HOLLY CULP
Opinions Editor

According to Senator Nancy Ruth, the federal government’s choice to abandon possible changes to the national anthem is “another example, for me, of hatred against women.”

I’m going to respectfully disagree.

I’m going to go out on a limb and say yes, I am a feminist (gasp). Or at least I think I am. Does my not caring about the words to O Canada mean that I am not a feminist? I don’t feel wronged or excluded by the wording of the song and I appreciate political correctness and think it is important. Yet, I cannot bring myself to understand why the government felt the need to review the lyrics of O Canada.

Does my not caring about the words to O Canada mean that I am not a feminist?

For me it is mostly about timing.

For those of you who are of the belief that “there is no good time” to bring something like this up, you’re mistaken. Any time would have been better than immediately after the 2010 Olympics.

You’re going to propose changes to the national anthem less than a week after we host the Olympic Games? Are you fucking serious? Hosting the Games became the most patriotic moment Canada has seen in a long, long time; so much so that we were compared to Nazi Germany in 1936 by an American columnist. Yes, really.

Is it any wonder that Canadians everywhere were up in arms about the proposed change? We were all still winding down from the dizzying dream of drunken patriotism when they hit us with that doozy of a suggestion.

Although I don’t believe the backlash to the proposal to change the lyrics from “In all thy sons command” to something more gender inclusive is indicative of Canadians having a deeply rooted hatred for women, the reaction did seem a little strong.

A week ago I would have thought that the words “In all thy sons command” had always been there. Not so. They changed the lyrics from “Thou dost in us command” in 1980.

1980? That seems so”¦ recent. When I learned of this I instantly became suspicious. The truth is, the version we have now is nothing like the original version.

The proposed change of the anthem seems like an empty, meaningless gesture toward the inclusion of women. Women have come a long way and there’s still a lot of work to do, but somehow I don’t feel that changing the words to a song is going to help us accomplish that. It is tokenism at its finest and if the government really wanted to help in the advancement of women, they would come up with some more creative and practical ideas than some minor change to a great song.

While I think that it would be interesting to discuss changing the anthem and that dismissing it so soon was a little extreme, I hope that the government had plans beyond as to how they hope to help women achieve full equality.

For another perspective, please read: Anthem hysteria
– –