Max came home yesterday and we went through our daily conversation:
Me: How was school?
Max: Good.
Me: Who did you sit with at lunch
Max: I don’t remember…wait…I think it was Salvador
Me: What was your favorite part of the day?
Max:Music. We learned a new song, “The farmer in the dell…….the farmer takes a spouse the farm…”
Me: What?! Wait. The farmer takes a spouse?
Max: Yes, the farmer can be a man or a woman.
Thanks for learning me that, son. Here’s why I have a problem with that. Back in cave man times when the song was written, it was written about a man farmer who “took” a wife. Taking a wife is and should be considered sexist. But that is not the part that was removed from the song. The part that was removed was that the farmer was a man who had a wife. The change was made to prove that men and women can both be farmers. Duh. Ask any male farmer what his wife does and he will probably tell you she does a hell of a lot of work on the farm. She, too, is a farmer.
The altercation was not made to prove that men can have male spouses and women female spouses. The farmer still takes a spouse as though the taken is not involved in the choice. Take that part out. Change it to the farmer requests marriage from his girlfriend. But don’t try to take an old song and tell me The Farmer in the Dell could be a woman. Cause he’s not. He never was. And it makes singing songs with your kid difficult when you change all the words. Or better yet, choose a new song.
The Pilver 
Yeah…so consider how he learned it compared to how my daughter leaned it:
The Farmer CHOKES his wife, the Farmer CHOKES his wife, H-ho the merry-o, the Farmer CHOKES his wife…
Yeah. That was a FUN conversation.
They were trying to change the words to:
The Farmer CHOSE a wife…
But they failed. I agree, leave old songs alone. Sexist, horrible, vile songs that make kids laugh. It’s all good.
Whenever they change older racist/sexist/violent songs for todays “gentler” world I always feel like something got lost in the translation.
WAIT, the farmer CHOKES his wife????
I learned at Chose..wow.
I don’t even see the problem with TAKE. I understand the concept- all caveman-y and draggin’ her off and stuff.
But I see it as- he Takes her, as in TAKES HER HAND IN MARRIAGE.
I imagine it has to do with the age-old concept of Dowries, and relieving families of their “useless” daughters or something.
The Homogenization of America!
and I don’t mean that in the gay term…
you know… like milk.
Yes, kitty. I can see that. But then the cat takes the mouse and then there’s interspecies mating involved.
Oh, so now you’re against interspecies mating too?
You Minnesotans. hmph
I’m not sure how well it would scan as “The agricultural worker, who may or may not personally own the property they operate on and may indeed be working as an agent subsidery of a agricultural company who operates the land and recruits from the job pool, enters in to a legally binding contract of marriage or recognised civil partnership with a partner of undisclosed gender and occupation.”
Guise wins!
“The farmer took a life-partner, the farmer took a life-parter . . . “
ATTENTION, LADIES AND GENTLEMAN…its a silly children’s song…chill-lax.
Reading the comments on here, you’d think “The Farmer in the Dell” was the Pledge of Allegiance or something…