riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) (12/13/83)
>> "He who takes offense where no offense was intended is a fool." >> Think about it. Okay, I'm thinking about it, and I think I see the point, but there's another side to the coin, too. Sometimes no offense is consciously intended, but a word or an act nevertheless reflects an extreme of insensitivity or of bigotry which is itself offensive. Let's look at another example. Not too long ago in the South, the word "boy" was used to refer to a black male of any age. Even if you want to assert that words like "nigger", "darky" or "coon" were at that time valueless, everyday terms with no offensive properties, I don't see how you can say that about "boy". Calling a grown or even an elderly black man "boy" was nothing less than saying that he wasn't really a man and that his proper place was one of the same subservience expected of a child. Nevertheless, I'm sure that there were many whites who used the word this way all their lives without once thinking, "Oh, I'm going to call this old man a 'boy' and watch him squirm." That is, although the word reflected with its every utterance the bigotry and racism of the people who used it, it wasn't always used with an "intent to offend". In my opinion, that doesn't reduce its offensiveness one whit. Now, I'm not sure how much that has to do with our discussion of "girl". Personally I consider it a much less clear-cut case than the use of "boy" I described above. But I'm not sure that you can always fault people for reacting angrily to other people's "unintended" use of offensive language. ---- Prentiss Riddle {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle
smb@ulysses.UUCP (12/13/83)
Now that this debate has heated up (again -- it happens every few months), it's time for me to throw in my comments about the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (again). Briefly, this hypothesis holds that language *determines* thought. That is, the words and grammar in your language dictate, to a large extent, what it's possible for you to think about. (Orwell used this as the philosophical basis for Newspeak in 1984, though I don't think he referred to it by name.) If you accept this theory -- and I do, to a large extent -- then it follows that using the word "girl", with all of its connotations of youth and immaturity, cannot fail to affect the way you think about women. To be sure, in this particular case the effect is somewhat mitigated because "girl" is the counterpart (and carries the connotations of) "guy" as well as "boy"; however, phrases like "I'll have my girl handle it" are quite different, and quite harmful. There's an additional point to consider: making the effort to change one's own vocabulary is in itself an action. If you force yourself to stop and think each time you're about to say "girl", you'll think about the question of the status of women and your own attitudes every time. --Steve Bellovin
plaskon@hplabsc.UUCP (Dawn Plaskon) (12/14/83)
I think the reference is valid, as the only use of girl rather than woman that would offend me is the instance of a manager "having his girl do it". THat is not, of course, the only way that girl can be used but is the clearest example of a mindset about women and their place which is offensive. The manager above is not deliberately trying to degrade his secretary, and, in fact, probably values her highly, but he has a conception of a woman's place and capabilities which is degrading. This should change over the course of time as new generations grow up with the examples of women who are successful and competent in the world beyond the home. Being angry at the use of girl is correct in some instances and not in others and one must simply use one's own judgment to decide whether the unspoken intent is inappropriate to the situation. Even then displaying anger will not resolve the situation, while calmly stating "I am a woman, not a girl" might just set the other person to thinking.