|
Post by jean on Dec 6, 2011 11:36:07 GMT
The point is that in a registration document you CHOSE (not once but twice, so clearly deliberate) not to state your sex. This, I would suggest, reflects a sisterly solidarity (allied to a slight paranoia and/or seige mentality) with those who are, in my opinion, overly concerned with gender. It looks to me like an attempt to get away from being stereotyped according to one's sex - but in aqua's case, that's rather cancelled out by his making it absolutely clear whenever he posts that he is, in fact, a man. In other words, I think you're making far too much of this non-disclosure thing. (Aviatrix hardly made a secret of her sex, either, as she chose a specifically feminine form for her board name - though it's quite hard to know what her intentions were since she, along with the vast majority of posters registered here, never actually posts.)
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 6, 2011 11:49:31 GMT
Well, you would say that, wouldn't you, defending poor little aqua's outdated obeisance to the gender agenda when the rest of you movers and shakers of the sex wars have moved on.
Tell the rest of the non-disclosers that they are making too much of it, perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by jean on Dec 6, 2011 11:54:53 GMT
Well, you would say that, wouldn't you, defending poor little aqua's outdated obeisance to the gender agenda... Blimey! I thought I was defending poor little aqua's refusal to be defined by a gender agenda of any sort!
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 6, 2011 12:37:38 GMT
Yes, you get it, jean! "refusal to be defined" Well done!
But, aviatrix, like aqua, is sending mixed messages! They admit their sex in posts but not on the application form. Do they think they are "dissing The Man" thereby?
Why this disconnect? I would say because they are still mired in the same passé gender agenda pursued by the sistas that led to nonsense like authoress and poetess being eschewed and deprecation of the failure to achieve the strict demographic ratio of male to female in Parliament, onboards of directors. etc.
Do they also refuse to state their race/ethnicity on forms? Great stuff, these little pieces of cyber rebellion! Good old aqua! Always ready to man the barricades of ideology on behalf of his lady pals! A true feminist! (Or did I mean "gentleman"?)
|
|
|
Post by jean on Dec 6, 2011 13:25:06 GMT
...the same passé gender agenda pursued by the sistas which led to nonsense like authoress and poetess being eschewed... Those two were eschewed a long time ago, marchesa. Look on it as part of a process of regularisation - as a language that lost most of its grammatical gender several centuries ago, we've no need of sex-specific terms, and in many cases the forms don't exist. Nobody's ever said doctress even though Fowler was a keen advocate, and conductress was strictly for buses. Professoressa may be necessary in Italian, a gendered language; but I doubt if anyone's ever been tempted by professoress in English.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 6, 2011 13:36:49 GMT
We were discussing non-disclosure of gender on this board, jean, most notably by aqua and pippop.
Stop digressing!
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 6, 2011 13:42:34 GMT
But to return to points made upthread.
“it's common knowledge what "ffs" stands for”. Yes, well spotted, pippop, it is common knowledge amongst English speakers and most message boarders but surprisingly you were not aware of Jerry being short for Jeremy. Why?
Re. “the language marchesarosa uses to describe women” and “why Marchesarosa seems to hate women” and “your choice of words to describe women day in and day out”.
A little hyperbole I think, here, pippop. And “hate” is far too strong a word. I feel, rather, contempt mingled with despair, but only for CERTAIN women, and not because of their sex but for their being willing carriers and disseminators of crassness. So, no need to over-egg the pudding re my purported “hatred” of “women”! Is that in your cultural repertoire, by the way?
And when I say “hateful epithets” it is only picking up on YOUR remark about my “hating women”. “Hateful” is actually an adjective from the word hate. But perhaps your English class did not get as far as such nuances? Not that your use of English is bad, by any means, pippop. Excellent for someone for whom it appears to be a second language. But it’s not surpising that a lot of the allusions on this board go right over your head.
Re. “why should my apparent ignorance about the vocabulary of a popular TV presenter signify anything at all about my brain?” Because you have dived into this thread fully clothed and seem to miss that it is Clarkson’s language and persona and impact that is the subject of discussion here allied to the ire he raises in certain quarters.
“Girlie” is a Clarkson word. I have simply borrowed it and applied it to PC faux-feminists. It’s an attempt linguistically to turn the tables on them, but my attempt to use a paradox to humorous effect has clearly failed with you. Similarly with the Cakeboard “gels”. But don’t worry if you didn’t follow. “Gels” is just another ancient British cultural allusion you don’t “get”. Think Joyce Grenfell and St Trinians!
Re. Trying to “belittle” you? Moi? My, my, you’re a sensitive soul! I’m just sad that so much of my “chat” is lost on you. And remember, most of the recent long-running threads on this board are attempts to belittle ME. But fat chance! The bumptious just don’t succumb to it.
Re. “Girly blouse”? another idiom at half cock. It’s “big girl’s blouse”, pippop, and it’s usually a put-down aimed at men.
Is there anything else I can help you with concerning British idioms?
What people discuss with interlocutors on message boards, pippop, has always to be put “in the context” of who they are and what they have experienced together and as individuals. This applies to you as well as to everybody else and though you wish to conceal where YOU are coming from it shines through.
The claim about my purported “hatred of women” and previous attempts to pin "racism" on me reveal more about you than me, pippop. You don’t understand either MY context or the context of this board and its more venerable denizens. You just read the words. We have “history” on this board - even regarding “pink”, to which I alluded and Jade picked up in her usual graceful way.
Your ignorant disparagement of our walk down Memory Lane does you no favours, pippop.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Dec 6, 2011 13:44:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jean on Dec 6, 2011 13:51:02 GMT
...it is common knowledge amongst English speakers and most message boarders but surprisingly you were not aware of Jerry being short for Jeremy. It is common knowledge amongst English speakers and most message boarders that you don't use an abbreviation of the name of a public figure unless either that abbreviation is how they're commonly referred to, or you're a particular friend of theirs.
|
|
pippa
WH Member
Posts: 230
|
Post by pippa on Dec 6, 2011 14:20:31 GMT
funny, but far more fitting for you if it were marchesa's head on your own wall alonside all the other carnage 'trophies'. Good heavens, pippa - do you think I could count her as one of my conquests?May I quote you on that? conuest i wouldn't have used that description - nor notches on any bedpost, no. quarry or prey would be closer to the mark. fat chance of achievement though.
|
|
|
Post by aquatic on Dec 6, 2011 14:33:39 GMT
And remember, most of the recent long-running threads on this board are attempts to belittle ME. But fat chance! I don't think I've seen people here trying to belittle you. Stand up to you, maybe. React to your arrogance*, maybe. But belittle - no. You, on the other hand, are habitually belittling of others. 'Little aqua/poor little aqua' must appear on this forum at least a dozen times, and I only post every so often. *(Your arrogance and obsessiveness in presuming you know why I don't place a silly symbol under my name are of staggering proportions.)
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 6, 2011 14:38:05 GMT
Bu..bu..but aqua had outed me, jean! He said I WAS Jeremy Clarkson. How much closer can you be to use an abbreviated first name?
Like pippop, you have not been reading the thread with much attention, jean.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 6, 2011 14:49:06 GMT
Aqua, I am "arrogantly and obsessively" following up on a point made by pippop who apparently thinks stating true facts about oneself is dangerous.
I merely "speculated" on the reasons for refusing to state ones gender on the board registration form. You, aqua, are one of a mere handful to have prevaricated about this.
I think I was quite accurate about your case, aqua - misplaced "solidarity".
But if I am wrong, tell me why, mon petit choux!
|
|
pippop
pc
I love everyone here.
Posts: 1,110
|
Post by pippop on Dec 6, 2011 17:21:46 GMT
Aqua, I am "arrogantly and obsessively" following up on a point made by pippop who apparently thinks stating true facts about oneself is dangerous. I have not said that. You should use the quote boxes then you will not leave yourself open to being called a liar or a fabricator.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Dec 6, 2011 17:28:59 GMT
Bu..bu..but aqua had outed me, jean! He said I WAS Jeremy Clarkson. How much closer can you be to use an abbreviated first name? You've overshot. You should have said I.Oh yes I have. You just haven't been giving enough attention to writing your contributions.
|
|