Australia living in the dark ages

[Peccavi]

I've always thought miss should go the way of master and we just have Mr and Mrs. Ms is just a silly distraction, which is what another word for gay marriage would be. If you feel the need to differentiate, then why not call it what it is, gay marriage?

 

I support the feminist movement but it's not my fault if they go off on a pointless tangent. I mean seriously, what does ms get them? And how are you meant to address a woman you don't know? Not all feminists have it tattooed on their forehead. It's just an invention to confuse. As would be another term for gay marriage. You meet a work colleague. You chat. You find out about each other. You ask if they are married. No, they say, I'm garried, or larried. Great. Didn't know you were gay. Now I do. Why is there this compulsion to know if people are gay? I don't meet someone and say hi, I'm jez and I'm hetro. just in case you were wondering.

 

I have never thought of myself as a silly distraction, but as I get older I think it might be better than nothing..

My 'pointless tangent' is thus because that is how you see it. I have managed quite well on the intelligence quotient, managing a military then law career. I don't do 'pointless tangents', I managed to choose a title that does not define me in any way (you of course will disagree with that), whilst steering clear of burning my bra; an increasingly vital tool as one gets older. (It avoids the pain of having the mammys bang on the knees). I have nothing tattooed on my forehead, but once I have my 80th birthday, I intend to get a tattoo on my chest that says: 'this is where they used to be'.

You just say hello to a woman you don't know.Nothing confusing about it.

 

Italics: Why indeed? Why is there this compulsion to know if one is a Mrs or a Miss? A Mr is a Mr; it isn't an issue. I don't meet someone and say Hi, I'm a Miss or a Mrs?

Just in case you were wondering.

___________________

 

Tbh Newjez, I really am surprised that you can see one and not the other. You argue strongly that gay people should not have to justify their sexuality. Exactly right-I agree. Yet you do not see that using a title that does not define female status in the same way. Instead categorising those who choose to do this as silly and pointless.

You seem to see the choice of Ms as something that defines a feminist. So you defend the one and dismiss the other.

 

Defend the right to not categorize. For both.

 

 

[newjez]

I have never thought of myself as a silly distraction, but as I get older I think it might be better than nothing..

My 'pointless tangent' is thus because that is how you see it. I have managed quite well on the intelligence quotient, managing a military then law career. I don't do 'pointless tangents', I managed to choose a title that does not define me in any way (you of course will disagree with that), whilst steering clear of burning my bra; an increasingly vital tool as one gets older. (It avoids the pain of having the mammys bang on the knees). I have nothing tattooed on my forehead, but once I have my 80th birthday, I intend to get a tattoo on my chest that says: 'this is where they used to be'.

You just say hello to a woman you don't know.Nothing confusing about it.

 

Italics: Why indeed? Why is there this compulsion to know if one is a Mrs or a Miss? A Mr is a Mr; it isn't an issue. I don't meet someone and say Hi, I'm a Miss or a Mrs?

Just in case you were wondering.

___________________

 

Tbh Newjez, I really am surprised that you can see one and not the other. You argue strongly that gay people should not have to justify their sexuality. Exactly right-I agree. Yet you do not see that using a title that does not define female status in the same way. Instead categorising those who choose to do this as silly and pointless.

You seem to see the choice of Ms as something that defines a feminist. So you defend the one and dismiss the other.

 

Defend the right to not categorize. For both.

 

 

 

It's a pointless complication. Why do we need one title for men and three for women? Men and women are equal, they should both have one title. I'd be happy to have one title for both. If I'm addressing a police constable, male or female, I address them as constable or office. But if we do need to have different titles for men and women, surely it makes sense to have the same number. Anything else would imply that women for some reason need to be addressed differently to men, implying they are 'special', and not in a good way.

 

The situation that bothers me is when I meet someone, say a bank manager, who has a name tag that says Diane Abbott. I want to keep the relationship formal, as I've never met this woman before. But what do I call her? Miss, Mrs Ms? Maybe I should do what the Europeans do and start with miss, and hope she takes it as a compliment. But odds are she'll think I'm being condescending. I could go for Ms, but then how do I know she'll take that well? So I opt for Mrs, and then clean the spittle off my glasses when she hisses Ms at me.

 

Just drop the miss and the ms, and increase the spectrum of Mrs to that of Mr.

 

Job done.

 

The only possible justification for Ms, would be if you wanted to differentiate yourself from other women. But then it becomes a different thing doesn't it?

Edited September 25, 2016 by newjez

[newjez]

I think I'd like you mum and dad newjez.

 

They sound like wonderful people ( apart from refusing to talk to people who don't own dogs).

Luckily I have a dog so all good.

 

I think they would like you parleycross. In fact I quite like you. It would be a dull world if we all thought the same.

[Peccavi]

It's a pointless complication. Why do we need one title for men and three for women? Men and women are equal, they should both have one title. I'd be happy to have one title for both. If I'm addressing a police constable, male or female, I address them as constable or office. But if we do need to have different titles for men and women, surely it makes sense to have the same number. Anything else would imply that women for some reason need to be addressed differently to men, implying they are 'special', and not in a good way.

 

The situation that bothers me is when I meet someone, say a bank manager, who has a name tag that says Diane Abbott. I want to keep the relationship formal, as I've never met this woman before. But what do I call her? Miss, Mrs Ms? Maybe I should do what the Europeans do and start with miss, and hope she takes it as a compliment. But odds are she'll think I'm being condescending. I could go for Ms, but then how do I know she'll take that well? So I opt for Mrs, and then clean the spittle off my glasses when she hisses Ms at me.

 

I try not to post too much; (on any site) nowadays, but sometimes I get sucked in by interesting stuff. Was just about to log off when I checked back..

 

Agree your first line. Men and women should be equal, (they are in my minds eye, but still today on pay scales they are not). I'd be happy to have one title for both also, but it is not the case and won't happen now. I am unsure and really don't care if it was 'feminists' who decided on a non status title for women 30-40 years ago, but I'm glad they did; I embraced it and still agree with it.

 

I understand that addressing a female formally might present a problem for you. That problem has arisen because women had to have their status defined, unlike men. If we had all been called Mr (you know what I mean),-there would not have been a problem,-and for so very many I have to say, there is no problem.

I always address women as Ms when unsure of their status. I have only once been told 'I am Mrs', and it was without rancour.

 

I am frequently called Mrs, but have never had the urge to spit and hiss at the addressee.

That last line says more about you than the crop haired tattooed bemetaled amazons to whom you refer....(how's that for categorizing!)

 

Put windscreen wipers on your specs, and venture forth into the hairy hell of the feminasty!

 

I'm awa the noo to shave my chin!

[newjez]

I try not to post too much; (on any site) nowadays, but sometimes I get sucked in by interesting stuff. Was just about to log off when I checked back..

 

Agree your first line. Men and women should be equal, (they are in my minds eye, but still today on pay scales they are not). I'd be happy to have one title for both also, but it is not the case and won't happen now. I am unsure and really don't care if it was 'feminists' who decided on a non status title for women 30-40 years ago, but I'm glad they did; I embraced it and still agree with it.

 

I understand that addressing a female formally might present a problem for you. That problem has arisen because women had to have their status defined, unlike men. If we had all been called Mr (you know what I mean),-there would not have been a problem,-and for so very many I have to say, there is no problem.

I always address women as Ms when unsure of their status. I have only once been told 'I am Mrs', and it was without rancour.

 

I am frequently called Mrs, but have never had the urge to spit and hiss at the addressee.

That last line says more about you than the crop haired tattooed bemetaled amazons to whom you refer....(how's that for categorizing!)

 

Put windscreen wipers on your specs, and venture forth into the hairy hell of the feminasty!

 

I'm awa the noo to shave my chin!

 

Well, actually no. Men and boys had Mr and master, as women and girls had Mrs and miss. But master got dropped long ago, and is only used now by some formal school teachers on occasion and to describe a level of a degree.

 

Miss never got dropped. Don't know why.

 

But the creation of the term Ms can only have been to differentiate. It would have been far simpler to just drop the term miss. But there was obviously another agenda.

[Gbye grey sky]

It's a pointless complication. Why do we need one title for men and three for women? Men and women are equal, they should both have one title. I'd be happy to have one title for both. If I'm addressing a police constable, male or female, I address them as constable or office. But if we do need to have different titles for men and women, surely it makes sense to have the same number. Anything else would imply that women for some reason need to be addressed differently to men, implying they are 'special', and not in a good way.

 

The situation that bothers me is when I meet someone, say a bank manager, who has a name tag that says Diane Abbott. I want to keep the relationship formal, as I've never met this woman before. But what do I call her? Miss, Mrs Ms? Maybe I should do what the Europeans do and start with miss, and hope she takes it as a compliment. But odds are she'll think I'm being condescending. I could go for Ms, but then how do I know she'll take that well? So I opt for Mrs, and then clean the spittle off my glasses when she hisses Ms at me.

 

Just drop the miss and the ms, and increase the spectrum of Mrs to that of Mr.

 

Job done.

 

The only possible justification for Ms, would be if you wanted to differentiate yourself from other women. But then it becomes a different thing doesn't it?

 

Is it just me, but I would address that person by their first name, male or female. How would you know if they were not a Dr for example. Perhaps the whole issue is around stuffy old-fashioned formalities. True equality can only come when we start addressing each other as equals.

[Parley]

What is wrong with diferentiating things.

 

I'm not sure why it worries you so much newjez.

[Parley]

Do some people harbour a secret desire to go in the other sexes toilets too.

Convinced they are being discriminated against because they aren't allowed in.

[Keith and Linda]

What is wrong with diferentiating things.

 

I'm not sure why it worries you so much newjez.

 

I am coming around to thinking that we should not differentiate, and for all women then maybe lets go for the Alf Garnet terminology................ Problem solved I believe!:wink:

[flag of convenience]

Is it just me, but I would address that person by their first name, male or female. How would you know if they were not a Dr for example. Perhaps the whole issue is around stuffy old-fashioned formalities. True equality can only come when we start addressing each other as equals.

 

I do feel that this is an issue due to the English language. The 'you' form allowing respect in French and German regardless of gender. Normally in French a woman over a certain age is referred to in the adult way, though originally signified a married woman. I would not say ' miss' to a woman over a certain age.

[flag of convenience]

Do some people harbour a secret desire to go in the other sexes toilets too.

Convinced they are being discriminated against because they aren't allowed in.

 

That was hardly an issue at some clubs a few decades back in London at any rate. Girls would use the fellows toilet with great regularity as theirs was always too much of a queue. Sometimes even for the intended use. No discrimination back then.

[newjez]

What is wrong with diferentiating things.

 

I'm not sure why it worries you so much newjez.

 

 

Inconsistency really bothers me. I guess I must be mildly obsessive compulsive. I just get really upset when things aren't consistent. It doesn't really have anything to do with gays or feminists. I like things to be logical and consistent, unless there is a good explanation of why not. I've yet to hear one.

[newjez]

I do feel that this is an issue due to the English language. The 'you' form allowing respect in French and German regardless of gender. Normally in French a woman over a certain age is referred to in the adult way, though originally signified a married woman. I would not say ' miss' to a woman over a certain age.

 

 

Exactly.

[newjez]

Is it just me, but I would address that person by their first name, male or female. How would you know if they were not a Dr for example. Perhaps the whole issue is around stuffy old-fashioned formalities. True equality can only come when we start addressing each other as equals.

 

 

Yes, but there are still formal situations, even in this modern age, and especially for children addressing adults.

[newjez]

Do some people harbour a secret desire to go in the other sexes toilets too.

Convinced they are being discriminated against because they aren't allowed in.

 

 

I have seen male and female signs on portaloos. What's the point? It does amuse me somewhat when I pass the queue for the woman's and waltz straight into the men's. My bladder couldn't handle being a woman. It would make more sense to just have unisex stalls, but I'm not suggesting it. I don't want to queue.

[Paul1Perth]

Well if the Irish can vote it in, a country until recent times very woven up in Catholic traditionalism, perhaps there is some hope Australian social conservatism wouldn't make this country a bit of a laughing stock, then I'm on the fence a little on this, but can certainly see Australia as being cast as still living in the dark ages, if large number especially, in what is hardly a religious practising country, making it more akin to conservative Middle Eastern countries that being the case.

I don't think Aus is anywhere near as bad as that. They don't get stoned to death and it's not against the law here.

Don't know why we would be a laughing stock? More to laugh about because it gets so much press and we are still talking about it. Lots more important things to spend on.

[flag of convenience]

I don't think Aus is anywhere near as bad as that. They don't get stoned to death and it's not against the law here.

Don't know why we would be a laughing stock? More to laugh about because it gets so much press and we are still talking about it. Lots more important things to spend on.

 

Well it does show our continued high degree of social conservatism. But as I said I'm a little on the fence, with a leaning towards recognition of rights on the matter. If Ireland, a country with a still rather deep social conservative streak very evident when I lived there, can ' get over it' I don't see why Australia can't do the same. After all not like this country is some religious mainstream nation even. I don't se the relevance if in extreme conservative Islamic societies among others, that stone same sex people and those committing adultery, as any justification why Australia shouldn't take an enlightened approach to questions of social ethics.

[Parley]

We just want a plebiscite like Ireland had.

 

No big deal really. Then we will know the public's view on this issue.

[flag of convenience]

We just want a plebiscite like Ireland had.

 

No big deal really. Then we will know the public's view on this issue.

 

But why? Should I vote to prevent divorce if I personally disagree with it. Or abortion? I recall when both were illegal in Ireland as well.

[Gbye grey sky]

We just want a plebiscite like Ireland had.

 

No big deal really. Then we will know the public's view on this issue.

 

Ireland didn't have a plebiscite. It had a binding referendum as required in its constitution.

 

The article attached shows why a plebiscite is welcomed by homophobes. They win even when they lose by causing upset to gay couples and their children.

 

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/irish-gay-marriage-referendum-campaigner-warns-malcolm-turnbull-and-mps-against-plebiscite-20160823-gqz0o8.html

[Parley]

That is rubbish GGS.

[Paul1Perth]

Ireland didn't have a plebiscite. It had a binding referendum as required in its constitution.

 

The article attached shows why a plebiscite is welcomed by homophobes. They win even when they lose by causing upset to gay couples and their children.

 

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/irish-gay-marriage-referendum-campaigner-warns-malcolm-turnbull-and-mps-against-plebiscite-20160823-gqz0o8.html

Sounds a bit like the argument Trump is putting forward about him losing the election because it will be rigged.

There's nothing wrong with being gay but being gay and expecting to have kids doesn't sit right with me.