Sad, sad, sad

When an ancient alleged etymology for a word keeps you from using it, despite the fact that you know the context that YOU meant it, then I feel sorry for you. You will ever be changing your choice of words, looking over your shoulders and wondering who you have offended. We need to recognize that some may choose to take what we say in a way other than that in which it was obviously intended; do we let this totally alter our choice of words?

Culturally, we need not be so thin skinned. We should be able to gently explain to those who are overly sensitive and move on from there. Don't be so anal about being so PC; you'll give yourself an ulcer over your next speech or the next word utter.

"Rule of Thumb" Wikipedia (accessed on 04-05-2008 at 10:05 p.m.)

"The earliest citation comes from Sir William Hope’s The Compleat Fencing-Master, second edition, 1692, page 157: "What he doth, he doth by rule of thumb, and not by art."[3] The term is thought to originate with wood workers who used the length of their thumbs rather than rulers for measuring things.[4]

"Caricature condemning Buller: Judge Thumb - Patent Sticks for Family Correction - Warranted Lawful!It is often claimed that the term originally referred to a law that limited the maximum thickness of a stick with which it was permissible for a man to beat his wife, but this has been fully discredited.[5] Famously, a British judge, Sir Francis Buller, was alleged to have stated that a man may legally beat his wife, provided that he used a stick no thicker than his thumb. However, it is questionable whether Buller ever made such a pronouncement and there is even less evidence that he phrased it as a "rule of thumb"; the rumoured statement was so unpopular that it caused him to be lambasted as "Judge Thumb" in a satirical James Gillray cartoon. The "rule of thumb" was referenced in at least four legal cases from 1782 to 1897, and in each of the known cases it was referred to only to state its invalidity, with one judge calling it "...a barbarous custom which modern authorities condemn."[6] "It's certainly the case that, although British common law once held that it was legal for a man to chastise his wife in moderation (whatever that meant), the 'rule of thumb' has never been the law in England."[7] In the modern period, this non-law gained popularity after feminist Del Martin wrote in 1976:

'Our law, based upon the old English common-law doctrines, explicitly permitted wife-beating for correctional purposes. However ... the common-law doctrine had been modified to allow the husband 'the right to whip his wife, provided that he used a switch no bigger than his thumb'--a rule of thumb, so to speak.'"

Violence against women may be an ancient, dirty secret, but violence against men is as old and open and ancient as history itself. The entire history of the world depicts wars, battles, and genocide where men are killed savagely by each other. Afterward, whatever women, children, and elderly are left on the losing side are either slaughtered or become chattle property.

Now this writer has a gripe about women being stuck with a stick no thicker than the diameter of a man's thumb?

Beam me up, Scottie.

If you want to think of women as property, wh*res, gold diggers, slaves, temptresses and baby factories, then religion is for you, and domestic violence will not only be your right but your obligation.

The religious mindset is one of totalitarian rule. It starts at the top, and as they say, sh-- flows downhill. Religion puts the "rule" in rule of thumb.

I recommend getting out from under the thumb of religious rule altogether. Let women be whoever they are. Let relationships be whatever they are, organically. Leave the rulers to the carpenters.

Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have codified violence against women into their holy books. Judaism and Islam did so because they were conquering the Goddess-worshipping tribes around them. Christianity picked up the rampant sexism of Judaism as well as the Roman Empire as it gained popularity.

Slavery is also codified into all three religions.

Equality,respect and kindness only and only possible in secular and contemporary state and mentality.

Good show.

The thing about terms like "Rule of Thumb" is that, even if their real origin is not the Commonly Accepted one, it still becomes a pejorative, if that is the Commonly Accepted definition. There are dozens of terms, including blatantly offensive ones, that can have "alternative meanings" or "different etymologies" assigned; usually by people who simply will not admit mistakes, or want to continue using the term.

You are right to decide not to use it. I've blundered in similar manner dozens of times, and will, most assuredly, do so again.

The issue is not never make a mistake; it is not to make the same mistake twice.