TOT: more info re under 11s football incident

[Bill Wright]

I spoke to Gail tonight. I didn't have the whole story before (I got it
via Gail's sister in law). Apparently there were no witnesses to the
'racial abuse'. The ref 'wasn't sure' what had been said. The black kid
fouled the white kid, who when questioned said he called the black kid a
twat. The black kid went to his dad and said he'd been called a black twat.

So on the basis of one child's word against another the whole of the
white kid's team were banned from the 'awards ceremony' despite having
come second in the whole tournament, and were refused the trophy that
would otherwise have been theirs.

This sort of 'guilty until proved innocent' attitude to racial abuse is
not going to help race relations, is it? We now have a team of little
footballers who've been given a reason to hate black people.

Bill

[Brian Gaff]

On the face of it it all sounds like a masive over reaction as well. after
all passions do run high in football and I'd have thought a little lee way
was needed. Its certainly not doing much to impress that there should be
justice in the world. Still a lesson in life that not everything is as it
should be I suppose.
I'm reminded of that Star Trek episode where there were two aliens both
hlf black and half white who hated each other as the sides were different
and opposite.

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:kmsdum$mqf$2...@speranza.aioe.org...

[Paul D Smith]

"Bill Wright" wrote in message news:kmsdum$mqf$2...@speranza.aioe.org...

++++++++++++++++
Do make sure that you file an accurate, and unemotional, account of what
happened. Point out the facts, that you dispute the accusation of the
racist comment, that your player has admitted what he said, but that nobody
other than the other child has heard, or claimed, a racist comment. It also
sounds like the ref rather lost control of the game and it is probably worth
gently suggesting some training/mentoring for the ref.

Finally point out how devastated your players were to be denied their moment
of glory because of this uncorroborated incident, especially since (and I
would hope the ref's report reflects this) they had to take part in a very
ill-spirited game. Contrast this with their other games which were (I hope)
played in the spirit intended.

Even if nothing comes out of it, it's important that this all goes on record
because when another team is on the receiving end, the league will have your
report to fall back on to show a pattern of behaviour of your opponents.

Far to often people "suffer in silence" and the culprits get away with it.
Paul DS.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 07:46:36 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
<Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On the face of it it all sounds like a masive over reaction as well. after
>all passions do run high in football and I'd have thought a little lee way
>was needed. Its certainly not doing much to impress that there should be
>justice in the world. Still a lesson in life that not everything is as it
>should be I suppose.
> I'm reminded of that Star Trek episode where there were two aliens both
>hlf black and half white who hated each other as the sides were different
>and opposite.

Didn't Gulliver on his travels encounter some people with a similarly
pointless disagreement over the deployment of boiled eggs?

Stupidity is not new. We just keep inventing new excuses for it.

Rod.

[Ian Jackson]

In message <ser3p8hjqlirgjr10...@4ax.com>, Martin
<m...@address.invalid> writes
>On Tue, 14 May 2013 05:18:31 +0100, Bill Wright <bi...@invalid.com>
>wrote:

>If there were no witnesses how do you know who to believe?

These days in the UK, where there are no witnesses and no tangible
evidence of any offence actually having been committed, the victim must
always be believed.
--
Ian

[Andy Champ]

On 14/05/2013 07:46, Brian Gaff wrote:
> I'm reminded of that Star Trek episode where there were two aliens both
> hlf black and half white who hated each other as the sides were different
> and opposite.

Star Trek had a very enlightened attitude to race. I remember one where
they had President Lincoln on (can't remember how he got there!) saying
to Lt Uhura "Ah, a beautiful negress" to which she replied "Thank you, sir".

She still had to wear a ridiculously short skirt though!

Andy

[charles]

In article <h6Gdncr00NU1mg_M...@eclipse.net.uk>, Andy Champ

but that was simply anticipatimng modern fashions.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <kmsdum$mqf$2...@speranza.aioe.org>,

Bill Wright <bi...@invalid.com> wrote:
> This sort of 'guilty until proved innocent' attitude to racial abuse is
> not going to help race relations, is it? We now have a team of little
> footballers who've been given a reason to hate black people.

Never been to a football match, Bill?

--
*Avoid clich�s like the plague. (They're old hat.) *

Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Sara]

In article <h6Gdncr00NU1mg_M...@eclipse.net.uk>,
Andy Champ <no....@nospam.invalid> wrote:

Enlightened? Ye gods. Referring to anyone's race or what you think of
their looks in that kind of environment is far from enlightened!

I keep telling my husband to refer to "women" rather than "ladies"
unless he'd call a man in their situation a "gentleman". Otherwise it
comes across as patronising and makes me want to punch people.

Ah. I feel better after that.

--
Sara

cats cats cats cats cats

[Sara]

In article <lf34p8lsnntsa2h88...@4ax.com>,
Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:

> Did you punch him or use your knee? :-)

;-)

[Roderick Stewart]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 12:08:28 +0200, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:

>>>
>>>If there were no witnesses how do you know who to believe?
>>
>>These days in the UK, where there are no witnesses and no tangible
>>evidence of any offence actually having been committed, the victim must
>>always be believed.
>

>Better than 50 years of women and girls being abused by amongst
>others an overpaid TV celebs.

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent
suffer". Sir William Blackstone, 1765.

We seem to have forgotten Blackstone's principle. Now, instead of
"innocent unless proven guilty", we have "Career destroyed by
well-publicised unproven accusation unless proven innocent or unless
you can afford to sue your accuser and demand a public apology".

Some accusations will be true, some won't be. The matter has to be
determined properly, with evidence, or there is no justice at all.

Rod.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 10:59:39 +0100, Sara
<sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>I keep telling my husband to refer to "women" rather than "ladies"
>unless he'd call a man in their situation a "gentleman". Otherwise it
>comes across as patronising and makes me want to punch people.

I was brought up to regard "ladies" as simply a polite way to refer to
or address female persons. In my experience they don't seem to mind.
Are you saying this has changed in the last 60-odd years? When was the
announcement? I guess you just can't please everybody the same way.

Similarly with female acting type persons, of whom I encountered
plenty in my previous career. Some of them hate being referred to as
actresses, arguing that they are simply actors who happen to be
female, while others actively prefer the distinction.

I have even had the experience of holding a door open for a young
female person (as any gentleman should) only for her to stand back and
wait for me to precede her. (She did smile though, which was nice).

Perhaps, as a mere man, I should simply accept that whatever I decide,
it will be wrong. :-)

Rod.

[charles]

In article <fa84p8hjifso4ofa0...@4ax.com>,

Roderick Stewart <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 10:59:39 +0100, Sara
> <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> >I keep telling my husband to refer to "women" rather than "ladies"
> >unless he'd call a man in their situation a "gentleman". Otherwise it
> >comes across as patronising and makes me want to punch people.

> I was brought up to regard "ladies" as simply a polite way to refer to
> or address female persons. In my experience they don't seem to mind.
> Are you saying this has changed in the last 60-odd years? When was the
> announcement? I guess you just can't please everybody the same way.

I understand from my B-i-L that it is considered "classist" to say "Ladies
& Gentlemen". but somehow beginning a speech with "You guys" doesn't seem
right to my ears.

> Similarly with female acting type persons, of whom I encountered
> plenty in my previous career. Some of them hate being referred to as
> actresses, arguing that they are simply actors who happen to be
> female, while others actively prefer the distinction.

in California, the unisex word "actron"

[Bill Wright]

Paul D Smith wrote:

> Do make sure that you file an accurate, and unemotional, account of what
> happened. Point out the facts, that you dispute the accusation of the
> racist comment, that your player has admitted what he said, but that
> nobody other than the other child has heard, or claimed, a racist
> comment. It also sounds like the ref rather lost control of the game
> and it is probably worth gently suggesting some training/mentoring for
> the ref.
>
> Finally point out how devastated your players were to be denied their
> moment of glory because of this uncorroborated incident, especially
> since (and I would hope the ref's report reflects this) they had to take
> part in a very ill-spirited game. Contrast this with their other games
> which were (I hope) played in the spirit intended.
>
> Even if nothing comes out of it, it's important that this all goes on
> record because when another team is on the receiving end, the league
> will have your report to fall back on to show a pattern of behaviour of
> your opponents.
>
> Far to often people "suffer in silence" and the culprits get away with it.
> Paul DS.

Gail is hopping mad. Apparently the team were told they would not
receive their trophy because there had been an 'allegation' of racial
abuse. It isn't justice really is it?

Luckily Gail is good at making a fuss.

Bill

[Bill Wright]

Martin wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 05:18:31 +0100, Bill Wright <bi...@invalid.com>
> wrote:
>

> If there were no witnesses how do you know who to believe?

I don't and nor does anyone else. So given that the case was unproven
why was punishment meted out?

Bill

[Bill Wright]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <kmsdum$mqf$2...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> Bill Wright <bi...@invalid.com> wrote:
>> This sort of 'guilty until proved innocent' attitude to racial abuse is
>> not going to help race relations, is it? We now have a team of little
>> footballers who've been given a reason to hate black people.
>
> Never been to a football match, Bill?
>

Yes I had the misfortune of attending such an event in 1966. It was at
Doncaster Rovers Ground. Harry Roberts, a criminal, had recently shot
and killed three policemen. The crowd were chanting his name to annoy
the police in the ground.

Bill

[Bill Wright]

Martin wrote:

>> These days in the UK, where there are no witnesses and no tangible
>> evidence of any offence actually having been committed, the victim must
>> always be believed.
>

> Better than 50 years of women and girls being abused by amongst
> others an overpaid TV celebs.

No it isn't actually. Being falsely found guilty and then punished is
severe abuse.

Bill

[Bill Wright]

Martin wrote:

>> I keep telling my husband to refer to "women" rather than "ladies"
>> unless he'd call a man in their situation a "gentleman".

What a foul, humourless, domineering nagbag you must be.

Bill

[Sara]

In article <fa84p8hjifso4ofa0...@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> On Tue, 14 May 2013 10:59:39 +0100, Sara
> <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >I keep telling my husband to refer to "women" rather than "ladies"
> >unless he'd call a man in their situation a "gentleman". Otherwise it
> >comes across as patronising and makes me want to punch people.
>
> I was brought up to regard "ladies" as simply a polite way to refer to
> or address female persons. In my experience they don't seem to mind.
> Are you saying this has changed in the last 60-odd years? When was the
> announcement? I guess you just can't please everybody the same way.

No idea - I'm in my fifties. Just out of interest, do you always refer
to men as "gentlemen?"

Socially, I don't mind, but in a professional situation it's appalling.

Very few people would call a man doing a certain job (for example) "the
accounts gentlemen" rather than accounts manager or whatever his job
title is (or even "Bob who looks after the finance"), but they seem to
think it's OK to call a woman doing the same job "the accounts lady"
which comes across as *very* patronising.

When I gave someone at work a bollocking for describing me to someone as
"the IT lady" one of the directors remarked "quite right, if someone
called me "the ** gentleman" I'd want to thump them." I have a job
title, if you're not sure what it is, use the same standard of fudging
you would for a man.

>
> Similarly with female acting type persons, of whom I encountered
> plenty in my previous career. Some of them hate being referred to as
> actresses, arguing that they are simply actors who happen to be
> female, while others actively prefer the distinction.
>
> I have even had the experience of holding a door open for a young
> female person (as any gentleman should) only for her to stand back and
> wait for me to precede her. (She did smile though, which was nice).
>

As above, social niceties are different.

> Perhaps, as a mere man, I should simply accept that whatever I decide,
> it will be wrong. :-)
>
> Rod.

[Bill Wright]

Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 10:59:39 +0100, Sara
> <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I keep telling my husband to refer to "women" rather than "ladies"
>> unless he'd call a man in their situation a "gentleman". Otherwise it
>> comes across as patronising and makes me want to punch people.
>
> I was brought up to regard "ladies" as simply a polite way to refer to
> or address female persons.

I would never say 'woman' or 'women' in a social context. It sounds so
bloody rude.

If someone pointed to my wide and said, "Is that woman your wife?" (or
whatever) I'll think they were uncouth in the extreme.

Bill

[Sara]

In article <kmtbdb$f8j$3...@speranza.aioe.org>,

LOL! You'd have to ask Rog, but then again maybe he likes that sort of
thing.

[Bill Wright]

Sara wrote:

> Very few people would call a man doing a certain job (for example) "the
> accounts gentlemen" rather than accounts manager or whatever his job
> title is (or even "Bob who looks after the finance"), but they seem to
> think it's OK to call a woman doing the same job "the accounts lady"
> which comes across as *very* patronising.
>

One of the fallacies of feminism is that apparently equivalent terms
used to address men and women have the same connotations. They don't.
'Gentlemen' is not the equivalent of 'ladies'.

Bill

[Sara]

In article <kmtdji$k28$5...@speranza.aioe.org>,

Why not?

[Sara]

In article <kmtbmp$f8j$4...@speranza.aioe.org>,

What do you or your wife find offensive about "woman" that wouldn't be
offensive about "man"? If someone asked me if "that man" (referring to
Rog) was my husband, I wouldn't find it at all offensive.

[JohnT]

"Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:kmtbdb$f8j$3...@speranza.aioe.org...

Martin didn't say that! And, AFAIK, he hasn't had an instant gender change,
either.
--
JohnT

[Ian]

In message <kmtbmp$f8j$4...@speranza.aioe.org>, Bill Wright
<bi...@invalid.com> writes

I always use woman/women, whether she's married to a Lord or not.

I also haven't called anyone "Sir" since I left school.
--
Ian

[Andy Champ]

On 14/05/2013 10:59, Sara wrote:
> Enlightened? Ye gods. Referring to anyone's race or what you think of
> their looks in that kind of environment is far from enlightened!

Did you watch it?

The Lieutenant was very good at her job. That was obvious if you
followed the programme.

She also happened to be young, beautiful, and black. (OK, this is
Hollywood; beauty wasn't by accident).

If I was new on that ship, and I had a communications problem, and
someone told me to go and see Lt Uhura about it, describing her as the
beautiful black woman would help me to find her. Telling me to go to the
clever one wouldn't.

Are compliments forbidden?

Andy

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <saramerriman-9B14...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Very few people would call a man doing a certain job (for example) "the
> accounts gentlemen" rather than accounts manager or whatever his job
> title is (or even "Bob who looks after the finance"), but they seem to
> think it's OK to call a woman doing the same job "the accounts lady"
> which comes across as *very* patronising.

Cross referencing to CountryFile, most of the farmers seem to refer to
their milking cows as 'ladies'.

Perhaps that's where cow-worker came from?

--
*IF A PARSLEY FARMER IS SUED, CAN THEY GARNISH HIS WAGES?

[c...@isbd.net]

Something about pots and kettles comes to mind....

--
Chris Green

[Sara]

In article <-o2dneQFRsC00w_M...@eclipse.net.uk>,

I did watch Star Trek, and I think Uhura was a beautiful woman.

The thing is though, in a work situation such comments made to anyone
are completely inappropriate. As a description of someone, given in a
private manner as in "she's the gorgeous black woman in the second row"
then, yes, I'd call that acceptable, in the same way that it would be Ok
to describe Spock as the "tall, handsome one with the pointy ears to the
left of the bridge." Or even - "God, I fancy that Uhura, she's
beautiful". Those are private comments between individuals.

Using that description to someone you'd never met, who you were asked to
send to Uhura would be unacceptable. "She's the woman at the
communications console" would be more appropriate.

I would also think it was out of order if someone came on to the bridge
and called Spock, to his face, "A handsome Vulcan".

Someone's attractiveness or lack of it should not be part of their job -
and should not be mentioned during it. Most people would think it was
rude if soemone wwnt to engineering and told Scotty he was "an ugly
Canadian pretending to be a Scot."

Work practice and social practice are very differnet things.

Would it be OK for the Lincoln character to smack her on the bum? After
all, it's only a compliment...

[PeterC]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 13:22:46 +0100, charles wrote:

>> Similarly with female acting type persons, of whom I encountered
>> plenty in my previous career. Some of them hate being referred to as
>> actresses, arguing that they are simply actors who happen to be
>> female, while others actively prefer the distinction.
>
> in California, the unisex word "actron"

Terms such as "actress", "waitress" etc. are sexist as they refer to one
gender; "actor", waiter" etc. refer to one who has that job (the "...ess"
can be useful if differentiation is required for particular circumstances).
A girlfriend always reckoned that a manageress was a woman who couldn't
manage.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

[Roderick Stewart]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 16:22:59 +0100, Sara
<sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>I would also think it was out of order if someone came on to the bridge
>and called Spock, to his face, "A handsome Vulcan".

Considering the situation is fictional, I would consider it well out
of order to worry about it at all.

>Someone's attractiveness or lack of it should not be part of their job -
>and should not be mentioned during it. Most people would think it was
>rude if soemone wwnt to engineering and told Scotty he was "an ugly
>Canadian pretending to be a Scot."

Rude, but true, and if you were to say "pretending extremely badly",
it would also be justified.

Rod. (a real Scot).

[Roderick Stewart]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 16:23:03 +0100, PeterC
<giraffe...@homecall.co.uk> wrote:

>Terms such as "actress", "waitress" etc. are sexist as they refer to one
>gender; "actor", waiter" etc.

So are "Mr", "Mrs", "Ms" etc, but we use them. What's wrong with
refering to someone's gender? It's a fact of life. What's the point of
trying to pretend it doesn't exist?

Rod.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 13:22:46 +0100, charles

<cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>I understand from my B-i-L that it is considered "classist" to say "Ladies
>& Gentlemen". but somehow beginning a speech with "You guys" doesn't seem
>right to my ears.

I've heard women and girls address each other as "guys". This seems to
be of american origin.

When we lived near Newcastle on Tyne, it seemed very odd indeed at
first to hear little girls addressing each other as "man", but in the
end I suppose it's just a matter of custom and fashion and doesn't
really matter.

Rod.

[Sara]

In article <f6n4p8dqql29pg64q...@4ax.com>,

Whether someone is Ms, Miss or Mrs isn't so much denoting what sex they
are as much as their marital status, which the title usually given to
men doesn't display.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 16:58:41 +0100, Sara
<sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>> >Terms such as "actress", "waitress" etc. are sexist as they refer to one
>> >gender; "actor", waiter" etc.
>>
>> So are "Mr", "Mrs", "Ms" etc, but we use them. What's wrong with
>> refering to someone's gender? It's a fact of life. What's the point of
>> trying to pretend it doesn't exist?
>>
>> Rod.
>
>Whether someone is Ms, Miss or Mrs isn't so much denoting what sex they
>are as much as their marital status, which the title usually given to
>men doesn't display.

It does denote what sex they are, and you can choose one that
indicates marital status if you wish. In many situations nowadays it's
not particularly important to know what sex somebody is, any more than
it matters how tall they are or what colour of hair they have, but
nothing terrible happens if you do reveal these things, so it seems
pointless to worry about it.

Rod.

[Ian Jackson]

In message
<saramerriman-C2D2...@news.eternal-september.org>, Sara
<sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes

Terms such as "actress", "waitress" etc not, in themselves, 'sexist' in
the usual meaning of the word. I would say that we should call such
descriptions 'genderist' - and as the word doesn't really exist, it's
about time that it did.

'Sexist' usually implies a denigration of the other sex, often with some
implied innuendo of their incompetence, lack of ability, lifestyle etc,
and is typically applied to females (eg 'bloody women drivers').

There's certainly nothing wrong with using the commonly-understood
feminine versions of job titles and functions - and where until now
something has been exclusively associated with one gender or the other,
it's perfectly OK to use prefixes such as 'lady', 'female', 'male' etc.
--
Ian

[Who, me?]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 16:22:59 +0100, Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:

> and should not be mentioned during it. Most people would think it was
> rude if soemone wwnt to engineering and told Scotty he was "an ugly
> Canadian pretending to be a Scot."
>

Wait, hang on there... he was a *Canadian*?!?!?!

Well, that's just ruined everything for me now.

David

[Paul Ratcliffe]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 13:22:46 +0100, charles <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

> I understand from my B-i-L that it is considered "classist" to say "Ladies
> & Gentlemen". but somehow beginning a speech with "You guys" doesn't seem
> right to my ears.

You could try "Listen up, plebs..." and see what reaction that gets.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <RMadnderKZYp5A_M...@brightview.co.uk>,

Pretty well every Canadian who isn't French is Scots.

--
*Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder *

[Bill Wright]

Well, it's not a thing to be explained in a few typed words. It's all
about social nuances, traditional usage, and the subtly of the language.
In brief and crudely, to my generation 'ladies' is just a conventional,
polite, quite neutral way of identifying females. It says nothing at all
about the females in question. Gentlemen has a slightly more complicated
inference. There is, in fact, a gap in the language for my generation: a
word that is the exact male equivalent of 'ladies'.

Bill

[Bill Wright]

Sara wrote:

> What do you or your wife find offensive about "woman" that wouldn't be
> offensive about "man"? If someone asked me if "that man" (referring to
> Rog) was my husband, I wouldn't find it at all offensive.
>

I wouldn't say it's offensive. Taking offence is the prerogative of the
modern liberal left, and they usually do it on someone else's behalf.

No, I'd say it's just a bit rude. Why I don't know. It's probably for no
better reason that that the word ladies is 'available'.

It IS illogical, I'll grant you that; but there it is.

Bill

[Bill Wright]

Ian wrote:

> I also haven't called anyone "Sir" since I left school.

When I was working I called my customers whatever they liked to be
called, whether it was Fred or Your Grace. It doesn't bother me.

Bill

[Steve Thackery]

Sara wrote:

> I keep telling my husband to refer to "women" rather than "ladies"

> unless he'd call a man in their situation a "gentleman". Otherwise it
> comes across as patronising and makes me want to punch people.

I'm a bloke in my mid-50s and I absolutely agree with that. "Lady"
*is* patronising when men in the same position are called "man" or
"men".

--
SteveT

[Steve Thackery]

Bill Wright wrote:

> What a foul, humourless, domineering nagbag you must be.

Nope - just enlightened, and hoping to enlighten her husband.

--
SteveT

[Steve Thackery]

Roderick Stewart wrote:

> I was brought up to regard "ladies" as simply a polite way to refer to

> or address female persons. In my experience they don't seem to mind.

You may not know. They may decide to put up with the
well-meaning-but-clumsy mumblings of an old man. They may well decide
to ignore it, rather than embarrass you by mentioning it. Or, if they
are of a similar age to you, they may prefer it.

> Are you saying this has changed in the last 60-odd years? When was the
> announcement? I guess you just can't please everybody the same way.

Oh, yes, it certainly has. And, let's be honest, so have countless
other social conventions. None are "announced", except those with
legislation behind them; they simply become the zeitgeist. If your
grandfather were alive now, he'd be very disappointed to find that you
do not finish your letters with "I remain, sir, your humble servant."

> I have even had the experience of holding a door open for a young
> female person (as any gentleman should) only for her to stand back and
> wait for me to precede her. (She did smile though, which was nice).

You mean you don't hold the door open for men, too? That is most
impolite, and very sexist. Here's the rule: treat people the same
regardless of their gender, EXCEPT when their gender is directly
relevant (for instance, a man can't become pregnant, so some social
conventions must discriminate on that basis). In EVERY other instance,
don't discriminate on grounds of gender. Or race.

I hope, Rod, that from now on you will hold the door open for men and
women equally.

--
SteveT

[Bill Wright]

Andy Champ wrote:

> If I was new on that ship, and I had a communications problem, and
> someone told me to go and see Lt Uhura about it, describing her as the
> beautiful black woman would help me to find her. Telling me to go to the
> clever one wouldn't.
>
> Are compliments forbidden?
>
> Andy

This morning I had to take father (94; recent stroke; cancer) to
hospital for a minor procedure. The nurse practitioner who carried it
out was marvellously kind to him, respected his dignity, and was so very
patient. Well beyond the call of duty. She also did her technical job
superbly well (I've seen far worse by the consultant). As it happened I
wasn't there for the last few minutes (phone dinged; urgent text from
sister; went out to ring her) and when I got back to the unit he was
dressed and all packed up and ready to go and in the waiting area in his
wheelchair. I took the paperwork to the desk and said to the girl, "By
the way, would you pass on my thanks to the nurse, for her kindness?"
"Oh yes, which one was it?"
Now I had a dilemma. I hadn't realised there were several nurses working
in parallel. I hadn't noticed the relevant girl's name badge. I grasped
the bull by the horns.
"The black girl."
The receptionist froze, her eyes wide open. She whispered, "All right,
thank you," and actually waved me away, like a smell. It was clear that
I'd made a major social gaffe.
Something is very wrong here.

Bill

[Steve Thackery]

Bill Wright wrote:

> I wouldn't say it's offensive. Taking offence is the prerogative of
> the modern liberal left, and they usually do it on someone else's
> behalf.
>
> No, I'd say it's just a bit rude. Why I don't know. It's probably for
> no better reason that that the word ladies is 'available'.

I agree - for people of your/our generation, "ladies" was a polite word
for "women", whereas "gentlemen" or "gentleman" implied some element of
social standing.

BUT, but, but..... at that time society was patriarchal (more than it
is now, I mean). In other words, by being more polite to women than to
each other, men were being patronising to women.

That is the very thing that nowadays renders "ladies" less acceptable
to modern women - it's a term that comes from a time when women were
patronised by men. At this point, please read the last two paragraphs
again, because I think you might not have considered this before.

Here is another example: I bet you wouldn't dream of calling black
people "darkies" or "coloured" these days.* My father (much to my
embarrassment) used both terms because he thought it was more polite
than "negro" (which, even then, was beginning to get an uncomfortable
feel to it). He meant no harm, but by today's standards (and even back
then) he was patronising the black people he was talking to/about.

* I don't know, Bill, whether you ever used those terms yourself; I
merely give them as an example. I also know that "coloured" has
another meaning in certain parts of the world, pertaining to mixed race.

--
SteveT

[Bill Wright]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

>
> Cross referencing to CountryFile, most of the farmers seem to refer to
> their milking cows as 'ladies'.

I can understand that. I always shout 'ladies, ladies, please desist,'
when Paul's female dogs fight over territory on my bed and mistakenly
bite my toes.

Bill

[Bill Wright]

c...@isbd.net wrote:

>> What a foul, humourless, domineering nagbag you must be.
>>
> Something about pots and kettles comes to mind....
>

You can't say I'm humourless. I'm always there with a merry quip.

Bill

[Bill Wright]

I usually start with, "Good afternoon everyone."

Bill

[Steve Thackery]

Bill Wright wrote:

> The receptionist froze, her eyes wide open. She whispered, "All
> right, thank you," and actually waved me away, like a smell. It was
> clear that I'd made a major social gaffe. Something is very wrong
> here.

You are right - something is profoundly wrong. It would seemingly have
been OK to say the "blonde" nurse, or the "tall" nurse, but not the
"black" nurse. I detest that.

Except you could say it - you were right and the receptionist was
wrong: she is about fifteen years behind the times, still living in the
time when we thought not being racist meant being "colour blind" (as it
was called).

When white people - like that receptionist - feel the need to whisper
the word "black", do they not realise how incredibly shaming and
patronising it is for people who describe themselves as black? As if
being black is something that shouldn't be mentioned?

I've got several black friends (some from African countries, some from
Jamaica) and I never hesitate to refer to their "black"ness whenever
it's appropriate or relevant. Strangely, they seem to appreciate
having it recognised, rather than pretending it doesn't exist (the
colour blind thing).

--
SteveT

[Norman Wells]

Would this fit the Bill, squire?

[Paul Ratcliffe]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:54:19 +0100, Bill Wright <bi...@invalid.com> wrote:

>>> I understand from my B-i-L that it is considered "classist" to say "Ladies
>>> & Gentlemen". but somehow beginning a speech with "You guys" doesn't seem
>>> right to my ears.
>>
>> You could try "Listen up, plebs..." and see what reaction that gets.
>
> I usually start with, "Good afternoon everyone."

Even in the morning and evening?

[S Viemeister]

On 5/14/2013 4:09 PM, Steve Thackery wrote:
> Bill Wright wrote:
>
>> The receptionist froze, her eyes wide open. She whispered, "All
>> right, thank you," and actually waved me away, like a smell. It was
>> clear that I'd made a major social gaffe. Something is very wrong
>> here.

I rather think it was the combination of "black" and "girl" which was
offensive.

[Ian]

In message <7f6dnVE-dKCxDQ_M...@bt.com>, Steve Thackery
<nob...@nowhere.com> writes

Perhaps it's the case that those men that call women ladies regard
themselves as "a real gent".
:�)
--
Ian

[Bill Wright]

I'm never up until noon and from 5pm onwards I'm too drunk to speak in
public.

Bill

[Bill Wright]

Steve Thackery wrote:

> Here's the rule:

When people tell me what the 'rules' are, when the 'rules' are just
those favoured by one section of the population, I tend to disregard
what they say.

Bill

[Sara]

In article <7f6dnVA-dKDZDQ_M...@bt.com>,

My Rog is a wonderful man, I wouldn't try to change him for the world*,
I was trying to help him avoid social gaffes.

Well, he could perhaps be a little tidier...

--
Billy doesn't clean his paws often enough. Mucky cat.

[Sara]

In article <eso4p8l78t6snq3fg...@4ax.com>,

True, and although there are gender-neutral titles such as Dr which
indicate neither sex nor marital status, I'm not advocating everyone
start using one. Wasn't everyone a Comrade in the USSR?

Privately/socially I'm perfectly happy to use Mrs but at work I only use
Ms.

[Sara]

In article <59k6p8ti0e6h694ts...@4ax.com>,
brightside S9 <address@replyto_is_not.invalid> wrote:

> On Tue, 14 May 2013 14:45:56 +0100, Sara
> <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >What do you or your wife find offensive about "woman" that wouldn't be
> >offensive about "man"? If someone asked me if "that man" (referring to
> >Rog) was my husband, I wouldn't find it at all offensive.
>
>

> 1. Is that man your husband?
> 2. Is that woman your wife?
> 3. Is that lady your wife?
>
> Is there a difference between between 2 and 3?
> Which do you prefer?

You've omitted:

4. Is that gentleman your husband?

--
Sara

cats cats cats cats cats

[Ian Jackson]

In message <88l6p8l7c1e1fdi1i...@4ax.com>, brightside S9
<address@replyto_is_not.invalid> writes

>Your failure to anser tells me you don't understand the difference
>between 2 and 3.

You've also omitted:
5. Is that man/gentleman/woman/lady your civil partner?
--
Ian

[Roderick Stewart]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 14:36:16 -0500, "Steve Thackery"
<nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>> I have even had the experience of holding a door open for a young
>> female person (as any gentleman should) only for her to stand back and
>> wait for me to precede her. (She did smile though, which was nice).
>
>You mean you don't hold the door open for men, too? That is most
>impolite, and very sexist. Here's the rule: treat people the same
>regardless of their gender, EXCEPT when their gender is directly
>relevant (for instance, a man can't become pregnant, so some social
>conventions must discriminate on that basis). In EVERY other instance,
>don't discriminate on grounds of gender. Or race.
>
>I hope, Rod, that from now on you will hold the door open for men and
>women equally.

Sometimes I do. In a typical corporate environment with lots of fire
doors it usually boils down to practicality, based on who happens to
be where in relation to the door, and whether one of you is wheeling
or carrying something.

The personal rule I adopt in cases of doubt is based on the Arthur
Ransome stories which I enjoyed as a youngster, and in which the rule
of precedence was "Steam gives way to sail". Steamships were more
manoeuevreable than sail on account of being less dependent on
uncontrollable forces, which is why they were expected to give way. My
modern interpretation of this is that if there are two of you
approaching a door, whichever one is less encumbered by wheeling or
carrying something, or has a greater number of free limbs, should open
the door for the other. I have found that applying this rule very
rarely leads to any hesitation, and when I happen to be the encumbered
party the other will usually open the door for me without any need to
request it, though I have never asked anyone if they were using a
mnemonic or mantra of any kind to help them decide.

It'll be interesting to see if this sort of situation is resolved
differently as people in corporate environments who have been brought
up on wholesome literature are gradually supplanted by those who have
spent their childhood playing aggressive computer games.

In my experience, the only people who acted as if they were unaware of
any precedence rule, assuming the right to barge through a door I had
opened to convey something through it, or to allow it to swing shut
behind them and directly in front of me, were managers, the female
ones being the worst. I wonder what sort of upbringing they had?

Rod.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 18:17:29 -0400, S Viemeister
<firs...@lastname.oc.ku> wrote:

>>
>>> The receptionist froze, her eyes wide open. She whispered, "All
>>> right, thank you," and actually waved me away, like a smell. It was
>>> clear that I'd made a major social gaffe. Something is very wrong
>>> here.
>
>I rather think it was the combination of "black" and "girl" which was
>offensive.

If she happened to be both those things, and in the absence of any
other details, it's difficult to see how you could describe her any
other way.

Prompted to think how I might have dealt with a similar situation, I
wonder if it might have helped to add a few superfluous details, as if
to point out that "blackness" and "girlness" were not the most
important ones. Would it sound better to say something like "Well, she
was about so tall, she was black, and had a nice smile"? Who knows.
People who are determined to take offence will manage it no matter
what you do.

Rod.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 23:17:40 +0100, Ian <ne...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

>>Sara wrote:
>>
>>> I keep telling my husband to refer to "women" rather than "ladies"
>>> unless he'd call a man in their situation a "gentleman". Otherwise it
>>> comes across as patronising and makes me want to punch people.
>>
>>I'm a bloke in my mid-50s and I absolutely agree with that. "Lady"
>>*is* patronising when men in the same position are called "man" or
>>"men".
>>
>
>Perhaps it's the case that those men that call women ladies regard
>themselves as "a real gent".

Is it still OK to address a group of people as "Ladies and gentlemen"?

Rod.

[Sara]

In article <88l6p8l7c1e1fdi1i...@4ax.com>,

brightside S9 <address@replyto_is_not.invalid> wrote:

> On Wed, 15 May 2013 10:26:24 +0100, Sara
> <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>

> Your failure to anser tells me you don't understand the difference
> between 2 and 3.

I thought it was unneccessary. I have already made by views quite clear.
I find the term 'lady' when used about a woman in a way that would not
be the same for a man being called 'gentleman' patronising.

Why did you not include "Is that gentleman your husband?"

[Sara]

In article <shn6p89r6horc2e7n...@4ax.com>,

Oh gods... don't get me started on calling grown women girls... If she
was a fully qualified nurse, she's unlikely to be a girl. Were the nurse
in question male, would you call him the black boy?

[Sara]

In article <n7o6p8lhtuqinra86...@4ax.com>,

Yes, I'd say so. You're not treating one half of the group differently
to the other.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 11:38:34 +0100, Sara
<sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>> >>
>> >> 1. Is that man your husband?
>> >> 2. Is that woman your wife?
>> >> 3. Is that lady your wife?
>> >>
>> >> Is there a difference between between 2 and 3?
>> >> Which do you prefer?
>> >
>> >You've omitted:
>> >
>> >4. Is that gentleman your husband?
>>
>>
>> Your failure to anser tells me you don't understand the difference
>> between 2 and 3.
>
>I thought it was unneccessary. I have already made by views quite clear.
>I find the term 'lady' when used about a woman in a way that would not
>be the same for a man being called 'gentleman' patronising.
>
>Why did you not include "Is that gentleman your husband?"

Perhaps we should just cover all eventualities with "Is that sentient
lifeform associated with you in any way?"

(In some cases it might be necessary to precede it with "Is that a
sentient lifeform?", but these should be rare).

Rod.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 11:41:11 +0100, Sara
<sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>> >>
>> >>> The receptionist froze, her eyes wide open. She whispered, "All
>> >>> right, thank you," and actually waved me away, like a smell. It was
>> >>> clear that I'd made a major social gaffe. Something is very wrong
>> >>> here.
>> >
>> >I rather think it was the combination of "black" and "girl" which was
>> >offensive.
>>
>> If she happened to be both those things, and in the absence of any
>> other details, it's difficult to see how you could describe her any
>> other way.
>>
>> Prompted to think how I might have dealt with a similar situation, I
>> wonder if it might have helped to add a few superfluous details, as if
>> to point out that "blackness" and "girlness" were not the most
>> important ones. Would it sound better to say something like "Well, she
>> was about so tall, she was black, and had a nice smile"? Who knows.
>> People who are determined to take offence will manage it no matter
>> what you do.
>>
>> Rod.
>
>Oh gods... don't get me started on calling grown women girls... If she
>was a fully qualified nurse, she's unlikely to be a girl. Were the nurse
>in question male, would you call him the black boy?

A well placed pronoun can cover a multitude of sins.

Rod.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 11:06:24 +0100, Bob Latham
<b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

>I can't begin to understand how an adult female can be insulted by being
>called a lady, utterly baffled by it.
>
>Every day I realise that I don't understand the world I live in anymore.
>The rules I grew up with have gone and been replaced by what to me is
>ridiculous nonsense but I'm getting old and this world will not have to
>put up with me for ever.

You've saved me the trouble of writing almost exactly the same words.

I can't imagine what future generations will make of us.

Rod.

[Gary]

On 14/05/2013 13:39, Bill Wright wrote:
> Martin wrote:
>
>>> These days in the UK, where there are no witnesses and no tangible
>>> evidence of any offence actually having been committed, the victim
>>> must always be believed.
>>
>> Better than 50 years of women and girls being abused by amongst
>> others an overpaid TV celebs.
>
> No it isn't actually. Being falsely found guilty and then punished is
> severe abuse.
>
> Bill
I find this whole racist thing a bit confusing.

It is ok to describe a man as:- a man. or a white man or a black man. etc

It is not to bad to call a man a twat or idiot etc

Call a man 'a black idiot' is raciest? why? it is a description of fact.

eg who hit you? it was that white guy over there! that is not racist it
is a fact.

To say someone is a stupid ni*** or scots Bas**** is racist and in my
opinion says more about the name caller than the victim. Obviously this
is a bad thing to do and I condemn it.

Why is it OK to describe someone as 'that fat idiot over there'?

Anyway black is a colour thing, not a race. lots of races are the same
colour as others. ie Indian and Arab, look how many Actors with brown
skin play many different races in films.

Just thoughts, it is a strange world.

Gary

[S Viemeister]

On 5/15/2013 6:41 AM, Sara wrote:
> Roderick Stewart <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>> <firs...@lastname.oc.ku> wrote:
>>> I rather think it was the combination of "black" and "girl" which was
>>> offensive.
>> If she happened to be both those things, and in the absence of any
>> other details, it's difficult to see how you could describe her any
>> other way.
>> Prompted to think how I might have dealt with a similar situation, I
>> wonder if it might have helped to add a few superfluous details, as if
>> to point out that "blackness" and "girlness" were not the most
>> important ones. Would it sound better to say something like "Well, she
>> was about so tall, she was black, and had a nice smile"? Who knows.
>> People who are determined to take offence will manage it no matter
>> what you do.
>>

> Oh gods... don't get me started on calling grown women girls... If she
> was a fully qualified nurse, she's unlikely to be a girl. Were the nurse
> in question male, would you call him the black boy?
>

Exactly my point.

[tony sayer]

In article <f6n4p8dqql29pg64q...@4ax.com>, Roderick
Stewart <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> scribeth thus

>On Tue, 14 May 2013 16:23:03 +0100, PeterC
><giraffe...@homecall.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Terms such as "actress", "waitress" etc. are sexist as they refer to one
>>gender; "actor", waiter" etc.
>
>So are "Mr", "Mrs", "Ms" etc, but we use them. What's wrong with
>refering to someone's gender? It's a fact of life. What's the point of
>trying to pretend it doesn't exist?
>
>Rod.

I quite like the French Mademoiselle..

They still seem to like to be referred to as women and treated like
one..

They don't seem to be hung up on all this modern bull like over here
and there in the USofA...


--
Tony Sayer

[alanp]

>> On Tue, 14 May 2013 16:58:41 +0100, Sara
>> <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>

> True, and although there are gender-neutral titles such as Dr which
> indicate neither sex nor marital status, I'm not advocating everyone
> start using one. Wasn't everyone a Comrade in the USSR?

> Privately/socially I'm perfectly happy to use Mrs but at work I only use
> Ms.

Language evolves over time - Mrs, now pronounced Missus, was originally
shorthand for Mistress ... as in Mistress Quickly etc.
Mistress nowadays has a totally different connotation.

How do you pronounce Ms ?

Mz, Miss, or Emms ?

Why not have people at work refer to you by your christian name &
surname, and leave your marital status out of it altogether.

[Sara]

In article <uiv6p8hmrmk8id4o0...@4ax.com>,

brightside S9 <address@replyto_is_not.invalid> wrote:

> On Wed, 15 May 2013 11:06:24 +0100, Bob Latham
> <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>

> >In article <7f6dnVE-dKCxDQ_M...@bt.com>,

> > Steve Thackery <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> Sara wrote:
> >
> >> > I keep telling my husband to refer to "women" rather than "ladies"
> >> > unless he'd call a man in their situation a "gentleman". Otherwise it
> >> > comes across as patronising and makes me want to punch people.
> >
> >> I'm a bloke in my mid-50s and I absolutely agree with that. "Lady"
> >> *is* patronising when men in the same position are called "man" or
> >> "men".
> >

> >I'm a bloke in my very late 50s and I disagree with that. If I refer to a
> >lady, in my head this is either neutral or complimentary. To say she's a
> >real lady is a high accolade indeed.
> >
> >On the other hand, 'woman' is always negative as in that b***** woman.
> >
> Exactly, that is why I asked Sara if she could distinguish between the
> two questions: 'is that woman your wife'; or 'is that lady your wife'.
>
> Sara, try emphasising the word 'that' in my questions.

Even then, I would find the version with lady in it more offensive.

Why go with emphasis anyway? You can alter the sense of almost anything
that way.

As someone in
> their late 70s '*that* woman' is uncompiementary, whereas '*that*
> lady' is more than just complimentary.

As someone in their 50s, I find the opposite. *That* woman can just as
easily mean *that* woman, as opposed to *this* woman.

If you're going to play with emphasis, can you not see how "that *lady*"
can be read as sneering?

>
> >I can't begin to understand how an adult female can be insulted by being
> >called a lady, utterly baffled by it.

As has been mentioned a few times, it's patronising.

> >
> >Every day I realise that I don't understand the world I live in anymore.
> >The rules I grew up with have gone and been replaced by what to me is
> >ridiculous nonsense but I'm getting old and this world will not have to
> >put up with me for ever.
> >

Things change, we all have to live wiht that.

[Sara]

In article <kn0444$ht1$1...@news.albasani.net>,

alanp <anonymous@not_a_proper_domain.com> wrote:

> >> On Tue, 14 May 2013 16:58:41 +0100, Sara
> >> <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
>
> > True, and although there are gender-neutral titles such as Dr which
> > indicate neither sex nor marital status, I'm not advocating everyone
> > start using one. Wasn't everyone a Comrade in the USSR?
>
> > Privately/socially I'm perfectly happy to use Mrs but at work I only use
> > Ms.
>
> Language evolves over time - Mrs, now pronounced Missus, was originally
> shorthand for Mistress ... as in Mistress Quickly etc.
> Mistress nowadays has a totally different connotation.

Indeed. I recall reading once that only very young girls and
acknowledged prostitues used Miss. Everyone else was Mistress, married
or single.

>
> How do you pronounce Ms ?
>
> Mz, Miss, or Emms ?

I go for Mz.

>
> Why not have people at work refer to you by your christian name &
> surname, and leave your marital status out of it altogether.

The ones I know do of course and it's usually just first name. But there
are forms that need filling in which demand a title, and new contacts
who, when you give your name ask "is that Miss or Mrs?".

[Max Demian]

"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2aeeooNR...@bancom.co.uk...

> In article <f6n4p8dqql29pg64q...@4ax.com>, Roderick
> Stewart <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> scribeth thus
>>On Tue, 14 May 2013 16:23:03 +0100, PeterC
>><giraffe...@homecall.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Terms such as "actress", "waitress" etc. are sexist as they refer to one
>>>gender; "actor", waiter" etc.
>>
>>So are "Mr", "Mrs", "Ms" etc, but we use them. What's wrong with
>>refering to someone's gender? It's a fact of life. What's the point of
>>trying to pretend it doesn't exist?

> I quite like the French Mademoiselle..
>
> They still seem to like to be referred to as women and treated like
> one..

I thought femme meant wife as well as woman.

> They don't seem to be hung up on all this modern bull like over here
> and there in the USofA...

I know that you have to call 'girls' jeune fille however old they are.
'Fille' means she's a right slapper.

--
Max Demian

[Max Demian]

"brightside S9" <address@replyto_is_not.invalid> wrote in message
news:59k6p8ti0e6h694ts...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 14 May 2013 14:45:56 +0100, Sara
> <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>What do you or your wife find offensive about "woman" that wouldn't be
>>offensive about "man"? If someone asked me if "that man" (referring to
>>Rog) was my husband, I wouldn't find it at all offensive.
>
>

> 1. Is that man your husband?
> 2. Is that woman your wife?
> 3. Is that lady your wife?
>
> Is there a difference between between 2 and 3?
> Which do you prefer?

I say, I say, I say.
Who was that lady I saw you with last night?

--
Max Demian

[Max Demian]

"Bob Latham" <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:534c2a...@sick-of-spam.invalid...

> In article <7f6dnVE-dKCxDQ_M...@bt.com>,
> Steve Thackery <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Sara wrote:
>
>> > I keep telling my husband to refer to "women" rather than "ladies"
>> > unless he'd call a man in their situation a "gentleman". Otherwise it
>> > comes across as patronising and makes me want to punch people.
>
>> I'm a bloke in my mid-50s and I absolutely agree with that. "Lady"
>> *is* patronising when men in the same position are called "man" or
>> "men".
>
> I'm a bloke in my very late 50s and I disagree with that. If I refer to a
> lady, in my head this is either neutral or complimentary. To say she's a
> real lady is a high accolade indeed.
>
> On the other hand, 'woman' is always negative as in that b***** woman.
>

> I can't begin to understand how an adult female can be insulted by being
> called a lady, utterly baffled by it.
>

> Every day I realise that I don't understand the world I live in anymore.
> The rules I grew up with have gone and been replaced by what to me is
> ridiculous nonsense but I'm getting old and this world will not have to
> put up with me for ever.

Zumtimes I think the whole world's gone mad 'cept thee and me. And sometimes
I'm not so sure 'bout thee!

--
Max Demian

[Steve Thackery]

Bill Wright wrote:

> When people tell me what the 'rules' are, when the 'rules' are just
> those favoured by one section of the population, I tend to disregard
> what they say.

We could argue about what status a "rule" has, but I think you realise
I was offering guidance on what would be considered fair and reasonable
behaviour.

Do you discriminate on gender when holding a door open?

--
SteveT

[Steve Thackery]

Roderick Stewart wrote:

> If she happened to be both those things, and in the absence of any
> other details, it's difficult to see how you could describe her any
> other way.

It's easy: she's a woman, not a girl.

--
SteveT

[Steve Thackery]

Bob Latham wrote:

> I can't begin to understand how an adult female can be insulted by
> being called a lady, utterly baffled by it.

Because it's *patronising*! Is that so hard to understand?

--
SteveT

[Steve Thackery]

Bob Latham wrote:

> Heavens if we have to start dancing around words like
> 'Lady' where are we going.

I've explained it above. "Lady" was what men called women in the days
when society was even more patriarchal than it is now.

*By being more polite to women than to each other, they were being
patronising to women.*

Thus, "lady" harks back to a time when women were patronised and
discriminated for/against on grounds of their gender.

--
SteveT

[Roderick Stewart]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 16:26:18 +0100, "Max Demian"
<max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote:

>>
>>>What do you or your wife find offensive about "woman" that wouldn't be
>>>offensive about "man"? If someone asked me if "that man" (referring to
>>>Rog) was my husband, I wouldn't find it at all offensive.
>>
>>
>> 1. Is that man your husband?
>> 2. Is that woman your wife?
>> 3. Is that lady your wife?
>>
>> Is there a difference between between 2 and 3?
>> Which do you prefer?
>
>I say, I say, I say.
>Who was that lady I saw you with last night?

That was no lady, it was the old woman.

Rod.

[charles]

In article <2aeeooNR...@bancom.co.uk>,

tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <f6n4p8dqql29pg64q...@4ax.com>, Roderick
> Stewart <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> scribeth thus
> >On Tue, 14 May 2013 16:23:03 +0100, PeterC
> ><giraffe...@homecall.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>Terms such as "actress", "waitress" etc. are sexist as they refer to one
> >>gender; "actor", waiter" etc.
> >
> >So are "Mr", "Mrs", "Ms" etc, but we use them. What's wrong with
> >refering to someone's gender? It's a fact of life. What's the point of
> >trying to pretend it doesn't exist?
> >
> >Rod.

> I quite like the French Mademoiselle..

> They still seem to like to be referred to as women and treated like
> one..

in Germany Fraulein is no longer used.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

[charles]

In article <kn0444$ht1$1...@news.albasani.net>,
alanp <anonymous@not_a_proper_domain.com> wrote:

> >> On Tue, 14 May 2013 16:58:41 +0100, Sara
> >> <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >>

> > True, and although there are gender-neutral titles such as Dr which
> > indicate neither sex nor marital status, I'm not advocating everyone
> > start using one. Wasn't everyone a Comrade in the USSR?

> > Privately/socially I'm perfectly happy to use Mrs but at work I only
> > use Ms.

> Language evolves over time - Mrs, now pronounced Missus, was originally
> shorthand for Mistress ... as in Mistress Quickly etc.
> Mistress nowadays has a totally different connotation.

> How do you pronounce Ms ?

manuscript

[Roderick Stewart]

Really? Some younger female persons might be flattered to be referred
to as women, implying they look grown up, while some older ones might
be flattered by being referred to as girls because that would imply
they look young. In other words, it's impossible to define a single
age of transition that would please everyone as there is almost
certainly a bit of hysteresis.

Not so easy after all.

Rod.