[Callers] That g word

Fri Jan 22 09:12:49 PST 2016

My point was that some words are offensive enough where context is *not*
relevant.

I don't use the word "cock" to mean rooster, unless I really want to make
it a double entendre. Etc.

And whether that word is offensive when it describes a group of people is
up to that group.
On Jan 22, 2016 12:08 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers" <
callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> My point exactly. Context IS relevant. We have a lot of words for body
> parts that people use in slang that are considered highly offensive and not
> for use in polite society. And yet, many of those words are perfectly
> acceptable words if you say them in a different context - when talking to
> your cat, for example, or your good friend Richard, and a bunch of others
> that I won’t put in here but know about. So context is extremely relevant.
> We don’t ban those words from our usual conversation with their innocent
> meanings just because they can also be used in nasty contexts and offend
> everyone.
> Martha
>
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 8:50 AM, sargondj at gmail.com wrote:
>
> I disagree. If it is fair to condemn a word despite widespread ignorance
> of its racist etymology (such as the very real problem with the verb
> "gyp"), then the inverse must be true: it is fair to exonerate a word
> despite widespread ignorance of its non-racist etymology (e.g., niggardly).
> That a word falsely gets attributed to a category in which it doesn't
> belong is irrelevant. If two separate meanings/derivations converge to an
> identically spelled modern word, I don't believe the innocent word (when
> used in its original context) deserves to be written off. Let us truly
> abide by what you claim to support: its current use *is* relevant.
>
>
> On Jan 21, 2016, at 13:25, Ron Blechner via Callers <
> callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> Martha,
>
> Regardless of whether it was derived from Welsh hundreds of years ago,
> would you say more than 0.1% of dancers know that? Or, do you think 99.9%+
> of dancers associate "gypsy" the dance move with the slang for wandering
> people?
>
> Regardless of its origin, its current use is relevant.
>
> Ron
> On Jan 21, 2016 12:15 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers" <
> callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> As mentioned, there are many words we use that are even considered
>> impolite but only depending on context. The nickname for Richard, for
>> example. Lots of men proudly use that as their name, but it’s also a really
>> offensive term. The name Randy has other contexts, yet we use it without
>> any problem in the context of someone with that as their name. (Note the
>> use of the plural for the generic singular pronoun, which I’ve done for
>> years, unhappy with he/him for that term and that just sort of started
>> happening). If our word actually came down from Welsh, and has no
>> relationship to the Romani whatsoever, then it would seem even more reason
>> to recognize that it is context dependent and completely divorced from the
>> pejorative use of the unfortunately similar word in other countries.
>> Martha
>>
>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 5:56 AM, Janet Bertog via Callers <
>> callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>> I have contacted Carol and have begun a discussion.  I still have several
>> unanswered questions but one thing I did learn is that the Romani have
>> claimed the word and deemed it offensive and feel it should not be used, in
>> any context, in any language.  More about why she herself uses the word
>> later. One thing I asked her was about her insistence on the use of a
>> capital G.  To me, this would indicate that Gypsy would refer to the
>> ethnicity, while gypsy would have a possibly completely different meaning.
>>
>> We know that gipsy/gip was being used in country dances at least in 1909
>> when Cecil Sharp wrote them down.  Two of the three dances in the 1909 book
>> originated in the 1500s, one ECD and one Morris Dance from Scotland.  We do
>> not know if they originally used the terms gip/gipsy in the 1500s, but we
>> do know that gip, at least, has another meaning in Welsh (a celtic
>> language) - gaze or glance.
>>
>> So, my conversation with Carol is ongoing, and unresolved.  But if you
>> feel that a group can claim a word and then claim that it is a slur, there
>> are a lot of other words you should stop using as well.
>>
>> Janet
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 3:00 AM, Erik Hoffman via Callers <
>> callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> What's in a word? As this list points out, it gets confusing.
>>>
>>> Like Martha, I stopped using "Ladies," and "Gents," or "Gentlemen,"
>>> because they are words steeped in class-ism. And after years of being told
>>> we live in a classless society, the lie of that became clear.
>>>
>>> But, more recently I was approached by a man who felt "Ladies," and
>>> "Gents" were roles anyone could play whereas "Men" and "Women" really did
>>> refer to what was between our legs, and made it more uncomfortable to
>>> switch roles. Also, even though we live in a severely class society, the
>>> words "Ladies" and "Gents" don't seem to carry that weight any more.
>>>
>>> Then again, in Berkeley we've switched to "gender free," and use
>>> "Ravens" and "Larks" now.
>>>
>>> This is all to say, those who come to the dance have many differing
>>> associations with words. And sometimes it is important that we listen.
>>>
>>> Take "He" and "She." We all know that "He" has been the generic pronoun
>>> where "She" refers only to women. Since we live in a society dominated by
>>> the patriarchal Christian religion, it's clear that using "He" and "Him"
>>> generically supports this concept. Many of us, in the sixties and seventies
>>> counteracted this male dominance by using "She" and "Her" as the generic
>>> pronoun. It was startling how different it feels to switch to those. There
>>> are now corners pushing to just use "They" and "Them" for everyone, like we
>>> use "you" for both plural and singular. Maybe it will take hold...
>>>
>>> But all this is to say, these little words do have an affect on how we
>>> think about things.
>>>
>>> So now we are thinking about "gypsy." Or, better with capitalization,
>>> "Gypsy." Is it derogatory?  To some, not all. Is that reason enough to
>>> change? Perhaps for some. I've started using "Right Shoulder Turn," and
>>> "Left Shoulder Turn." It doesn't slide off the tongue, an isn't as
>>> colorful, but it is more descriptive. At Contra Carnivale, Susan Michaels
>>> said someone had come up with "Roma-around," or "Romaround.."
>>>
>>> So we're all dealing with it, and considering this as:
>>>
>>> Some of us are attached to our words, and don't want to loose it. Some
>>> of us are vociferous about keeping it. And some of us are searching for a
>>> substitute that might work better. Seems about right.
>>>
>>> Mostly, I want to suggest, as we struggle with this, consider how our
>>> language and word choice does affect others, whether we mean it to or not.
>>> As callers, we are in the public eye--granted a small pond of the
>>> public--but our words do go out there and cause others to think, too.
>>>
>>> What's in a word? A lot.
>>>
>>> ~erik hoffman
>>>     oakland, ca
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Callers mailing list
>>> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
>>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sharedweight.net/pipermail/callers-sharedweight.net/attachments/20160122/ace70b7d/attachment.htm>