Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Caryn Ann Harlos

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Oh is this forum a deliberative assembly now? I am the member of multiple societies with different cultures. It is universally considered to be rude. I consider myself to have a done a service here so that now you will now what a not insignificant number of people think of you when you do it. Allowed or it. This is not a religion. Just because RONR allows something that does not annoint it as not rude, merely allowed. Being a Karen in public is allowed too. None of us like them. Nice dog pile though. Carry on. And I and the many like-minded people I am aware of will continue to have that opinion.
  2. I don't know why if something is allowed it can't be rude. That seems to make this a religion rather than a rule book. Debating and then pulling up the ladder after you or attempting to, is rude. If I have to explain that, well we are just different, and that is okay.
  3. #sorrynotsorry I still find it extremely rude. Just becausse someone "can" do something and get away with it doesn't mean they should. That pesky minority may lie in wait to get even, and they do. Rules be damned when it comes to overriding courtesy. #alligators
  4. While the motion to suspend the rules can be combined with a debated motion, I really wish that were not the case. I find that a huge flaw in RONR and it is so often abused. In most cases I find it a supremely rude move, such as when one debates and then calls the question. The alligators are hungry (an inside joke that only Richard Brown and Alicia Percell will get)
  5. It is an outdated title. Simply repeating that such is what it has been is not relevant. Language changes. There is plenty of hard evidence on the psychological impact on girls of gendered language and it is simply common courtesy. I fail to see what is so important and what is so invested in such a simple change that one must wait a few decades. It really is astonishing, and sadly disappointing. I have said what I wish and leave this conversation realizing I am glad I don't have daughters. but what I do have is young girls who come up to me regularly telling me what they experience and feel and thanking me for being an example. You don't have to change. But you should. It is really easy for you not to be bothered by language that doesn't exclude you by definition. It is, I daresay, a privilege. One that I do not have.
  6. And though not a political forum, I do feel the need to add this. Don't let the pink hair fool you. I am not some radical feminist. I am not a feminist at all. So that is not the place I am coming from. However, it is a denial of reality to ignore the power of language, and little girls grow up keenly aware that language acts as if they don't belong in certain spheres. There is a reason we don't generally use policeman any more but rather police officer. I don't go through contortions to force everything into this (for example, I don't get all lathered up over 'mankind' though if it doesn't sound stilted, I will use humanity in its place) but when it is easy, there is really no excuse not to be inclusive. And the fact that some women have no issue with it is irrelevant. Many women do. And as a woman in leadership, I can tell you there is a great pressure to fit in with the guys, and show how "not like other girls" we are by swaggering how it doesn't bother us. If you are not a woman, you do not have this lived experience, just as I do not have the lived experience of a man with their own set of challenges that I need to be humble enough to listen to. FWIW, I also object to language that assumes that men are never caregivers or the primary caretakers of children. To me, this is about respect. This needs to change in RONR, and I guess I found one of my missions.
  7. I know, which makes it puzzling that consistency wasn't in place. What is the official style guide for the authors? I can't think of one style guide that would think such inconsistency is a good thing. Just like RONR is the guide for procedure, writing has its own guides. If it is APA, gender neutrality is now the rule, but consistency has always been paramount. The Chicago Manual of Style is not as strong on gender neutrality (but I forgive them because they recognize the superiority of the Oxford comma) but still privileges consistency. Language is fluid, and this is the future of language. Embrace it now or embrace it later, but RONR will have to eventually. There is zero excuse for using chairman. I have no issue if a man wishes to use chairman. Lovely, knock yourself out. But no one should insist that a woman should embrace it, or even worse, the abominable Madame Chairman which is a walking contradiction. It costs so little to be considerate on this point.
  8. It can be a bad thing when it alienates a group of people that really were not part of its original audience. If the intent is to be old-fashioned and stuff and proud of it, well then perhaps I am pursuing the wrong interest. There are things in the past that need to die in a fire.
  9. I brought this up at the convention a few weeks ago, but I am immensely surprised that gender neutrality was not part of the 12th edition's changes. I am not talking about even going to extreme lengths to root out any possible incidence that could be interpreted as non-neutral, but seriously, why does it cling to using "chairman" when when "chair" is perfectly serviceable? It is very jarring. And it happens not infrequently when I am asking questions of other and quoting RONR citing a provision that says "chairman" the other person inevitably says "well he should do...." when our chair is not a he, but a she. People already think RONR can be old-fashioned and stuffy. This additional barrier does not help.
  10. Can someone point me to where in RONR it says that minutes do not need to be in temporal order? I prefer them that way but every once in a while there are chaotic meetings where I think it better not to be.
  11. Yes I know - I was going to say, appeal to the rooster.
  12. Atul, I took a look at RONR on special committees and it says they are discharged when the assembly (in this case the convention) receives its final report. So even if the committee did submit a report, it has not yet been received or heard by the convention. I guess this all hinges upon the identity of the assembly. Would that be specifically only the delegates that would have been present in 2020 or any delegates at the next convention to be held? I can argue this both ways I think. Since the past committee was only charged to review one portion of the bylaws - and it was ordered by the 2019 convention - I see no harm in continuing it as there is not a barrage of proposals. But that adds another wrinkle. There was not supposed to be a Bylaws Committee for the 2020 convention as we do that every two years now, but a proviso was added in 2019 that there would be one in 2020 just to review one item. I guess it could be argued that since 2021 is the regular year for bylaws that the prior committee was in existence only because of the proviso, and the proviso is now defunct.
  13. Hi Atul, that is helpful. I do not believe a report was submitted but I need to confirm that. The committee however exists up through the convention as it presents its report to the convention and minority reports might be heard if the convention chooses. The report at six weeks has more to do with our bylaws amendment notice requirements than the existence of the committee. I fear this may be a question with no clear cut answer. TBH, I personally do not feel strongly one way or another. I appreciate your thoughts.
  14. COVID-19 has caused many problems for organizations. There is not any widespread issue. The government cancelled the convention. It happens.
  • Create New...