 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / February 2010Reclaiming Gay
As has been noted here theword gay, used by homosexuals as a preplacement for queer, has over time become a term of disapproval by todays youth. Example "that's sooo gay!" Now there is an ad rnning on American TV where some girls shopping disparrage an item of clothing as "gay". Another girl stops and gives them a lecture on how using gay that way is hurtfull and they should think before saying it. She then insults the offending girls fashion sense. > As has been noted here theword gay, used by homosexuals as a preplacement > for queer, has over time become a term of disapproval by todays youth. > Example "that's sooo gay!" > Now there is an ad rnning on American TV where some girls shopping > disparrage an item of clothing as "gay". > Another girl stops and gives them a lecture on how using gay that way is > hurtfull and they should think before saying it. > She then insults the offending girls fashion sense. It's my understanding (I don't have a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary to hand) that the word "gay" originated in the 17th or 18th century as a term of description of a woman of ill-repute and dubious morals... :-|  SignatureAndy Clews University of Sussex *** Remove DENTURES if replying by email *** >> As has been noted here theword gay, used by homosexuals as a preplacement >> for queer, has over time become a term of disapproval by todays youth. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > to hand) that the word "gay" originated in the 17th or 18th century as a term > of description of a woman of ill-repute and dubious morals... :-| I suspect the modern teen-aged girl who considers clothing 'gay' does so because it is insufficiently like the clothing of a woman of ill-repute and dubious morals. Every so often I want to buy clothing as a gift for a *pre-teen* girl, and feel like a real old fogey when I look at what's on offer. I know, I know, buying clothes as gifts is practically a definition of old-fogeyism, but they get past the age at which toys seem appropriate, I don't know what they listen to or read, and I haven't yet given up and chosen the more popular option of simply slipping some money in a card, because I was indoctrinated as a child with the idea that not giving an object means not giving much thought to the gift and giving money shows how much you paid. SignatureCheryl Cheryl filted: >Every so often I want to buy clothing as a gift for a *pre-teen* girl, >and feel like a real old fogey when I look at what's on offer. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >object means not giving much thought to the gift and giving money shows >how much you paid. When my brother reproduced, I made myself a vow that I wasn't going to be "the uncle who gives socks"...by the time my niece's age got into the double digits, she *asked* for socks, and I had to rescind the vow...I sent something like these: http://www.kjbeckett.com/acatalog/001716_main_m.jpg ....r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle > Cheryl filted: >> Every so often I want to buy clothing as a gift for a *pre-teen* girl, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > ....r Very cheerful! They seem to go in and out of style; I had a similar pair as a teenager, then didn't see them again until fairly recently, when they seemed to come back into style again. SignatureCheryl >I know, I know, buying clothes as gifts is practically a definition of >old-fogeyism, but they get past the age at which toys seem appropriate, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >object means not giving much thought to the gift and giving money shows >how much you paid. An economist would be muttering here about "deadweight loss". It has been suggested that the average gift is worth about X% less to the recipient than the giver paid for it. If I felt socially obliged to give a gift to someone I don't know well enough to choose the right gift for, I'd probably give a choose-your-favorite-charity gift card. There are a number of them out there now, covering a wide variety of charities; I'm sure there are some that are appropriate for children. (The other alternative is a Savings Bond. Do they have those up in Canada?) -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 >> I know, I know, buying clothes as gifts is practically a definition of >> old-fogeyism, but they get past the age at which toys seem appropriate, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > are some that are appropriate for children. (The other alternative is > a Savings Bond. Do they have those up in Canada?) Canada Savings Bonds, yes, we have them. They seem to be online these days, but I suppose you could get a document of some kind to put in a card. I tend not to give to charities in someone else's name (well, except for memorial donations, in which case you are told which charity was near and dear to the honouree's heart), and I haven't seen or heard of a choose-your-own charity card. So I resort to clothing (or blankets, practical stuff) for infants; games or toys for anyone from a toddler to the age they get tired of the transformers or ponies, so I can't just check with a parent to find out which ones they already have, and money or movie coupons or something similar at an older age. SignatureCheryl Garrett Wollman: > > (The other [gift] alternative is a Savings Bond. Do they have those > > up in Canada?) Cheryl Perkins: > Canada Savings Bonds, yes, we have them. With one significant difference. A $1,000 CSB is one that you *buy* for $1,000. A $1,000 USSB is one that's worth $1,000 *at maturity*. > They seem to be online these days... That rather startled me, but it's been enough years since I got an investment account and stopped handling paper certificates for things like stocks and bonds that I supposed it was possible. So I explored the Canada Savings Bonds web site. It took a bit of looking around, because they don't seem to think that "Are CSBs still issued as paper certificates?" is a frequently asked question. But the answer is at <http://csb.gc.ca/?page_id=904&language=en> (or, of course, =fr if you prefer): # Once we receive payment for your bonds, we will process your order and # mail the certificates to the address that you provided. You should # expect to receive your certificates four to six weeks after the issue # date of the bonds. # # Bonds purchased within The Canada RSP do not have certificates. # Instead, statements of account outlining the details of your # investments in this plan will be issued semi-annually... So yes, bonds on paper still exist, except when you're buying them in a specific setup where they are directly folded into an RRSP (Registered Retirement Savings Plan, similar to the US "IRA"). > but I suppose you could get a document of some kind to put in a card. If you're buying them for someone else, they will also send you a gift card (which I suppose says that "Mommy bought a CSB for you") that you can deliver separately from the bonds. I also learned from the web site that CSBs are now available for about 6 months of the year. The last time I bought any, they were only available during one 3-week period each year, around November 1. I don't know how this compares with US practice. > I tend not to give to charities in someone else's name (well, except for > memorial donations, in which case you are told which charity was near > and dear to the honouree's heart), and I haven't seen or heard of a > choose-your-own charity card. I find the very idea distasteful. "I'm giving you some money, but you can't keep it." What kind of a present is *that*? SignatureMark Brader, Toronto "Remember that computers are very, msb@vex.net very fast..." -- Steve Summit My text in this article is in the public domain. > Garrett Wollman: [interest bearing gifts] >> I tend not to give to charities in someone else's name (well, >> except for memorial donations, in which case you are told which [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I find the very idea distasteful. "I'm giving you some money, but > you can't keep it." What kind of a present is *that*? You get the tax deduction. I have a friend who is an extravagant giver of Xmas presents. In my attempts to keep up with her, I often make a donation in her name as one of my gifts. >> As has been noted here theword gay, used by homosexuals as a preplacement >> for queer, has over time become a term of disapproval by todays youth. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 18th century as a term of description of a woman of ill-repute and > dubious morals... :-| The OED has that as the third in the sequence for that sense: ca 1405 Wanton, lewd, lascivious 1597 Originally of persons and later also more widely: dedicated to social pleasures; dissolute, promiscuous; frivolous, hedonistic. Also (esp. in to go gay): uninhibited; wild, crazy; flamboyant ? 1795 Esp. of a woman: living by prostitution. Of a place: serving as a brothel 1922 Of a person: homosexual; 1941 (of a place, milieu, way of life, etc.) of or relating to homosexuals 1978 Foolish, stupid, socially inappropriate or disapproved of; 'lame'. That's their sense 4. Their original sense, cited back to ca. 1325, is "Noble; beautiful; excellent, fine". Senese 2, some fifty years later is "bright or lively-loocking, especially in color; brilliant, showy". Sense 3 (ca. 1400) started out as "light-hearted, carefree". Sense 5 (ca. 1425) is "of words or speech: brilliant, attractive, charming". Sense 6 (1798) is a Quaker term for one who has left the plain life. Sense 7 (1855) is "in good health". And sense 8 (1889) is "forward, impertinent". Definitely a word that's moved around a bit. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The purpose of writing is to inflate 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and inhibit clarity. With a little |practice, writing can be an kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |intimidating and impenetrable fog! (650)857-7572 | Calvin http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>> As has been noted here theword gay, used by homosexuals as a preplacement >>> for queer, has over time become a term of disapproval by todays youth. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Definitely a word that's moved around a bit. Indeed. Wouldn't it be great if the "original sense" above would come back into general use, rather than this new "term of disapproval". Of course, I'm a little biased.... - Andy Gay ... :) >>> Thus spake Ray O'Hara (raymond-ohara@hotmail.com) unto the assembled >>> multitudes: [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > - Andy Gay > ... :) The NFL had a list of banned words it wouldn't print on NFL approved team jerseys. Gay was one such word, it took complaints from the friends.family and fans of defensive back Randall Gay to get that changed. So, the word "gay" has over the centuries moved from meaning (essentially): (1) Noble to (2) Showy to (3) Lewd to (4) Hedonistic to (5) Working as a prostitute to (6) Homosexual to (7) Stupid It must be getting a terrible identity crisis! :-) SignatureAndy Clews University of Sussex *** Remove DENTURES if replying by email *** > So, the word "gay" has over the centuries moved from meaning (essentially): > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > It must be getting a terrible identity crisis! :-) Aye, it's a gey and slidderie word. SignatureJames > So, the word "gay" has over the centuries moved from meaning > (essentially): [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It must be getting a terrible identity crisis! :-) Well now the homosexuals are going to fight to keep it theirs. Good luck with that. > So, the word "gay" has over the centuries moved from meaning > (essentially): [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to (6) Homosexual > to (7) Stupid Pretty much sums up one's life, doesn't it? Philip >> So, the word "gay" has over the centuries moved from meaning >> (essentially): [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> > Pretty much sums up one's life, doesn't it? Yeah, but I skipped a few stages. SignatureLes (BrE) > That's their sense 4. Their original sense, cited back to ca. 1325, > is "Noble; beautiful; excellent, fine". Senese 2, some fifty years [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > plain life. Sense 7 (1855) is "in good health". And sense 8 (1889) > is "forward, impertinent". ``Oh pedlar, pedlar what's in thy pack Come speedily and tell to me'' ``I've several suits of the gay green silk And silken bow strings two or three'' ``If you have suits of the gay green silk And silken bow strings two or three'' ``Then by my body'' cries Robin Hood ``Half of your pack belongs to me'' http://www.stlyrics.com/songs/s/steeleyespan9934/gamblegold566969.ht ml or http://preview.tinyurl.com/ykktfww (I corrected a couple of typos in the quoted verse.) SignatureJohn Varela > Thus spake Ray O'Hara (raymond-ohara@hotmail.com) unto the assembled > multitudes: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > as a term of description of a woman of ill-repute and dubious > morals... :-| It didn't originate there. OED has it arriving from French 'gai' c. 14th century with the traditional meaning of cheerful, light-hearted and disposed to mirth. It acquires various meanings over the years (eg poetry is the "gay science", "getting gay" is US 19thC slang for being impertinent, 'gay' of a dog's tail means erect). By the 17th century 'gay' could mean 'addicted to social pleasures' with an implication of immorality and by the early 19C it was used of female prostitutes ( 1825 C. M. Westmacott Eng. Spy II. 22 Two sisters-both gay. 1857 J. E. Ritchie Night Side Lond. 40 The gay women, as they are termed, are worse off than American slaves. 1868 Sund. Times 19 July 5/1 As soon as ever a woman has ostensibly lost her reputation, we, with a grim inappositeness, call her 'gay'.) And by early 20thC it was being used of male homosexuals. Along the way it's meant 'in good health', 'finely dressed', 'specious' and others. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford <snip> All interesting, John, but I found your discovery that "getting gay" is US 19thC slang for being impertinent, especially so. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >> As has been noted here theword gay, used by homosexuals as a preplacement >> for queer, has over time become a term of disapproval by todays youth. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > to hand) that the word "gay" originated in the 17th or 18th century as a term > of description of a woman of ill-repute and dubious morals... :-| What has that got to do with 21st century usage? And why do women of dubious morals make you smile? SignatureRob Bannister > As has been noted here theword gay, used by homosexuals as a preplacement > for queer, has over time become a term of disapproval by todays youth. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > hurtfull and they should think before saying it. > She then insults the offending girls fashion sense. The 2003 edition of the OED records the new slang sense which is now commonly used by many UK teenagers in informal colloquial contexts, where gay is used as a synonym for socially inappropriate or disapproved of, or “un-cool”. (There’s anecdotal evidence that gay in this new slang sense has been diffusing through UK schools for ten years). I’ve often heard young people here in England say things like “your ringtone is sooooo gay”. Until recent years, I think they’d have probably had said “naff” or back in the 1970s - 90s, "square". I don't think it's usage in this context has any particular homophobic undertones. The Oxford English Dictionary shows new words and meanings being initiated well before they move into wider use – sometimes several years. The extent to which the word "gay" has been used in many contexts over the centuries is really quite remarkable, certainly in England, as far back as Chaucer's time in the late 1300s, when English was still reasserting itself after three centuries of Norman French/Latin. Its usage as a synonym for (generally male) homosexuals seems to have originated in the mid 1980s in America, then quickly spread to other Anglophone countries. The OED has an interesting timeline which outlines the history and useage of the word in all its many meanings: http://www.bl.uk/learning/resources/oed/50093144(2).htm David, (East Yorkshire, N.E. Coast of England). David Taylor: > The 2003 edition of the OED records the new slang sense ... There is no "2003 edition of the OED". What do you mean? SignatureMark Brader | "... There are three kinds of death in this world. Toronto | There's heart death, there's brain death, and msb@vex.net | there's being off the network." -- Guy Almes Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:19:43 +0000 from David Taylor <cotters@cotters.karoo.co.uk>: > Its usage as a synonym for (generally male) homosexuals seems to have > originated in the mid 1980s in America, then quickly spread to other > Anglophone countries. Mid 1980s? Absolutely not. The Gay Activists Alliance, for example, dated to 1969 or 1970. There *was* a gradual shift in meaning, and this might be what you're referring to. Originally the word referred equally to males and females, but in the 1980s a vocal group of women decided, for reasons I never understood, that the word "gay" would thenceforth refer only to men. Eventually they won, at least in public discourse. As late, however, as the early nineties, I knew a lesbian couple who said they had no preference between "lesbian" and "gay" in referring to themselves. SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... >Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:19:43 +0000 from David Taylor ><cotters@cotters.karoo.co.uk>: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Mid 1980s? Absolutely not. The Gay Activists Alliance, for example, >dated to 1969 or 1970. It was in use in that sense in South Africa in 1961, for both male and female homosexuals. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:19:43 +0000 from David Taylor > <cotters@cotters.karoo.co.uk>: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > There *was* a gradual shift in meaning, and this might be what you're > referring to. I'm sure that's right. I wasn't aware of the homosexual connection until after I finished school in the mid 1970s. I may have led a sheltered existence of course, but I'm sure plenty of the other kids would have jumped at the chance to have fun at my expense. This was in the South West UK though, perhaps it took a few years longer to reach us there... Originally the word referred equally to males and > females, but in the 1980s a vocal group of women decided, for reasons > I never understood, that the word "gay" would thenceforth refer only > to men. Eventually they won, at least in public discourse. As late, > however, as the early nineties, I knew a lesbian couple who said > they had no preference between "lesbian" and "gay" in referring to > themselves. Is that still true? Seems to me I've often heard women referred to as gay. Indeed, in an episode of the TV drama "Survivors" shown here in the UK just yesterday, one (definitely heterosexual) male character said something like "is that because you're gay?" to a female character who was rejecting his advances. On Feb 24, 9:32 pm, Andy Gay <a...@you.know.what.to.do.andynet.net> wrote: > > Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:19:43 +0000 from David Taylor > > <cott...@cotters.karoo.co.uk>: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Is that still true? In the US, "gay" certainly refers to both homosexual men and women. I have several gay female friends who self-apply that term. Wed, 24 Feb 2010 22:37:29 -0800 (PST) from sjdevnull@yahoo.com <sjdevnull@yahoo.com>: > On Feb 24, 9:32 pm, Andy Gay <a...@you.know.what.to.do.andynet.net> > wrote: > > Is that still true? > > In the US, "gay" certainly refers to both homosexual men and women. I > have several gay female friends who self-apply that term. I think it's like "black": politically correct language is one thing, but many people continue to self identify by the term they first began using. SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... >In the US, "gay" certainly refers to both homosexual men and women. I >have several gay female friends who self-apply that term. That makes the name of GLAAD, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, redundant, as also the use of the initialism, "GLBT". Is there some sort of rift in the GLBT community about the use of "gay" for lesbians? Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 22:37:29 -0800 (PST), "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Is there some sort of rift in the GLBT community about the use of > "gay" for lesbians? Acronyms are often redundant or otherwise clunky in order to spell out the desired word. I think there is such a rift. At least one of my friends reacts to "lesbian" as though it's an outdated and sexist term, almost in the same way that some people object to calling female actors "actresses". But GLAAD's media guide indicates that this probably isn't a majority position. It also notes that both "gay" and "lesbian" are preferred by some people: http://www.glaad.org/referenceguide Gay: The adjective used to describe people whose enduring physical, romantic and/or emotional attractions are to people of the same sex...In contemporary contexts, lesbian (n. or adj.) is often a preferred term for women. Lesbian: A woman whose enduring physical, romantic and/or emotional attraction is to other women. Some lesbians may prefer to identify as gay (adj.) or as gay women... >>In the US, "gay" certainly refers to both homosexual men and women. I >>have several gay female friends who self-apply that term. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Is there some sort of rift in the GLBT community about the use of > "gay" for lesbians? Women have lesbian, men never had there own term. Women can use either but men are limited in acceptable terms. >>>In the US, "gay" certainly refers to both homosexual men and women. I >>>have several gay female friends who self-apply that term. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Women have lesbian, men never had there own term. Oh, there have been lots of terms for homosexual men. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * Hatunen filted: >> Women have lesbian, men never had there own term. > >Oh, there have been lots of terms for homosexual men. Agreed, but they were seldom *their* terms....r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:04:44 -0700 from Hatunen <hatunen@cox.net>: > >In the US, "gay" certainly refers to both homosexual men and women. I > >have several gay female friends who self-apply that term. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Is there some sort of rift in the GLBT community about the use of > "gay" for lesbians? Yes and no. Yes, there is a rift, and no, there is no gay community (unfortunately). SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... >Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:04:44 -0700 from Hatunen <hatunen@cox.net>: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Yes, there is a rift, and no, there is no gay community >(unfortunately). Why unfortunately? I question the usage of "community" to imply that people who have a single characteristic in common form, or ought to form a "community". SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk hayesstw@yahoo.com wrote: >I question the usage of "community" to imply that people who have a single >characteristic in common form, or ought to form a "community". And one would think that organzing around that single characteristic would help in advancing one's sex life, but that isn't even true. >>Yes, there is a rift, and no, there is no gay community >>(unfortunately). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I question the usage of "community" to imply that people who have a single >characteristic in common form, or ought to form a "community". I find it hard to avoid thinking of San Francisco's Castro District as a gay community. And so do the inhabitants thereof. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >I find it hard to avoid thinking of San Francisco's Castro >District as a gay community. And so do the inhabitants thereof. The Castro is a community in the classic sense of people who live near each other who share common interests and goals. In this case it's not sexuality really, but neighborhood concerns, such as how many retail stores and what kind to have, how to take care of the park, putting on street festivals, etc. >>I find it hard to avoid thinking of San Francisco's Castro >>District as a gay community. And so do the inhabitants thereof. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >really, but neighborhood concerns, such as how many retail stores and what >kind to have, how to take care of the park, putting on street festivals, etc. But they are gathered there largely because of their homosexuality. While the necessity has been fading over the last few decades, the Castro evolved largely as a place of security for the once much persecuted homosexual. Their homosexuality is the key factor in their community. To say otherwise is the same as saying that common religious convictions were not a signicant factor in binding together the community in the original Plymouth colony. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >But they are gathered there largely because of their >homosexuality. Or that was the original idea; not so much anymore. >While the necessity has been fading over the last >few decades, the Castro evolved largely as a place of security >for the once much persecuted homosexual. The interesting and non-reported history of the Castro sits with Paul Langley, owner of the Powerhouse bar and Harvey's restaurant in SF. In the 1970s, he was a real estate broker and investor, and property manager for several Castro area landlords. When the Castro had a lot of empty storefronts, he encouraged various gay men to open bars and retail stores in the Castro. Thus was born the Castro-as-gay neighborhood. Few people today realize that prior to the Castro, Polk Street was the gay neighborhood, from the 1950s to the early 80s. Prior to that it was North Beach and the "sailor bar" area of Powell Street. >> Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:04:44 -0700 from Hatunen <hatunen@cox.net>: >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I question the usage of "community" to imply that people who have a single > characteristic in common form, or ought to form a "community". How many shared characteristics does it take for a community? SignatureJames James Hogg filted: >> I question the usage of "community" to imply that people who have a single >> characteristic in common form, or ought to form a "community". > >How many shared characteristics does it take for a community? Just one, really: a common enemy....r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle >How many shared characteristics does it take for a community? I say that the most important point is a shared physical presence, a neighborhood. This is the one aspect left out of nearly everyone's definition of "community". I don't believe that the people who post here, for instance, make up any kind of "community" because participation here doesn't carry with it the peer group hierarchy of a real in-person community. In other words, online people can be nasty and there is no social penalty to pay for it. >>How many shared characteristics does it take for a community? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >it the peer group hierarchy of a real in-person community. In other words, >online people can be nasty and there is no social penalty to pay for it. The word "community" has many meanings and usages including that above. One of the senses from the OED: 8. An online facility, such as an electronic bulletin board, forum, or chat room, where users can share information or discuss topics of mutual interest. 1988 Re: Cyberpunk Vocab. in alt.cyberpunk (Usenet newsgroup) 8 Feb., More talk from tech. The Net--loosely organized collective of bbs systems, mainframes, and micros. Any kind of electronic community in which info is exchanged. And another: 5.b. A group of people who share the same interests, pursuits, or occupation, esp. when distinct from those of the society in which they live. 1757 Compend. Mod. Trav. I. 256 The rendezvous of this scientific community, was at Rome; where they spent the winter in studying the antient history and geography of the places they intended to visit. 1789 J. P. ANDREWS Anecd. Pref. p. vii, The literary community would be treated with more regard than they generally meet. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) Peter Duncanson <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote: > 8. An online facility, such as an electronic bulletin board, forum, > or chat room, where users can share information or discuss topics > of mutual interest. I don't agree because then "community" can mean anything and thus the word loses its meaning. > 1757 Compend. Mod. Trav. I. 256 The rendezvous of this scientific > community, was at Rome; where they spent the winter in studying the > antient history and geography of the places they intended to visit. Again, they were together in one place at one time. > Peter Duncanson <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I don't agree because then "community" can mean anything and thus the > word loses its meaning. A lot of words are like that. "Culture", for instance. >> 1757 Compend. Mod. Trav. I. 256 The rendezvous of this scientific >> community, was at Rome; where they spent the winter in studying the >> antient history and geography of the places they intended to >> visit. > > Again, they were together in one place at one time. How would you define "place"? Rome is the place in this example. Would you count a whole country as a place? How about the nation as a community? SignatureJames >>> Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:04:44 -0700 from Hatunen <hatunen@cox.net>: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > How many shared characteristics does it take for a community? I think one is generally accepted by those who use the word. Private Eye has a regular feature in which they expose uses found in the wild. A few weeks ago, they had "the armoured vehicle community". I don't know if there are "armoured vehicle community solutions"... SignatureMike. >>> Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:04:44 -0700 from Hatunen <hatunen@cox.net>: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > How many shared characteristics does it take for a community? Surely it depends on how closely-knit the community is. I think at a minimum there have to several shared characteristics from different categories and self-identification as members of a group rather than seeing each other as some random human who happens to live nearby, or like knitting or whatever the other commonalities are. At the other extreme, you get those groups - sometimes actual communities in the sense of recognized villages or ethnic groups or whatever - in which everyone knows everyone else's ancestry back several generations, sees each other daily, probably knows what everyone else had for breakfast, and would defend the group from any outsider. SignatureCheryl >>> Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:04:44 -0700 from Hatunen <hatunen@cox.net>: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >How many shared characteristics does it take for a community? It's qualitative, not quantitative. People with a single shared characteristic may form a community, but the community does not automatically include everyone who shares that characteristic. Harry Potter fans may form a Harry Potter fan club, and that may be a community of sorts, but that does not make them "the Harry Potter community". SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:27:20 +0100 from James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@gOUTmail.com>: > > I question the usage of "community" to imply that people who have > > a single characteristic in common form, or ought to form a > > "community". > > How many shared characteristics does it take for a community? The criterion, IMHO, is not shared characteristics but shared goals and a shared willingness to work to achieve them. SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... > Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:27:20 +0100 from James Hogg > <Jas.Hogg@gOUTmail.com>: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The criterion, IMHO, is not shared characteristics but shared goals > and a shared willingness to work to achieve them. Shared interests, too, unless that's subsumed into 'goals'. And I think shared characteristics are important, too, because part of being in a community is being with 'people like us', at least, in some degree - real or invented. A community is simply an expanded family, in which you emphasize the similarities and disregard or minimized the differences among the groups, and make a sharp distinction between in the ins and outs. As in, I can think - or know - my sibling is an idiot who violates every norm our family/community holds to, but he's still OURS, and if anyone else points out his flaws or attacks him, I'll defend him. SignatureCheryl Sun, 28 Feb 2010 08:51:14 -0330 from Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca>: > > Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:27:20 +0100 from James Hogg > >> How many shared characteristics does it take for a community? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > Shared interests, too, unless that's subsumed into 'goals'. "Interests" is actually the word I thought of first, but I didn't use it because it has too many meanings. I wanted interest in the sense of "acting in one's own best interest" rather than "an interest in baseball". You're clearly using it in the way I would mean it in this context. SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... >Yes, there is a rift, and no, there is no gay community >(unfortunately). The "gay community" was the invention of gay civil rights activist Harry Hay. He had been a union organizer of steelworkers, longshoremen, etc., and noticed the huge organizing advantage that was the result of creating affinity groups among people in the various occupations. A long time ago union organizer had discovered that putting "steelworkers" together and having a union lodge hall for steelworkers would go far in helping keep them together for strike actions, etc. So, Harry created the gay male affinity group. He got to the point of believing that gay men were a distinct tribe of people, a distinct culture with distinct aspirations and a unique way of looking at the world. This was great for civil rights organizing, but poor for social organizing. I can attest to the fact that I have little to nothing in common with other gay men. And the idea of a "gay community" is ludicrous to me. Yes, I do find a special affinity for other gay or bi-identified people, especially men, but there are really very few things in common that would cause us to create any long-term community. >>Yes, there is a rift, and no, there is no gay community >>(unfortunately). [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > especially men, but there are really very few things in common that would > cause us to create any long-term community. Are you saying you don't like Broadway musicals? > Are you saying you don't like Broadway musicals? Correct. I can't think of a single one that I like. I do like off-off-off Broadway, such as the Rocky Horror Show. >The "gay community" was the invention of gay civil rights activist Harry Hay. >He had been a union organizer of steelworkers, longshoremen, etc., and noticed [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >for steelworkers would go far in helping keep them together for strike >actions, etc. Back in the day when gay people faced legal discrimination, there might have been some point to that, but it still wouldn't make a community. When I was a bus driver in London i was a member of the Transport and General Workers Union, but that didn't make transport and general workers a "community". >So, Harry created the gay male affinity group. He got to the point of >believing that gay men were a distinct tribe of people, a distinct culture >with distinct aspirations and a unique way of looking at the world. And for a few people that may be so, but generally they share other interests as well. >This was great for civil rights organizing, but poor for social organizing. I >can attest to the fact that I have little to nothing in common with other gay [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >especially men, but there are really very few things in common that would >cause us to create any long-term community. I sort of identify, to a very slight extent, with other people who are left-handed, INTP, or who have beards. But that doesn't make us a community. I have, on occasion, been told that I am a member of the "white community", or that people who claim to speak for "the white community" speak for me, and I tend to get pissed off with people who do that. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk hayesstw@yahoo.com wrote: >I sort of identify, to a very slight extent, with other people who are >left-handed, INTP, or who have beards. But that doesn't make us a community. Indeed. I feel a kinship for other males with long hair (mine isn't that long now, but it's been long). However, I find that there are many longhaired men who do not share hippie values; in fact many are quite conservative. >I have, on occasion, been told that I am a member of the "white community", or >that people who claim to speak for "the white community" speak for me, and I >tend to get pissed off with people who do that. It's funny that blacks identify me as "white" and then I tell them, no I'm of Italian and Finnish backgrounds. When I was growing up, my Italian side wasn't considered white at all. And my forebearers were discriminated against in employment ("No Italians or Irish need apply.") Meanwhile, my Finnish side, though whiter in coloring than my Italian side, is very closely identified not with Caucasians, but with Mongolians. Now, it appears that this Finn-Mongol link has been a myth all along, but the eyes of many members of my Finnish family definitely look way more Asian than Caucasian. Also, the ADH22 gene, which is responsible for inability to metabolize alcohol (thus accounting for the high alcoholism among Finns) is not present in Europeans, but is present in people of Mongol stock. So, if I were to identify anybody as "white" I'd definitely exclude myself and most other Europeans, actually, and consider only people of English and German backgrounds, which is fine with me, given that the English and Germans seem to be the only light beige people who make a big deal about being "white" anyway. > I sort of identify, to a very slight extent, with other people who are > left-handed, INTP, or who have beards. But that doesn't make us a community. > > I have, on occasion, been told that I am a member of the "white community", or > that people who claim to speak for "the white community" speak for me, and I > tend to get pissed off with people who do that. I really hate it when people assume I'm a member of a 'community' based on a single characteristic. I once argued the matter with someone who insisted I was European, even though I denied it on the basis that neither I nor any of my ancestors for several centuries had been born there, and when I went there, none of the many Europeans I met considered me one of their own, they all considered me American or Canadian, depending on how good they were at identifying accents. Being of related cultures and genetics does not mean being the same. In retrospect, I suspect my opponent was one of those people who classifies everyone by skin colour, and their own self-identification, culture, language/dialect or legal citizenship were irrelevant to him. SignatureCheryl >> I sort of identify, to a very slight extent, with other people who are >> left-handed, INTP, or who have beards. But that doesn't make us a community. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >everyone by skin colour, and their own self-identification, culture, >language/dialect or legal citizenship were irrelevant to him. I am also annoyed when such "communities" in the UK are assumed by politicians to have "community leaders". SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>> I sort of identify, to a very slight extent, with other people who are >>> left-handed, INTP, or who have beards. But that doesn't make us a community. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I am also annoyed when such "communities" in the UK are assumed by > politicians to have "community leaders". Not "assumed"; the word you want is "imagined". SignatureJames >>>> I sort of identify, to a very slight extent, with other people who are >>>> left-handed, INTP, or who have beards. But that doesn't make us a community. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >Not "assumed"; the word you want is "imagined". Imaginings lead to assumptions. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>>> I sort of identify, to a very slight extent, with other people who are >>>>> left-handed, INTP, or who have beards. But that doesn't make us a community. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Imaginings lead to assumptions. Which in turn can lead to bestsellers. At least for Benedict Anderson. SignatureJames >>>>>> I sort of identify, to a very slight extent, with other people who are >>>>>> left-handed, INTP, or who have beards. But that doesn't make us a community. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >Which in turn can lead to bestsellers. At least for Benedict Anderson. Ah, yes. Another book to add to the list of those I should read before I die. Possible obituary: He is best known for the manner of his death. He had collected a large number of books that he intended to read before he died. Tragically he was killed when this pile of books collapsed on him. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) James Hogg filted: >>>> I am also annoyed when such "communities" in the UK are assumed by >>>> politicians to have "community leaders". [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Which in turn can lead to bestsellers. At least for Benedict Anderson. I liked him when he was in Abba....r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle >> I sort of identify, to a very slight extent, with other people who are >> left-handed, INTP, or who have beards. But that doesn't make us a [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > everyone by skin colour, and their own self-identification, culture, > language/dialect or legal citizenship were irrelevant to him. My sadly-missed best friend was black - his parents had come to England from Sierra Leone. He was English, British and a Londoner. Other than his mother and a couple of distant cousins, I don't believe he knew any more black people than I did. The idea that he belonged to a "black community" was ludicrous. SignatureDavid >My sadly-missed best friend was black - his parents had come to England >from Sierra Leone. He was English, British and a Londoner. Other than >his mother and a couple of distant cousins, I don't believe he knew any >more black people than I did. The idea that he belonged to a "black >community" was ludicrous. I once knew a guy who applied under an "affirmative action" plan to the University of California at Berkeley as an African American. The administrators where shocked when he showed up for classes because he was very "white". Y'see, he was from the Republic of South Africa, of Dutch descent, but had become an American citizen. > My sadly-missed best friend was black - his parents had come to England > from Sierra Leone. He was English, British and a Londoner. Other than > his mother and a couple of distant cousins, I don't believe he knew any > more black people than I did. The idea that he belonged to a "black > community" was ludicrous. I often wonder about the black community in Toronto. As far as I can see, there are several - immigrants from Jamaica don't share a culture with those from Nigeria, who don't share one with the Sudanese - and their Canadian-born children don't entirely have the parental culture. Then, of course, you have the ones whose ancestors moved to Canada from the US before the US Civil War, and I gather they don't much like being mistaken for new immigrants. SignatureCheryl >>The "gay community" was the invention of gay civil rights activist Harry >>Hay. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > bus driver in London i was a member of the Transport and General Workers > Union, but that didn't make transport and general workers a "community". Back in the day? Virginia just decided being gay was grounds for firing from state jobs. http://chaserhutch.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/virginia-state-workers-can-now-be-fi red-for-being-gay/ >Back in the day? >Virginia just decided being gay was grounds for firing from state jobs. >http://chaserhutch.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/virginia-state-workers-can-now-be-f >ired-for-being-gay/ And people wonder why so many people move to California. Stands to reason that a Southern state would take such a Neanderthal action. > >Back in the day? > >Virginia just decided being gay was grounds for firing from state jobs. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And people wonder why so many people move to California. Stands to reason > that a Southern state would take such a Neanderthal action. That doesn't make me wonder any less. California is the state that actually amended their constitution to prohibit gay marriage, with the support of a majority of voters--that was a far more Neanderthal anti- gay state reaction than this alteration of an executive order, especially if you look at the actual impact on gay couples. FWIW, if you follow that link Virginia did not decide that being gay was grounds for firing from state jobs. The new governor altered the wording of a 2-year-old anti-discrimination executive order to remove the sexual orientation wording from it. That's still really crappy, of course. Sun, 28 Feb 2010 07:39:53 -0800 (PST) from sjdevnull@yahoo.com <sjdevnull@yahoo.com>: > California is the state that > actually amended their constitution to prohibit gay marriage, with the > support of a majority of voters You are, alas, misusing the definite article here. California is one of many states that did that. This is alt.usage.english, not talk.politics, so I will not comment further on the substance. :-( SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... >That doesn't make me wonder any less. California is the state that >actually amended their constitution to prohibit gay marriage, [....] Understood. California also suffers from bigness. This means that pressure groups of all kinds take root here because they know that as goes California so goes the nation. I wanted to be generous with California, but actually, I prefer to live in the isolated bubble that is San Francisco. I really wouldn't like living elsewhere in California. Certainly not Crescent City, Modesto, Fresno, Sacramento, or even San Diego. Too many wackos. We also suffer from majority-rule amendments to our state constitution via ballot measure. This was largely the result of trying to break the back of the Southern Pacific railroad stranglehold on the state in the 1800s. It is plainly stupid to be able to amend the constitution with majority vote, and especially by any ballot measure that manages to pass. But I'll take California over Virginia anytime. In fact, I'll take California over every other state but Oregon. (And don't get me started on Scott Lively...) Someone wrote: >> Its usage as a synonym for (generally male) homosexuals seems to have >> originated in the mid 1980s in America, then quickly spread to other >> Anglophone countries. The term "gay" has been in use to refer to homsexual men and sometimes women since at least the 1940s. There is a reference in Howard Hawke's movie, "Bringing Up Baby" where Cary Grant puts on a fluffy robe and when asked about it shouts, "I've gone GAY all of a sudden!" Here's a reference to the gag from Time Magazine: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,957338,00.html |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.