From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V1 #104 Reply-To: loud-fans@smoe.org Sender: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk loud-fans-digest Monday, June 4 2001 Volume 01 : Number 104 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [loud-fans] Hair / Gendered thespians ["Phil Gerrard" ] Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! [Cardin] Re: [loud-fans] Another helping of Slaw [Cardinal007@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] R.E.M., hair, cover art, aging [popanda@juno.com] Re: [loud-fans] PS [Cardinal007@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! [Tim_Wa] Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show itin! [jenny g] Re: [loud-fans] Another helping of Slaw [jenny grover Subject: [loud-fans] Hair / Gendered thespians Rog wrote: >BTW, I totally agree with Jen. I always assumed that Michael >Stipe shaved his head because he didn't like the way he looked >with thinning hair. Just because he had a great head of hair 10 >years or ago or whatever doesn't mean that he does now. It's >kinda like how the Edge always wears a hat... Stipe, in fact, did go through the hat/baseball cap phase: see videos from the 'Automatic' era for evidence. I'm glad that he had the courage to ditch the headgear, 'cause I think that's a dreadful rock'n'roll cliche. Personally, I think the baldness suits him: he's always been attractive, but in a somewhat otherworldly manner, and the emphasis that the shaved head adds to his features IMO adds to this quality. West wrote: >Or is it merely simplification? If we refer to both Cate Blanchett >and Ian McKellen as "actors", we may consider it a matter of pure >expediency; if this promotes a sense of gender equality -- dude, >bonus! In simple linguistic terms I'd be inclined to agree, but I was thinking back to an earlier post which mentioned the Oscars, and that led me to wonder whether in terms of recognition the distinction might still be useful. Imagine if there was only one 'Best Actor' category which applied to both genders: how long do you think it would take before there was a female winner? Given that women in the acting profession really do have a hard time finding decent roles, in a funny way the gender distinction in awards ceremonies has become a form of affirmative action. From recent personal experience directing plays, I've found that the only way to ensure that women get a fair hearing is to choose pieces where you can cast across genders, ie give parts to women which had originally been intended for men. If it truly was a level playing field, I'd have no problem with abolishing the distinction between 'actors' and 'actresses', but if this distinction means that women working in the profession remain visible, rather than being obscured by their male counterparts, maybe it's worth preserving in some ways? Nothing to offer but my own confusion - peace & love phil ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 11:09:11 EDT From: Cardinal007@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! In a message dated 6/2/01 10:22:55 PM, glarbleflarb@earthlink.net writes: >> I'm not sure what to make of this. I just find the unisex revisionism > >> kinda pretentious. > > > >Or is it merely simplification? If we refer to both Cate Blanchett and >Ian > >McKellen as "actors", we may consider it a matter of pure expediency; if > >this promotes a sense of gender equality -- dude, bonus! Unfortunately, the simplification extends less information. But, if it makes someone feel better, what's the harm? There are countless examples in our language of words that are now largely proscribed because the persons described were pained by a connotation, and I guess actresses may feel belittled if their sex is described in their appellation. Of course, the romance languages do that everywhere; my female door has to feel my masculaine hand every day -- even if I am a woman. Ya know, I've again mixed ideas to perfect an unintelligible paragraph........... consistent, eh? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 11:14:34 EDT From: Cardinal007@aol.com Subject: [loud-fans] PS PS -- I offer as an example "sex" and "gender." Phile Snarky's post described differences caused by "gender" when "sex" would be the right word between the two words; we almost all do it, because it demonstrates our enlightenment. But the difference between actors who are women and actors who are men is one of sex. Gender is a much more volatile word, as it describes masculine or feminine characteristics, and thus is a more outdated word. If I said "her protrayal of the tough businesswoman was very masculine," my head would rightfully be torn off. Tough business people are merely tough; it has nothing to do with gender......... Another game of wordplay from he who cannot write....... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 12:39:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Mitton Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Hair / Gendered thespians On Sun, 3 Jun 2001, Phil Gerrard wrote: > rock'n'roll cliche. Personally, I think the baldness suits him: he's > always been attractive, but in a somewhat otherworldly manner, > and the emphasis that the shaved head adds to his features IMO > adds to this quality. Based on the time I quite literally bumped into Stipe, I don't care if it's hair, hat, or bald, I only hope that he keeps personal hygiene higher on his priority list. - --Michael ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 13:08:40 -0500 From: Jon Tveite Subject: RE: [loud-fans] R.E.M., hair, cover art, aging ===== Original Message From sleeveless@citynet.net ===== >it's time our culture stopped looking at >aging as some sort of disease. That would be nice, but as long as our culture is mostly about selling things, we will always try to make people uncomfortable about the way they look or feel. Acceptance of one's natural self doesn't boost consumption the way obsession with fitting oneself to an unattainable ideal does. Or at least that is the assumption of Madison Avenue. Of course, the war against aging has a special urgency to it -- which advertisers are happy to exploit -- as we (logically) associate aging with death, and we are pretty freaked out by that part of the life cycle in this culture, as well. As the baby boomers move en masse into retirement, and more of them live longer due to medical techonology, it will be interesting to see how our cultural treatment of aging and death changes. There are so many contradictions at play here that I can't imagine how it will all shake out. Jon ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 11:33:05 -0700 From: Tim_Walters@digidesign.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! >Unfortunately, the simplification extends less information. Quite the opposite. By overloading the word "actor" with two meanings--"thespian" and "male thespian"--the traditional usage increases ambiguity. It's more elegant and more precise to use "actor" only for the general case, and "male actor" and "female actor" when distinction by sex is necessary (and only then; you don't need to refer to Maggie Smith as an "actress", because her sex is already specified and usually irrelevant). The only "information" added by traditional usage is the implicit statement that human beings are male by default, with female being a special case. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 14:48:44 -0400 From: "John Sharples" Subject: [loud-fans] Another helping of Slaw >>definition? > >"Litigation-generating." I've heard people use the term "actionable." Well, 'people' might be stretching things. I've heard lawyers use that term. JS ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 14:00:03 -0500 From: Jon Tveite Subject: RE: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in!" ===== Original Message From Richard Gagnon ===== "I think there's nothing wrong with specifying the genders, as long as neither is valued above the other. That's still going to happen, but I don't see how changing the language is going to fix that. It just seems like some kinda of namby-pamby "solution" to make people feel good about themselves for being so enlightened while the problems, continue to affect the real world." It's a complicated issue. I have mixed feelings, myself. The first sentence I quoted above doesn't exactly help your case, because a lot of people would point out that we do still value one gender over the other in a lot of important ways -- or maybe it's more accurate to say that we take maleness more seriously that femaleness. Phil's observation that most of the good dramatic roles are still written for men would illustrate this, perhaps. Phil's point, that women who act -- while stuck in a system that marginalizes them to a large degree -- still deserve to be recognized for their talents, is well-taken, and I'm not gung-ho to suggest that the Academy should abandon such distinctions. And, obviously, "Best Actress" is a lot catchier title for an award than "Best Actor Who Happens to Be a Woman". But these kinds of distinctions are double-edged, like any label: if you say "Spike Lee is one of the world's most important African-American filmmakers", it may be true, but it also sounds like there's an asterisk behind "important" -- as though he's not important except in that narrow category. It's a chicken-and-egg dilemma: do the gender biases in the language itself perpetuate sexism, or just reflect it? Probably some of both. To me, it comes down to the individual choosing the words. Everyone should be made aware of these issues and left to their own decisions, depending on what they're trying to communicate. I don't know what's "pretentious" about trying to fit your language usage to your beliefs and the situation at hand. I agree that some people take these issues too seriously, and I try not to be one of those people -- especially not when it comes to foisting my gender politics on others. I guess I see managing the gender implications of one's language usage to be just another of the speaker's many tasks, so calling people's attention to the implications (without necessarily dictating the "proper" choice) is fair game. Jon ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 14:32:01 -0500 From: Jon Tveite Subject: RE: [loud-fans] PS ===== Original Message From Cardinal007@aol.com ===== "But the difference between actors who are women and actors who are men is one of sex. Gender is a much more volatile word, as it describes masculine or feminine characteristics, and thus is a more outdated word." I'm not sure I totally catch your drift here, but I think the reason that "sex" has been replaced by "gender" by the arbiters of Political Correctness is related to what you're saying. "Sex" is a biological trait, and "gender" is indeed the more complicated, social trait (which may or may not correspond with the biological trait it's associated with). Attributing some characteristic to a person's "sex" is more controversial, since it suggests that the person is "that way" because of his/her sex, and all people of that sex are "that way" -- i.e. it's hard-wired and can't be helped. Feminists have always opposed that kind of biological determinism, and for good reasons: whether or not some traits have a biological basis, it makes little sense for us to assume they do, because it limits people and/or alienates those who don't fit the profile too well -- and anyway I don't think we can prove one way or the other whether a particular trait is determined by biology or socialization. Jon ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 17:33:50 EDT From: Cardinal007@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! In a message dated 6/3/01 2:37:24 PM, Tim_Walters@digidesign.com writes: >It's more elegant and more precise to use "actor" only for the >general case, and "male actor" and "female actor" when distinction by sex >is >necessary (and only then; you don't need to refer to Maggie Smith as an >"actress", because her sex is already specified and usually irrelevant). > This, of course, doesn't hold true if you believe that an "actor" can only be male, and an "actress" can only be female. Or "executor" and "executrix." And the list goes on. The two are distinguishable. And I don't appreciate (although I recognize it exists) the desire to scrap words that have no inherent derogation. It may be more "elegant," but I disagree that it's more precise. The elegant word, I suggest, would be "thespian." But I won't mind the change when "actress" is universally rejected as wrong. I think that an actress is as worthy and noble as an actor, and my use of "actress" won't change my equal or greater appreciation of actresses. I believe, though, that I was correct when I said "actor" and "actress" are more informative. Certainly if the Strunk/White rule "Omit Needless Words" is followed. >The >only "information" added by traditional usage is the implicit statement >that >human beings are male by default, with female being a special case. What?!? The information added is a definition of sex. "Actress" isn't a special case of being human, it's a case of being a woman who acts. The relevance of that categorization will probably be determined by the speaker and the listener rather than from on high. "Chairman," "fireman," "mailman" -- here, I find language that suggests that THOSE jobs are for men alone, and would exclude women. And I find none of the fixes "elegant," but I do find them very worthwhile. But enough of this.... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 17:35:29 EDT From: Cardinal007@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Another helping of Slaw In a message dated 6/3/01 2:50:51 PM, jsharple@bls.brooklaw.edu writes: >I've heard people use the term "actionable." Well, 'people' might be > >stretching things. I've heard lawyers use that term. Hey, asshole; that's "lawman" and "lawwoman"! And what are you doing back here, except spreading your lies about the Beatles? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 18:42:42 -0400 From: popanda@juno.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] R.E.M., hair, cover art, aging On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 21:40:59 -0600 Roger Winston writes: > At Saturday 6/2/2001 08:20 PM -0400, popanda@juno.com wrote: > > >One of her sisters died just before I was born > >with stomach cancer, and she was a diabetic who used saccharin > heavily, > >so I don't even like to use toothpaste with saccharin in it. > > I think they've recently disputed rather conclusively that saccharin > does > not cause cancer (in humans, at least). It is still used in > fountain diet > drinks. My grandfather had diabetes and also used saccharin rather > > heavily, but his system was pretty much screwed up in general from > the > diabetes and heart disease. Go ahead and use that saccharin > toothpaste(?) > - I'm sure something else will kill you (fluoride?) long before that > would. > > >I just want you to understand why I think the way I do, so you > >won't think I'm a superficial person who is ruled by vanity. > > Don't worry - I never in my wildest dreams thought that. Unless > "vanity" > means letting the whole world know every single thing about you and > your > family. Maybe you should wait till your wedding night to reveal > some of > this stuff. > > BTW, I totally agree with Jen. I always assumed that Michael Stipe > shaved > his head because he didn't like the way he looked with thinning > hair. Just > because he had a great head of hair 10 years or ago or whatever > doesn't > mean that he does now. It's kinda like how the Edge always wears a > hat... > > Later. --Rog > > -- When toads are not enough: http://www.reignoffrogs.com > I didn't know this about Michael's hair. It never occured to me that Michael would age like the rest of us mere mortals. I thought he'd be singing "I'm sorry" in that microphone with his eyes closed and that great hair everywhere in the "So. Central Rain" video forever. Also, sorry about the "data dumping" with familial info. I was trying to convey a point, but I really don't mean to go to such extremes, as I often realize I've done later. I've been told several times in my life that tact is a problem with me, and that I'm too open. I've always been that way. It will click one day that NOT EVERYONE WANTS TO HEAR ABOUT EVERYTHING IN SUCH MINUTE DETAIL, so I can spare you guys. I just need to stop and analyze more what I've written before I hit the send button. SHEESH, I'm tired of talking about me! The world revolves around Al Franken, not me! M "THEY AIRBRUSHED MY FACE" (the back of the EPONYMOUS album with Michael's high school senior picture...Leif Garrett look-alike?) ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 17:43:06 EDT From: Cardinal007@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] PS In a message dated 6/3/01 3:49:15 PM, jontv@ksu.edu writes: >>Gender is a much more volatile word, as it describes masculine or >>feminine characteristics, and thus is a more outdated word." > > >I'm not sure I totally catch your drift here I meant to say that older notions of "masculinity" and "feminity" have been, or will be, roundly rejected. There's nothing "masculine" about forcefully expressing a position, nor is there anything "feminine" about caring for a child. IMHO. Yet not very long ago, many would have disagreed. And some still do. Other examples obviously abound. And here is where I join the battle, not in distinctions between the sexes. Traditional notions of gender have frequently been abhorrent, and must continue to be battled. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 17:01:34 -0700 From: Tim_Walters@digidesign.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! >This, of course, doesn't hold true if you believe that an "actor" can only be >male, and an "actress" can only be female. If you believe that an "actor" can only be male, you're just wrong. Ask the Screen Actors Guild, or consult any dictionary. >Or "executor" and "executrix." The gender-neutral version of which would be... that's right, "executor." And there's no equivalent of "thespian" to provide a dubious side door. Using the same word for the male case and the gender-neutral case, while creating a separate word for the female, implies that there's something unusual about a female taking the role in question. And it implies that whether the speaker means it to or not. Perhaps we could follow the lead of actors' day jobs and call them "actrons." "Lawyer" is just fine, since no one says "lawyeress." ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 22:33:14 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show itin! Cardinal007@aol.com wrote: > > "Chairman," "fireman," "mailman" -- here, I find language that suggests that > THOSE jobs are for men alone, and would exclude women. And I find none of > the fixes "elegant," but I do find them very worthwhile. chair, firefighter, and postal worker all work for me, without the annoying "person" tag that sounds so awkward in the mouth. and if you want to get into elegance and specificity, firefighter is a more appropriate term anyway. these people fight fires. a fireman sounds more like someone who starts or works with fire, the keeper of the flame or something. one thing i find annoying is when someone decides, in some sort of hip fairness motivation, that a person of unspecified gender, once acceptibly referred to as "he", decides to use "she" instead, when there is no reason to suppose that it is a female role or situation being described. this is no more correct, acceptible, or appropriate to my mind than using "he" was. the his/her he/she method is ugly and awkward, and the general use of the male descriptor first does nothing to amend the male-superior appearance of just using "he". using "one", "one's" and "oneself" is the route i have taken for years, but my primary motivation wasn't one of fostering gender equality as much as just straightforward simplicity (since the conversational usage of "they" and "their" to do away with distinctions in reference to singular persons is still not acceptible in formal usage). it may not roll off the tongue as softly and may take a bit of dancing around with syntax, but it does do away with any implied distinctions in cases where no distinction need be made. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 22:36:08 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Another helping of Slaw Cardinal007@aol.com wrote: > > I've heard lawyers use that term. > > Hey, asshole; that's "lawman" and "lawwoman"! i always thought a lawman or lawwoman was a law enforcement officer, not a lawyer. i always thought the non-gender-specific term for lawyer was "vulture". that could be construed as demeaning to vultures, though. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 22:49:41 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] English gender question Roger Winston wrote: > > Okay, explain this one, English majors. Under the Yahoo/Entertainment/Reuters headlines today: > http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/re/ > > We have both > "Actor Cate Blanchett Expecting Baby This Year" > and > "Actress Anne Heche Engaged to Cameraman" > > Is Cate Blanchett an ACTOR instead of an Actress because she was nominated for an Academy Award (tm) and Anne Heche wasn't? Or does this have something to do with the whole question of Heche's sexuality? i'm not an english major, per se, but i suspect it's just a case of two different writers with two different preferences as to what is the proper word to use. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 23:27:14 EDT From: Cardinal007@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Another helping of Slaw In a message dated 6/3/01 10:39:14 PM, sleeveless@citynet.net writes: >i always thought the non-gender-specific term for lawyer was >"vulture". that could be construed as demeaning to vultures, though. Naaah; you're mistaken. Vultures usually wait until their victims are dead .............. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 23:27:23 EDT From: Cardinal007@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show itin! In a message dated 6/3/01 10:37:06 PM, sleeveless@citynet.net writes: >chair, firefighter, and postal worker all work for me, without the >annoying "person" tag that sounds so awkward in the mouth. and if you >want to get into elegance and specificity, firefighter is a more >appropriate term anyway. these people fight fires. a fireman sounds >more like someone who starts or works with fire, the keeper of the flame >or something. > >one thing i find annoying is when someone decides, in some sort of hip >fairness motivation, that a person of unspecified gender, once >acceptibly referred to as "he", decides to use "she" instead, when there >is no reason to suppose that it is a female role or situation being >described. God bless you. I agree wholeheartedly. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 23:28:21 EDT From: Cardinal007@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! In a message dated 6/3/01 8:06:51 PM, Tim_Walters@digidesign.com writes: >Using the same word for the male case and the gender-neutral case, Let's save all of ourselves a lot of work -- grab a freaking OED and tell me when "actor" was or became a "gender neutral" word. I know that people now believe it to be so -- to meet their desire to eliminate words describing a sexual attribute. If you're right that, historically, "actor" has been gender neutral, I'll concede everything. And a word of warning: people who find an "implicit" message where none is implied demonstrate their own thoughts and prejudices in the inferences they draw, while still remaining wrong about the implications..... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 21:06:38 -0700 From: "Andrew Hamlin" Subject: [loud-fans] No sign of a skull, a suitcase, or a long red bottle of wine... ...but I did notice, during today's vinyl bargain-bin browsing, a 12-inch pressing of an interview Robyn Hitchcock did for KCRW in Santa Monica, late 80's I think. $3.99 plus tax and shipping. If interested, please mail me offlist. Um osso principal, um valise, e um frasco vermelho longo do vinho, Andy "The first Emmy Award, presented in 1949, went to a puppet. Shirley Dinsdale, a 15 year-old ventriloquist on the Eddie Cantor radio show in the 40s, received the award for her puppet Judy Splinters." - --from www.didyouknow.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 23:27:57 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! On Sunday, June 3, 2001, at 10:28 PM, Cardinal007@aol.com wrote: > Let's save all of ourselves a lot of work -- grab a freaking OED and tell > me > when "actor" was or became a "gender neutral" word. Perhaps it is in the process of becoming a "gender neutral" word, and various loud-fans are helping it along. - - Steve __________ It's widely expected that when Congress renews the 1996 welfare law next year, social conservatives will press to earmark millions of dollars for marriage education, require states to end some income tests that discourage parents from getting married, and reward single mothers with cash bonuses if they marry the child's father. - Mary Leonard, Boston Globe ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 23:14:47 -0700 From: Tim_Walters@digidesign.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! >Let's save all of ourselves a lot of work -- grab a freaking OED and tell me >when "actor" was or became a "gender neutral" word. I don't have an OED handy, but my 20-year-old Merriam Webster defines an actor as "one who acts a part in a play, moving picture, etc." I'm sure it's all a liberal plot. >I know that people now believe it to be so -- to meet their desire to >eliminate words describing a sexual attribute. Looks like advocates of gender-neutral language just can't buy a break. It used to be "everyone understands that [male case] refers to both men and women." Now, apparently, it's "it never referred to both men and women until you uppity feminists started changing everything." >If you're right that, >historically, "actor" has been gender neutral, I'll concede everything. The Screen Actors Guild and Actors' Equity represent both male and female actors. How long have they been around? When they had actors' strikes in the good old days, did only the men walk out? When Alfred Hitchcock said "actors are cattle," did he mean just the men? But of course, Hitchcock is a well-known P.C. brainwashee. >And a word of warning: people who find an "implicit" message where none is >implied demonstrate their own thoughts and prejudices in the inferences they >draw, while still remaining wrong about the implications..... This from the guy who wrote the second quoted passage above? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 02:45:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Mitton Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show itin! On Sun, 3 Jun 2001, jenny grover wrote: > one thing i find annoying is when someone decides, in some sort of hip > fairness motivation, that a person of unspecified gender, once > acceptibly referred to as "he", decides to use "she" instead, when there > is no reason to suppose that it is a female role or situation being > described. this is no more correct, acceptible, or appropriate to my > mind than using "he" was. As I do this regularly, I'll step up to defend the practice. On purely aesthetic grounds, I refuse to go with any form of "his/her." But I do agree with the general principle that to use "he" when gender is unspecified is not the best we could do when it comes to gender equality. So I do switch to "she" when gender is unspecified...but only in even years. I think I can hear people laughing right now, but it's sort of true. I'm quite often bad at remembering, but I make the attempt to use "he" in odd years and "she" in even years. You're right that using "she" is no better than "he," but I'll argue that to randomly use one or the other is better, and would help unspecified genders be exactly that: unspecified. Jen continues: > to amend the male-superior appearance of just using "he". using "one", > "one's" and "oneself" is the route i have taken for years, but my > primary motivation wasn't one of fostering gender equality as much as > just straightforward simplicity (since the conversational usage of > "they" and "their" to do away with distinctions in reference to singular > persons is still not acceptible in formal usage). it may not roll off > the tongue as softly and may take a bit of dancing around with syntax, > but it does do away with any implied distinctions in cases where no > distinction need be made. It often takes quite a tango to get around it with "one." For example, if you're speaking of the driver of a car in a hit and run accident and you want to say "He left the scene" it just wouldn't be correct to say "One left the scene." I don't know how else you could express that idea using "one." As for "They left the scene" when there is only one person, I do use that locution occasionally when I talk, but I hate the idea of that becoming common usage. We already lost the second person singular/plural distinction, I'd hate to lose it for the third person as well. - --Michael ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V1 #104 *******************************