22 Jan
2016
22 Jan
'16
12:44 p.m.
Reminds me of a mediation I was sort of part of, where a pure-breed
female dog was unsuccessfully inseminated by another of that breed.
"Bitch" and "Stud" were used liberally, and, of course, accurately...
(It was a small claims court, we mediated, and the resulting
decision--validated by the small claims judge--was: the person who owned
the bitch got the pick of a litter from a bitch owned by the person with
the stud. A result that would never have occurred had it gone to a
judge. Both parties were satisfied with the result, if not exactly happy.)
~erik hoffman
oakland, ca
On 1/22/2016 9:15 AM, Martha Wild via Callers 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(a)gmail.com
<mailto:contraron@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(a)gmail.com
<mailto:contraron@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(a)gmail.com
<mailto:sargondj@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(a)lists.sharedweight.net
<mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net 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(a)lists.sharedweight.net
<mailto:callers@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(a)lists.sharedweight.net
<mailto:callers@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(a)lists.sharedweight.net
<mailto:callers@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(a)lists.sharedweight.net
<mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
<mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
<mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
<mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net