Jun 13, 2012 -- 2:39PM, steven_guy wrote:

To some extent, such words patronise women by implying that being a woman, or a man for that matter, isn't very important to a woman or a man. I am not a woman and the appropriate pronouns to use when referring to me are he and him. I am not genderless or neuter. I neither love nor hate being a man, but it does seem to be perfectly natural to me. I shave my face instead of my legs and pee standing up. Always have.

Obviously you have never been a part of a dual income dual parenting family.  Where mom can't be proud enough of being a woman that she can nurse her children at work, and dad is threatened with arrest for being in a park restricted to children under 6 and parents.  Or where mom is paid less and not supported for grants essential to her career because does shave her legs and pees sitting down.  Or where dad has to sacrifice a promising career because his wife can't be checked out by the other manager's wives and start over at a beginners salary in a different company. 

You can be as proud as you want to be a man.  Congratulations on being able to piss upwind.  And Ann Romney can be proud of being a woman dependent on her man and her church for everything.  And expect men to be paid more because they have to support a family whether they do or not.  To each his own in your case. 

The pronouns are gender inclusive not gender neutral if you bothered to read anything about them.  I don't expect anyone will.  But the attempt must be made if women are going be allowed to be women and successful in whatever they want to do in the English speaking world. 

Jun 12, 2012 -- 9:31PM, Blü wrote:

That doesn't mean the job's impossible - for example, Ms worked well enough from the start.

Sorry, as one who was there at the start Ms. is a gender specific pronoun, and it took decades for it to be part of the language.  People claimed it was ugly and dishonored women, all the usual shit to keep women subservient to God and men.  It was an important fight and the fact that Ms. is now the proper honorific for a woman is half the battle. 

But for a professional woman Ms. is still damning.  Both of the two Dr.s sharing my surname will remind men  "The title is Dr. not Ms., Prick."  

Jun 13, 2012 -- 5:53PM, JCarlin wrote:

Jun 12, 2012 -- 9:31PM, Blü wrote:

That doesn't mean the job's impossible - for example, Ms worked well enough from the start.

Sorry, as one who was there at the start Ms. is a gender specific pronoun, and it took decades for it to be part of the language.  People claimed it was ugly and dishonored women, all the usual shit to keep women subservient to God and men.  It was an important fight and the fact that Ms. is now the proper honorific for a woman is half the battle.   

That is false from beginning to end. I too was there at the start of Ms (which isn't a pronoun). It was adopted quickly and enthusiastically. You don't get to invent your own history.

But for a professional woman Ms. is still damning.  Both of the two Dr.s sharing my surname will remind men  "The title is Dr. not Ms., Prick." 

No kidding. A woman with a doctorate is no more a Ms. than I am a Mr. It has nothing to do with gender.

Jun 13, 2012 -- 7:33PM, JCarlin wrote:

Jun 13, 2012 -- 6:11PM, Ken wrote:

Jun 13, 2012 -- 5:30PM, JCarlin wrote:

Sorry, Sir, you are part of the problem.

No, I am not, and I resent that remark.

I suspect that is an overreaction to an opinion based only on your arguments in re sexism in English.  I know nothing of your off beliefnet efforts on behalf of gender equality.  I would be happy to change my opinion and retract the remark if you could show me a solution in English to referring to an individual woman without continually and awkwardly repeating her name.

What are you talking about? There's no problem there to solve. The pronoun we use to refer to an individual woman is she. What else would it be? That has never been an issue. Do you have even the remotest conception of what this thread is about?

I don't care about God.

Jun 13, 2012 -- 8:00PM, JCarlin wrote:

Jun 13, 2012 -- 6:14PM, Ken wrote:

That is false from beginning to end. I too was there at the start of Ms. It was adopted quickly and enthusiastically. You don't get to invent your own history.

Thank you for you efforts.  However I am not inventing my own history.  Ms. was in common use in the women's movement in the 1960's.  Ms. Magazine appeared in 1972 and the liberal New York Times did not adopt it until 1986.  I will let the readers adjudicate.  

Everybody I knew was using it quite casually by 1975. It was extremely convenient. The New York Times has always been stuffy.