From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V1 #105 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 105 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show itin! [Stewa] Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show itin! [jenny g] Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show itin! [Michae] Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show itin! [Stewa] Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show itin! [jenny g] Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show itin! [Michae] Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show itin! [jenny g] Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show itin! [JRT456@] Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! [Cardin] Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show itin! [Roger ] [loud-fans] acting & gender - my final and tangential two cents... ["Phil] Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! [Jeffr] 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 it in! ["gle] Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show itin! [Jeff] 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 it in! [Roger] Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! [Dana L] Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! [Stewa] Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! [Jeffr] [loud-fans] Ugly Rumours? ["Kunkel, Mark" ] 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! [popanda] Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! [Steve ] Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show itin! [Mic] Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! [JRT45] Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show itin! [jenny g] Re: [loud-fans] Ugly Rumours? ["Phil Gerrard" ] [loud-fans] Taping, Minidisc, and CD-R as an excuse to post a Hamlin-style .sig [Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show itin! At 02:45 AM 6/4/01 -0400, Michael Mitton wrote: >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." Oy. What on earth is wrong with "The driver left the scene"? For one thing, if you're talking about a case where, say, a driver hit a bicyclist or a pedestrian, you want to avoid pronouns as referents anyway, because your reader/listener might think, "Wait, who left, the driver or the bicyclist?" And if it's a two-car collision, you can just say "the driver of the Toyota" as opposed to "the driver of the Plymouth." The English language is infinitely malleable, and if you're having trouble expressing yourself in one construction, it's not hard to rework things until you're saying what you want. Stewart NP: "We Can Get Together" 10" EP--Icehouse ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 03:04:48 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show itin! Michael Mitton wrote: > > 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." you wouldn't need to. you could say "the driver", or "the other driver", or "one driver", or "the driver who hit the other car", or some other distinguishing noun and its modifiers, aesthetically dependent on what exactly had been said or written preceding it. or that could all be avoided by stating what happened without breaking it up. "someone struck my car and then left the scene of the accident." Jen ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 03:34:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Mitton Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show itin! On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, jenny grover wrote, and Stewart echoed similar sentiments: > you wouldn't need to. you could say "the driver", or "the other > driver", or "one driver", or "the driver who hit the other car", or some > other distinguishing noun and its modifiers, aesthetically dependent on > what exactly had been said or written preceding it. or that could all be > avoided by stating what happened without breaking it up. "someone > struck my car and then left the scene of the accident." OK, I thought the whole point of this discussion was on the use and abuse of pronouns. My simple sentence was only used to show that "one" doesn't really work to replace singular pronouns. Yes, it's easy enough in that sentence to write "the driver" but it's really beside the point. Unless of course _your_ point is to argue that pronouns should be eliminated entirely. Obviously any pronoun can be replaced with identifying descriptors, but that doesn't help us solve the question of how pronouns can be used in a gender neutral way. As for, "One driver left the scene," while that sentence works, "One" in this case is the number one. - --Michael ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 01:50:03 -0600 From: Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show itin! At 03:34 AM 6/4/01 -0400, Michael Mitton wrote: >OK, I thought the whole point of this discussion was on the use and abuse >of pronouns. My simple sentence was only used to show that "one" doesn't >really work to replace singular pronouns. Yes, it's easy enough in that >sentence to write "the driver" but it's really beside the point. Unless >of course _your_ point is to argue that pronouns should be eliminated >entirely. I can't speak for Jenny, but my point wasn't that they *should* be, but that they *can* be, quite easily and elegantly... >Obviously any pronoun can be replaced with identifying >descriptors, but that doesn't help us solve the question of how pronouns >can be used in a gender neutral way. ...and that wanking on about "the use and abuse of pronouns" is all very well and good, but it doesn't do a damn thing about more pressing points, like gender-based pay inequalities, lack of consistent funding for women's shelters, the generally appalling state of pre- and post-natal health care for low-income expectant mothers, and our old friend domestic violence. It *is*, on the other hand, a good way to make yourself feel all smug and righteous without having to actually expend any effort on difficult or unpleasant topics, so I do see the advantages. Crankily yours, Stewart NP: some album of '60s vintage Japanese pop music that I can't identify because the only English words on the entire package are "international record" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 03:50:44 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show itin! Michael Mitton wrote: > > OK, I thought the whole point of this discussion was on the use and abuse > of pronouns. My simple sentence was only used to show that "one" doesn't > really work to replace singular pronouns. Yes, it's easy enough in that > sentence to write "the driver" but it's really beside the point. is it? > Unless > of course _your_ point is to argue that pronouns should be eliminated > entirely. my point is that pronouns can be replaced by nouns that will eliminate the problem of gender specifity. if you don't have to use a pronoun, and the pronoun introduces an inappropriate sense of gender specificity, then it is perhaps better not to use the available pronoun at all. > As for, "One driver left the scene," while that sentence works, "One" in > this case is the number one. as i intended it in this case, not as an illustration of using one as a pronoun replacement. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 04:15:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Mitton Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show itin! On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, jenny grover wrote: > Michael Mitton wrote: > > > > OK, I thought the whole point of this discussion was on the use and abuse > > of pronouns. My simple sentence was only used to show that "one" doesn't > > really work to replace singular pronouns. Yes, it's easy enough in that > > sentence to write "the driver" but it's really beside the point. > > is it? Absolutely. Go back and read what I wrote. It couldn't have been clearer that the only point I was making was that "one" can't replace either "he" or "she." > my point is that pronouns can be replaced by nouns that will eliminate > the problem of gender specifity. if you don't have to use a pronoun, > and the pronoun introduces an inappropriate sense of gender specificity, > then it is perhaps better not to use the available pronoun at all. That's a fair argument. But, as I rejected "he/she" on aesthetic grounds, I personally am probably not likely to go to noun descriptors when the subject is understood with a pronoun. This is an aesthetic choice, so I guess I don't have anything else to say. - --Michael ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 05:03:38 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show itin! Michael Mitton wrote: > > Absolutely. Go back and read what I wrote. It couldn't have been clearer > that the only point I was making was that "one" can't replace either "he" > or "she." not directly, no, but that's not what i meant to imply. i was saying that there were situations where, when possible, i use it to avoid gender specificity, and i did say that it took syntactical fiddling at times, which in itself says that it's not a matter of direct replacement. another way to deal with the situation is to switch to direct address, if it's an instructional situation, or to plurals if it is a universal type situation. those don't directly replace he or she either, but the whole premise of the argument is that there currently is NOT a direct replacement for them, which is why one should explore alternative modes of expressing the idea. a creative writer or speaker need not feel compelled to use he or she to refer to a person whose gender is not specified. if you choose to use he or she in those situations on your own aesthetic grounds, then so be it, but be aware that people may take issue with you over it. personally, i have no problem with the accepted usage of "he" by default, but i know some people do. Jen and don't ask me why i'm still up at 5 a.m., because i don't have a good argument for that at all ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 06:10:32 EDT From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show itin! If you just say that "the driver" left the scene, then people will assume that the reference is to a woman. They're all terrible drivers and usually at fault. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 07:40:44 EDT From: Cardinal007@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! In a message dated 6/4/01 2:18:44 AM, Tim_Walters@digidesign.com writes: >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." "Chairman" and "fireman" have suffered from the first bullshit argument that you rightfully criticize. As we've enjoyed "heroine," executrix," and "actress" for quite a while, I'll stand by my distinction on both. As for "you uppity feminists," you're writing to a feminist. Who, in a day when symbolic acts to demonstrate concern for issues outweigh real efforts to change them, feels that holier-than-thou linguistic concerns from the "truly enlightened" do not meaningfully change anything. Except serve as an identity card to prove one's enlightenment. And as for women, and men, who have studied the development of "feminism" and understand its changes over time, and have devoted their lives to effecting change, I intend no insult by including myself in the category "feminist." >I'm sure it's all a liberal plot. Oooooh, make sure to clarify things by injecting important ideas like "liberal" or "conservative." >>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? which was >>I know that people now believe it to be so -- to meet their desire to eliminate words describing a sexual attribute.<< Which part of this reveals anything of my prejudices? If I refer to someone executing a will as an executrix, or to Anneka deLorenzo as an actress, does that reveal something to you about my prejudices? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 07:07:07 -0600 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show itin! At Monday 6/4/2001 02:45 AM -0400, Michael Mitton wrote: >I'm quite often bad at remembering, but I make the attempt to use >"he" in odd years and "she" in even years. That's the kookiest thing I've heard since Sean's alphabetical voting scheme on Survivor! I think the bigger issues here are: 1) Why oh why did I start this discussion in the first place? Obviously because I had no idea where it would lead. For a post that was meant to be somewhat humorous (okay, maybe in a bad, Jay Leno type of way), most of you took it way too seriously. 2) Why are a number of LoudFans up at 1,2,3,4,5 in the morning arguing about gender neutral pronouns? I don't feel so bad about *my* life anymore... Later. --Rog - -- When toads are not enough: http://www.reignoffrogs.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 14:20:48 +0100 From: "Phil Gerrard" Subject: [loud-fans] acting & gender - my final and tangential two cents... Bloom: Actors are not animals! They're human beings! Bialystock: They are? Have you ever eaten with one? - - 'The Producers' peace & love phil Phil Gerrard Senior Admissions Officer The External Programme University of London E-mail: p.gerrard@eisa.lon.ac.uk 'Phone: 020 7862 8369 Fax: 020 7862 8363 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 09:04:38 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! On Sun, 3 Jun 2001 Cardinal007@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 6/2/01 10:22:55 PM, glarbleflarb@earthlink.net writes: > >Or is it merely simplification? If we refer to both Cate Blanchett and > >Ian > > > > Unfortunately, the simplification extends less information. But as we've recently seen on this list, there is such a thing as too much information. As to whoever suggested "actron" by analogy with "waitron": now *there's* an abomination...and an unnecessary one as well, since "server" does just fine, thank you, in describing the person who takes your order and brings your food at a restaurant. There is no "-ron" suffix native to English, so it's silly to try and invent one. As to gender-specific words: I'll accept that feminine-specific terms convey no derogatory effect when you show me an example of a feminine-specific term that works as a generic...to describe something that also has a masculine-specific term. An example would be if we referred to people who write poetry as "poetesses" and specified that male poetesses are called "poets." Doesn't happen - the masculine term *is* the neutral/default, and this very strongly implies that female poets are like dancing bears: notable not for whether they dance well but because they can dance at all. (don't blame me...I think it was Ben Johnson I'm paraphrasing.) In most cases, a person's gender is utterly irrelevant to their professional achievements: why, exactly, might it be relevant that so-and-so's estate has an "executrix" rather than an "executor"? (Funny how we're not hearing from Loudfanesses here...) - --Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::I play the guitar. Sometimes I play the fool:: __John Lennon__ np: The Pets _Love and War_ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 07:07:35 -0700 From: Tim_Walters@digidesign.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! >Who, in a day >when symbolic acts to demonstrate concern for issues outweigh real efforts to >change them, feels that holier-than-thou linguistic concerns from the "truly >enlightened" do not meaningfully change anything. Except serve as an >identity card to prove one's enlightenment. You've carefully avoided directly accusing me, so I'll just say--without accusing you--that there are also plenty of people who stress Common Sense and the Real Issues as a cheap and easy way to feel tough-minded without doing any thinking. I'll happily admit that there are far more important matters than biased usage, but that's never stopped any other discussion on this list, has it? >If I refer to someone executing a will as an executrix, or to Anneka >deLorenzo as an actress, does that reveal something to you about my >prejudices? I've already said that it doesn't. I'm as likely as not to say "actress" myself--habit being what it is--although "executrix" seems as strained as "poetess" to me. (Do you say "poetess", too? Or claim that the phrase "ancient Greek poets" doesn't include Sappho?) I don't particularly care if people say "actress" (or "Indian", or "blind", or any number of other terms that some people euphemize). I'm not the speech police, honest. But you made an argument for its use--with nobody accusing you of anything--that I considered both snide and flawed, and for whatever reason I didn't feel like letting that slide on a grouchy Sunday. I tried to keep from getting personal, but evidently I failed. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 10:17:22 -0400 From: "glenn mcdonald" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! > I'll accept that feminine-specific terms convey no derogatory effect > when you show me an example of a feminine-specific term that > works as a generic... The "African-American" syndrome is similar. When do you ever see a white person indentified as such in a context where skin color isn't the subject? "Caucasian-American"? "European-American"? Never happens. glenn PS: Also note my clever allusion, above, to the "punctuation-inside-or-outside-the-quotes?" controversy, one of the Loudfans' and Loudfanatrixes' previous finest moments... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 09:21:50 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show itin! On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Stewart Mason wrote: > ...and that wanking on about "the use and abuse of pronouns" is all very > well and good, but it doesn't do a damn thing about more pressing points, > like gender-based pay inequalities, lack of consistent funding for women's > shelters, the generally appalling state of pre- and post-natal health care > for low-income expectant mothers, and our old friend domestic violence. This is most certainly true, and a point well worth making - but of course there's no reason one can't do both. As to the substitution or alternation of "she" as generic pronoun: feh! The goal of *any* writing is to communicate (something) - and unless the point of what you're communicating is "now I'm being self-righteously feminist by the zero-grade gesture of throwing 'she' around as a generic," that "she" only distracts from whatever it is you're trying to say. Again: the language is flexible enough that it's possible to rephrase, say things elegantly, and avoid any variety of obnoxious pronoun usage. (Often, btw, one can rephrase the whole thing into the plural: "if a student drops the class, s/he..." vs. "if students drop the class, they...") Speaking of that last point, in formal writing I'm opposed to using generic "they" when a singular referent is intended - but I must say, in speech, even of educated people, this is becoming more and more common, such that I'd argue that in 100 years, it will *be* the generic third-person singular pronoun. The analogy would be with "you," which was once (and still is) the 2P plural, with "thou" as 2P singular. Over time, "you" became acceptable as the 2P singular - even though it kept the plural verb form (thus, "you are" even when there's only one person who's the "you"). Those of us who are anal about such things would probably enjoy David Foster Wallace's cover essay on such things a few months back in _Harper's_ - actually, I'd just recommend it in general. - --Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::To be the center of the universe, don't orbit things:: __Scott Miller__ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 07:46:02 -0700 From: Tim_Walters@digidesign.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! >As to whoever suggested "actron" by analogy with "waitron": now *there's* >an abomination... In the immortal words of Foghorn Leghorn: "it's a *joke*, son." And there is one thing to be said in defense of "she" in place of "he" as the supposedly neutral pronoun: it demonstrates, with a force that mere explanations cannot muster, that a gender-specific pronoun doesn't work as the default. That said, it's probably outlived its usefulness. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 9:27:10 -0600 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! Tim_Walters@digidesign.com on 2001/06/04 Mon AM 07:46:02 MDT wrote: > In the immortal words of Foghorn Leghorn: "it's a *joke*, son." There will be no more of THAT on THIS List, mister. But if there is, remember to use the emoticons to let everyone know you're just kidding! I'm just kidding about that, BTW. )$( Later. --Rog - -- When toads are not enough: http://www.reignoffrogs.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 11:32:26 -0400 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! As to whoever suggested "actron" by analogy with "waitron": now *there's* an abomination...and an unnecessary one as well, since "server" does just fine, thank you, in describing the person who takes your order and brings your food at a restaurant. There is no "-ron" suffix native to English, so it's silly to try and invent one. >>>>>>>>> I'm no Greek major (I was a Latin major) but I don't see the "on" ending (it's not -ron, the "r" is part of the root) as being that strange. We have axons, patrons, matrons, etc. It's not too unusual in English to see the -ter, -tron form. Still, I find that the word "waitron" conveys a sense of contempt for either the waiter in question or for the job of being a waiter, which isn't present in the word "server" or "waiter." Whether that's a good thing or not, I don't know. As to gender-specific words: I'll accept that feminine-specific terms convey no derogatory effect when you show me an example of a feminine-specific term that works as a generic. >>>>>>>>>> "Nurse." - --dana ________________________________________________________________ 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: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 10:11:18 -0600 From: Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! At 09:04 AM 6/4/01 -0500, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: >As to gender-specific words: I'll accept that feminine-specific terms >convey no derogatory effect when you show me an example of a >feminine-specific term that works as a generic...to describe something >that also has a masculine-specific term. Cow. S NP: Tumbleweed Connection--Elton John ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 11:15:24 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Dana L Paoli wrote: > As to gender-specific words: I'll accept that feminine-specific terms > convey no derogatory effect when you show me an example of a > feminine-specific term that works as a generic. > >>>>>>>>>> > "Nurse." Good try - but there's nothing intrinsic in "nurse" that marks it as feminine. And we don't have a separate word meaning "male nurse" - we only apply the adjective "male" to indicate its relative rarity. A better example might be the situation where "ballerina" is a well-known (and clearly feminine) word, but whatever the word is for "male ballet dancer" is, it's far more obscure. (Yes, I know the obvious joke - thank you for not bothering to post it.) But really, all these do is confirm the larger point about sexism: that we assume certain nouns to designate default genders. It just so happens that in certain special cases, such as these historically female-occupied professions, the default gender switches. And notice what happens: in both cases ("male nurse," male ballet dancer), there is, or has been historically, a strong common feeling that such men are less manly than most. So in a sense, there *is* no gender-neutral term. - --Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::Being young, carefree, having your whole life ahead of you, ::dancing the night away to celebrate... ::oh, and the untimely death of Jackson Pollock. Nico _Desert Shore_ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 11:33:07 -0500 From: "Kunkel, Mark" Subject: [loud-fans] Ugly Rumours? Hello everyone: I figured someone on this list can enlighten me on the following reference to Ugly Rumours in this blurb from an article about The Death of the Novel at http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4193478,00.html: "Their [i.e., certain contemporary novelists] stories of youth, and growing up and parenthood and loss, their references to music, booze, fashion failures, Abroad and Home, shuffle and mutter alongside my life. Not to have read them would be like never having heard Dylan, Van Morrison or those great early albums from Ugly Rumours. They are part of the useful decoration of being male, alive, here, now." Who are/were the Ugly Rumours? I can't find 'em in the All Music Guide. My life, apparently, is the lesser for never having heard them. Just curious, _______________________________________________ Mark Kunkel Legislative Attorney Legislative Reference Bureau (608) 266-0131 mark.kunkel@legis.state.wi.us ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 09:38:27 -0700 From: Tim_Walters@digidesign.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! >Cow. As a William Morris fan, I'm in a position to point out that there is a gender-neutral word for the bovine animal: "neat". Archaic and useless, but hey. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 13:54:10 -0400 From: popanda@juno.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show itin! On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 22:33:14 -0400 jenny grover writes: > 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 > How many loud-fans refer to the mailroom staff in your office as "mailboys"? That one makes me want to scratch the walls. It's so degrading. Please catch yourself and refrain. Check them out next time they come by. You may be surprised to see that they've made it through puberty, or that they may even have female sexual organs! Many are as educated or even more so than you! Many may be older than you as well. (here comes another story) A decade ago, I worked as one of these Peter Pans of the postal world, and the secretary of the president of the insurance company I worked at referred to me as such at her desk while talking to some acid-washed girlfriend with the guy out of the office "Tammy, you can tell me all about the new double-wide later... I gotta go, the mailboy is here," and I, being 23 and not 13 at the time, was not pleased. I told her to please call me the "mail courier" or "mail person." I looked her straight in her heavily mascaraed (sp?) eye and asked her if she wanted me to call her the "phone girl." I remember her mouth dropping (she was still on the phone). I was a lot gutsier in those days. - -Mark np Rhino's just can't get enough: New Wave Hits of the '80s vol. 7 ________________________________________________________________ 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: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 10:02:44 -0700 From: Steve Holtebeck Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: >> A better example might be the situation where "ballerina" is a well-known > (and clearly feminine) word, but whatever the word is for "male ballet > dancer" is, it's far more obscure. (Yes, I know the obvious joke - thank > you for not bothering to post it.) Here's the straight dope (from Cecil Taylor) on male ballet dancers: http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mmalebal.html Male ballet dancers are so obscure that they don't even have a word yet.. The starting announcements for last week's Indianapolis 500, with a bunch of male drivers and one female driver, was "*lady* and gentlemen, start your engines!", which despite being technically correct (one lady and a whole lot of gentlemen) still sounded kind of awkward to me! Steve ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 12:59:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Mitton Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show itin! On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > As to the substitution or alternation of "she" as generic pronoun: feh! > The goal of *any* writing is to communicate (something) - and unless the > point of what you're communicating is "now I'm being self-righteously > feminist by the zero-grade gesture of throwing 'she' around as a generic," > that "she" only distracts from whatever it is you're trying to say. Again: > the language is flexible enough that it's possible to rephrase, say things > elegantly, and avoid any variety of obnoxious pronoun usage. (Often, btw, > one can rephrase the whole thing into the plural: "if a student drops the > class, s/he..." vs. "if students drop the class, they...") But isn't your "s/he" or any of its variants also a self-righteous, zero-grade gesture? Why should "s/he" be preferred to using "he" 50% of the time, and "she" 50% of the time? If using "she" alone appears to be more self-righteous, it's only because fewer people do it--and I'm willing to bet that "he or she" looked far more self-righteous when people first started using it than using "she" alone looks now. Goose. Helping to stop gander repression, Michael ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 13:09:36 EDT From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! In a message dated 6/4/01 9:19:45 AM, jenor@csd.uwm.edu writes: << But really, all these do is confirm the larger point about sexism: that we assume certain nouns to designate default genders. >> That doesn't seem so bad. It seems a lot worse to assume that assuming certain nouns to designate default genders amounts to sexism. A person who refuses to use a word like "fireperson" isn't practicing discrimination against women. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 13:22:06 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show itin! Roger Winston wrote: > > 2) Why are a number of LoudFans up at 1,2,3,4,5 in the morning arguing > about gender neutral pronouns? i told you not to ask me that. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 18:41:10 +0100 From: "Phil Gerrard" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Ugly Rumours? Mark wrote: > I figured someone on this list can enlighten me on the following > reference to Ugly Rumours in this blurb from an article about The > Death of the Novel at > http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4193478,00.html: "Their [i.e., > certain contemporary novelists] stories of youth, and growing up and > parenthood and loss, their references to music, booze, fashion > failures, Abroad and Home, shuffle and mutter alongside my life. Not > to have read them would be like never having heard Dylan, Van Morrison > or those great early albums from Ugly Rumours. They are part of the > useful decoration of being male, alive, here, now." Who are/were the > Ugly Rumours? I can't find 'em in the All Music Guide. My life, > apparently, is the lesser for never having heard them. Just curious, Unless there's another Ugly Rumours out there, this looks like a gag to me - the only Ugly Rumours I know of was a student band of the early '70s whose membership included Tony Blair, currently heading for a second term as Prime Minister over on this side of the pond. They never recorded, as far as I know, and I think their repertoire was very much in a Grateful Dead vein, although, sadly, I truly believe Tony when he says he didn't inhale. peace & love phil ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 13:09:29 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: [loud-fans] Taping, Minidisc, and CD-R as an excuse to post a Hamlin-style .sig I think I thanked people individually for their suggestions about what to record interviews with, but in case I missed someone -- thanks! I ended up getting one of those new Sony voice recorders that works with an internal chip, and the results were better than the microcassettes I remember from Melissa's brief early '90s experiment in taping class sessions. Unfortunately for my wallet, Dana, Steve H., and others have successfully piqued my minidisc curiosity. I'm wowed by not only what the converts have said, but the abilities of even the portable players in recording and managing music. The biggest problem I see *for me* is that my receiver (just bought last year!) has only the combo "Minidisc/Tape" set of inputs and outputs; I'd have to buy yet another receiver to keep everything plugged in at once. By the time I can reconcile purchasing another receiver, chances are we'll have moved on to another handy portable taping ideal, maybe simply data itself (the current crop of MP3 players probably points the way). Oh, and I bought a second tape deck to keep upstairs with the computer, and successfully transferred my first "live tape" to CD-R last night via CoolEdit 2000 and CDRWin. Labor-intensive to break up the big recorded .wav into individual tracks, but I'm pleased as punch with the results. later, Miles "My existential radio hasn't been finely tuned into the Soup lately (parents 50th annv, family everywhere, visiting and cleaning gravestones, group sex, studying Moby Dick at night in a tent, and plenty, yes, plenty of coffee drinking under strict rules of ettiquette, but when did we devolve into discussions of Charlie Daniels? The very name makes me consider smashing my fancy computer. There is no more reprehensible act in all of music -- I'm including Pat Boone and the Osmonds -- than the Charlie Daniels Band. Charlie Daniels should be held accountable for his crimes and either jailed for life or just bludgeoned into imbecility until such time that his physical body can be digested by wild creatures. The man is an aberration and for the good of creation, must die and have his flesh eaten by hyenas, rats, and owls." - -- Rob Klotz, posting yesterday on RC Soup, the Jason & the Scorchers list ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 08:08:51 -1000 From: "R. Kevin Doyle" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! I'm a theatre director (albeit community theatre, but, heh, its the closest thing to being indie you can be in my particular theatre milieu) and I like to refer to them generically as actroids. I don't do this because it satisfies any gender issues, but because it correctly identifies the actroids as machines who work only at my whim. Muhahahaha. Ahem. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 11:25:45 -0700 From: Tim_Walters@digidesign.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Taping, Minidisc, and CD-R as an excuse to post a Hamlin-style .sig >The biggest problem I see *for me* is that my receiver >(just bought last year!) has only the combo "Minidisc/Tape" set of inputs >and outputs; I'd have to buy yet another receiver to keep everything >plugged in at once. You can buy a separate switching box for a lot less. Crutchfield has 'em. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 11:29:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Tiger Reel Subject: [loud-fans] RE: "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! as another theatre director, i don't like to refer to them at all, preferring to talk to them like the buffalo bill character in "silence of the lambs": "it puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again." i find that this eliminates all need to gender specificity and maintains the type of cowed, scared behavior that i prefer out of my casts. - --- "R. Kevin Doyle" wrote: > I'm a theatre director (albeit community theatre, > but, heh, its the closest > thing to being indie you can be in my particular > theatre milieu) and I like > to refer to them generically as actroids. I don't > do this because it > satisfies any gender issues, but because it > correctly identifies the > actroids as machines who work only at my whim. > > Muhahahaha. Ahem. Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 11:36:26 -0700 (PDT) From: "Joseph M. Mallon" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Taping, Minidisc, and CD-R as an excuse to post a Hamlin-style .sig On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 Tim_Walters@digidesign.com wrote: > >The biggest problem I see *for me* is that my receiver > >(just bought last year!) has only the combo "Minidisc/Tape" set of inputs > >and outputs; I'd have to buy yet another receiver to keep everything > >plugged in at once. > > You can buy a separate switching box for a lot less. Crutchfield has 'em. As does Radio Shack - for about $10-15. Pretty vicious attack on Charlie Daniels in Miles' .sig. That kind of venom should be saved for the likes of...well, no one that I can think of...right now. J. Mallon ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V1 #105 *******************************