EXCERPTS:
Janet Mortenson of Houston wrote: “I would be delighted to see The Times stop using the word ‘mistress’ to describe a self-sufficient woman who is in a romantic relationship with a man.”
And Ellen Hymowitz of New York City asked if The Times “could summon up a less archaic word that didn’t demean the female by her sex or her gender.” She said that the term suggests “not just a female participant in a clandestine love affair but also that the affair is of a long-term nature and that the woman is ‘kept’ — financially supported — by the man.” .... Philip B. Corbett, an editor said,"I agree that “mistress” has a somewhat old-fashioned tone to it that isn’t ideal (though I don’t accept the argument that it necessarily implies a financial arrangement; it doesn’t. First definition from American Heritage: “A woman who has a continuing sexual relationship with a man who is married to someone else.”
*****
Missy here! I'm editing the long piece that I had posted in Pages that discusses what I think about the use of the term. Let's just say here briefly that I do not think adultery is necessary to the definition, and I do think that the Classic Mistress is Kept - or at least well cared for beyond her own earnings, but that most women who are Mistresses today do have or earn some of their own income - and should!
C2016
No comments:
Post a Comment