes in spelling and grammar.  But I notice that Aby uses the phrase “Democrat party,” and I’ve seen that usage consistently among conservatives.  To me, as a grammar nit-picker, “democrat” is a noun.  “Democratic” is an adjective.  So I would correct a student paper that used the phrase “Democrat party” the same way I would correct the phrase “Republic party.”  IF a politically aware student consciously intended to use the preferred conservative term, I might be accused of “imposing” my views, since language usage is to some extent fluid over time.  But if the student is unaware of the difference between a noun and an adjective (sadly probable), it’s my job to make that correction.  One could bring up similar political arguments about the usage of “their” as a gender-neutral (but grammatically incorrect) substitute for “his/her,” or about the capitalization or non-capitalization of the word “God” and so on.

    Since word choice is political, writing and speaking are, of necessity, political too.  So the idea that writers “aren’t political” in their writings is nonsense.  And the idea that teachers are “neutral” is at least highly problematic.

    So, Aby, what can a “good” teacher do, besides agree with every parent in the school (an impossible task if the parents disagree)?  And AgTigress, if you’re reading this, I know that you have an interest in language use, on both sides of the Atlantic.  What do you think?  (And anyone else who wants to jump in.)

Comments are closed.

By posting a comment, you consent to have your personally identifiable information collected and used in accordance with our privacy policy.

↑ Back to Top