b39y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (10/11/90)
To Barbara... (twain@???)
A 13-year old female is no more a woman than a 13-year old male is a
man. The terms 'young woman' and 'young man' are probably the most
grating terms I have every heard used to describe teenagers (at least
I thought so when I was a teen :-) - The problem as I see it, and as
has been mentioned here before, I think, is that while there are two
formal (man and boy) and one informal (guy) terms that are commonly
accepted for males, there are only the two formal (woman and girl)
terms for females. Therefore, in situations where informality is
required, people wind up saying such stupid sentences as:
"So I was out with this guy and two women"
Implying that the male (a guy) was somehow deserving of less
respect than the two females (women.) Suppose for a moment that gal
didn't have the negative connotations that have been forced on it.
The converse of the above statement would be:
"So I was out with this man and two gals"
Equally stupid. The point is that, unless the two women were
in formal gowns or business suits and the man in cutoffs and a
t-shirt, your choice of language is presupposing a level of
formality/informality which is just as wrong and the implications
present in the "man/girl" discussions.
I'm not trying to harsh on people for wanting language to be
precise and informative, but it seems to me that the solution is
(easier said that done) to come up with three words that could be
universally accepted and start using them. They would map to the
informal male ('guy'), the informal female ('gal') and the informal
group ('guys'.) They should each be one syllable, and should be
similar-sounding (I think.)
Constructive posts and replies are appreciated.
Dave Rodger B39Y@vax5.cornell.cit.edu
A 20-year old boy who is desperately frightened at being called a man!travis@liberty.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey) (10/16/90)
In article <1990Oct11.121502.353@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> b39y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes: >... > "So I was out with this guy and two women" > "So I was out with this man and two gals" >... > Equally stupid. The point is that, unless the two women were > in formal gowns or business suits and the man in cutoffs and a > t-shirt, your choice of language is presupposing a level of > formality/informality which is just as wrong and the implications > present in the "man/girl" discussions. Isn't there another presupposition here: that it is always necessary to identify the gender of other people? You could have said: "So I was out with three friends" "So I was out with three people" "So I was out with these three wombats from accounting" "So I was out with Max, Wanda, and Kirsten" without running into the formality/informality problems you perceive. You could even toss on "n males" and "m females" in case you were hanging out talking about vasectomies or whatever. Notice that race is also frequently used as a marker when it's irrelevant, e.g., "So I was sitting next to this black guy ..." "This black couple was in the next car ..." This is not insulting per se, but the race marker is frequently used to explain subsequent behavior. Also, if we habitually indicate race and gender only when the race is not white, and the gender is not male, then we project a mental silhouette: the default person is white and male. (Incidently, the mental silhouette shows as someone who is heterosexual by default, but that doesn't come up with these sorts of language issues.) > I'm not trying to be harsh on people for wanting language to be > precise and informative, but it seems to me that the solution is > (easier said that done) to come up with three words that could be > universally accepted and start using them. They would map to the > informal male ('guy'), the informal female ('gal') and the informal > group ('guys'.) They should each be one syllable, and should be > similar-sounding (I think.) Well, how about "stud" and "babe"? At least they'd be equivalent, in meaning and connotation. And think of the havoc this would wreak with older generations. Just kidding. t
travis@liberty.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey) (10/16/90)
In article <1990Oct11.121502.353@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> b39y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes: >... > "So I was out with this guy and two women" > "So I was out with this man and two gals" >... > Equally stupid. The point is that, unless the two women were > in formal gowns or business suits and the man in cutoffs and a > t-shirt, your choice of language is presupposing a level of > formality/informality which is just as wrong and the implications > present in the "man/girl" discussions. Isn't there another presupposition here: that it is always necessary to identify the gender of other people? In beginning your story, you could have said: "So I was out with three friends" "So I was out with three people" "So I was out with these three wombats from accounting" "So I was out with Max, Wanda, and a friend you don't know named Kirsten" without running into the formality/informality problems you perceive. You could even toss on "n males" and "m females" in case you were all hanging out talking about vasectomies or whatever. Notice that race is also frequently used in a similar way, as an irrelevant marker when it's irrelevant, e.g., "So I was sitting next to this black guy ..." "This black couple was in the next car ..." This is not insulting per se, but the race marker is frequently used to explain subsequent behavior. Also, if we habitually indicate race and gender only when the race is not white, and the gender is not male, then we project a mental silhouette: the default person is white and male. (As a side note, the mental silhouette shows as someone who is heterosexual by default, but that doesn't come up with these sorts of language issues.) > I'm not trying to be harsh on people for wanting language to be > precise and informative, but it seems to me that the solution is > (easier said that done) to come up with three words that could be > universally accepted and start using them. They would map to the > informal male ('guy'), the informal female ('gal') and the informal > group ('guys'.) They should each be one syllable, and should be > similar-sounding (I think.) Well, how about "stud" and "babe"? At least they'd be equivalent, in meaning and connotation. And think of the havoc this would wreak with older generations. Just kidding. t
pedersen@cartan.berkeley.edu (Sharon L. Pedersen) (10/23/90)
In article <1990Oct11.121502.353@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> Dave Rodger <B39Y@vax5.cornell.cit.edu> writes: [Commenting on a need for terms for males/females that are "formality equivalent":] > [...] the solution is >(easier said that done) to come up with three words that could be >universally accepted and start using them. They would map to the >informal male ('guy'), the informal female ('gal') and the informal >group ('guys'.) They should each be one syllable, and should be >similar-sounding (I think.) Fine, but as long as we're improving the language, let's not pretend that male plurals ("guys") are the same as group words. Your proposal as given would have us using "man", "woman" and "men" as the formal equivalents, and do I need to spell out that that's ridiculous? Something like informal female ("gal"), informal male ("guy"), and informal group (--> "FOLKS" <--) is what's wanted. I second the observation that people's gender often doesn't need to be specified. Having noted with approval all the places that have shifted to saying "Men and Women", I now usually wonder, "Why don't they just say 'People'?" --Sharon Pedersen pedersen@cartan.berkeley.edu OR ucbvax!cartan!pedersen