Scotland Independence Vote

[ericmark]

At least we don't have to change the location from United Kingdom although maybe it should be called the United Queendom? Is our location UK or UQ?

 

[JohnW2]

At least we don't have to change the location from United Kingdom although maybe it should be called the United Queendom? Is our location UK or UQ?

In these days of 'PC', maybe we should abandon the gender-specific terms and call the monarch the "King", regardless of gender? After all, "Prime Minster", "President" etc. etc. do not vary with gender.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Taylortwocities]

United Persondom?

Doesn't sound quite right. I'll stick with Great Britain.

 

[bernardgreen]

No I didn't as I was a bit too busy listening to other things,

I feel it is the best result.

But bad news for the companies looking forward to manufacturing thousands of non-union flags.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

In these days of 'PC', maybe we should abandon the gender-specific terms and call the monarch the "King", regardless of gender? After all, "Prime Minster", "President" etc. etc. do not vary with gender.

Political Correctness does not exist in the pejorative sense meant by those who use the term. It is a concept invented by people who wish to discredit liberal and progressive social policies.

Every time someone makes a sugestion like yours it provides ammunition for sexists. By creating a ludicrous policy, you have provided an example of "anti-sexism" that is so ridiculous that nobody with any common sense would agree with it.

What happens then is that the sexists will use it as an example of why criticism of sexism is *all* daft and over-sensitive, and is *all* "political correctness gone mad", and slowly and insidiously that view takes hold.

There is no more wrong with the terms "King" and "Queen" than there is "man" and "woman".

There is no more wrong per se with gender-specific terms than there is gender-specific public toilets. I suggest you do not start ignoring that convention, lest you end up on a register.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

United Persondom?

Doesn't sound quite right. I'll stick with Great Britain.

So are you advocating that Northern Ireland should not be part of the Union any more?

 

[JohnW2]

United Persondom? Doesn't sound quite right. I'll stick with Great Britain.

If you do that, you'll probably upset some people (and maybe find yourself saying something other than what you intended!). As I understand it ....

... "United Kingdom" includes Northern Ireland, but "Great Britain" does not ... and (for completeness) "Britain" (without the "Great") is just England and Wales (not Scotland), whilst "British Isles" includes both NI and Eire, plus various other bits and pieces like Channel Islands, Scilly Isles, Isle of Man etc.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

There is no more wrong per se with gender-specific terms than there is gender-specific public toilets.

I agree. I never said there was anything wrong with gender-specific words - and my whole comment was, of course, very light-hearted and tongue-in-cheek!

There is no more wrong with the terms "King" and "Queen" than there is "man" and "woman".

Again, I agree. However, I suspect that the gender implications of "King" probably only arose because the word came into being at a time when monarchs were all male, and that "Queen" probably meant the wife of a monarch. The same never happened with "President", which does not have any gender implications (and, further back in history, nor did "Pharaoh").

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Political Correctness does not exist in the pejorative sense meant by those who use the term. It is a concept invented by people who wish to discredit liberal and progressive social policies.

On the contrary, yesterday on Radio 4 news a woman who said the words of an anonymous victim was called an actor.

There is nothing sexist about the word actress so what is the reason for this?

 

[JohnW2]

On the contrary, yesterday on Radio 4 news a woman who said the words of an anonymous victim was called an actor. ... There is nothing sexist about the word actress so what is the reason for this?

Indeed - but I've notice in recent times that an increasing number of women who act appear to describe themselves as actors, rather than actresses - so they presumably perceive a reason.

One advantage of non-gender-specific terms is that it makes it slightly simpler to talk about both genders together - i.e. "actors" (rather than "actors and actresses"). One also wonders why it was perceived necessary to have different words for men who act and women who act - when the same is not true of electricians, plumbers, pilots, doctors, lawyers etc. etc. etc. Does this perhaps again stem back to the time when all actors were male?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

... "United Kingdom" includes Northern Ireland, but "Great Britain" does not ... and (for completeness) "Britain" (without the "Great") is just England and Wales (not Scotland), whilst "British Isles" includes both NI and Eire, plus various other bits and pieces like Channel Islands, Scilly Isles, Isle of Man etc.

The whole thing is funny, but there's an apposite bit starting at 2:35

 

[EFLImpudence]

Indeed - but I've notice in recent times that an increasing number of women who act appear to describe themselves as actors, rather than actresses - so they presumably perceive a reason.

Could they be mistaken or something more sexist themselves?

One advantage of non-gender-specific terms is that it makes it slightly simpler to talk about both genders together - i.e. "actors" (rather than "actors and actresses").

Obviously it does but that does not alter the meaning of those that don't nor make them demeaning.
May as well do away with 'she', then.

One also wonders why it was perceived necessary to have different words for men who act and women who act - when the same is not true of electricians, plumbers, pilots, doctors, lawyers etc. etc. etc. Does this perhaps again stem back to the time when all actors were male?

I don't follow the logic.

Doesn't that reason apply to all the occupations you mention.

All policemen were men and then came some policewomen.
Do they, the women, want to be called policemen?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

One also wonders why it was perceived necessary to have different words for men who act and women who act - when the same is not true of electricians, plumbers, pilots, doctors, lawyers etc. etc. etc. Does this perhaps again stem back to the time when all actors were male?

Manager, waiter, school___, head___, anchor___

There's probably no reason behind it.

Just like there is none behind the idea that "chairman" is a sexist term and that we should use chairperson, chairwoman (if appropriate) or just chair.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Just like there is none behind the idea that "chairman" is a sexist term and that we should use chairperson, chairwoman (if appropriate) or just chair.

There is a reason; it is the pejorative political correctness which you said does not exist.

 

[JohnW2]

Indeed - but I've notice in recent times that an increasing number of women who act appear to describe themselves as actors, rather than actresses - so they presumably perceive a reason.

Could they be mistaken or something more sexist themselves?

Possibly. It may be that (just as with electricians, plumbers etc.) they do not see the need for the name of their profession/occupation to identify their gender.

One also wonders why it was perceived necessary to have different words for men who act and women who act - when the same is not true of electricians, plumbers, pilots, doctors, lawyers etc. etc. etc. Does this perhaps again stem back to the time when all actors were male?

I don't follow the logic. ... Doesn't that reason apply to all the occupations you mention.

Yes, it does - so I couldn't explain why that reason/logic would be exercised in a few cases, but not most.

All policemen were men and then came some policewomen. Do they, the women, want to be called policemen?

That's a little different. In those cases in which (presumably at a time when a profession/occupation was entirely male), the word chosen included "...man" (policeman, Chairman, fireman, coal man etc.), that was already apparently gender-specific (unless 'man' was intended in the sense of the German 'mann') - and, as you imply, it would be odd (and potentially confusing) to call women "<something>man". Interestingly, in a good few cases, we have not introduced female gender-specific terms ("Chairwoman, firewoman, coal women) to address this but, rather, have created new non-gender-specific words - e.g. "Chair" (which sounds daft to me!), "fire fighter" etc.

Kind Regards, John