COMMENTS: 301
Can the Term "Guys" Refer to Women and Girls?
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
Will she say, "How are you all doing today?" Or, "What can I get you folks to drink?" If we're near our hometown in the rural Midwest, there is a good chance she'll say the latter, but, more often than not, we hear: "Hi, my name is Jamie, and I'll be taking care of you guys today. Our specials this afternoon are smoked salmon, parmesan-crusted tilapia ..."
"Excuse me," my dad cuts in, his eyes narrowing to a glare, "but I only see one guy here."
My stomach drops and I stare at the table in front of me, trying not to roll my eyes. The lecture never takes more than a minute, but it's still excruciating.
On rare occasion, a waiter or waitress will argue back, saying "guys" is a gender-neutral term. But, most of the time, he or she just stands very still, jaw dropped, looking stunned.
Because this exchange never leads to a thoughtful discussion of gender and language, I long ago dismissed it as one of my dad's quirks -- a one-person tirade to laugh at and let go of. Besides, one of my father's biggest heroes is Bill O'Reilly -- not exactly a portrait of feminist ideals.
Yet, for whatever reason, now that my dad and I live in different states and I see him only once or twice a year, I'm noticing how often men and women use the phrase "you guys" to refer to both sexes. It happens in restaurants, at council meetings -- even in grade-school classrooms.
And so, a voice in the back of my head is starting to say, Maybe he has a point. Maybe this isn't an arbitrary battle over an arbitrary word.
A cursory glance at blog postings shows that the use of the word "guys" is much more discussed and much more controversial than I had realized.
Giving credence to my dad's argument, dozens of postings read something like this: Try walking up to a group of men and women and saying, "Hey, girls, how's it going?" The reaction won't be positive. The men in the group probably won't find the feminine label amusing -- and certainly not arbitrary.
So why is the reverse acceptable? Why is "girls" gender-specific, but "guys" is not?
"Is it because men are not considered gendered, like white people do not consider themselves a race or European-Americans ethnic?" writes Farrah Ferriell, an instructor at the Women's Studies Program at Western Kentucky University. "I say yes ..."
A few posts down on the same site, Kathy Ferguson, a teacher from Hawaii, writes, "You know, I think I find myself in the "get a life" camp on these questions. ... '[Y]ou guys' [can be said] with affection. Words don't have inherent meanings, after all; they have the meanings that usage gives them, and are not necessarily stuck in past patriarchal contexts. I also find that I have many more important struggles in my classrooms than these."
Ferguson's point that words don't have inherent meanings is a good one. "He" could easily be a feminine pronoun and "she" a masculine word if we used them that way. However, "guys" is not a brand new term. And it's already gendered in many circumstances. "Guy" is masculine (e.g. That guy over there is really attractive). "The guys" is too (e.g. Will the guys in the room please stand up?). So, the distinction -- and the controversy -- seems to lie with the colloquial phrase, "you guys."
That distinction makes me curious to know how many people consciously think "you guys" is gender-neutral and how many are just so used to hearing and saying it that they don't even notice its prevalence. In my case, I had never consciously thought the term was gender-neutral; rather, I had just never carefully considered it until my dad brought it to my attention.
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.
Why, then, would we want to risk repeating the same mistake? Especially when the solution is as simple as replacing "you guys" with "you all."
True, this issue is not as pressing as, say, the war in Iraq or homelessness in San Francisco. But that does not mean it is not legitimate. Just because there's a war in Iraq, does that mean that the divorce someone is going through is any less real or painful? That being fired suddenly feels great? That getting a traffic ticket sucks any less? 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?
On its face, using the term "you guys" seems harmless enough -- gendered or not. But as the number of people who see it as gendered grows, so does the phrase's power to influence ideas about identity -- to perpetuate the subtle yet damaging belief that being male is more valuable than being female. And the consequences of that extend far beyond the momentary awkwardness of me having lunch with my dad.
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: igancedo on Feb 28, 2007 12:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Darth Vader style - Heather, I am your ... parent.
Posted by: aouie01
» Puhleease! Nothing new here.
Posted by: Artkansas
» RE: Kuddos to your father!
Posted by: suprmark
Comments are closed-
Posted by: RodgerFrench on Feb 28, 2007 12:45 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: Can the Term "Guys" Refer to Women and Girls?
Posted by: reinhold
» RE: Can the Term "Guys" Refer to Women and Girls?
Posted by: launcher
Comments are closed-
Posted by: underground on Feb 28, 2007 1:25 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» or simply "you". Sincerely, Aouie
Posted by: aouie01
» RE: or simply "you". Sincerely, Aouie
Posted by: mewhins24
» RE: or simply "you". Sincerely, Aouie
Posted by: Graydon Wilson
» RE: or simply "you". Sincerely, Aouie
Posted by: Phenix
» RE: or simply "you". Sincerely, Aouie
Posted by: reinhold
» RE: genderless
Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Madam Hatter on Feb 28, 2007 1:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: Waaaay too far
Posted by: domenico234
» What "feminists" are these?
Posted by: jupie
» Dude.
Posted by: jmbtvz
» RE: Waaaay too far
Posted by: pjwhite
» RE: Waaaay too far
Posted by: Guy
» RE: Waaaay too far
Posted by: susankuhner
» Waaay behind
Posted by: lib3288
» RE: Waaaay too far
Posted by: marrieah
» RE: Waaaay too far **Why can't we examine language for clues to our own biases?**
Posted by: maribelle
» RE: Waaaay too far **Why can't we examine language for clues to our own biases?**
Posted by: EagleMB
Comments are closed-
Posted by: talkville on Feb 28, 2007 1:34 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: and this?
Posted by: Gender Blank
» RE: and this?
Posted by: talkville
» RE: and this?
Posted by: staringatthesun
» RE: and this?
Posted by: talkville
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sojourner on Feb 28, 2007 1:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» whatever.
Posted by: Coleman
» Never encourage "waitrons" to spit in your food!
Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» RE: "Youguys" is not "you guys;" it's short for "you guys and gals."
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: "Youguys" is not "you guys;" it's short for "you guys and gals." **Male privilege in action**
Posted by: maribelle
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TassieDevil on Feb 28, 2007 2:01 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: After 40 Years Of Feminism...
Posted by: Scott
» RE: After 40 Years Of Feminism...
Posted by: sethmo
» and here's another "HAS FEMINISM GONE TO FAR???" article
Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RE: and here's another "HAS FEMINISM GONE TO FAR???" article
Posted by: TassieDevil
» **When men stop killing us at a staggering rate, feminism will have gotten somewhere EOM***
Posted by: maribelle
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Catherine Martell on Feb 28, 2007 2:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: "Is it because men are not considered gendered...?"
Posted by: TassieDevil
» RE: "Is it because men are not considered gendered...?"
Posted by: Megz
» RE: "Is it because men are not considered gendered...?"
Posted by: djnoll
» RE: "Is it because men are not considered gendered...?"
Posted by: icj
» RE: "Is it because men are not considered gendered...?"
Posted by: TassieDevil
» RE: "Is it because men are not considered gendered...?"
Posted by: djnoll
» RE: "Is it because men are not considered gendered...?"
Posted by: TassieDevil
» The Despotism of the Peticoat
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: "Is it because men are not considered gendered...?"
Posted by: TassieDevil
» RE: "Is it because men are not considered gendered...?"
Posted by: djnoll
» RE: "Is it because men are not considered gendered...?"
Posted by: TassieDevil
» RE: "Is it because men are not considered gendered...?"
Posted by: Catherine Martell
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ZPaul on Feb 28, 2007 3:06 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Solution To The Problem
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: The Solution To The Problem
Posted by: sethmo
» RE: The Solution To The Problem
Posted by: Moore Hognutz
» RE: The Solution To The Problem
Posted by: morticia
» RE: The Solution To The Problem
Posted by: DaBear
» RE: The Solution To The Problem
Posted by: ZPaul
» RE: The Solution To The Problem
Posted by: radacts
» I confess ...
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: I confess ...
Posted by: ZPaul
Comments are closed-
Posted by: candara on Feb 28, 2007 3:29 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Dude
Posted by: perri6
» Teenagers call me dude also
Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: Teenagers call me dude also
Posted by: DaBear
» RE: Whoa, da-who-ude, dudette, sir
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob
» RE: Dude
Posted by: candara
Comments are closed-
Posted by: KevinHayden on Feb 28, 2007 3:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: "Bottom Line"
Posted by: Moore Hognutz
» Tips go down? Lame.
Posted by: Coleman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pcushniesr on Feb 28, 2007 3:45 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: colinmeister on Feb 28, 2007 3:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: edundant word.
Posted by: DaBear
» RE: Redundant word.
Posted by: fork
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pcushniesr on Feb 28, 2007 3:50 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Oops!
Posted by: sethmo
» RE: Oops!
Posted by: morticia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rwday@cox.net on Feb 28, 2007 3:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
'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]
» RE: Get a life
Posted by: icj
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Feb 28, 2007 4:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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 hate getting buttered up for tips, too.
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: I hate getting buttered up for tips, too.
Posted by: Madam Hatter
» RE: Diner waitresses
Posted by: DaBear
» RE: Diner waitresses
Posted by: r.frenchie
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gtash on Feb 28, 2007 4:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: StoneRiley on Feb 28, 2007 4:21 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stone Riley
www.stoneriley.com
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: eightbitriot on Feb 28, 2007 5:20 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Good thinking
Posted by: kepstein7777
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cyclone2525 on Feb 28, 2007 5:29 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Wowsa, people are getting way too damn sensitive
Posted by: Saitia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: goldie on Feb 28, 2007 5:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» pMs
Posted by: tweedster
» RE: Ms
Posted by: underground
» RE: Ms
Posted by: DaBear
» RE: Ms
Posted by: RaW
» RE: Ms
Posted by: susankuhner
» RE: Ms
Posted by: TassieDevil
» RE: Ms
Posted by: dannrusso
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DJFedder on Feb 28, 2007 5:56 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Truffulaut on Feb 28, 2007 6:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kazz67 on Feb 28, 2007 6:25 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: Your justification for this article is a disgrace!
Posted by: fork
» No articles left!
Posted by: DataDoc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tulugaq on Feb 28, 2007 6:27 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: e "actor," "-ress"- don't forget the -ix also
Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» And let's not forget.....
Posted by: morticia
» RE: And let's not forget.....
Posted by: albrechtkrausse
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Mamarianne on Feb 28, 2007 6:29 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Correction, if I may
Posted by: StoneRiley
» RE: Correction, if I may
Posted by: Mamarianne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: FightTheGiant on Feb 28, 2007 6:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: treefrog86 on Feb 28, 2007 6:35 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: this is an important issue!!
Posted by: TassieDevil
» RE: Your last sentence says a lot
Posted by: ZPaul
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Feb 28, 2007 6:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Feb 28, 2007 6:42 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: AND Yet another
Posted by: Saitia
» I just think...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: I just think...
Posted by: Saitia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Scott on Feb 28, 2007 6:43 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ERicPott on Feb 28, 2007 6:43 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: samdog
Posted by: Moore Hognutz
Comments are closed-
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Feb 28, 2007 7:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The times they are a-changin'
Posted by: Coleman
» RE: The times they are a-changin'
Posted by: albrechtkrausse
Comments are closed-
Posted by: laurelgreen on Feb 28, 2007 7:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Truffulaut on Feb 28, 2007 7:12 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: down here in Texas
Posted by: boing007
» RE: Hiya, fellow Texan
Posted by: ZPaul
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sausage on Feb 28, 2007 7:13 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: Can't you guys find another dead horse to beat?
Posted by: sausage
» RE: Can't you guys find another dead horse to beat?
Posted by: boing007
» RE: Can't you guys find another dead horse to beat?
Posted by: sausage
Comments are closed-
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Feb 28, 2007 7:18 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sdk on Feb 28, 2007 7:21 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» Why we don't use "yawl"
Posted by: sausage
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Arlene1971 on Feb 28, 2007 7:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: More substitutes for the term out there?
Posted by: laurelgreen
» RE: "You Peeps." "You two...or three"
Posted by: Arlene1971
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Snott on Feb 28, 2007 7:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Good point: Women are not Girls
Posted by: DataDoc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sommermarie55 on Feb 28, 2007 7:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rileycase on Feb 28, 2007 7:58 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» "One on one" defense?
Posted by: Arlene1971
» RE: "One on one" defense?
Posted by: DaBear
» RE: "One on one" defense? 5 on 5
Posted by: tlees2
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ripcord on Feb 28, 2007 8:12 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Scott Griffith on Feb 28, 2007 8:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Scott Giffith
Posted by: Logic's Edge
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mereridkat on Feb 28, 2007 8:21 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DanoM on Feb 28, 2007 8:28 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Paul Cardwell on Feb 28, 2007 8:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: What took so long?
Posted by: jennlee
Comments are closed-
Posted by: freeda'all on Feb 28, 2007 8:37 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» Present!
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Present!
Posted by: morticia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kackermann on Feb 28, 2007 8:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: boing007 on Feb 28, 2007 8:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: treefrog86 on Feb 28, 2007 8:52 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: how about this
Posted by: tweedster
» RE: how about this
Posted by: treefrog86
» RE: how about this
Posted by: tweedster
» RE: how about this
Posted by: treefrog86
Comments are closed-
Posted by: boing007 on Feb 28, 2007 9:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Oui....
Posted by: morticia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: treefrog86 on Feb 28, 2007 9:21 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wisewebwoman on Feb 28, 2007 9:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pingoo on Feb 28, 2007 9:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» Yes: it's not true.
Posted by: fanny666
» RE: Yes: it's not true.
Posted by: pingoo
Comments are closed-
Posted by: fanny666 on Feb 28, 2007 9:38 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Is this your guyses?"
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: boing007 on Feb 28, 2007 9:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rwjaxon on Feb 28, 2007 9:48 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jennlee on Feb 28, 2007 9:51 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: "guys" as neutral is sexist and dangerous
Posted by: fork
» RE: "guys" as neutral is sexist and dangerous
Posted by: jennlee
Comments are closed-
Posted by: FightTheGiant on Feb 28, 2007 9:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: By Definition
Posted by: JoeJ
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dame on Feb 28, 2007 10:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Diia on Feb 28, 2007 10:50 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: diia
Posted by: radacts
Comments are closed-
Posted by: icj on Feb 28, 2007 10:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: If language isn't really a big deal....
Posted by: tweedster
» RE: If language isn't really a big deal....
Posted by: icj
Comments are closed-
Posted by: judiths1_az on Feb 28, 2007 10:56 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: RevRick on Feb 28, 2007 10:58 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: I have noticed...
Posted by: icj
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Elliander on Feb 28, 2007 11:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: Semantics and Sexism
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Semantics and Sexism
Posted by: Elliander
» RE: Semantics and Sexism
Posted by: icj
» RE: Semantics and Sexism
Posted by: Elliander
» RE: Semantics and Sexism
Posted by: icj
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rocrebelgranny on Feb 28, 2007 11:12 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: Not Way Up There on My List of Concerns
Posted by: jennlee
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DaBear on Feb 28, 2007 11:26 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: midgewilson on Feb 28, 2007 11:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nazrafel on Feb 28, 2007 11:43 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Theodore on Feb 28, 2007 11:45 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: Blame it on the obsequious English
Posted by: radacts
» Excuse me ...obsequious English?
Posted by: moflard
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jalde on Feb 28, 2007 11:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: this is so petty
Posted by: ethanay
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BlueFlorida on Feb 28, 2007 12:38 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thenexttweety on Feb 28, 2007 12:46 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ayla87 on Feb 28, 2007 1:06 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: who cares?
Posted by: jennlee
» RE: who cares?
Posted by: Ayla87
» RE: who cares?
Posted by: radacts
» RE: who cares?
Posted by: fork
» RE: who cares?
Posted by: Ayla87
» RE: who cares?
Posted by: igancedo
Comments are closed-
Posted by: electronichobbit on Feb 28, 2007 1:16 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: No peeps at the peeps thank you, put a shirt on them in public.
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob
Comments are closed-
Posted by: treefrog86 on Feb 28, 2007 1:28 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: skewitall on Feb 28, 2007 1:44 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» Hey!!
Posted by: ethanay
» RE: For Cripes sake!
Posted by: cyclone2525
Comments are closed-
Posted by: susanhathaway on Feb 28, 2007 1:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "Guys" may be bad, but it's better than "girls"
Posted by: ethanay
» RE: "Guys" may be bad, but it's better than "girls"
Posted by: TassieDevil
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ethanay on Feb 28, 2007 2:25 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: whitey on Feb 28, 2007 2:44 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: yes, get a life
Posted by: radacts
Comments are closed-
Posted by: moflard on Feb 28, 2007 2:56 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: Sexist grammer's in the ear of the listener
Posted by: fork
» RE: Sexist grammer's in the ear of the listener
Posted by: moflard
» RE: Sexist grammer's in the ear of the listener
Posted by: fork
» RE: Sexist grammer's in the ear of the listener
Posted by: treefrog86
» I'm beggining to think I'm arguing at cross purposes here.
Posted by: moflard
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tlees2 on Feb 28, 2007 5:38 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lisebrouillette on Feb 28, 2007 5:52 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: lisebrouillette
Posted by: radacts
» RE: lisebrouillette
Posted by: fork
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Aufklaerung_Baboon on Feb 28, 2007 6:03 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: Gender Neutral Language is a Necessity
Posted by: TassieDevil
» RE: Gender Neutral Language is a Necessity
Posted by: moflard
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bambino on Feb 28, 2007 6:28 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: on Feb 28, 2007 7:00 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: radacts on Feb 28, 2007 7:32 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: on using the dictionary
Posted by: jwc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: drricklippin on Feb 28, 2007 7:58 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: When I hear "Girls" my blood boils
Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: When I hear "Girls" my blood boils-THANKS
Posted by: drricklippin
» RE: When I hear "Girls" my blood boils
Posted by: fork
» RE: When I hear "Girls" my blood boils
Posted by: Ayla87
» RE: When I hear "Girls" my blood boils
Posted by: drricklippin
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jomo on Feb 28, 2007 8:25 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jwg on Feb 28, 2007 8:30 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
youse guys is northeastern
y'all is southern
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jomo on Feb 28, 2007 8:38 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: Your dad is classist
Posted by: treefrog86
» RE: Your dad is classist
Posted by: moflard
» RE: Your dad is classist
Posted by: marywi
» Oh do go away.
Posted by: moflard
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dmall on Feb 28, 2007 9:30 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: What Phrase to Use?
Posted by: fork
» RE: What Phrase to Use?
Posted by: treefrog86
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Dawn L on Mar 1, 2007 4:27 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: It's A Matter Of Priorities
Posted by: TassieDevil
Comments are closed-
Posted by: michael_climactic on Mar 1, 2007 5:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: The Hegemony of "Guy": Etymology Versus Definition
Posted by: drricklippin
» RE: The Hegemony of "Guy": Etymology Versus Definition
Posted by: jwc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: freeda'all on Mar 1, 2007 10:49 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: Why is this shit here?
Posted by: jwc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Carl Street on Mar 1, 2007 11:53 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kgjones on Mar 1, 2007 12:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: Gize
Posted by: Carl Street
» RE: Gize
Posted by: kgjones
» An Apology...
Posted by: Carl Street
» RE: An Apology...
Posted by: kgjones
Comments are closed-
Posted by: treefrog86 on Mar 1, 2007 3:31 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: treefrog86 on Mar 1, 2007 3:35 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
www.youall2.freeservers.com
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: treefrog86 on Mar 1, 2007 3:42 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bluetoaster on Mar 1, 2007 6:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: marywi on Mar 2, 2007 5:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» I'm gonna have to hear much better arguments before I change my mind
Posted by: moflard
» RE: I'm gonna have to hear much better arguments before I change my mind
Posted by: moflard
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sandyboy on Mar 2, 2007 11:06 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: 2007 Customs-GOOD POINT ABOUT DOCTORS' STAFFS
Posted by: drricklippin
Comments are closed-
Posted by: marywi on Mar 3, 2007 4:57 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» I think we're going to have to agree to disagree
Posted by: moflard
» No, I haven't lost hope yet...
Posted by: marywi
» RE: No, I haven't lost hope yet...
Posted by: moflard
» RE: No, I haven't lost hope yet...
Posted by: marywi
» Chalky
Posted by: moflard
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Logic's Edge on Mar 3, 2007 8:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: moflard on Mar 3, 2007 9:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: Only one little problem
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob
» RE: Only one little problem
Posted by: moflard
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ARSENIUS39 on Mar 4, 2007 1:16 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mcubed on Mar 7, 2007 10:44 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: flounderhead59 on Mar 17, 2007 8:30 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: flounderhead59 on Mar 17, 2007 8:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: igancedo on Feb 28, 2007 12:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Darth Vader style - Heather, I am your ... parent.
Posted by: aouie01
» Puhleease! Nothing new here.
Posted by: Artkansas
» RE: Kuddos to your father!
Posted by: suprmark
Comments are closed-
Posted by: RodgerFrench on Feb 28, 2007 12:45 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: Can the Term "Guys" Refer to Women and Girls?
Posted by: reinhold
» RE: Can the Term "Guys" Refer to Women and Girls?
Posted by: launcher
Comments are closed-
Posted by: underground on Feb 28, 2007 1:25 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» or simply "you". Sincerely, Aouie
Posted by: aouie01
» RE: or simply "you". Sincerely, Aouie
Posted by: mewhins24
» RE: or simply "you". Sincerely, Aouie
Posted by: Graydon Wilson
» RE: or simply "you". Sincerely, Aouie
Posted by: Phenix
» RE: or simply "you". Sincerely, Aouie
Posted by: reinhold
» RE: genderless
Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Madam Hatter on Feb 28, 2007 1:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: Waaaay too far
Posted by: domenico234
» What "feminists" are these?
Posted by: jupie
» Dude.
Posted by: jmbtvz
» RE: Waaaay too far
Posted by: pjwhite
» RE: Waaaay too far
Posted by: Guy
» RE: Waaaay too far
Posted by: susankuhner
» Waaay behind
Posted by: lib3288
» RE: Waaaay too far
Posted by: marrieah
» RE: Waaaay too far **Why can't we examine language for clues to our own biases?**
Posted by: maribelle
» RE: Waaaay too far **Why can't we examine language for clues to our own biases?**
Posted by: EagleMB
Comments are closed-
Posted by: talkville on Feb 28, 2007 1:34 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: and this?
Posted by: Gender Blank
» RE: and this?
Posted by: talkville
» RE: and this?
Posted by: staringatthesun
» RE: and this?
Posted by: talkville
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sojourner on Feb 28, 2007 1:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» whatever.
Posted by: Coleman
» Never encourage "waitrons" to spit in your food!
Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» RE: "Youguys" is not "you guys;" it's short for "you guys and gals."
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: "Youguys" is not "you guys;" it's short for "you guys and gals." **Male privilege in action**
Posted by: maribelle
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TassieDevil on Feb 28, 2007 2:01 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: After 40 Years Of Feminism...
Posted by: Scott
» RE: After 40 Years Of Feminism...
Posted by: sethmo
» and here's another "HAS FEMINISM GONE TO FAR???" article
Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RE: and here's another "HAS FEMINISM GONE TO FAR???" article
Posted by: TassieDevil
» **When men stop killing us at a staggering rate, feminism will have gotten somewhere EOM***
Posted by: maribelle
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Catherine Martell on Feb 28, 2007 2:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: "Is it because men are not considered gendered...?"
Posted by: TassieDevil
» RE: "Is it because men are not considered gendered...?"
Posted by: Megz
» RE: "Is it because men are not considered gendered...?"
Posted by: djnoll
» RE: "Is it because men are not considered gendered...?"
Posted by: icj
» RE: "Is it because men are not considered gendered...?"
Posted by: TassieDevil
» RE: "Is it because men are not considered gendered...?"
Posted by: djnoll
» RE: "Is it because men are not considered gendered...?"
Posted by: TassieDevil
» The Despotism of the Peticoat
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: "Is it because men are not considered gendered...?"
Posted by: TassieDevil
» RE: "Is it because men are not considered gendered...?"
Posted by: djnoll
» RE: "Is it because men are not considered gendered...?"
Posted by: TassieDevil
» RE: "Is it because men are not considered gendered...?"
Posted by: Catherine Martell
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ZPaul on Feb 28, 2007 3:06 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Solution To The Problem
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: The Solution To The Problem
Posted by: sethmo
» RE: The Solution To The Problem
Posted by: Moore Hognutz
» RE: The Solution To The Problem
Posted by: morticia
» RE: The Solution To The Problem
Posted by: DaBear
» RE: The Solution To The Problem
Posted by: ZPaul
» RE: The Solution To The Problem
Posted by: radacts
» I confess ...
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: I confess ...
Posted by: ZPaul
Comments are closed-
Posted by: candara on Feb 28, 2007 3:29 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Dude
Posted by: perri6
» Teenagers call me dude also
Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: Teenagers call me dude also
Posted by: DaBear
» RE: Whoa, da-who-ude, dudette, sir
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob
» RE: Dude
Posted by: candara
Comments are closed-
Posted by: KevinHayden on Feb 28, 2007 3:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: "Bottom Line"
Posted by: Moore Hognutz
» Tips go down? Lame.
Posted by: Coleman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pcushniesr on Feb 28, 2007 3:45 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: colinmeister on Feb 28, 2007 3:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: edundant word.
Posted by: DaBear
» RE: Redundant word.
Posted by: fork
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pcushniesr on Feb 28, 2007 3:50 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Oops!
Posted by: sethmo
» RE: Oops!
Posted by: morticia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rwday@cox.net on Feb 28, 2007 3:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
'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]
» RE: Get a life
Posted by: icj
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Feb 28, 2007 4:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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 hate getting buttered up for tips, too.
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: I hate getting buttered up for tips, too.
Posted by: Madam Hatter
» RE: Diner waitresses
Posted by: DaBear
» RE: Diner waitresses
Posted by: r.frenchie
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gtash on Feb 28, 2007 4:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: StoneRiley on Feb 28, 2007 4:21 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stone Riley
www.stoneriley.com
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: eightbitriot on Feb 28, 2007 5:20 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Good thinking
Posted by: kepstein7777
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cyclone2525 on Feb 28, 2007 5:29 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Wowsa, people are getting way too damn sensitive
Posted by: Saitia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: goldie on Feb 28, 2007 5:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» pMs
Posted by: tweedster
» RE: Ms
Posted by: underground
» RE: Ms
Posted by: DaBear
» RE: Ms
Posted by: RaW
» RE: Ms
Posted by: susankuhner
» RE: Ms
Posted by: TassieDevil
» RE: Ms
Posted by: dannrusso
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DJFedder on Feb 28, 2007 5:56 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Truffulaut on Feb 28, 2007 6:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kazz67 on Feb 28, 2007 6:25 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: Your justification for this article is a disgrace!
Posted by: fork
» No articles left!
Posted by: DataDoc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tulugaq on Feb 28, 2007 6:27 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: e "actor," "-ress"- don't forget the -ix also
Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» And let's not forget.....
Posted by: morticia
» RE: And let's not forget.....
Posted by: albrechtkrausse
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Mamarianne on Feb 28, 2007 6:29 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Correction, if I may
Posted by: StoneRiley
» RE: Correction, if I may
Posted by: Mamarianne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: FightTheGiant on Feb 28, 2007 6:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: treefrog86 on Feb 28, 2007 6:35 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: this is an important issue!!
Posted by: TassieDevil
» RE: Your last sentence says a lot
Posted by: ZPaul
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Feb 28, 2007 6:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Feb 28, 2007 6:42 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: AND Yet another
Posted by: Saitia
» I just think...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: I just think...
Posted by: Saitia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Scott on Feb 28, 2007 6:43 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ERicPott on Feb 28, 2007 6:43 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: samdog
Posted by: Moore Hognutz
Comments are closed-
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Feb 28, 2007 7:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The times they are a-changin'
Posted by: Coleman
» RE: The times they are a-changin'
Posted by: albrechtkrausse
Comments are closed-
Posted by: laurelgreen on Feb 28, 2007 7:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Truffulaut on Feb 28, 2007 7:12 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: down here in Texas
Posted by: boing007
» RE: Hiya, fellow Texan
Posted by: ZPaul
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sausage on Feb 28, 2007 7:13 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: Can't you guys find another dead horse to beat?
Posted by: sausage
» RE: Can't you guys find another dead horse to beat?
Posted by: boing007
» RE: Can't you guys find another dead horse to beat?
Posted by: sausage
Comments are closed-
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Feb 28, 2007 7:18 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sdk on Feb 28, 2007 7:21 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» Why we don't use "yawl"
Posted by: sausage
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Arlene1971 on Feb 28, 2007 7:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: More substitutes for the term out there?
Posted by: laurelgreen
» RE: "You Peeps." "You two...or three"
Posted by: Arlene1971
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Snott on Feb 28, 2007 7:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Good point: Women are not Girls
Posted by: DataDoc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sommermarie55 on Feb 28, 2007 7:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rileycase on Feb 28, 2007 7:58 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» "One on one" defense?
Posted by: Arlene1971
» RE: "One on one" defense?
Posted by: DaBear
» RE: "One on one" defense? 5 on 5
Posted by: tlees2
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ripcord on Feb 28, 2007 8:12 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Scott Griffith on Feb 28, 2007 8:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Scott Giffith
Posted by: Logic's Edge
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mereridkat on Feb 28, 2007 8:21 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DanoM on Feb 28, 2007 8:28 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Paul Cardwell on Feb 28, 2007 8:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: What took so long?
Posted by: jennlee
Comments are closed-
Posted by: freeda'all on Feb 28, 2007 8:37 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» Present!
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Present!
Posted by: morticia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kackermann on Feb 28, 2007 8:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: boing007 on Feb 28, 2007 8:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: treefrog86 on Feb 28, 2007 8:52 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: how about this
Posted by: tweedster
» RE: how about this
Posted by: treefrog86
» RE: how about this
Posted by: tweedster
» RE: how about this
Posted by: treefrog86
Comments are closed-
Posted by: boing007 on Feb 28, 2007 9:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Oui....
Posted by: morticia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: treefrog86 on Feb 28, 2007 9:21 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wisewebwoman on Feb 28, 2007 9:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pingoo on Feb 28, 2007 9:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» Yes: it's not true.
Posted by: fanny666
» RE: Yes: it's not true.
Posted by: pingoo
Comments are closed-
Posted by: fanny666 on Feb 28, 2007 9:38 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Is this your guyses?"
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: boing007 on Feb 28, 2007 9:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rwjaxon on Feb 28, 2007 9:48 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jennlee on Feb 28, 2007 9:51 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: "guys" as neutral is sexist and dangerous
Posted by: fork
» RE: "guys" as neutral is sexist and dangerous
Posted by: jennlee
Comments are closed-
Posted by: FightTheGiant on Feb 28, 2007 9:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: By Definition
Posted by: JoeJ
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dame on Feb 28, 2007 10:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Diia on Feb 28, 2007 10:50 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: diia
Posted by: radacts
Comments are closed-
Posted by: icj on Feb 28, 2007 10:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: If language isn't really a big deal....
Posted by: tweedster
» RE: If language isn't really a big deal....
Posted by: icj
Comments are closed-
Posted by: judiths1_az on Feb 28, 2007 10:56 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: RevRick on Feb 28, 2007 10:58 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: I have noticed...
Posted by: icj
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Elliander on Feb 28, 2007 11:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: Semantics and Sexism
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Semantics and Sexism
Posted by: Elliander
» RE: Semantics and Sexism
Posted by: icj
» RE: Semantics and Sexism
Posted by: Elliander
» RE: Semantics and Sexism
Posted by: icj
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rocrebelgranny on Feb 28, 2007 11:12 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: Not Way Up There on My List of Concerns
Posted by: jennlee
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DaBear on Feb 28, 2007 11:26 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: midgewilson on Feb 28, 2007 11:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
