Political Correctness is BS

brianlux

mace1229 said:

brianlux said:

mace1229 said:

Completely agree with PJSoul 100%. I think some can take it to far, but most dont, and I think it is a little too sensitive (and being to PC).

For Brian, I don't see how that makes a difference. Just because they are also white means it can't be offensive? People make fun of Canadians and Polish and other white groups in a way that is intended to be offensive. People make fun of certain regions of their own country, its like saying making fun of a southern redneck and their culture is okay because they are making fun of themselves in a way.

I don't think color or heritage makes a difference. If you think all whites are the same and have the same heritage or isn't a separate culture, then I dare you to find someone from Guatemala and call them a Mexican and see what happens.

But I also don't think in either scenario it is meant to poke fun at either group. Its an excuse to just have fun. We BBQ and shoot fireworks on the 4th of July, most probably know very little about our historical roots but just want an excuse to shoot fireworks and BBQ, just like we wear green and drink in March or have our fill of tacos and margaritas in May. Its just an excuse to have fun, not intended to poke fun at anyone, and I think anyone who does get offended by a hat and a taco is being a little too senstitive. 

a).  I don't take dares.
b)  I'm not that stupid
c)  I'm half-Amish so, yeah, I totally understand about white subcultures.

Are you Hispanic or Native American?  If not, how would you know how it feels to be in a culture that has been subject to genocide, acculturation and displacement?  And why would you judge another person for being "too sensitive" if you haven't been in their shoes?  Or why would you judge a person for being "too sensitive" in the first place?

I just think there are a lot bigger and better things to worry about and occupy one's time. My take on your response was essentially Irish people shouldn't get upset over St. Patrick's Day because white people are from Europe, mostly Germany or England and that is basically the same as Irish so we are just poking fun of ourselves. I disagree with that reasoning, but agree we shouldn't get upset.
At least to me, intent has a lot to do with something being offensive. While I'm sure it happens, a school cafeteria wearing a sombrero and serving tacos for Cinco de Mayo has zero intentions of insulting any culture. It's just a day to have fun and do something different. I think everyone of average intelligence knows Mexicans don't wear sombreros hardly ever, and understands it is just a cultural costume that only a few wear, but what other article of clothing is as easily identified? 
I also don't get why I need to be a victim of genocide to be offended? If I visited Canada and everyone dressed like an inbred redneck and acted like they had a first grade education (traits that are meant to be insulting) for the 4th of July, I would find that offensive. If they just wear a cowboy hat and boots and grilled some hamburgers I would not.

I'm not judging you and we've both pretty much stated our cases, and yes, there are other things of concern.  Maybe time to move on on this one.  Have a good day, Mace.

Meltdown99

In Canada federal government employees can no longer use mom, dad, mr., mrs., miss when dealing with the public...the fucking stupidity of our federal government.  I guess they must welcome the public with the greeting “welcome peoplekind, how can I help you”...LMFAO.

Minister defends Service Canada’s gender-neutral language amid opposition ridicule

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/03/21/minister-defends-service-canadas-gender-neutral-language-amid-opposition-criticism.html

benjs

Meltdown99 said:

In Canada federal government employees can no longer use mom, dad, mr., mrs., miss when dealing with the public...the fucking stupidity of our federal government.  I guess they must welcome the public with the greeting “welcome peoplekind, how can I help you”...LMFAO.

Minister defends Service Canada’s gender-neutral language amid opposition ridicule

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/03/21/minister-defends-service-canadas-gender-neutral-language-amid-opposition-criticism.html

“Workers are instructed to use a client’s full name or ask how they would prefer to be addressed instead of using honorifics such as Mr., Mrs. or Ms., which “can be seen as gender specific by a client,” reads the memo, which was first obtained by Radio-Canada.

They are also being asked to eschew the terms “father” and “mother” in favour of “parent.””

In addition, the article stresses that on official documents, Mr and Ms are still mandatory.

This is a practically zero effort initiative which results in less offended people, so what’s the problem? I’m not sparing a gram more of energy on this, not should anyone else.

Meltdown99

benjs said:

Meltdown99 said:

In Canada federal government employees can no longer use mom, dad, mr., mrs., miss when dealing with the public...the fucking stupidity of our federal government.  I guess they must welcome the public with the greeting “welcome peoplekind, how can I help you”...LMFAO.

Minister defends Service Canada’s gender-neutral language amid opposition ridicule

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/03/21/minister-defends-service-canadas-gender-neutral-language-amid-opposition-criticism.html

“Workers are instructed to use a client’s full name or ask how they would prefer to be addressed instead of using honorifics such as Mr., Mrs. or Ms., which “can be seen as gender specific by a client,” reads the memo, which was first obtained by Radio-Canada.

They are also being asked to eschew the terms “father” and “mother” in favour of “parent.””

In addition, the article stresses that on official documents, Mr and Ms are still mandatory.

This is a practically zero effort initiative which results in less offended people, so what’s the problem? I’m not sparing a gram more of energy on this, not should anyone else.

Offended...maybe people who get offended from a service Canada employee using perfectly exceptable terms should stay in the house.  The title of the thread is “political correctness bs”...LMFAO

Thirty Bills Unpaid

mace1229 said:

brianlux said:

mace1229 said:

Completely agree with PJSoul 100%. I think some can take it to far, but most dont, and I think it is a little too sensitive (and being to PC).

For Brian, I don't see how that makes a difference. Just because they are also white means it can't be offensive? People make fun of Canadians and Polish and other white groups in a way that is intended to be offensive. People make fun of certain regions of their own country, its like saying making fun of a southern redneck and their culture is okay because they are making fun of themselves in a way.

I don't think color or heritage makes a difference. If you think all whites are the same and have the same heritage or isn't a separate culture, then I dare you to find someone from Guatemala and call them a Mexican and see what happens.

But I also don't think in either scenario it is meant to poke fun at either group. Its an excuse to just have fun. We BBQ and shoot fireworks on the 4th of July, most probably know very little about our historical roots but just want an excuse to shoot fireworks and BBQ, just like we wear green and drink in March or have our fill of tacos and margaritas in May. Its just an excuse to have fun, not intended to poke fun at anyone, and I think anyone who does get offended by a hat and a taco is being a little too senstitive. 

a).  I don't take dares.
b)  I'm not that stupid
c)  I'm half-Amish so, yeah, I totally understand about white subcultures.

Are you Hispanic or Native American?  If not, how would you know how it feels to be in a culture that has been subject to genocide, acculturation and displacement?  And why would you judge another person for being "too sensitive" if you haven't been in their shoes?  Or why would you judge a person for being "too sensitive" in the first place?

I just think there are a lot bigger and better things to worry about and occupy one's time. My take on your response was essentially Irish people shouldn't get upset over St. Patrick's Day because white people are from Europe, mostly Germany or England and that is basically the same as Irish so we are just poking fun of ourselves. I disagree with that reasoning, but agree we shouldn't get upset.
At least to me, intent has a lot to do with something being offensive. While I'm sure it happens, a school cafeteria wearing a sombrero and serving tacos for Cinco de Mayo has zero intentions of insulting any culture. It's just a day to have fun and do something different. I think everyone of average intelligence knows Mexicans don't wear sombreros hardly ever, and understands it is just a cultural costume that only a few wear, but what other article of clothing is as easily identified? 
I also don't get why I need to be a victim of genocide to be offended? If I visited Canada and everyone dressed like an inbred redneck and acted like they had a first grade education (traits that are meant to be insulting) for the 4th of July, I would find that offensive. If they just wear a cowboy hat and boots and grilled some hamburgers I would not.

Why would you be offended if you are not a Trump supporter?

Also... don't visit Calgary any time of the year.

(kidding- on both accounts)

brianlux

Meltdown99 said:

In Canada federal government employees can no longer use mom, dad, mr., mrs., miss when dealing with the public...the fucking stupidity of our federal government.  I guess they must welcome the public with the greeting “welcome peoplekind, how can I help you”...LMFAO.

Minister defends Service Canada’s gender-neutral language amid opposition ridicule

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/03/21/minister-defends-service-canadas-gender-neutral-language-amid-opposition-criticism.html

I remember when PC language turned us all into "persons" here in the U.S.  Looks like Canadians have jumped on the sexless "persons" bandwagon.  First will come the mailperson jokes, then the euphemistic language barrage, then everyone will be "beotch". 

*Sigh*

oftenreading

Funny how it’s generally the white guys complaining about terms like “person”. 

In Canada, the right to be considered a person was hard won by strong women. Canadian women weren’t legal “persons” until 1929. 

http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/commemoration/pd-jp/history-histoire-en.html

PJ_Soul

Meltdown99 said:

In Canada federal government employees can no longer use mom, dad, mr., mrs., miss when dealing with the public...the fucking stupidity of our federal government.  I guess they must welcome the public with the greeting “welcome peoplekind, how can I help you”...LMFAO.

Minister defends Service Canada’s gender-neutral language amid opposition ridicule

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/03/21/minister-defends-service-canadas-gender-neutral-language-amid-opposition-criticism.html

Why does this bother you so much??? What difference does it make to you or anyone? Serious question. The opposition ought to have better things to focus on. When this kind of thing becomes the focus of outrage for the opposition, it means they are struggling to find real shit to be mad about.

DarthMaeglin

Meltdown99 said:

In Canada federal government employees can no longer use mom, dad, mr., mrs., miss when dealing with the public...the fucking stupidity of our federal government.  I guess they must welcome the public with the greeting “welcome peoplekind, how can I help you”...LMFAO.

Minister defends Service Canada’s gender-neutral language amid opposition ridicule

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/03/21/minister-defends-service-canadas-gender-neutral-language-amid-opposition-criticism.html

I’ve decided that going forward Service Canada may address me as “Prime Shithead”.

I think half the problem here is that we’re bending over backwards to accommodate an extremely small portion of the population. Wouldn’t a better way be to default to Mr., Mrs. and so on, but when an individual asks to be accommodated then use the “gender neutral” pronouns?

Halifax2TheMax

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 said:

In Canada federal government employees can no longer use mom, dad, mr., mrs., miss when dealing with the public...the fucking stupidity of our federal government.  I guess they must welcome the public with the greeting “welcome peoplekind, how can I help you”...LMFAO.

Minister defends Service Canada’s gender-neutral language amid opposition ridicule

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/03/21/minister-defends-service-canadas-gender-neutral-language-amid-opposition-criticism.html

Why does this bother you so much??? What difference does it make to you or anyone? Serious question. The opposition ought to have better things to focus on. When this kind of thing becomes the focus of outrage for the opposition, it means they are struggling to find real shit to be mad about.

Did someone say Christmas was cancelled?

brianlux

oftenreading said:

Funny how it’s generally the white guys complaining about terms like “person”. 

In Canada, the right to be considered a person was hard won by strong women. Canadian women weren’t legal “persons” until 1929. 

http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/commemoration/pd-jp/history-histoire-en.html

Used in the context for which it was originated, "person" is a perfectly good word. 

"Every person on this forum has a right to an opinion."  Fine.

The idea that a woman was ever considered anything but a "person" is absurd and worse than archaic.

Being described as a man or woman, a him or a her, even a Ms, Mr. or Mrs. seems perfectly natural to me as well.  And I'm not offended by people who wish to be considered genderless or even sexless.  Hey, I'm a big Gary Numan fan.  No problem.  But I'm a man and that's spelled m-a-n, man.

PJ_Soul

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

Funny how it’s generally the white guys complaining about terms like “person”. 

In Canada, the right to be considered a person was hard won by strong women. Canadian women weren’t legal “persons” until 1929. 

http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/commemoration/pd-jp/history-histoire-en.html

Used in the context for which it was originated, "person" is a perfectly good word. 

"Every person on this forum has a right to an opinion."  Fine.

The idea that a woman was ever considered anything but a "person" is absurd and worse than archaic.

Being described as a man or woman, a him or a her, even a Ms, Mr. or Mrs. seems perfectly natural to me as well.  And I'm not offended by people who wish to be considered genderless or even sexless.  Hey, I'm a big Gary Numan fan.  No problem.  But I'm a man and that's spelled m-a-n, man.

I personally HATE Miss and Mrs. They are specifically designed to signal marriage status of women. But there is no male equivalent to that.
I have no personal problem at all with gendered pronouns... but I couldn't care less if someone else does. Nobody is forcing me or you or any of us to not use them. If the government wants to do it officially, fine with me. Doesn't effect my life in any way whatsoever. I seriously have no clue why this kind of thing bothers people as much as it does.... It really kind of seems like the who issue acts as a frivolous distraction from things that matter.

even flow - question mark

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

Funny how it’s generally the white guys complaining about terms like “person”. 

In Canada, the right to be considered a person was hard won by strong women. Canadian women weren’t legal “persons” until 1929. 

http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/commemoration/pd-jp/history-histoire-en.html

Used in the context for which it was originated, "person" is a perfectly good word. 

"Every person on this forum has a right to an opinion."  Fine.

The idea that a woman was ever considered anything but a "person" is absurd and worse than archaic.

Being described as a man or woman, a him or a her, even a Ms, Mr. or Mrs. seems perfectly natural to me as well.  And I'm not offended by people who wish to be considered genderless or even sexless.  Hey, I'm a big Gary Numan fan.  No problem.  But I'm a man and that's spelled m-a-n, man.

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

Funny how it’s generally the white guys complaining about terms like “person”. 

In Canada, the right to be considered a person was hard won by strong women. Canadian women weren’t legal “persons” until 1929. 

http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/commemoration/pd-jp/history-histoire-en.html

Used in the context for which it was originated, "person" is a perfectly good word. 

"Every person on this forum has a right to an opinion."  Fine.

The idea that a woman was ever considered anything but a "person" is absurd and worse than archaic.

Being described as a man or woman, a him or a her, even a Ms, Mr. or Mrs. seems perfectly natural to me as well.  And I'm not offended by people who wish to be considered genderless or even sexless.  Hey, I'm a big Gary Numan fan.  No problem.  But I'm a man and that's spelled m-a-n, man.

.............and I can't help but love you so

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

Funny how it’s generally the white guys complaining about terms like “person”. 

In Canada, the right to be considered a person was hard won by strong women. Canadian women weren’t legal “persons” until 1929. 

http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/commemoration/pd-jp/history-histoire-en.html

Used in the context for which it was originated, "person" is a perfectly good word. 

"Every person on this forum has a right to an opinion."  Fine.

The idea that a woman was ever considered anything but a "person" is absurd and worse than archaic.

Being described as a man or woman, a him or a her, even a Ms, Mr. or Mrs. seems perfectly natural to me as well.  And I'm not offended by people who wish to be considered genderless or even sexless.  Hey, I'm a big Gary Numan fan.  No problem.  But I'm a man and that's spelled m-a-n, man.

I personally HATE Miss and Mrs. They are specifically designed to signal marriage status of women. But there is no male equivalent to that.
I have no personal problem at all with gendered pronouns... but I couldn't care less if someone else does. Nobody is forcing me or you or any of us to not use them. If the government wants to do it officially, fine with me. Doesn't effect my life in any way whatsoever. I seriously have no clue why this kind of thing bothers people as much as it does.... It really kind of seems like the who issue acts as a frivolous distraction from things that matter.

It's certainly not #1 on my list of important issues.  I'm very strongly in favor of women's rights and have often been outspoken on such issues but at the same time, I just don't understand the insistence some have on taking that to an extreme.  A lesbian friend of mine and I once had a major falling out when she told me that every bad thing that has ever happened in history was 100% men's doing.  I told her that I could understand her feeling that way but I also told here I thought saying "every bad thing that has ever happened in the world was the fault of men" was an inaccurate.  She didn't talk to me for two years after that.

even flow - question mark said:

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

Funny how it’s generally the white guys complaining about terms like “person”. 

In Canada, the right to be considered a person was hard won by strong women. Canadian women weren’t legal “persons” until 1929. 

http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/commemoration/pd-jp/history-histoire-en.html

Used in the context for which it was originated, "person" is a perfectly good word. 

"Every person on this forum has a right to an opinion."  Fine.

The idea that a woman was ever considered anything but a "person" is absurd and worse than archaic.

Being described as a man or woman, a him or a her, even a Ms, Mr. or Mrs. seems perfectly natural to me as well.  And I'm not offended by people who wish to be considered genderless or even sexless.  Hey, I'm a big Gary Numan fan.  No problem.  But I'm a man and that's spelled m-a-n, man.

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

Funny how it’s generally the white guys complaining about terms like “person”. 

In Canada, the right to be considered a person was hard won by strong women. Canadian women weren’t legal “persons” until 1929. 

http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/commemoration/pd-jp/history-histoire-en.html

Used in the context for which it was originated, "person" is a perfectly good word. 

"Every person on this forum has a right to an opinion."  Fine.

The idea that a woman was ever considered anything but a "person" is absurd and worse than archaic.

Being described as a man or woman, a him or a her, even a Ms, Mr. or Mrs. seems perfectly natural to me as well.  And I'm not offended by people who wish to be considered genderless or even sexless.  Hey, I'm a big Gary Numan fan.  No problem.  But I'm a man and that's spelled m-a-n, man.

.............and I can't help but love you so

LOL, good song!  The one that came to mind when I wrote that was this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcAmwCnAChk

OnWis97

The language has evolved in some funny ways.  We have gender neutral terms for mom/dad (parent) and brother and sister (sibiling) but none for aunt/uncle.  But there's not gender specific term for cousin.  Weird.

Language also evolved to default to the male.  In hypotheticals, we'd say he/him/his, and when we started to shift away from that mindset, the language could not accommodate.  So now we say "they" to mean a singular person.  I'm OK with it because it does not really work to make a conscious decision to add a new word to the language.  That said:

PJ_Soul said:

I personally HATE Miss and Mrs. They are specifically designed to signal marriage status of women. But there is no male equivalent to that.
I have no personal problem at all with gendered pronouns... but I couldn't care less if someone else does. Nobody is forcing me or you or any of us to not use them. If the government wants to do it officially, fine with me. Doesn't effect my life in any way whatsoever. I seriously have no clue why this kind of thing bothers people as much as it does.... It really kind of seems like the who issue acts as a frivolous distraction from things that matter.

I could not agree with this more.  I don't know how anyone could even suggest that Mr. vs. Miss/Mrs. is rooted in anything other than gender-based caste.  We have to denote which women are married but leave me neutral?  You're essentially saying she's someone's property.  It's been a long time since I'v really been around "Miss/Mrs."  Ms. is the norm.  And that change is not "political correctness" but a change to stop sending the message that women are either property or available to become property.  I used to work for a city and I'd have to look up property histories...the ownership transfers tended to be between two males:  "Mr. Timothy Jones and Mr. David Brown..." but sometimes you get "Miss Jane Anderson, an unmarried woman..." Wow.  The good old days were strange.

even flow - question mark

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

Funny how it’s generally the white guys complaining about terms like “person”. 

In Canada, the right to be considered a person was hard won by strong women. Canadian women weren’t legal “persons” until 1929. 

http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/commemoration/pd-jp/history-histoire-en.html

Used in the context for which it was originated, "person" is a perfectly good word. 

"Every person on this forum has a right to an opinion."  Fine.

The idea that a woman was ever considered anything but a "person" is absurd and worse than archaic.

Being described as a man or woman, a him or a her, even a Ms, Mr. or Mrs. seems perfectly natural to me as well.  And I'm not offended by people who wish to be considered genderless or even sexless.  Hey, I'm a big Gary Numan fan.  No problem.  But I'm a man and that's spelled m-a-n, man.

I personally HATE Miss and Mrs. They are specifically designed to signal marriage status of women. But there is no male equivalent to that.
I have no personal problem at all with gendered pronouns... but I couldn't care less if someone else does. Nobody is forcing me or you or any of us to not use them. If the government wants to do it officially, fine with me. Doesn't effect my life in any way whatsoever. I seriously have no clue why this kind of thing bothers people as much as it does.... It really kind of seems like the who issue acts as a frivolous distraction from things that matter.

It's certainly not #1 on my list of important issues.  I'm very strongly in favor of women's rights and have often been outspoken on such issues but at the same time, I just don't understand the insistence some have on taking that to an extreme.  A lesbian friend of mine and I once had a major falling out when she told me that every bad thing that has ever happened in history was 100% men's doing.  I told her that I could understand her feeling that way but I also told here I thought saying "every bad thing that has ever happened in the world was the fault of men" was an inaccurate.  She didn't talk to me for two years after that.

even flow - question mark said:

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

Funny how it’s generally the white guys complaining about terms like “person”. 

In Canada, the right to be considered a person was hard won by strong women. Canadian women weren’t legal “persons” until 1929. 

http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/commemoration/pd-jp/history-histoire-en.html

Used in the context for which it was originated, "person" is a perfectly good word. 

"Every person on this forum has a right to an opinion."  Fine.

The idea that a woman was ever considered anything but a "person" is absurd and worse than archaic.

Being described as a man or woman, a him or a her, even a Ms, Mr. or Mrs. seems perfectly natural to me as well.  And I'm not offended by people who wish to be considered genderless or even sexless.  Hey, I'm a big Gary Numan fan.  No problem.  But I'm a man and that's spelled m-a-n, man.

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

Funny how it’s generally the white guys complaining about terms like “person”. 

In Canada, the right to be considered a person was hard won by strong women. Canadian women weren’t legal “persons” until 1929. 

http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/commemoration/pd-jp/history-histoire-en.html

Used in the context for which it was originated, "person" is a perfectly good word. 

"Every person on this forum has a right to an opinion."  Fine.

The idea that a woman was ever considered anything but a "person" is absurd and worse than archaic.

Being described as a man or woman, a him or a her, even a Ms, Mr. or Mrs. seems perfectly natural to me as well.  And I'm not offended by people who wish to be considered genderless or even sexless.  Hey, I'm a big Gary Numan fan.  No problem.  But I'm a man and that's spelled m-a-n, man.

.............and I can't help but love you so

LOL, good song!  The one that came to mind when I wrote that was this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcAmwCnAChk

Bri...........if we're going to do it, let's do it right.......https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5Sj5tpn-no

brianlux

OnWis97 said:

The language has evolved in some funny ways.  We have gender neutral terms for mom/dad (parent) and brother and sister (sibiling) but none for aunt/uncle.  But there's not gender specific term for cousin.  Weird.

Language also evolved to default to the male.  In hypotheticals, we'd say he/him/his, and when we started to shift away from that mindset, the language could not accommodate.  So now we say "they" to mean a singular person.  I'm OK with it because it does not really work to make a conscious decision to add a new word to the language.  That said:

PJ_Soul said:

I personally HATE Miss and Mrs. They are specifically designed to signal marriage status of women. But there is no male equivalent to that.
I have no personal problem at all with gendered pronouns... but I couldn't care less if someone else does. Nobody is forcing me or you or any of us to not use them. If the government wants to do it officially, fine with me. Doesn't effect my life in any way whatsoever. I seriously have no clue why this kind of thing bothers people as much as it does.... It really kind of seems like the who issue acts as a frivolous distraction from things that matter.

I could not agree with this more.  I don't know how anyone could even suggest that Mr. vs. Miss/Mrs. is rooted in anything other than gender-based caste.  We have to denote which women are married but leave me neutral?  You're essentially saying she's someone's property.  It's been a long time since I'v really been around "Miss/Mrs."  Ms. is the norm.  And that change is not "political correctness" but a change to stop sending the message that women are either property or available to become property.  I used to work for a city and I'd have to look up property histories...the ownership transfers tended to be between two males:  "Mr. Timothy Jones and Mr. David Brown..." but sometimes you get "Miss Jane Anderson, an unmarried woman..." Wow.  The good old days were strange.

If Mr., Mrs., Miss, Master (as a boy, once in a long time I would be referred to as "master", they boy version of "miss"),  and Ms had never been invented I would be perfectly fine with that.  Any time there is an option to check one of those boxes on a form I leave it blank.  My name is Brian, not Mr.   But I don't care if people call me Mr.  except when Mom would say, "You're in trouble now, Mister!"

OnWis97

brianlux said:

OnWis97 said:

The language has evolved in some funny ways.  We have gender neutral terms for mom/dad (parent) and brother and sister (sibiling) but none for aunt/uncle.  But there's not gender specific term for cousin.  Weird.

Language also evolved to default to the male.  In hypotheticals, we'd say he/him/his, and when we started to shift away from that mindset, the language could not accommodate.  So now we say "they" to mean a singular person.  I'm OK with it because it does not really work to make a conscious decision to add a new word to the language.  That said:

PJ_Soul said:

I personally HATE Miss and Mrs. They are specifically designed to signal marriage status of women. But there is no male equivalent to that.
I have no personal problem at all with gendered pronouns... but I couldn't care less if someone else does. Nobody is forcing me or you or any of us to not use them. If the government wants to do it officially, fine with me. Doesn't effect my life in any way whatsoever. I seriously have no clue why this kind of thing bothers people as much as it does.... It really kind of seems like the who issue acts as a frivolous distraction from things that matter.

I could not agree with this more.  I don't know how anyone could even suggest that Mr. vs. Miss/Mrs. is rooted in anything other than gender-based caste.  We have to denote which women are married but leave me neutral?  You're essentially saying she's someone's property.  It's been a long time since I'v really been around "Miss/Mrs."  Ms. is the norm.  And that change is not "political correctness" but a change to stop sending the message that women are either property or available to become property.  I used to work for a city and I'd have to look up property histories...the ownership transfers tended to be between two males:  "Mr. Timothy Jones and Mr. David Brown..." but sometimes you get "Miss Jane Anderson, an unmarried woman..." Wow.  The good old days were strange.

If Mr., Mrs., Miss, Master (as a boy, once in a long time I would be referred to as "master", they boy version of "miss"),  and Ms had never been invented I would be perfectly fine with that.  Any time there is an option to check one of those boxes on a form I leave it blank.  My name is Brian, not Mr.   But I don't care if people call me Mr.  except when Mom would say, "You're in trouble now, Mister!"

I don't have a problem with Mr. either (except it makes me feel old).  So, Mr./Miss is just fine.  But Mr. and Mrs./Miss is different.  Language can be very powerful and this tells us who's personal lives (virtue?) we care about and what we think the various roles are.  And I'm not someone that wants to change to "womyn" or anything, either.  But we have a marriage-neutral female "Mr." (Ms) and there's no reason to cling to Mrs. and Miss.

brianlux

OnWis97 said:

brianlux said:

OnWis97 said:

The language has evolved in some funny ways.  We have gender neutral terms for mom/dad (parent) and brother and sister (sibiling) but none for aunt/uncle.  But there's not gender specific term for cousin.  Weird.

Language also evolved to default to the male.  In hypotheticals, we'd say he/him/his, and when we started to shift away from that mindset, the language could not accommodate.  So now we say "they" to mean a singular person.  I'm OK with it because it does not really work to make a conscious decision to add a new word to the language.  That said:

PJ_Soul said:

I personally HATE Miss and Mrs. They are specifically designed to signal marriage status of women. But there is no male equivalent to that.
I have no personal problem at all with gendered pronouns... but I couldn't care less if someone else does. Nobody is forcing me or you or any of us to not use them. If the government wants to do it officially, fine with me. Doesn't effect my life in any way whatsoever. I seriously have no clue why this kind of thing bothers people as much as it does.... It really kind of seems like the who issue acts as a frivolous distraction from things that matter.

I could not agree with this more.  I don't know how anyone could even suggest that Mr. vs. Miss/Mrs. is rooted in anything other than gender-based caste.  We have to denote which women are married but leave me neutral?  You're essentially saying she's someone's property.  It's been a long time since I'v really been around "Miss/Mrs."  Ms. is the norm.  And that change is not "political correctness" but a change to stop sending the message that women are either property or available to become property.  I used to work for a city and I'd have to look up property histories...the ownership transfers tended to be between two males:  "Mr. Timothy Jones and Mr. David Brown..." but sometimes you get "Miss Jane Anderson, an unmarried woman..." Wow.  The good old days were strange.

If Mr., Mrs., Miss, Master (as a boy, once in a long time I would be referred to as "master", they boy version of "miss"),  and Ms had never been invented I would be perfectly fine with that.  Any time there is an option to check one of those boxes on a form I leave it blank.  My name is Brian, not Mr.   But I don't care if people call me Mr.  except when Mom would say, "You're in trouble now, Mister!"

I don't have a problem with Mr. either (except it makes me feel old).  So, Mr./Miss is just fine.  But Mr. and Mrs./Miss is different.  Language can be very powerful and this tells us who's personal lives (virtue?) we care about and what we think the various roles are.  And I'm not someone that wants to change to "womyn" or anything, either.  But we have a marriage-neutral female "Mr." (Ms) and there's no reason to cling to Mrs. and Miss.

Agreed.

Meltdown99

brianlux said:

Meltdown99 said:

In Canada federal government employees can no longer use mom, dad, mr., mrs., miss when dealing with the public...the fucking stupidity of our federal government.  I guess they must welcome the public with the greeting “welcome peoplekind, how can I help you”...LMFAO.

Minister defends Service Canada’s gender-neutral language amid opposition ridicule

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/03/21/minister-defends-service-canadas-gender-neutral-language-amid-opposition-criticism.html

I remember when PC language turned us all into "persons" here in the U.S.  Looks like Canadians have jumped on the sexless "persons" bandwagon.  First will come the mailperson jokes, then the euphemistic language barrage, then everyone will be "beotch". 

*Sigh*

Thanks for that, made me chuckle...