30.10.2008, 06:54
Let us look at the standard opening phrase of a standard business letter:
Dear Sir,
well, this is clearly s.e.x.i.s.t. as it precludes the possibility that a woman is reading the letter. we can try to fix this, however, by writing:
well, this is clearly s.e.x.i.s.t. as it precludes the possibility that a woman is reading the letter. we can try to fix this, however, by writing:
Dear Sir/Madam,
this was suggested in a recent posting in a few of the gender-issue related news groups. however, someone pointed out that by putting the masculine title before the feminine one, unacceptable dominance was demonstrated, making this non-political-correct. so, i tried to fix it:
this was suggested in a recent posting in a few of the gender-issue related news groups. however, someone pointed out that by putting the masculine title before the feminine one, unacceptable dominance was demonstrated, making this non-political-correct. so, i tried to fix it:
Dear Madam/Sir,
Well, this is a not good since we´re showing dominance in the other direction. Of course, since Men are Oppresors and Womyn are Oppressees, that may not be so bad. But it´s not *really* PC, is it? Ok, let´s try again:
Well, this is a not good since we´re showing dominance in the other direction. Of course, since Men are Oppresors and Womyn are Oppressees, that may not be so bad. But it´s not *really* PC, is it? Ok, let´s try again:
Dear Sir
Madam,
Well, that solves the problem of who goes first. Of course, the Sir is on the top now, which is completely unaccaptable Missionary Style .. imagery abounds. Very bad news, probably worse than the original. Ok, what about:
Madam,
Well, that solves the problem of who goes first. Of course, the Sir is on the top now, which is completely unaccaptable Missionary Style .. imagery abounds. Very bad news, probably worse than the original. Ok, what about:
Dear Madam
Sir,
You still have one on top of the other showing dominance. We may not sure whoßs doing what, but *somebody* is being oppressed here. Next:
Sir,
You still have one on top of the other showing dominance. We may not sure whoßs doing what, but *somebody* is being oppressed here. Next:
Dear MadSiram,
Put the Sir inside the Madam, ok , neither is going first an neither is above th other one. Ok? NO! This is terrible! The Sir has inserted himself inside the Madam! Practically splitting her in two with himself! A man writing a letter addressed like this to a woman is obvously making an (unwanted) optical advance. If he were at antioch college, he´d be suspend for a year and have to go through rehabilitation.
Put the Sir inside the Madam, ok , neither is going first an neither is above th other one. Ok? NO! This is terrible! The Sir has inserted himself inside the Madam! Practically splitting her in two with himself! A man writing a letter addressed like this to a woman is obvously making an (unwanted) optical advance. If he were at antioch college, he´d be suspend for a year and have to go through rehabilitation.
Dear SMadamir,
Now we put the Madam inside the Sir. Oh, now the Sir has enveloped the Madam! Horrors, she has lost her identity, her sens of self! This is impresionment! Ugh, how could I have even throught of this one?? I´m so ashamed! Well, there´s only one answer left:
Now we put the Madam inside the Sir. Oh, now the Sir has enveloped the Madam! Horrors, she has lost her identity, her sens of self! This is impresionment! Ugh, how could I have even throught of this one?? I´m so ashamed! Well, there´s only one answer left:
To Whom it May Concern
There. Simple, ne reference to verbidden things, no problems. Not very friendly, but then again unwanted intimacy is a sin. And getting rid of friendliness is a small price to pay to make sure that absolutely no-one is ever, *ever* offended.
There. Simple, ne reference to verbidden things, no problems. Not very friendly, but then again unwanted intimacy is a sin. And getting rid of friendliness is a small price to pay to make sure that absolutely no-one is ever, *ever* offended.