cindym@azure.UUCP (Cindy McMeekin) (12/08/83)
I am fast approaching 29 years of age. I am a woman. I don't like being called a girl. Matter of fact, I can't stand being called a girl and will correct people who do it unless they are at least three levels of management above me. I also don't like being called a gal but this doesn't tend to anger me as much because people who do it are usually ones who are trying to break themselves of the habit of using girl. I consider the word guy to be generic and use it myself for mixed crowds. I also use the words folks and people, usually prefaced with the word "you". To finish the description of myself, I do know how to change light bulbs. Three days ago, I even climbed up on top of my stove to change one in my 10 foot kitchen ceiling. I have never changed a flat car tire but I have never had one either. I have changed bicycle tubes. I don't like doing it but I don't like doing a lot of other things either that must be done. My question is why people insist on using a word that angers the ones being described with it? Cindy McMeekin tektronix!tekmdp!cindym
franka@tekcad.UUCP (12/09/83)
#R:azure:-241400:tekcad:2000001:000:1539 tekcad!franka Dec 9 09:42:00 1983 >/***** tekcad:net.women / azure!cindym / 1:29 am Dec 9, 1983*/ >My question is why people insist on using a word that angers the ones >being described with it? > >Cindy McMeekin >tektronix!tekmdp!cindym >/* ---------- */ Cindy, the reason is that the word "girl" was not always politically unacceptable. I grew up in a time and place where the word was not derogatory and old habits die hard. Believe it or not, the term "girl", as little as fif- teen years ago, was used as a generic descriptive noun for any member of the female sex. I do my best not to use the term, but the mind is sometimes weak and the tongue lazy. If I slip into politically anachronistic speech, please do not scold me harshly, but simply tell me that you are offended and I will do my best to change. Languages do not change in a day (as we today see), and the effort spent on reforming the language can often be spent more productively in getting to the heart of the problem. I would rather have people in power who give equal opportunity to women and who still occasionally call women girls than people who use politically correct language and make sure that women "stay in their place". The old saying, "Actions speak louder than words," is some- times lost in the heat of a political firestorm, but if you look closely, it is the actions and not the words which have the most effect. From the truly menacing, /- -\ but usually underestimated, <-> Frank Adrian (tektronix!tekcad!franka)
steven@qubix.UUCP (Steven Maurer) (12/13/83)
>> My question is why people insist on using a word that angers the ones >> being described with it? >> >> Cindy McMeekin >> tektronix!tekmdp!cindym >> /* ---------- */ I do this for the same reason that I use the word "liberal": I am not a mind reader, and thus do not know what offends people unless they tell me. (Lest anyone believe that the word "liberal" is not offensive, let me tell you that I know of at least two people who equate it with "pinko queer", and consider it one of the highest forms of insults). There is also, the moral dilemma of whether I should change my speaking habits, just because YOU want me to. After all, I will let you call me anything you want to -- and knowing a radicial when I hear one, you probably will. In the name if progressive chivalry, Steven Maurer
ucbesvax.turner@ucbcad.UUCP (12/18/83)
#R:azure:-241400:ucbesvax:10300027:000:1509 ucbesvax!turner Dec 11 18:35:00 1983 Frank Adrian suggests that there was a time when calling women "girls" was not "politically unacceptable"; he also feels that the change is a change in the *language* (not the politics?), and vows to do his best to change his own useage, provided that he is not "scolded harshly". (Frank, you poor boy--did your mother nag you a lot?) Of course, from a feminist viewpoint (which is where this supposed "language change" is springing from) calling women "girls" has never been politically acceptable. But I don't think that Cindy found such usage "politically unacceptable", per se. Rather, she seems to find it personally *objectionable*. "Woman" is not a new word. "Girl" has not changed its meaning. What is changing is women's willingness to be called girls. I am not referring here to conversation among equals--as when men call each other "boys". But when the male boss of an office calls the "girls" for an announcement, that is not an exchange among equals. Perhaps women will turn around on this point in the future--when it is equally acceptable for them to call men "boys" on a basis of familiarity and equality. Today, still, these conditions do not exist, either in the home or at work or in public life. Society (not language) is changing slowly. And progress toward equality has been a frustrating process of two steps forward, one step back. In this case, using the *literal* meanings of terms like "girl" and "woman" is a step forward. --- Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner)