saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (04/14/84)
From Yehoyaqim Shemtob Martillo > I do not like Ms. because I do not like > mindlessly altering a language to fit the current intellectual > fad. Language altering reminds me of 1984 and duck-speak. Desexing the > language will hardly end sex descrimination. Japanese has no grammatical > category for sex (no separate pronouns he,she or it). Yet, Japanese > culture seems to be one of the least sexually egalitarian on the earth. > > I am not sure what in my reply to Milady Quigley's article "Rape in Lybia" > merited this ad hominem attack but if I was arrogant towards her, I > publicly apologize. Mr Martillo, I know you were kidding in your usage of "mylady" as a substitute for "Ms" in the rest of your article, but I nevertheless find your attitude very disconcerting (to say the least). Since you realise that "miss" or "mrs" are improper in this discussion and you feel the need for a address that does not reflect my marital status, you proceed to use one which is completely archaic and probably insulting to the women it refers to, even though there exists an address which is acceptable and widely used in our current society. I do not want to insult you, but I think this tells us a lot about you: you will continue to call us women as you damn well please with no consideration whatsoever to our feelings on the matter. "Mylady" was apparently also a fad since it is not used anymore. In general, how do you distinguish fads in languages with other uses? there is no "Academie" in english regulating what can be used and what can't, this leaves the language open for evolution. Other languages such as french, which are tightly regulated have a lot of trouble keeping up with new technology and social customs. The fact is that a language is a communication tool, when new ideas appear, you need new tools to express them. Controlling the evolution of new expressions is as restrictive as controlling the usage of old expressions (since you mentioned 1984). Both are a form of thought-control and each is just as dangerous as the other. You refuse to use "Ms", yet since you are using computers, you are probably using other words which are even newer than "Ms", some of which will probably be even more "faddish" than "Ms" since the computer technology is evolving so fast. > > >>> I believe the word is clitoridectomy and there are Muslim women who defend > >>> the operation. The person who carries out the operation is a woman. As a matter of fact, we had a discussion on clitorectomies/clitoridectomies a few months ago on the net, and I tried to figure out at the time which one was the correct word of the two. I used clitoridectomy originally, but everybody else used clitorectomy, so I decided to check in my dictionaries. The only one which had either was a french dictionary. In french, the word is "clitorectomie". This + the fact that everybody else used "clitorectomy" made me change to "clitorectomy". So, I would be very pleased if anybody could confirm which of the two words is the correct one, from a dictionary. Of course there are many women who defend the operation. The fact still remains that at the international level, it is mainly men who defend it, simply men are the ones who participate mainly in international affairs (UNESCO etc..). > Milady Quigley is one of the more outspoken contributors to this net > group and would have informed me of any impropriety on my part. Mr. > Perlow was presumptious to act on her behalf unless he is acting at her > request. I did not complain because I was away for a week. I spend a lot of time on the net and do not mind it at all if other people say things which I intend to say because that means less work for me. I do not think Mr Perlow was "acting on my behalf" but simply participating in the discussion. I think he would only be improper if he claimed incorrectly to be acting at my request, which he did not do. Knowing him, I can tell that he probably would not do such a thing, but even if he did, I would certainly point out that he was wrong. Sophie Quigley ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax,allegra}!watmath!saquigley
karl@osu-dbs.UUCP (Karl Kleinpaste) (04/16/84)
----------
S > I am not sure what in my reply to Milady Quigley's article "Rape in Lybia"
O > merited this ad hominem attack but if I was arrogant towards her, I
P > publicly apologize.
H
I Mr Martillo, I know you were kidding in your usage of "mylady" as a substitute
E for "Ms" in the rest of your article, but I nevertheless find your attitude
very disconcerting (to say the least). Since you realise that "miss" or "mrs"
Q are improper in this discussion and you feel the need for a address that does
U not reflect my marital status, you proceed to use one which is completely
I archaic and probably insulting to the women it refers to, even though there
G exists an address which is acceptable and widely used in our current society.
L I do not want to insult you, but I think this tells us a lot about you: you
E will continue to call us women as you damn well please with no consideration
Y whatsoever to our feelings on the matter.
----------
I don't know if I really want to get into this argument, but I am really
bothered that people get so upset over the titles by which they are addressed.
I have been known to use "milady" more than twice, though I usually think of
it, written, as "m'lady." In particular, I use it when talking with my wife
on occasion. I also use it with a number of my close female friends. It is
not, as Sophie Quigley suggests, intended to insult the women to whom it
refers; on the contrary, it denotes extremely high respect. Yes, it is
a bit archaic, but some of the most beautiful of language constructions
have gone down the tubes due to the need for more concise, though frequently
less clear, modern terms.
I also use "sir" with considerable frequency, even in casual conversation with
my friends. It does not denote anything negative; again, it indicates that I
have a great deal of respect for the person with whom I am speaking. Am I
to be viewed as sexist because I use "sir?"
It seems to me that, if people are going to be upset with terms which indi-
cate one's marital status, they should be equally upset with terms that de-
note sex in the first place. (Hence, I suppose, the creation of the term
"chairperson," which sounds incredibly weak to my ear, and indicates to
me merely that the chairman is a woman. "Chairman," to me, indicates
neither sex, but rather a position on a committee.) I suggest that the
term "Ms." is sexist on this basis, because it clearly delineates that
the person to whom one is referring is a woman. In most contexts, that
information is superfluous; so how do people defend that title's usage?
Perhaps a simple "M." would be more appropriate, for either sex? But
then one gets to the same point as one does with "chairperson," unless
one is using French, where it indicates a male...
There are a number of women who object to the term "Ms." anyway. My
wife happens to be among them, as are several of my close female friends.
They wish to be known as "Miss," "Mrs," or some other term (some of which
are humorous, which they use for the simple reason of avoiding "Ms.").
Are women to be considered sexist if they don't like "Ms.?"
What I'm getting at is this: the term used to describe a person very
seldom indicates any particular position for or against that person.
If it's used in a context that clearly indicates disrespect, then per-
haps there is a problem. But, in general, determining context is very
touchy anyway. Example: "Sam's a bi--h." That sounds incredibly dis-
respectful, even obscene; what is missing is the fact that I'm explaining
to someone that Sam is actually Samantha, and she is (or, rather, was)
a beagle I used to have; hence, the term used is completely correct,
if rather unusual today. Even the context is inadequate here. Where
does one draw the line? No matter where one draws it, I can't
see how it will be anything but arbitrary.
P.S. NOTE NEW ADDRESS
--
"Confusion will be my epitaph." -- King Crimson, 1969
Karl Kleinpaste @ Bell Labs, Columbus
accessible as cbosgd!osu-dbs!karl but
*much* better as {cbosgd,rlgvax,ihnp4}!cbrma!kkjulian@deepthot.UUCP (Julian Davies) (04/17/84)
The custom for several centuries among Quakers, who have some claim
to have *practiced* a lot more sexual equality in social roles etc
than has been common in Western cultures, is to use first and last
names without any Mr Mrs Ms M Sir Madame Dr Rev Prof or any other
titles. I have to confess that I don't always stick to this plain
language in non-quaker contexts.
As for 'chairperson' I think my preferred usage would be
"so and so {was | took} the chair" or "... chaired the meeting/cttee".
Julian Davies uwo!julianedhall@randvax.ARPA (Ed Hall) (04/19/84)
+ I sometimes call a very close friend of mine `cutie'; she often returns the favor by addressing me in the same way. (In fact, she started the practice!) But I wouldn't think of calling someone I didn't know `cutie', or `milady' or any such familiar term. Not in private, and especially not in public (like on USENET). Even though `milady' is obstensively a term of utmost respect, I find its inappropriate use here implies sarcasm, and thus disrespect. I think Sophie was being generous in considering this as `humor'. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall