Sexist Magazine Titles?
wag...@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
>Just for fun, I'd like to ask the horsewomen out there if they are
>bothered/offended by the fact that the titles of two of the more
>popular horse magazines ignor them as readers/horse owners, i.e.,
>"Western HorseMAN" and "Practical HorseMAN." I read somewhere that
>readership for each is more than 80 percent female. ......
Hi Robin!
Well, I'm comfortable in my own female skin and I couldn't care
less what the "titles" are.
Mary Beth Wagoner
Stockport, OH USA
Martha Sellers
>"Western HorseMAN" and "Practical HorseMAN." I read somewhere that
I usually refer to myself as a rider, occasionally as a
horsewoman or a horseperson. I never call myself a horseman,
because if a foreigner asked me to define the word, i would
say "a horseman is a a man who rides horses."
I suspect that most will respond that man also means
mankind, (there isn't exactly a lot of overlap with
readership on soc.feminism ;-) I prefer the term person
which doesn't have two meanings. But then I try to be
careful with language, working in a male-dominated industry
with a lot of subtle power games which are expressed in the
common language.
But frankly, after a day at my job (I work in institutional
finance), I find the riding arena to be a wonderfully level
playing field ;-)
Martha
--
Martha Sellers
Oakland, California
m_se...@riem.com
C.M.Newell
>From: rob...@college.antioch.edu (Robin Weinstein)
>Subject: Re: Sexist Magazine Titles?
>Date: 19 Jan 1995 20:50:09 -0500
>Just for fun, I'd like to ask the horsewomen out there if they are
>bothered/offended by the fact that the titles of two of the more
>popular horse magazines ignor them as readers/horse owners, i.e.,
>"Western HorseMAN" and "Practical HorseMAN." I read somewhere that
>readership for each is more than 80 percent female. Hummm.;-)
>What are some alternative gender neutral titles that would work that
>aren't already in use?
>Robin Weinstein, a horseMAN of a different sex!
No, I don't believe those terms are "sexist", anymore than I think
"manhole cover" is sexist. Aren't there a lot more important issues out there
in the world than this?
Sue Weber
>Just for fun, I'd like to ask the horsewomen out there if they are
>bothered/offended by the fact that the titles of two of the more
>popular horse magazines ignor them as readers/horse owners, i.e.,
>"Western HorseMAN" and "Practical HorseMAN." I read somewhere that
>readership for each is more than 80 percent female. Hummm.;-)
>
than horsewoman. I think this gender neutral stuff is getting ridiculous.
And no one better call me a cowgirl or worse yet, a cowwoman. At one
time in my life I've been a Freshman, occasionaly I've been a chiarman,
once wanted to be a fireman, and have always worked on an off as a cowboy.
And someday, perhaps, I will have learned enough to use the term horseman to
apply to myself without feeling a bit pretensious or out of my league.
Anyway, just the humble opinion of someone who thinks all the PC stuff
has gotten way out of hand.
Sue
>What are some alternative gender neutral titles that would work that
>aren't already in use?
>
>Robin Weinstein, a horseMAN of a different sex!
--
Sue Weber | I don't ride the barebacks like before,
PWRA | Too old to run from bulls anymore,
Tommorow may be painful but | I'm still gettin on, ridin saddle bronc,
tonight were gonna fly!! | Tryin is worth hurtin' for... Tony Glenn
Emilie
(snip)
> Anyway, just the humble opinion of someone who thinks all the PC stuff
> has gotten way out of hand.
> Sue
> Sue Weber | I don't ride the barebacks like before,
> PWRA | Too old to run from bulls anymore,
> Tommorow may be painful but | I'm still gettin on, ridin saddle bronc,
> tonight were gonna fly!! | Tryin is worth hurtin' for... Tony Glenn
>
>>>>
Language defines how we think. It wasn't so long ago that everyone
thought "black" was a ridiculously "pc" word for "Negro." It wasn't that
long ago that "moron," "imbecile" and "idiot" were actual medical terms.
It hasn't been that long since everyone said "crippled" instead of "disabled."
New words always sound odd at first, but attempts to improve the accuracy
of a language seem to me to be good. Off topic, I know...."horse people"
is what I usually say.
Emilie
ecar...@teleport.com
http://www.teleport.com/~ecartoun/
Tivers
>thought "black" was a ridiculously "pc" word for "Negro." It wasn't that
>long ago that "moron," "imbecile" and "idiot" were actual medical terms.
>It hasn't been that long since everyone said "crippled" instead of
"disabled."
>New words always sound odd at first, but attempts to improve the accuracy
>of a language seem to me to be good. Off topic, I know...."horse people"
>is what I usually say.
I agree that language can greatly influence thinking, but clarity of
language is far more important than sociobabble that tries to engineer
human behavior. What you get then are words that are actually lies in and
of themselves.What's most important is that the person you're talking to
receives an accurate, honest communication. For example, you wouldn't tell
someone "I don't want to buy your horse because he's disabled."
ti
Tom Ivers
WARNING: All Email posts to this address are subject, at my discretion, to
reposting to the entire net.
Tivers
One thing that we know for sure is that there are at least two sexes in
the world, and these sexes see almost everything differently. For example,
I recently faxed the local television station this message:
"Whatever happened to the TV Weatherman? And why have all these
out-of-work Meaty Urologists taken over the job? Is this some kind of
rehabilitation program?"
Emilie
Emilie wrote (adding her own attribution):
> >Language defines how we think. It wasn't so long ago that everyone
(blah blah blah, what I wrote)
> >New words always sound odd at first, but attempts to improve the accuracy
> >of a language seem to me to be good. Off topic, I know...."horse people"
> >is what I usually say.
>
>.... but clarity of language is far more important than sociobabble that tries to engineer
> human behavior. What you get then are words that are actually lies in and
> of themselves.
(snip)
> ti
>
> Tom Ivers
> WARNING: All Email posts to this address are subject, at my discretion, to
> reposting to the entire net.
>
>>>>
Accuracy, exactly. So is it more accurate to speak of "horsemen" or "horse
people" when referring to riders? How is that a lie, and in what way does it
try to engineer human behavior?
Emilie
ecar...@teleport.com
http://www.teleport.com/~ecartoun/
Tivers
"horse
>people" when referring to riders? How is that a lie, and in what way
does it
>try to engineer human behavior? Emilie
What's great about the English language is its richness. The term
"horseman" is a generic term, like "mailman", "postman", "milkman",
"policeman", etc. If you're talking about a specific individual, and that
individual is female, then "horsewoman" is the appropriate term, not, for
example, "female horse person". Substitute generic terms may eventually
evolve that don't offend feminists, but they'll evolve, they won't be
forced by political pressure. Many of the politically correct terms of
today are simply ridiculous.
ra...@lehigh.edu
Yes, English is rich, and that's one of the reasons to use an easy-to-
think-of phrase like "horse people" (or "letter carrier," "police officer,"
"fire fighter," "barrel racer," "jockey," "eventer," etc). No one is
going to use "female horse person" because of the number of syllables,
when "horsewoman" is available. When I got my PhD in English in 1972,
words of the "-----man" variety were beginning to be recognized as
contributing to the "marginalization" of women. I think the pivotal
experience for me was to have read, in a woman graduate student's 1973
paper, how the poem "speaks to me and all other men." IMHO, truly
"generic" words are like "homo" in Latin: for a man there's "vir,"
for a woman there's "femina," for a human being there's "homo." And
for horsepeople there's "equestrians."
Emilie
(snip)
> Opening your post with your credentials evidences, to me, insecurity
> rather than authority.
(snip)
> ti
>
>
> Tom Ivers
> WARNING: All Email posts to this address are subject, at my discretion, to
> reposting to the entire net.
>
>>>>
Hmm. Aren't you the one who opened a post with
"I have written seven books and produced x number
of videos?"
Emilie
ecar...@teleport.com
http://www.teleport.com/~ecartoun/
Kathleen Hunt
Pam Kernan <p...@bilbo.suite.com> wrote:
>At the risk of getting flamed my response is who cares what the name
>of the magazine is. [...]
>
>I for one would probably not subscribe to a magazine called
>Pratical Horseperson [...]
Isn't there a contradiction here?
Kathleen
--
If we increase the size of the penguin until it is the same height as
the man and then compare the relative brain size, we now find that the
penguin's brain is still smaller. But, and this is the point, it is
larger than it *was*. (Monty Python)
Tivers
>- Pam
Right on!
ra...@lehigh.edu
>>Yes, English is rich, and that's one of the reasons to use an easy-to-
>>think-of phrase like "horse people" (or "letter carrier," "police
>officer,"
>>"fire fighter," "barrel racer," "jockey," "eventer," etc).
>
>language. Usage defines the language. Politics, for the most part, does
>not.
>Opening your post with your credentials evidences, to me, insecurity
>written, how many have read your work, how many have walked away with a
>clear understanding of your message, and how many have gained valuable
>information that they can, in turn, put to use while spreading it to
>others? And when that information is passed on, is it in the same language
>you used initially?
>ti
>
>
>Tom Ivers
>WARNING: All Email posts to this address are subject, at my discretion, to
>reposting to the entire net.
>
I didn't open with my credentials; "PhD" doesn't appear until the middle
of my post. As for insecurity, hmmm . . . No. I mentioned the degree
because it authorizes me to speak of English-language usage as an expert.
My 2 books and 40-something articles are not, I think, relevant here
because they're mostly about literature, not horses (though I have
written about Anne McCaffrey's dragons, which she told me are modeled
on horses).
Horses. We're writing about horses here. One of the pleasant things
about horses is that their communication includes but isn't limited to
words. I bet that, if you asked a bunch of horses about "horsepeople"
versus "horsemen," they'd opt for the former --because some humans
don't like to be lumped into "----men" words, and horses in general
like keeping all the members of the herd happy.
Rosemarie
(in PA)
Tivers
>"I have written seven books and produced x number
>of videos?"
That was a response to a one-lady lynch mob.
Tivers
>versus "horsemen," they'd opt for the former --because some humans
>don't like to be lumped into "----men" words, and horses in general
>like keeping all the members of the herd happy.
Well, you've got me there. I didn't know horses could read. I showed a
copy of Practical Horseman to Jim Bob and he slobbered on it. I guess
you're right. Have you been explaining all this to him when I wasn't
looking?
By the way, now that I know that you've produced something useful (I hope
your books weren't "liberation" tracts) with your PhD, I'll concede your
right to argue about English usage. When Strunk & White comes out against
Practical Horseman, I'll concede the entire argument. 'Til then, I'll
continue to avoid cluttering my language with PC niceties.
shbur...@desire.wright.edu
> Robin Weinstein (rob...@college.antioch.edu) wrote:
> : Just for fun, I'd like to ask the horsewomen out there if they are
> : popular horse magazines ignor them as readers/horse owners, i.e.,
> : "Western HorseMAN" and "Practical HorseMAN." I read somewhere that
> : readership for each is more than 80 percent female. Hummm.;-)
>
>
> I for one would probably not subscribe to a magazine called
> Pratical Horseperson because I think such terminology is stupid.
>
> - Pam
Would you subscribe to Practical Equestrian? That's a pre-existing non-sexist
term for you.
By the way, I'm not offended by the term "horseman," but I don't refer to
myself as such.
Stacey Burright
shbur...@desire.wright.edu
Melinda Shore
>By the way, now that I know that you've produced something useful (I hope
>your books weren't "liberation" tracts) with your PhD, I'll concede your
>right to argue about English usage. When Strunk & White comes out against
>Practical Horseman, I'll concede the entire argument. 'Til then, I'll
>continue to avoid cluttering my language with PC niceties.
The use of the phrase "PC" is tantamount to waving a big
sign that says "I don't think clearly," which is certainly
supported by the rest of the content of your post. Most
current guidelines for writers that I've seen, from the
Chicago Manual of Style to the American Psychiatric
Association Guidelines (which have been adopted for use by
a number of other professional associations) make it quite
clear that gender-specific pronouns should be used whenever
possible. It's really not that hard to do, even for those
with modest writing skills, and it does far more good than
harm (unless, of course, your primary interest is in
marginalizing women).
The only writer's guidelines I've seen that specifies the
use of male pronouns as generic was a secretarial handbook
published in 1946.
--
Melinda Shore - No Mountain Software - sh...@tc.cornell.edu
I don't speak for Cornell.
If you send me harassing email, I'll probably post it
pste...@mcube.com
To: INTERNET: robwein@college
Subject: Re: Sexist Magazine Title
IR>Just for fun, I'd like to ask the horsewomen out there if they are
>bothered/offended by the fact that the titles of two of the more
>popular horse magazines ignor them as readers/horse owners, i.e.,
>"Western HorseMAN" and "Practical HorseMAN." I read somewhere that
>readership for each is more than 80 percent female. Hummm.;-)
IR>What are some alternative gender neutral titles that would work that
>aren't already in use?
IR>Robin Weinstein, a horseMAN of a different sex!
Hi Robin! For myself, I am proud to consider myself a horseman.
I don't think there is any reason to say "horsewoman" or some other
gender-specific term. Horseman is all inclusive of those individuals
who have experience and the expertise to handle and manage horses.
penny, a soggy central California horseman with thoroughbreds
---
ş OLX 1.53 ş Press "+" to see another tagline.
--
Mainframes, Minis & Micros | Desert Jewel BBS & Online Mall
5630 District Blvd. #114 | Telnet to 204.212.36.4
Bakersfield, CA 93313 | FTP to 204.212.36.4
LandLine == 800-949-1959 | WWW to http:\\w...@204.212.36.4
Melinda Shore
Melinda Shore <sh...@tc.cornell.edu> wrote:
>[ ... ] make it quite
>clear that gender-specific pronouns should be used whenever
That should be "avoided." Apologies.
Linda Cowles @ PCB x5624
Stupid terminology? Frankly, I don't care **what** they call the magazine
as long as it carries information I need! But then, I am a _Praticle_
rider-type.
If they want to call it Practical Horseperson, I don't care. Practical
"Horseperson" is more accurate than "Horseman", but I'd rather see my
subscription $$$ go to timely articles than to revamping the title with
all that would entail.
--
Linda Cowles
Mentor Graphics Corp
San Jose, Ca
linda_...@mentorg.com
Richard Church
> The use of the phrase "PC" is tantamount to waving a big
> sign that says "I don't think clearly," which is certainly
> supported by the rest of the content of your post. Most
> current guidelines for writers that I've seen, from the
> Chicago Manual of Style to the American Psychiatric
> Association Guidelines (which have been adopted for use by
> a number of other professional associations) make it quite
> clear that gender-specific pronouns should be used whenever
> possible. It's really not that hard to do, even for those
> with modest writing skills, and it does far more good than
> harm (unless, of course, your primary interest is in
> marginalizing women).
You're missing the point.
Horsemanship (I have yet to hear of the term `horsepeopleship') relies
heavily on age-old traditions -- including the use of politically
incorrect language.
The word `horsepeople' has limited appeal because it has no historical
connection to the rich and coloured past of equine sports.
While you heart might be in the right place, you are deluding yourself
if you think horse enthusiasts are going to abandon or take a dim view
of traditional terminology just because external forces want to reform the
language.
We're talking about a group of people, whom by nature, don't like to
be pushed around -- especially by outsiders who can't be bothered
to learn their sport's heritage.
--
Richard Church (ak...@freenet.carleton.ca)
C.M.Newell
>From: sh...@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
>Subject: Re: Sexist Magazine Titles?
>...
>Frankly, it's been my experience that nobody even notices
>if you use "horseperson" or "equestrian" instead of
>"horsemen" in casual conversation or in casual writing.
>The objections arise when the issue is raised as an issue.
>--
> Melinda Shore - No Mountain Software - sh...@tc.cornell.edu
Actually, I've always felt that there was a qualitative difference between a
"horseman" and an "equestrian"in that an equestrian denoted a rider, but
a horseman was someone who was concerned with all facets of the creatures.
Just my imprssion, though. I never looked for confirmation from dictionaries
on this.
--C.M.Newell
BERTIE ROSE
> Actually, I've always felt that there was a qualitative difference between a
>"horseman" and an "equestrian"in that an equestrian denoted a rider, but
>a horseman was someone who was concerned with all facets of the creatures.
>Just my imprssion, though. I never looked for confirmation from dictionaries
>on this.
> --C.M.Newell
An interesting thread....I looked it up in "Random House". Both terms
are defined as one who rides horses. (Both sexes represented).
As for me....my philosophy has been "what's yours is mine, what's mine
I keep" on this gender specific question. Being female, I get to own
all the titles, while poor males are allowed only the masculine!
;-) -Bertie
**********************************************************
BERTIE ROSE, CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, CHICO
BR...@OAVAX.CSUCHICO.EDU
Amy Susan Garner
>In article <D3BAH...@freenet.carleton.ca>,
>Richard Church <ak...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>>While you heart might be in the right place, you are deluding yourself
>>if you think horse enthusiasts are going to abandon or take a dim view
>>of traditional terminology just because external forces want to reform the
>>language.
>Go figure. I thought that I am a horse enthusiast, and
>that the person who raised the issue is a horse enthusiast,
>and that the other people who are participating in the
>discussion are horse enthusiasts. Thanks for setting us
>straight.
>Frankly, it's been my experience that nobody even notices
>if you use "horseperson" or "equestrian" instead of
>"horsemen" in casual conversation or in casual writing.
>The objections arise when the issue is raised as an issue.
>--
> Melinda Shore - No Mountain Software - sh...@tc.cornell.edu
> I don't speak for Cornell.
> If you send me harassing email, I'll probably post it
I am trying to come up with more trully generic terms that I am
comfortable with using. I am somewhat uncomfortable using generic
terms that are strictly male. The words we have to describe a
concept do influence the way we think about them, IHMO. I consider
myself a horseperson, a rider, a horse lover, etc. But I am not a
man, don't think much like most men, don't act much like most men,
and don't really want to. Unfortunately, horsewoman reminds me of
all those women's magazines spouting off about fashion, that perfect
diet (at last!), and great sex. Aaah, the perils of consumerism!
(That's why I have sooo much neat stuff for my horse! :) )
Amy S. Garner
Abby Zidle
: You're missing the point.
[about M. Shore's statement that "horseman" and other "-man" terms
marginalize women]
: Horsemanship (I have yet to hear of the term `horsepeopleship') relies
: heavily on age-old traditions -- including the use of politically
: incorrect language.
: The word `horsepeople' has limited appeal because it has no historical
: connection to the rich and coloured past of equine sports.
It seems to be a weak argument at best to maintain that because riders
have _traditionally_ used the term "horsemanship" that it should continue
to be used regardless of any ill effects. I'm fascinated by this whole thread,
but a bit concerned that so few people have addressed the reason behind
attempting to institute gender-neutral language: because using the term
"horseman" implicitly excludes half the population and suggests (though not
intentionally) that it is impossible for women to participate in the
activities of "horsemanship."
Many people have addressed this point indirectly in their postings about
whether they are personally offended/alienated/irritated by one version
or the other. I also acknowledge that the editors who titled _Practical
Horseman_ most likely did not sit around saying, "What can we name this
mag to get all those crazy broads out of the field?" Nevertheless, the
use of male-only terms has a discouraging effect, over time, regardless
of the intentions of the user.
I think it's great that so many people aren't bothered by it, but I also
suspect that this attitude stems from the reduced frequency of such
terms. As more and more roles are open for women (and hence more and
more gender-neutral terms are created for such roles), the male-specific
terms that remain become, perhaps, less distressing.
: We're talking about a group of people, whom by
nature, don't like to
: be pushed around -- especially by outsiders who can't be bothered
: to learn their sport's heritage.
I don't think that asking for inclusion is tantamount to "pushing
around." I also don't think that people who prefer (or even insist upon)
gender neutral language are "outsiders"--branding them such seems to be
another way of producing the original effect of the "horseman" term.
This is in no way intended to flame Richard, whose post was strongly
worded but not hostile. Simply my $.02.
Abby Zidle
arz...@ucdavis.edu
Adrienne Regard
>> tiv...@aol.com (Tivers) writes:
>(snip)
>> Opening your post with your credentials evidences, to me, insecurity
>> rather than authority.
>(snip)
."I have written seven books and produced x number
.of videos?"
Maybe he knows whereof he speaks?
(-:
Adrienne Regard
Richard Church
> marginalize women]
>
>> heavily on age-old traditions -- including the use of politically
>> incorrect language.
>> The word `horsepeople' has limited appeal because it has no historical
>> connection to the rich and coloured past of equine sports.
> have _traditionally_ used the term "horsemanship" that it should continue
> to be used regardless of any ill effects.
Well then, what do you propose? Are we to legislate "horsepeopleship"
as a replacement? I very much doubt it would ever fall into common use.
The crux of the problem here is that terms either fall out of use or enter
the language on their own merit. The idea of engineering a language doesn't
take into consideration the historical context and habitual use of words.
Are we to ban the use of the word "frog" when referring to the underside
of horse's hoof because it degrades amphibians?
>I'm fascinated by this whole thread,
> but a bit concerned that so few people have addressed the reason behind
> attempting to institute gender-neutral language: because using the term
> "horseman" implicitly excludes half the population and suggests (though not
> intentionally) that it is impossible for women to participate in the
> activities of "horsemanship."
So appropriate the language. The word "queer" was used in a derogatory
context against gays until they appropriated the term.
If you're so upset about the root word "man", perhaps you should
campaign to have entrenched words like "horsemanship" changed to something
like "horsemunship".
> Many people have addressed this point indirectly in their postings about
> whether they are personally offended/alienated/irritated by one version
> or the other. I also acknowledge that the editors who titled _Practical
> Horseman_ most likely did not sit around saying, "What can we name this
> mag to get all those crazy broads out of the field?" Nevertheless, the
> use of male-only terms has a discouraging effect, over time, regardless
> of the intentions of the user.
> I think it's great that so many people aren't bothered by it, but I also
> suspect that this attitude stems from the reduced frequency of such
> terms. As more and more roles are open for women (and hence more and
> more gender-neutral terms are created for such roles), the male-specific
> terms that remain become, perhaps, less distressing.
>> We're talking about a group of people, whom by
>> nature, don't like to
>> be pushed around -- especially by outsiders who can't be bothered
>> to learn their sport's heritage.
> I don't think that asking for inclusion is tantamount to "pushing
> around." I also don't think that people who prefer (or even insist upon)
> gender neutral language are "outsiders"--branding them such seems to be
> another way of producing the original effect of the "horseman" term.
The equestrian world cherishes the strict adherence to established
and time-honored ways of doing things. One only have to look at
all the rules, protocols and traditions laid out for various equestrian
disciplines -- everything from codes of dress to standards of competition.
Changing words also means changing an entire mind-set.
--
Richard Church (ak...@freenet.carleton.ca)
Melinda Shore
>if you think horse enthusiasts are going to abandon or take a dim view
>of traditional terminology just because external forces want to reform the
>language.
Go figure. I thought that I am a horse enthusiast, and
that the person who raised the issue is a horse enthusiast,
and that the other people who are participating in the
discussion are horse enthusiasts. Thanks for setting us
straight.
Frankly, it's been my experience that nobody even notices
if you use "horseperson" or "equestrian" instead of
"horsemen" in casual conversation or in casual writing.
The objections arise when the issue is raised as an issue.
Melinda Shore
Richard Church <ak...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>The equestrian world cherishes the strict adherence to established
>and time-honored ways of doing things.
Nice of you to continue to speak for the entire equestrian
world. I do, too, you know.
>Changing words also means changing an entire mind-set.
While the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has been largely
discredited by linguists, there's no question that word
choice does reflect underlying assumptions. So, when
someone tells me that they'd rather continue to use
traditional but inaccurate language that is known to offend
people, they've just told me a considerable amount about
themselves.
Where I come from, the traditional response to "<X> bothers
me and this is why < ... >" is not "who cares?," but
rather, "I'm sorry, and I'll try to avoid giving deliberate
offense in the future."
Sue Weber
Just a random thought on the use of terms like horseman, etc., keeping
women from becoming full participants, etc. It seems to me that all the
most traditionally male endeavors that I can think of have no mention of
gender in their titles. Like it is common to use football player, instead of
footballman, although I know of only one woman in my life who ever played
at any organized level. People who build houses are either framers or
construction workers, but here again are few women. Out here in the big
oil communities we have a lot of roughnecks, pretty much all male. And
what about farrier or horseshoer. No mention of gender there, but the
ratio of men to women in that field is quite large. In two months I will
attend a seminar on how to increase women's participation in hunting. I'm
not sure if hunter is a term that replies only to males, though, as I have
seen the term huntress bandied about.
Sue
--
Sue Weber | I don't ride the barebacks like before,
PWRA | Too old to run from bulls anymore,
Tommorow may be painful but | I'm still gettin on, ridin saddle bronc,
tonight were gonna fly!! | Tryin is worth hurtin' for... Tony Glenn
Martha Sellers
>> [about M. Shore's statement that "horseman" and other "-man" terms
>> marginalize women]
>as a replacement? I very much doubt it would ever fall into common use.
>The crux of the problem here is that terms either fall out of use or enter
>the language on their own merit.
You are certainly right about terms moving into use/disuse
on their merit. Part of their merit is understanding how
others react and respond to those words. Melinda was
informing us how she felt when called a ___man.
My coworker would never refer to a fellow employee who is
black as "one of the boys" because he is aware that using
the term "boy" has very negative connotations about ones
position in the power structure. He didn't, until I
discussed it with him, understand that I felt that the term
"girl" is quite similar in its connotations. We now
communicate much better. No need to legislate.
I hear "horseperson" vastly more frequently than "horseman"
among the people I talk to, since, like P.H.'s readership,
we are mostly all women. So I think it is well on its way
to practical usage on its own merit. No imposition, no
legislation, just a desire to communicate.
ObHorsey: I know I have too many horses for a person with a
full time job, but I just got an offer to part lease a mare
that has done advanced 3 day... I can't tell you how
tempting it is! Someday I gotta quit this job so I can
really make progress with my riding!
Martha
--
Martha Sellers
Oakland, California
m_se...@riem.com
Abby Zidle
: >> The word `horsepeople' has limited appeal because it has no historical
: >> connection to the rich and coloured past of equine sports.
[then I responded:]
: > It seems to be a weak argument at best to maintain that because riders
: > to be used regardless of any ill effects.
: Well then, what do you propose? Are we to legislate "horsepeopleship"
: as a replacement? I very much doubt it would ever fall into common use.
: The crux of the problem here is that terms either fall out of use or enter
: the language on their own merit. The idea of engineering a language doesn't
: take into consideration the historical context and habitual use of words.
Again, I don't understand why you're saying we have to consider the
historical context/habitual use of words as more important than the
effect they have on members of the current population. No, I don't think
we need to legislate the use of particular words; I do think (as someone
mentions in a later post) that it is common courtesy to avoid offending
people when that is relatively easy to do. Yes, "horsepeopleship" is an
unwieldy term. Why not "equitation"? Or, heck, "horse sense"? Or some
other descriptive, non-gendered term of your choice?
: Are we to ban the use of the word "frog" when referring to the underside
: of horse's hoof because it degrades amphibians?
When the frogs start complaining about it, perhaps we should. Till then,
this analogy is dubious.
: If you're so upset about the root word "man", perhaps you should
: campaign to have entrenched words like "horsemanship" changed to something
: like "horsemunship".
Well, the point of this thread _is_ a campaign to change the entrenched word.
[cut a lot of my old post]
: The equestrian world cherishes the strict adherence to established
: and time-honored ways of doing things. One only have to look at
: all the rules, protocols and traditions laid out for various equestrian
: disciplines -- everything from codes of dress to standards of competition.
: Changing words also means changing an entire mind-set.
: --
: Richard Church (ak...@freenet.carleton.ca)
Again, you keep claiming that "the equestrian world" (note the inclusive,
gender-neutral terminology :-> ) would never go for such a change,
despite the fact that I am a member of that world, Melinda Shore is a
member...by virtue of being on this newsgroup, all posters who expressed
a preference for gender-neutral language are part of that world. It
seems, therefore, that though we may be proud and fond of our history,
we are not all as rigidly adherent to outdated traditions as your
generalization would suggest. What's wrong with changing a mindset?
Abby Zidle
arz...@ucdavis.edu
Richard Church
>>and time-honored ways of doing things.
> Nice of you to continue to speak for the entire equestrian
> world. I do, too, you know.
If the statement is accurate,..
>>Changing words also means changing an entire mind-set.
> While the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has been largely
> discredited by linguists, there's no question that word
> choice does reflect underlying assumptions.
Yeah, right. The word "awful" was originally a positive term,
meaning "full of awe". Strange how the significance of a
word can change over time...
> So, when
> someone tells me that they'd rather continue to use
> traditional but inaccurate language that is known to offend
> people, they've just told me a considerable amount about
> themselves.
By the same token when someone gets offended by the mere
presence of the letters M-A-N in a word, they've told me a
considerable amount about themselves.
> Where I come from, the traditional response to "<X> bothers
> me and this is why < ... >" is not "who cares?," but
> rather, "I'm sorry, and I'll try to avoid giving deliberate
> offense in the future."
Have you ever considered the possibility that the offended party
should lighten-up a little?
BTW, I happen to know for a fact that the founding publisher
of "Practical Horseman" bounced the name around first to see if
it was an acceptable choice. Well, surprize.
--
Richard Church (ak...@freenet.carleton.ca)
Susan Giles
In a previous article, ez04...@rocky.ucdavis.edu (Abby Zidle) says:
>Richard Church (ak...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>
>: You're missing the point.
>[about M. Shore's statement that "horseman" and other "-man" terms
>marginalize women]
>
>: Horsemanship (I have yet to hear of the term `horsepeopleship') relies
>: heavily on age-old traditions -- including the use of politically
>: incorrect language.
>
>have _traditionally_ used the term "horsemanship" that it should continue
>to be used regardless of any ill effects. I'm fascinated by this whole thread,
> but a bit concerned that so few people have addressed the reason behind
>attempting to institute gender-neutral language: because using the term
>"horseman" implicitly excludes half the population and suggests (though not
>intentionally) that it is impossible for women to participate in the
>activities of "horsemanship."
>Many people have addressed this point indirectly in their postings about
>whether they are personally offended/alienated/irritated by one version
>or the other. I also acknowledge that the editors who titled _Practical
>Horseman_ most likely did not sit around saying, "What can we name this
>mag to get all those crazy broads out of the field?" Nevertheless, the
>use of male-only terms has a discouraging effect, over time, regardless
>of the intentions of the user.
Hmmm... well, as a female lover of horses, I have to say that I'm not at
all offended by being referred to as a "horseman"... or competing in
"horsemanship" classes... The term has a long and beautiful history and
i'm not really all that much of a fan of reinventing the English language
to cater to new social trends...
I think that in horse circles, the women involved are tough enough that
they can deal with being alluded to as "horsemen"... granted, it IS a
contradiction, but, after all... do we really want to invite the gender
war into our barns? I certainly don't. Riding and caring for horses is
something that can be done equally by both sexes, so I think the original
term (which sounds the best, incidentally.. "horsepeople" is so... ugh) is
just fine.
And that's my two bits...
---Sue
--
Sue Giles -- uj...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca
___/\ ___/\
,/ > ____/\ ,/ >
________________X____/\ /\________X_____________
Donna Pattee
horse/equestrian related and more and more personal? Like maybe it should
be taken to e-mail or to some other more relevant newsgroup?
Please?
mcka...@maroon.tc.umn.edu
"girls", but my three younger sisters I still call "the girls". I'd prefer
to call a female western type rider a "cowgirl" or "cowboy" (nodding to Sue
Weber's choice) rather than a "cowwoman" or "cowperson". The phrase
"western rider" is neutral and is more about the horn on the saddle than
anything. It doesn't linguistically point to the cowboyness of the person
at all, if there's any there to point to. So I reserve the right to use
"cow"-terms for that special kind of person.
Figure, too, that "man" having one syllable, "woman" and "person" and
"rider" having two, there's economy in using "man" in a compound word
instead of any of the others. To me "chairman", "mailman", horseman",
"cabman", "policeman" can all be male, female, or even halfway through a
sex change. I don't think of the gender and don't hear it in the word.
In any case, I don't pronounce the "man" part of these compound words the
same as "man" standing alone. I pronounce it like "mun", as in <horsemun>,
<policemun>, etc.
Also, I'm not a boy, I'm a man, but don't want to be a cowman, I want to be
a cowboy. Anyone who raises cows can be a cowman. Not all of those are
cowboys.
I think some of the feminist concern over language is nutty. The best
example I can think of now is "history" being written as "herstory". Makes
me cringe everytime I see it. I think it's a bit too histrionc of them. Or
is that herstrionic?
Doug McKay
In Minnesota
definition: Cowboy cocktail = straight whiskey
Amy Bishop
this is considered old-fashioned, but I tend to believe that these words
are all inclusive of mankind, of which women are a part of. In my opinion,
we should focus more on the characteristics of horsemanship rather than the
political correctness of the term.
Adrienne Regard
>Hmmm... well, as a female lover of horses, I have to say that I'm not at
>all offended by being referred to as a "horseman"... or competing in
>"horsemanship" classes... The term has a long and beautiful history and
>i'm not really all that much of a fan of reinventing the English language
>to cater to new social trends...
I'd stayed out of this up to this point, but Susan's reflections are
interesting and provocative.
I'm not offended by "horseman" either. And I am offended by other
________man type terms. Why is that?
It may be because, regardless of the label, women dominate the
sport and activities I participate in.
It may be because, regardless of the label, the sport itself
separates the doers from the talkers on the basis of skill, not sex.
It may be because, as Susan mentions:
>... do we really want to invite the gender
>war into our barns?
I'm not sure and will have to think about it some more.
Of course, I use 'rider' more often than anything else. And I slangly
refer to our pony clubbers as "kids", generally. "A happy kid on a happy
horse". And I use kid instead of girl in an attempt to keep that particular
door open for the boys.
Adrienne Regard
Jessica Jahiel
I know a lot of riders -- or equestrians if you will. I know good
riders, bad riders, and so-so riders, beginner riders, (a very few)
expert riders.
I know very few horsemen -- of either sex. If you want an interesting
point to consider, how about this: one may be a good rider or a bad
rider, but one is either a horseman -- or one is not.
- Jessica
--
jja...@firefly.prairienet.org | Jessica Jahiel, Ph.D.
Voice: (217) 359-9880 | * Lessons * Training * Clinics *
FAX: (217) 359-9774 | Emphasis on communication
| between horse and rider.
===========================================================================
"God forbid that I should go to any heaven in which there are no horses."
-- R. B. Cunningham Graham
===========================================================================
Deb Tangen
>
>Hmmm... well, as a female lover of horses, I have to say that I'm not at
>all offended by being referred to as a "horseman"... or competing in
>"horsemanship" classes... The term has a long and beautiful history and
>i'm not really all that much of a fan of reinventing the English language
>to cater to new social trends...
>
>I think that in horse circles, the women involved are tough enough that
>they can deal with being alluded to as "horsemen"... granted, it IS a
>contradiction, but, after all... do we really want to invite the gender
>war into our barns? I certainly don't. Riding and caring for horses is
>something that can be done equally by both sexes, so I think the original
>term (which sounds the best, incidentally.. "horsepeople" is so... ugh) is
>just fine.
>
>And that's my two bits...
>
>---Sue
>
Sue, I agree with you wholeheartedly. When writing in proper English,
you use the term "he" or "him" when refering to an unknown, not because
it is politically correct but because it is grammatically correct. This
is bad because I know I"ve just misspelled some words here. Anyway,
if you go back to biblical times woman as a term came from man and is
included in "mankind" hence you don't need to also have the term
"womankind". So ladies lighten up and be good horsemen. Boy I hope
I didn't just start something. :-)
--
Deb Tangen
Grand Blanc, MI USA
af...@detroit.freenet.org
ra...@lehigh.edu
[And I just can't keep from responding]
[major snipping]
>Hmmm... well, as a female lover of horses, I have to say that I'm not at
>all offended by being referred to as a "horseman"... or competing in
>"horsemanship" classes...
Most horsewomen are 99% not offended by the occasional use of
"horsem*n" generically, but there's a significant difference between
using the term orally and privately (when it's "[HORS MUN]" or
"[HORS MIN]]") and defending the purposeful, public, and in-writing use
of an exclusionary term. As this thread goes on, the people who are
most adamant are those who insist on keeping the old usage.
>The term has a long and beautiful history and
>i'm not really all that much of a fan of reinventing the English language
>to cater to new social trends...
The activity of sharing one's life with horses has the history;
the term has changed considerably since its original use in oral English.
Remember, what the initial post was about is magazine titles and the
SPELLING of the word. In 1703-04 in the colony of Massachusetts, Sarah
Kemble Knight wrote of her horseback journey (alone!) from Boston to New
York City, and even varied the spelling of "horse" from page to page!
There is nothing sacred or even semi-permanent about "horseman."
> can deal with being alluded to as "horsemen"... granted, it IS a
>contradiction, but, after all... do we really want to invite the gender
>war into our barns?
But it's been in our barns all along, well before horsepeople
thought of calling themselves that. Think about stallions and mares
and geldings. Conventionally, stallions are dangerous but noble,
geldings are good guys, and mares are ______. (Fill in the first six
words that come to mind, and I bet that four of them are less than
complimentary!) E.g., "Mares are difficult, moody, uncooperative,
witchy [bitchy --if "witchy" isn't just a more socially acceptable
synonym], dishonest," and what else? I've even heard the woman owner
of one mare call another mare in the same herd a "slut" because the mare
in question, when she's in estrus, hangs out next to the fence
separating the mares from the geldings and makes inviting gestures.
In my experience, horses who behave sexually are excused if they're
stallions and derogated if they're mares. I'm not referring to how
owners value broodmares, but how horse people in general use value-
laden words when they're talking about intact horses. Anyone notice
this pattern and wonder about it?
Rosemarie
(who got very tired of people saying nasty things about mares and then
quickly adding "But Sprite's not like that" or "Sprite's an exceptio")
Emilie
(much snipped)
> Changing words also means changing an entire mind-set.
>
> --
> Richard Church (ak...@freenet.carleton.ca)
>
>>>>
Exactly. That's the whole point. Try it, it's refreshing.
Emilie
ecar...@teleport.com
http://www.teleport.com/~ecartoun/
Richard Church
>> ak...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Richard Church) writes:
>> Changing words also means changing an entire mind-set.
Let's try a little exercise, shall we?
If we look at the term "cowboy" we notice immediately that,
taken literally, it is grossly inaccurate.
The juxtaposition of the words "cow" and "boy" would seem
to imply that we have juvenile minotaurs running rampant
throughout the west! 8^)
Horrors of horrors, the term not only excludes women, but
men also!
Hmmm... Strange. Nobody seems to mind.
Men don't seem to mind being called "cowboys".
For that matter, neither do women.
I recently saw a program on the discovery channel
featuring a troup of self-described female cowboys,
who did stunt riding somewhere in california.
We can also look at the example of cowboy poets.
Their ranks happen to include women.
My point here is that the word "cowboy" is a word
that has matured -- it resists being picked apart.
It stands on its own merit as a term that exists
independently of its component words "cow" and "boy".
Male and female cowboys, alike, are proud to be associated
with their namesake.
If we apply the same kind of politically-motivated argument
used by those who dislike the word "horseman" to the
term "cowboy", we'd be left with ridiculous words like
"cowpeople", "cow-women" and "cowmen". I think no!
I very much doubt that the word "cowboy" will fall in
disuse any time soon. It is essential part of our equine
heritage.
Mike
such as "horseperson", what about that most blatantly gender specific
word "woman".
I demand that we immediately replace the reference to "man" with a
gender-neutral word such as "person".
Hence woman -> woperson
Oh dear, this too is gender specific as I find this offensive as well.
We must also replace theobviously male-oriented word "son" with
something suitable. Perhaps "child" is better.
Hence woman -> woperchild
But aren't we perilously close to infringing a trademark of a
well-known fast food company ?
Hence woman -> flamegrilledburgerchild
BTW, "horseperson" discrimates against daughters. It should be
called "horseperchild" - and surely calling someone "horseperchild"
will insulting them, when you originally intended a compliment !
I've a suggestion. How's about all you men & flamegrilled-
burgerchildren drop this topic and head rapidly back towards
equestrianism. Let's leave word mangling to alt.political.correct and
continue horse related discussions here.
{And for the female^H^H^Hinine readers, I did not mean to insult you by
referring to males as "men" and female^H^H^Hinine readers as f.g.b.c
If you were insulted by this line, then please read this whole post
again, noting that my tongue was firmly in my cheek throughout}
female -> feminine individual (?)
--
Mike
Andrew Bajorinas
>IR>Just for fun, I'd like to ask the horsewomen out there if they are
> >bothered/offended by the fact that the titles of two of the more
> >popular horse magazines ignor them as readers/horse owners, i.e.,
> >"Western HorseMAN" and "Practical HorseMAN." I read somewhere that
> >readership for each is more than 80 percent female. Hummm.;-)
>IR>What are some alternative gender neutral titles that would work that
> >aren't already in use?
>IR>Robin Weinstein, a horseMAN of a different sex!
> Hi Robin! For myself, I am proud to consider myself a horseman.
>I don't think there is any reason to say "horsewoman" or some other
>gender-specific term. Horseman is all inclusive of those individuals
>who have experience and the expertise to handle and manage horses.
I agree.
Please help stop this politically correct nonsense before it's too late.
It is CLEAR to the casual observer that the title Horseman uses the term "man"
in the same sense as it is used in MANkind. It is short (presumably) for
human. By trying to force a gender specific title you will only ensure that
people are wrong half the time!
==========================================================================
== The above opinions are my own. My employer thinks I am working. 8^) ==
== ==
== Andrew P. Bajorinas bajo...@perkin-elmer.com ==
== Perkin-Elmer Corp, Norwalk, CT ==
==========================================================================
== If evolution is outlawed | Never underestimate the power ==
== only outlaws will evolve! | of the internet Luke. -O W Kenobi- ==
==========================================================================
Mary McHugh
|> In a previous posting, Emilie (ecar...@teleport.com) writes:
|> >> ak...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Richard Church) writes:
|>
|> >> Changing words also means changing an entire mind-set.
|>
|> > Exactly. That's the whole point. Try it, it's refreshing.
|> If we apply the same kind of politically-motivated argument
|> used by those who dislike the word "horseman" to the
|> term "cowboy", we'd be left with ridiculous words like
|> "cowpeople", "cow-women" and "cowmen". I think no!
Gee, I always thought that the person responsible for the horses was a....
WRANGLER!
:-)
--
Mary McHugh
Newtown CT USA (mch...@watson.ibm.com)
"Look, strange women lying on their backs in ponds handing out swords is no
basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a
mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony." --
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Terry von Gease
of Straight Dope fame and one corner of my personal holy trinity. The
other two corners currently being occupied by Little Richard and Chuck
Berry.
In order to never offend, Uncle Cecil eschews the 'person' or 'people'
suffix in such linguistic stupidity as 'spokesperson' or the equally
nauseating 'chairperson' in favor of 'being' as in 'spokesbeing' or
'chairbeing'.
By using 'being', you can not offend and give the politically correct the
finger at the same time.
'Practical Horsebeing'. Don't you just love it?
--
Terry
t...@hpwtwe0.cup.hp.com You'll get further with a smile and a gun
than just a smile.
Shawn Hansen
Personally, I don't care if I'm a horseman, horsewoman, rider, equestrian,
etc., but I'm just curious to find out why one would use horseperson as
"genderly" correct for horseman, when "-son" alludes to the male
offspring? 8-) No flames please, just curious!
Teri
Neigh the Horse be With You
Kristen Anderson
>In my experience, horses who behave sexually are excused if they're
>stallions and derogated if they're mares. I'm not referring to how
>owners value broodmares, but how horse people in general use value-
>laden words when they're talking about intact horses. Anyone notice
>this pattern and wonder about it?
Gee. All we talk about around stallions (unless they're very good
stallions) is how long before they're going to get cut. Sure we talk
about our horses in human terms. It's fun. It's entertaining. We can
make pointed comments without gossiping about our friends. :-)
Besides, we talk about the geldings the same way, only we focus less on
sexual behavior and more on general looks and/or behavior. It's also fun
& entertaining, and as long as it doesn't set the horse up for unfair
discipline or abuse, I don't see anything wrong with it.
kand...@williams.edu 1 QH/TB, 2 mules, 3 ponies,
Williamstown, MA 1 donkey, cows, dogs, cat, etc.
Rowland Gosling
> Personally, I don't care if I'm a horseman, horsewoman, rider, equestrian,
> etc., but I'm just curious to find out why one would use horseperson as
> "genderly" correct for horseman, when "-son" alludes to the male
> offspring? 8-) No flames please, just curious!
>
I guess some of the glitz of our title "American Cowboy" would be lost
to American Cowperson! ;-)
I think I'll just hang with tradition: it's easier to remember.
Warmest Regards,
Rowland Gosling
American Cowboy Magazine
row...@cowboy.com
Susan Giles
In a previous article, ra...@Lehigh.EDU () says:
>Remember, what the initial post was about is magazine titles and the
>SPELLING of the word. In 1703-04 in the colony of Massachusetts, Sarah
Yes, I do recall... something about the magazine "Practical Horseman" was
mentioned. But I have to ask... would all these "posters" <never mind the
off-hand pun> be happier if they stretched it out to "Practical
Horsewoman" or "Practical Horsepeople" ?? I have no qualms about spelling
the world "Horsemun" aside from the fact that, grammatically, it's wrong.
We'd have to reinvent the word, and my point is that.. I don't think
anyone should BOTHER reinventing the word when it's functioning well
enough as it is. And if one person suggests using "Horsemyn" or some
other new-age feministic spelling of the English language, I think I'll go
through the roof. Hey... I just speak it!!
>>contradiction, but, after all... do we really want to invite the gender
>>war into our barns?
>
> But it's been in our barns all along, well before horsepeople
>thought of calling themselves that. Think about stallions and mares
>and geldings. Conventionally, stallions are dangerous but noble,
>geldings are good guys, and mares are ______. (Fill in the first six
>words that come to mind, and I bet that four of them are less than
>complimentary!) E.g., "Mares are difficult, moody, uncooperative,
>witchy [bitchy --if "witchy" isn't just a more socially acceptable
>synonym], dishonest," and what else? I've even heard the woman owner
Not necessarily so... where I used to ride, it was the mares that were
more well-loved because all the girls understood their moodiness.. =] The
two stallions were rather unpopular simply because they let their constant
hormonal drive get in the way when we were trying to work with them.. in
the ring or in the barn. But that's nit-picking, isn't it?
Is anyone else starting to tire of this thread? I am.
Bubye.
--
Sue Giles -- uj...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca
"All the world's a stage - all the men and women merely players..
We have our exits and our entrances.."
and this particular exit is mine.
ra...@lehigh.edu
>
>Personally, I don't care if I'm a horseman, horsewoman, rider, equestrian,
>etc., but I'm just curious to find out why one would use horseperson as
>"genderly" correct for horseman, when "-son" alludes to the male
>offspring? 8-) No flames please, just curious!
>
>Neigh the Horse be With You
>
The "son" in "grandson" does specify male relative, but the "son" in
"person" does not. In "horseperson" the whole word "person" comes
from Latin "persona," which means "role"; originally, "persona" meant
the mask that Greek actors (Sophocles' era) wore in plays (= dramatic
role) but the Latin word has since had its meaning expanded and
changed to "role in life" and the human being acting out that role.
Rosemarie (the English professor in PA)
Green
bit lonely there)
Cue instant flame-by-return:
It's all very well deciding to totally alter the language, but us Brits
are still having a bit of a struggle with the changes already made by
our friends across the pond. Please don't make it any worse! (BTW a true
Brit male ain't sexist, he's chivalrous!)
--
Regards
Phil Green
cs...@herts.ac.uk / P.G...@herts.ac.uk (and then some . . .)
** Ends **
Rowland Gosling
>
> The "son" in "grandson" does specify male relative, but the "son" in
> "person" does not. In "horseperson" the whole word "person" comes
> from Latin "persona," which means "role"; originally, "persona" meant
> the mask that Greek actors (Sophocles' era) wore in plays (= dramatic
> role) but the Latin word has since had its meaning expanded and
> changed to "role in life" and the human being acting out that role.
>
> Rosemarie (the English professor in PA)
Does that mean that a "horseperson" wears steel shoes, eats hay, and might
even crib the side of their bed at night? ;-)
Just wondering.
-wilber k.m.
> Personally, I don't care if I'm a horseman, horsewoman, rider, equestrian,
> etc., but I'm just curious to find out why one would use horseperson as
> "genderly" correct for horseman, when "-son" alludes to the male
> offspring? 8-) No flames please, just curious!
>
Seriously, "person" orignates (according to my dictionary) from the Etruscan
word "phersu", meaning mask. The "son" on the end has no more connection to
male offspring than the "son" on the end of "poison". "Person" evolved
from mask, to actor's mask, to character in a play, to it's current gender-
neutral meaning. (Not that the history of a word has any necessary connection
to its current meaning or implications. Just as a point of information.)
-wilber k.m.
>Enough petty squabbling.
...
>By using 'being', you can not offend and give the politically correct the
>finger at the same time.
>
>'Practical Horsebeing'. Don't you just love it?
>--
>Terry
Gosh, I would, except that a Horsebeing is... a horse.
Kathy W.