This entry almost failed to make it here, for tl;d(w)r syndrome

[capri0mni]

The short version:

Re: That quote I posted from William Penn, the other day:

(quote)
Children had rather be making of Tools and Instruments of Play; Shaping, Drawing, Framing, and Building, &c. than getting some Rules of Propriety of Speech by Heart: And those also would follow with more Judgment, and less Trouble and Time.
(unquote)

You know, when I moved here, 13 years ago, the neighborhood was full of little kids (now, all grown up, heh). And my Quaker-raised self got kind of creeped out by how strictly they were taught the "Propriety of Speech by Heart" -- all those "Yes Sirs" and "No Ma'ams" (trans: "Sire," and "Madam") -- the hierarchy of speach that let everyone know their Proper Place in the Proper Social Order. I was especially discomfited when they called me "Miss Ann;" I warrented the deferential "Mistress," in their eyes (and their parents' eyes) because I was older than they were. And yet, my single marital status meant that I wasn't quite an adult, and could still be addressed by my "Christian" name.

It still raises my hackles when filling out online forms (to join mailing lists, and the like) when my application is rejected because I failed to choose a "Title" for myself (Mister, Ms., Mrs., Dr., etc). Why to I have to pigeonhole myself by rank and gender in order to join a volunteer organization, or get a damned seed catalog? Why can't I opt out of giving myself a title?

Comments

[spiralsheep]

Why can't I opt out of giving myself a title?

Because:

(a) Customers have been known to have massive hissy fits when they're "misgendered" (although this is only a consideration if the customer agrees to belong to one of the two genders traditional in western Christianity-oriented societies), and
(b) Gender is believed to be valuable marketing information cos, as we know, girls only buy pink stuff... &ridicule.

Note: the only pink consumer item I own is my phone which I got for half price cos everyone, including me, wanted the black phones and the retailers couldn't shift the pink ones unless they sold them at a loss to penny-pinching ppl like me, heh.

[capri0mni]

I'd grit my teeth and let it wash off my back more easily, if I had been signing up for a store's credit card, or something ... I've come to expect this sort of false, flattering, forlock-tugging from our Capitalist Machine.

But the day that it brought me to tears, I was trying to sign up to be in the volunteer rolls for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, to try and work for cleaning up one of our local rivers (The Elizabeth -- named after your Good Queen Bess the First). But no. My name and my willingness were not good enough, unless I pigeonholed myself somewhere concrete in the social order.

(From a reply I posted on the LJ side):

"Mr." and "Mrs" (Miss, Ms., etc.) are "Titles." They're derived from "Master" and "Mistress" -- a formal title of rank just below "Sir" (Knighthood).

People who are convinced Friends (Quakers) object to all such titles of rank, because they believe that no human on Earth ranks above another human in the eyes of God or Jesus [eta: or Earth, or who/whatever is witnessing us].

Nobody is my "Mistress," or "Master" and neither is anyone my servant. When Friends wish to avoid overfamiliarity, they use a person's full name:

"Hello, John Smith, I am calling to inform you ..."

When my paternal grandfather (Quaker) introduced my grandmother (Presbyrterian, iirc) to his parents for the first time, she was bowled over that he introduced her as "Josephine Andrews" -- instead of "Miss Andrews." It made an immediate impression that she was seen as a whole, complete, person (and not simply her father's daughter).

[spiralsheep]

It made an immediate impression that she was seen as a whole, complete, person (and not simply her father's daughter).

♥

[capri0mni]

...unfortunately, in the end, I fear the marriage was not as happy for her as this auspicious beginning promised.

However, in 1693, back when wives became their husband's property at the moment of marriage, William Penn wrote: "Between a man and his wife, there should be no rule but Love. ..."

---
And a bit below that, on page of his maxims, was this one, which would have been much more appropriate for "Talk Like a Quaker Day" (His advice on how to hold a conversation with someone):

Some are so Foolish as to interrupt and anticipate those that speak, instead of hearing and thinking before they answer; which is uncivil as well as silly.

I think that's a point that stands through the ages, regardless of changing fashions in grammar.