Dear Jean-Baptiste,

I agree with and appreciate the main point here, but Ms. is not an
alternative to Mrs.; it is an alternative to both Mrs. and Miss.  It replaces
titles based on whether or not one is married, as in Mr., which is not
based in such a relationship.  So it applies to women regardless of their
relation to any man.  It is actually a very ancient usage since in the
Renaissance "mistress" was so applied and did not have its current

Date sent:              Fri, 6 Dec 2002 18:24:42 -0800
Send reply to:          "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
From:                   Patrick Jean-Baptiste <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:                Re: OT: Canada and Vietnam (was, Marianne Moore poem in WWII)
To:                     [log in to unmask]

How do you know all of this, Jacek?  You don't even
know that it's Ms. Condoleeza Rice, not Mrs. It takes
a bit of effort to add that r between the M and S, so
I won't buy the typo claim.

And what, pray tell, are Ms Rice's "extreme"
limitations? She couldn't get just plain old
limitations; it's gotta be "extreme."

What sexist/racist bees are floating under your
--- Jacek Niecko <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> The problem with Mrs. Rice is simply that she is an
> extremely limited person
> who owes her position exclusively to her ethnic and
> gender status--the same,
> by the way, is true of her predecessor of
> sorts--former Secretary of State
> Madeleine Albright who must be by far one of the
> most stupid people ever
> selected to serve as a senior government official in
> this country.
> Jacek Niecko
> Washington, DC
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 3:11 PM
> Subject: Re: OT: Canada and Vietnam (was, Marianne
> Moore poem in WWII)
> > > From: Nancy Gish [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > >
> > > I really don't think you can blame feminism for
> Condi Rice any more than
> > > you could praise masculism for Martin Luther
> King or Gandhi or Viet Nam
> > > objectors who went to Canada.
> > >
> >
> > I think your grouping of these latter three
> together overlooks an
> important point.
> >
> > ML King and Gandhi fought repressive systems from
> within through passive
> resistance, which included accepting the punishment
> meted out by the
> oppressors and using that punishment to illustrate
> the injustice of what was
> being done.  Those who went to Canada to avoid the
> Vietnam draft -- whatever
> their degree of principle, which presumably varied
> -- were engaging in
> something different.  Muhammad Ali would be the
> better example to complete
> your triad, as he remained in the country and thus
> remained subject to the
> law he was challenging (and was ultimately
> vindicated, albeit on dubious
> technical grounds unworthy of the principle he was
> standing for.)  That's my
> view of it, anyway.
> >
> > Tom K

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.