[Callers] That g word

Ron Blechner via Callers callers at lists.sharedweight.net
Fri Jan 22 09:17:50 PST 2016


"Dick" is a preferred name of your friend.
"Gypsy" is a slur to the Roma.

Do you get the difference?
On Jan 22, 2016 12:15 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers" <
callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> And I don’t ban those words from my conversation if they are appropriate
> and in context. My daughter raises chickens. We talk about the cocks and
> the hens. In the lab the carboys have stopcocks on them. I have friends
> called Dick and I use their right name. Context is important, though if I
> were in the presence of an English language learner I might be careful
> assuming my listeners were not as familiar with different words. But that
> is also context.
> Martha
>
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:04 AM, Ron Blechner <contraron at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It also means that I refrain from the following word uses:
>
> "Gay" meaning happy.
> "Cock" meaning rooster.
> "Pussy" meaning cat.
> "Douche" meaning to shower.
>
> This, as an aside, was a funny email to write. Apologies for any offended,
> but I use slang/swear words to make a serious point, and we're all mature
> here. I hope.
>
> Ron
> On Jan 22, 2016 12:01 PM, "Ron Blechner" <contraron at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sargon,
>>
>> You and I don't get to decide what millions of people think a word means.
>> it's the nature of language. Logic often has no bearing on it.
>>
>> In the same way "negro" is derived from Latin for "black", and aptly may
>> describe a color, it's still inappropriate and offensive in most human
>> contexts nowadays.
>>
>> When a word stereotypes a group of people, the only ones who get to
>> decide the proper use of that word is... that group of people.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> As for contra communities, until there's more groundswell of support for
>> changing "gypsy", it's an uphill battle. I think perhaps the smart thing
>> for those of us concerned with not using the word is to educate. At the
>> same time, I fully respect callers choosing to use their own replacements.
>>
>> Ron Blechner
>> On Jan 22, 2016 11:50 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/20160122/3f51279a/attachment.htm>


More information about the Callers mailing list