Miss/Mrs./Ms.

[dazzleman]

Option 1.

The fact that "Ms." is politically correct is a negative for me.  In addition, it is an abbreviation of nothing, which is a grammatical non sequitur.  Plus it reeks of bra-burning radical feminism.

At this point, I don't think titles matter that much.  The days when it was common to address people by titles is gone.  I am on a first-name basis with just about everybody that I know.

A few people address me as Mr. [dazzleman] when they're first doing business with me, but I usually encourage them to call me by my first name, and most do, since I have a pretty friendly demeanor.

I also agree that I'd hate to think of the type of woman who would be offended by being called the wrong title.  I don't think we need to cater to those miserable, strident, radical feminist types.

[dazzleman]

Also it is disturbing that women still take the husband's name in many marriages.

I agree that it's disturbing.

What is so disturbing about it?  Why should it matter to you?

And BTW, it's about 90%, and has increased in the past decade.

[dazzleman]

Also it is disturbing that women still take the husband's name in many marriages.

I agree that it's disturbing.

What is so disturbing about it?  Why should it matter to you?

And BTW, it's about 90%, and has increased in the past decade.

Women embracing their ancient role as property.. it is a little disturbing, yes.

You use women as property every day in a cruder way than 99.9% of the husbands of the world do.  Who are you to be concerned?

[dazzleman]

I don't use them as property any more than any employer uses any employee as property, capitalist.

I thought that you believed that employers do treat their employees as property.  In any case, if you don't believe in capitalism, give up your private possessions, i.e., your trust fund and whatever money you may have.

[dazzleman]

I find dazzleman's first reply hilarious, and proof of how the anti-PC people are usually more militant than PC people. Sure, don't be politically correct if you don't want, but going out of your way to be un-PC is just stupid.

Much like how he throws a much bigger fit about the term "Native American" and insists that I say Indian when I only say "Native American" because I think it's retarded to associate them with actual Indians.

What I find most hilarious is his f'ucking asinine view that being PC means you love Islam, since everyone knows I'm such an Islam fan. Funny, I always thought I was PC just because I refused to use homophobic slurs as derogatory terms. Don't see what's wrong with that.

If you think anti-PC people are more militant than PC people, you live in an alternate universe.

And if you think being PC doesn't go beyond avoiding the use of anti-gay slurs (which I don't use either), then you have no clue about it.

[dazzleman]

I find dazzleman's first reply hilarious, and proof of how the anti-PC people are usually more militant than PC people. Sure, don't be politically correct if you don't want, but going out of your way to be un-PC is just stupid.

Much like how he throws a much bigger fit about the term "Native American" and insists that I say Indian when I only say "Native American" because I think it's retarded to associate them with actual Indians.

What I find most hilarious is his f'ucking asinine view that being PC means you love Islam, since everyone knows I'm such an Islam fan. Funny, I always thought I was PC just because I refused to use homophobic slurs as derogatory terms. Don't see what's wrong with that.

If you think anti-PC people are more militant than PC people, you live in an alternate universe.

And if you think being PC doesn't go beyond avoiding the use of anti-gay slurs (which I don't use either), then you have no clue about it.

Well then I'm not PC by your definition.

And I've never seen anyone throw a huge fit about the term "Indian" as you did about "Native American". Similarly you make it sound as if there are people out there who would lynch you for saying "black" instead of "African-American", despite the fact the NAACP calls itself the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (Colored basically being a synonym for black), not the NAAAA and the Black Panthers did not call themselves the African American Panthers. The only time I say African-American is to distinguish African-Americans who are the descendents of slaves (so no Richius, you are not African-American) from recent African immigrants to America (so no, I do not consider Obama to be African-American.) I say black every other time, and I have never once, including in my many times on DU, see anyone whine about the term black and insist I say African-American.

I have however much more times been taunted by idiots because of my refusal to say "gay" as an insult (such as "that's gay") or call people I don't like fags. So the anti-PC crowd is definately making the bigger fuss there.

Dude, I think you have WAY too much time on your hands.  I hope you have a 4.0 GPA because if you don't, you should be spending more time studying and less time worrying about what I think American Indians ought to be called.  Trust me, it's a much bigger issue for you than for me.

[dazzleman]

My only class today was canceled.

And I'm just proving my point. You anti-PCers whine far more than PCers.

It sounds as if you have a very demanding schedule.

And for the record, you haven't proven your point, if you're still worried about some stupid discussion about American Indians from a few months ago that I've forgotten about.

[dazzleman]

It sounds as if you have a very demanding schedule.

I'm only a part time student now.

And for the record, you haven't proven your point, if you're still worried about some stupid discussion about American Indians from a few months ago that I've forgotten about.

Except it's not PCness I care about. The main thing is you have whined more about PCness than anyone on this board has insisted people use PC terms, considering I have never seen that happen once, unless you count bashing Richius for his use of the racial slur "Paki"

yawn...this is more effective than a sleeping pill....

[dazzleman]

It sounds as if you have a very demanding schedule.

I'm only a part time student now.

And for the record, you haven't proven your point, if you're still worried about some stupid discussion about American Indians from a few months ago that I've forgotten about.

Except it's not PCness I care about. The main thing is you have whined more about PCness than anyone on this board has insisted people use PC terms, considering I have never seen that happen once, unless you count bashing Richius for his use of the racial slur "Paki"

yawn...this is more effective than a sleeping pill....

You still are unable to prove how PCers are more militant than anti-PCers.

Reminds me of your asinine and BS claim that I support Islam.

I'm beginning to think you have serious mental problems.  You don't even like me; why do you care what I say?  Not to mention that I know full well you don't support Islam, and really don't care whether you do or not.  Why are you so obsessed with what I might have said about Islam or American Indians 6 months ago?  Do you think I'm up nights worried about what you say?  I hate to break it to you, but you're not that big a part of my life.

You seem to have a cognitive reasoning disorder, which would explain why you hold the political views that you do.  Your interpretation of some of the comments I have made is way off the mark.  I'm not even going to waste my time clarifying anything, because it would probably be easier to communicate with a cement wall.

In any case, I'll tell you how I know that PCers are more militant than anti-PCers.  The definition of militance is demanding change.  People who want to keep the status quo are not, by definition, given to militance.  And who is it that keeps demanding we change the names of everything for no good reason?  Hint:  it's not the anti-PCers.

[dazzleman]

And most women who do keep their names are well-educated. The only reason these misogynistic traditions last so long is due to lack of education.

So I guess 90% of women are ill-educated and consider themselves property.

Maybe you better think of another answer.

[dazzleman]

Many women do it simply for convenience.  To have a different last name just creates another confusion and complication in life that you don't need.  This is especially true after kids are born.

At some point, a choice must be made on whether to use a man's or woman's name.  A woman keeping her own name just delays that choice, but doesn't eliminate it.

The idea of hyphenating names is completely impractical because it means everybody's last name doubles in length each generation.

The tradition of children taking their father's name was begun to give me a concrete connection to their children so as to encourage them to support them.  It doesn't necessarily imply ownership, nor does a woman taking her husband's name imply ownership.  People who believe that would have to believe that the institution of marriage itself implies ownership, which is no longer the case.

[dazzleman]

What about those rich Manhattan socialite women who take the full names of their respective husbands after marriage?

E.g. "Great Performances has been brought to you by contributions from Pew Charitable trusts, Mr. and Mrs. George Westinghouse, and *condescendingly* viewers like you"

That's an old tradition that I think is followed less and less.  Still, I don't see anything wrong with it if a woman wants to do that.  There will always be certain inequalities and differences between the sexes, and women do not always come up on the short end.

[dazzleman]

The tradition of children taking their father's name was begun to give me a concrete connection to their children so as to encourage them to support them.

If anything, children should have their mother's last name since mothers generally do more than half of the child rearing.

Do they provide more than half the financial support to make that child-rearing possible?  Let me give you a hint -- only in poverty-stricken segments of society.  What does that tell you?

Why are you so self-hating that you are bootlicking for man-haters who completely dismiss the role of fathers, and men in general?  I can't understand a man who thinks that way.

[dazzleman]

The tradition of children taking their father's name was begun to give me a concrete connection to their children so as to encourage them to support them.

If anything, children should have their mother's last name since mothers generally do more than half of the child rearing.

Do they provide more than half the financial support to make that child-rearing possible?  Let me give you a hint -- only in poverty-stricken segments of society.  What does that tell you?

Why are you so self-hating that you are bootlicking for man-haters who completely dismiss the role of fathers, and men in general?  I can't understand a man who thinks that way.

nclib is being very even-handed and fair on this issue, dazzleman.  Why are you so misogynistic?

Even-handed?  All I've seen him imply is that women do all the work, and are treated like property.  That doesn't sound even-handed to me, unless of course you believe those things are true.

[dazzleman]

Even in families where both parents earn around the same amount, the mother is still expected to do over half the child-rearing.[/quote]

This is more feminist propaganda than reality, actually.  In general, men work more hours, and have a longer commute, than women.  Women are more inclined to work shorter hours closer to home, while men travel further and work more in search of a higher income.  So in cases like this, it is perfectly appropriate that the mother does more than half the child rearing.  Feminists look only at whether the woman works outside the home.  If she does, in their view, the man should be doing half the child-rearing work, even if the woman works 1/10 the hours the man does.  Typical heads-I win, tails-you lose feminist mentality.

Why are you so self-hating that you are bootlicking for man-haters who completely dismiss the role of fathers, and men in general?  I can't understand a man who thinks that way.

Of course, fathers play an important role in families. I was only advocating fairness in relationships. It's fine to give a child the father's last name, just that it shouldn't be taken for granted.
[/quote]

It's good to see you finally say a positive word about the male role in families and society.

[dazzleman]

To anyone who advocates keeping the titles Miss and Mrs. for traditional reasons, imagine if the discrimination had been against blacks instead of women. In his article on political correctness, Douglas Hofstadter writes that our society would be much more repulsed if we called unemployed blacks "Niss" and employed blacks "Nrs.", when all whites were called Master. (even if that was the tradition)

Here's the excerpt where Hofstadter brings up the terms "Niss" and "Nrs.":

"Nrs. Delilah Buford has urged that we drop the useful distinction between "Niss" and "Nrs." (which, as everybody knows, is pronounced "Nissiz," the reason for which nobody knows!). Bler argument is that there is no need for the public to know whether a black is employed or not. Need is, of course, not the point. Ble conveniently sidesteps the fact that there is a tradition in our society of calling unemployed blacks "Niss" and employed blacks "Nrs." Most blacks-in fact, the vast ma jority-prefer it that way. They want the world to know what their employment status is, and for good reason. Unemployed blacks want prospective employers to know they are available, without having to ask embarrassing questions. Likewise, employed blacks are proud of having found a job, and wish to let the world know they are employed. This distinction provides a sense of security to all involved, in that everyone knows where ble fits into the scheme of things."

Here's the entire article.

I don't think you have enough to do with your time, dude.