Dog Collar

I'm glad to hear that the Anglican Church is moving with the times. It used to be that only the men wore the frocks.

Zen you and zis 'Countess' are perhaps, related?

I suppose it's more with modern words like chairlady and mayoress that the problem lies. A priestess has specific ideas attached to it and is a concept that has existed for a long time. However, given the pagan associations, I still think that a lady priest should be called a priest.

My real gripe is with the creation of words like chairwoman, manageress, which imply that women cannot do the same roles as men and therefore need new definitions. Grrrr!

Any time you use a feminine noun like actress, priestess, you are implying that women are unequal to men and need a separate job description.

Am I? Gosh, I didn't think I was. It just seemed like correct usage to me. But if it's bone of contention, I won't use it. Never let it be said that the Café discriminates on grounds of sex or gender. I just like the word 'Priestess'; it's kind of snappy, kind of mystic. Seems a shame to let it go. On the other hand, I would never use a feminine noun for Vicars - 'Vicarette' sounds too much like an anti-smoking patch.

(Rant alert)

Why "priestesses"?! That implies that women cannot be 'priests' but would need a separate category. Any time you use a feminine noun like actress, priestess, you are implying that women are unequal to men and need a separate job description: therefore "priests are only men", "actors are only men". Why not just assume that actors and (hopefully one day) priests can be both?

It is lame and, as you said, works both ways. It's just that male priests have always been there so the issue of how they are perceived is not so great. For women we have to prove that they will benefit the Church and, unfortunately, some old-fashioned ideas still apply, such as men having a higher sex-drive and being more easily distracted by a woman than the reverse. In order to make the change and break with tradition, we need to work extra hard - like getting votes for women or civil rights. It should work both ways, but it doesn't at the moment so we have to be extra convincing in our arguments.

Actually, though, the problem stems from society's inability to switch off to physical appearance. I don't see that this is ever going to change but if it did a lot of things would be a lot better.

Just yesterday, someone told me that they thought one of the priests in my
parish was a good-looking man. Perhaps we should abolish male priests, lest
there be any distractions, too?

Sorry... just pointing out that the 'ogling' argument is pretty lame.

That's a lousy argument against female Priests1. Really awful. If I'm going to be amourously distracted at Mass, the odds of my attentions falling at the altar are probably 100/1 against, just because of the number of women in the place. Unless the Church is implying that Priests wield some supernatural sexual potency, luring in the faithful like sirens, then it's just plain nonsense.

However, it might be a good argument for the separation of men and women at Mass, like in Jewish and Muslim worship. If we're really looking to stop sexual distraction at Mass, we ought to have seperate Masses for straight men and women, private Masses for the lesbians (so they're not distracted by each other), and for the gay men it'll have to be private blessings by nuns. I still don't know what we'll do about the bisexuals, but I'll think about it and get back to you.

1 Priestesses, I suppose.

The trouble is that, although I think that female priests is the way forward for the Catholic Church and would like to see it happen, the idea of men being distracted in Mass and oggling them as you were doing with the Anglican lady vicar is exactly one of the arguments the Church has against the idea.

Brian, I heartily agree. The sooner the Catholic Church follows suit and lets women wear frocks as well, the better.

I think all Christian gals should take note. It is possible to be modest (in the clothing sense) and gorgeous at the same time.

It's also possible to dress modestly and look downright indecent (in the rakish sense), if you've got Andi's eyebrows.

I'm not sure that words like chairwoman or manageress do imply that women cannot
do the same roles as men. They are merely labels which denote gender. I can see
no implication of inferiority. Nor can I see any implication of superiority, not
even with the words being longer than their masculine counterparts. Sure there's
a difference, but why assume that difference means lesser or greater? Diversity
is what makes life rich!

I still don't know what we'll do about the bisexuals, but I'll think about it and get back to you.

Lock 'em in the confessional. They're far too greedy.

Hang on, hang on, hang on - DM, for the record I was not 'oggling' her, and I resent the suggestion. I do not 'oggle'. I appreciate.

Let me stir this can of worms a little:
Maybe issuing the congregation with blinkers and only allowing ugly people at the front of church would avoid most of these problems...

I'd like to note that I don't actually agree that the idea of women priests being a sexual distraction to the men in the congregation is a valid or convincing one. I just wanted to point out that it is an argument that people use for not having women priests, and those of us who feel that this move would be beneficial to the Church need to find an answer to that argument as well as to any other that comes up.

Replying to PAJ: why have different words for a manager and a manageress? What is different about them other than their gender? Why should their gender matter? They both manage, why can't both be called managers? Is there something about a woman that means that her management skills are intrinsically different from that of a man? Does gender affect how the person does the job? If the answer to these last two is 'no', then why make an issue of the gender by giving them different titles?

I fully accept that men and women are different and have different qualities, and I laud that difference, but in the workplace and in terms of positions in society like management, chairing meetings etc, there shouldn't be a differentiation. We need to stop labelling (and therefore viewing) people as "man" or "woman" and start seeing them just as people. Give me any one quality that is "feminine" and I can list men I know with that quality and women I know without it. Likewise for "masculine" qualities. If we want true equality then we should stop gender stereotyping. Saying that a woman can't be a chairman and creating a separate word for what she does, or, just as bad, creating a different word - chairperson - because chairmen are all male, is unnecessary differentiation. Both a man and a woman will bring their individual qualities to the role that cannot be defined by their gender.

You might as well differentiate between men with hair and men with no hair: "If you have a complaint, please ask to see the Hairy Manager."

Well DM, I've got agree with you 100% there. I'm even willing to give up that delicious word, 'navigatrix' to join you. I couldn't agree with your statement:

"Any time you use a feminine noun like actress, priestess, you are implying that women are unequal to men"

...I don't think there's any such implication made. But your point that the gender is just plain irrelevant to the job is absolutely right. I can't see any reason to strongly type.

I'm in complete agreement, here, folks. The point I was trying to raise
earlier was that there is no inequality implied (to me, at least) in
gender-specific titles. I care not for labels, particularly when applied to
people.

I am not sure I would go so far as to call for an abolishment of such labels,
though. They do serve a descriptive purpose in our diverse language. Why
should we lose that?

But (he said, jumping firmly into the DM camp) isn't it a bit odd? Isn't using the label 'Mayoress' as strange as saying, "Can I speak to the Mayor please?"
"The male Mayor? I'll just see if he's free."

Odd that we'd want to specify. Even if it's extra information, it's irrelevency masquerading as distinction.

And we'd never say, "I'd like to speak to the Negromayor," would we?

You're right of course, Kris. And as it's you're blog, I'll not argue with you
here. [Take this to mean that I cannot think of one counter-example]

Ahem. If I may be so bold, there is a slight anomaly in the Mayor/Mayoress arguement, as set aside from the other titles. You see when a gentleman is elected to the office of Mayor his wife takes the title Lady Mayoress. The same is true if a lady is elected to the post of Mayor - that is to say her husband takes the title Lady Mayoress, while she takes the title of Mayor. I believe this is still the case anyway.

And for the record, I couldn't care less if someone is a manager/manageress, waiter/waitress, priest/priestess, etc etc just so long as they are capable of doing what they are meant to be doing.

Oh, but I will say that specifying, say, manager against manageress does imply inequality. Not necessarily in the sense that they are thought of inequally or indeed one is more or less capable than the other, just that they are not the same. I dare anyone to disagree with that.

That's a good point by Dragon Mama Parent's
husband spouse, there. It's not what people are called,
that's the issue, here... it's whether they have the ability to carry out the
tasks assigned to them.

If there's anyone for equality, it's me and I expect it to be a two-way
street. However, we can go over-the-top with political correctness.

Deity Save The Monarch!

hmm. seem to be a bit late with this one, but it does remind me of the heated discussion that took place in the university society I was heavily involved with. The chairman was no longer allowed to be a chairman, and didn't want to be a chairperson. He decided on "chair". Which led the next person to take the post to be a sofa. Followed by a comfy chair.

Is humour politically correct?

Humour is a great way of drawing attention to issues.

Humour is also a good way to make people laugh. Let's not overlook that aspect of it.

Was the comfy chair allowed biscuits?

BURMA!

Sauce?

If I recall correctly the comfy chair had access to a macro card and therefore supplies of alcohol as never before seen. She was quite popular!

On a slightly different tack, this article on the beeb got me. Why should she be one of the world's best *female* conductors? Why not just one of the world's best conductors?

Perhaps she actually conducts females, a job which Mr Johns would have killed for in his youth.

Maybe it's because she's not that good when compared to the majority of conductors, who happen to be men, but is pretty excellent when compared with the minority, who happen to be women? Dunno, but generally orchestras know who they work best with, so the directors are idiots to appoint someone they don't want.

On a slightly different tack, this article on the beeb got me. Why should she be one of the world's best *female* conductors? Why not just one of the world's best conductors?

'Conductrix' even.

I'm currently writing a chapter of my thesis and am refering to a Countess who is the patron of a particular work. In my chapter, I've chosen to write 'patron' rather than 'patroness', in the secure knowledge that if my supervisor picks up on it, she'll agree with my reasons for doing so because she is a very ardent feminist.

Incidentally, the said Countess is an ancestor of mine, I've just verified.

Indeed.