Archers thread #189: Brian reaps what he sows, in spite of himself. Discuss The Archers here.

[Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g]

Thank you, @PseudoBadger, for kicking off this long, long series of Archers threads.

All views on The Archers welcome here! New blood welcomed, and of course we are always delighted to welcome back former or occasional listeners/posters. We don't all agree on all points, although we do mostly try to be civil about it. Most of us are posting tongue in cheek a lot of the time, so don't worry about revealing that you want to hear more from Markey, or other unusual views.

Spoilers: not on this thread, please! We don't wait for the omnibus to discuss the weeknight episodes, but we do try our best to avoid cross-contamination from https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/radio_addicts/4636789-the-archers-spoilers-thread-7-cant-wait-for-702pm-join-us-here, where spoilers are positively welcomed!

For newer listeners, lurkers or those who just have no idea what we're talking about, @DadDadDad has created this useful thread: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/radio_addicts/3557323-For-Archers-fans-a-guide-to-acronyms-on-the-long-running-discussion-threads-and-any-other-meta-thread-questions-you-may-have - BOOP point for him! (See thread for explanation.)

Over to you!

Apologies. I was using gender the old fashioned (i.e. biologically correct) way

Old fashioned usage of gender was about parts of speech, not about mammals, and had very little to do with biology. The French language (for instance) has gendered nouns; English doesn't but recognised they existed.

Out of interest I've just had a look in my 1988 Chambers dicker, which offers "n. kind (obs.): a distinction of words roughly answering to sex (gram.): loosely or jocularly, sex."

1998 Collins gives "a set of two or more grammatical categories into which the nouns of certain languages are divided, sometimes but not necessarily corresponding to the sex of the referent when animate." and follows that with "any of the categories, such as masculine, feminine, neuter, or common, within a set." Only as the last point in the definition, and marked as "informal", do we reach "all the members of one sex".

I think in the past people used gender because they were squeamish about using the word sex tbh

Same way (and probably same source) as nice Americans in Boston, Mass, calling a male chicken a rooster instead of a cock, and putting cloth frills round the legs of chairs and pianos, I suspect. Only a lot more recent; it wasn't a word in common usage with the modern meaning when I was around last century. If you used it instead of sex you were taking the piss, as a rule.

My hunch is that nobody was squeamish about using the word sex when it was essentially restricted in polite society to meaning sex class, e.g. the fairest of her sex. Once it started to be acceptable to talk about sexual behaviour using the umbrella word 'sex' as shorthand for sexual intercourse, people started using gender to mean sex class to avoid sniggering and so forth.

'Gender' was still regarded as a prissy arms-length word, and 'sex' as correct and usual into the 2000s.

"Gender" in the context of sex still is regarded as absurd prissy nonsense by some (raises hand). I blame the WHO (World Health Organisation) which proclaims:

Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time.

Or, you know, gendered languages. 😉

Oh dear, it looks like Kenton is going to do something stupid.

It is disappointing as the SW had a golden opportunity to put him into witness protection so we never had to hear from him again. I really don’t think I can listen to any more of him.

We have yet to see someone going to court to try to prove that gender has more bearing than sex, either in women's cricket or in women's soccer at the highest level. I hope that stays the case.

Oh God- please don’t let this glorious thread turn into a discussion board on sex/gender issues…

I’m disappointed the Markey SL continues to limp on. I was hoping it would quietly fizzle out.

I'm worried about George being overheard on the phone grassing up Marky (ridiculous name for a villain) and his mate. Are Amber's teeth meant to be a distraction? I don't find this draaama gripping at all - I want to get back to some real Ambridge drama such as Natasha and Tom sharing their new house with Helen and the boys.

Hear hear! I've already had to contemplate leaving the Sewing Bee thread.

I would love to hear more about the house share too but I think something will go wrong with Amber's teeth.

I don't know why the hell Fallon didn't just pass back the message telling George that if he really wanted to help he should pass his information on to the police. The reality is that he wants to deal with Fallon direct because he wants her to have to thank him direct and he still has the hots for her, despite Amber.

Did anyone listen to last week's podcast? I felt a golden opportunity was wasted. Given that they had the actors for Pip and David on, it would have been interesting to explore the fact that, despite Pip being the golden child so far as her parents are concerned, she is possibly the most disliked of the regular characters amongst the Archers audience.

Are Amber's teeth meant to be a distraction?

I am not David Attenborough, but I think the way it works is that the teeth dazzle her prey briefly, enabling her to get close enough to disembowel it with her fearsome acrylics.

😂😂😂

Oh God- please don’t let this glorious thread turn into a discussion board on sex/gender issues…

I'd rather discussion wasn't policed. I find quite a lot of things discussed on this thread tedious but just scroll on by.

I was thinking about Pip the other day and decided I don't like her because she is utterly solipsistic in the same way that Helen is, only Helen has a bit more of a hinterland to make her interesting. Pip is self-centred and dull.

I'm exceptionally fed up with the Markie storyline. Is it a clunky method of getting Kenton and Jolene to retire and hand the keys to the pub over to Fallon?

As for Amber's teeth; I'm not sure that dentistry really works on the radio.

I like "new - possibly 2 decades younger" Martyn, but I really wish Lawrence would go back to whichever village he comes from. When does the cricket season finish?

I really hate Brian when he sets out to be ingratiating. He’s so damn sly.

Poor Adam will soon find himself sacked from Bridge Farm - probably on the very day he hears Brian has gifted the management of Home Farm to Alice.

Agree with this - why is Brian not pestering Alice to do the paperwork? Oh of course, she's already got a job, plus a child to look after - um, well, wait a minute.....

Feh! to the very idea of "poor Adam"! Pat is rarely reasonable these days - not that she ever was, particularly - but she's dead right to be giving Adam an earful. He does sound enormously unreliable, not to mention lazy. I imagine his lettuce-picking speed is such that even the slowest slugs are ahead of him.

His behaviour at work reminds me of the fainting heroines in a Victorian novel.

Still, it’s not nice to hear Brian using that wheedling, chummy tone with him. It’s downright dishonest.

I'm probably way off track, but I don't think the issues at the Bull are actually down to Marky and co. You know a while back when Eddie put them in for the pub of the year or whatever it was? There was talk of one of the competition being rough as. Bet it's them trying to nobble the opposition.

My very Liverpudlian granny used to explode whenever Shirley Valentine did that "Chips and egg" thing. Apparently "No Scouser has ever said that." And I've never heard it in Liverpool.

Anyway, you've probably forgotten that you asked this question over a week ago but I needed to set the record straight.