TheBanyanTree: Gender specific stamp purchase with USPS

[Pam James]

this was fun!  thanks for putting those words on 'paper'!!

Happy 2020!

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 3:34 PM <tobie at shpilchas.net> wrote:

> It’s Friday, January 3st, 2020
>
>
> Hello and Happy New Year to all us wildly fabulous people,
>
>         Yesterday, I was filling out a form online at the USPS (United
> States Postal Service).  I’m running low on stamps. Where one supplies
> identifying information, the boxes to fill are standard fare. First box:
> the prefix of your name. I was given a choice:
>
> Mr.
> Mrs.
> Ms.
> Miss
>
>         There may have been Dr., Rev., etc. But I forget because I was
> moved to feel sorry for Poor Little Mister.  He only gets one choice, which
> is to say, no choice at all, while we females get, Mrs., Ms. Miss as well
> as Dr., Rev, etc.  To be fair, this is not from privilege. Originally, the
> choice was either Miss or Mrs., the point being to indicate marital status.
> In other words: Lady, who is the somebody that owns you -- Your parent or
> guardian, or your husband? Somebody has to be responsible for you, dear.
> It’s not like a female is a free agent. The male of the species need not
> reveal his dependence on parent or guardian, nor his legal attachment to a
> spouse or unattachment thereof.   He is simply, "Mr.," with all the rights
> and privileges awarded at birth. Very convenient in the service of the
> wandering eye should his legal status perturb him one evening.  Women were
> also the only ones required to wear a wedding ring, the mark of the
> husband’s ownership — a bit of visible subservience. However, the wedding
> ring certainly is a sociological and anthropological advancement over the
> nose ring and chain, the shackles or the logo from the family branding iron.
>
>         In the last forty - fifty years or so, it’s become standard for
> both parties to wear a wedding ring. I remember my second husband
> complaining that he didn’t want to have to wear a wedding ring; rings
> bothered him, felt uncomfortable on his fingers.  "Okay," I agreed. "We
> won’t wear rings." That bothered him. No. I should wear a wedding ring. He
> finally gave his assent for both of us to wear a locket around our necks.
>
>         All right here, let me not lose track of my fun time online at the
> USPS stamp store.  So the form required a prefix or title to the name. I
> selected, "Ms. Tobie H.," (one is allowed only the initial for middle name)
> Shapiro. But then there was an optional box to fill in for a suffix to the
> name. The choices were:
>
> Senior (Sr.)
> Junior (Jr.), then
> II
> III
> IV.
>
>         I don’t think there was an option for V.  I thought this was a
> shabby treatment for possible suffixes. Only Senior, Junior followed by a
> few generations?
>
>         O! Ooo! This affords me a fine opportunity to entertain you with
> one of the finer discoveries resulting from a foray into the Oakland phone
> book.  This was back when phone books could be used as booster seats for
> your young tykes (Jr.? II? III? IV?) or step stool to reach the top shelf —
> especially should you live in New York City where the phone books got a
> marker on the doorpost with the rest of the kids to chart their yearly
> growth.  Another, more glorifying use of the grand old phone books, before
> the tragic arrival and dominance of the cell phone, was as a prop employed
> to demonstrate the awesome and intimidating strength of a muscle man:
>
>         Thod Guggers, the strongest man on earth, will now tear the New
> York City phone book in half with his bare hands! Drum roll, please!!
>
>         Now, in the post "smart"- phone world, phone books are getting
> thinner and thinner. They are, in fact, nothing short of puny — pamphlets.
> Not impressive at all.
>
>         Thod Guggers, Jr., son of the former strongest man on earth, will
> now tear the New York City phone brochure in half with one bare hand!!
>
>         Circling back to the star studded names I discovered in the
> Oakland phone book, long ago, when phone books were phone books and men
> were gods  —  a romp through metropolitan phone books was one of my
> favorite sources of delight.  I’ve collected the names that thrill. In this
> case, demonstrating these particular names provides more than mere
> entertainment. There is more meaty stuff here. We can contemplate the
> possible motives for slapping this name on a child. But should we also
> consider ethnic influence? Sub-cultural familial imperatives? Perhaps
> benign bad taste?  Yes.  Well.  Back in the early 1980s, I culled this
> fabulous name. I can even see it on the page — middle column, left side of
> the two page spread, about a third of the way down the page:
>
> Dr. Harold D. Puckeylowe
>
>         Poor Harold!  On the other hand, he did have that celebrated and
> respected, "Dr.," prefix before the personal problem.  But then my eyes
> caught sight of an unexpected treat. Right below Dr. Harold D. Puckeylowe
> was:
>
> Dr. Harold D. Puckeylowe, II
>
>         Yes. They did it again.
>
>         Here is my thought, the thought that sprang to mind while
> registering on the USPS site — a new suffix that really needs to be
> elevated to standard use. I will use my own name to illustrate:
>
> Ms. Tobie H. Shapiro, PTSD
>
>
>
>         Like I said  —  Happy New Year
>
>
>
> Love,
>
> Tobie
> in Berkeley, California
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At my first meeting of the faculty wives club of the University of
> California at Berkeley way back pre post feminism:
>
> Other wife looking at my name tag: Hello.  What does your husband do?
>
> I: I’m a musician.
>
> Other wife:  No.  I asked, "what does your husband do?"
>
> I:  He married a musician.
>
>
>
>
>
> Tobie Helene Shapiro
> tobie at shpilchas.net <mailto:tobie at shpilchas.net>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Want to change your name, email address, or password? Or have you
> forgotten your password? Go here:
> http://lists.remsset.com/listinfo.cgi/thebanyantree-remsset.com