Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site osu-dbs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!cbosgd!osu-dbs!karl
From: karl@osu-dbs.UUCP (Karl Kleinpaste)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: "mylady" vs "Ms"
Message-ID: <557@osu-dbs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Apr-84 15:52:44 EST
Article-I.D.: osu-dbs.557
Posted: Mon Apr 16 15:52:44 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 17-Apr-84 08:26:06 EST
Organization: Ohio State U., CIS Dept., Columbus
Lines: 70

----------
S  > I am not sure what in my reply to Milady Quigley's article "Rape in Lybia"
O  > merited this ad hominem attack but if I was arrogant towards her, I
P  > publicly apologize.  
H
I  Mr Martillo, I know you were kidding in your usage of "mylady" as a substitute
E  for "Ms" in the rest of your article, but I nevertheless find your attitude
   very disconcerting (to say the least).  Since you realise that "miss" or "mrs"
Q  are improper in this discussion and you feel the need for a address that does
U  not reflect my marital status, you proceed to use one which is completely
I  archaic and probably insulting to the women it refers to, even though there
G  exists an address which is acceptable and widely used in our current society.
L  I do not want to insult you, but I think this tells us a lot about you: you
E  will continue to call us women as you damn well please with no consideration
Y  whatsoever to our feelings on the matter.
----------
I don't know if I really want to get into this argument, but I am really
bothered that people get so upset over the titles by which they are addressed.
I have been known to use "milady" more than twice, though I usually think of
it, written, as "m'lady."  In particular, I use it when talking with my wife
on occasion.  I also use it with a number of my close female friends.  It is
not, as Sophie Quigley suggests, intended to insult the women to whom it
refers; on the contrary, it denotes extremely high respect.  Yes, it is
a bit archaic, but some of the most beautiful of language constructions
have gone down the tubes due to the need for more concise, though frequently
less clear, modern terms.

I also use "sir" with considerable frequency, even in casual conversation with
my friends.  It does not denote anything negative; again, it indicates that I
have a great deal of respect for the person with whom I am speaking.  Am I
to be viewed as sexist because I use "sir?"

It seems to me that, if people are going to be upset with terms which indi-
cate one's marital status, they should be equally upset with terms that de-
note sex in the first place.  (Hence, I suppose, the creation of the term
"chairperson," which sounds incredibly weak to my ear, and indicates to
me merely that the chairman is a woman.  "Chairman," to me, indicates
neither sex, but rather a position on a committee.)  I suggest that the
term "Ms." is sexist on this basis, because it clearly delineates that
the person to whom one is referring is a woman.  In most contexts, that
information is superfluous; so how do people defend that title's usage?
Perhaps a simple "M." would be more appropriate, for either sex?  But
then one gets to the same point as one does with "chairperson," unless
one is using French, where it indicates a male...

There are a number of women who object to the term "Ms." anyway.  My
wife happens to be among them, as are several of my close female friends.
They wish to be known as "Miss," "Mrs," or some other term (some of which
are humorous, which they use for the simple reason of avoiding "Ms.").
Are women to be considered sexist if they don't like "Ms.?"

What I'm getting at is this: the term used to describe a person very
seldom indicates any particular position for or against that person.
If it's used in a context that clearly indicates disrespect, then per-
haps there is a problem.  But, in general, determining context is very
touchy anyway.  Example: "Sam's a bi--h."  That sounds incredibly dis-
respectful, even obscene; what is missing is the fact that I'm explaining
to someone that Sam is actually Samantha, and she is (or, rather, was)
a beagle I used to have; hence, the term used is completely correct,
if rather unusual today.  Even the context is inadequate here.  Where
does one draw the line?  No matter where one draws it, I can't
see how it will be anything but arbitrary.


P.S. NOTE NEW ADDRESS
-- 
"Confusion will be my epitaph."  -- King Crimson, 1969
Karl Kleinpaste @ Bell Labs, Columbus
accessible as cbosgd!osu-dbs!karl but
*much* better as {cbosgd,rlgvax,ihnp4}!cbrma!kk