Enough is Enough

**Freedomlover** · 19th August 05, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by Graham

please mind your language on the board.

;)

Of course, good sir, but veritas simplex oratio est.

**Archangel** · 19th August 05, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by Freedomlover

My purpose is to point out a few broad types, and perhaps stimulate conversation, not to condemn any of them.

who you calling a broad?

**Archangel** · 19th August 05, 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by Riverkilt

Back in my foxhole now. Helmet on.

Ron

...put the stir stick down and step away from the stirring pot...

**highlander_Daz** · 22nd August 05, 04:11 AM

"Fireman sorry fireperson" just to be a pedant the word, "man" when attached to a noun is non gender specific, ie a Fireman could be man or a women , all these words like "fireperson" or "chairperson" drive me mad !!

oops sorry off topic!

**Archangel** · 22nd August 05, 05:07 AM

Originally Posted by highlander_Daz

"Fireman sorry fireperson" just to be a pedant the word, "man" when attached to a noun is non gender specific, ie a Fireman could be man or a women , all these words like "fireperson" or "chairperson" drive me mad !!

oops sorry off topic!

I'm guilty of this so many times, "female policeman". However, realize that "the two become one and that one is the man" is the principle behind the complaint. The woman, and her job needs, becomes forgotten and that is wrong.

back to topic.

**Freedomlover** · 22nd August 05, 05:18 AM

Originally Posted by Archangel

I'm guilty of this so many times, "female policeman". However, realize that "the two become one and that one is the man" is the principle behind the complaint. The woman, and her job needs, becomes forgotten and that is wrong.

back to topic.

I guess we can veer off a little. Question: Should we, because some people feel gender threatened (or in some cases desire an equality that does not and can not exist) therefor assign a gender designator to all titles? I don't think so.

**Jimmy Carbomb** · 22nd August 05, 05:58 AM

Originally Posted by Freedomlover

I guess we can veer off a little. Question: Should we, because some people feel gender threatened (or in some cases desire an equality that does not and can not exist) therefor assign a gender designator to all titles? I don't think so.

Wow, person. Who would have thought that personkind would come to that? I like the differences between persons and persons. Whereas persons are soft and cuddly, persons are not my cup of tea. It would be difficult to designate between firepersons, mailpersons, policepersons, and such without getting bodily graphic (in a sense). Does that mean that I can only eat those cookies called "personfingers"?

It's too daggum confusing for me. In conjunction with the beginning of this thread... if a person asked for a kilt peek as compared to a person asking for a kilt peek... one's gonna get a fight.

**KMacT** · 22nd August 05, 06:52 AM

Originally Posted by Freedomlover

...an equality that does not and can not exist...

I believe that you are confusing "sameness" with "equality." The two sexes will never be the same, or even have the same set of needs or desires, but they are equal.

Kevin

**Frank** · 22nd August 05, 07:50 AM

As Robert Burns would doubtless (have had) to say if he were around today,
'a person's a person for aw' that'

Not sure it sounds the same...

**Freedomlover** · 22nd August 05, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by KMacT

I believe that you are confusing "sameness" with "equality." The two sexes will never be the same, or even have the same set of needs or desires, but they are equal.

Kevin

No sir, not at all. I fully support the idea of equal pay for equal work, equal treatment before the law, and that sort of thing. What I do not support is the idea that males and females are simply interchangable parts. Notice that I limited my reference to 'equality' with the qualifier "some people". And in the sense I used the term it is in fact the equivalent of 'same'.

I think, though, that we are on the same sheet of music here.