Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    
           <<< RANGER::$2$DUA8:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 112.72      General Discussion - issues unrelated to topics        72 of 77
GUESS::DERAMO "Dan D'Eramo"                          14 lines  19-MAY-1990 11:50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        re .71
        
>>		  but I guess I put it in the category of things like 
>>    using "black" instead of "colored" or "Negro" and Native American
>>    instead of Indian.
        
        Those are groups asking that a particular word be used to
        describe themselves, not asking that a particular word be
        used to describe others.  I would expect to see in the
        same category as your other examples, using "straight"
        because that is what straights (at least one) have asked
        to be called.
        
        Dan

           <<< RANGER::$2$DUA8:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 112.73      General Discussion - issues unrelated to topics        73 of 77
RAVEN1::AAGESEN "being happy shouldn't be illegal"   10 lines  19-MAY-1990 19:47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    i can see the issue surrounding using the original spelling of
    "straight" when speaking of heterosexual orientation. due to it's
    definition, the term implies the opposite would be "crooked".
    
    i really don't understand the offensiveness of spelling it strate, but
    because i'm normally not in the mood to offend folks when offering a
    written opinion, i usually opt for writing out heterosexual.
    
    ~robin

           <<< RANGER::$2$DUA8:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 112.74      General Discussion - issues unrelated to topics        74 of 77
LEZAH::QUIRIY "Christine"                             7 lines  19-MAY-1990 21:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Don't mind me, I'm trying to sort out what seems to be a tendency for
    too much people-pleasing.
    
    "Nevermind!"
    
    CQ

           <<< RANGER::$2$DUA8:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 112.75      General Discussion - issues unrelated to topics        75 of 77
USCTR2::DONOVAN "cutsie phrase or words of wisdom"    6 lines  19-MAY-1990 22:15
                         -< CHrisdtine, I'm with you >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    re:last couple;
    
    "Heterosexual" is a fine word to me. The misspelling of straight always
    seemed like a dig to me for some reason.
    
    Kate 

           <<< RANGER::$2$DUA8:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 112.76      General Discussion - issues unrelated to topics        76 of 77
WMOIS::B_REINKE "treasures....most of them dreams"   33 lines  20-MAY-1990 00:24
                                 -< thoughts >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CQ

    it's okay, :-)  thanks for your input..

    I personally think that if heterosexual people dislike the
    term 'strate' that they should be allowed the same grace
    as other people who object to a particular term to describe
    them.

    Even if 'straight' can mean the opposite of crooked...it also
    mean 'not homosexual'...so I think that either one uses 'straight'
    with the understanding that this is a word and the meaning being
    used in this context is 'not homosexual' rather than...'narrow or
    rigid minded' or 'the opposite of crooked'....or one uses
    'heterosexual'.

    I have to agree that when I first saw the use of the word 'strate'
    it hit me like 'breeder' does...(mostly because both were used in
    the same sentence of something putting down heterosexual people.)
    So my feeling is that there are people who use/used  'strate' in
    a fashion similar to using words like 'breeder' or 'nigger'
    that at some point and by some people this was meant as a put down.

    So is it wrong to perceive that there could well be an insult
    intended here and object to it? We are very supportive of most
    people who say that 'x' or 'y' offends me, without asking them
    to justify same.

    Is Alfred being singled out because he is heterosexual and male?

    and if so, is that right?

    Bonnie

           <<< RANGER::$2$DUA8:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 112.77      General Discussion - issues unrelated to topics        77 of 77
RAVEN1::AAGESEN "being happy shouldn't be illegal"   14 lines  20-MAY-1990 00:54
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    bonnie,
    
     how do you mean "is alfred being singled out.."? 
    
    i'm not suggesting that because i don't understand the offense taken at
    the spelling of "strate", that the term isn't considered offensive by
    some. 
    
    imo, the term "breeder" carries alot more negative innuendo than an
    alternate spelling of straight. 
    
    maybe you're talking to someone else...
    
    (-: ~robin

    Standard Rejoinder:  I may be hetero, but I'm sure not straight.  (Or a
    breeder, for that matter.)
    
    The "strate" speling doesn't do anything to eliminate the original
    non-bent meaning of the word for me, 'specially since it's usually used
    in spoken conversation.  "Straight" has too many other slang uses to be
    unambiguous anyway. 
    
    Ray

       re 141.2 (n�e 112.73):
       
       > i can see the issue surrounding using the original spelling
       > of "straight" when speaking of heterosexual orientation. due to
       > it's definition, the term implies the opposite would be "crooked".
       
       By this line of reasoning, some heterosexuals could take offense
       at homosexuals describing themselves as "gay", since the opposite
       of "gay" is "dull" or "somber". 
       
       It doesn't seem to me to be consistent for anyone to use both
       "strate" and "gay", if the explanation for the former is the one
       given in 141.2.
       
       --Mr Topaz

    robin,
    
    I wasn't responding to your note, and I appologise for not being
    clear about it. I've seen discussions of the use of the word
    'strate' in other places and was responding to my thoughts about
    those discussions.
    
    Bonnie

Actually, after doing more thinking, I like "Woman who f***s men" best. It gets
right to the heart of the matter.
	Mez

    Speaking of terminology, I'm surprised that nobody has questioned
    Jody's use of the word "preference" in her basenote title.  

RE: .10

    Mez, don't you mean "Woman who prefers to f*** men"? I don't think
    my  sexual  orientation  changed when I was not in a relationship.
    :-)

--David

    What's wrong with preference - should it be orientation?
    
    By saying preference, I had hoped to satisfy those with a single
    orientation, and those with more than one who prefer one over 
    the others.
    
    I'll change it if y'all like....
    
    -Jody

I don't know Witt. I've never f***** a woman, so I don't know what I'd prefer.
"Woman who has only..."? "Woman who now ... Joe"? And, since I've heard that
lesbianism and gayness is not only the sexual practice (and I believe it), I
don't really know where the places me. "Woman who now ... Joe and goes to
radical feminist lectures"?
	Mez

    
    re. jody
    
    �What's wrong with preference - should it be orientation?
    
    it seemed to me the discussion that was moved was speaking more about
    orientation terminology.
    
    �By saying preference, I had hoped to satisfy those with a single
    �orientation, and those with more than one who prefer one over 
    �the others.
    
    is it possible to have multiple orientations? i thought that three
    orientations pretty much covered the spectrum. that being heterosexual,
    bisexual, and homosexual.
    
    ~robin
    
    

    
    
    �I'll change it if y'all like....
    
    to me, it doesn't matter a bunch one way or the other.

    It has never occurred to me before that I should be insulted by
    the term "strate."  I guess I never thought much about it.  I just
    accepted it as a spelling that many lesbians and gays seem to prefer
    to use.  I've never used it myself because it has no personal meaning
    to me to spell the word "straight" as "strate", so why hop on the
    bandwagon and do something that means nothing to me just for the
    sake of doing it.
    
    Now that this topic has caused me to think about the spelling "strate"
    I think I view it this way, and hope this attitude doesn't offend
    anybody.  (sometimes it seems difficult to offend nobody!)  I still
    don't feel offended because I think it's difficult to be offended
    when I'm part of the comfortable accepted majority.  I'm secure
    in being heterosexual so why should I care what anyone else calls
    it?  I also realize that gays and lesbians have, for the most part,
    been treated with great prejudice by the heterosexual community
    so if it makes any gay or lesbian person feel better about it by
    spelling "straight", "strate," it doesn't bother me.  (Even if it's
    meant as a insult by anyone, it still doesn't bother me because
    it doesn't mean anything to me.)
    
    Lorna
    

    I know some people who are *primarily* heterosexual but *secondarily*
    homosexual (not quite bi because they don't do both with equal comfort
    or frequency).  They show a preference, but not a single orientation.
    
    Kinsey I ain't, though.....so as I say, if anyone is uncomfortable with
    the title I'll gladly change it.
    
    -Jody
    

    RE: strate/straight....gay/homosexual/happy
    
    How do you tell whether someone is saying "strate" or "straight" in
    conversation? How do you decide whether or not to take umbrage?
    
    --DE
    

    
    that's interesting, jody -
    
    �(not quite bi because they don't do both with equal comfort
    �or frequency).
    
    i suppose some might contend that those folks may be bisexual, and the
    comfort or frequency level was related to influences other than
    orientation.
    
    dunno'... 
    
    ~robin

    Quick course on the Kinsey Scale:
    
    0 through 6 in integer steps, with 0 being completely heterosexual, 6
    completely homosexual, and 3 being completely bisexual.  "x" is used
    for asexual people. 
    
    The intermediate steps (1 & 5, 2 & 4) are also considered bisexual,
    with qualifying language:  "predominately homosexual with some
    heterosexual feelings"; "more heterosexual but with many homosexual
    feelings" (I'm not sure that I remember the actual words correctly, but
    that's close anyhow).
    
                         			=maggie

Well, I've used "strate," but I've certainly never meant to
offend or insult anyone with it. I don't know why I prefer
that spelling.... I guess it just looks better to me. Also
I connect "straight" with non-use of drugs and alcohol. I guess
that's why "strate" seemed like a reasonable way to refer to
a heterosexual. (I guess that leaves room to talk about straight strates
and straight gays and lesbians....)

All in all, I think it's very odd that we classify and label human beings
according to their sexual/affection orientation.

In the future, I'll probably avoid the strate/straight issue by
selecting different words. It's such a drag spelling out
heterosexual though.

What do you think about "het"?

Kathy

I like it. It reminds me of "hip" :-).
	Mez

	"Strate" always seemed derogatory to me. "Straight" is somewhat
	better (my DEC issue dictionary does after all list heterosexual
	as slang usage for the word) but it's not my preference. Strate
	reminds me of the use of the word "Nigger" in place of "Negro".
	At one time Negro was a fairly polite word and nigger was a less
	then polite and very negitive term. Polite and accepting people
	used one while biggots used the other. Occasionally people who
	didn't mean anything by it used the wrong word. Hopefully they
	were corrected. I see no difference here.

	I would prefer heterosexual as it has fewer sub level connotations
	then straight but since few of those are really bad it's acceptable.
	There are other words I would prefer but as I know that others would
	find them objectional (even though they are no less accurate) I
	refrain. 

	There appears to be a growing tendancy to accept words that are
	negitive to many people as long as they are acceptable to a minority.
	(See 141.18 with the casual acceptance of "strate" because it's a
	common useage of the word for the "majority" by a "minority"). Is
	the same true the other way around? Are Gays as inclined to accept
	"queer" as a common word for them by heterosexuals? I doubt it. Nor
	should they.

	Why not? Because it offends them I reply. That's reasonable and
	sufficient for me. On the other hand one person told me right out
	that "it offends me" is not a sufficient explaination of why they
	should not call me "strate". This is not an attitude that encourages
	one to be accomidating in the future.

	Lorna made reference (141.18) to being part of a comfortable
	accepted majority. This is a luxuary I do not share with her. I
	am a white male. Comfortable? Not hardly. Accepted? Get serious.
	Majority? What world are you living in? If some people feel comfortable
	and accepted good for them. As long as anyone can call me any name
	they want and tell me that my being offended is no reason for them
	to stop I can't feel comfortable or accepted.

RE: .23

>What do you think about "het"?

	What do you think about "homo"? Let's just say I wouldn't use
	either unless I wanted to offend someone.

			Alfred

    I wouldn't say that I've ever been "offended" by the politics of
    misspelling, but I do find it unnecessary and (dare I say) somewhat
    simplistic. (The same holds for misspelling "women" as "womyn",
    "wimmin", and the like.) When you start out with a particular word,
    with all the etymology from which it is derived, I would guess that
    nobody is fooled or really thinks of it as a different word. In spoken
    conversation, the difference doesn't exist. It written communications,
    the misspelled word is jarring, and causes the reader to recall the
    intended spelling.

    I have always assumed that this jarring element is the whole point of
    the politics of misspelling. *If* in being jarred, you become aware of
    the reason the word has been misspelled (other than assuming the writer
    simply can't spell), the point has been made. For the most part,
    however, this works out to another case of preaching to the converted.
    Unless the written communication *explains* the reason for the
    misspelling, the non-cognoscenti won't have a clue as to the reason, so
    the point is lost, and there's a risk of alienating the reader.

    I guess the real reason I dislike the practice is that it strikes me
    as primarily political in nature, and I *really* dislike politics.

    
    I don't think it's quite fair to compare a term used to refer to the
    group in power with terms used to refer to disempowered groups.
    It also makes me angry when members of the group in power claim
    oppression for themselves, but it's a tactic that does serve to
    silence women and minorities.  I have tried to point out valid
    historical and cultural reasons for why certain words offend me,
    but when those explanations fail to change the mind of those
    who use those words, I often ask them to stop because it offends me.
    So I will honor that kind of request, too.
    
    Justine
    
    ps i'd also like to ask that we all stop quoting racial, ethnic, and
       other slurs to make a point.  I think the points have been made.  

    
    
    re .28  I think you're using the terms disempowered and empowered as
    if they were just the names of two different hockey teams -- equal
    but different.  But they're not equal.  The empowered group can and does
    use whatever language it wants -- the empowered group's language is 
    what's in the dictionary.  It's the standard by which one measures
    "misspellings."  Using a different spelling is a way of taking
    a tiny bit of power.  But I think the point you made earlier is
    correct: the word "womyn" or "wimmin" refers to a way that members
    of a group might wish to refer to themselves.  The word "strate"
    represents one group naming another, and that is what the disempowered
    groups have wanted to stop, so as I see it, we must honor your
    request if we want you to honor our request.  However, I still hold 
    to my view that the comparison to women or people of color is an unfair 
    one.  This is my opinion, and although I agree to change my behavior, 
    I have not changed my opinion of the misuse of this comparison.
    
    Justine
                                         

    Re .25, Alfred, when I referred to being part of a "comfortable
    accepted majority" I was specifically refering to my sexual
    "orientation" or "preference."  Let's face it, as a woman I have
    never received any flack or prejudicial treatment for being attracted
    to men.  It was my natural inclination and just happened to coincide
    with society's expectations so it hasn't been a problem.  But, now
    that I think about it, by being born white in a country with a
    predominantly white powerbase, I have also been part of a "comfortable
    accepted majority" in that I don't think I've ever been denied anything
    for being white.  (for being a *woman* is a different story)
    
    But, there have still been plenty of times when I haven't felt like
    a part of the "comfortable accepted majority" for other reasons.
    
    Lorna
    

    Please let's remember to star-out "ni*ger"; it is a pejorative.

    RE: .30
    
    Nice point, Justine, about the language of the group in power being 
    the acceptable language, spelling and all. I hadn't thought about that
    before. It really brings into focus why folks in the power base get so
    upset about groups taking words or alternate spellings for themselves.
    It really is more powerful to name yourself, rather than let the
    dominant group name you....
    
    RE: .31
    
    I wonder if being born white is one of those things that you never
    think about having allowed you some privilige until your attention is
    drawn to it. After all, we white folks had to fight for *our* places in
    college, interview for *our* jobs, etc. Nothing was really *given* to
    us, and yet somehow we have a leg up on things. Kind of like how being
    male gives you a leg up on things, and you're not even aware of it...
    
    
    RE: names for groups
    
    So. You don't like "strate". What *do* you like? [Let's assume here
    that we all agree that naming people by their sexual orien-eference
    is less-than-satisfactory, but that we're probably going to do it
    anyway. No cop-outs.]
    
    And what do *you* call
    Those-whose-partners-are-not-or-are-not-always-of-the-opposite-sex?
    
    (We could use that, I suppose. It's descriptive.)
    
    --DE
    

I am pissed that the terms I am comfortable with are the set of terms Alfred is
not, and vica versa. I don't want to be referred to as heterosexual or
straight. I accept strate and het. We obviously need another term, or we need
an organization to define our terms. For instance, how did Black, then
African American, come into usage? 
	Mez

    RE: .34 (How did Black....etc. come into usage)
    
    It just hit me that the dominant group has no need to "make" something
    come into usage. It's a real twist that the discussion here is around
    the naming of the dominant group. And not by itself. It doesn't need to
    name itself. Perhaps that what's causing some of the apparent
    discomfort....it's a new concept to be named by the non-dominant.
    
    

Gee, I have always been perfectly satisfied with being called heterosexual,
bisexual or homosexual.  Or Lesbian, though I didn't realize till years later
that homosexual was not considered a superclass of Lesbian.

In general, I don't use slang much, because the original word doesn't make
me uncomfortable.  "Homosexual" doesn't make me uncomfortable, so I use "gay"
only because it is shorter/more convenient.  Usually, though, I use h'sexual.

Similarly I have always been confused why people are more comfortable saying
"tits" than "breasts".  I think it is a reflection on society's dispproval of
homosexuality that the word "homosexual" became a bad-word, like breast. Why do
we now want to make "heterosexual" a bad-word, too?

Anyway, I am offended in principle by "strate" because I don't think groups,
empowered or otherwise, should be choosing names for other groups.  There is
a huge difference between "I want to be called this" and "I want to call you
this."

D!

Nothing's wrong, I just don't like it. Like I said elsewhere, it seems for
formal and distancing (to me). Like a stick up the back.

I could do with two terms; I just want one that's warm and fun (and that people
won't complain about). I want to name myself. Nothing's wrong with Mary, but
don't call me that :-).

I tried to think of a parallel to Lesbian (was there ever a famous het[...]
woman or place for such women?). Nothing leaps to mind, but I'm not strong on
history.
	Mez

    Fairness requires symmetry or balance.  A power imbalance requires
    asymmetry.  To claim the former is to deny the latter.
    
    							Ann B.

    Like the old joke says, call me what you want. Just don't call me late
    to supper. It seems to me that we are making to much of labels. If an
    individual wants to call her or himself gay, strate, lesbian,
    homosexual, straight, het, heterosexual, bi, bisexual, or
    broccolli-oriented then that is their business and their choice. We
    should respect their decision and also any groups decision to refer to
    themselves as what they want to. Likewise if a group or individual
    wishes to refer to another group by a certain label and that label is
    not derogatory or has not been seen as derogatory in the past, then so
    what? If an individual has a problem with how she or he is being
    labeled, then speak up and let it be known what you would prefer to be
    called. Likewise, if a group has the same problem, then speak up.
    This, hopefully, should apply to all individuals and groups, not just
    those identified by sexual orientation or preference. 
    
    Phil

    
    re .40...  I agree with you, Phil, but here we have a conflict.
    One group's use of the word "strate" is an attempt to avoid
    connotations of crooked or twisted, which are opposites of the word
    "straight".  However one of the men who notes in this file raised
    the issue (and other women and men agreed) that the word "strate" might
    be considered offensive and that he finds it so.  This seems to
    be a different sort of conflict from other language conflicts.
    For example, it's hard to imagine a man arguing that he derives a
    meaningful benefit from using the word "girl," so if requested not
    to use it, there's no reason for him to refuse (imho), but for gays,
    lesbians and bisexuals, there is at least a self-perceived benefit to
    changing the spelling of the word "straight."  So here we have a
    conflict of needs.
    
    Justine
    
    ps I guess the waters are muddied a little more when you consider Mez's
       disdain for the word "heterosexual" as too distancing.  I guess my
       own personal fix will be to use non-gay or to get around it some
       other way, but I do so grudgingly because of the power differentials
       I talked about before.
                             

    Now, it seems to me we have two different conversations going on; one,
    at the level of personal offendedness and intentions to give or not to
    give offense; and one at the level of political empowerment realized by
    claiming the right to name what we see, and to name it differently
    than erstwhile.
    
    It is regrettable that we cannot accomplish the latter without giving
    rise to the former.  I don't find alternate terms for my preference
    such as straight or strate to be offensive, personally, but I'll accept
    that others here do (*sigh*).  I hear Justine's reluctance very
    clearly, though; if we permit our political statements to be negated
    by our own sensitivity, is our own sensitivity being used as a weapon
    to stifle our political statements? 
    
    Where we go with this, then, is upon an exploration with people who are
    offended by the term.  Clearly, if our values are both to attempt to
    maintain good relations and discussions and keep dialogue open, *and*
    to bring our political concerns into open recognition, then we should
    be able to request of the offended parties quid pro quo.  We aren't
    interested in arbitrarily causing offense, but in getting a political
    understanding across.  Is it understood that when the political power
    to name is used, it is used precisely to get people named in a new
    fashion to see themselves from a new perspective?  To broaden one's
    viewpoint?  
    
    Accepting that stated intent of the term would go a long towards 
    negating the feeling that a political viewpoint is being stifled 
    by our own acceptance of the social norm not to cause offense.
    And, not to be too blunt about it, but one can expect it to happen 
    more in the future, and if the new namings cause offense, well, 
    we'll have to back and fill and treat with sensitivity again.
    As long as we are encouraged by the results of this time.  Is there
    sufficient mutual respect for everybody's concerns here to make a
    compromise along these lines?
    
    DougO

    Moving back a long string of replies -
    
    I, myself (now don't try this at home!), find "het" to be an utterly
    acceptable cool term for the condition we're speaking of, and I use it
    as such.

    There appears to be sentiment here that it is all right for the
    'oppressed' or the disenfranchised to use or create terms for
    the 'oppressors' even if the group they are being applied to
    finds them perjoritive.

    I have a problem with this. There are any number of such terms
    which can be considered quite offensive or at least offensive
    depending how they are used. An example of the former is h*nkey
    or redneck, and of the latter 'goy' or gajin or whitebread.
    Should we allow the used of these words by blacks or Jewish
    people or Japanese in this file because they are words that
    the minority uses for the majority, even if some white people
    are offended  by them?

    Bonnie

    re:.45
    
    Thank you, Bonnie. The term "honkey" occurred to me as an example,
    too.
    
    Politically speaking, I'm not offended by either "strate" or "het"
    (especially "het"). I think that one of the ways we can work toward
    harmony is to reduce disharmony. My own contribution toward this
    goal is to work at not being offended by labels that others apply
    to me.
    
    Now, "strate" *does* offend me aesthetically -- I hate misspelling
    under any condition (especially when *I* do it), but more so when
    it's deliberate. It makes me think of sleazy manufacturers who
    try to confuse consumers by calling snack cake filling "kreme" so
    that the consumers will think they're getting "cream".
    
    (On  the other hand deliberate misspelling is perfectly acceptable
    in the cause of puns. :-))
    
    --- jerry

    re .45, Bonnie-
    
    > There appears to be sentiment here that it is all right for the
    > 'oppressed' or the disenfranchised to use or create terms for
    > the 'oppressors' even if the group they are being applied to
    > finds them perjoritive.
    
    It is all right for any group to name the concepts it develops as
    the group attempts to cope with an institutionalized oppression
    that uses and names other concepts.  Before-the-fact, how are they
    going to know what will be offensive?
    
    It is also all right for any group that values sensitivity to human
    values, and chooses to try not to offend gratuitously, to *choose*
    to withdraw a name which failed its flight test for any reason, such
    as ineffectiveness at communicating the substance of the concept, or
    because it accidently offends.   That's what I meant before, in my
    'back and fill' comment.  But before-the-fact, one cannot agree not to
    try out new names for concepts, because the naming power is part of how
    your group is held down, and that power has to be reclaimed.
    
    I do *not* think that the many fine people I've heard use the word
    'strate' meant to offend with it.
    
    re .47, Mark-
    
    >>    I don't find alternate terms for my preference such as straight 
    >>    or strate to be offensive, personally, but I'll accept that 
    >>    others here do (*sigh*).
    >
    > I read this to say "just what IS wrong with you people to be offended by
    > such an insignificant matter as the label with which you are referred
    > to?" (This interpretation is a direct result of the sigh.) I am 
    > disappointed ...
    
    *you* are disappointed, just think how disappointed I am that something
    I said as straightforwardly as I could has been so badly misinterpreted.
    I'm serious.  Take your search for innuendo elsewhere, what you read
    that to say is not what I had in mind while writing.  Imagine for a
    moment, Mark, that I wasn't in a combative mood while writing last
    night, and, in fact, was searching for a way to share my perspectives
    on this issue without verbally jousting.  Hear a different (*sigh*).
    
    > On the one hand, we have the concept of political dissent, and on 
    > the other we have the concept of terms that insult or are used with 
    > intent to deride or cause injury.
    
    You missed the entire point I made, and you continue to misunderstand.
    Go back and reread, please.  Your shorthand 'political dissent' does
    not capture the concept we're using; the political power of naming is
    more than 'dissent'.  And our difficulty is precisely that while
    dissent can be separated from terms of insult, naming cannot be, 
    a priori.  And your 'intent to deride or cause injury' is precisely
    *not* the intent of political namers, and in addition to missing that
    point, casts a slur upon the intent of your opponents.
    
    DougO

OK, so some people find "strate" insulting (I don't know why, it
wasn't clear to me in trying to catch up with this string).  For
what it's worth, from the first I'd heard (rather, read) the word, I
understood it was an attempt to appease those heterosexuals who
found the word "straight" insulting.

So, for those who do care to not use a term someone may take offense
at, what do you want to be called (besides not late to dinner)?  
("Heterosexual" is way too long for normal conversation, I think.)
"Het?"

And of course, there will always be people in all groups that don't
much care how others feel about the terms they use, and always be people
that would prefer the terms *were* offensive.  But I think in this
environment we can assume that we are not here to offend each other.
I think it's a valid assumption that people in this conference are
attempting to use terms acceptable to the term-ees.  And if, after trying
it out, some word is found to cause offense, I think you'll see in the
=wn= community a much more sensitive, flexible approach to changing
the word's use than in other places.

But, I thought Dawn's question was interesting -- is there something
uncomfortable to the empowered group, the group that's not used to being
named since it's "the norm", in being named by others?  Is that why
offense is sometimes assumed?  (I don't know if I feel this is true,
but I think it's an interesting question.)

	MKV

    DougO
    
    by create I meant to deliberately choose to create terms that
    are put downs..
    
    I agree with you that the creating of names to deal with the different
    versions of reality that are experienced by different groups is
    positive and healthy.
    
    My particular objection is to members of one group telling another
    that they have the right to call them a name that the other group
    finds offensive. To me it doesn't matter who is in either of
    the groups, it isn't right for anyone to do.
    
    Bonnie

I did alot of effective thinking on this for myself last night.

While I believe I would easily and cheerfully bond to many terms that fit the
criteria of fun and warm, I do think I'm fond of the two terms under discussion
[TTUD] because they did come to me from my interactions with the gay and
lesbian community. My sexual [um preference? defaults? proclivities?] never
really caused me comment. They're the default in society. The first time
someone came out to me was my first year in college (though friends from high
school have come out since). And even then, I didn't really start putting the
pieces together to form a quilt (if I may). So, I understand my sexuality best
when it is contrasted with the non-defaults. Sort of like ground and [um, er,
what's the artsy term for stuff in the front and stuff in the back]. Like the
foreground and the Background.
	Mez

    re .52, Bonnie, ok.
    
    re .50, Mark-
    
    >  Ok, I'm listening. What did you mean by the sigh?
    
    All I meant was that (*weary sigh*) here I go again, riding the
    knife-edge of interpretation.  It was more of a preparatory gasp
    to launch the next thought, than it was a disparaging comment on
    the people mentioned in the sentence it concluded.  Sorry it gave
    the wrong impression.
    
    > I was referring to the larger picture, Doug. The one that includes 
    > the fact that some people create names that indeed intend to annoy 
    > or deride their opponents...And besides, would you consider the term 
    > "breeders" to be an example of a politically derived name? And would 
    > you consider that term to have been selected "precisely not to deride 
    > or cause injury?" I sure wouldn't.
    
    [mildly] Actually, I may be out of touch.  I've never seen "breeders"
    used except in science-fiction novels, and, a little earlier in this
    discussion.  Is it truly a term of opprobrium used by ... what
    community?  Radical anti-breeders? ;-)  Can you cite a reference to
    the use of this term?  Seriously, I haven't seen it used.
    
    What you call a larger picture (includes individuals that stoop to
    insults) I consider part of the general atmosphere of public policy
    debate that occurs in this country.  No one side has a monopoly on
    stupid or dishonorable tactics.  Misusing the political power to name
    to cast insults or cause injury is stupid, but individual mistakes do
    not change the fact that this power can and has been used for good
    purposes.  When you're a subject of the King, "no taxation without
    representation" is going against the power structure, and may even be
    lese majestie, but that doesn't make it wrong, either.  Had the King
    and his ministers the good grace to recognize the sense of the concept
    thus named, history might have been different.  Likewise when people
    name political concepts now- the intent is not to offend (I assert)-
    the intent is to get concepts on the table for discussion, even if
    they seem radical (or possibly offensive) to the establishment.
    
    DougO

Personally, I have no problem with het or strate but find breeder
offensive.  And yes, I have heard it used to refer to hets...

john

    I've never heard the word "breeder" but find it rather humorous
    for some reason.  (maybe because I haven't turned out to be much
    of a "breeder" for a "strate" - 40 and only one pregnancy so far!)
    :-)
    
    However, it does remind me of something a gay man said to me once
    when Melissa was little.  We lived in an apartment right over a
    gay couple and they used to complain a lot about hearing Melissa
    running over their heads.  One day in the hall he very nastily said
    to me, "If *you* *people* are going to have kids, you should at
    least try to keep them quiet!"  I burst out laughing.  I thought
    it was funny.  I did feel bad about the running but I couldn't tie
    my kid up!  I guess people with small children should rent basement
    apartments.  Maybe he thought of me as a "breeder"!!
    
    Lorna
    

    Just to toss another one into the mix. What would you call me. At this
    point in my life I am a reclusive celebate, leaning towards permanant
    reclusive celebate. I'm not a hermit, although after hours I seem to
    be one. I have been a breeder and am a het. I've just reached a
    different phase of my existence and seem to be enjoying it. As I've
    said before I don't care what you call me and can't understand the fuss
    beyond and titles meant or perceived to meant in a derogatory fashion.
    Semantics and individual cases is what it all seems to boil down to to
    me.
    
    Phil

    re .58, if you are a "reclusive celebate" I'd call you *smart*!
    
    Lorna
    

    
    About "Breeder".... I think I may have used that term on occasion
    during one of my angrier periods, but I only used it with other
    G/L/Bis, and it was never meant for the ears of non-gays, so I'm
    surprised to hear, Mark, that you've heard it used.  Anyway, given
    that I was feeling some anger when I used that term, I have to
    concede that some terms may be designed to express anger...
    But as others have said, "strate" was never intended to offend.
    
    In response to some of what Bonnie and Mark have said about the
    disempowered group being "allowed" to behave in a way that causes
    the empowered group pain...  I don't think anyone here is asking to
    be allowed to continue to do that.  I think most folks are willing
    to stop behavior that others find offensive.  But I think that
    because this situation involves a disempowered group taking power
    for themselves (not as a way of hurting others, but as a way of
    raising ideas that don't usually get raised, like that the
    opposite of "straight" is "crooked") things are a little muddier.
    
    Because I think it's different.  If you call a woman "girl," your
    language is reinforcing her underclass status (whether intentionally
    or not).  The word "girl" means female child, and children are powerless, 
    immature, not developed, and not taken seriously, so calling a woman a 
    female child connects her to that immature group.  Using an alternate 
    spelling for the word "straight" calls attention to the possible 
    connotations of the traditional spelling.  The word "strate" has no other 
    meaning.  It does not link the heterosexual to some underclass.  It does 
    not (at least not by virtue of any meanings associated with the word) 
    trivialize the heterosexual.   Now if someone tells me that my actions 
    offend him/her, my desire to be nice is so compelling that I will change 
    my behavior, and I think that's as it should be.  I'm not asking for
    "permission" to continue using a word that some folks find offensive,
    and I'm not trying to excuse my past or future behavior.  However, I 
    cannot help but wonder about what it is that's offensive about this 
    alternate spelling.   And yes, it makes me angry sometimes, when people
    ask me to defend my opposition to using the word "girl" in reference
    to women, but 1) I try to assume that the questions are in good faith,
    and I make a considerable attempt to answer them, and 2) As I've
    already stated, I can't see anything in the non-word (really, it's
    not even a word (yet)) "strate" that would cause offense except
    (and this really sticks with me) that it represents the powerful
    being named by the powerless.  
    
    I can agree to change my behavior.  If folks are willing to keep
    talking about this, though, I'd like to know what about the 
    alternate spelling is offensive -- beyond the analogies that have
    been used to words for disempowered groups.
    
    Justine               
                                                    

    I understand why the alternate spelling is used, and I wouldn't object
    to it, but I don't like it.  Mostly aesthetically.  It's the wrong
    spelling!  The "kreme" thing someone pointed out.  It makes me think
    and it jars me, so it WORKS, but I don't like made-up spellings myself. 
    I also don't like "wimmin" and "womyn," even though, again, I
    understand why they're used and agree with the reasoning.
    
    Summary:  I'm not offended, but I wouldn't use the spelling myself and
    I find it painful to read for the "koffee kreme" reason.
    
    Strate.  Strate.  Strate.  Maybe if I type it out ten times per day
    I'd get used to thinking of it as a real word instead of a misspelling!
    Breeder doesn't bug me at all (it's true and it's kind of funny to me),
    which is interesting since it's apparently intended to be pejorative.
    :-)
    
    Pam

    
    
    re last few...  I do not feel it is "necessary" for anyone to explain
    why s/he finds the alternate spelling  offensive, but I am
    interested in why folks find it offensive, so if anyone *wants* to 
    talk about why it's offensive, I'd like to hear/read about it.
    
    re .64  Thanks, Mark.  Knowing that you're one of the ones who
    mentioned that he was offended, I appreciate your support for
    the questions and the reference to the discussions of the use of
    "girl."
    
    Justine
    

    herb,
    
    even if you and most people are courteous, that doesn't mean
    that everyone will be..
    
    Mark's scenerio is entirely possible.
    
    Bonnie

    Herb, I hear what you're saying about plain, common courtesy.
    
    But I think you're ignoring the power differential and other people are
    not.
    
    Pam
    

Strate and breeder-

I have had both of these terms used to my face, Normally by my gay friends...

For a while I was the only 100% strate in the group, everyone else was gay or
bi...

My general comment for insulting useage of either term is -

"its a dirty job, but someone has to do it"

or - 

"and where would you be with out us..."

What really blows my mind is gay men and women who take offense to -

"and then go straight" in the context of giving directions...

Oh well...

grins,

clark.

re.61 Justine

Back in V2 I entered a "Hot Button" note explaining why 'strate' bothered me.
It was, and is, a personal objection that I would never broaden to include 
others.

Calling me 'strate' makes me feel like a commodity, something easily bought
and sold, and further something cheap enough to be replaced if spoiled or 
broken.

'Strate' was the short-hand notation used when I was in college to refer to
the most common sub-strates used as culture mediums.

So when years later I saw it used, in print, to refer to me [not specifically,
but I fit the profile so to speak] I recoiled.  I looked at the strate and
I looked at myself and logically I could see a parallel -- while I am fairly
sure that none was intended -- as statistics seem to point to my sexual
orientation being most common and others existing within that common cultural
medium.  But, even so, the strate was a commodity that never caused us grief
in its destruction for it was nearly valueless in and of itself, being valued
only for what it might support.

It's is, of course, impossible to know if it is 'straight' or 'strate' that I
am hearing when spoken.  I've never been fond of being called 'straight' either
because of the implications, already noted, of bent or twisted for those who
do not share my sexual orientation. [Considering the variations on theme from
'straight sex' as practiced by persons of all persuasions it also seems
ridiculously inadequate.]

The first time I heard myself referred to as a 'breeder,' as in 'breeder 
politics,' it knocked the breath out of me -- literally.  This, too, was a 
personal reaction -- first to be relegated to the class of breeding stock and 
then to have to acknowledge that my attempts to breed have resulted in a 
daughter who died of SIDS at 6 wks and a still-born son. I'm valueless in this
capacity as well.  I wondered how the speaker reconciled the hate in her voice
with the fact that someone had to breed for her to even exist. I wondered if she
hated _me_.  I didn't hate or fear her. [I do realise that as a member of the 
'default' group what I have to fear is pretty damned minimal; but it _does_ go
beyond that.]

If people truly feel the need to refer to my sexual orientation, I guess I 
prefer 'het' [even though it sounds terminally yuppie] or 'strate' [even though
it's still a rather tepid-button for me] from the current crop of choices.

But this isn't about what I would choose to be called ['Annie' if anyone cares]
but about what others choose to call me.

Ultimately, they make that choice for themselves.

>"and then go straight" in the context of giving directions...

The PC term is "Gayly Forward".
	Mez

    
    re Mez and the "PC term"...  I have never been "offended" by someone
    saying, "go straight at the next light," but I do like to crack a
    joke about it now and then when in the right company (PC or not).    
    
    I mention this because I fear that in the next cry of "non-pc
    'bashing'" someone is going to include this in the list of "planks"
    in the "party" platform.  
    
    I think that one of the main reasons behind all these alternate
    spellings of "straight" or "woman" is that it's amusing and empowering
    to challenge or shake up the obvious.  I think language is very
    powerful both because of its pervasiveness, i.e., almost everyone uses
    langauge and because of its (for lack of a better word) transparency,
    i.e., people don't often think about the meanings behind words.  They
    say "straight" because they mean heterosexual (or forward), or they say 
    "girl" because they mean female human.  But words convey lots of
    meanings other than their intended ones.  For example, a while
    back someone pointed out the origin of the word "denigrate," I had
    never considered that that word could be offensive to blacks, but once
    it was pointed out to me, I could see it.
    
    Being part of a disempowered group, I often find it hard to describe my 
    experience.  I think that's due at least in part to the fact that official 
    language doesn't always include me.  For example, no matter how many
    times people tell me that "man" means "mankind" or "all humanity," I
    will never feel comfortable running for "selectMAN" or being called a
    "chairMAN" etc.  Because I was educated in the U.S. white-male
    defined/dominated school system, I, too cringe at "mis"spellings, but 
    I push my own limits where I can and try things out, because I think it's 
    valuable to me.  Of course, I think that my right to try new things ends
    where someone's discomfort begins, so I'm perfectly willing to
    back off something that offends.
    
    I think it's also possible for us to have personal associations with
    words that are distasteful or painful.  Anne's discussion of
    (sub)strate reminded me of that.  My father (who really bullied my
    brother, mother and me) used to use the word "colossal" when he got
    mad.  He'd say, "You have a colossal nerve, a colossal nerve..."  I
    suppose colossal is a perfectly fine word, but whenever I hear it,
    I cringe and make certain unpleasant associations between my father
    and the speaker -- at least until I catch myself at it.
      
    Justine
    

    In response to .61, as another "straight" who's uncomfortable with the
    term "strate," my discomfort comes not from being part of a group NAMED
    by a so-called "less powerful" group, but in being part of a group
    whose former name is now MISSPELLED by that group.  Like Jerry Boyajian
    earlier and others later, I dislike and try to avoid misspellings save
    intentionally in puns, and regret the loss or mangling of valuable
    words in the language for political ends.
    
    I have no problem with "breeder" because, objectively speaking, and in
    contrast with others whose proclivities don't result in issue, it is
    "rat own."  
    
    As for "het" from "heterosexual", I'd like to be pedantic (but
    hopefully amusing?) and recall to our collective mind "Zipf's Law" from
    psycholinguistics, wherein he proved that the length of a word is
    inversely proportional to its word frequency.  
    
    In a nutshell: originally complex concepts that are introduced in
    polysyllabic guise, if they succeed and come into really popular usage,
    are almost invariably shortened in the process.  The word "telephone"
    underwent the change, first losing its "tele" into a ' as in "'phone"
    (look into American or British writings in the 'teens and 'twenties
    (sic:-) for examples) and becoming "phone" today; In French, I believe,
    it may be "tele" (sorry for lack of accents aigue, none such on this
    termulator (nee "terminal emulator")); television became T.V. and
    thence TV in the states, "telly" in the U.K. -- so as "heterosexual"
    comes (so to speak) out of its linguistic closet into high-frequency
    use, we shoulda _expected_ to see it contracted to "het."  
    
    Too bad that "homosexuality" was "outed" too soon and was thus made
    unacceptable for general, non-pejorative use in its shortened form.  No
    offense intended in this latter pseudo-analysis.  It's probably not too
    late for "het" as a term to survive into general use if the concept is
    used more and more in normal social intercourse (sic :-), speaking of
    other lost words.).
    
    (I saw a good example of Zipf's law's next stage t'other day when a
    truck went by with a very impressive logo painted on its side, an
    elaborate shield with M.T.S. in gold leaf rampant...  Curious as to
    what this Very Important Company was, I looked at the detail and found
    that this was the Coat of Arms of "_M_arvin's _T_v _S_ervice.")
    
    Far-fetched Moral: "Those who lie down in the Procrustean Bed of
    language usage thinking that they know the label for their own SO
    (Sexual Orientation), may wake up with certain parts shortened from
    overuse..."  :-) :-)  The trick is not to get too het up :-) about it. 
    It's a natural process; I think of it as "evolution in action."
    
    Later example prompted by 148.2 -- "Perpetrator" => "perp" in current
    parlance...
    
    Cheers,
    Dan

Re .56 and .71

   I'm not terribly fond of "strate" for the same reason - how it looks
   when it's spelled.  The intentional misspelling marks it, and parallels 
   it visually with "hate".  It gives it other troubling ties as well -
   in this context, what comes into the back of your head when you hear
   the phrase "the stratification of society"?

   For that matter, though, I find the word "gay" to be a bit mocking given 
   all the discrimination against gays in our society.  I'd be interested in
   the origin of this term... maybe it's intended to be hopeful instead?
   

    It strikes me as comical that so many people have complained about
    the fact that "strate" is a misspelling of "straight."  My initial
    answer to that is - so what?  
    
    The way words are considered to be spelled correctly was originally
    just a decision made by people.  It's not as though God appeared
    in a burning bush at some point and proclaimed that straight must
    be spelled "s-t-r-a-i-g-h-t."  The way I see it if some people at
    one point in time can decide to spell "straight" s-t-r-a-i-g-h-t
    then some other people, at some other, later point in time, have 
    just as much of a right to decide that "straight" when it pertains
    to a certain meaning of the word will be spelled "s-t-r-a-t-e."
    
    Lorna
    
     

    
    My complaint is that it is the equivalent of calling a homosexual
    an "f".. 
    
    Its a prejorative.
    

    Right, Lorna.
    
    Now, misspellings bother me, but I see this as an alternative word/
    spelling arrangement that flags something different.  So it's:
    
    	straight/druggie
    	strait/bay
    	strate/gay
    
    I'd think that people who object to strate label must always avoid
    dude ranches; they couldn't bear that label.  Men-people who object
    to the label must never have been Boy Scouts; they couldn't have
    accepted being of the Tenderfoot rank.
    
    For myself, perhaps I don't mind being called straight or strate,
    because that's what I am.  
    
    Or perhaps it's because I belong to a group that calls non-members
    "mundanes", and I *know* how tongue-in-cheek that label is!
    
    						Ann B.

    Mostly I see this debate as putting us into straits (a perplexing 
    or difficult position).

    Is it a misspelling or a homophone?   (Some pun intended.)

    (A homophone is one word of two or more words that have the same sound
    but differ in spelling, origin, and meaning.)

    Maybe the questions is: is strate perceived as derogatory or 
    insulting by a significant number of the people to whom it refers?
    
    Margaret (who is also: gringa, gaigin, squarehead, mackerel snatcher
              but never a Suffragette or graduette.)

    inre .80
    
    Bob,
    
    I really believe that most people who use 'strate' don't mean
    it as a perjorative.
    
    they mean it as a way to breach differences...
    
    but unfortunately that is not how it is taken...which is a pity.
    
    Bonnie

I think the point of strate is that straight itself is perjorative for
gays since the opposite of straight is crooked or not normal, etc...

I just don't at all perceive strate as perjorative as a
strate-identified myself like q***r or f*g...

john

For the person that asked about the origins of "gay", I include here
part of a mail message that Bonnie Reinke sent me some time ago.
The word goes back in time further than most people think.

    gai was
    12th century French for homosexual and we found that the unabridged
    dictionary did refer to middle english and then to old french
    for the word as slang but meaning homosexual 

  Carol

    The word 'strate' always reminds me of 'substrate'.

Are heterosexual people on the southern tip of South America are known as
the Strates of Megellan?!  :-)  :-b

    I find it interesting that the given reason for using "strate" is
    because people don't like the association that someone who is not
    "straight" is "crooked".
    
    Where did this use of "straight" (as applying to drug-takers and
    even drinkers) come from?  Basically, because the person being
    described as rigid, stiff, prudish, i.e. "no fun". In other words,
    the point was that being "straight" was seen as "bad" and to be
    "non-straight" was seen as good. Now, it seems that people are
    feeling that being thought of as "non-straight" is "bad", and so
    seek to change the spelling.
    
    Bizarre.
    
    --- jerry

    I agree with Jerry on this one. I had always used straight as meaning
    "not one of us and not cool". You didn't trust a straight person, they
    might narc on you. :*) But that was in a different life...

    I find het OK and breeder amusing since I haven't managed to breed yet
    myself.

    The words I hate are wimmin and womyn. I wouldn't ask anyone not to use
    them but they bother me and I feel a small mental cringe every time I
    read them. It's like a denial of what I am. I can't really explain it,
    it just is. liesl

    What does "wimmin" mean? Is it homosexual women or just women or what?
    Jeez, every few years it's like learning a new language!
    
    Kate

My understanding is that re-spellings of 'woman' and 'women' are meant to
excise the 'man' and 'men' in the female [oh dear! there's 'male'!] terms.
	Mez

    One of the problems with homemade words is that the reader may
    completely misunderstand the intention.  I first saw "wimmin" in
    Mennotes and presumed the author(s) was(were) using the spelling as a
    putdown.  Why did I think so?  To me, "wimmin" sounds like it's been 
    lifted from "nekkid wimmin", a spelling/pronunciation with connotations 
    I don't care for.
    
    aq
    

    Seems I'm in the minority, but I don't like "het."  It's too close to
    "hit!" (and also to the name "Hettie."  It's an unpleasing sound.)
    
    All these reasons are subjective, I know!
    
    But I don't object to "hetero" ...
    
    Nancy

RE: 141.41:

Justine,
    
<    One group's use of the word "strate" is an attempt to avoid
<    connotations of crooked or twisted, which are opposites of the word
<    "straight".

Can you or *someone* please tell me WHY "straight" came to be used to mean
heterosexual?  (I was going to ask the same thing about 
gay/homosexual, but now I see the "gai" explanation for "gay.")


If I had been asked, I would have guessed that "straight" was a term applied to
heterosexuals by gays and lesbians.  Apparently I would have been wrong...(?)
I wonder how many other heterosexuals also assume that?  (Probably not
many who read this file, as no one else has asked the origin!  How'd
I get so ignorant, anyway?)


RE: 141.90 (Jerry)

<    Where did this use of "straight" (as applying to drug-takers and
<    even drinkers) come from?  Basically, because the person being
<    described as rigid, stiff, prudish, i.e. "no fun".

This is why I disklike *both* "straight" *and* "strate!"
As I wrote in 7.19:

    I don't like "strate," either.  
    
    But then, "straight" makes no sense at all and sounds very prudish -- 
    like, not only are you heterosexual, but you would probably engage in 
    sex only in the missionary position, do it as quickly as possible, and 
    try not to enjoy it! 

    Furthermore, it saddens me that we can no longer use "gay" to mean
    "happy and carefree."  Perhaps it's a small price to pay so that a
    persecuted group can select its own name and not be called the
    derogatory words, but it saddens me, nevertheless.
    
Nancy

Reprinted with permission. Perhaps this should be in the language note?
    
    	-- Charles

MIKE ROYKO
	Maybe it's time to wave the white flag. The age of
super-sensitivity is crushing me.
	I started to feel like a beaten man while reading a list of words
that I shouldn't use because they might offend someone.
	The bad-word dictionary was put together by a panel of news people
on something called the Multicultural Management Program at the
University of Missouri School of Journalism.
	The introduction to their bad-word dictionary says:
	``As newspapers move into the 1990s, there will be more emphasis on
including minorities in daily stories -- accurately, succinctly and in
good taste. Language usage that has been acceptable in the past may no
longer be acceptable.
	``The following is a checklist of words, many objectionable, that
reporters and editors must be aware of in order to avoid offending and
perpetuating stereotypes.''
	Some of the words on the list are obviously offensive: nigger,
chink, faggot. So you don't see them in newspapers.
	But ``Dutch treat''? ``Airhead''? And how about such shockers as
barracuda, burly, buxom, dear, dingbat, ditz, dizzy, fried chicken,
gorgeous, gyp, housewife, illegal alien, Ivan, jock, johns, lazy, pert,
petite, rubbing noses, shiftless, stunning, sweetie, and ugh.
	That's right, ``ugh.'' The dictionary says: ``A gutteral word used
to mimic American Indian speech. Highly offensive.''
	Why not ``Dutch treat''? They say: ``To share the cost, as in a
date. Implies that Dutch people are cheap.''
	Shall I go on? It depresses me, but why not?
	Barracuda: ``A negative generalization of persons without morals
and/or ethical standards or judgments. Many times directed at forceful
women.''
	Airhead: ``Term is an objectionable description, generally aimed at
women.''
	Burly: ``An adjective too often associated with large black men,
implying ignorance, and considered offensive in this context.''
	Buxom: ``Offensive reference to a woman's chest.''
	Dear: ``A term of endearment objectionable to some. Usage such as
`He was a dear man,' or `she is a dear,' should be avoided.''
	Dingbat: ``Objectionable term that describes women as
intellectually inferior.''
	Ditz: ``Objectionable term meaning stupid.''
	Dizzy: ``Avoid as an adjective for women.''
	Fried chicken: ``A loaded phrase when used carelessly and as a
stereotype, referring to the cuisine of black people. Also applies to
watermelon.''
	Gorgeous: ``An adjective that describes female physical attributes.
Use carefully.''
	Gyp: ``An offensive term, meaning to cheat, derived from Gypsy.''
	Illegal alien: ``Often used to refer to Mexicans and Latin
Americans believed to be in the United States without visas; the
preferred term is undocumented worker or undocumented resident.''
	Ivan: ``A common and offensive substitute for a Soviet person.''
	Jock: ``A term applied to both men and women who participate in
sports. Can be offensive to some.''
	Johns: ``Men who frequent prostitutes, but not a proper generic
term for men or bathrooms.''
	Lazy: ``Use advisedly, especially when describing non-whites.''
	Pert: ``An adjective describing a female characteristic. Avoid
usage.''
	Petite: ``Reference to a woman's body size. Can be offensive.''
	Rubbing noses: ``Allegedly an Eskimo kiss. However, Eskimos don't
rub noses and object to the characterization.''
	Senior citizens: ``Do not use for anyone under 65. ... Do not
describe people as elderly, senile, matronly or well-preserved. ... Do
not use dirty old man, codger, coot, geezer, silver fox, old-timers,
Pop, old buzzard.''
	Shiftless: ``As a description for blacks, highly objectionable.''
	Stunning: ``Avoid physical descriptions.''
	Sweetie: ``Objectionable term of endearment. Do not use.''
	I've changed my mind. I refuse to knuckle down to the dizzy new-age
journalistic airheads in this ditzy Multicultural Management Program.
	These dingbats appear to be bigots themselves. They list dozens of
words -- including fried chicken -- that they say offend blacks, gays or
women.
	But they don't include ``honky,'' which many blacks call whites, or
dago, wop, heeb, kike, mick, herring-choker, frog, kraut, bohunk or
polack. Ain't us honkies got feelings too?
	Whether or not they like it, Ivan Boesky is a Wall Street
barracuda. William Perry, who used to be a fat slob, is now merely
burly. My wife is petite and a gorgeous sweetie.
	If some geezer unzips in a schoolyard, I reserve my constitutional
right to call him a dirty old man.
	The damn Rooskies have aimed missiles at me for 40 years, so maybe
I'll refer to a Soviet as an Ivan. I've been called worse.
	I'll continue to go have Dutch-treat lunches with my friends and
check the bill to make sure the waiter didn't gyp me.
	Why not ``illegal alien''? It's specific. It means an alien who is
here in violation of our immigration laws. But what's an ``undocumented
worker''? If I come to work without my wallet, I don't have any
documents with me, so I'm an undocumented worker. Will I be deported?
	If I decide to say ``I hit the john,'' instead of ``I visited the
room where one disposes of bodily wastes,'' I'll do so.
	When I put together a softball team, I'll recruit real jocks, not a
bunch of wimps, nerds, dweebs or weenies.
	And little kids have been rubbing noses and calling it an ``Eskimo
kiss'' as long as I can remember. And that's a long time, since I border
on being a geezer, a coot or a codger.
	Fried chicken, fried chicken, fried chicken. I said it and I'm
glad. Sue me.
	In conclusion, your dictionary is a stunning example of lazy,
shiftless thinking.
	Ugh.
	
	(C) 1990 BY THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE
	DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.

    re: .81
    
    not all non-members are mundanes...but all the straights are.
    
    when i use the word 'straight' i think of the phrase 'straight
    and narrow' which is not an accurate description for a large
    minority of heterosexual people, so i use 'strate' instead.
    
    

	Coming from a someone who has trouble getting words spelled
	correctly - I nether condone or condemn the way any word 
	appears in print, as long as I can get the meaning of the
	message.

	I have trouble with "het" because it could come out "the"
	or "eht" or "teh" on my terminal.

	_peggy
		(-)
		 |
			Written language is a living breathing
			entity and is not necessarily conected
			to the spoken language.

    Words explaing sexual orientation to me define cultures or perhaps 
    attitudes towards groups of people.  My feelings are that some groups attached on to a
    particular label because it is more positive than the one that may
    have been attached to them originally.  To me it represents how
    one feels about themselves.  If a group is uncomfortable with a
    label that feels negative to them than it's up to them to come up
    with a positive way to define who they are.
                       
    denise
    

    Can someone please tell me WHY "straight" came to be used to mean
heterosexual?  
    
    This is a serious question -- sorry to be so ignorant, but I am.
    

    straight - ordinary, mundane, the majority
    
    							Ann B.

    re:.101
    
    The same way it became a term for someone who doesn't use drugs.
    It's short for "straight-laced".
    
    --- jerry

    re .102, .103, but, we, who enjoy the pleasures of being straight
    know there is nothing "mundane" about it.  That's why the term
    "straight" or "strate" doesn't bother me!  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

Did straight pre- or post-date the use of "bent" as a synonym for homosexuality?

Martin.

    RE:.101
    
<    It's short for "straight-laced".
    
    Thanks, Jerry!  This is exactly the connotation that makes me 
    uncomfortable with the term!  I'm "very" heterosexual (what they used
    to call "boy-crazy" in school) but am "shocked" at the suggestion that
    that makes me straight-laced! 
    
    Oh well... thanks anyway!
    
    Nancy

    re:.105
    
    I've never heard of "bent" used in that manner.
    
    re:.106
    
    Well, I'm a flaming heterosexual myself, but being referred to as
    "straight[-laced]" doesn't bother me.
    
    --- jerry

	There is a play (and I don't remember the author's name, if indeed I
ever knew it) called "Bent" that deals with two homosexual males in a Nazi
concentration camp.  I've only heard about it second hand from some other
folks in my theater group.

					--D

    I remember "bent" being used many years ago when I grew up in England. 
    At the time (30 years ago) I didn't know that there were homosexuals
    (or even heterosexuals for that matter).  I did know that there were
    some obviously effeminate men who were labelled queer, bent or Nancy
    boys.
    
    Straight is relatively new to me.
    
    Bob