[Callers] That g word
Erik Hoffman via Callers
callers at lists.sharedweight.net
Fri Jan 22 09:44:09 PST 2016
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 at gmail.com
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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
>>>> <mailto: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
>>>> <mailto: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
>>>> <mailto:Callers at lists.sharedweight.net>
>>>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Callers mailing list
>>>> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
>>>> <mailto:Callers at lists.sharedweight.net>
>>>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Callers mailing list
>>> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
>>> <mailto:Callers at lists.sharedweight.net>
>>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Callers mailing list
>>> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
>>> <mailto: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/c3fb7693/attachment.htm>
More information about the Callers
mailing list