Now, don't get me wrong - I'm all for equality of the sexes and don't subscribe to gender discrimination. But to me, a "Miss" or a "Mrs" is really nothing more than a gender-specific honorific. There are very specific titles for women in Indian culture - Kumari, Shrimathi, Sowbhagyavathi, etc depending on their age and marital status and thankfully there has been no fuss about it. At least, not yet. In the whole article, I think this piece takes the cake:
The booklet also admits that "no gender-neutral term has been successfully proposed" to replace 'waiter' and 'waitress', allowing parliamentarians to use these words in a restaurant or café.
Where will this stop? Will words like mankind, human, manual be banned soon? Maybe we will all start addressing each other as a gender neutral "earthite". And the irony is that nouns in many European languages have a gender. Ha!
On a related note, I hate it when people say Kate Winslet is a good actor. NO! Kate Winslet is NOT a good actor. I don't question her histrionic abilities. But KW and her lady colleagues in that profession are actresses and NOT actors. Actress denotes gender and that is an important piece of information that should not be suppressed or messed with. Ditto with the rest of the nouns denoting professions. I also get pissed off when a batsman in cricket is referred to as a batter by some commentator who decides to be PC. Now, batter follows a logic as the rest of them are bowler, keeper, fielder etc. Call me old fashioned, but the English language abounds with such idiosyncracies and these are what make the language interesting.
I refuse to go along with this stupid attempt to concoct blandness in the name of political correctness. I think this Phillip Bradbourn guy has responded on behalf of every sensible person thus: "I will have no part of it. I will continue to use my own language and expressions, which I have used all my life, and will not be instructed by this institution or anyone else in these matters."
Free Hit - You spoke too soon - about India. The Hindu Readers' Ed has devoted a considerable part of his Monday column today to issues related to this issue. Read the column here
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree that there are very many more worthwhile issues that should fill those scant grey cells :)
ReplyDeleteSiva,
ReplyDeleteIt is more a gesture of acknowledging the role of women in a society's progress rather than political correctness. Women don't have to spell out their marital status with a prefix. It's none of anybody's business to expect to know that, just as it has been for men. Your reference to a comment by 'Bradbourn guy' is just abrasive.
Swarna,
Just because there are worthwhile issues to discuss doesn't mean this issue belongs in the sidelines. The comment (pasted below) by K.Narayanan in your link is steeped in rudeness.
/* Mention of International Women’s Day brings me to a different issue raised by Rama Govindarajan (Bangalore). She finds “gender bias” in the coverage in The Hindu, and her “children are getting their first instructions on this topic” from reports in the paper. The samples she cites are: it is always “16 persons including eight women and a child” and never “including seven men and a child.” You never say “Miscreants entered the house of Ms X and threatened her” but it has to be “Miscreants entered the house of Mr. Y and threatened his wife.”
Prof. Rama has an interesting point, but I wonder how serious she is about the charge of “gender bias.” I would attribute such language to habit, a traditional way of writing. There is nothing factually wrong in the references quoted. They convey the information, which is what a news report is meant to do.*/
He writes that such reporting is a matter of habit, a traditional way of writing. Well, it was 'traditional' to shave the head of a widow.
Prasad,
ReplyDeleteI definitely disagree that either Ms. or a Mrs. has anything to do with "the role of women in a society's progress." The honorific indicating the marital status of a woman has much cultural significance in many regions and it cannot be erased easily. I once terribly upset my HOD Mrs. C.K when I printed her name as Ms. C.K on some documents for a conference. So much for being PC. This is taking up cudgels on behalf of the women at large. Who is really offended? Is this sense of offense real or perceived - debatable points.
While I don't question a woman's right to not disclose her marital status, the title is a courteous salutation and dropping it altogether is definitely not civil.
Using "challenged" or even "differently abled" in place of the earlier "handicapped" or "disabled" has caught on because the former references aren't quite right. I don't think this case is as clear cut.
Point 1: This is not a one size fits all case and there is room for subjectivity. Attempting to change it is too complex and better left as is.
Point 2: This is definitely not worth the EU's time and efforts.
Swarna,
Prof. Rama and Sarulakshmi seem to have valid points.