Do women object to being called "ma'am" and "miss"?
r...@ttz.com
When in public and off-duty, many of my female coworkers don't like being
called "ma'am" by strangers. Others among them object to being called "miss,"
and some object to both words. Their preferences don't correlate to their
marital status.
Is there general disdain among women for "ma'am" or "miss"?
I know of no other forms of address that strangers could use.
Any suggestions?
Ralph M Jones
More to the point, what suggestions do you get from the people who are
doing the complaining?
--
There never was a horse that couldn't be rode
Nor a man that couldn't be throwed.
- Old Rodeo Saying
Jose F. Martinez
I know "ma'am" is common case in the US, but I am seeking British
answers here: shouldn't it be "maDam?" To me "ma'am" sounds a little
low-levelled (no ofence intended.)
--
Jose F. Martinez BEWARE: Any direct e-mail reply will bounce
SGI - Cray Research back to your system administrator. Change c
Chippewa Falls, WI, USA for g in jose.m...@gray.com - Fight spam!
These are my opinions - not those of Silicon Graphics or Cray Research
r...@ttz.com wrote in article <5rqlt9$i9e$1...@news1.sirius.com>...
nocifer
>When in public and off-duty, many of my female coworkers don't like being
>called "ma'am" by strangers. Others among them object to being called "miss,"
>and some object to both words. Their preferences don't correlate to their
>marital status.
>
>Is there general disdain among women for "ma'am" or "miss"?
>
>I know of no other forms of address that strangers could use.
>
>Any suggestions?
"Ms"?
It appears as an option on most forms and documentation I've seen here,
and most women in the teen-to-thirties age group have no objection to
being addressed by strangers as "Ms", and have few compunctions about
correcting strangers who do address them as "Miss" or "Ma'am".
It would seem to have less to do with marital status than the woman's
level of education and her sense of her social status. "Miss" is what you
might call the salesgirl, and "Ma'am" is how you might address someone's
dear old grannie. Neither connotation is acceptable to the ear of the
self-respecing, upwardly mobile professional.
Also, perceived age. "Miss" is for little girls, "Ma'am" for considerably
older women. How then do you address the rest of the adult female
population?
I'm not saying that any of these definitions are true to their dictionary
meanings. Merely that in my experience, they appear to be the reasons most
women here would prefer to be addressed as "Ms".
-Nox
email: noc...@amber.com.au
SLHinton17
Nox, email: noc...@amber.com.au, says quite rightly:
<I'm not saying that any of these definitions are true to their dictionary
<meanings. Merely that in my experience, they appear to be the reasons
<most women here would prefer to be addressed as "Ms".
******************************
I much prefer to use "Miz" in conversational address, although it will
always sound odd to me unless a name follows it. My Deep South raising
makes me want to say "ma'am" to every woman and "sir" to every man, but
I'm struggling to overcome this. There is a difference, however, between
conversational address and attention-getting address. Recently a woman in
front of me on the line at a bank teller's window left her glasses on the
counter. My impulse was to take up her glasses and run after her, but
this might have cost me my place in line, so I had to call after her. I
think I said "Oh, Ma'am!", and she turned around and gratefully retrieved
the glasses. "Oh, Miss!" also comes to mind but "Oh, Miz!" seems to lack
something. A kid might have said "Hey, Lady!" What should I have said?
Sam Hinton
La Jolla, CA
Alan Pollock
Polar (s.m...@merde.ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: On 1 Aug 1997 13:49:20 GMT, slhin...@aol.com (SLHinton17) wrote:
:
: >Nox, email: noc...@amber.com.au, says quite rightly:
: >
: [...] There is a difference, however, between
: >conversational address and attention-getting address. Recently a woman in
: >front of me on the line at a bank teller's window left her glasses on the
: >counter. My impulse was to take up her glasses and run after her, but
: >this might have cost me my place in line, so I had to call after her. I
: >think I said "Oh, Ma'am!", and she turned around and gratefully retrieved
: >the glasses. "Oh, Miss!" also comes to mind but "Oh, Miz!" seems to lack
: >something. A kid might have said "Hey, Lady!" What should I have said?
: Exactly what you did say.
:
:
: Polar
:
:
--
Of course he could have said:
"Oh female entity!"
:) Nex
__________________________________________________________________________
"Ah, if in this world there were no such thing as cherry blossoms, perhaps
then in springtime our hearts would be at peace." Ariwara no Narihira
__________________________________________________________________________
Maureen Goldman
> r...@ttz.com wrote:
> >
> > When in public and off-duty, many of my female coworkers don't like being
> > called "ma'am" by strangers. Others among them object to being called "miss,"
> > and some object to both words. Their preferences don't correlate to their
> > marital status.
> >
> > Is there general disdain among women for "ma'am" or "miss"?
> >
> > I know of no other forms of address that strangers could use.
This seems odd to me. I recall being annoyed once when I was out with
a friend (both of us in our mid-40's) and an usher asked "Would you
two young ladies like to come with me?" Made us both feel downright
creaky.
--
Maureen Goldman
To reply, please remove fog.
Dan Harper
In article <19970801134...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, slhin...@aol.com says...
><meanings. Merely that in my experience, they appear to be the reasons
><most women here would prefer to be addressed as "Ms".
>******************************
>I much prefer to use "Miz" in conversational address, although it will
>always sound odd to me unless a name follows it. My Deep South raising
>makes me want to say "ma'am" to every woman and "sir" to every man, but
>I'm struggling to overcome this.
Why do you want to overcome it? It has been my experience that
people hearing a person with a Southern accent call them ma'am or
sir don't object because they assume that it is a Southern thing.
> There is a difference, however, between
>conversational address and attention-getting address. Recently a woman in
>front of me on the line at a bank teller's window left her glasses on the
>counter. My impulse was to take up her glasses and run after her, but
>this might have cost me my place in line, so I had to call after her. I
>think I said "Oh, Ma'am!", and she turned around and gratefully retrieved
>the glasses.
That's probably what I would have said or I would have run after her.
Living in the South, I wouldn't have to worry about losing my place in
line. Well, if I lived in a big city such as Atlanta, I might worry.
> "Oh, Miss!" also comes to mind but "Oh, Miz!" seems to lack
>something.
I agree. I teach my 4-year-old daughter to address her teachers
and other adults as Ma'am or Sir. When she addresses an adult by
name it is always to be prefixed by a title, e.g., Ms., Mr., Aunt.
To reinforce this, I often address my daughter as Ma'am.
> A kid might have said "Hey, Lady!" What should I have said?
I think Ma'am was perfectly fine.
Dan Harper
Vinny Hrovat
In our last episode, r...@ttz.com spoke thusly:
>When in public and off-duty, many of my female coworkers don't like being
>called "ma'am" by strangers. Others among them object to being called "miss,"
>and some object to both words. Their preferences don't correlate to their
>marital status.
>Is there general disdain among women for "ma'am" or "miss"?
(This isn't exactly on topic since it doesn't deal with strangers, but . . . .)
I address many female colleagues with an inquisitive "Ma'am?" as a light hearted
mannerism. Most of them respond similarly with a smirking "Sir?" or at least
exercise laissez-faire and don't argue the usage with me. A few women, however,
have been bothered by it; their primary complaint is that it makes them "sound
so *old*." Then i call them "Bubba" and run.
>I know of no other forms of address that strangers could use.
>Any suggestions?
Have you tried "Bubba?"
---
Vinny Hrovat | "Omni ignotum pro magnifico est, etc."
grix at wco dot com | (Everything is easier than
http://www.wco.com/~grix/ | it appears, etc.)
Greer/Taylor
On Thu, 31 Jul 1997 16:28:10 -0500, Ralph M Jones <rmj...@hal-pc.org>
wrote:
>r...@ttz.com wrote:
>>
>> When in public and off-duty, many of my female coworkers don't like being
>> called "ma'am" by strangers. Others among them object to being called "miss,"
>> and some object to both words. Their preferences don't correlate to their
>> marital status.
>>
>> Is there general disdain among women for "ma'am" or "miss"?
>>
>> I know of no other forms of address that strangers could use.
>>
>> Any suggestions?
>
I am a woman and don't object to strangers using ma'am when
trying to get my attention or address me for some other reason. It
was a shock the first time it happened though. I was looking around
for some one else before I realized that I was being spoken to. I do
object to miss, because I clearly am not a "miss" and it seems
artificial, as though being middle aged is something to be ashamed
of. I don't like madam because I fell like the procuress in a brothel
or like some one is trying to be faky continental with me.
What I really hate though is when the store clerks, having
accepted my check, call me by my first name, which is printed on my
checks. I really hate that, I would prefer ma'am.
Annie T.
Jose F. Martinez
To be completely PC, he should have probably said "Pardon me, the
PERSON in the green dress," without using her sex :)
-- Jose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jose F. Martinez BEWARE: Any direct e-mail reply will bounce
SGI - Cray Research back to your system administrator. Change c
Chippewa Falls, WI, USA for g in jose.m...@gray.com - Fight spam!
These are my opinions - not those of Silicon Graphics or Cray Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Pollock <ne...@king.cts.com> wrote in article <87047776...@optional.cts.com>...
Larry Preuss
In article <33e3758b.774222@news>, verdn...@mcn.net (Greer/Taylor) wrote:
> What I really hate though is when the store clerks, having
> accepted my check, call me by my first name, which is printed on my
> checks. I really hate that, I would prefer ma'am.
>
> Annie T.
It is for this reason that I rather look forward to being asked my first
name at places such as delis. I reply, "Mister."
LP
--
Maureen Goldman
noci...@amberesin.com.au (nocifer) wrote:
> It appears as an option on most forms and documentation I've seen here,
> and most women in the teen-to-thirties age group have no objection to
> being addressed by strangers as "Ms", and have few compunctions about
> correcting strangers who do address them as "Miss" or "Ma'am".
I had always heard that the Queen is addressed as "ma'am". If this is
good enough for her, it's good enough for me.
> It would seem to have less to do with marital status than the woman's
> level of education and her sense of her social status. "Miss" is what you
> might call the salesgirl, and "Ma'am" is how you might address someone's
> dear old grannie. Neither connotation is acceptable to the ear of the
> self-respecing, upwardly mobile professional.
My sense of my social status is just fine, thanks. And I have my B.A.
degree hanging next to the toaster. If any s-r ump takes offense at
that sort of thing, then she seems mighty insecure.
> Also, perceived age. "Miss" is for little girls, "Ma'am" for considerably
> older women. How then do you address the rest of the adult female
> population?
Perhaps this is a geographical difference. To me, both are just
polite ways to address, or catch the attention of, an unknown female
in a somewhat formal way. I find them interchangeable. Also, I don't
know that I have ever heard a small child addressed as "miss" except
rich kids in the occasional movie.
> I'm not saying that any of these definitions are true to their dictionary
> meanings. Merely that in my experience, they appear to be the reasons most
> women here would prefer to be addressed as "Ms".
Speak for yourself. I see nothing whatever insulting about "miss" or
"ma'am".
If the last name is known, then, sure, Ms. works fine. But I don't
want people buzzing at me. "Mzzzzz. Excuse me, mzzzzz."
(I recall an episode of the old "Maude" TV show that was aired around
the time that "Ms." came into being. In the show, the black
housekeeper mentioned that she had always called her female employers
"Miz" as in "I work for you today and Miz Jackson tomorrow.")
.
Robert Lieblich
Jose F. Martinez wrote:
>
> To be completely PC, he should have probably said "Pardon me, the
> PERSON in the green dress," without using her sex :)
I happened to attend a wedding this evening. At the reception I greeted
a tall young man in formal attire and asked if he was the best person.
He was kind enough to laugh.
Bob Lieblich <lieb...@erols.com>
Albert Marshall
"Jose F. Martinez" <root@[127.0.0.1]> wrote
>I know "ma'am" is common case in the US, but I am seeking British
>answers here: shouldn't it be "maDam?" To me "ma'am" sounds a little
>low-levelled (no ofence intended.)
>
sovereign lady, it would be unlikely to be very "low-levelled".
I admit, though, that "Madam(e)" is more frequently heard.
Shops which specialise in garments for middle-aged, middleclass ladies
are referred to as "Modom shops" in the trade.
--
Albert Marshall
S.E. England
Jose F. Martinez
Taking advantage of the moment, what would you use for "low-levelled."
You know the meaning from the context, put what you would have said.
And thanks in advance for your help.
Jose.
Albert Marshall <alb...@execfrog.demon.co.uk> wrote in article <clrbmFAo...@execfrog.demon.co.uk>...
N.Mitchum
Dan Harper wrote:
-----
> [...] It has been my experience that
> people hearing a person with a Southern accent call them ma'am or
> sir don't object because they assume that it is a Southern thing.
Are you generalizing from your private experience and deductions,
however, or have many people actually told you that this is what
they think? Not that what you say must be false -- it's just that
you should make it clear whether you are reporting your own
assumption or that of others.
--
--- NM
If replying, take off PANTS (mailed copies are appreciated)
Albert Marshall
"Jose F. Martinez" <root@[127.0.0.1]> wrote
>Taking advantage of the moment, what would you use for "low-levelled."
>You know the meaning from the context, put what you would have said.
>And thanks in advance for your help.
>> "Jose F. Martinez" <root@[127.0.0.1]> wrote later
>> >I know "ma'am" is common case in the US, but I am seeking
British
>> >answers here: shouldn't it be "maDam?" To me "ma'am" sounds a
little
>> >low-levelled (no ofence intended.)
>> >
because
>Albert Marshall <alb...@execfrog.demon.co.uk> wrote
>> Bearing in mind that "Ma'am" is a standard form of address to our
>> sovereign lady, it would be unlikely to be very "low-levelled".
>>
I interpret your term "low-levelled" to refer to use in a conversation
between 'lower class' people. Therefor I would have said (had I agreed
with that view) "To me "ma'am" sounds a little lower class..."
BTW "ma'am" is pronounced in the same way as a cousin would say "school-
marm", I believe.
--
Albert Marshall
Executive French
Language Training for Businesses in Kent
01634 400902
Dan Harper
In article <33E4C8...@mail.lafn.org>, PANTS...@mail.lafn.org says...
>
>Dan Harper wrote:
>-----
>> [...] It has been my experience that
>> people hearing a person with a Southern accent call them ma'am or
>> sir don't object because they assume that it is a Southern thing.
>>......
>
>Are you generalizing from your private experience and deductions,
>however, or have many people actually told you that this is what
>they think? Not that what you say must be false -- it's just that
>you should make it clear whether you are reporting your own
>assumption or that of others.
I've had a few people state this; however, most of my conclusion
is based on observing people's reactions. I've also observed
that women with a thick Southern accents attract more interest
from the opposite sex (Yankees that is) than do men. Of course,
it could just be me.
Dan Harper
Jose F. Martinez
Yes, but he is using your first name at the same time. However, I
must say that I have NEVER heard that sort of thing. Usually they
say:
"Hi (Mr. Martinez)/(Jose), this is (Name) (Surname) calling from..."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jose F. Martinez BEWARE: Any direct e-mail reply will bounce
SGI - Cray Research back to your system administrator. Change c
Chippewa Falls, WI, USA for g in jose.m...@gray.com - Fight spam!
These are my opinions - not those of Silicon Graphics or Cray Research
Craig Welch <-@-.-> wrote in article <33ecd340...@news.pacific.net.sg>...
> njk...@no-spam.mindspring.com (Mimi Kahn) wrote:
>
> >And telephone solicitors? And mail solicitors? I particularly don't
> >like, "Hello, FirstName, this is Mr. LastName." My usual response is
> >to tell him off and hang up.
>
> I find anyone at all introducing themselves as "I'm Mr. LastName" as
> annoying and pretentious.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Craig
>
> email: craig at pacific dot net dot sg
>
Philip Morgan
inkslinger@{fog}sunshine.net (Maureen Goldman) wrote:
>I had always heard that the Queen is addressed as "ma'am". If this is
>good enough for her, it's good enough for me.
It's spelled "ma'am" but seems to be pronounced 'mum' or'mam'.
Adrian Pepper
arpe...@math.uwaterloo.ca (Adrian Pepper) wrote,
in article <EEB8o...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>:
>
>r...@ttz.com wrote,
> in article <5rqlt9$i9e$1...@news1.sirius.com>:
>>
>>When in public and off-duty, many of my female coworkers don't like being
>>called "ma'am" by strangers. Others among them object to being called "miss,"
>>and some object to both words. Their preferences don't correlate to their
>>marital status.
>>
>>Is there general disdain among women for "ma'am" or "miss"?
>>
>>I know of no other forms of address that strangers could use.
>>
>>Any suggestions?
>
>Hey!
>Hey you!
>Sir.
>Excuse me.
>
>Adrian Pepper
But seriously now, in modern North American society, you can usually
avoid the need for using a term like "Sir", "Madam", "Miss", "Mister",
etc. and it may not be perceived to be as impolite as you may think.
"Excuse me" can be a reasonable introduction to many conversations,
and does not need a "ma'am" or whatever following it.
But, alternatively, although the women may tell you that they feel
strange when called "ma'am" that might not mean that they object
strongly to it, especially from a stranger in a professional
situation.
I don't think I'd ever address anyone, especially an adult, as "Miss".
Adrian Pepper
Robert Lieblich
Mimi Kahn wrote:
>
> On 4 Aug 1997 15:35:06 GMT, "Jose F. Martinez" <root@[127.0.0.1]>
> wrote:
>
> >Yes, but he is using your first name at the same time. However, I
> >must say that I have NEVER heard that sort of thing. Usually they
> >say:
> >
> >"Hi (Mr. Martinez)/(Jose), this is (Name) (Surname) calling from..."
>
> Doe," while WOMEN get, "Hi, Josephine, this is Mr. Roe."
Don't bet on it, Mimi. What happens in my experience in random calling
is that the number is dialed by a computer that doesn't post the name
and address on the screen until you answer. So there's a moment's
hesitation, during which I'd be tempted to hang up if I didn't have
saveral close elderly relatives whose reflexes ain't what they useta be.
Until recently the usual next step would be for the "caller" to ask if
Mr. or Mrs. LY-blitch is at home. (Which would be great if in my own
idiolect I didn't use an approximation of the German pronunciation of my
surname (repeat: approximation) - LEE-blick).
Only now most such callers seem to have adopted a new strategy when the
offbeat surname pops up (clued by my masculine baritone, of course): "Is
this Robert . . . uh . . . um . . .?" And having got off on a first
name basis with me, they proceed from there.
We now have a family policy that we never agree by phone to send anyone
money for any reason, no matter how worthy, unless we placed the call.
I tell all such callers of this policy, politely at first. Some try to
argue me out of it. Those I hang up on.
Bob Lieblich <lieb...@erols.com>
Cissy . Thorpe
On Mon, 4 Aug 1997, Adrian Pepper wrote:
> But seriously now, in modern North American society, you can usually
> avoid the need for using a term like "Sir", "Madam", "Miss", "Mister",
> etc. and it may not be perceived to be as impolite as you may think.
> "Excuse me" can be a reasonable introduction to many conversations,
> and does not need a "ma'am" or whatever following it.
>
> But, alternatively, although the women may tell you that they feel
> strange when called "ma'am" that might not mean that they object
> strongly to it, especially from a stranger in a professional
> situation.
>
> I don't think I'd ever address anyone, especially an adult, as "Miss".
>
>
> Adrian Pepper
>
>
Southern women are pretty used to being called ma'am - regardless of
their age. I have always said "sir" and "ma'am" to ANY male or female -
it is the way I taught. Even my 2yo grandson gets a "yes, sir" when he
politely asks for something. Most people from theses parts do the same.
Cissy
Maureen Goldman
arpe...@math.uwaterloo.ca (Adrian Pepper) wrote:
> But seriously now, in modern North American society, you can usually
> avoid the need for using a term like "Sir", "Madam", "Miss", "Mister",
> etc. and it may not be perceived to be as impolite as you may think.
> "Excuse me" can be a reasonable introduction to many conversations,
> and does not need a "ma'am" or whatever following it.
These methods of address can establish the relationship between the
speaker and the speakee. "Sir" is different from "pal". I don't
believe that anything in this thread indicated that miss, mister, etc.
were just being considered as openers. For instance, the waiter shows
you to your table. "Would you like to come this way, sir?" (Yes, I
realize that "sir" isn't necessary.)
> But, alternatively, although the women may tell you that they feel
> strange when called "ma'am" that might not mean that they object
> strongly to it, especially from a stranger in a professional
> situation.
>
> I don't think I'd ever address anyone, especially an adult, as "Miss".
I'm sure that I have, frequently.
Larry Preuss
In the US, are not all waitresses addressed as Miss?
Lp
--
Ronald D. Cuthbertson
After reading the thread down to this point (maybe 25 postings, or so), it
seems to me that you are indeed a lady.
Of course, ma'ma in the US is traditionally used to convey a form of respect
to an older lady, or to women, in general, when respect is intended, even when
trying to catch the attention of someone. When addressing one as ma'am, I think
that a tone of respect should be taken unless the opposite is clearly intended.
So, I have just thought of a new reply to a woman who objects to my calling her
ma'ma (which I can't recall ever happening). If one objects, I will politely
reply, "Oh, please forgive me, no respect intended!" Do you think this would be
acceptable?
Regards,
Ron
Maureen Goldman wrote:
>
> noci...@amberesin.com.au (nocifer) wrote:
>
> > It appears as an option on most forms and documentation I've seen here,
> > and most women in the teen-to-thirties age group have no objection to
> > being addressed by strangers as "Ms", and have few compunctions about
> > correcting strangers who do address them as "Miss" or "Ma'am".
>
> I had always heard that the Queen is addressed as "ma'am". If this is
> good enough for her, it's good enough for me.
>
John Nurick
>I interpret your term "low-levelled" to refer to use in a conversation
>between 'lower class' people. Therefor I would have said (had I agreed
>with that view) "To me "ma'am" sounds a little lower class..."
My grandmother (b. 1894 or so) would have said it was "common"
(meaning lower-class or vulgar, not frequent). But she would never
have spoken of "the common people".
John
I dislocated my e-mail address, and the doctor says it will be
six months before I can see a specialist.
Alan Pollock
Mimi Kahn (njk...@no-spam.mindspring.com) wrote:
: On Tue, 05 Aug 1997 20:30:27 -0400, lpr...@provide.net (Larry Preuss)
: wrote:
:
: >In the US, are not all waitresses addressed as Miss?
:
: Not hardly.
:
:
: Mimi
:
: http://www.mindspring.com/~njkahn
--
It can be a regional thing. It's a big country, and various regions are Very
different from each other. Nex
Sylvia Li
On Sat, 02 Aug 1997 18:00:53 GMT, verdn...@mcn.net (Greer/Taylor)
wrote:
> What I really hate though is when the store clerks, having
>accepted my check, call me by my first name, which is printed on my
>checks. I really hate that, I would prefer ma'am.
>
Better that, than 'dear', which still happens in some dress shops.
Grr-r-r-r.
Sylvia Li
(Remove shield_ for email replies.)
Maureen Goldman
> On Tue, 05 Aug 1997 20:30:27 -0400, lpr...@provide.net (Larry Preuss)
> wrote:
>
> >In the US, are not all waitresses addressed as Miss?
>
> Not hardly.
njk...@no-spam.mindspring.com (Mimi Kahn) wrote:
I asked my daughter, the waitress (west coast of Canada). If someone
doesn't know her name, then she is called "Miss". She wanted to know
why I was asking, found it odd that anyone would object.
Maureen Goldman
"Ronald D. Cuthbertson" <inm...@flash.net> wrote:
> So, I have just thought of a new reply to a woman who objects to my calling her
> ma'ma (which I can't recall ever happening). If one objects, I will politely
> reply, "Oh, please forgive me, no respect intended!" Do you think this would be
> acceptable?
I think that you had best restrict ma'ma to your own mother. Ma'am,
on the other hand, seems fine to me.
Forman Bobsled
Alan Pollock wrote:
[...]
> Yes, some might think it's class, others regions, still others the political
> ethos of the day, and they certainly play a part. The country one is in also
> plays a part. But in the end, character and attitude play a major role in my
> opinion.
>
> Why? Because to some people how they're addressed is very important. To
> others, it's a formality, nothing more. One can be relaxed, uptight, and
> everything in between. No judgements - But:
[...]
Try calling Judge John Bigwig "John" and you'll find out
that forms of address are very important to some people;
in court or chambers, important to you!
I don't like the concept of honorifics, which my dictionary
defines as a "title ... conveying respect, used especially
when addressing a social superior". If any honorific is OK
it's the case above, because that is really showing respect
to the judicial branch of government in general, not the
judge as a person. But I always feel awkward in doctor's
and dentist's offices and resist saying "doctor" or
"Dr. Smith" even though I know my health may suffer if
proper respect isn't shown and the slight must be noticable.
I show more honor than I want when I hand over a day's pay
for an hour's work. Peaple's choice of career shouldn't
entitle them to ass kissing by the people they serve.
Adrian Pepper
njk...@no-spam.mindspring.com wrote,
in article <33e8e759...@news.mindspring.com>:
>On Tue, 05 Aug 1997 20:30:27 -0400, lpr...@provide.net (Larry Preuss)
>wrote:
>
>>In the US, are not all waitresses addressed as Miss?
>
>Not hardly.
Um. By which you mean they are?
I really do think I address most people as "Excuse me". But I live in
my very own country, I think.
Adrian Pepper
nocifer
In article <33e3c189...@news.sunshine.net>,
inkslinger@{fog}sunshine.net (Maureen Goldman) wrote:
>I had always heard that the Queen is addressed as "ma'am". If this is
>good enough for her, it's good enough for me.
Well and good, but last time I looked, the Queen of England was a
gray-haired granny, very much the sort I would address as "ma'am" anyway
if I had to catch her attention. No woman below the age of thirty I know
would be happy to be addressed as "Ma'am", even if she were a monarchist
:)
>My sense of my social status is just fine, thanks. And I have my B.A.
>degree hanging next to the toaster. If any s-r ump takes offense at
>that sort of thing, then she seems mighty insecure.
Very probably. Just as many women don't give a fig how they're addressed,
as long as it's polite. Others will take into consideration the people
addressing them and respond accordingly. Elderly gentlemen will likely use
"Ma'am" where sales attendants might say "Miss" to a woman in her
mid-twenties, for example.
>Speak for yourself. I see nothing whatever insulting about "miss" or
>"ma'am".
Bully for you. I wasn't making a value judgement in my post - merely
sharing my observations on why some women in Perth, Australia, would take
umbrage at being addressed by what they considered inappropriate terms.
Sheesh.
Personally, I'd love to see a non-gendered term to replace Mr/Ms.
Something like "Hey, you", only nicer :)
-Nox
--------------------
noc...@amber.com.au
Alan Pollock
--
When you *really* get down to it, how one receives a specific way of being
addressed has a lot to do with personality.
Yes, some might think it's class, others regions, still others the political
ethos of the day, and they certainly play a part. The country one is in also
plays a part. But in the end, character and attitude play a major role in my
opinion.
Why? Because to some people how they're addressed is very important. To
others, it's a formality, nothing more. One can be relaxed, uptight, and
everything in between. No judgements - But:
For instance in some situations in a store, I can call a girl behind the
counter 'darling' and not get kicked in the face. Of course I live in
California. Rather than this apellation being deemed patronizing, which it
isn't, it can be perceived as being friendly and even flattering.
That's 4.95 please - thanx, darlin', have a good one.
Someone walks up to me in a store and asks 'hey dude, do you know where the
camping section is?' Do I get all puffed-up and self-important? Nah.
'Hey mate, where's the bog?' Same thing.
There are more important things in life. I've decided that if a form of
address is clearly not meant to insult, to let it be, and to allow for
differences, which, after all, are what make life interesting. I'm also not
so pumped-up about myself, or my 'status' that a slightly 'improper' form of
address can even remotely offend me.
Makes life mellower, easier, and allows one to focus better on the important
things, rather than mere trivialities.
I realise that in some countries addressing is very important. That's just
fine. But luckilly I don't live in one of them now. Personal preference.
I always chuckle though, upon seeing someone visiting another country, being
instantly deemed uncooth - even sub-human - if he doesn't immediately know and
display all the local cultural mechanisms.
If the world really is shrinking, perhaps it's high time for people's
attitudes to play catchup. Nex
Alan Pollock
Distribution:
Mimi Kahn (njk...@no-spam.mindspring.com) wrote:
: On 8 Aug 1997 00:12:16 GMT, ne...@king.cts.com (Alan Pollock) wrote:
:
: >For instance in some situations in a store, I can call a girl behind the
: >counter 'darling' and not get kicked in the face. Of course I live in
: >California. Rather than this apellation being deemed patronizing, which it
: >isn't, it can be perceived as being friendly and even flattering.
:
: Frankly, my objection would be to you calling the store clerk a
: "girl."
:
: I've heard 65-year-old grandmothers referred to as "girls."
:
: Would you like it, darling, if that same store clerk called you a
: "boy"?
:
:
: Mimi
:
: http://www.mindspring.com/~njkahn
--
Jumping to conclusions, are we Mimi? I had in my mind the picture of a
teen-age girl. Had she been older, I would have said 'woman'. You were meant
glean that, had you given my post the equanimity of wise judgement rather than
simple confrontational reaction.
Moreover, if you read the above again, you'll realise that I used the term
'girl' in the telling, not in the doing.
I wouldn't mind in the least *your* calling me darling (like you did above) -
I'd quite like it actually - were it not for your obvious and not so subtle
sarcasm :) Remember, 'intent' features heavily in the judgement of forms of
address.
As for 'boy', in the telling there's nothing wrong with it. 'A boy was behind
the counter' for instance. However we know that saying 'boy' to someone has
historical baggage attached.
But were someone from another country to call me boy - obviously not familiar
with the history behind it - I wouldn't mind and would probably take him aside
and explain, so they wouldn't get into trouble later on with someone less
tolerant.
Like I said before - it's largely attitude. If you want to think the worst of
people, you'll be touchy and sensitive. But why be so hard on oneself? :) Nex
Alan Pollock
Forman Bobsled (do...@spam.net) wrote:
: Alan Pollock wrote:
: [...]
: > Yes, some might think it's class, others regions, still others the political
: > ethos of the day, and they certainly play a part. The country one is in also
: > plays a part. But in the end, character and attitude play a major role in my
: > opinion.
: >
: > Why? Because to some people how they're addressed is very important. To
: > others, it's a formality, nothing more. One can be relaxed, uptight, and
: > everything in between. No judgements - But:
: Try calling Judge John Bigwig "John" and you'll find out
: that forms of address are very important to some people;
: in court or chambers, important to you!
:
: I don't like the concept of honorifics, which my dictionary
: defines as a "title ... conveying respect, used especially
: when addressing a social superior". If any honorific is OK
: it's the case above, because that is really showing respect
: to the judicial branch of government in general, not the
: judge as a person. But I always feel awkward in doctor's
: and dentist's offices and resist saying "doctor" or
: "Dr. Smith" even though I know my health may suffer if
: proper respect isn't shown and the slight must be noticable.
: I show more honor than I want when I hand over a day's pay
: for an hour's work. Peaple's choice of career shouldn't
: entitle them to ass kissing by the people they serve.
--
Of course - your point is well taken. I was speaking of situations where
official designations are not involved. You can bet that, were I in a
courtroom about to be sentanced by a judge, my form of address would be Very
formal. After sentancing though, that *might* change :) Nex
Lee Lester
From The Economist style sheet:
'You can avoid offending women without using _chairperson, humankind_
and _Ms.._ Prefer _chairman_ (for a man) or _in the chair, mankind,_ so
long as the context is not offensive, and the precision of Mrs. and Miss
whenever you can.'
Rahul Dhesi
In <33ed834d...@news.mindspring.com> njk...@no-spam.mindspring.com
(Mimi Kahn) writes:
>Frankly, my objection would be to you calling the store clerk a
>"girl."
...
>Would you like it, darling, if that same store clerk called you a
>"boy"?
Your analogy is not a very good one. 'Girl' and 'boy' are not exact
antonyms. There are plenty of contexts in which one is offensive
but the other is not.
--
Rahul Dhesi <dh...@spams.r.us.com>
Maureen Goldman
> inkslinger@{fog}sunshine.net (Maureen Goldman) wrote:
>
> >I had always heard that the Queen is addressed as "ma'am". If this is
> >good enough for her, it's good enough for me.
>noci...@amberesin.com.au (nocifer) wrote:
> Well and good, but last time I looked, the Queen of England was a
> gray-haired granny, very much the sort I would address as "ma'am" anyway
> if I had to catch her attention. No woman below the age of thirty I know
> would be happy to be addressed as "Ma'am", even if she were a monarchist
> :)
The Queen was also called "ma'am" when she was in her 20's.
> >My sense of my social status is just fine, thanks. And I have my B.A.
> >degree hanging next to the toaster. If any s-r ump takes offense at
> >that sort of thing, then she seems mighty insecure.
>
> Very probably. Just as many women don't give a fig how they're addressed,
> as long as it's polite.
That's about it, for me. Well, almost. I don't like I\thou forms of
address where I'm Maureen and the other remains Dr. Jones, although
usually I am able to compensate by calling the other "Doc". Don't
like being called a young lady when I obviously am not..
> >Speak for yourself. I see nothing whatever insulting about "miss" or
> >"ma'am".
>
> Bully for you. I wasn't making a value judgement in my post - merely
> sharing my observations on why some women in Perth, Australia, would take
> umbrage at being addressed by what they considered inappropriate terms.
> Sheesh.
I thought your message referred to professional women, generally, not
in any particular locale. And here I always thought that Aussies were
supposed to be a fairly relaxed lot.
> Personally, I'd love to see a non-gendered term to replace Mr/Ms.
> Something like "Hey, you", only nicer :)
I remember when Ms. came around. I was surprised that it caught on.
Delighted, too, just because it was so practical for business
situations.
Maureen Goldman
> > Maureen Goldman wrote:
> >> (I recall an episode of the old "Maude" TV show that was aired around
> >> the time that "Ms." came into being. In the show, the black
> >> housekeeper mentioned that she had always called her female employers
> >> "Miz" as in "I work for you today and Miz Jackson tomorrow.")
>will...@ahecas.ahec.edu (Gary Williams, Business Services
> I think that is why "Ms." caught on as readily as it did, while gaining
> acceptance for a gender-neutral/unknown/irrelevant third-person pronoun is so
> difficult. Millions of speakers of American English never distinguished their
> pronounciation of "Mrs." and "Miss"; and millions of others, finding themselves
> in an ambiguous situation, suddenly lost the ability to make the distinction.
I was a secretary, and I remember having to make phone calls before
I could type a letter to ascertain whether a woman was a Miss or a
Mrs. "Ms" was WONDERFUL. I did think of it as a term used only in
print for many years, though. In fact, I recall being taken by
surprise that anyone was actually expected to pronounce it as per that
Maude episode. After all, Mr. is mister and Mrs. is missus. "Ms". is
a very practical abbreviation that doesn't really stand for anything.
Forman Bobsled
I hope the style sheet doesn't actually use underscores
this way. It's a very hard to read style.
James Follett
In article <33ed834d...@news.mindspring.com>
njk...@no-spam.mindspring.com "Mimi Kahn" writes:
>Would you like it, darling, if that same store clerk called you a
>"boy"?
The use of `boy' or `girl' can never be insulting because they
just ain't insults. I'm nearly 60 and often get invited to old
boys' reunions, and my wife gets regular invitations to her
old girls' reunions.
--
James Follett -- novelist
Adrian Pepper
inkslinger@{fog}sunshine.net (Maureen Goldman) wrote,
in article <33ec4afd...@news.sunshine.net>:
>> On Tue, 05 Aug 1997 20:30:27 -0400, lpr...@provide.net (Larry Preuss)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In the US, are not all waitresses addressed as Miss?
>>
>> Not hardly.
>
>
>I asked my daughter, the waitress (west coast of Canada). If someone
>doesn't know her name, then she is called "Miss". She wanted to know
>why I was asking, found it odd that anyone would object.
I find it difficult to believe that she does not more than occasionally
encounter people who call her nothing at all. I don't suppose she gave
you a percentage break-down of how she is addressed, by any chance?
Was she including nothing as something she might possibly called, or
would that have been considered outside the domain of the question?
Adrian Pepper
arpe...@math.uwaterloo.ca
Alan Pollock
Mimi Kahn (njk...@no-spam.mindspring.com) wrote:
: On 8 Aug 1997 05:10:37 GMT, ne...@king.cts.com (Alan Pollock) wrote:
:
: >Jumping to conclusions, are we Mimi? I had in my mind the picture of a
: >teen-age girl. Had she been older, I would have said 'woman'. You were meant
: >glean that, had you given my post the equanimity of wise judgement rather than
: >simple confrontational reaction.
: Forgive me for not knowing what picture you had in your mind.
:
: >Moreover, if you read the above again, you'll realise that I used the term
: >'girl' in the telling, not in the doing.
: True. None of us has any way of knowing what you do in the doing,
: unless we are again presumed to know what's going on in your mind.
:
But I *told* you what I did - I called her 'darling'. Remember now?
Telling: there was a girl behind the counter
Doing: I said "thanx, darlin' and have a good one.'
: I suspect, however, that a "teen-age girl" old enough to be working
: would prefer being called a young woman -- and *not* being called
: "darling" by a stranger. (And I'm also in California.)
:
(Come to San Diego - you'll like it - tis mellow)
That's why one must guage the situation first. If the girl behind the counter
is obviously uptight and bordering on the snob, I wouldn't dream of calling
her 'darling' - if on the other hand she looks friendly, relaxed, human, and
knows a little about life, I wouldn't hesistate to call her darling, or honey.
Hasn't done me wrong so far - perhaps it's my infectious smile, I admit :)
It's the intention that counts, which has always been my primordial point: one
doesn't want to offend, and there are many, many situations where saying
something inoffensive in one context offends in another.
I rarely get offended anymore, Mimi, for to me these terms are all mere fluff.
Intent does matter, and I find it's usually pretty easy to assess someone's
intent, attitude. A person who _wants_ to be offended _will_ be offended.
: >I wouldn't mind in the least *your* calling me darling (like you did above) -
: >I'd quite like it actually - were it not for your obvious and not so subtle
: >sarcasm :) Remember, 'intent' features heavily in the judgement of forms of
: >address.
:
: <snickering>
:
: >As for 'boy', in the telling there's nothing wrong with it. 'A boy was behind
: >the counter' for instance. However we know that saying 'boy' to someone has
: >historical baggage attached.
: >
: >But were someone from another country to call me boy - obviously not familiar
: >with the history behind it - I wouldn't mind and would probably take him aside
: >and explain, so they wouldn't get into trouble later on with someone less
: >tolerant.
: >
: >Like I said before - it's largely attitude. If you want to think the worst of
: >people, you'll be touchy and sensitive. But why be so hard on oneself? :) Nex
:
: Ah, now you presume to know what's going on in *my* mind.
Sorry if you got that impression - I was speaking generally, hoping you might
respond in order to ascertain that I wasn't speaking of you specifically, and
to perhaps mention that you're *not* that way. That's why I used the word
'oneself' rather than 'yourself. I can see now that you're quite a friendly
and relaxed *person*, Darlin' :)
(cough)
:) Nex
(cum grano salis)
Albert Marshall
Bill Donovan <bdon...@execulink.SPAM-OFF.com> wrote
>Mimi Kahn writes:
>>> Frankly, my objection would be to you calling the store clerk a "girl."
>
>> Your analogy is not a very good one. 'Girl' and 'boy' are not exact
>> antonyms. There are plenty of contexts in which one is offensive
>> but the other is not.
>
>interest because of its use by white-skinned people to address
>black-skinned people perjoratively.
>
>But isn't the issue the same? Where I'm living now, both "boy" and "girl"
>mean young pups who aren't experienced enough to do much of anything
>expect maybe sit at the counter until the real person returns.
>
>If someone is serving you professionally, it doesn't seem right to address
>them as boy/girl, unless they're under 12 years of age, and are clearly
>just filling in.
>
>It's a term that belittles.
>
I know of very few (fingers of one foot) people who actually address
anybody as "boy" or "girl" directly.
Up till two years ago I worked for the Wellcome Foundation (Burroughs
Wellcome, Stateside) in the Sterile Products Department.
The acknowledged elite group of production workers were mainly female
and worked (still do I presume) in the sterile filling clean rooms.
They, including at least one grandmother, proudly referred to themselves
as "filling girls.
In this country people are liable to be greeted by staff in some shops
as "Luv", "Dear", "Guv" (dying out now), "Moi 'andsome" and sundry other
endearments, some regional and other national.
If you want to be addressed as "Sir/Madame" you'll have to restrict your
choice of shops.
--
Albert Marshall
Executive French
Language Training for Businesses in Kent
01634 400902
Lee Rudolph
njk...@no-spam.mindspring.com (Mimi Kahn) writes:
>At what age does a young female cease to be a girl and start to be a
>woman? Frankly, I don't know.
>
>But I suspect if this young female is working she's a young woman
>rather than a girl.
Unless she's working in the family store, or the <insert Third World
semi-industrialized nation here> rug factory. I haven't patronized
the latter, but last week I bought 5 lobsters from a six-year-old
girl who pulled them out of one of her family's lobster tanks, and
rang up the sale, herself, while her four-or-five-year-old sister
looked on jealously. Mmm, lobster.
Lee Rudolph
Maureen Goldman
njk...@no-spam.mindspring.com (Mimi Kahn) wrote:
> Calling a grown woman a girl is as offensive to that woman as is
> calling a black man a boy is to that man. Both are meant to demean
> and to devalue.
He wasn't calling anyone "girl" but rather referring to a generic
young person acting as cashier. Besides, everytime I turn on TV in
the afternoon it seems like someone is yelling "You go, girl!" Can't
say that I've ever used this expression, but it obviously isn't
demeaning.
Alan Pollock
Mimi Kahn (njk...@no-spam.mindspring.com) wrote:
: On 9 Aug 1997 00:13:26 GMT, ne...@king.cts.com (Alan Pollock) wrote:
:
: >That's why one must guage the situation first. If the girl behind the counter
: >is obviously uptight and bordering on the snob, I wouldn't dream of calling
: >her 'darling' - if on the other hand she looks friendly, relaxed, human, and
: >knows a little about life, I wouldn't hesistate to call her darling, or honey.
: >Hasn't done me wrong so far - perhaps it's my infectious smile, I admit :)
: If I were you, I'd be a bit more careful about how I addressed an
: underage female.
:
I'll address women of 50 in the same way if I think they're friendly and
relaxed. I've done it many times, and have yet to get even the inkling of a
negative response. Of course not everyone qualifies - one must be careful
what one says to whom, and I am.
: >It's the intention that counts, which has always been my primordial point: one
: >doesn't want to offend, and there are many, many situations where saying
: >something inoffensive in one context offends in another.
:
: In today's litigation-happy society, it's *not* the intention that
: counts, but how what you do/say is viewed by the person you did/said
: it to.
:
: Suppose that young woman goes home and tells her concerned and
: protective parents, "Mr. Pollock came into the store today and called
: me 'darling.' He made me feel uncomfortable." Next thing you know,
: the police will be knocking at your door -- or perhaps merely a
: process server with a subpoena.
:
I doubt that very much, Mimi - after all, this form of address is used very
frequently, and all the recipient has to do is 'seem' offended for me to
immediately apologise. Remember, offending is not the intent here -
friendliness is. You're probably thinking of the recent case in which a
Seinfeld episode was referred-to. There was a lot more to it - the company
the defendant worked for wanted to get rid of him for entirely different
reasons. You know how it ended.
: <snip>
:
: >Sorry if you got that impression - I was speaking generally, hoping you might
: >respond in order to ascertain that I wasn't speaking of you specifically, and
: >to perhaps mention that you're *not* that way. That's why I used the word
: >'oneself' rather than 'yourself. I can see now that you're quite a friendly
: >and relaxed *person*, Darlin' :)
: >
: >
: >(cough)
:
: I'd also prefer not being called "Darlin'" (or any other phoney term
: of endearment) by a stranger, although in my case a charge of
: paedophilia wouldn't apply.
:
Really? I wish you'd make that more apparent in your posting style. :)
As for phoney, perhaps you're being a bit cynical in presuming to know *my*
intent? Moreover, even *were* an adult to call a child 'darlin' or 'honey'
would they then be a pedophile? Where *do* you live, and is it a
geographical, or mental?
: You really ought to do something about that cough.
:
Thanx for your concern. I appreciate it a lot, Mimi. Isn't a relaxed attitude
wonderful? Nex
David Hadley
ja...@marage.demon.co.uk (James Follett) wrote:
I agree that 'boy' and 'girl' are not insults. But what does puzzle me
is when does a boy/girl become a man/woman? One post in this thread
did, if I remember correctly, say that it was all right to call
someone a boy or girl up until they are about 13. This seems
ridiculously young to me.
They do call students at university men and women - which to me has
always sounded ridiculous because in most cases they do act more like
boys and girls.
--
David Hadley
Rahul Dhesi
In <33eea4a6...@news.mindspring.com> njk...@no-spam.mindspring.com
(Mimi Kahn) writes:
>At what age does a young female cease to be a girl and start to be a
>woman? Frankly, I don't know.
She remains a girl until she gets a sex change operation. She also
becomes a woman as she grows. 'Girl' and 'woman' are not mutually
exclusive.
--
Rahul Dhesi <dh...@spams.r.us.com>
Maureen Goldman
> inkslinger@{fog}sunshine.net (Maureen Goldman) wrote,
> >I asked my daughter, the waitress (west coast of Canada). If someone
> >doesn't know her name, then she is called "Miss". She wanted to know
> >why I was asking, found it odd that anyone would object.
>arpe...@math.uwaterloo.ca (Adrian Pepper) wrote:
> I find it difficult to believe that she does not more than occasionally
> encounter people who call her nothing at all. I don't suppose she gave
> you a percentage break-down of how she is addressed, by any chance?
> Was she including nothing as something she might possibly called, or
> would that have been considered outside the domain of the question?
It was outside the question. I'm sure that she is often "addressed"
by someone simply catching her attention and making a request.
Lloyd Zusman
On Sun, 10 Aug 1997 09:13:06 -0700, Mimi Kahn <njk...@no-spam.mindspring.com> wrote:
> On 10 Aug 1997 15:29:46 GMT, l...@asfast.com (Lloyd Zusman) wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 10 Aug 1997 07:59:41 -0700, Mimi Kahn <njk...@no-spam.mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> [ ... ]
> >>
> >> From my Concise Oxford Dictionary:
> >>
> >> girl n.
> >> 1 a female child or youth.
> >> 2 colloq. a young (esp. unmarried) woman.
> >> 3 colloq. a girlfriend or sweetheart.
> >> 4 a female servant.
> >>
> >> Perhaps it's the fourth definition that makes many adult women living
> >> in the last years of the twentieth century uncomfortable with being
> >> called a "girl."
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >
> >That having been said, I want to ask Mimi the following question:
> >
> >Are you saying that many adult women living in the last years of the
> >twentieth century readily assume that "girl" is generally intended to
> >be taken in the fourth most likely usage?
>
> No, not at all. I was just pointing out that, according to this
> particular dictionary, it's all right to call a woman a "girl" if she
> is your social inferior -- thus, if you call an adult woman a "girl,"
> you are implying that she *is* your social inferior.
I don't see how your consequence derives from your antecedent. In
other words, how does the phrase which comes after "thus" in the
above-quoted paragraph logically follow from the phrase that comes
before the word "thus"?
Just because one out of at least four meanings in the dictionary for
the word "girl" implies a person who is socially inferior doesn't
mean that all people who address women with the word "girl" are
making use of this particular definition.
> There is something demeaning about being called a "girl" when you are
> a 60-year-old grandmother or a 40-year-old mother of teenagers or a
> 30-year-old college professor. It is as though your adulthood isn't
> recognized, that you have no status in the adult world.
I agree that some (many?) men view women in this way. However, I
would be willing to bet that not all men who use the word "girl" to
address a woman are doing it for a demeaning reason.
I just play it safe and avoid the term as much as possible, but not
all men who respect women as full-fledged equals in society do as I
do.
--
Lloyd Zusman
l...@asfast.com
Maureen Goldman
da...@dhadley.demon.co.uk (David Hadley) wrote:
> But what does puzzle me
> is when does a boy/girl become a man/woman? One post in this thread
> did, if I remember correctly, say that it was all right to call
> someone a boy or girl up until they are about 13. This seems
> ridiculously young to me.
It can depend on who is talking - a 16-year-old will usually not refer
to a classmate as a man or a woman.
I'd put the cut-off at 18. In most places in N.America, 18 or 19
seems to be the age at which one may marry without consent, be tried
for murder as an adult, etc.
> They do call students at university men and women - which to me has
> always sounded ridiculous because in most cases they do act more like
> boys and girls.
We are not identified as men and women on the basis of our behaviour.
That *would* be confusing!
Rahul Dhesi
In <33ed997f...@news.gtn.net> bdon...@execulink.SPAM-OFF.com (Bill
Donovan) writes:
>Mimi Kahn writes:
>But isn't the issue the same? Where I'm living now, both "boy" and "girl"
>mean young pups who aren't experienced enough to do much of anything
>expect maybe sit at the counter until the real person returns.
Have you ever heard soldiers, returning home victorious from battle,
being proudly referred to as 'our boys'? Or women in their fifties
referring to one another in a group as 'the girls'?
>If someone is serving you professionally, it doesn't seem right to address
>them as boy/girl, unless they're under 12 years of age, and are clearly
>just filling in.
Only when you address them directly. But when you describe them to
others the connotation of the same words can be quite different.
--
Rahul Dhesi <dh...@spams.r.us.com>
Rahul Dhesi
In <33f26ab3...@news.mindspring.com> njk...@no-spam.mindspring.com
(Mimi Kahn) writes:
>>Your analogy is not a very good one. 'Girl' and 'boy' are not exact
>>antonyms. There are plenty of contexts in which one is offensive
>>but the other is not.
>Offensive to whom?
>Calling a youngster a girl or a boy, as appropriate, is not offensive
>to anybody.
>Calling a grown woman a girl is as offensive to that woman as is
>calling a black man a boy is to that man. Both are meant to demean
>and to devalue.
You missed my point. You cannot demonstrate that 'girl' is offensive
merely by claiming that 'boy' might be offensive in some context.
The world 'girl' has many shades of meaning, and you have missed most
of them. For example, you will (I'm sure) totally fail to understand
how it was used in the song 'Shall we Dance' in 'The King and I':
So many men and girls
Are in each others arms
It comes to me that we might be
Similarly occupied.
--
Rahul Dhesi <dh...@spams.r.us.com>
Maureen Goldman
c.c....@87.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:
> You missed my point. You cannot demonstrate that 'girl' is offensive
> merely by claiming that 'boy' might be offensive in some context.
>
> The world 'girl' has many shades of meaning, and you have missed most
> of them. For example, you will (I'm sure) totally fail to understand
> how it was used in the song 'Shall we Dance' in 'The King and I':
>
> So many men and girls
> Are in each others arms
> It comes to me that we might be
> Similarly occupied.
I don't think that lyrics can be used for proof. They needed a
one-syllable word.
James Follett
In article <33f19517.5181075@news>
da...@dhadley.demon.co.uk "David Hadley" writes:
>I agree that 'boy' and 'girl' are not insults. But what does puzzle me
>is when does a boy/girl become a man/woman?
English is a gloriously rich tapestry. Let us revel in that and
not fret ourselves over warps in the weft, or warts in the warp.
Sonia Jaffe Robbins
Lee Lester (lee.l...@guildnet.org) wrote:
: From The Economist style sheet:
:
: 'You can avoid offending women without using _chairperson, humankind_
: and _Ms.._ Prefer _chairman_ (for a man) or _in the chair, mankind,_ so
: long as the context is not offensive, and the precision of Mrs. and Miss
: whenever you can.'
It's not a question of "offending women" but of accuracy. "Mankind" is an
inherently unstable word, especially when used with "he" as a following
pronoun ("Mankind nurses his young"??!!) Why use "chairMAN" when a woman
is chairing the committee? Why not use chairwoman, for the sake of
accuracy?
As for the "precision of Mrs. and Miss": why not, so long as we also have
the precision of Mr. and ?? for married and unmarried men. Or decide that
it is equally irrelevant, in most cases, for indicate the marital status
of the men and women who appear in newspapers or magazines.
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
In article <33ea8733...@news.sunshine.net>, inkslinger@{fog}sunshine.net
(Maureen Goldman) writes:
> I remember when Ms. came around. I was surprised that it caught on.
> Delighted, too, just because it was so practical for business
> situations.
Which, in my opinion, is one of the two major reasons it caught on.
Gary Williams
WILL...@AHECAS.AHEC.EDU
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
In article <33f26ab3...@news.mindspring.com>,
njk...@no-spam.mindspring.com (Mimi Kahn) writes:
> Calling a grown woman a girl is as offensive to that woman as is
> calling a black man a boy is to that man. Both are meant to demean
> and to devalue.
Just a point of clarification: a word may demean and devalue without being
_meant_ to demean and devalue.
Saturday I was in a restaurant with my college-age daughter. I referred to our
server as "that woman who waited on us". My daughter expressed some surprise
that I had referred to her as a "woman", since the person was known by her to
be younger by two years than she.
On reflection, I observed that there had been a time when any female of my age
or younger was a "girl" , while females older than I were "women". Apparently
what has happened is that I have reached a point where practically all females
still living are younger than I, so making a distinction based on their age
relative to my own is pointless.
At least, that's the best explanation I could offer.
Gary Williams
WILL...@AHECAS.AHEC.EDU
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
In article <33eb89d5...@news.sunshine.net>, inkslinger@{fog}sunshine.net
(Maureen Goldman) writes:
> I recall being taken by surprise that anyone was actually expected to
> pronounce it as per that Maude episode. After all, Mr. is mister and Mrs. is
> missus.
Evidently you had not spent a lot of time in the South.
Gary Williams
WILL...@AHECAS.AHEC.EDU
Sonia Jaffe Robbins
Mimi Kahn (njk...@no-spam.mindspring.com) wrote:
:
: At what age does a young female cease to be a girl and start to be a
: woman? Frankly, I don't know.
The Associated Press style manual suggests "boy" and "girl" for people
under the age of 18. After that they are men and women.
Chris Malcolm
>There is something demeaning about being called a "girl" when you are
>a 60-year-old grandmother or a 40-year-old mother of teenagers or a
>30-year-old college professor. It is as though your adulthood isn't
>recognized, that you have no status in the adult world.
Exactly. I'm sorry that you have so few social occasions on which you
wish to your adult status to be thrown to the winds. A bunch of 60 yr
olds preparing to do something naughy for fun, like get drunk or jump
naked into the sea, will often refer to the women of the company as
"girls", in order to affirm the complete dismissal of adult status,
professorships, grandmotherhood, etc..
For this week's English Usage homework exercise think up at least two
more contexts in which it is appropriate, without any implication of
inferiority, to call a lady of grand and senior status a girl.
--
Chris Malcolm c...@dai.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK DoD #205
Bun Mui
>
> Re: Do women object to being called "ma'am" and "miss"?
>
> From: robb...@is2.nyu.edu (Sonia Jaffe Robbins)
> Reply to: [1]Sonia Jaffe Robbins
> Date: 11 Aug 1997 02:57:29 GMT
> Organization: New York University
> Newsgroups:
> [2]alt.usage.english
> Followup to: [3]newsgroup(s)
> References:
> [4]<5rqlt9$i9e$1...@news1.sirius.com>
> [5]<nocifere-010...@news.iinet.net.au>
> [6]<33e3c189...@news.sunshine.net>
> [7]<33E75A...@flash.net>
> [8]<1997Aug7.112656.1@ahecas>
> [9]<87099908...@optional.cts.com>
> [10]<33ed834d...@news.mindspring.com>
> [11]<33ebfe07...@news.pacific.net.sg>
> [12]<33eea4a6...@news.mindspring.com>
Ma'am is how U.S. people in the south or U.S. military people like
the former Elvis Presley address ladies, is it not? Am I stereo typing?
Yes Ma'am , Yes Sir!
I don't think that a lady should feel ashamed if they are called "Miss"
or a man should be ashamed to be called "Mr.".
In Britain this is how a specialist medical doctor is address as, is
it not? Miss for a lady doctor specialist and Mr. for a man doctor
specialist? Therefore a lady should be proud to be called Miss. :)
But Miss is also how we address a lady who is not married right?
Ms. are ladies who like not to be categorized. Maybe divorced. ;)
Please comment.
Bun Mui
Please remove "x" at the front and end of "BunMui" to e-mail me.
Over & Out (-5 GMT)
Alan Pollock
Maureen Goldman (inkslinger@{fog}sunshine.net) wrote:
:njk...@no-spam.mindspring.com (Mimi Kahn) wrote:
:
:> From my Concise Oxford Dictionary:
:>
:> girl n.
:> 1 a female child or youth.
:> 2 colloq. a young (esp. unmarried) woman.
:> 3 colloq. a girlfriend or sweetheart.
:> 4 a female servant.
:>
:> Perhaps it's the fourth definition that makes many adult women living
:> in the last years of the twentieth century uncomfortable with being
:> called a "girl."
:I don't think so. Didn't come from a background in which there were
:servants, so I was an adult before I heard the term applied to a maid
:or secretary. I'd say that the discomfort arises from being referred
:to as though one were a child while others are accorded adult status.
:
:
:However, this depends on the context, for me. I don't care for
:circumstances in which someone else feels a necessity to point out
:that I've been insulted when a term was neither said as an insult nor
:received in that manner. This comes under the category of "If it
:ain't broke, don't fix it."
:
:--
:Maureen Goldman
:To reply, please remove fog.
Agreed. Perhaps some people live in an Upstairs-Downstairs dream, but I'm
very glad I don't - and it's not because I admire some social group of old,
yet don't belong to it.
But discuss endlessly as we may, the real world is out there. When someone
speaks of (not to) 'the girl behind the counter', it's tone of voice and
subsequent comment that, in my opinion, reveals the attitude of the speaker.
Not the mere use of the word 'girl', unless she happens to be of mature age.
And discuss endlessly as we may, the attitude of a person easily offended is
in the main, quite easy to spot, even from far-off. I use this as my
yardstick.
I know, the purpose of this thread is to weed-out offensive terms from those
that can be used universally, no matter one's attitude.
I don't see this as a mere on/off, good/bad kind of thing. There's a vast
grey area, where certain forms of address can be used in certain contexts, and
not in others, with certain people, and not with others. On the extreme end
one has terms that cannot ever be used. On the moderate side, we have
choices.
I don't think 'miss' is one of the forbidden terms, especially - it's more in
that grey area, where one should tread softly and carefully.
We've seen that some can get quite heated about this kind of thing. My view
is simply that it takes all kinds. If waste heat created light, we'd have a
perfect world. Nex
Sarpedon
In article <19970801134...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
slhin...@aol.com (SLHinton17) wrote:
> A kid might have said "Hey, Lady!" What should I have said?
Or more likely, a kid nowadays would say: "Sup, bitch!"
That's not a recommendation, though. However, it does seem
to solve the married/unmarried dilemma of choosing between
the Mrs/Miss forms of address that was pointed out by a
previous poster...
Seriously, the key to using "ma'am" and "miss" in the proper
situation seems to me to fall mainly on the apparent age
difference between the man and the woman being addressed.
"Ma'am" is better suited for younger men to an equal or
older. "Miss" is best applied by (relatively) older men
to younger woman.
I personally like using "madam" to address older women...
I get weird looks as if I'm trying to arrange the services
of an escort business. <sigh> Once again, euphemism destroys
a perfectly good word!
Sarpedon
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Peter Schultz
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> 'Man' is derived from 'human' (originally from Latin, I think)
> which is derived from 'manus' (Latin and Sanskrit).
Yes, just about all English words derive from Latin, as we all know.
Or else from Sanskrit. Or both.
James Follett
In article <1997Aug11.113951.1@ahecas>
will...@ahecas.ahec.edu
"Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting" writes:
>Saturday I was in a restaurant with my college-age daughter. I referred to our
>server as "that woman who waited on us".
What's wrong with `our waitress'?
--
James Follett -- novelist (You have but one skin, so be fiercely proud of its
colour; you have but one first language, so be fiercely proud of its richness;
you have but one culture, so be fiercely proud of its heritage. And feel no
guilt for the crimes of others. http://www.davew.demon.co.uk )
Rahul Dhesi
In <5sluol$lpo$1...@news.nyu.edu> robb...@is2.nyu.edu (Sonia Jaffe
Robbins) writes:
>It's not a question of "offending women" but of accuracy. "Mankind" is an
>inherently unstable word, especially when used with "he" as a following
>pronoun ("Mankind nurses his young"??!!) Why use "chairMAN" when a woman
>is chairing the committee? Why not use chairwoman, for the sake of
>accuracy?
'Man' is derived from 'human' (originally from Latin, I think) which is
derived from 'manus' (Latin and Sanskrit). All three terms in an
indefinite context refer to the species, which includes both sexes.
Only if 'man' is preceded by 'a' or 'the' does it refer to a male of the
species.
'Mankind' is a neuter noun. ('Mankind nurses its young'). Likewise
'humanity'.
--
Rahul Dhesi <dh...@spams.r.us.com>
Rahul Dhesi
>I don't think that a lady should feel ashamed if they are called "Miss"
>or a man should be ashamed to be called "Mr."....
>But Miss is also how we address a lady who is not married right?
>Ms. are ladies who like not to be categorized. Maybe divorced. ;)
The reason it has been historically important for women's marital status
to be made evident (by their title or by their wearing or not wearing a
wedding ring) was because it allowed single men to decide whom to court
and whom to not court, and thus save everybody some potential
embarrassment.
Were it the case that women typically courted men, it would then become
important for men's marital status to be equally made evident.
--
Rahul Dhesi <dh...@spams.r.us.com>
Maureen Goldman
Bun Mui <xBun...@usa.net> wrote:
> Ms. are ladies who like not to be categorized. Maybe divorced. ;)
You were doing fine until this part. Ms. is where marital status is
not relevant. The person from the tax department may be married,
single, divorced, or widowed. It doesn't matter.
Maureen Goldman
will...@ahecas.ahec.edu (Gary Williams, Business Services
Accounting) wrote:
> Just a point of clarification: a word may demean and devalue without being
> _meant_ to demean and devalue.
>
> Saturday I was in a restaurant with my college-age daughter. I referred to our
> server as "that woman who waited on us". My daughter expressed some surprise
> that I had referred to her as a "woman", since the person was known by her to
> be younger by two years than she.
To me, your college-age daughter was checking to see whether you
consider her an adult as well. But that's just a guess. (I'd ask.)
> On reflection, I observed that there had been a time when any female of my age
> or younger was a "girl" , while females older than I were "women". Apparently
> what has happened is that I have reached a point where practically all females
> still living are younger than I, so making a distinction based on their age
> relative to my own is pointless.
"That woman dropped her doll. Yes, that one - the blonde riding the
blue tricycle."
Out of curiosity, at what age did that earlier distinction start and
stop?
Rahul Dhesi
>Yes, just about all English words derive from Latin, as we all know.
>Or else from Sanskrit. Or both.
Thus missing the point.
--
Rahul Dhesi <dh...@spams.r.us.com>
Philippa Laing
> In article <33ea8733...@news.sunshine.net>, inkslinger@{fog}sunshine.net
> (Maureen Goldman) writes:
>
> > I remember when Ms. came around. I was surprised that it caught on.
> > Delighted, too, just because it was so practical for business
> > situations.
Am I the only woman who _hates_ being called or referred to as Ms? I'm
not sure why but it has negative connotations, to my mind. I object when
forms only give a choice of Mr or Ms and, even more, when the choice is
Mr, Mrs or Ms. That gives the impression that only married women are
allowed to _choose_ not to be called Ms. On occasion, given the first
pair of choices, I have not ticked any box because I consider that
neither correctly applies to me. (Though it is rather a moot point for
me, now.)
I also rather object if I am standing in front of somebody who is
writing my name down and automatically writes Ms, even though I am
standing there and would willingly say which I prefer, if I were asked.
Philippa Laing
p....@eee.nott.ac.uk
^ ^
These do not exist.
Bun Mui
>
> Re: Do women object to being called "ma'am" and "miss"?
>
> Reply to: [1]Maureen Goldman
> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 03:09:16 GMT
> Organization: Online at Wimsey
> Newsgroups:
> [2]alt.usage.english
> Followup to: [3]newsgroup(s)
> References:
>
>Bun Mui <xBun...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> Ms. are ladies who like not to be categorized. Maybe divorced. ;)
>
>You were doing fine until this part. Ms. is where marital status is
>not relevant. The person from the tax department may be married,
>single, divorced, or widowed. It doesn't matter.
Why would a lady want to be addressed as Ms., if she is married or
single and not Mrs. or Miss. respectively?
Unless if she wants to conceal her marital status to men?
The reason why men address women as Ms. is because they don't
know their marital status or have never been told so.
Maureen Goldman
c.c....@87.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:
> The reason it has been historically important for women's marital status
> to be made evident (by their title or by their wearing or not wearing a
> wedding ring) was because it allowed single men to decide whom to court
> and whom to not court, and thus save everybody some potential
> embarrassment.
> Were it the case that women typically courted men, it would then become
> important for men's marital status to be equally made evident.
This assumes that only single men exhibit courtship behaviour. Sigh!
There would be little grounds for confusion if upon marriage, a man
were branded on the forehead. "Why am I wearing this veil? It's in
case of bees."
Bun Mui
>
> Re: Do women object to being called "ma'am" and "miss"?
>
> Reply to: [1]Rahul Dhesi
> Date: 12 Aug 1997 02:56:50 GMT
> Organization: a2i network
> Newsgroups:
> [2]alt.usage.english
> Followup to: [3]newsgroup(s)
> References:
> [4]<5snm0k$c1d$1...@postern.mbnet.mb.ca>
>
>
>>I don't think that a lady should feel ashamed if they are called "Miss"
>>or a man should be ashamed to be called "Mr."....
>>But Miss is also how we address a lady who is not married right?
>
>to be made evident (by their title or by their wearing or not wearing a
>wedding ring) was because it allowed single men to decide whom to court
>and whom to not court, and thus save everybody some potential
>embarrassment.
You are wrong here. Many western women who are single would wear a ring
on their wedding ring finger just to stop men from chasing after
them all the time.
>Were it the case that women typically courted men, it would then become
>important for men's marital status to be equally made evident.
Hahaha sometimes men take off their wedding ring to go after other
women.
Lee Rudolph
c.c....@87.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
>'Man' is derived from 'human' (originally from Latin, I think) which is
>derived from 'manus' (Latin and Sanskrit).
Rahul, stop trolling. Next you'll be trying to convince us that
"manure", "maneuver", and "masturbation" are all cognate.
Lee Rudolph
Larry Krakauer
Mimi Kahn wrote:
> On 12 Aug 1997 18:39:36 GMT, Bun Mui <xBun...@usa.net> wrote:
> >Why would a lady want to be addressed as Ms., if she is married or
> >single and not Mrs. or Miss. respectively?
> >Unless if she wants to conceal her marital status to men?
> >The reason why men address women as Ms. is because they don't
> >know their marital status or have never been told so.
> Are all men, whether married or not, addressed as "Mr." because they
> want to conceal their marital status to women?
> Perhaps a woman chooses to be addressed as "Ms." rather than as "Mrs."
> or "Miss" because her marital status is irrelevant to the situation
> and thus is no one's business but her own.
A good answer. It reminds me of a similar issue that was once
addressed, in a speech, by Isaac Asimov. This was in the late
1960's, when quite a few young men were beginning to wear long
hair. Asimov noted that many in the older generation objected
that they might see a person approaching on the street, and could
not tell if the person was male or female.
"Well," said Asimov, "why do you care? What are you going
to do differently? In fact, when you get right down to it,
what business is it of yours? What's a more intimate,
personal, and private matter than what sex a person is?"
So perhaps we should back off one more letter, and just write
"M." as a title for both men and women. After all, the sex
of a person is just as irrelevant to most situations as
his or her marital status. Too bad it means "Monsieur" in
French.
--
Larry Krakauer (lar...@kronos.com)
Brian J Goggin
On Tue, 12 Aug 1997 09:14:46 -0700, njk...@no-spam.mindspring.com
(Mimi Kahn) wrote:
>On 12 Aug 1997 12:37:17 GMT, c.c....@87.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi)
>wrote:
>
>>In <33EFD2...@erols.com> Peter Schultz <schu...@erols.com> writes:
>>
>>>Yes, just about all English words derive from Latin, as we all know.
>>>Or else from Sanskrit. Or both.
>>
>>Thus missing the point.
>
>I wonder why so many of us miss so many of your points.
>
For we are bears of very little brain, and long words bother us.
bjg
dave
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> >At what age does a young female cease to be a girl and start to be a
> >woman? Frankly, I don't know.
>
> becomes a woman as she grows. 'Girl' and 'woman' are not mutually
> exclusive.
In my opinion, part of the trouble is the absence of a female equivalent
for "guy" (or the fact that this equivalent is often "girl"). I agree
that "girl" is not a good term for, e.g., describing an unfamiliar
person you encountered during your day. But "woman" sounds somehow too
formal (at least, til you get used to it, after realizing the potential
dangers in saying "girl"...). I would never say, e.g., "I saw a *man*
walking into X today".
-dave.
Maureen Goldman
Philippa Laing <p....@eee.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
> Am I the only woman who _hates_ being called or referred to as Ms? I'm
> not sure why but it has negative connotations, to my mind. [snip]
Are you able to elaborate? I think that at one time the term was
associated to some extent with radical feminism, but "negative
connotations" really does require a bit of explanation.
dave
bas wrote:
> Is HTML not an "other language"? I've discussed how several
> "syntactic forms" are used. I've also prescibed that the future
> of a web browser would be one that reads aloud the HTML.
Spoken languages, or at least those that were spoken at some time, are
implied. No one wants to discuss assembly or machine code here, and I
think you should assume the same applies to HTML. Why would you want a
browser that reads aloud the HTML? Surely it would be the content
rather than the mark-ups themselves that you would want to hear.
Adrian Pepper
l...@asfast.com (Lloyd Zusman) wrote,
in article <slrn5us5l...@ljz.asfast.net>:
>I agree that some (many?) men view women in this way. However, I
>would be willing to bet that not all men who use the word "girl" to
>address a woman are doing it for a demeaning reason.
Do you really mean "address a woman", or do you mean "refer to a
woman"?
When I say "address", I essentially mean "use in place a person's
(often unknown) name when speaking directly to them", the same way one
might use "ma'am", "madam", "miss", "you there", or "Your Highness".
It's difficult for me to imagine very many situations where someone
would actually use "girl" that way without implying some sort of
servitude of the woman, even if only subtly.
But then again when a Sid James movie character, somewhat reminiscent
of aspects of me farver, shouted something like, "Shut up, woman", I
don't think he was being respectful. That, by the way, is what I would
understand as "addressing". (Though addressing could include more
respectful examples, too).
Adrian Pepper
arpe...@math.uwaterloo.ca
Bun Mui
>
> Re: Do women object to being called "ma'am" and "miss"?
>
> Reply to: [1]njk...@no-spam.mindspring.com
> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 12:19:08 -0700
> Organization: Megabyte Press
> Newsgroups:
> [2]alt.usage.english
> Followup to: [3]newsgroup(s)
> References:
>
>On 12 Aug 1997 18:39:36 GMT, Bun Mui <xBun...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>>Why would a lady want to be addressed as Ms., if she is married or
>>single and not Mrs. or Miss. respectively?
>>Unless if she wants to conceal her marital status to men?
>>The reason why men address women as Ms. is because they don't
>>know their marital status or have never been told so.
>
>Are all men, whether married or not, addressed as "Mr." because they
>want to conceal their marital status to women?
No unfortunately that is how they are addressed as, whether married or
not. Unless they have not yet reached legal age or puberty then
they would be addressed as "Master so and so". Obviously not ready to
get married.
>Perhaps a woman chooses to be addressed as "Ms." rather than as "Mrs."
>or "Miss" because her marital status is irrelevant to the situation
>and thus is no one's business but her own.
You are speaking like a divorced woman. Or a woman with a history. :)
I notice that many divorced women feels that this is her own business
to be addressed as Ms.. If they want to find a mate that is very poor
advertising. Hahaha! ;)
Bun Mui
Alan Pollock
Larry Krakauer (lar...@kronos.com) wrote:
:Mimi Kahn wrote:
:> On 12 Aug 1997 18:39:36 GMT, Bun Mui <xBun...@usa.net> wrote:
:> >Why would a lady want to be addressed as Ms., if she is married or
:> >single and not Mrs. or Miss. respectively?
:> >Unless if she wants to conceal her marital status to men?
:> >The reason why men address women as Ms. is because they don't
:> >know their marital status or have never been told so.
:
:> Are all men, whether married or not, addressed as "Mr." because they
:> want to conceal their marital status to women?
:> Perhaps a woman chooses to be addressed as "Ms." rather than as "Mrs."
:> or "Miss" because her marital status is irrelevant to the situation
:> and thus is no one's business but her own.
:A good answer. It reminds me of a similar issue that was once
:addressed, in a speech, by Isaac Asimov. This was in the late
:1960's, when quite a few young men were beginning to wear long
:hair. Asimov noted that many in the older generation objected
:that they might see a person approaching on the street, and could
:not tell if the person was male or female.
:
:"Well," said Asimov, "why do you care? What are you going
:to do differently? In fact, when you get right down to it,
:what business is it of yours? What's a more intimate,
:personal, and private matter than what sex a person is?"
:
:So perhaps we should back off one more letter, and just write
:"M." as a title for both men and women. After all, the sex
:of a person is just as irrelevant to most situations as
:his or her marital status. Too bad it means "Monsieur" in
:French.
:
:--
:Larry Krakauer (lar...@kronos.com)
In that case, why not dispense with any form of address at all, as there would
no longer be any differentiation. Nex
Maureen Goldman
> >> Ms. are ladies who like not to be categorized. Maybe divorced. ;)
> > Maureen Goldman
> >You were doing fine until this part. Ms. is where marital status is
> >not relevant. The person from the tax department may be married,
> >single, divorced, or widowed. It doesn't matter.
> Why would a lady want to be addressed as Ms., if she is married or
> single and not Mrs. or Miss. respectively?
> Unless if she wants to conceal her marital status to men?
> The reason why men address women as Ms. is because they don't
> know their marital status or have never been told so.
If I go into a bank, I do not expect the person behind the counter to
tell me if he or she is married. This is not information that I need
to know or want to know in order to cash a cheque. Similarly, this
person does not need to know this information about me.
Side note: You are bringing in header material with your quotes. Can
your software turn off this function?.
Brian J Goggin
On Wed, 13 Aug 1997 03:39:56 GMT, inkslinger@{fog}sunshine.net
(Maureen Goldman) wrote:
[...]
>If I go into a bank, I do not expect the person behind the counter to
>tell me if he or she is married. This is not information that I need
>to know or want to know in order to cash a cheque. Similarly, this
>person does not need to know this information about me.
As a believer in free markets, I agree with you. Your role as
consumer, and the bank clerk's as producer, do not require any
information about your personality or your humanity or those of the
clerk.
There is, however, a price. Those economic roles are carried out in an
impersonal world, one in which producers and consumers know little
about each other --- and perhaps care less. There is, however,
something to be said for the smaller scale marketplace, the village or
small town in which traders and customers know each other, as
individuals and as economic actors, and recognise their
interdependence. In their transactions, personal information and
gossip are exchanged in the normal course of events; people know each
other's circumstances --- and, I suggest, are more likely to help and
protect each other.
Since moving to a small village ten years ago, I've come to value some
aspects of rural life: for example, in Irish villages and small towns,
shopkeepers turn off their lights as funerals (with walking mourners)
go by.
bjg
Rahul Dhesi
In <33fa97c3...@news.sunshine.net> inkslinger@{fog}sunshine.net
(Maureen Goldman) writes:
>> Were it the case that women typically courted men...
>This assumes that only single men exhibit courtship behaviour. Sigh!
This assumed I didn't use the word "typically". Sigh!
--
Rahul Dhesi <dh...@spams.r.us.com>
Rahul Dhesi
In <33fe0751...@news.sunshine.net> inkslinger@{fog}sunshine.net
(Maureen Goldman) writes:
>If I go into a bank, I do not expect the person behind the counter to
>tell me if he or she is married. This is not information that I need
>to know or want to know in order to cash a cheque. Similarly, this
>person does not need to know this information about me.
Many single men are quite interested in the marital status of a cute
female bank teller. Even though they do not need this information to
cash a cheque.
And if the bank teller is a single guy, and if you are an attractive
woman, he might be interested in your marital status. Even though he
does not need to know this in order to cash your cheque.
--
Rahul Dhesi <dh...@spams.r.us.com>
Maureen Goldman
dave <graves@__cs.ubc.ca> wrote:
> In my opinion, part of the trouble is the absence of a female equivalent
> for "guy" (or the fact that this equivalent is often "girl"). I agree
> that "girl" is not a good term for, e.g., describing an unfamiliar
> person you encountered during your day. But "woman" sounds somehow too
> formal (at least, til you get used to it, after realizing the potential
> dangers in saying "girl"...). I would never say, e.g., "I saw a *man*
> walking into X today".
Why not? And why the asterisks?
xBun...@usa.net
>
> Re: Do women object to being called "ma'am" and "miss"?
>
> From: njk...@no-spam.mindspring.com (Mimi Kahn)
> Reply to: [1]njk...@no-spam.mindspring.com
> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 17:40:38 -0700
> Organization: Megabyte Press
> Newsgroups:
> [2]alt.usage.english
> Followup to: [3]newsgroup(s)
> References:
>
>On 13 Aug 1997 00:03:38 GMT, Bun Mui <xBun...@usa.net> addressed me
>thusly:
>
>>You are speaking like a divorced woman. Or a woman with a history. :)
>>I notice that many divorced women feels that this is her own business
>>to be addressed as Ms.. If they want to find a mate that is very poor
>>advertising. Hahaha! ;)
>
>
>My marital status is none of your business. My "history" is none of
>your business. (Who of us lives to adulthood without a "history," for
>God's sake? Or is your implication as intentionally insulting as it
>appears to be?)
Why do application forms sometimes ask for people's marital status
then if it should not be any of their business?
A person's history can tell a lot about a person's character for
example. Priscilla Presley said that she was a virgin when she
married Elvis. Now recently an elderly man by the name of "Currie
Grant comes along and says that he had had an affair with Priscilla
Presley before she got married. Since Currie Grant is not getting
any money for interviews on t.v. or making any money out of it.
I think he just wants to set Ms. Priscilla Presley straight that
she was a liar.
As Elvis said, "The Truth will set you free."
Bun Mui
Greer/Taylor
>On 13 Aug 1997 00:03:38 GMT, Bun Mui <xBun...@usa.net> addressed me
>thusly:
>
>>You are speaking like a divorced woman. Or a woman with a history. :)
>>I notice that many divorced women feels that this is her own business
>>to be addressed as Ms.. If they want to find a mate that is very poor
>>advertising. Hahaha! ;)
>
>What a pissy and narrow-minded little person you are!
>
>My marital status is none of your business. My "history" is none of
>your business. (Who of us lives to adulthood without a "history," for
>God's sake? Or is your implication as intentionally insulting as it
>appears to be?)
>
>But, FWIW, I am not now nor have I ever been divorced, I am quite
>thoroughly and happily married, and I am not trying to "find a mate."
>A woman's marital status is her own business, regardless of what it
>is, and not yours unless she chooses to share it with you. Any
>assumptions you draw from her lack of disclosure are just that -- your
>assumptions.
>
>Your spot under the bridge is still damp. You might want to return
>there before your billygoat gets cold.
>
>
>Mimi
>
>http://www.mindspring.com/~njkahn
Thank you, Mimi, for stating my feelings so well. I kept my
maiden name when I married, my husband kept his. My students address
me as Miss "X" because I never could stand to hear "Miz" from any one
north of the Maison Dixon line. I don't wear a wedding ring because
metal of any kind makes me break out and plastic is just too tacky and
too brittle to last long. When the subject of marriage is appropriate
to a conversation, I'll tell anyone I want to know.
Cissy . Thorpe
On Tue, 12 Aug 1997, dave wrote:
> In my opinion, part of the trouble is the absence of a female equivalent
> for "guy" (or the fact that this equivalent is often "girl"). I agree
> that "girl" is not a good term for, e.g., describing an unfamiliar
> person you encountered during your day. But "woman" sounds somehow too
> formal (at least, til you get used to it, after realizing the potential
> dangers in saying "girl"...). I would never say, e.g., "I saw a *man*
> walking into X today".
>
> -dave.
>
>
If the playwrite is any indication, the female equivalent of "guy" would
be "doll"??
...but seriously folks, what about "gal"
Cissy
Peter Schultz
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> Many single men are quite interested in the marital status of a cute
> female bank teller. Even though they do not need this information to
> cash a cheque.
>
> And if the bank teller is a single guy, and if you are an attractive
> woman, he might be interested in your marital status. Even though he
> does not need to know this in order to cash your cheque.
> --
> Rahul Dhesi <dh...@spams.r.us.com>
I want everyone to add "Trek" or "Notrek" on the front of their names.
Many StarTrek enthusiasts are quite interested in the Startrek status
of a bank teller. Even though they do not need this information to
cash a cheque.
And if the bank teller is a Trecky, he might be interested in your
Trecky status. Even though he does not need to know this in order to
cash your cheque.
So everybody should do it because I like the idea. Do it now.
Brian J Goggin
On Wed, 13 Aug 1997 14:52:54 -0700, njk...@no-spam.mindspring.com
(Mimi Kahn) wrote:
[...]
>>For myself, I was converted to the use of *Ms* when I started using
>>dBASE II and needed to keep the field sizes down.
>
>Well, that's *one* way to enlightenment. :^)
>
It was also a good defence when the Powers That Were asked what I was
doing with this horrid new-fangled form of address and why nuns
couldn't be called "Rev Sr" and stuff.
bjg
Evan Kirshenbaum
Peter Schultz <schu...@erols.com> writes:
> Rahul Dhesi wrote:
>
> > 'Man' is derived from 'human' (originally from Latin, I think)
> > which is derived from 'manus' (Latin and Sanskrit).
>
> Yes, just about all English words derive from Latin, as we all know.
> Or else from Sanskrit. Or both.
Actually, I think you'd be hard pressed to find more than a couple of
dozen common English words that derive from Sanskrit. In a quick
check of likely candidates, I could only find
rupee
sari
Buddha
Sanskrit
brahma
I had thought "sitar" and "Hindu" to be likely candidates, but it
turns out they come from Persian (via Hindi).
I don't know if Rahul was being serious or not, but MW10CD only lists
"man" as being "akin to ... Skt _manu_", not derived from it.
There are a large number of English words derived from the common
ancestor of English and Sanskrit, bur very few actually derived from
Sanskrit proper.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The Elizabethans had so many words
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |for the female genitals that it is
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |quite hard to speak a sentence of
|modern English without inadvertently
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |mentioning at least three of them.
(415)857-7572 | Terry Pratchett
Truly Donovan
Philippa Laing wrote:
> Am I the only woman who _hates_ being called or referred to as Ms? I'm
> not sure why but it has negative connotations, to my mind.
I'm sure you're not the only woman who hates it. Just about any woman
who has a need to publish her marital status to the world would tend to
dislike it.
When the use of "Ms." first showed up in the USA in the early 70s, a lot
of people sneered at it as being the first choice of spinsters and
lesbians. Today it is so commonplace that few people give it any
thought; by now, a significant percentage of the population have been
using it all their lives.
In other parts of the world, the feminist movement has been sufficiently
retarded that many women still think it the label for spinsterhood
and/or lesbianism and dislike it accordingly.
--
Truly Donovan
reply to truly at lunemere dot com