Relationships in a World of Individualism

  • rWorld

    The rWorld is about more than Dale Kuehne's book Sex and the iWorld.
    The rWorld is a New England based, non-profit (in formation), that is composed of a growing number of people and organizations from many faith and ideological backgrounds worldwide. We believe that much of the fulfillment for which women and men are looking can be found by enhancing the quality of our relationships. While the individual freedom we enjoy in the West is a gift, the love and intimacy for which humans yearn will not be found in self-serving materialism or hedonism, but in a variety of healthy relationships.

    Contact us if you'd like get involved:

  • Dale Kuehne

    Sex & the iWorld

    Professor of Politics and The Richard L. Bready Chair for Ethics, Economics, and the Common Good at Saint Anselm College, Manchester, NH.

    In this blog I'm highlighting signposts of the world in which we presently reside as a means of helping promote a civil, and meaningful dialogue about what kind of world in which we wish to live. I am particularly interested in exploring how might we reconcile the individual good and the common good, and where reconciliation isn’t possible, which should take precedence and why.

    I also blog at

    [Content Caution]

  • Advertisements

Toys for Tots

Posted by Dale Kuehne on April 30, 2010

Should it be Iron-Man or Iron-Person?

How much longer will we refer to others as male or female?


One Response to “Toys for Tots”

  1. Lauren Fithian said

    I don’t think this piece is about referring to other people as male and female. It’s about assigning gender to inanimate objects based on outmoded and often inappropriate stereotypes. It’s about teaching kids that passive sparkly things are for girls and active aggressive things are for boys. Maybe there are things out there that can or even should be labeled “for girls” or “for boys,” but cheap toys in a Burger King kids meal aren’t among them.

    Eliminating unwarranted and limiting gender labeling of inanimate objects does not pose some sort of threat to recognizing that there are male humans and female humans. Neither does eliminating any other unnecessary use of male-specific terminology in our language. I’m not promoting across-the-board gender neutral language, but we are far from that and maybe could change just a little to be more gender inclusive in our everyday language.

    More on point with the question posed: I recently read a lengthy article about areas in South Africa where the rate of hermaphroditism is much higher than in the general population. There were quite a few articles after the controversy over the South African sprinter, Caster Semenya, a hermaphrodite. The issue of labeling as male or female is tricky in the area of gender segregated sports when an athlete has both male and female characteristics. Even so, it doesn’t seem like we are in any danger of some sort of plot to eliminate male/female labels for humans altogether.

    Finally (phew), the food-like substance served at Burger King is not suitable for either boys or girls!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: