PDA

View Full Version : "Stepping off the reservation" and other phrases in bad taste...



Tetsutaka
28th December 2000, 15:16
This is a follow-up to the Historical Bad Taste (http://204.95.207.136/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=3635) thread.

When I was watching one of my favorite shows a few weeks back [West Wing], they used the phrase "stepping off the reservation" in dialog to denote a person's actions being outside their rightful place. Although it was in a political context, I was struck by the use of that phrase.

Does this qualify as being in really poor taste, or is this just an accepted phrase like "rule of thumb"? Should "rule of thumb", "stepping off the reservation" and other rather common terms of reference be excluded from our dialog, in defference to the horrific origins of these phrases?

I'm not being too PC, am I? ;)

All the best,

Doug Daulton
28th December 2000, 16:34
Mr. Haynes:

I've not heard "stepping off the reservation", but agree it is generally distasteful and disrespectful. I used to use "rule of thumb" all the time until a friend of mine who is a domestic violence counselor gave me the history of that phrase. For a variety of I was horrified by the implications of that simple turn of phrase.

I still refuse to use it and make a point of explaining the history to others whom I know would be equally upset if they only knew to what they were referring. Essentially, I have to know someone well before I'll "intervene".

I make this choice because I find it distasteful when someone I don't know at all chooses to tell me how to act or talk. It smacks of self-righteousness and generally galvanizes me (at least initially) against whatever position they are presenting. As a rule, I am pretty open-minded and even-keeled so I assume most people would have the same reaction if a relative stranger approached them on such an issue.

That said, I tend to trust in "six degrees of separation". If I intervene with people who are close to me and trust my intentions, I believe they will intervene with others outside my circle then they'll tell two friends and so on. As a result, the offending phrase/behavior will eventually drop from common use. Over time, we'll find better phrases to express our ideas.

Though such phrases offend, the idea of language/thought police offends even more.

::: stepping off my soapbox ::: :D

Dave Lowry
7th January 2001, 14:57
Dear Mr. Daulton,
Having stepped off the soapbox, you might want to check the soundness of the structure. Those platforms can get rickety from time to time.

The "explanation" of the saying "rule of thumb" as some kind of common or legislatively-mandated law referring to a husband's "right" to beat his wife is a hoary bit of folklore. It's been promoted in the recent past as an example of the legal and social roots of misogyny. I'm afraid the facts don't really bear that out.

The phrase is never mentioned in British law. There is no reliable evidence it was a part of common law there. It is mentioned only once in American law, in a case back in the 19th century, as a possible defence for spouse-abuse, and was rejected by the Supreme Court as having no historical legal basis.

The most extensive repudiation of this is in: Kelly, Henry. Rule of Thumb and the Folklaw of the Husband's Stick, Journal of Legal Education, Sept. 1, 1994. 341-365.

Doug Daulton
7th January 2001, 18:52
Originally posted by Dave Lowry ... The "explanation" of the saying "rule of thumb" as some kind of common or legislatively-mandated law referring to a husband's "right" to beat his wife is a hoary bit of folklore. It's been promoted in the recent past as an example of the legal and social roots of misogyny. I'm afraid the facts don't really bear that out.

The phrase is never mentioned in British law. There is no reliable evidence it was a part of common law there. It is mentioned only once in American law, in a case back in the 19th century, as a possible defence for spouse-abuse, and was rejected by the Supreme Court as having no historical legal basis.

The most extensive repudiation of this is in: Kelly, Henry. Rule of Thumb and the Folklaw of the Husband's Stick, Journal of Legal Education, Sept. 1, 1994. 341-365. Mr. Lowry,

Thanks for sharing this background information. I'll look up the reference and review it. As always you provide valuable and interesting food for thought.

As I reread my initial post, it occured to me that I may not have made clear which soapbox I was standing on. Please allow me to do so now.

While I find many phrases offensive or at the very least disrespectful/insensitive, I generally find thought-policing to be more offensive or threatening. One of the great things about America is the fact that everyone is entitled to their opinion ... even if you or I think it is offensive, ill-supported or generally inane.

As a general rule, the only time I offer any comment ("intervention" was a bad choice of words in my initial post) is when I think the person may not have all of the facts about a word or turn of phrase. Then I only share my point-of-view if I think they'd genuinely be interested in hearing it.

So on my soapbox, I was "preaching" freedom of speech, not restriction of it. I believe in intelligent discourse on issues leading to gradual, lasting change as opposed to bombastic lectures/tirades which attempt force opinons and "right-thinking" on people. In theory, being politically correct is a good thing. In practice, I think it generally masks deeper problems and delays their resolution.

In this case, I clearly did not have all of the facts and I appreciate you sharing your research with me. In the future, I suspect I'll qualify my comments on "rule of thumb" by sharing this information as well.

Take care,

MarkF
8th January 2001, 10:34
Here is a phrase which brought out a lot of piss and vinegar, during one of the Cunnningham Vs. Tolson flames, in which Don accused Tolson of being racist for saying..."The pot calling the kettle black." I won't go into the argument, believe me, but does this truly have racial overtones?

"Free Speech" is not free, in fact in can cost much more than money and even death. To blindly give anyone the ultimate right of free speech is tantamount to reversing course, to the days of slavery, Nanjing, and the holocaust. If this seems that I am going to far, remember that the incidence of the man in Jasper, Texas who was dragged to decapitation and obviously, his death, could be, and IMO, was started over this thing we call free speech.

Rant over. Thank you.:)

Mark

Ron Tisdale
8th January 2001, 17:12
." I won't go into the argument, believe me, but does this truly have racial overtones?

No, it does not (at least to what I would consider reasonable human beings). As usual, this was a case of someone going overboard (those two were known for that in their interactions with each other, I believe). Although they both have rather excellant contributions to this board.

Ron Tisdale

MarkF
10th January 2001, 09:01
I know that it doesn't, but somethings are taken to such far-reaching edges of the ego.

Hi, Ron,

If you miss what they have to say, there is always http://www.ezboard.com , by entering "budokai" you get Don, and by entering "Samurai Bujutsu," you get Richard.

Fun stuff all over.:)

Mark