"Rick Merrill" <rick0.merr...
@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
The words may have had that meaning at one time,
> > The first place to start in terms of women "accepting gifts" is the
> > wedding ring. Nice as it is, it marks women as objects and places a
> > sort of monetary value and social designation on them -- much like
> > taking the man's name. Some sort of call for "mutual rings" would go a
> > long way in balancing the gift thing you're referring to. However, I
> > don't see this as becoming mainstream!
> "objects"? Hah! The wedding classic, "who givith this woman
> in marriage" clearly STILL demarks the woman as * property * to be cared
> for - "husbanded" if you will.
but it's clear that people continue to use traditional
words long after their original meaning no longer applies.
You may be an athiest, yet you may still say "bless you"
when someone sneezes. This is a contraction of "God
bless you", yet it does not mean that you really believe
God will bless the person. Others say Gesundheit, many
without knowing what it means (it's German for "health"),
but it does not mean that you think the person will get
healthy just because you wish it.
Every piece of paper money in the US has "In God we
Trust" printed on it, and you use that money, but it does
not mean that you believe in God, nor does it mean that
we have a state Religion. We use these words today
because they are traditional, but we don't "mean" them.
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femin...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-requ...@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.