h a l f b a k e r yOn the one hand, true. On the other hand, bollocks.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
I can't deny it -- I'm bothered by the whole Second Gentleman
thing. First, because he's not second (from a programmatic
point of view). Second, because even First and Second Lady
are
kind of weird at this point.
What are we going to do when there is a Lesbian couple in the
White House?
One is President, the other First Lady? And of
course it's only a matter of time, nowadays, until various
variants some alternating or not settled on gender, take
power.
Truthfully, I don't see why they have to have any title or
function. But to the extent they do, time has come to go
gender neutral, clearly.
I do have some concerns that this may not adequately cover
polyamory and polygamy cases -- what would you call the
second wife or third husband -- not to mention confusion
over divorces.
Improvement suggestions welcome.
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
All references to gender should be eliminated including the
word gender. I think the word "word" might be offensive to
some groups as well and should be on the list of "words" to be
banned once we can figure out what the title of the list
should
be. |
|
| |
What was the idea again? [-], no wait [+]. |
|
| |
+ I don’t think this has any of the issues stated
above in [ a1] ‘s case for deletion. This is a current
issue, not only important to the author! |
|
| |
What [a1] said is probably right but, while we're here, the word
"consort" is probably the one you're looking for. |
|
| |
It's ungendered, can be either a noun or a verb, and the original
metaphor is
from sharing the fate or life-chances of another person. |
|
| |
Actually, wait; some people are still going to sneer about "co-
dependency" (see [dr3]'s anno). Never mind. |
|
| |
I think everyone should be married to the President
by default. That'd solve it. |
|
| |
That sounds a bit too much like droit de seigneur to me. |
|
| |
I started thinking about the "First Spouse" situation when Hilary
looked kike she might get there; but I had a thought just now in the
opposite direction:
Given that the position of "First Lady" (or whatever...) seems to have
it's own detailed job description beyond "married to the president",
what would happen if the president was single? Who would be
tasked with all the "First Lady" responsibilities? |
|
| |
//Truthfully, I don't see why they have to have any title or function.//
yeah, ditto. Politico's seem to be quite vociforous when it comes to protecting their family from public view/scrutiny but quite keen to parade them in front of the media when it suits their purposes.
I second the m-f-d however! |
|
| |
Good point [neutrinos] about the prez being single,
but it isn’t really allowed. Everything is such
bullshit. Even all this gender crap. I’m sure getting
old because I truly have no tolerance for any of
these things!
I still wouldn’t mfd this. |
|
| |
And I never agreed with the position of * first*. |
|
| |
I think I read somewhere that the "First Lady" role was mostly an
invention by or for Eleanor Roosevelt. Does that ring true? |
|
| |
thanks for the history lesson.[a1] Part of my
misunderstanding was because I had worked for a
millionaire, state representative and when his wife
left him he was in such a hurry to find another
wife because he told me his position sort of
required that. I guess I just feel stupid to believe
him. |
|
| |