×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Male Sexist Under-Language

Male Sexist Under-Language

Male Sexist Under-Language

(OP)
The "to Whom it may Concern" post by CajunCenturion
confirmed there is common use of the phrase Dear Sir/Madam. Various dictionaries interestingly describe madam as a refined woman, elderly lady, married woman, even brothel-keeper! Nowadays, there is a (fashionable?)trend to refer to a female president as Madam President yet the male equivalent of Madam is Sir! A male president is certainly not greeted as Sir President, although I have heard Mr President, Sir! Just plain Mister President is good enough. Even though they are regarded by some as equivalent, conventionally, we do not use Mr/Madam as a dual form of greeting in a letter. It occurs to me that Sir, used politely or deferentially does not have the same amount of baggage or under-current that Madam does.
Dear Sir infers to the reader that the writer expects to address a male adult gentleman of any age and marital status.
Dear Madam might infer, depending on a reader's perception, that the writer expects to address a refined older and probably married woman who might even be running a brothel.  

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

This interests me very much since English isn't my first language, but I get to write a lot of formal mail to colleagues world-wide in English...
Actually, "Sir" is a title that, historically, belonged to British gentry - specifically, knights and higher - not just your average guy with a pitch fork...
As for "Madam", no, it definitely does not point out she DOESN'T run a brothel, but what would you use to equivalent it with a Sir...? "Lady"? :)

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

(OP)
English is my native tounge and maybe its where I grew up but my perception of Sir, is that without doubt, it is  superior to Madam. Only the ignorant masses equate Sir and Madam as par. Direct equivalent to Sir is Lady. Imagine going in to bat with that nowadays, heh heh.
The pointy end of my post is to draw attention to a kind of left handed acknowlegement of women that they apparently are willing to accept. C'mon Ladies...........

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

I'm female but I see no alternative. The thing is, "Sir" has become acustomed. "Lady" is something I'd say "oh COME ON" if someone pointed at me. Also, when you think about it, it's LADIES, not MADAMS of the night... :) I'd rather agree to diss "Sir" in favour of "Mister", than use "Lady" instead of "Madam".

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

rnd2  wrote, “there is a (fashionable?)trend to refer to a female president as Madam President yet the male equivalent of Madam is Sir! A male president is certainly not greeted as Sir President”

Remember that “President” refers to the position held and NOT the person.  The correct phrase is Mr. President or Madam President. The same holds true for “Chairman”.  Because the title or position held is gender neutral there is no English word such as “Chairwoman” or “Chairperson”.  The correct phrase is Mr. Chairman or Madam Chairman.

My dictionary gives the following for madam:

1.     used to address woman in letter: used at the beginning of a formal letter to a woman, especially one whose name is not known (formal)
2. used to address woman official: used before the name of a woman’s official position as a term of address

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

(OP)
boffintech
Yes. Gender neutral. Why not address the president as exactly that eg:
"I wish to ask thePresident." "Will the president allow the formal adoption of ......"  Mr President, imo is bumbling sycophantic crap.

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

THE President? OK, I'll buy that...

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

When writing to government officials I tend to begin the letter with 'Dear Sir or Madman,'.  

corus

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

One of my former co-workers at a school was an adamant feminist.

She rejected: Miss, Ms, Madam, Lady, and anything else I could think of until SHE told me the only way to address a female (she rejected that word too) was Sister.

Sigh.

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

I guess your former co-worker was a nun?

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

heh.. if only.

The Roman Catholic church was one of the many institutions she used to bash regularly in the lunch room as a symbol of sexist dominance. All of the other women (I mean sisters) who worked with us also thought she was out to lunch.

I could only imagine suggesting that she might be married to the church (directly after doing so, I would duck).

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

Why not simply address said president as "Pres. Jones" for example. No gender implied or assumed; and no stringing together of titles.

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

You know, saying "father", "mother", "mom", "dad", "mater", "pater", "madre", "padre" and so on are all just sexist ways of addressing your parental units.  From now on let's do away with such sexist and offensive language.  They are parental units and should be addressed as such.  

With that in mind, what's with all these languages around the world that dare have masculine and feminine words?  How offensive!!  That needs to be addressed also.  How can you possibly speak of refining the sexism in our languages when the very words we use have their own gender?

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

The reason it's not 'madams of the night' is because the 'ladies of the night' work for the madam.

In my neck of the woods, the pronunciation is different for a madam of respect (Madem/Mad'm) and a madam of less respect (Madamn). Although the pronunciation doesn't come across in writing, the Madam reading the greeting knows which one she is.

NozzleTwister
Houston, Texas

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

Mr. seems opposed to Madam, if you're going to use Madam as a more formal "Ms."  On pronunciation - if I say Ms. as in Miss it's to indicate a younger, perhaps unmarried, woman.  If I say Ms. as in Mizz, then it's in a more formal setting.  Also, I recall that many grade schools and kindergartens use Ms. - but with a first name such as Ms. (Miss) Debbie.  

I think "Sir or Madam" is fine too - I also like ladies and gentlement (instead of Lords and Ladies).

Is it sexist that "ladies" flows before "gentlemen"?

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

Ladies first


I took a computer programming class in Pascal and the text used the female pronoun in place of where a male pronoun with no gender intended would usually appear.  This was very distracting.  I wonder if females are distracted by male gender pronouns?

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

Must be a matter of habit....

I don't see how Dear Sir or Madam (or Dear Madam or Sir) could offend anyone for a good reason. Men and women ARE different after all, as we all discovered at 3-4 years old.

What is strange, though, is that married women are addressed differently than "free" women (in France a formal letter to an unknown person is addressed to "Madame, Mademoiselle, Monsieur" - ladies first as always). Apparently it's very important whether a lady is still "zu haben" (just to use yet another language), while for men it's not relevant whether they're married or not.

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

What about replacing male pronouns such as he, his, man, etc. with both masculine and feminine pronouns such as he/she, his/her, man or woman.  For example:

Mrs. Beans accomplishments improved life for all man.

Vs.

Mrs. Beans accomplishments improved life for all men and women.

Personally, I find using both genders to be superflous and akward.  For hundreds of years the male pronoun was used when gender was unkown or both genders were being refered to.  Why has this only been a problem for the last 20-30 years?

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

Why not...

Mrs. Beans accomplishments improved life for all homo-sapians.

NozzleTwister
Houston, Texas

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

My thought is that Madam is actually less offwnsive than Mister, based on the roots of the words. Madam stems from the french Ma Damme, meaning My Lady. Mister stems from Master. If I were so inclined, I would be offended having to refer to every male I encounter as my "Master". And as a male, I don't particularly like the thought of having the responsibility of being anyone else's "Master" either. Puuuleeeez.

If we keep taking offense to what has become common speech tools, we will get ourselves so twisted up in semantic predeterimnations that we cannot get our main points across. Just use it and move on with it. People who take offense to trivia like that will take offense to most other alternatives as well, case in point being justkeepgiviner's example.

Side note:
Whenever someone addresses me as "Sir", I turn around and look for my father!

Eng-Tips: Help for your job, not for your homework  Read FAQ731-376

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

chemELK wrote, “What about replacing male pronouns such as he, his, man, etc. with both masculine and feminine pronouns such as he/she, his/her, man or woman.  For example:

Mrs. Beans accomplishments improved life for all man.
Vs.
Mrs. Beans accomplishments improved life for all men and women.”

The word “man” (as in “mankind”) is gender neutral representing all men and women so it requires no further division.

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

(OP)
Always thought beans means heinz
Sorry, couldn't resist smile

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

I re-read Nozzle Twisters post imagining it spoken by Carl Sagen and then fell of my chair as " always did when he said "homo sapiens".
No I tell a lie, it was "Yuman Beans" he always referred to. Perhaps I'd better get some more coffee.

Anyway, is bicyclette the feminine of bicycle? so is it sexist to always write bicycle? (one of the few (only?) machines available in male and female forms (mostly unisex now though)... just kidding (emoticons don't seem to work)
and if I read much more I'll be back to my popular topic of who determined which gender applies to windows, doors, towns rivers etc. Its Ok if you are in France or Germany with the la fenetre or die fenster (don't take my word for it, I always get the genders wrong in both languages) but when looking at a French map of the UK, who decided the Thames was masculine (or was it feminine?)?

Another conundrum, and one that seems more fussily adhered to in the USA, is why refer to a married lady as Mrs John Smith and not Mrs Ann Smith? but apparenty one means she is married and the other a widow.... or did I get that wrong? (too).

But, back on topic, If you have a problem remembering which Francis/Frances is which, then like me, you will be in real trouble and when it comes to "foreign" names i have no clue but I have noticed that some people i.e. foreigners (to me) usually have the courtesey to use the MR or MS or MRS tag in their communications just to help me out (except an Irish lady called Peta). But I don't notice those (including me) with anglo saxon style names providing the same courtesey when responding to people in other countries, I must do something about that....)
ponder

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

Ah, hell, I had a post written and the site blew it up.  Serves me right for not composing it elsewhere first or at least copying it to the clipboard before pressing the button.  Let's see how much I can reconstruct...

See discussion in thread thread1010-140243.  Follow the Hofstadter link therein for an interesting perspective on language bias.

Objections to supposedly generic masculine don't just go back 20-30 years.  They go back 30-40 years.  Why only in the last few decades?  Because only in the last few decades has sexism itself, let alone sexism in language, been unacceptable.

One could argue that the word "man" and the pronoun "he" started out generic, but 800-year-old etymology is irrelevant if it isn't reflected in current meaning.  "Man" means "male adult", not "person".  It's the equivalent of "stallion", not of "horse".  Most English speakers wouldn't say something like "I saw a man lurking in the alley but I couldn't tell if he was male or female."  The generic sense of those words is reduced to a few very indefinite contexts and even that use is fading.

There is research going back to the 1970s showing that supposedly generic masculine terms do in fact tend to evoke a male image in the mine of the listener/reader.  I don't have access to any of my linguistics material at the moment but I found the following list of cites online (compiled by Deb Hume of Stephens College):

Quote:

Hamilton, M. C. (1991). Masculine bias in the attribution of personhood:
People = male, male = people. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 393-402.
    Henley, N. M. (1989). Mountain or molehill? What we do know and don't
know about sex bias in language. In M. Crawford & M. Gentry (Eds.), Gender
and thought (pp. 59-78). New York: Springer-Verlag.
    Crawford, M. & English, L. (1984). Generic versus specific inclusion of
women in language: Effects on recall. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,
13, 373-381.
    Khosroshahi, F. (1989). Penguins don't care, but women do: A social
identity analysis of a Whorfian problem. Language in Society, 18, 505.
    Schneider, J. W., & Hacker, S. W. (1973). Sex role imagery and use of
generic "man" in introductory texts: A case in the sociology of sociology.
American Sociology, 8, 12-18.
    Moulton, Robinson, & Elias, 1978
    Hamilton, M. C. (1988). Using masculine generics: Does generic He
increase male bias in the user's imagery? Sex Roles, 19, 785-799.
    Ivy, D. K. et al. (1995). The lawyer, the babysitter, and the student:
Inclusive language usage and instruction. Women and Language, 18, 13-21.
    Matlin, M. W. (1985). Current issues in psycholinguistics. In T. M.
Schlechter & M. P. Toglia (Eds.) New directions in cognitive science (pp.
217-241). Norwood, NJ: ABLEX.
    Switzer, J. Y. (1990). The impact of generic word choices: An empirical
language investigation of age- and sex-related differences. Sex Roles, 22,
69-82.
    Wilson , E. & Ng, S. H. (1988). Sex bias in visual images evoked by
generics: A New Zealand study. Sex Roles, 18, 159-168.
    Gastil, J.  (1990). Generic pronouns and sexist language: The oxymoronic
character of masculine generics. Sex Roles, 23, 629-643.
    Briere, J., & Lanktree, C. (1983). Sex-role related effects of sex bias
in language. Sex Roles, 9, 625-632.

In other words, just because your grammar book declares something to be neutral doesn't mean your brain really sees it that way, and the same applies to your listener.

I used to believe quite firmly in grammatically gender-neutral use of masculine terms.  I changed my mind.  (The Hofstadter piece mentioned in the other thread contributed to that, as did the psycholinguistic research.)

I used to believe, even after I started to come around on the generic masculine issue, that it was not possibly to write fluently and fluidly only in gender-neutral terms.  So I tried it.  When I found myself able to do it on timed essay exams, I had to change my mind on that front as well.

This does not mean that all of you must immediately change your speech and writing patterns to use only gender-neutral language for all gender-neutral situations, but there's no call for ridiculing those who do recognize sexist language for what it is.

Hg

Eng-Tips policies:  FAQ731-376

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

(OP)
A pink star for that effort HG.

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

HgTX --  Thank you for answering my question but I am curious about your comment, "...,but there's no call for ridiculing those who do recognize sexist language for what it is."

Maybe I missed something or forgot.  Was there ridicule of that sort in this thread?  Maybe the 'parental unit' one?  I did not take time to re-read all of the posts in this thread so could be I forgot.

Or maybe you are referring to usage in general unresricted to this thread.

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

There was some.  There's more elsewhere.  And I probably read a certain amount in where there wasn't any.

Worry not.

By the way, my point about etymology vs. actual use by real people also addresses the "Sir or Madam" question.  In a title or salutation, "Madam" has never had anything to do with either prostitution or marital status, so neither of those can be the basis for objections to the term.  The fact that "Sir" elsewhere in the language has different social standing than "Madam", on the other hand, could be valid, except that in the US most people are not all that familiar with the subtleties of titles of nobility, so over here it's also probably more of an argument to etymology rather than real-world connotation.

Hg

Eng-Tips policies:  FAQ731-376

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

Even in the land of the Poms, whn you call somebody sir, in normal conversation, you are just being respectful, not implying that they have been dobbed by the Queen, or that they wear armour.

However, the land of the Poms being what it is these days, I doubt it is used overmuch.



Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

Umm... as for the "all men and women" vs. "all men" vs. "all homo sapiens" vs. "all inhabitants of the Earth and wider since, Biblically, God set us humans to run the joint"... why not use "people"...? But, whereas I find the question about adressing titles quite valid (and, indeed, "overtitling" like "Mister Beautiful Dear President" too much), I find everything else in this thread a bit excessive? I mean, sexism is easily found in everything and so it is in language as well, all you have to do is take your microscope out and look... but should I, as a woman, waste my time and jump at every tiny little thing, or simply go along with terms like "all men", because I personally think that, if we REALLY set out to NOT offend anyone with anything, we'd hardly get anything ELSE done...? Thoughts...? Personally, I find the fact that men's shavers are much better than women's MUCH more offensive and downright PRACTICALLY so! ponytails

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

Ah!,
I forgot razors were also available in male and female, not just bicycles.

But, TurbulentFluid, is it a problem to buy mens razors/shavers? or am I missing something, is there a restriction on who can buy which version?
Or is there some genetic compulsion to buy impractical things?

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

No matter who buys which razor, the female always seems to borrow the male razor!

When I tried the opposite though, the day after I had forgot my razor in a hotel bathroom (not the first time), I discovered that female razors are hopelessly inadequate - design appears to prevail over performance. Not sure if razor designers do this deliberately...??

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

Probably I have lost my way and should be in the Corrosion Engineering Forum on the thread, "how to keep razor blades sharp."  However, TurbulentFluid's post makes me feel free to take poetical engineering license and tangent off a bit.

There have been several comments comparing womens vs mens (should that be women's vs men's? Sometimes I get confused with plural vs possesive and whether the ' comes before or after the s.  Like which is it plural or possesive which in the above instance I would think both and in which case does the comma come after the s?).  If you think that sentence is confusing then you have a clue as to how confusing that grammatical rule is for me.  I actually thought I understood it for a time but now I am not so sure.  Anyway, have any of you made an exaustive or at least comparative study of different ladies shavers?  We need some quantitative data here!

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

TurbulentFluid wrote, “sexism is easily found in everything and so it is in language as well, all you have to do is take your microscope out and look...”

Dang right.  Today I was looking at some promotional material for a new electronics store that is to be placed inside existing Best-Buy stores.  This little store within a store will sell higher end home AV/theater stuff.  So anyway, the full color brochure for this endeavor featured several pictures of couples and families enjoying/viewing various modern wide screen television formats.   What struck me was that in 4 of these pictures the female of the couple/family was holding the remote control and in another picture the male was actually handing the remote control to the female.  Now how ridiculous is THAT!

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

Sometimes I get confused with plural vs possesive and whether the ' comes before or after the s.  Like which is it plural or possesive which in the above instance I would think both and in which case does the comma come after the s?).  If you think that sentence is confusing then you have a clue as to how confusing that grammatical rule is for me.  I actually thought I understood it for a time but now I am not so sure.

probably a different thread...

"plural" never requires an apostrophe, although it can affect where it is placed (and adding it in an abbreviation sometimes helps, like when you say "I need two s's, you SOB's," but I think s's and SOBs look better).  If the plural of a word ends in s, and the possessive form of the word also ends in s, instead of putting two of them at the end of the word, you put in one with the apostrophe behind it.  In this case, since men is plural, men's is plural and possessive.  If you had those boys' candy, it would be a different story (those boys' not those boys's).  Never get caught with a bucket of apple's, unless the bucket belongs to a famous actress's son.  

http://www.washoe.k12.nv.us/northvalleyshs/students/englishowl/apostrophes.htm

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

(OP)
Yep, what with razor blades, remotes, plural -V- possesive I reckon we reached the thrum of this thread. Time to start new ones.
Thanks to all for the input. I would like to give everybody a pink star for their contribution and HGTX five stars for his five star post but the rules being what they are, preclude that.

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

HGTX five stars for his five star post
 oh the irony...

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

(OP)
Glad to see you caught that one ivymike.smile

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

Sorry, but I thought of an answer too good to pass on! :)

My dear anathomically uneducated Jimw friend,

The "genetic compulsion" is that when a woman shaves, she shaves some signifficantly MORE sensitive bits of her body than a man's face is. In order for this (VERY important bodypart, at least to us) tio remain undamaged, women's razors have special protection in form of wires or something simmilar covering the blades to avoid direct contact of the blades with the aforementioned, sensitive bodypart that I'd rather have undamaged (it'd look funny to put a bit of cigarette paper THERE, too.)
Since you apparently NEEDED a very graphic description of just WHY did engineers think there should be a distinction between the two.

That said, I use red Mach3 for men and never borrow anyone's razor. Sexism I care little about, generalisation pisses me off.

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

...perhaps men who shave similarly sensitive parts would be well advised to use "womens'" razors for the job?

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

Why not have all razors, including men's, have the additional safety feature (which I never really noticed)?  There doesn't seem to be a price premium on the cheap disposables for women's vs. men's.

Hg

Eng-Tips policies:  FAQ731-376

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

That would be OK if a man wants to look like Don what's-his-face on Miami Vice.  I think he looks like Box-Car-Bon.  But then I suppose some people think it looks sexy.

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

Idongeddit.  It's not like women's legs (and other parts) look like Don Johnson either.

Hg

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

I don't even know what the box of carbon is.

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

(OP)
Probably not a box of chocolates either.
So, out with it metman, Don (what's his face)Johnson looks like Box-Car-Bon? a considered explanation please. Also what is the difference between people and people

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

Remember the 'Miami device' they used to sell. That electric razor that left a day or two stubble for the perfect Don Johnson look.

When I sported that look a time or two on the week end, I never understood why my wife and daughter saw it as anything but sexy.

NozzleTwister
Houston, Texas

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

Stubble hurts sensitive skin.

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

NozzleTwister... wearing a ketchup smeared t-shirt, a stained pajamas and berping your bear... while sporting a 2 day stubble surely did not add to the "sexy" part of the stubble.

saludos.
a.

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

abeltio,

.......so you DO know me, LOL

NozzleTwister
Houston, Texas

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

Maybe I made a rash assumption -- Hg, you said, "...Why not have all razors, including men's, have the additional safety feature...

I have never seen one these safety features but visulaized a device that would keep the cutting blade(s) away from the skin leaving a stubble.

ivymike and rnd2:  Box-Car-Bon is a cartoon character out of the mid 20th century circa 1950.  He had a perpetual 4 day stubble which outclasses Don whats-his-face 2 day stubble. BCB rode the rods or sometimes inside the railroad box cars.  Sorry, guess my age is showing.

People vs people?  hmmm -- I do not know how to answer that.  It is something that was bouncing around in my head about all the political correctness stuff.  I will leave it up to you to consider what sort of  people would think stubble is sexy.  Was I being politically incorrect by italisizing the word people?  

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

Okay dokey, I see before me two disposable plastic safety razors of the "10 for $2.99" variety.  

One is dark blue, and one is pink.  The pink one has a "lubricating strips", but those come on men's razors too.  

The blades are the same width.  The angle between handle and blade appears to be the same.  They all have a similar piece of plastic in front of the blades.  If there's a difference in blade spacing or angle within the head, it's too subtle for me.

Hg

Eng-Tips policies:  FAQ731-376

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

'sensitive bodypart that I'd rather have undamaged'

Just how sensitive is the bony part around the ankle?

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

Hgtx, the blades are exactly the same, but the two turn out to be incompatible when you try to fix the male blade to the female handle or vice versa. However the female head is larger which makes it difficult/impossible to properly take the chin/jaw corner.

BTW, if the female part is more sensitive, why do men use cream while women don't?

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

epoisses, you're using those fancy things with separate blades from handles.  I'm wondering about the cheap Bic-style disposables--is there any difference other than color?

Hg

Eng-Tips policies:  FAQ731-376

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

Skit done on an Australian sketch comedy show in the early '90s.

Introducing the Gillette 3000 - The first shaver with 16 blades:

The first blade distracts the hair, while the second and third blades sneak up behind it, cutting off any escape routes. The fourth and fifth blades attempt to coax the hair from its hiding place using modern modern counselling techniques while the sixth blade, posing as a passing motorist, acts as a decoy, allowing the seventh and eighth blades to swoop down and quickly overpower the hair. The ninth blade, disguised as a postman, administers a small dose of chloroform, allowing blades 10 through 13 to remove the hair and escort it away for further questioning. The 14th blade informs the hair of its rights. The 15th blade handles the paperwork and the 16th blade, well, it's just along for the ride.

Also available, the Gillette 3000 Ladyshaver.  Same product, but with a more girly voice-over.

LewTam Inc.
Petrophysicist, Leading Hand, Natural Horseman, Prickle Farmer, Crack Shot, Venerable Yogi.

RE: Male Sexist Under-Language

This discussion really beongs on:

thread338-53716 How to keep razor blades sharp.

Hg the cheap Bic disposables are more expensive than the cheapest of the disposable head variety.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources