LNS in Alabamastan

I guess I never really gave it that much thought. There were so many other words that offended me that this one seemed kind of bland and no big deal.

Darn it, I suppose now, after all this discussion, I'm going to find it annoying and take offense every time I hear it in the future. lol

Reply to
lucille
Loading thread data ...

Regal, maybe. However, I do like a "title". It is nice when the checkers in the grocery store look at the name on my credit card and say "Thank you Mrs Murray". I don't think it is extraordinary to wish to be addressed courteously. Bear in mind Olwyn, Sheena and I are all much of a muchness in age, and were brought up using British ways.

Yes, Bruce, when I wa at school the boys were always known by their surnames, whereas we girls were known by their Christian names. That's the way it was.

Gill

Reply to
Gillian Murray

Yes and when there was more than one boy, I remember three boys, there was Morris Major, Morris Minor, and Morris Minimus lol

Reply to
lucretia borgia

I guess Morris Minors were around then LOL

Reply to
Gillian Murray

I don't think "guys," "gals," or any of those terms are honorifics. I think they're just collective nouns--no rank or comparison implied ;-)

Best wishes, Ericka

Reply to
Ericka

Except that I went to an all-girl school. The only males around were the janitorial staff. What's more I can still recite to you the pattern number of the non-traditional school tunic. Our headmistress was very advanced, an Oxbridge grad, no less, who required real rigor in classes (no watered-down-for-the-girls stuff)and our school tunic was "Economy design number 161 style A. Our school hat was also different. Instad of the usual panama, we had a sort of beret on a band, with the badge worn front and centre. Needless to say, we all hated it.

Olwyn Mary in New Orleans.

Reply to
Olwyn Mary

"lucretia borgia" wrote

Of course Brat gets it--she is one of the more astute people on this group. Even if she got stuck in the same fog as NDJoan and Dawme and became Elizabeeth.

Dawne

Reply to
Dawne Peterson

It had everything to do with personal identity. My elder daughter took her husband's name, OTOH my younger daughter kept her's for much the same reason as Brat, she is known in business by her own name and isn't about to let an opportunity pass because somebody did not recognise her 'new' name.

I am amused today to hear some women dissing the so-called Womens Lib. Do they not realize what benefits it brought women ? Every association needs some flamboyant members to start out but certainly around here it was the Womens Task Force that brought much needed change for women ! Where I was working a man doing the exact same job as me would pay X numbers of dollars into the pension fund and they contributed X number of dollars to match it. I paid X into the pension fund but they only paid half of X for me - well they all knew women were married and had husbands to look after them eventually !

There was a lot needed fixing and many women of my age group were the ones who got the fixing started and under way.

Reply to
lucretia borgia

Excellent Dawne !

Reply to
lucretia borgia

I can relate!

Reply to
flitterbit

I see your points in all cases; I found the use of "my girl" by bosses to be especially annoying because it sounded infantilizing, as though said boss saw his assistant as more akin to a child than an employee.

Reply to
flitterbit

Hey, I'm not expecting first class service at Joe's Dinner. But I do at Snobby, Snobby, Pricy, Pricy.......

Cheryl

Reply to
Cheryl Isaak

"Tia Mary" wrote

(snip)

I disagree. I kept my own name for exactly the standard women's lib reason--not that "I didn't want a man's name" but that I had my own name. If I were marrying a woman (which is legal in my country) I would not take her name either. I do not believe that on marriage I relinquish my own identity to be subsumed in someone else's. I have always found it a bit sad when at a wedding a newly married couple is introduced as "Mr and Mrs John Doe!!!", as if she has vanished. Why not John and Mary Doe? (I was proud when DS and DIL were introduced as "the newly married couple, John Doe and Mary Smith!!!")

In our society, men do not face this choice. They do have the option to change their name on marriage, but certainly no one expects them to or comments if they don't.

Dawne, unrepentent feminist (should I be repenting just a bit--Lent starts tomorrow)

Reply to
Dawne Peterson

Really? I had no idea you were THAT old. What was Seneca Falls like back then?

Elizabeth

Reply to
epc123

Snowy?? At least we don't have to worry about her taking credit for the Woman's Christian Temperance Union!!

Dawne (RDH)

Reply to
Dawne Peterson

Better and better, unite against the terminology of 'guys' lol

Reply to
lucretia borgia

YES MA'AM!!!

Reply to
lucille

We had one example here in Cape Breton of a journalist (male) who was quite forward thinking and when he married he added his wife's maiden name in front of his own surname. (That was the line given out, I figured it was more that it made his name far more impressive, but that could be my feminism speaking lol)

Drew quite a bit of attention to them, but at least as much as when she left him and everyone was asking him when he was going to drop her name tee hee.

Reply to
lucretia borgia

OK, not sharing tonights wine with you !

Reply to
lucretia borgia

Bloody awful I imagine - you're sort of right, I am referring to the rejection of the 50s life style and model for women, you know, the happy homemaker who only had her man's comforts in mind.

My grandmother marched with the Suffragettes and was always vehement women must always exercise their franchise, then again, she was also partly temperance minded lol, the mould cracked somewhat.

Reply to
lucretia borgia

InspirePoint website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.