I've always thought it a bit strange when 'you guys' was used to address a group of women, but I used to blame it on English not being my mother tongue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As a male person who sometimes uses "guys" as a generic term, I appreciate that it does tend to promote masculine terminology as a default mode of speaking. So, thanks for bringing up an important point.

But I must take issue with the notion that the opposite of "guys" is "girls." Not so. The proper term is "gals," since the opposite of "girls" is, of course, "boys." Arguably a silly distinction, but a correct one nonetheless.

And I have no problem with being referred to as "one of the gals" (or "girls"), which has happened on occassion. I take it as a compliment.

Again, thanks for your reasoned remarks.

Rodger French

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

i've always preferred the word "yous".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good gawd. Does AlterNet post stuff like this just to set up the rabid anti-women-ites? This shit is what gives "feminism" a bad name. Watch the comments fly.

I believe it is more a regional thing. I grew up in the midwest and we ALL called everyone "you guys." Down south, you get "you all," or rather, "y'all." Out west you get both, because it seems no one is from here originally.

But, I have never in my 40-some-odd years, heard anyone object - except perhaps my ancient, sixth-grade English and grammar teacher, who always corrected everything we said anyway.

I'd also venture to guess it's a race-related thing. I don't hear too many blacks calling girls "guys" either.

Regardless, I think it's a ridiculous thing to get bent out of shape about. Back in the midwest, we called rubber-bands "binders" too. It's a quirky regional colloquilalism - nothing more.

When women STILL make 70 cents to every dollar a man does, when poor women can't get access to birth control but Viagra sales flourish, when domestic violence is the cause of 30% of all homicides - as it was in my city last year...

going on about this, is just going way too far.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Each word in a language is significant, and there's plenty of words in the English language (if it exists as a natural communication strategy any more?) Gotta pick battles, it seems. There's lots of great words out there and in use among us - like for instance 'tyranny', 'despotism', 'militarism', (lots of '-isms'!), 'hunger', 'homeless'. And then there's 'guys', 'gals' and 'apathy'...

Can this be what femin-ism has come to? That's a whole lot of struggle (another great word!) for quite a few goals. Maybe a bit of energy elsewhere? This guy thinks it may be worthwhile.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So some men are "poised to pounce" too? Personally, it all depends on how good the food is. That's why a good cook doesn't have to live on tips.

I think it is up to those who wish to have their sensitivities respected to ask whoever might speak the sound to ask them to please spell it out. Or even better, just ask whether it is one word or two; that makes it simpler.

While this article did not offer a history of experience, my personal expectation of an adept (so, is "attendant" generic?) is that he/she (and does it matter in the case of youguys which it is?) will charm you right out of a bigger tip.

How about, "I am sorry, big daddy, but you are so good looking that you took my breath away" in the case of a waitress (or maybe a gay waiter). And for a waiter, maybe, "With such a plethora of pulchritude present, I felt sure there'd be not the least doubt about that."

Do some women still object to "ladies and gentlemen"? Or am I dating myself as old school? I do know women who object when writers delibertely sprinkle the femine "she" in their work as the generic. It gets a bit comic sometimes, usually. Always?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

After 40 years of feminism, is this the epitome of all it has achieved? What actually DID feminish achieve, besides a lot of male bashing, whinging and unhappy people.
Germain Greer what did you really achieve, besides being well suited to the term 'guy'?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes.

But it's only a symptom of the patriarchy's dominance, not the cause. Making it a phrase that personally I would be unlikely to use (not to mention that it would sound ludicrous in my accent), but also not one I'm going to bother getting all het up about.

Agree with Madam Hatter above - and, indeed, from TassieDevil's moronic comment above, she would appear to be right that this article will do little but unleash the haters. What has feminism (or feminish, if you prefer) achieved? Just as a start, and it goes back quite a lot longer than 40 years, by the way:

1. equal pay for equal work (a right, even if we don't always get it)
2. rape within marriage is now a crime
3. the vote
4. the right to initiate divorce
5. the right to own property
6. abortion rights
7. increased social acceptance of the right to choose one's own path in life
8. equal access to most careers (progress still to be made, but improvement clearly visible)

There are plenty more, but I'd definitely like to hang on to this lot at least, please.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Forget about "you guys". Just say, "y`all"!!! It sounds a lot cooler anyway!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I remember (quite a few years ago) when I was first called "dude" by another female. I was perplexed. I've been compared quite often to a younger Kim Basinger, and didn't think I could be mistaken for a male. I told a friend who said "you idiot, 'dude' could be male or female". I still think of it as male; but I refer to females as "you guys" all the time; and even as "dude" now and then. Just like everyone is now an "actor" instead of using "actress" for females. It simplifies, that's all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We've been through this, with 'chicks' and 'my old lady' which were 60s terms. Ultimately I think such language does matter, though I hardly consider 'bitch' and 'ho' as better.

My late Dad and my Mom, both Dems, found 'you guys' irritating. My Mom didn't like being called a guy. Yet I use it commonly among friends (along with 'youse guys' and 'youse mooks').

Bottom line: it's unprofessional. All people in sales should seek inoffensive words that display respect and a sensitivity, particularly to elders who often resist change.

Is it sexist? It seems more unisex to me, in its intent. I never say 'mankind' but I do say 'you guys', informally, among friends. Except in professional situations, it seems okay to me, but if one of my friends objected, I'd avoid it. I think respect for peoples' preferences is the key.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Personally, my dear, I don't give a damn."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The word is not necessary when used by a waiter. "What would you like" is just as clear as "What would you guys like". Unlike French, the English language does not have seperate words for the singular and plural of "You".

Having said this, I resorted to the Oxford English Dictionary, which gives:

guy1

• noun 1 informal a man. 2 (guys) N. Amer. informal people of either sex. 3 Brit. a figure representing the Catholic conspirator Guy Fawkes, burnt on a bonfire on 5 November to commemorate a plot to blow up Parliament in 1605.

This would indicate that in North America it is OK to use "Guys" for a mixed party.

I will not start using "Guys" to address a mixed group, but maybe that's just a "Guy thing" :-).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It occured to me as I finished my "As the Man Said" comment, that I have never heard anyone say, as a prelude to some profundity, "As the Woman Said..." Have I opened another can of worms here?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wow. It's so wonderful to hear that there are no REAL issues left to deal with. Sheesh. I'm old enough to remember a similar outcry against 'man' and 'mankind'. I didn't care then, I don't care now. I'm not defined by other people's language choices.

'You guys' is a Midwest colloquialism, just like 'y'all' in the South. It's not offensive, except to people looking to be offended.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I like when diner waitresses call me "honey". The diner experience wouldn't be the same otherwise.

Your dad may get away with talking back to those cutsie little Friday's waitresses...Try it on a diner waitress, and his face will have the imprint of a waffle iron, and a bottle of maple syrup to top it off...if he's lucky.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I work in an office full of professioals, male and female. In deference I call them what they need to be called: kids.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Guys" is masculine or neutral depending on the geographcal region. This is not to say the discussion is pointless - it certainly is not - but the discussion certainly should include this fact. Actually, that would make the discussion more interesting.

Stone Riley
www.stoneriley.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I propose a solution to all this identity politicking be we all let the phrase "you idiots" mean "you all." So "Can I get you idiots something to drink?" or "Hey, why don't you idiots follow me?" Idiot is gender neutral, and seems to be more fitting of our character.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Shaking my head here as a woman who considers herself a rational feminist. When I was teaching at a University, I regularly said "you guys" and would then say "which you guys better realize includes both men and women in here." Maybe it is a Midwest thing as someone mentioned earlier. Maybe it just rolls off the tongue smoothly. I also have called my female friends "dude." I'm in a completely male-dominated profession now (mining) and I'm used to hearing people saying "alright guys, that includes you Julie." Rather than get all worked up, I just laugh it off and realize that most people don't have these ill intentions and we gotta' learn to cut people some slack already. If it's truly negative, it'll work it's way out of conversation. It just amazes me that this is even a discussed thing on blogs. Sigh.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The article on guys has struck my pet peeve. I am NOT a guy. I do NOT appreciate being lumped in w/a male term and using that as a generic term makes wimmin just plain disappear! Just like actress has been dropped and the generic term actor (which has historically denoted male) is being used. Is the patriarchy so anxious to rid itself of ALL females that it is using language to do so? I can guarantee, as stated in the article, that if you walked up to a table full of men and called them gals, you'd get some pretty hot replies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This verbage was a discussion about 15 years ago when I was training at the local Women's Shelter. Since I am a guy (def.1) I remained largely silent because the guys (def. 2) of a different gender had me outnumbered.
However, since then, I have substituted the word folks in my conversation. With some gentle prodding I encourage other folks to do this too.
My fear is this; that someday I may refer to a human whose face and clothing is in a fight to see which can hold more safety pins as a folk: consequently getting smashed over the head with a guitar while epithets about Arlo Guthrie spew forth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We have an excellent word to use as a plural of "you" -- "y'all." Loosely translated, it means "you all." (Paul the Apostle used it quite frequently.) I too find it grating to hear someone say "guys" when there are ladies present (although generally I tell women, "I would say 'Ladies First' except I don't know you that well," and they usually smile). I had a sixth grade teacher who said, "Don't call a fellow a 'guy' unless that's his name." But I know people who think that when the kindergarten teacher says, "Okay, boys and girls, line up, boys on the left, girls on the right" for restroom break, she and/or he is being sexist. To my primitive testosteronal mind, it would only be sexist if the teacher said, "Okay, girls who will make 75% of what the boys will make over their lifetime and outlive the boys by an average of 7.5 years on the right, and boys who will be the cause of 89% of domestic violence and 95% of sexual abuse on the left" or something along those lines.

However, I don't usually lecture waiters because most of them are so young they don't know any better. "You" is perfectly acceptable as either singular or plural, and I don't know why anyone would ever say anything other than, "May I take your order?" if it's a restaurant. The "chatty" approach has never made me feel more welcome. The waiters with whom I am friends, and there are many, call me "David," and that suits me just fine. I never listen to or watch Bill O'Reilly, I majored in English, and I have no desire when I talk to sound like the people on Seinfeld or Friends, as funny as they were, or to sound like I'm from anywhere but here. For better or for worse, I'm a Texan; we will just have to deal with it as best as we can.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Just because there's a war in Iraq, does that mean that the divorce someone is going through is any less real or painful?... Or perhaps a better example: Just because slapping a woman isn't as serious as raping her, does that mean we should ignore the former?"
What a cheap and preemptive shot at anyone who dares to disagree with your use of good band-with on such a meaningless article! And how disrespectful to anyone who has been through, or is going through domestic violence and or rape! You really ought to be ashamed of yourself!!!
There is absolutely no comparison between the use of the term 'you guys' as gender-neutral and domestic violence or rape!
Niether is there much of a comparison between the terms 'mankind' and 'you guys'. Lanuguage evolves, it always has and it always will. If it didn't I'd be writing this in the style of William Shakespere.
The term 'you guys' has evolved from the term 'guys and gals' (gals evolved from girls, just to be clear) and IS generic.
Mankind as a term was coined in an exclusively male dominated environment and as such represents the exclusion of women from anything considered spesifically human.
In other words, the term 'mankind' dismisses women as unimportant and insignificant. The term 'you guys' does no such thing.

Maybe you'd be better of writing for some womens magazine rather than, the usually well respected, AlterNet. There IS a place for articles like this. Here is not that place. Alternet editors, please take note.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's my understanding, learned from female actors of my acquaintance, that many female actors prefer what is to their ears the gender-free "actor." This is based on the assumption that the "-ess" ending tends to diminish the work of the person performing the work.

The analogy is with "poet" and "poetess." Whose poem are you more likely to think of as lasting through the ages?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The really perplexing problem caused by greater gender awareness comes from pronouns. Back in the day, we were told that "his" and "he" were the generic terms for human (and, boy, doesn't that have deeper meaning!). Thus, the correct way to write a sentence using everyone, anyone, everybody, or anybody was like this: "Everyone must have his turn." When feminists finally made writers aware of gender discrimination, many writers and speakers shifted to the use of the "their" as in "Everyone must have their turn." That, of course, upset English teachers who, rightly, pointed out that "everyone" is singular, but "their" is plural. One solution offered was to edit the sentence to an awkward, "Everyone must have his or her turn." Others edited that type of sentence to a smoother, "Everyone must have a turn." But, hey, you guys, English majors have to earn a living. Thanks, Alternet and Alternet readers, for a pleasant distraction from the on- going and impending disasters that are today's reality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"You guys" is just the yankee version of "ya'll" (People in Hawaii for some odd reason also use "you guys" as opposed to "ya'll"). So I think all the "Huwomen" out there should relax.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I hear this term ALL over. So it's not just regional and even if it were, that doesn't make it okay. If sexual harassment or "men's only" bars existed only in the Pacific northwest, would they be acceptable JUST because they're regional? I don't think so.

Also, please stop dismissing the effort to create inclusive language as some trivial issue, that there are more important things to worry about. Nearly all of the feminists I know who care enough about women to object to sexist language ALSO work on a lot of other issues (repro. rights, sexual violence, etc.). Changing our language is something we can do fairly easily. It is easier to change our vocab than stop the wage gap tomorrow. Eradicating sexist language is one component of the larger feminist movement. And an important one.

Sociologist Laurel Richardson has demonstrated that when we use "you guys," and "chairman," "freshman," "mailman," and other sexist phrases, people almost always picture a male silhouette in their heads. If we're only thinking about men, this will have an effect on the choices we make. I believe linguists call these sexist phrases "linguistic annihilation" b/c we're erasing an entire segment of the population with our speech.

Would you cringe at "you whiteys" or "chairwhite" or "freshwhite" to refer to both people of color and white people? Do you think people of color would feel included? I don't think so. So let's please not let gender and sexism fall by the wayside.

There are so many choices "you" "you all" "you folks" "everyone" "y'all"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It just sort of slipped into the language. But when I hear a woman say "c'mon guys" and then see 3 pretty little girls behind her, it sounds stupid. I guess she's trying to be a cool mom. Somehow it doesn't work at all for adults. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yet another hard hitting article on feminism and women's rights by Alternet...

What should we talk about?

The ignored murders in Juarez?

Maquiadoras who work in the one pair of shoes they can afford while their children sit outside the factory waiting for them (thanks, NAFTA!)?

Sex tourism?

HPV imunizations?

No.... lets talk about whether or not "guys" can refer to women. After all... thats the only one of those (outside of HPV) that actually affects American (read: white middle and upper middle class) women.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Words have meanings and how they are used give them that meaning. So "guys" or "you guys" as a reference in her original post..... is OK.... It is a correct use of the term and anyone who does not see that or agree with that usage in those kind of cases should "just get a life"..... The usage has changed, just as the homosexual- lesbian crowd has changed the use of "gay", so in lots of cases how a word is used, tone, infection, etc. is far more important then the word and its originial meaning.......

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Restaurants should be adding "thin skin" to their menues! It would appear that there a faction of the general public that thrives on it. Whinning does not nourish or sustain life ( if one has one ).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

one hears today. Of course, language does change (much to my chagrin) but we shouldn't use that as an excuse to be incorrect in grammar, gender, and word choice. Frankly, I was amazed, during a recent legal probate issue I was involved in, when one of the bankers used the proper term "executrix" instead of "executor" in reference to the person who had the legal responsibility for handling the affairs of the deceased estate who was female.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the person who uses a word aloud is not the only one who gets to define it. by using it (other than in your head) you open it to another person, the one who hears or reads it.

when living outside your head there are other people around, looking solely at your own intention in a word is ego arrogance. If someone tells you they find a phrase problematic, a word ending in "-ist", they mean it, and you can do whatever you like with that information. Do ya think it's all about you ? Really ? Are you really that misunderstood, are they really so concerned with you that they are out-to-get-you ?

I find the subtitle of this article more annoying than the use of guys as gender neutral. Has feminism gone too far ? pffft... You gotta be kidding.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We have an excellent word to use as a plural of "you" -- "y'all." Loosely translated, it means "all of you." I too find it very grating to hear someone say "guys" when there are ladies present (although sometimes I tell women, "I would say 'Ladies First' except I don't know you that well," and they sometimes smile).

But I know people who think that when the kindergarten teacher says, "Okay, boys and girls, line up, boys on the left, girls on the right" for restroom break, she and/or he is being sexist. To my primitive testosteronal mind, it would only be sexist if the teacher said, "Okay, girls who will make 75% of what the boys will make over their lifetime and outlive the boys by an average of 7.5 years on the right, and boys who will be the cause of 89% of domestic violence and 95% of sexual abuse on the left" or something along those lines.

Our local talk radio has at least one show a year where people call in to complain abt men opening doors or men not opening doors. At the university I attended, everyone opened doors for everyone else, and it wasn't until years later that I realized that some of them were gay. Sometimes when I open a door for a woman I tell her, "I was going to slam the door in your face, but I changed my mind." If they say anything, it's usually, "Thank you." Some of us try to be polite here.

However, I don't usually lecture waiters because most of them are so young they don't know any better, many are immigrants from other states, and almost all are underpaid and overworked. I don't know why anyone would ever say anything other than, "May I take your order, please?" if it's a restaurant. The "chatty" approach has never made me feel more welcome. The waiters with whom I am friends, and there are many, call me "David," and that suits me just fine.

I never listen to or watch Bill O'Reilly or others of his ilk, I majored in English, and I have no desire when I talk to sound like the people on Seinfeld or Friends, as funny as those shows were. Vive la différence. I'm a native and resident of the Lone Star State but try not to act like a total idiot all of the time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Really. I heard a similar argument about the usage of "guy" or "guys" or "you guys" as a neuter pronoun about thirty years ago.

Since English never evolved neuter pronouns, English speakers and writers devised work-arounds, traditionally using the masculine pronoun "he" when the situation called for, or demanded, a singular neuter pronoun. This "rule" drives feminists mad! Therefore we have now devised the clumsy construction"he/she" which stands for the neuter singluar pronoun.

Nor did English ever evolve a second-person plural pronoun. We only have "you" which does double duty, at least in formal speech and writing. The work-around we American-English speakers have come up with for the lack of a second-person pronoun is, one, the Southern dialectic "y'all," or the New York-Northern New Jersey dialectic "youse," both of which are grating to the ears of Standard English speakers. Furthermore, both "y'all" and "youse" are loaded with socio-economic negative connotations, prejudices of long standing and are not likely to make it into the standard lexicon anytime soon.

I have no idea when the second-person plural consturction "you guys" entered everyday spoken American-English. However, by usage and custom it is commonly understood by most informal speakers to be neutral in gender. Perhaps, some day if the language is allowed to evolve in peace without the interference of thought-police, then the construction will be legitimized and become part of the standard lexicon and accepted grammer.

The only one seeming to have a problem with this everyday, informal construction is the writer of this article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Guys already means "everyone in the group" regardless of gender ....same as saying "mankind" instead of human-kind.

I'm much more concerned about girls being referred to as "bitches" and "ho's."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am a father with two daughter living overseas. In the language of my (now) home, words-associations have gender. I agree with the Father, and I will (maybe already have) quote him; "there is only one guy here!"

There is nothing wrong with generic phrases, but I think grouping everyone as 'guys' is lazy. Yawl, is a great word, and I thank my southern USA co-patriots for that word, which is more appropriate than 'guys' -- and sounds more friendly too!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Okay, I won't use the word or term anymore.

And I'm southern and really comfortable with using "you all, y'all and you folks" but I gotta say none of those terms say what "you guys" says (for me).

"You all, y'all and you folks" are softer terms. "You guys" has a more distant feel (to me). When I use it in a friendly way, it has a subtle teasing meaning - as in affectionately chastizing.

Maybe it's just my southern twist on the language. I'd love to hear some other possible substitutes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lighten up a little. Coming from a midwest heritage, use of the word "guy" became a habit for me. I have two children, daughters, and since they were small, they'd laugh and say, "hey, mom, you called us guys!" As they got a little older, they'd laugh and say "We're not guys." It made me conscious that if little children pick up the gender specific meaning, it's there. Why do we use terms like "it's a 'guy' thing" and why are there so many book titles that are "Guy" specific? I actually cringe MORE at the use of the term 'girl' because it strikes me as a diminutive that's not respectful. I'll admit, I do try to clean up my own language (e.g., God is not "HE") because I think it really does make a psychological difference. But you know, writers have to make a living, and a little bit of consciousness-raising (how's that for a 30 year old term?) isn't bad for us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've never really found the term "you guys" offensive, and I admit, I use it a lot... but while reading this and some of the comments, I though of something that no one has addressed. (I'm sorry if this has already been mentioned, I didn't see it.) In other languages like Spanish and Italian, when you address a mixed group of people, you always use the masculine form. Maybe this is an issue for feminists as well, I'm not sure, but I though I'd throw it out there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is sometimes very difficult to make our language politically correct. In addition to "guys" I think of what we tell our high school girls' basketball team when we want to shift from a zone defense to a .......? It has always been "man-to-man" (or actually A"boy-to-boy") but does this fit when we have girls (women) playing? The coach who tries a "woman-to-woman defense" gets strange looks. Not everything needs to be interpreted as sexist when we don't play by feminist politically correct language.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the individual to whom you are speaking.

Call that person what that person likes to be called.

Even "God" preferred to be called ... no name at all

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The discussion here has served to remind this geezer of his 1950s drill-instructor's solution: people. As, "You people, knock it off!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My mom's trigger was "kids". Kids, she always said, are baby goats. Child or children refer to young humans/people.

I have argued with friends over "guys". I use it interchangeably, and some of my female friends get insulted. I use it anyway. :)

mer

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Until someone comes up with some good gender neutral words we'll be having this discussion. (Not much of an argument for or against it, but it is something that comes up time to time.) I have on occaision called a group of women "guys" as a friendly term, but it does feel strange in that context - at least when it's a mixed group it doesn't feel so wierd.

I think the article sums it up best in this paragraph:
'Even if the majority of people really have thought deeply about this issue and still maintain that "you guys" is gender-neutral, why are generic words always male? I have a hard time seeing any difference between "guys" and words like "mankind" or "Congressman." At one time, those words, too, were considered generic. But now we know they're not -- they're laden with meaning. They make women invisible by reinforcing the idea that men are the norm against which women are compared.'

That last sentence is the key. It's a subconcious distinction, but probably one with a little bit of merit. I'm not going to loose any sleep over calling women "guys", but it would be nice if a better word was to evolve within our language.

"You all", "y'all", "youse" and the like have stereotypes associated with them today. And I just can't say y'all without a cringe for some reason - probably my midwestern upbringing. Hopefully in 50 years y'all or something like it becomes a norm and then finally American English will have a gender neutral reference term.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I first encountered "guys" as female back in 1972 when I moved to Canada. The speaker was congratulating a young girl's sports team, including the phrase "and they played exceptionally well, especially for such little guys". It was there I discovered I was well behind the times in gender-inclusive terminology. After that, I heard that usage on a rather consistent basis.

Six years later, back in the US, I found it slowly catching on "south of the line". However, I would disagree with some posters that the opposite of guy is girl - it is gal, something that has almost totally faded from use as guy becomes gender neutral.

Paul Cardwell

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...is not a 'feminist' issue. It's a language issue and only demonstrates how & what we all know and that is that the male gender trumps the female. In Spanish if one male enters a room of females it is expected that the male gender will dominate as the 'inclusive' gender. That's the bottom line, it's always assumed that the words man, men, guys etc are inclusive terms and the female aren't and so the discourse follows that 'man's' interests are therefore the inclusive interests of everyone.

The fact that the writer thinks this is a 'feminist' issue just goes to demonstrate her superior lack of depth or understanding of what feminism is and shows that she's more in line with the status quo than anything radical.

Yeah, articles like these only bring out the misogynists at Alternet. Maybe the GUYS in charge of this place ought to find the authentically qualified & informed feminists to write for you and send these others out into the real world or at least back to the library with a long list of reading materials to look for.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Gentlemen and bitches", or
"Fuckheads and ladies", or sometimes just

Shut The Fuck Up!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is it the fault of the word poet or poetess, or is it the fault of social conditioning and education that female poets, writers, musicians, scholars and the like are celebrated less than their male counterparts because of their sex? Men and women can celebrate beauty and speak the truth equally.

I think the word poetess has a beautiful ring to it. So there. I also prefer the word actress. What are we going to call a Baroness now, a Baronet? Ridiculous. Should we now call a Princess a Prince?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IS THERE SOMETHING WRONG WITH SAYING "YOU WHITEYS?" I THINK SO. USING "YOU GUYS" IS NO DIFFERENT.

SO IS THE "JUST" A TRIVIAL LANGUAGE ISSUE? I DON'T THINK SO.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

English is a snap. The French language has specific masculine and feminine words in the thousands. Have fun memorizing all of them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wow, if we needed proof that this IS a big issue we need only look at the all the protests here.

Is this is as trivial as you all say it is, then why all the fuss? If it's no big deal, then just swtich from "you guys" to "you all" rather than putting up obnoxious protests.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I agree with author and only because the gender-opposite of guys is "gals" and when "gals" is used on a group of men (see the movie 'The Departed' for a sampling) it is used as a putdown. Unless you're addressing a bunch of gay men who are thrilled to bits (usually - please don't flame me).
In Ireland we always used the term "ye' for plural and I still prefer it. Completely gender neutral but it fell out of use on this side of the Atlantic, a shame.
When I address large groups I always say "people". I dropped 'folks' when the Bushlet used it so folksily for collateral damage victims, friendly fire victims and terrorists equally.
Words are very important. I was offended recently when someone referred to a famous Jewish woman from Dublin as a "Jewess". Ew. I like servers as the new term in restaurants and flight attendants, we've come a long way, people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I know, this is going to be completely off topic, but I simply could not resist!

Anyone have a decent explenation for this?

BBC reports WTC7 Collapse - 20 minutes before it happened

and:

BBC WTC7 collapse report with timestamp

If there was ever any proof that something isn't quite right - this is it!

Spread the word.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about if you are asking a group if something belong to them?

"Is this your guyses?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It sounds pretty strange when you're watching a women's hockey match and hear the announcer (a female no less) describe the action of the player as 'manning the puck', or
having 'a two-man advantage'. She couldn't say 'two-woman advantage'? Why not? One syllable too long? Worse, all of these female players refer to themselves as 'guys'. The main goal of Feminism was about institutionalizing equal rights, equal pay and equal opportunity for all, not about girls or women feeling obliged to call each other guys. Blame it on the Radical Feminists, the majority of whom were Lesbian, plain old men haters, or both.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You have it exactly backwards when you assert that the number who believe the term "guys" is gendered is growing. I am past 3/4 century in age and it has always been gendered, meaning that it referred to men (or boys). What is growing is the use as a non-gendered reference to either men or women. The notion that gendered use of guys indicates a devaluation of women is, to be generous, nonsense. How soon may we expect to see references to women's penises?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good for your father. Language is powerful. Girls and boys form images to go with words. So, if you raise a society of children with the notion that "guys" is neutral or "the basic element of being human" it hearkens back to the sexist notion that we are all "mankind."

The problem with this is that more than half the population is not male. Therefore, the women and girls are, from an early age, forming pictures that they are "other" or "less than." The boys are forming pictures that they are the "overall" gender and girls are an adjunct.

Words need to be chosen carefully. If one thinks that language is loose than one needs to look back at the civil rights movement with the numerous signs that were held up in protest marches that declared "I Am A Man." The demeaning use of the term "boy" to was derogatory. And, so is the term "guys" if used to refer to all of humanity.

A quote from a great article by Carolyn Kernberger on gender discrimination in language:

"As a result, both boys and girls suffer. Boys, because their worldview does not embrace the equanimity of the genders. And girls because, living as they do in an ocean of sexist language, they must continually perform mental sidestepping routines to identify with the hypothetical he that defines the world around them. According to one group of researchers, girls are at a distinct disadvantage in understanding abstract concepts simply because academic ideas in our society are discussed with masculine references."

The article is entitled:

The goldfish might be a she! Sexist language reinforces gender discrimination in insidious ways and limits the development of both boys and girls"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

By defintion from dictionary.com. Notice number 2. Informal
Top Web Results for "guys" informal refernce to person's of EITHER sex. Other of the definitions for "Guy" have negative denotations and are of British meaning, however if someone call's me guy I don't think they are making fun of the way I am dressed (definition #3). Look up "Man" on dictionary.com there are 30 definitions and not one mention the inclusion of both sexes. So basically the argument here is that feminists wish to change the definitions of established words. Language is an ever evolving entity, that's why science uses latin, a dead language, so that the meaning of words never change. When dealing with popular (and noted INFORMAL) language meanings of words are often construed from their original meanings. Get over it. Words are that JUST WORDS. Some people choose to use words that may have negative connotations to you but may have positive connotations to them (i.e. "My dogs"). You could go through the English language and cross out many words that have both positive and negative meanings. Perhaps if Guys (informal for both sexes) was spelled differently then there would be no confusion.

I leave you with one final thought. I was sitting at a bar talking to this British girl the other night and she asked me if I wanted to go outside to smoke a fag. I knew she meant cigarette, but I explained to her that fag was a derogatory word for a homosexual man in America. She really meant no harm and didn't realize what she was saying, but that statement could easily be misconstrued.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
guy1 [gahy] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, guyed, guy·ing.
–noun
1. Informal. a man or boy; fellow: He's a nice guy.
2. Usually, guys. Informal. persons of either sex; people: Could one of you guys help me with this?
3. Chiefly British Slang. a grotesquely dressed person.
4. (often initial capital letter) British. a grotesque effigy of Guy Fawkes that is paraded through the streets and burned on Guy Fawkes Day.
–verb (used with object)
5. to jeer at or make fun of; ridicule.
—Idiom
6. give the guy to, British Slang. to escape from (someone); give (someone) the slip.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Check out the comment in DameNation today. Guys, as a gender neutral term, is still better than girls.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And that is why the word "ya'll" was invented (as Molly Ivins might have said).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...then why is it that men throw a fit if you refer to them as "girls/gals". It isn't seen as strange or deviant or "woman-hating" for guys to dislike being addressed as "you girls/gals", so why is it seen as deviant, strange and/or "man-hating" that many women don't like being referred to as "you guys"?? If, as many of you posters claim, this is a total non-issue and the gender of pronouns is unimportant, then in logically follows that it should cut both ways. If it doesn't, then I would venture to say that it is indeed an issue.

And not to sound "man-hating" or anything, but why should the "guys" be allowed their sensitivity to being called "you girls/guys" and women are considered feminazis/man-haters/drama queens, etc, etc if they don't like being referred to as "you guys". Smacks of a double-standard to me....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Now that I'm 63 I get the "ladies" treatment in restaurants all the time. I hear the damn word over and over again every time the server shows up at the table until I ask her/him to stop it.

I am so sick of it and I never hear "gentlemen, gentlemen, etc." every time a server approaches a table to men. I guess they don't need a special designation -- THEY ARE JUST PEOPLE.

Well, I would like the same designation. I am simply a person and do not need some ridiculous label every time I am approached.

ps My children think I should stop complaining.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am a union steward in a workplace that is over 90% women, and I often catch myself refering to groups compleatly made up of women as "you guys".

In fact I did it earlier today.

I have been trying to replace it with "you all" but it isn't easy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As far as I am concerned, a word means only what people use it to mean. An argument over semantics is always a silly thing and a complete waste of energy.

Sure, I understand the root meanings of words. I know that culturally America has it's origins in Patriarch culture, and so word usage will take on a primary patriarch form. But as any linguist should know, the origins of the word are not the most important.

For example, Mortified. In it's root, it literally means "to deaden" and in the past someone would use it to mean they are in grief to the point they are like the dead. But now that meaning is not even in the dictionary. According to dictionary.com, it means "to humiliate or shame, as by injury to one's pride or self-respect." (as the only meaning that does not literally apply to death) In fact, one women in recent times in grief over her dead father used it in that way, to mean she was shaken up over it and like the dead, and everyone around her was puzzled, and asked, "Why are you ashamed?"

No one is going to argue over the semantics of Mortified, because the people as a whole chose over time how to use it. Some may choose to use it in different ways, but general usage is the rule that defines it.

But let us suppose everyone made a big fuss over the term "guys" - over time it would of course change in meaning. Does that mean that it will change anything? Well, yes, if you count making people feel awkward for using it as it once was used. But it will have no impact on "women's rights"

On the contrary, I feel that feminism has gone too far in a number of ways already. When I was in high school, for example, in Gym. I remember the women being treated better than the men. There were a number of women who were in better physical shape than most of the men, but no woman was required to do any physical activity if they did not want to. Or in cases where they did, they would have to do only a portion of the amount. I spoke up about this, and said, "hey, that's not fair. That is sexist." and then everyone laughed at me. But if a women said it instead, she could argue that not being required to do the same work means they are not wanting to push women to be as fit as men and could make a case of sexism. Someone else could say in turn that since men are naturally built to be stronger that women should not be held to the same physical aspirations. To that, someone will certainlly call them sexist for saying so. But while overall men and women are built with different strengths, each person is capable of being stronger than a member of another gender.

Apparently it is only sexist if it puts women under men. No one in this culture seems to recognize sexism against men.

This can best be seen in matters of criminal law. You hear about cases of women being raped by men, but what of the oppost? Some might laugh at that, but the truth is, some men do in fact get raped by women. But they never talk about it. Some might not even realize they are being raped when they so no, others might feel strange reporting it, and for the most part it is because of the way men and women are culturally treated different.

In some ways one gender is treated better, in some ways another is treated better. This is the way it has always been. It may not be right, but it is the reality we live with.

I think it is because, in any culture, the drive for equality is not as strong as the drive for dominance. And while some will honestly be seeking equal conditions, in the end, it will become a matter of dominance.

IMHO, the battle of the sexes is pointless. There is nothing wrong with women wanting to be treated the same as men, such as the right to vote or the right to work, but when they have nothing better to do than argue over semantics and how much they must work out, that is when it has gone too far.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I say "you guys" to groups of children all the time, regardless of gender. Only one has ever been upset; my youngest great-granddaughter who informs me she's not a guy, she's a girl. I then began saying ladies and gentlemen which at least merited a giggle.

I think of guys (plural) as gender neutral and a regional expression rather than sexist but I can see where some might not like it.

I'm concerned about choice, equal pay, child care, and many other issues that affect women and have been working for women's rights since the 60's. Somehow, this issue seems to trivialize our complaints.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Most of the bait-ing pieces on Alternerd bring out the really nasty males and the trolls, but this one at least so far has been relatively tame (either that or I'm getting better at recognizing the mean people and not reading their stuff). Most commentors had interesting things to say about it and I hope Heather has gotten her fill of a survey of opinion range to use in the future.

Thanks, Heather. Maybe it's really an English major issue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When handed lemons, make lemonade. As a female, I use the common generic masculine pronoun (and otherwise like "guy") usage to my advantage, especially when there is the usual line for a women's bathroom and none for the men's. I just walk into the available men's room, and if questioned about doing so, I simply say, "All my life I've been told the word men applies to both men and women, and so what, now you're telling me it doesn't?" That effectively shuts them up!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

.. I could understand if the title of this article was "Can the term "Guys" refer to Women and Girls?" and that was it, but the subtitle is "or has feminism gone too far?". As a member of NOW, NARAL and the Feminist Majority, I feel like I am in pretty close contact with the "Feminist Movement" in the US. I must say that erradicating the term "guy" as it pertains to mixed groups is decidedly NOT at the top of our list of things to do. Healthcare, equal pay, child care, rape prevention, social security, etc. are all things that feminism has sought to address over time. I missed the part where feminists declared war on the term "guys". (Incidentally, I call everyone "dude" which is similar male-oriented word.)

While I do appreciate that men are considered genderless (as a poster earlier pointed out, like white people are considered not "raced") and this IS an issue. However, with SO many women facing so many life and death issues- being called "guy" hardly merits a mention, let alone the attention of a full length article.

Instead, perhaps we could focus on the the use of "guy" (and "dude") as SYMPTOMS of the larger problem, namely, the idea that women are supposed to conform to male ideals and a world (especially a work-world) designed for the male standard. Being called a "guy" is not the problem- everyone expecting you to act, think and have the same priorities and concerns as a "guy" is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To me the real issue here is that Americans are so ignorant about the workings of languages, including their own. Languages, unless they're dead, have always changed and adapted to cultural developments.

The void filled by "you guys", "y'all", "youse", "you'ns", etc. is the one created when we stopped using "thou" for the singular, familiar second person pronoun and started using the plural/formal "you" in all cases. We needed that lost semantic distinction and have been trying to replace it ever since.

The present situation: In some American English dialects, "guys" is now its own word and is no longer simply the plural of guy. "You guys" is often a plural second person pronoun.

Hearing dialectical variations often offends us deeply because we understand enough to feel that the speaker is still using our language, but using it wrongly.

My fellow Americans, please learn some foreign languages! You'll come to understand more about your own.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh yet another petty issue. I haven't a clue as to what kind of world women really want, much less feminists but however a world that might be, well it just won't happen. Women who are truly secure in themselves don't really bother with this and if that old myth about how girls are more mature than boys isn't really a myth, then they too wouldn't bother with this nonsense. Personally, I don't refer to women as guys when I am addressing a mixed group of people, but these women who complain about one thing or another, well, they'll just keep on complaining, that is until we become saints, whatever that might be, but even then, women will find yet another thing to find fault with.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is an interesting subject.

I can tell you that I made a choice way back in kindergraden on how I would address a group of people. I hated "you all." I hated "folks." To me, they were hick sounding. When I first hear "hey you guys," I loved it. It was warm, causal and nice sounding. It was said by a female cousin to me and my sisters. I made a choice to switch to "you guys" that instant, and have used it ever since.

I grew up with gender neutral being the ideal. It is rude to single out one's gender. Everything must be equal and causal. Here's an example of bad PR: "Please hold. The receptionist will get to your call as soon as SHE returns to the line." That is highly insulting! Hearing things like that always get a negative reaction fom me. It's barbaric!

So the tendency is male term = neutral. Why?

Because if you use a female term as a neutral men will react negatively to it and won't use the term. But women aren't like that, they will accept and use a male neutral as term. So the male get used. Simple. But I should also point out that single plural netural terms like you, they, them, their have changed to become gender neutral terms for a group of people also.

I can think of one female term used for a men and women, and it's is a swear term. B*tch can used to insult both men and women. I hear it all the time.

I guess it does go to show just how much woman-hate in American culture because a male term is neutral, but a female term is an insult. It's not like that in other countries.


bB

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I find the question posted here initially particularly amusing. I will turn 70 within a few days, and remembering my high school days in the 1950s, "Guy" was one of the most common names used affectionately to address one's companion, more often females than males. In the same way one occasionally hears friends addressed "Girl" and "Woman" in some of our cultures, I also recall. None of these terms was ever consisted sexist, but denoted positive relationships with the one so nicknamed! Similarly I'm sure instructors have found the informal address guys to be "one size fits all" in much the same manner one grade school teacher I know calls all his kids, "People" routinely!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In most romance languages (spanish as an example) A group of both men and women will be addressed using the male pronouns of vosotros nosotros, and ellos. It doesn't matter if there is only one man in the group. That's just the grammar of the language. 'You guys' is just an an english version of vosotros. Given the fact that the english language has encorporated alot from other languages (particularly french) into its own, its not that hard to see why we have that term.

Is it really that hard to figure out? Or am I just being obnoxious again?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This dilemma can be avoided by the use of the word "peeps" a diminutive of people. Plus it sounds friendly and warm.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Women don't want to be erased in language, just like they want reproductive rights and a closure of the wage gap. Is that too much to ask?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here in Minnesota “you guys” is used the vast majority of the time when informally addressing a group, even if that group consists of only females. Because it is often used to address those we know personally, I feel it is more of a replacement of the term “my friends”. Personally, I do not feel it is a negative part of our dialect, and I cannot imagine a switch to “y’all”, just wouldn’t sound right. Here’s my try at seeing what it would sound like to replace “you guys”…

Oofda, y’all, dares a lot da snooow out dare don’t ya know. Oh, Yaaah, ish! y’all gots a shovel eyeh ken borroow, hey?

That ain’t gonna happen, even if we had to put down our pop and snap a rubber binder attached to our wrist every time we addressed the group in this way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I can see your point on the use of "guys," but it's nowhere near as offensive and demeaning as the widespread practice of calling women "girls." People who would never think of calling an African-American man a "boy" think nothing at all of referring to women as "girls," with the intended implication that females (little girls) are not on equal footing with males (grown men).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I tend to use "guys" interchangeably with "folks"

with "guys" being more informal, friendly than "folks"

I haven't pissed off anyone yet, but if I did for some reason, I would expect them to say to me straight up that they don't appreciate being called that. It's not a big deal to me, personally, but I could see some militants taking insult when they are the same ones constantly spouting about how men are a "lower form of life"--it's fun to joke about ("manly man" and "girly girl" dichotomies are co-dependent forms of gender identity and must be analyzed in relation to each-other as parts of a system of patriarchal oppression), but it's annoying when people do it seriously...but at least they're being consistent...I guess...

Although I think gender terms are useful, I would like to see more gender-neutral terms in our language. Their absence indicates the sad state and strength of our patriarchal social context.

As an example, look how I use the word "they" in my above: as a 3rd person SINGULAR/plural gender-neutral. If you think that's bad grammar, kindly remove the elitist stick from your butt and learn the difference between prescriptive and descriptive grammar.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Typical anguished handwringing nonsense that doesn't address anything of substance -- and all the whinging feminists so appalled at being called guys... you demonstrate exactly why progressives have been so marginalised

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"So why is the reverse acceptable? Why is "girls" gender-specific, but "guys" is not?

The counterpart of "girls" is "boys" - the writer needs to pay more attention to english than just worrying about which thin skinned personages are offended by "guys". Added to which, English masculine forms have often developed from Old English gender-neutral forms, and have added masculinity to their nature in the particular, without divesting themselves of gender neutrality in the general - hence mankind (mann was gender neutral in O.E.).

And if these people are offended by English then all I can say is they'd better be very carefull when learning other languages or they might die of apoplexy. Imagine someone that sensitive having to deal with one of the Latin languages, or for that matter any of the Indo-European ones. They should probably stick to Persian - and isn't Iran just a model of gender equality.

Reminds me of a girl I was at Uni. with - insisted on "herstory" not "history", not caring that the word has no relation to the word "his" save in the same first syllable or for that matter that many people would wonder what the hell she was on about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Come on guys lighten up. The word clearly can mean both genders in North America (see the Oxford American English Dictionary definition below).

Perhaps we can refer this to the site omsbudperson :)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Languages have their own way of evolving, their own rhythm of development. "Broad", as a word describing a woman, used to be a term of endearement. It isn't the case anymore - it changed. "Guys" seems to be developing a neutral-gender personality. So it's changing - whether we like it or not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gender neutral language is a must in a society that seeks equality for women. I know that it doesn't seem like a big deal, but subconsciously I believe that it certainly is.

First and foremost, the word "mankind" should be stricken from the dictionary, replaced of course with "humankind."

It's not very difficult to write "s/he" instead of always writing "he" -- similarly, it's not difficult to write or say "him/her" instead of always using "him."

In regards to the generic term "guys" -- it's kind-of tricky, but it's better than saying the rarely used phrase "Hey gals!" and have people look at you like you've just stepped out of the late 1940s or something. Just stick with "you all" or "y'all," or just say "everyone" or "everybody."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the argument is so tedious. what i find inappropriate is your dads rebuff of the server. that was just so rude. why didnt you say something to him. i would have. to berate the server would have made me uncomfortable. at least apologize for the old dude. so he is your father. i see old farts like that asserting their authority on the working class all the time. i give them a dirty look in public places and i have even rebuked them at times. o reilly uses guys himself . so dont blame it on him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The author's father must enjoy eating other people's snot and saliva. Does he really think it's wise to get in a server's face from the moment you sit down?

Speaking of terminology, I have always stuck with "bastards". People tend to think that "bastard" is a male-specific term (e.g. "The Bush Bastard"), but it is not. It is a gender-neutral term.

So, going with that term, the server would say "Hello, my name is Jamie. I'll be taking care of you bastards today."

To which the father would headily reply, "Excuse me? I only see one 'bastard' here."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

let's not forget that the dictionary does not fall from the sky. it is written by someone, and is thus not neutral ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SusanHathaway's post above is correct.

I am appalled at the number of men (even profesional) who who refer to their office staff,who are grown women, as girls.e.g. "See my girls up front" etc.

Although I believe it is a generational phenom to a degree?

Still- There is NO EXCUSE for this demeaning term.

Also I insist on asking women and men support staff to provide to me their last name because often they answer the phone or greet you with their first name only because they have been made to feel not deserving of respect to be a full person.

I personally have no problem with "you guys". Like- "Hey guys what do want to do tonight?"

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton, Pa

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I second the person who said you should have interrupted your dad, or at least apologized for him. I used to work as a waiter and once got viciously chastised for this same faux pas.
I was putting myself through school and studying linguistic anthropology at the time, so I wasn't going to take the attack lying down.
In the discipline of women's studies and many feminist departments, many academics still point to use of this kind of language double standard as perpetuating an asymmetrical power relationship between genders. But many linguistic anthropologists disagree.
"Guys" is what's called an 'unmarked category' in linguistics. Another example would be 'day' vs. 'night'--for which 'day' can either cover the entire 24 period, or alternatively, can signify only the daylight hours (in contrast to 'night'). Thus 'night' here is the marked category and 'day' is considered unmarked. Clearly when we say 'day' indicating a 24 hour period it doesn't automatically imply that we are "disrespecting" nights as a kind of derivative version of day. Rather, these kinds of grammatical categories are only mapped onto asymmetric power relations to the degree to which we let them stand in as "evidence" of these power relations to begin with. In the case of 'night' and 'day' this sort of mapping wouldn't make sense at all.
Granted sometimes there is considerable social pressure prohibiting use of an unmarked category--such as when 'he' is avoided as a gender-neutral pronoun and instead replaced by 'he-or-she' or 'they,' or in writing 'one'... Because so much discourse surrounds the use of 'he' in this situation people are often highly adept at avoiding its use. But using 'he' in this context only implies sexism to the degree to which this usage is associated with sexism by people who insist on avoiding it. OR to the degree to which "hold outs" (who refuse to switch to one of the alternatives) actually ARE sexist. So in this sense the usage of 'he' as a genderless pronoun starts to take on the "flavor" of sexism through a kind of ideological osmosis. The outcome of these ideological associations within language, then, is more or less subject to historical change via critical mass--a kind of giant linguistic ouija board that we all have our hands on. After enough people choose to use term 'x' with ideological association 'y' it will indeed take on that characteristic. In your dad's case, "guys" is associated, not with sexism, but rather with a crass lack of gentility. Perhaps for you though the gender neutral use of "guys" started to smack, not of crassness, but of a kind of covert sexism. The ideological association has shifted, but for you it still remains negative. However, sometimes this kind of shift works to neutralize a negative connotion. I.e. once enough people stop assuming that the use of an unmarked category like 'guys' is tantamount to sexism, then all of a sudden, "poof," it ceases to have that connotation. So what pushes us in this direction? There is actually a linguistic phenomenon called Kurylowicz's fourth law of analogy:

"Where the marked member is a semantic subcategory of the unmarked member, we may be witnessing the reflex of an older situation where the form of the marked member had once been assigned the function currently held by the form of the unmarked member. Such a pattern of semantic evolution is known in linguistic theory as Kurylowicz's fourth law of analogy: when two forms come into competition for one function, the newer form may take over that function while the older form may become relegated to a subcategory of its earlier function."

And on this issue, more or less, the people have spoken. Because clearly while younger generations have learned to avoid the unmarked gender-neutral pronoun "he," on the contrary they have NOT made the same sorts of associations with "guys." CONT...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

you guys is northern and western

youse guys is northeastern

y'all is southern

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...CONTINUED (from above)
Instead this same generation (my generation) increasingly uses "guys" as an unmarked category to indicate a group of men and women (without recognizing any sexist subtext except perhaps as the last gasp of a dying metaphor). I think there's a sociolinguistic reason for this too. Since other alternatives for 2nd person plural such as "y'all," "youz," "folks," come with highly operative (and potentially problematic) ideological baggage attached to them, "guys" actually to my ear sounds like the most neutral of all these options. Words and phrases derive much of their nuance from the alternatives that surround them, and here, clearly the alternatives to "guy" have very specific (albeit regionally contingent) implications about CLASS (which tend to drown out the issues of gender). Waiters have to play a very nimble kabuki dance when it comes to giving customers what they want...

If I say "ya'll," "youz," or "folks," when introducing myself to a table I'm locking myself into a particular identity performance. First impressions matter, but when you're a waiter the best first impression is neutral so that you get a chance to feel out your table before you make a real first salvo.

For the waiter who's trying not to claim any social identity except "polite" and "efficient" it's often easier to introduce yourself with the terminology that leaves you the most wiggle room (later) to quickly reinvent yourself once you get a sense of what persona your customers actually prefer.

That said, if I ever wait on your Dad, I'm totally spitting in his food.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

While there are undoubtedly more important things going in the world today, I do find this issue fascinating and worthy of discussion as I have grappled with it in real life. It really can be difficult addressing a group of young adult females while avoiding any gender based land mines.

I would love to use "you all" in this context, but unfortunately I don't live in the South so that wouldn't work. If you say "nice work girls", then you worry that some women will take offense to be referred to "girls", when they are women. If you refer to them as "women" or "gals", as in "nice work, women" or "nice work, gals" that's just too damn formal (and in the case of "gals" out of date) when you're addressing a group of 20 / 30 something females in today's world, and it also looks like you may be trying to draw attention to their gender, when your motive is anything but.

It seems to me the safest term is "ladies", as in "nice work, ladies", the only problem again being that you want to complement the group without anyone attaching any motive to your noting that the group is of the female gender (i.e. like you are somehow suprised they did well despite their gender or some other such nonsense).

It would be really great if all women could get together and agree on an acceptable term that everyone could use and not have to think twice. I suppose we could use no term at all as in "nice work", but then if it were a group of males, I would defintely say "nice work, guys" or "nice work, gentlemen" or the like, so why should the rules be different for a group of women, especially if equalty is what we're all after?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Like Tassie Devil, I am Tasmanian ... I have now been living in the United States for almost ten years and one thing I have noticed is that although between Americans and Australians there are many similarities, there are also a number of subtle but distinct differences in the way we think. The word "guys" for instance, may have a different context here than it would in Australia where it has not been a term usually applied exclusively to men, for generations. In Australia, I think it would be seen as more odd to refer to a group of mixed gender as "you blokes".

As far as feminism is concerned, I am sixty years old now and was in the flower of young womanhood when Germaine Greer et al were pushing their version of feminism. I did not then, nor do I now bother terribly much about terminology such as 'guys' ... but by the same token, any man who tried to pat me on the head and refer to me as 'the little woman' would be in imminent danger of getting his hand bitten off.

I don't believe that it should be necessary for women to compete with men in order to get ahead in this life ... a woman should not be obliged to act masculine to succeed. I'd much prefer to see a woman succeed AS a woman and not as an imitation male. I'd like to see women retain their femininity and still succeed professionally.

In feminism as I see it, some issues are more important than others and the use of terms such as 'guys' is way down low on the list. I have never burned a bra and if a man is considerate enough to show respect for my femininity by opening doors or any of the other courtesies traditionally shown to females, then I am going to smile and thank him. On the other hand, I strongly object to a woman being paid 70% as much as a man with similar training and qualifications for doing the same job.

I have seen a lot of improvements come about because of the feminist movement. For instance, I believe the laws on this matter have now changed, but when I was 29 I had suffered a succession of eight miscarriages in short succession and had been told that it was unlikely that I would ever carry another pregnancy full term (fortunately I had managed to produce one living child) ... my physical and emotional health were in crisis and I needed to have a tubal ligation (due to hormone abnormalities, the pill did not prevent me from becoming pregnant) ... I was shocked and deeply offended to learn that in order to have this procedure done, I had to have my husband's written permission. It is my body, it was me who was suffering through the health problems, but I had no right to make a health decision for myself when it involved my capacity to bear children.

However, just as women have been forced into stereotyped roles over the generations, so have men and what I personally regard as 'true' feminism acknowledges this. I taught my son that is is okay for him to cry when he is deeply upset over something. His father objected, claiming that I was "raising the kid to be a sissy boy" but although I'm easygoing most of the time, I'm a fighter when the issue is important to me and this time I stood my ground and informed my (now ex) husband that "I am raising him not to drop dead of a heart attack at age 35 because he was taught that a man must suppress his emotions".

However we split the pie, there are always going to be distinct differences between the genders ... for instance, women are always going to be physically weaker than men and men are never going to be naturally equipped to bear children ... we need to honor those differences without letting ourselves slip into the trap of believing that one should be inferior to the other.

When it comes to terminology, it's a matter of personal choice. If you object to a group of mixed gender being referred to as guys, it's only necessary to state that you'd personally prefer not to be addressed that way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is amazing, but not surprising, that the Guy Fawkes etymology for the word "guy" didn't come up until the comments. There are some valid points in the comments that definitions and language are socially constructed and therefore fluid. I agree with that, to an extent, but I also believe when generations use a word without knowing where it came from they can unknowingly adopt the ideology and politics behind the word's origin. Language has a role to play in constructing our reality.

Guy Fawkes tried to blow up the British King and Parliament in the 17th century and became an archetypal villain for some, a folk hero for others. On the anniversary of the plot people would burn or otherwise deface effigies of Guy Fawkes, and the effigies became known as "guys." Soon, any grotesque male figure or person became known as a guy. Then some group probably adopted the name "guy" they way punks or others have adopted usually offensive words to define an in-group. Eventually it entered casual usage.

So let's take stock of the history of "guy": violence, execution, failure, and ugliness. Given the traditional roles of masculinity that progressives have worked so hard to change (the insensitive, violent, disposable male), does anyone who cares about peace and progressive values *really* want to be referred to as a guy? The Feminist narrative doesn't just mean that all things male should apply to females too. Sometimes it means realizing neither gender should be subjected to something.

Now, if you see Guy Fawkes as a revolutionary hero of the people who should be revered and want to call your fellow revolutionaries "guys" as praise, that's great - go ahead and rock that, but be conscious of it. But I believe our current casual use of "guy" is either the product or symptom of internalized ideas that men are by nature violent, ugly and disposable. Maybe it seems far-fetched to you that a forgotten 17th century origin has that kind of power, but consider traditional masculine stereotypes and Douglas Rushkoff's analysis of the "mook" in PBS Frontline's "Merchants Of Cool" (you can view it online), and ask yourself if the coincidence is even more far-fetched.

Words are not "real" outside the people who use them. Words can, however, affect our "reality" - how we understand the world. Maybe realizing the history of the word "guy" and deciding if we want to include this in our vocabulary can be a small step in reversing destructive gender roles.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If Alternet wants to sink it's teeth into some serious feminist issues theres a worldfull going on right now. Try the raping & killing of women in Darfu and the murder of women and girls in Afghanistan for the sin of wanting an education. Try the disfigured & blinded girls who have acid thrown in their faces by strangers on the streets of Bangledesh for not 'covering up' well enough to suit these bastards. Try being a girl or woman walking the streets in fear anywhere & wondering what next man is going to judge & attack you for not adhering to his ideas of what you should do.

Fuck this noise. Get serious Alternet and quit pandering to this new generation of Marabel Morgans and their vapid, shallow ideas of what feminism is.

Alternet plays again into the hands of the patriarchal regime when it passes shit like this off as a 'feminist' issue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am asking our California governor to modify the names of offensive cities such as:

Sacramento to become SacraTHEMto
Manteca to become PERSONteca

etc.

High time we addressed serious issues like these... :)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When addressing mixed genders, we say "guys" but it's actually spelled "gize."

Seriously, being a male of a certain age, I used to say "gals," or "ladies," until the feminists came along and decided those were derogatory terms. I found my self saying "you guys" to avoid saying anything more offensive. After all, we were talking about equal rights for women, so couldn't they just be one of the guys? And how about the marine boot camp sergeants who address their (young) recruits as "ladies?" At least they do in the movies.

Back in the feminist heyday, you could say "you women," but that always seemed stilted and a little weird to me. . . and oddly inappropriate when informally addressing, say, teenage females. If I said "you men" to a bunch of teenaged boys, it would remind me of the way pompous fraternity guys used to refer to themselves, despite their almost universally adolescent behavior. Addressing young women as "you women" seems similarly inappropriate.

Now I've probably managed to offend nearly everyone. Go ahead gize, shoot me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here's a link to an anti-"you guys" card. It's free and you can print it off on card stock or regular paper.

Feel free to leave it in restaurants (with a good tip, of course) or pass it along to friends and family to start a conversation.

www.youall2.freeservers.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here you can find a free anti-"you guys" card to print off and give to family, friends, servers.

www.youall2.freeservers.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here's a great article by Douglas Hofstadter talking about this very problem.

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

God knows, that those of us who are attracted to the opposite sex do so in reverence to the qualities we do not possess.

Making the terms (and distinctions) between the sexes 'the same' in service to "political correctness/feminism" only divides the co-operative qualities that enable men & women to really 'love' one-another.

Squabbling over 'gender-neutral' terms, so as not to 'offend' some weak spined individual, only ruins the differences in men & women that we should be celebrating - rather than trying to 'grey' out by gender neutral terms.

With the feminist-police making certian words (and ideas) illegal/sexist/racist & 'wrong' - it WILL make the birth of new ideas less & less frequent.

Put another way; If our language in now politically regulated - then creative thinking (by it's expression & permissions of said language) will not 'transcend' new plains and ideas.

I don't think that it's a coincidence that creatively (Literature, Science, Art, etc) - there have been very few 'geniuses' in the era of feminist/politically-correct society. Most people can name exceptional genius of the past (ie. Einstien) - but there are very few in the last 1-2 generations that have excelled.

I believe that politcal-correctness, like gender-approved langauge discussed on this post, contribute to a lack of human momentum.

Bobby.N

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No i think people underemphasize the importance of language in equality issues. It's like you're completely ignoring the n-word and other racial epithets and sexist terms like bitch, slut and whore.

These words can maim, hurt, and reinforce violence and inequality. So yeah, language DOES matter. I think the fact that all those languages erase women just testifies to the transnational and cross-cultural nature of sexism and male supremacy. So let's get rid of sexist language EVERYWHERE!! :)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes, I have noticed this quirk and I don't want to be called a guy. Neither do I want to be called by my first name by a 20 year old twit at my doctor's office. Why are criminals always called Mr. by the media but the victim is just Smith or Jones? I have asked my law enforcement friend and he has no answer. I believe there is always a reason behind accepted language. It is just sometimes hard to ferret it out! I believe that all three of these examples just show lack of respect.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Language isn't so much personal and individual as it is social. We learn our language from the world around us, it doesn't magically spring forth from each of us. And if the world around us is sexist and racist and our language reflects that, then we will also learn that. Also, I don't think it's the intentions of the speaker that matter, really. It's the consequences of what the speaker says that matter. I could "mean well" by calling a grown woman a 'girl' but if that woman is offended, the damage has been done. If other people hear me calling her a 'girl' then they will think it's okay to call other women 'girls.' Of course, I think people need to hear these terms several times before they start to pick them up. But the point is, what we say can have serious consequences...even if we don't mean it.

And actually if you read Laurel Richardson's essay where she talks about picturing male silhouette's in our head, she means in ALL contexts. So people would hear a series of sentences with male "generics" (thus, in various contexts) and picture a man. And since we're living in a racist culture, most people picture a white man. And in fact, that's why we qualify male "generics" in order to stress that actually, we're talking about a woman.

A lot of times people KNOW that when they say "policeman" people will think "male" so they will say, "A policewoman or "A woman police officer." That way, the audience knows the speaker is talking about a woman. But then when we people refer to the police force at large or a group of police officers, they will very often say "The policemen don't want to have to arrest people" or, referring to a group of both female and male police officers by saying "Remember those policemen?" So we know people will assume 'male' unless otherwise qualified...yet we expect women to feel included when we use male "generics" and we get upset when someone points it out to us.

And I want somebody who objects to this project to tell me how it's fair that women are expected to feel included in 'you guys' but men are supposed to feel offended in 'you girls'? The ONLY reason that is the case is that it is considered inferior to be referred to as a woman. It's sexism. And the fact that it's an "American thing" doesn't make it any less important.

It's the difference between prentending we have equality and actually having it. Are women supposed to feel included in "All men are created equal"? Are men and women of color and white women supposed to feel included if they hear, "All white men are created equal."

I think part of the reason people get upset when people object to using sexist language like "male" generics, is that people don't want to think of themselves as sexist. But actually that's not the point. We're not saying everybody who uses these words are bad people or purposely sexist people. Rather we are saying the language is sexist and has harmful effects. The other reason is that I think people recognize that altering language to make it egalitarian...is getting at something very taken-for-granted and basic in our culture. They understand that if even our language is sexist, then we must have a host of other things we need as well. It disrupts the social order, it's threatening to people who want to maintain patriarchy, unconsciously or consciously.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...put all the verbal power and energy you're devoting to bickering over trivial crap like this into trying to save the environment and heading off disaster when the oil supply gets tight instead.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OK - maybe this will help some people. In my region when referring to a group, mixed or otherwise, we tend to say "you(s) lot", or the inclusive "us lot". "Our lot" is also heard. So just substitute "lot", problem solved.

Now if ANYONE mentions a certain Biblical salt pillar, I swear I'm gonna scream!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Leave us not forget that the attribution of gender to non-sexual (i.e. inanimate) objects can go the other way too. I mean what can be more masculine than, say, an aircraft carrier? .... and noone ever refers to this instrument of inhuman destruction as "he"!

To me "guys", especially when preceded by "you", is equivalent to "friends" or "buddies" -- terms which are genderless.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When I was a little kid in the early 70's watching "The Electric Company", and Rita Marino yelled "Hey You Guys!", I knew she was talking to me and all the other kids watching, and it didn't occur to me that my overalls were pink because I was a girl.
Maybe the meaning of the word "guys" has mutated, but it was a while ago. I'm a 38 year old woman from the midwest who's always thought of it as a gender-neutral term.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A woman can walk up to a group of her female friends and call them guys and nobody complains but a man says it and he is sexist. In informal situations I feel the term is NOT gender specific. In a more formal situation then ladies/gentlemen should be used.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Or, perhaps we should take a lesson from the south and just use the term Y'all for singular, All y'all for plural, Y'all's for singular possesive and All y'all's for plural possesive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]