ROPERK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (09/13/90)
The "belittling" thing about the word "girl" is that it
implies a lack of maturity (in just about any sense of
the word). I find it offensive for this reason, and for
its association with the North American preoccupation
with the barely-pubescent female physique (somehow this
conflicts with the NA fascination with overly large breasts,
unless one considers that they're both *extremes*).
And yes, I find the improper application of the word "boy"
equally offensive. I use it as such, eg. the "old boys'
network", and thus I rarely use it at all.
Elaborating on an earlier post: I don't find "lady" demeaning
in an SCA context because it has been stripped of condescension.
It doesn't bother me when used as in "Ladies and Gentlemen",
since it is an attempt at a polite, not belittling, address.
In most other contexts I find it insulting to my intellect.
I don't mind being called Kim, though %>
-------
Kim Roper
Dept of Chem Eng, Queen's University
Bitnet/Netnorth: roperk@qucdn.queensu.ca
Most of the clowns just walked past as if nothing had happened.
Occasionally one would trip on a piece of debris, and growl
at the naked faces. They stared back apologetically, much like
a puppy named "Piddles" does. It was an abdication of power
they didn't know they could accept, since they didn't understand
the equivalence of the currencies of "power" and "responsibility",
and the natural exchange of the two. The clowns merely didn't
care to think about it.
--- The Metropolitan Circusgazit%oberon.usc.edu@usc.edu (Hillel) (09/13/90)
#what sickens me is to hear women who should know better using the term #girl" incorrectly, belittling themselves in the process. but then #language is a very powerful thing. In article <11927@chaph.usc.edu> wilber%aludra.usc.edu@usc.EDU (John Wilber) writes: >Why are you so touchy about this? For what reason do you attribute >some kind of "belittling" meaning to this word? I am sure that the >vast majority of the users (and listeners for that matter) of the word >"girl" see nothing derogatory about it. If the language is so un-important, as you said, then why do you care so much about it? Why not to call human females over 18 women (or womyn or wimmin or whatever they will want in the Nineties) and be done with this silly subject? Why to debate so much a subject that has so little importance, in *your* opinion? Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "There are worse things to be than a bigot. I'd rather keep company with a bigot who lets me go my own way than a well-intentioned man who presumes to know what is good for me." -- Wendy Thrash
6500nag@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Naggi Asmar) (09/13/90)
In article <11927@chaph.usc.edu> wilber%aludra.usc.edu@usc.EDU (John Wilber) writes: >In article <6290@emory.mathcs.emory.edu> colm@mathcs.emory.EDU writes: >>what sickens me is to hear women who should know better using the term >>"girl" incorrectly, belittling themselves in the process. but then >>language is a very powerful thing. >Why are you so touchy about this? For what reason do you attribute >some kind of "belittling" meaning to this word? I am sure that the >vast majority of the users (and listeners for that matter) of the word [blah. blah. blah deleted] >that. Attributing a negative connotation to a word where none exists >(like with "girl") is irrational. Using the word _girl_ when the person is an adult female (correctly referred to as a woman) implies that the woman is not thought of as being an adult. It reinforces the traditional sexist view that women are naturally immature (see _I Love Lucy_) and ought to be treated like girls. Similarily, Black men were commonly referred to as _boys_ not so long ago. >>the not-so-subtle use of language in discrimination rears its ugly >>heas again. Amen. >I think it's so subtle as to be invisible. As invisible as the writing on the wall? naggi
travis@houston.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey) (09/13/90)
In article <11927@chaph.usc.edu> wilber%aludra.usc.edu@usc.EDU (John Wilber) writes: > > In article <6290@emory.mathcs.emory.edu> colm@mathcs.emory.EDU writes: > > [ about the use of girls, women, ladies ] > > Perhaps it is the fact that the ideas of equal rights for women have been > so universally accepted that the only thing left for the activists to > get outraged over is petty word games. Universally accepted? The universe I live in contains countries than the United States, where such a right is by no means accepted or acted on. Even in this enlightened district it was recently unacceptable to amend our constitution to describe men and women as equal, and popular comedians can tell jokes that consist of nothing more than shrieking "Suck my cock, bitch!" to random women in the audience. Other issues, such as the lack of national child care, sexual discrimination and harassment, and the omnipresent violence against women, loom a great deal larger than the "petty word games" that you describe. Although you apparently feel feminist activists are solely concerned with "women's issues," perhaps you should not be so sanguine about a system that gives men gender roles that cannot be sustained without an early death from "natural causes," e.g., higher rates of violent death, alcoholism, heart disease, among other things. Don't be so quick to defend a system that is killing you and your male friends and relatives. In any case, the use of words like "girl" or "women" signals an attitude of respect or the lack of one. You entirely miss the point by claiming that they are all words describing the same concept, when _every_ word is rich with connotations and secondary meanings. If that were not so, I could equivalently call your mother a bitch without insult, since a bitch describes "the female of a dog or some other carnivorous mammal," a category to which most female humans belong. We're not computers exchanging bits of information; we each speak a language thick with layers of meaning. The choice of words and names is very important. > P.S. I have heard a few times that folks of asian ancestry cannot now > be referred to as "oriental" by _Politically Correct(tm)_ speakers. > They are not "orientals", but "asians". Can anyone explain what the > deal here is? Is being called "occidental" derogatory too? I guess > I'm just not "racially sensitive". The feeling is that names like this are geographically relative and mediated by outmoded attitudes of racial superiority. France and England, the primary colonizers of the Middle and Far East, chose names for these regions indicating their distance from the "center of civilization", which the colonizers felt themselves to be. "Occidental" is not usually considered derogatory, but that is due to its occasional use. If US citizens were routinely referred to as "the Westerners" by those on the European continent, I suspect we would all be a little touchy about relative names. No, I don't care deeply about this issue, but out of habit and politeness, I try to call people or regions by the names they choose. t
mfkeady@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Margaret F. Keady) (09/13/90)
Is anyone aware of a feminine or neutral form of the word "guy"? I live in a women's residence at school, next door to a fraternity. If I am planning to go to the movies with a few of the next-door residents, I say I'm going out "with the guys". However, I have trouble using that word describing mixed or all-female groups. "Girl" is _quite_ insulting -- I'd never say I'm going to the movies "with the boys". "Women" is just a bit too stuffy to describe a bunch of mellow college students. Any suggestions??? [In my circles, "guys" is generally considered gender neutral. This appears not to be true everywhere. -MHN]
flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) (09/13/90)
wilber%aludra.usc.edu@usc.EDU (John Wilber) writes: >"Ladies" being used as a "weapon"? Gimme a break. I have always used >the word as a term connotating respect (like "gentlemen"). If "lady" is used opposite the word "gentleman", then my only quarrel with it is the implied social hierarchy, same as for the word "gentleman". But this is not always the case. This probably differs regionally, but around here, just to take an example, bathrooms are almost always labelled "ladies" and "men". Once you start objecting to the word "lady", you'll notice it's everywhere, and that it's rarely opposite "gentleman". ajr
wp6@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Walter Pohl) (09/14/90)
I've not read soc.feminism long, but something tells me that the issue of "woman" vs. "girl" is one that's been beaten to death. But since it's come up... I think the crux of the matter is that people have the right to control what they are called. You have a right to decide what your name is, and you have a right to decide what words are used to describe you. Many women object to "girl," since it implies adolescence. If you notice, the term "girl" is used for women much older than the term "boy" is. There are counterexamples, of course, such as "good ole boy," but in general, women are referred to as "girl" when men are referred to as "man" or "guy." But it doesn't really matter why, does it? If Kim wants to be referred to as "woman", then why should insist on referring to her as "girl"? A similar argument holds for "oriental". I have friends who are Asian- American who want to be referred to as "Asian-American" and not "oriental", and I should respect that. (In that case, I believe the reasoning is that the word "oriental" has gotten connotations like that of "exotic", when of course, to themselves Asians and Asian-Americans are normal, and it's others who are a little weird. Also, who really refers to anyone as "occidental"?) Walt Pohl "alt.walt? It has a certain ring to it, no?"
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (09/15/90)
In article <9009122207.AA10780@houston.cs.columbia.edu> (Travis Lee Winfrey) writes: >Although you apparently feel feminist activists are solely concerned with >"women's issues," perhaps you should not be so sanguine about a system that >gives men gender roles that cannot be sustained without an early death from >"natural causes," e.g., higher rates of violent death, alcoholism, heart >disease, among other things. Don't be so quick to defend a system that is >killing you and your male friends and relatives. If to judge by what the feminist movement has done in the last 15 years, then it is pretty obvious that a feminist-dominated system will be even more oppressive toward men. It will just find kinder gentler ways to blame the men in their own oppression.
bdelan@apple.COM (Brian Delaney) (09/18/90)
In article <9009122207.AA10780@houston.cs.columbia.edu> travis@houston.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey) writes: > In any case,the use of words like "girl" or "women" signals an attitude of > respect or the lack of one. You entirely miss the point by claiming that > they are all words describing the same concept, when _every_ word is rich > with connotations and secondary meanings. Absolutely true, Travis. The problem is, we don't all agree on what those exact secondary meanings are. The use of the word "girls" in place of "women" may indicate a lack of "respect" for some people. It may not for others. For some people, terms like "girl' and "boy" are not diminutive, they are friendly. For some people, words like "woman" sound formal, clinical and stuffy. Just as there are men who dislike being called "Mister." To some people, the title is simply polite and respectful; to others it is stuffy and classist. For that matter, the very word "respect" has this problem as well. Remember parents and teachers who would tell you to "respect your elders," when they really meant "defer to us"? Is this the sense of the word "respect" that you mean? I doubt it. But, for a person who heard the word "respect" used this way all their lives, your petition that we treat women with "respect" may not have its intended effect. So, what do we do when we have two people talking to one another; one of whom thinks that "girls" is friendly, while the other thinks it is disrespectful? One poster reasonably suggested that we should call a person whatever they prefer. There are problems with this, chiefly concerned with figuring out what default to use untill you get to know them better, but this can be ignored for our purposes here. A far bigger problem is that actions, just like words, have a rich range of connotations and secondary meanings. And, for some people, *the action of having to second-guess what someone wants to be called has connotations of disrespect for the speaker*. So, we have two people here. One feels that "girls" is just a friendly noun. There are no negative connotations to this word in their dictionary. For this person, the primary meaning for the word "girls" is not at odds with its secondary meaning. However, this person also feels that having to modify their speech, and use a word that is uncomfortable, just because someone else has a problem with it, is disrespectful to the speaker. The primary meaning of this action is simply, "Try not to offend people unnecessarily." This is hard to argue with. However, for this person, the secondary meaning is, "It is your job to steer clear of whatever verbal sensitivities I may have, and if I am offended by your speech, it is your fault." This person feels that there is no power sub-text in the use of the word "girls", but that there *IS* a power sub-text in having someone tell you how you are allowed to talk. The second person feels that "girls" is disrespectful. While the primary meaning may be O.K., the secondary meaning of subordination is unacceptable. However, this person also feels that there is no negative secondary meaning to the use of "politically correct" phrases. This person at least claims to have no problems calling people by whatever names they choose, and they develop no negative feelings of having to "jump through the hoop" when they modify how they speak to adapt to the listener. To them, there is a power sub-text in the use of gender nouns, but none in the use of politically correct phrases. The latter is simply not an issue for these people. So, when these two people get together, what happens? Conventional wisdom holds that the first person should be "considerate" of the second persons wishes, and call them "women", "wimmin" "Ms", or "Grand Omnipotent Poohbah" if that is what they want. "People have a right to be called what they want," is the explanation given. O.K., I can buy this. But, don't people also have a right to speak as they wish? In this little conversation, the first person is doing all the adapting, and the second person is doing all the demanding. If the important principle here is consideration for other people's feelings, what happens to the first person's feelings? When is the second person supposed to be "considerate?" Part of the problem here may be that both people are trying to be considerate, *but they don't agree on what that means.* Both people want a polite, friendly conversation. But one person thinks that the way you have a friendly conversation is to be careful not to say the wrong thing. So, the burden of a polite conversation lies on the speaker. The other person thinks that the way to have a polite conversation is to be careful not to take something the wrong way. Thus, the burden of a polite conversation lies with the listener. The issue here is not sexism. The first person may be the most rabid feminist supporter around. The issue is how one *expresses* themselves. While most of us may agree on the denotation and primary meaning of a word or action, the connotations and secondary meanings are far more individual. So when we tell this person that "girls" is disrespectful, we are telling this person that their personal dictionary is *wrong.* But, it is not wrong. It is merely different. A little while ago, someone quoted Mark Twain: "Saying that words are "merely words" is like saying that it is "merely dynamite." " This is cute, but I think that it is misleading in an important way. Words are not dynamite. Words by themselves do nothing. *PEOPLE* are dynamite. And when they are unstable, then words can be used to set them off. In my example conversation, what can these people do? They both have contradictory notions of how one goes about be polite and respectful. The best thing they can do is to remember that words are indeed just words. This makes the dynamite more stable, and less likely to be set off by the words. When they remember that words are just words, then our second person won't mind quite as much hearing those words, and out first person won't mind saying them. ******************************************************************************* Brian "High Tech Sex and Affordable Firepower" Delaney Disclaimer: NOBODY, least of all Apple, thinks the way I do. *******************************************************************************
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (09/18/90)
In article <85789@aerospace.AERO.ORG> (Margaret F. Keady) writes: > Webster's Dictionary define "guy" as: "... 3 b: PERSON - used in pl. to refer to members of a group regardless of sex [example:] <saw her and the rest of the guys>" Therefore the word "guy" seems to me as gender neutral to start with. Any comment from native English speakers? [This seems to be regional. I used guys as a gender-neutral term in NY but most midwesterners I've met think it's gender specific. And the British think it means something else entirely. - MHN]
twain@blake.u.washington.edu (Barbara Hlavin) (09/19/90)
[I've edited out most of the included text again. I don't think this destroys the meaning of it and it really does make things easier to read. -MHN] In article <10254@goofy.Apple.COM> bdelan@apple.COM (Brian Delaney) writes: >In article <9009122207.AA10780@houston.cs.columbia.edu> >travis@houston.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey) writes: >> In any case,the use of words like "girl" or "women" signals an attitude of >> respect or the lack of one. You entirely miss the point by claiming that >> they are all words describing the same concept, when _every_ word is rich >> with connotations and secondary meanings. > >Absolutely true, Travis. The problem is, we don't all agree on what >those exact secondary meanings are. > >So, what do we do when we have two people talking to one another; one >of whom thinks that "girls" is friendly, while the other thinks it is >disrespectful? One poster reasonably suggested that we should call a >person whatever they prefer. There are problems with this, chiefly >concerned with figuring out what default to use untill you get to know >them better, but this can be ignored for our purposes here. > I would suggest that everyone err on the side of formality. If someone dislikes a courtesy title like "Mister," he's free to say so, and people do. "Oh, that sounds so stuffy; please call me Ed." Is it possible that anyone in this country is not aware that most adult women prefer being referred to as women rather than girls? [All right; it's possible. But what we have going on here on the net is an argument about whether those who know this need to respect that preference.] If you have a female friend who in your presence says, "Oh, I think that's the stupidest thing in the world; *I* certainly don't mind being called a girl. In fact, I *prefer* it. It makes me feel tiny and cute and helpless." --then by all means, feel free to call her a girl. But unlessyou know otherwise, call an adult women a woman. What's the problem with that? I am introduced to someone as Barbara Hlavin. If the person then addresses a remark to me prefaced with something like, "You know, Barb..." I immediately say, in a friendly tone, "I prefer being called Barbara." Why should this embarrass anyone, make anyone uncomfortable, or make anyone feel I was being disrespectful or using "a power sub-text" telling the other person how s/he is allowed to talk? I think you'd have to be pathologically touchy to resent someone telling you what her name is! If someone deliberately ignores my request, I consider THAT impolite. I use a formality default unless and until someone tells me otherwise. And when I am introduced to someone I ask them how they prefer to be addressed. "Barbara, this is Katherine Hepburn." Me: "How do you do? May I call you Katherine, or would you prefer Ms. Hepburn?" Or -- since we're dealing with fantasy here: "Barbara, this is Robert Redford." Me: "How do you do? May I call you sweetheart?" And I disagree with you Brian, when you say "Words are not dynamite." We're not dealing with a rational world, here. Words are often used as weapons, to purposely hurt, and very effectively. That's the power behind verbal child abuse. Keep telling a child -- an adult, for that matter -- that she's dumb and stupid and ugly and worthless, and she will begin to believe she's dumb and stupid and ugly and worthless. Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will break your heart. And your spirit. What about "Them's fighting words!" When a Southern racist says to an adult African-American man, "Hey, BOY!" surely you don't believe he doesn't intend to be offensive? The racist is demonstrating contempt for the man standing in front of him; he means to do so, and he means the man to know it. Ummm, I use the term "southern racist" here because I don't really hear that particular racial slur used in the north. I am not meaning to suggest that all Southerners are racist, nor that there are no Northern racists. OK? The use of names is indeed powerful. My name is a public form of my private identity. I have the right to determine how it will be used. If I ask you to call me Ms. Hlavin, you have the responsibility to respect my request. If you have a Ph.D. and say to me, "Actually, I prefer to use my professional title socially; I am Dr. Delaney." -- why should I have a problem with that? I think you're right: this is not especially a sexist issue. It is a matter of etiquette, of manners. It is only polite to call people what they prefer to be called. If you don't know and can't find out, why not do as I suggested earlier, and err on the side of formality? If someone is insulted because you are polite, I give up; they're not worth bothering yourself about. Some people are just obnoxiously unreasonable. Forget 'em. Americans are a casual and friendly people. We tend to immediately assume intimacy (some would say pseudo-intimacy), and some people find this intrusive. If I find a form of address offensive, I correct the person. If that person is offended in turn by being told by what name I prefer being addressed, s/he owns the problem. Not everyone likes your dog, either. Respect *does* mean deference; at least that's one of the dictionary definitions: "to feel or show deferential regard for." As for deference itself ("courteous respect; submission or courteous yielding to the opinion, wishes, or judgment of another"), what's wrong with it? I suspect you're focussing on the issue of submission, as in craven, boot-licking kowtowing. but the emphasis, in terms of acceding to people's wishes as to what they want to be called is one of courtesy. --Barbara P.S. Oh, and please *do* call me Grand Omnipotent Poohbah! :-) -- Barbara Hlavin Reason, an ignis fatuus of the mind, twain@blake.acs.washington.edu Which leaves the light of nature, U Washington AI-10/Seattle 98195 Sense, behind. -John Wilmot
colm@mathcs.emory.edu (Colm Mulcahy) (09/19/90)
In article <653609811@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: >Webster's Dictionary define "guy" as: >"... 3 b: PERSON - used in pl. to refer to members of a group regardless >of sex [example:] <saw her and the rest of the guys>" > >Therefore the word "guy" seems to me as gender neutral to start with. > >Any comment from native English speakers? i was quite incredulous when somebody told me this upon first arriving in the US - the usage is unknown in English speaking circles in Europe in my experience. -- Colm Mulcahy | email address: | still seeing Dept. of Math & CS, | colm@mathcs.emory.edu | peace Spelman College, | colm@emory.bitnet | as poison ? Atlanta, GA 30314 | {sun!sunatl,gatech}!emory!colm |
7103_3654@uwovax.uwo.ca (09/19/90)
In article <85789@aerospace.AERO.ORG>, mfkeady@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Margaret F. Keady) writes: > Is anyone aware of a feminine or neutral form of the word "guy"? How about "I'm going out with some friends."? It's the sentence I always use. I don't believe that it carries any gender implications. Adele -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Adele Fraser | Bitnet: 7103_3654@uwovax.bitnet Dept of Mathematics | Internet: 7103_3654@uwovax.uwo.ca University of Western Ontario | London, Ontario, Canada | Phone: (Math Dept) N6A 5B7 | 519-661-3638 x 6539
travis@gardens.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey) (09/19/90)
>In article <10254@goofy.Apple.COM> bdelan@apple.COM (Brian Delaney) writes: > In article <9009122207.AA10780@houston.cs.columbia.edu> > travis@houston.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey) writes: > > In any case,the use of words like "girl" or "women" signals an > > attitude of respect or the lack of one. You entirely miss the point > > by claiming that they are all words describing the same concept, > > when _every_ word is rich with connotations and secondary meanings. > > Absolutely true, Travis. The problem is, we don't all agree on what > those exact secondary meanings are. That's highly misleading. We agree substantially on the secondary meanings, enough to have a very common understanding of their meanings, from an early age when children first identify with being "boys" or "girls", to the explosive words that label racial or ethnic groups. A more comparable use of "boy" to "girl" is not between friends, but a white addressing an adult black male with "boy". There, the offensive secondary meaning is instantaneously heard. When you focus on the endless subtleties of communication, where one person may chose not to act in a certain way because of the assumptions of the second person, and so on, you're merely avoiding the central issue: "men" and "girls" are used _together_ by people as a conscious or unconscious sign of lack of respect for women. If a grown man continually referred to himself as a "boy," I would think that he needed therapy. It infantilizes adults to refer them with children's names. The central issue is not the friendly or casual use of the words "girl" and "boy", nor is it people's private secondary assocations of word meanings. Why, some of my best friends are girls and boys. The central issue here is inequality of usage as a reflection of inequality of status --- in a word, sexism. > In my example conversation, what can these people do? They both have > contradictory notions of how one goes about be polite and respectful. > The best thing they can do is to remember that words are indeed just > words. This makes the dynamite more stable, and less likely to be set > off by the words. When they remember that words are just words, then > our second person won't mind quite as much hearing those words, and > out first person won't mind saying them. This is a typical defense of the status quo. The problem is not in the words, you claim, but in being upset by them. The problem is not in the status quo, but in the attempt to change it. The problem is not in Selma or Johannesburg, but in these outsiders who want to change our rules. While the argument maintains the appearance of fairness, it actually gives no reason for the person to use "girls" to change, it simply tells the other to "lighten up." "Lightening up" is fine with me -- I think it's a fairly trivial area for concern -- but the people who should relax are those who insist on using "girl" despite the well-understood objections of others. t
dwp@willett.pgh.pa.US (Doug Philips) (09/19/90)
In <10254@goofy.Apple.COM>, bdelan@apple.COM (Brian Delaney) writes: > In my example conversation, what can these people do? They both have > contradictory notions of how one goes about be polite and respectful. > The best thing they can do is to remember that words are indeed just > words. This makes the dynamite more stable, and less likely to be set > off by the words. When they remember that words are just words, then > our second person won't mind quite as much hearing those words, and > out first person won't mind saying them. Nice try, but, you hit on the right answer before. There _is_ a power sub-context. That is not to say that everyone trying to set the framework for conversation is doing so with that as a primary purpose. Nonetheless, it happens whether intended or not. That is not to say that I totally disagree with you. One of the best ways of eroding that power base, the power base which sets the framework within which communication can occur, is to realize that the other party is attempting to assert that power. The most effective way to thwart that attempt may not be to explode, as you suggest. For example, I recommend Suzette Haden Elgin's "Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense" books. I also recommend Deborah Tannen, Ph.D's "That's Not What I Meant!" and her latest book (I do not have it and have forgotten the title, but it is something like "You just don't understand"). [This is correct. --CLT] My point, to state it directly, is not that any one particular framework should be chosen as "correct," but rather that one should be aware of the power sub-context "framework" so as to decide how best to respond to inappropriate usages. -Doug --- Preferred: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us Daily: {uunet,nfsun}!willett!dwp
jan@orc.olivetti.COM (Jan Parcel) (09/19/90)
In article <653609811@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: >Webster's Dictionary define "guy" as: >"... 3 b: PERSON - used in pl. to refer to members of a group regardless >of sex [example:] <saw her and the rest of the guys>" > >Therefore the word "guy" seems to me as gender neutral to start with. > >Any comment from native English speakers? In my parents' day, it was "guys and dolls," when I was little, it was "guys and gals," by the time I was a teenager, "guys" had become a bit like "men," in that we NEVER used it for a group of ALL female, but if the group contained one or more males, we would use it. Then we went to "cats and chicks," then "dudes and chicks." (I grew up in California, my parents are from the west, i.e. 1200 or so miles east of here 8-) ) If someone said "I saw this guy driving down the road," everyone I knew would understand that as "I saw this [boy or man] driving down the road." In other words, guy was more age-neutral than gender-neutral. If I were going out with a bunch of women, I would probably say I'm going out with the crowd, or the gang. But I'd be perfectly happy to see "guy" keep evolving into a gender-neutral word. A good test of a TRULY gender- neutral word (in terms of research into mental imagery, which is the "PC" method of analysis ) is when it keeps its neutrality when applied in the singular. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ jan@orc.olivetti.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We must worship Universal Consciousness as each of the 5 genders in turn if we wish to be fully open to Yr glory. -- St. Xyphlb of Alpha III
wilber@aludra.usc.edu (John Wilber) (09/28/90)
In article <9009122207.AA10780@houston.cs.columbia.edu> travis@houston.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey) writes: >In article <11927@chaph.usc.edu> wilber%aludra.usc.edu@usc.EDU (John Wilber) writes: >> Perhaps it is the fact that the ideas of equal rights for women have been >> so universally accepted that the only thing left for the activists to >> get outraged over is petty word games. >Universally accepted? The universe I live in contains countries than the >United States, where such a right is by no means accepted or acted on. OK OK OK. I meant universally in the US. Geez. >Even in this enlightened district it was recently unacceptable to amend our >constitution to describe men and women as equal, I believe that the constitution and the law ALREADY do this. There are many questions about just what additional changes the ERA would require. Just what changes in the present law would you expect to see (aside perhaps from allowing women into combat units in the military)? >and popular comedians can >tell jokes that consist of nothing more than shrieking "Suck my cock, >bitch!" to random women in the audience. Such comedians do things like this for shock value. If this were a commonly accepted mode of behavior would it be considered funny by anyone? >Other issues, such as the lack of >national child care, Oh, you mean taking money from childless people by force and giving it to people who have children? I don't think that has anything to do with sexism. I think it has a great deal to do with socialism or some other kind of collectivism. >sexual discrimination and harassment, Sure, it happens at times. It is also illegal. What percentage of the population do you think thinks that sexual discrimination/harassment are OK? Do you not think that such laws have been "universally accepted" even though they are occasionally broken? Do you think that just because there is theft that anti-theft laws have not been universally recognized? >and the >omnipresent violence against women, loom a great deal larger than the >"petty word games" that you describe. What makes "violence against women" any worse than "violence against men"? Do you think that the idea that violence against anyone, male or female has not been pretty much universally rejected? Sure, there will always be some deviants, but just how many people do you think would say "yeah, I support violence against women"? >Although you apparently feel feminist activists are solely concerned with >"women's issues," Certainly not. I think many of them are concerned with gay rights, implementing income redistribution schemes, re-writing history, and promoting a collectivist ethical system whereby one's moral worth can be determined by his or her sex or race. If they would just stick to demanding fair treatment as individuals (rather than demanding special treatment as a group) I would be with them all the way. >perhaps you should not be so sanguine about a system that >gives men gender roles Are these roles forced on anyone against his will? Are you going to force a different role on men against their wills? >that cannot be sustained without an early death from >"natural causes," e.g., higher rates of violent death, alcoholism, heart >disease, among other things. Don't be so quick to defend a system that is >killing you and your male friends and relatives. Well, I'm not very violent, I don't drink, or smoke, and I don't own a set of dueling pistols. Those problems are not forced on people against their wills. They are simply statistically more prevalent among certain groups. I don't think that alcohol, cigarettes, too much fat, or too much violence are good ideas, but I am not going to force other people to live the kinds of lives I think they should. Neither should you. >In any case, the use of words like "girl" or "women" signals an attitude of >respect or the lack of one. You entirely miss the point by claiming that >they are all words describing the same concept, when _every_ word is rich >with connotations and secondary meanings. Yes, and MY meaning when I refer to an adult female as a "girl" does not carry any connotation of immaturity. None. Zero. How can I tell? Because I am the one using the word. What you are saying here is that you can tell what I am thinking because you know what I mean when I use the word "girl" even when I tell you I mean something else. I know what I mean. You can't tell me otherwise. >> P.S. I have heard a few times that folks of asian ancestry cannot now >> be referred to as "oriental" by _Politically Correct(tm)_ speakers. >> They are not "orientals", but "asians". Can anyone explain what the >> deal here is? Is being called "occidental" derogatory too? I guess >> I'm just not "racially sensitive". >The feeling is that names like this are geographically relative and >mediated by outmoded attitudes of racial superiority. France and England, >the primary colonizers of the Middle and Far East, chose names for these >regions indicating their distance from the "center of civilization", which >the colonizers felt themselves to be. In fact THEY WERE the center of civilization at the time. The fact that they refer to themselves as "westerners" or occidentals would imply that the "middle" would be around eastern europe. Surprise! Actually, from a geographic perspective, the eurasian continent has an eastern part and a western part. I see nothing odd about calling the east east and the west west. >"Occidental" is not usually >considered derogatory, but that is due to its occasional use. If US >citizens were routinely referred to as "the Westerners" by those on the >European continent, I suspect we would all be a little touchy about >relative names. I even refer to myself as a westerner. Am I being autoderogatory? >No, I don't care deeply about this issue, but out of habit and politeness, >I try to call people or regions by the names they choose. I take offense at people taking a word which carries no negative implication like "oriental" and implying that anyone who uses it is a racist. Actually, it has a use that "asian" cannot completely replace. If I was looking for someone and said "Did you see Fred? You know, the asian guy with the blue shirt." It would not be clear whether I was necessarily talking about someone who was born on the asian continent or someone who has straight black hair and epicanthic folds. "Did you see Fred? You know, the oriental guy with the blue shirt." is slightly more clear, but neither word implies any negative racial feeling when I use it that way. Implications to the contrary are mislead at best, and malicious at worst.
cel@cs.duke.EDU (Christopher Emery Lane) (10/02/90)
In article <12245@chaph.usc.edu> wilber@aludra.usc.edu (John Wilber) writes: >In article <9009122207.AA10780@houston.cs.columbia.edu> travis@houston.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey) writes: >>In article <11927@chaph.usc.edu> wilber%aludra.usc.edu@usc.EDU (John Wilber) writes: >>> Perhaps it is the fact that the ideas of equal rights for women have been >>> so universally accepted that the only thing left for the activists to >>> get outraged over is petty word games. >>Universally accepted? The universe I live in contains countries than the >>United States, where such a right is by no means accepted or acted on. >OK OK OK. I meant universally in the US. Geez. Not much of a universe, is it? ;=) Plus, I'm not waiting for the "ideas" of equal rights, I'm waiting for the reality. >>Even in this enlightened district it was recently unacceptable to amend our >>constitution to describe men and women as equal, >I believe that the constitution and the law ALREADY do this. There are many >questions about just what additional changes the ERA would require. Just >what changes in the present law would you expect to see (aside perhaps from >allowing women into combat units in the military)? I would expect my chances of being drafted to decrease by around 1/2 and I would expect to have a better chance in a custody battle, as the "mother gets kid by default" reasoning would be dumped. >>sexual discrimination and harassment, >Sure, it happens at times. It is also illegal. What percentage of the >population do you think thinks that sexual discrimination/harassment >are OK? Around 10% of the male undergrads at Duke think rape is ok (this is based on a yearly survey conducted by the psychology department at Duke, asking people (or perhaps just men) "is it acceptable to use force to have sex if the woman has" gone on a date, gotten undressed, kissed, etc. If anyone really wants the reference, I can get it). I would guess that the discrimination/harrassment is more commonly approved of. I have certainly seen more than a few deviants discriminate (that may be because I am working in a university, which tends to be more conservative than "society at large"). >Do you not think that such laws have been "universally accepted" >even though they are occasionally broken? Do you think that just >because there is theft that anti-theft laws have not been universally >recognized? In fact, 25% at the minimum of women have been survived rape or attempted rape (and 10% or more of men) (NB: I'm including incest in rape). In my opinion, this makes it far from "universally accepted" that rape is wrong. If you don't know any rape survivors who have shared that experience with you, you might want to wonder why. Ask women about rape, about their fears, worries, and experiences. If you act reasonably non-judgemental, they'll certainly tell you, and before long you'll run into people that have been raped. If you already know men or women who have been raped, or if you yourself have, I don't see how you can say that it is universally accepted that rape is wrong. Moreover, on a petty note, the people I know who steal from companies believe it is ok for them, lacking money, to steal from a rich company. I'm not commenting on this, simply pointing it out as an example of how "deviant" people rationalize what they do (of course, "normal" people don't need to rationalize ;-). >>perhaps you should not be so sanguine about a system that >>gives men gender roles >Are these roles forced on anyone against his will? Yes. Some studies show that male infants are touched less frequently and less afectionately than female infants. etc., etc., etc. >Are you going to force >a different role on men against their wills? Not if you're a feminist, who believes in in the ideal of freely chosen lives. Of course, feminism would advocate that people who are bothered by inequality in the living arrangements stop cleaning up after their partners. A sort of household strike. This would have the effect on some men of changing their roles against their wills, unless cleanliness truly meant very little to them. >>that cannot be sustained without an early death from >>"natural causes," e.g., higher rates of violent death, alcoholism, heart >>disease, among other things. Don't be so quick to defend a system that is >>killing you and your male friends and relatives. >Well, I'm not very violent, I don't drink, or smoke, and I don't own a set >of dueling pistols. Those problems are not forced on people against their >wills. They are simply statistically more prevalent among certain groups. >I don't think that alcohol, cigarettes, too much fat, or too much violence >are good ideas, but I am not going to force other people to live the kinds of >lives I think they should. Neither should you. I hope you're not drafted to the Arabian deserts, and I hope you're not killed by some young male teenager speeding while drunk off his ass. I hope you never have the pain of helping a loved one through the healing process of recovery from rape or incest. Sexism hurst men and women, and leaves everyone incomplete. Chris -- "Life's a bitch and then you die." cel@cs.duke.edu Down with Gender! Enjoy today.
travis@liberty.cs.columbia.EDU (Travis Lee Winfrey) (10/03/90)
[Hi all, sorry about the length again. Only one book reference./tlw] >In article <12245@chaph.usc.edu> wilber@aludra.usc.edu (John Wilber) writes: > > In article <9009122207.AA10780@houston.cs.columbia.edu> travis@houston.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey) writes: > >In article <11927@chaph.usc.edu> wilber%aludra.usc.edu@usc.EDU (John Wilber) writes: > >> [women's rights universally accepted -- only petty word games left] > [followup question about `which universe might that be?'] > OK OK OK. I meant universally in the US. Geez. Perhaps, then, you will admit that there are still things for activists to become upset over, even if not "universally" in the US? How about Purdah, for instance? Female infantcide? Clitoridectomies? Buying and selling women? How about US companies exporting the Dalkon Shield IUD to third-world countries, even after it had been pulled from our markets for killing "our" women? Whoops -- somehow the US got mentioned again. > There are many questions about just what additional changes the > ERA would require. Just what changes in the present law would you > expect to see (aside perhaps from allowing women into combat units > in the military)? Good question. You gave the most obvious answer, although it's not clear that you understand the depth of political opposition to females in combat. Keeping pro-choice laws in effect is the second-best answer, and most doubtful prospect. (Anyone else care to contribute?) Either way, I was primarily addressing your "universality" view, not specifically advocating the ERA. > >Other issues, such as the lack of national child care, > > Oh, you mean taking money from childless people by force and giving it > to people who have children? I don't think that has anything to do with > sexism. I think it has a great deal to do with socialism or some other > kind of collectivism. Hey, I can play rhetorical games, too! Watch: "Oh, you mean, it's ok that the US has the HIGHEST INFANT MORTALITY OF ANY INDUSTRIALIZED NATION? Oh, you mean it's ok that children in a dozen other countries have a better chance at staying alive until the age of five?" But this gets us no closer to the truth than your response. Perhaps there are other ways to view treating child care than with kneejerk responses like calling it "socialism." Many wholly capitalistic companies have realized that their own bottom line is tied up in employees who have children, and that providing child care and parental leave is ultimately better for everyone. Legislative solutions aren't the only answers. Finally, the fact that there is a great deal to argue about here belies your "universally accepted" assertion. Activists have more to deal with than "petty word games." > >sexual discrimination and harassment, > > Sure, it happens at times. It is also illegal. What percentage of the > population do you think thinks that sexual discrimination/harassment > are OK? Do you not think that such laws have been "universally accepted" > even though they are occasionally broken? Passing laws against behavior cannot remove gender roles that cause that behavior. Even if it could, the laws against sexual discrimination and harassment were all passed within the last twenty years, unlike, say, laws against murder. Please understand that many people use `feminism' as a means of social criticism, not as some platform from which to advocate laws. But no, I do not think that such laws are universally accepted, even in a country where outraged sound-bites pass for substantive debate. Many people think women ought to act like women, and that doesn't necessarily include their having a job -- or at least, one that pays as much as men's work. > What makes "violence against women" any worse than "violence against men"? The same reason that made the Holocaust worse than the other crimes of humanity. The same reason why a single black man chained to a tree and tortured to death is worse than someone killed in a barroom fight. It is always different when people are targeted as a group. The violence per se is not important in this context, nor are the number of deaths. For example, more women are probably injured from drunk driving than from being raped. True or not, it's simply irrelevant to a criticism of societal attitudes fomenting rape, such as those discussed in Chris Lane's recent reply to your article. Also, spousal abuse is unique in the ways that economic and psychological act together to prolong the abuse, whether the victim is male or female. Gender roles obviously play a huge part in the giving and taking of this abuse. Ultimately, this inquiry not a Monty-Pythonesque question of "who suffers more", but of finding reasons why some things happen. Finding "who suffers more" is good public policy, but irrelevant to social criticism. > Do you think that the idea that violence against anyone, male or female > has not been pretty much universally rejected? ... just how many > people do you think would say "yeah, I support violence against women"? Few. However, many would say that violence against women is inevitable. As Clayton Williams, future governor of Texas, said this year, "they should relax and enjoy it." There is an widespread attitude of tolerance. > >In any case, the use of words like "girl" or "women" signals an > >attitude of respect or the lack of one. > > Yes, and MY meaning when I refer to an adult female as a "girl" does > not carry any connotation of immaturity. None. Zero. How can I tell? > Because I am the one using the word. What you are saying here is that > you can tell what I am thinking because you know what I mean when I use > the word "girl" even when I tell you I mean something else. I know > what I mean. You can't tell me otherwise. Fascinating: you're defining a one-way form of communication, in which the sender unilaterally determines the message and the manner in which it will be interpreted. Perhaps you could work a science fiction story out of that theme. If not, ad agencies will definitely be interested in your idea. However, in the real world, there are quite a few people who are offended by the use of "girl," and for the reasons I gave. Use it all you like, but you cannot control how other people will respond to your words. Sorry for the late bulletin. > [John Wilber asks "Why is `Oriental' so much worse than `Asian?'"] > Travis Winfrey responds: > >The feeling is that names like this are geographically relative and > >mediated by outmoded attitudes of racial superiority. France and England, > >the primary colonizers of the Middle and Far East, chose names for these > >regions indicating their distance from the "center of civilization", which > >the colonizers felt themselves to be. > > In fact THEY WERE the center of civilization at the time. The fact that > they refer to themselves as "westerners" or occidentals would imply that > the "middle" would be around eastern europe. It's much more complicated than that, to put it mildly. An excellent book on the subject is Edward Said's "Orientalism," which explores the centuries of mystification and the historic placement of the Islamic Orient. I suggest you consider the possibility that Asians, like feminists, might have solid grounds for complaints about labels. You might also profitably notice that you complain about labels reserved for you, while denying others the same privilege of self-naming. In any case, in the preceding paragraph, you asserted that the West was the "center of civilization" during the colonial era. Apart from this being a cute, 19th-century attitude, it surprises me that you would bring it up in this particular argument. Let's recount, using _your_ assumptions: West = Center of Civilization so Westerner = someone from the Center of Civilization then contrast East = not the Center of Civilization in other words, East = inferior to the Center of Civilization otherwise, what does "Center of Civilization" mean, exactly? Can you posit an egalitarian, non-superior Center of Civilization? (That still somehow colonized other countries for their material wealth?) A kinder, gentler Center of Civilization?) Anyway, we can conclude Easterner = inferior to those from Center of Civilization Is the offensive side of "Oriental" any clearer? If not, you'll have to think further on the subject. For those who got this far, the correspondence to feminism, particularly to Cindy Tittle's short definition of feminism, should be clear. Just a round-eyed big-nosed gaijin ghost, t
wilber@aludra.usc.edu (John Wilber) (10/03/90)
[Some of the stuff in here is drifting from the subject and these articles are getting to be long. Please try to edit things down. I would suggest breaking things up for followups. While I left in stuff about Western domination, followups on that part of the article should probably go to talk.politics.misc. -MHN] In article <9010022222.AA16693@liberty.cs.columbia.edu> travis@liberty.cs.columbia.EDU (Travis Lee Winfrey) writes: >>In article <12245@chaph.usc.edu> wilber@aludra.usc.edu (John Wilber) writes: >> In article <9009122207.AA10780@houston.cs.columbia.edu> travis@houston.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey) writes: >> >In article <11927@chaph.usc.edu> wilber%aludra.usc.edu@usc.EDU (John Wilber) writes: >> >> [women's rights universally accepted -- only petty word games left] >> [followup question about `which universe might that be?'] >> OK OK OK. I meant universally in the US. Geez. > >Perhaps, then, you will admit that there are still things for >activists to become upset over, even if not "universally" in the US? Certainly, many countries have aweful legal and social policies regarding women (and men too for that matter). You'll get no arguments here. I even (surprise!) think there are some problems here in the US, but I think we will disagree about the size, source, and nature of the problems in the US. >How about Purdah, for instance? Sorry, I'm not familiar with "Purdah". >Female infantcide? Of course not, but I am surprised that a group of rabid pro-abortionists would be terribly excited about infanticide (though I think abortion is OK and infanticide is not, personally). >Clitoridectomies? Yuck! >Buying and selling women? Of course not! Me? Pro-slavery? >How about US companies exporting the Dalkon >Shield IUD to third-world countries, even after it had been pulled >from our markets for killing "our" women? Whoops -- somehow the US >got mentioned again. That sounds bad on the surface, but I don't have all of the necessary information to make an informed decision. What seems ridiculous to me is that these are viewed as "women's issues". I am against infanticide, physical mutilation, slavery and unsafe products whether the "victim" is male or female. To hold a principle that says "Killing/mutilating/ enslaving/defrauding members of one sex is of more concern than if it happens to the other sex." is sexist. Principled stands against killing/mutilating/enslaving/defrauding are good. Bringing sexual views into these simple principles is wrong because it confuses the issue for no good reason. >> There are many questions about just what additional changes the >> ERA would require. Just what changes in the present law would you >> expect to see (aside perhaps from allowing women into combat units >> in the military)? >Good question. You gave the most obvious answer, although it's not >clear that you understand the depth of political opposition to females >in combat. Sure I do, but I don't think it's an especially important issue (compared to equal access to jobs, education, and government services). >Keeping pro-choice laws in effect is the second-best >answer, and most doubtful prospect. (Anyone else care to contribute?) I don't see how ERA would have any effect on abortion laws (aside from political fall-out). How can you go from "Equal treatment of women." to "Limiting access to abortion is illegal."? It sounds about as weak as the argument from privacy. >Either way, I was primarily addressing your "universality" view, not >specifically advocating the ERA. The original comment was explicitly about ERA (but is long gone in the back and forth of the debate). I do stick by my argument though that the idea that women should be treated equally is nearly universal in the US. If you took a poll asking "Do you believe that women and men should be treated equally on principle?" you'd probably get a 99% yes response. It is only when you ask (something like): "Since women can only be treated equal under socialist scheme X, do you believe that men and women should be treated equally on principle?" that you would get varying degrees of disagreement (depending on what X is). >> >Other issues, such as the lack of national child care, >> Oh, you mean taking money from childless people by force and giving it >> to people who have children? I don't think that has anything to do with >> sexism. I think it has a great deal to do with socialism or some other >> kind of collectivism. >Hey, I can play rhetorical games, too! I wasn't playing rhetorical games. The issue of who is responsible for whose life and who controls the product of your labor is vitally important. It is an important issue, not a rhetorical device. Attaching unwarranted implications to the word "girl" *IS* a rhetorical device, however. >Watch: "Oh, you mean, it's ok >that the US has the HIGHEST INFANT MORTALITY OF ANY INDUSTRIALIZED >NATION? If the alternatives are having a high infant mortality rate (which was caused, I should ad, by the very kinds of socialistic programs you advocate to solve it) and losing my freedom, I will choose to keep my freedom. My life and my property belong to me, not to the first person to come along with some kind of problem. >Oh, you mean it's ok that children in a dozen other countries >have a better chance at staying alive until the age of five?" Sure...why should it matter to me where a kid lives? I think that good life-expectancies are good, but I would rather live in the US and be free than live in Cuba and have low infant-mortality in my neighborhood. >But this gets us no closer to the truth than your response. I agree that your comment gets us nowhere. Mine on the other hand deals with an important issue you have not addressed. Do you have no answer to it? >Perhaps >there are other ways to view treating child care than with kneejerk >responses like calling it "socialism." If you establish mandatory national child care it IS socialistic. Calling it something else is just an evasion. >Many wholly capitalistic >companies have realized that their own bottom line is tied up in >employees who have children, and that providing child care and >parental leave is ultimately better for everyone. I have no problem at all with voluntarily-funded child care systems. I believe the original posting referred to it as a "National Child Care System". >Legislative solutions aren't the only answers. I am surprised to hear that from you. Maybe there's hope for you yet. >Finally, the fact that there is a great deal to argue about here >belies your "universally accepted" assertion. Activists have more to >deal with than "petty word games." That is because the activists spend time talking about issues like child care, abortion, and patriarchy and not equal treatment of women. The petty word games come in when they try to confuse these non-equality related issues with the equality issue. >>>sexual discrimination and harassment, >>Sure, it happens at times. It is also illegal. What percentage of the >>population do you think thinks that sexual discrimination/harassment >>are OK? Do you not think that such laws have been "universally accepted" >>even though they are occasionally broken? >Passing laws against behavior cannot remove gender roles that cause >that behavior. I agree with that...maybe your social engineering friends would be interested in hearing this. ;-) >Even if it could, the laws against sexual discrimination >and harassment were all passed within the last twenty years, unlike, say, >laws against murder. OK, that's (partly) why the laws are broken more often than laws against murder. That doesn't mean that any substantial part of the population has not accepted sexual equality in general. >Please understand that many people use `feminism' as >a means of social criticism, not as some platform from which to advocate >laws. OK, but when that criticism goes beyond sexual equality and extends to advocation of things utterly unrelated to equal treatment there is no reason to call it feminism anymore. Talk about abuses of language! >But no, I do not think that such laws are universally accepted, even >in a country where outraged sound-bites pass for substantive debate. I don't think that the affirmative action and contract set-aside laws are universally accepted, but the anti-discrimination laws are. What leads you to believe otherwise? >Many people think women ought to act like women, and that doesn't >necessarily include their having a job -- or at least, one that pays >as much as men's work. What decade are you living in? The only person I have seen express that attitude is Archie Bunker. ;-) Why do you believe this is a common attitude? >>What makes "violence against women" any worse than "violence against men"? >The same reason that made the Holocaust worse than the other crimes of >humanity. The same reason why a single black man chained to a tree >and tortured to death is worse than someone killed in a barroom fight. >It is always different when people are targeted as a group. I completely disagree with this. Killing someone because of his race is _exactly_ as bad as killing him because you want his wallet. This sounds like pretty dyed in the wool collectivism to me. So much for your more promising attitudes of the previous paragraphs. ;-) >The violence per se is not important in this context, nor are the number >of deaths. What a twisted perspective! >For example, more women are probably injured from drunk >driving than from being raped. True or not, it's simply irrelevant to >a criticism of societal attitudes fomenting rape, such as those >discussed in Chris Lane's recent reply to your article. The difference between the drunk driving death and the rape death is the difference between suicide and murder. Both are distasteful, but the latter is objectionable, not because the victim is a woman, or because it is "an attack against a group" (which is not ALWAYS the case with rape) but because it is violence directed at another person. I repeat...violence against women is just as bad as violence against men and for the same reason. There is no justification for treating them any differently. >Also, spousal abuse is unique in the ways that economic and >psychological act together to prolong the abuse, whether the victim is >male or female. It is "unique" in the circumstances, but not unique in severity or in what makes it morally wrong. It is just as bad to be shot by an angry neighbor as to be shot by your spouse. both are immoral for the same reason. >Gender roles obviously play a huge part in the giving >and taking of this abuse. I agree that it is a large part of the cause, but what's the point? >Ultimately, this inquiry not a >Monty-Pythonesque question of "who suffers more", but of finding >reasons why some things happen. OK, I agree, but what should this have to do with government policies? >Finding "who suffers more" is good public policy, but irrelevant to >social criticism. What is the purpose of this criticism then? If it is merely advisory (ie. to help people understand how to live their lives) then I disagree that "feminist social criticism" contributes much to social harmony or improves the attitudes of men. I think that more down to earth principles of equal treatment and non-violence will improve those attitudes. They are all that is necessary. >>Do you think that the idea that violence against anyone, male or female >>has not been pretty much universally rejected? ... just how many >>people do you think would say "yeah, I support violence against women"? >Few. However, many would say that violence against women is >inevitable. Just as "violence against men" is. So people treat one another poorly. What makes this an issue of "feminism" and not a more general matter of good human relations? >As Clayton Williams, future governor of Texas, said this >year, "they should relax and enjoy it." There is an widespread >attitude of tolerance. First, I suspect he was just kidding, but if he wasn't then that just makes him one of those "few" you mentioned. Most likely he was trying to stir up a response by the radical feminists who are not held in high esteem by Mr. Williams' political base. >>>In any case, the use of words like "girl" or "women" signals an >>>attitude of respect or the lack of one. >>Yes, and MY meaning when I refer to an adult female as a "girl" does >>not carry any connotation of immaturity. None. Zero. How can I tell? >>Because I am the one using the word. What you are saying here is that >>you can tell what I am thinking because you know what I mean when I use >>the word "girl" even when I tell you I mean something else. I know >>what I mean. You can't tell me otherwise. >Fascinating: you're defining a one-way form of communication, in which >the sender unilaterally determines the message and the manner in which >it will be interpreted. What we are talking about here is not a difficulty in communication, but a juvenile refusal to understand. If my use of that word upsets you because you think it means I am thinking something and I tell you this is not true but you continue to insist that I mean something other than what I claim, then you are calling me a liar (and a sexist) when I am neither, even though you know better. That's what makes it so frustrating. >However, in the real world, there are quite a few people who are >offended by the use of "girl," and for the reasons I gave. Use it all >you like, but you cannot control how other people will respond to your >words. Sorry for the late bulletin. I plan to. It does not upset me if people misunderstand me and allow me an opportunity to explain myself. What ticks me off is when people refuse to believe (or more like admit that they recognize) what they know to be true. >> [John Wilber asks "Why is `Oriental' so much worse than `Asian?'"] >> Travis Winfrey responds: >> >The feeling is that names like this are geographically relative and >> >mediated by outmoded attitudes of racial superiority. France and England, >> >the primary colonizers of the Middle and Far East, chose names for these >> >regions indicating their distance from the "center of civilization", which >> >the colonizers felt themselves to be. >> In fact THEY WERE the center of civilization at the time. The fact that >> they refer to themselves as "westerners" or occidentals would imply that >> the "middle" would be around eastern europe. >It's much more complicated than that, to put it mildly. I find it interesting that even the politically correct Mr. Winfrey described the regions in question as "middle east" and "far east". Does that make him a racist too? Does my use of the term "oriental" make me a racist? >An excellent >book on the subject is Edward Said's "Orientalism," which explores the >centuries of mystification and the historic placement of the Islamic >Orient. I suggest you consider the possibility that Asians, like >feminists, might have solid grounds for complaints about labels. Since I don't think feminists have a valid complaint, that's not a very convincing argument. >You might also profitably notice that you complain about labels reserved >for you, while denying others the same privilege of self-naming. What label did I complain about? I mentioned I had been referred to as a "westerner" (and that I sometimes refer to myself that way), but I never complained about it. >In any case, in the preceding paragraph, you asserted that the West >was the "center of civilization" during the colonial era. As much as you seem to reject the idea, it WAS (and mostly still is if you consider the US to be "west"). >Apart from >this being a cute, 19th-century attitude, it surprises me that you >would bring it up in this particular argument. Let's recount, using >_your_ assumptions: > West = Center of Civilization Historically, an objectively true fact. > so > Westerner = someone from the Center of Civilization > then contrast > East = not the Center of Civilization > in other words, > East = inferior to the Center of Civilization This is only the case if you assume the premise that one gains some kind of superiority or inferiority because he lives in some particular geographic region. Fortunately, I am not afflicted by this collectivist assumption. By the way, I usually use that word (actually, it really doesn't come up often) to refer to physical characteristics on par with black, white, or hispanic. "Asian" used in this context is slightly ambiguous in cases of (east) indians, russians, and people born in asia but with non "oriental" traits. In any event, I don't mean to imply any kind of inferiority by referring to someone as "oriental". Statements to the contrary are either mistaken or intentionally evasive of the truth. > otherwise, what does "Center of Civilization" mean, exactly? It means that the guys who were writing the books and maps were living to the west of that place (they were also living near the west coast on the eurasian continent). It also meant that in that geographic region technology and other demonstrations of civilization were (and are) more prevalent than in "the east". Only a racist would assume that because of this fact that individuals in the "west" necessarily have/had any kind of moral or intellectual superiority or that there is any implication of inferiority on the part of individuals i nthe "east". There are and were some ideas and practices common among those in the west that resulted in the general success in that region, but assumptions about any particular individual on that basis (or worse, rejection of those commonly held ideas) are racist in nature. > Can you posit an egalitarian, non-superior Center of Civilization? Since I believe egalitarian societies are nasty, I don't believe they can be superior to non collectivistic non-egalitarian ones (though they can be superior to some other non-egalitarian collectivist societies... just a matter of degrees of evil). By the way, I don't think that the idea that the history of "the east" is one of egalitarianism (though like I said, I consider egalitarianism evil), but rather one of tribalism and various non-egalitarian strains of collectivism. >(That still > somehow colonized other countries for their material wealth?) A kinder, > gentler Center of Civilization?) Anyway, we can conclude Puleeeze! > Easterner = inferior to those from Center of Civilization "We" can only conclude this is "we" are racists. Just what do you mean by "inferior" anyway? >Is the offensive side of "Oriental" any clearer? If not, you'll have >to think further on the subject. For those who got this far, the >correspondence to feminism, particularly to Cindy Tittle's short >definition of feminism, should be clear. It is clear to me why people object (as it was in the case of the "girls" issue). My understanding of it doesn't make me agree with the validity of that kind of tortured reasoning. Reasoning no more tortured could result in me taking offense when not addressed as "Mr. John Wilber Sir" (since it do otherwise demonstrates some amount disrespect or familiarity) but the reasoning would be just as invalid.
hmj2@deimos.caltech.EDU (Helen Johnston) (10/04/90)
[I trimmed the quoted material down a bit. It would help if you folx did it first (hint hint) ;-). Also, I think we will hold off further response to this particular point until John Wilber responds in his turn, if he does. --CLT] In article <12322@chaph.usc.edu>, wilber@aludra.usc.edu (John Wilber) [Originally wrote that his use of "girl" was not sexist because he doesn't mean it that way when he uses it. Travis commented:] >>Fascinating: you're defining a one-way form of communication, in which >>the sender unilaterally determines the message and the manner in which >>it will be interpreted. [And John responded:] >What we are talking about here is not a difficulty in communication, but >a juvenile refusal to understand. If my use of that word upsets you >because you think it means I am thinking something and I tell you this >is not true but you continue to insist that I mean something other than >what I claim, then you are calling me a liar (and a sexist) when >I am neither, even though you know better. That's what makes it so >frustrating. So are we to assume that you would feel perfectly happy calling an African-American 'nigger', provided that you had the chance to explain that YOU don't find the reference at all insulting?
judy@ucbvax.berkeley.EDU (Judy Leedom Tyrer) (10/05/90)
Last night when our almost 4 mo. old was screaming inconsolably for no reason, my husband looked at her and said "What is it now, woman!" For some reason I thought of this thread... Judy
wilber%aludra.usc.edu@usc.EDU (John Wilber) (10/09/90)
In article <1990Oct4.021201.23780@nntp-server.caltech.edu> hmj2@deimos.caltech.EDU writes: [I said...] >>What we are talking about here is not a difficulty in communication, but >>a juvenile refusal to understand. If my use of that word upsets you >>because you think it means I am thinking something and I tell you this >>is not true but you continue to insist that I mean something other than >>what I claim, then you are calling me a liar (and a sexist) when >>I am neither, even though you know better. That's what makes it so >>frustrating. >So are we to assume that you would feel perfectly happy calling an >African-American 'nigger', provided that you had the chance to explain >that YOU don't find the reference at all insulting? The difference is that I DO consider "nigger" to be a derogatory term, and if I used it, my intent would be to insult/degrage the person I was talking about. If I said that I didn't mean to imply anything negative I would be lying. This is not the case when I say that I don't think than "girl" carries any negative connotations when I use it. If you met a 5-year old who had always heard blacks referred to as "niggers" and just thought that was what they were called, would you say he was being a racist? Would you be angry with him for using the word? To directly answer your question though, if it was the case that I for some reason didn't mean anything derogatory by using the word "nigger" and I had a chance to explain myself (as we might give the 5-year old a chance to explain) then nobody SHOULD take offense (unless they thought I was a liar). The fact is that the word "nigger" is commonly accepted as having a derogatory meaning and I would have to spend a lot of time explaining myself for no good reason (especially since there is a perfectly good word to use as a substitute). In the "girl" situation, the case is a bit different. I don't think many people consider "girl" (when used properly) to infer any negative opinion (how many 40 year olds have "boyfriends" and "girlfriends"?). Wasting a lot of time arguing about this word is just a stupid as if I decided to try to change everyone's definition of "nigger". It is just as waste of time. In any event, unless you think I am a liar you have no reason to be upset at me for using the word "girl" if I explain that I mean nothing derogatory. Thanks, John
twain@blake.u.washington.edu (Barbara Hlavin) (10/10/90)
In article <12322@chaph.usc.edu>, wilber@aludra.usc.edu (John Wilber)
says that his use of "girl" was not sexist because he doesn't mean
it that way when he uses it. When challenged by Travis, John replied,
"If my use of that word upsets you because you think it means I am
thinking something and I tell you this is not true but you continue
to insist that I mean something other than what I claim, then you
care calling me a liar (and a sexist)...
====
"When *I* use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scorful tone,
"It means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can [use words that way]."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master --
that's all."
====
This is an all-too-frequent argument, used by people who are insensitive
to both people and language. In this particular case, the argument goes:
When *I* use the world "girl" to refer to an adult woman, it means what
*I* choose it to mean. It doesn't MATTER that my audience finds it
objectionable and tells me so. It doesn't MATTER that the common,
conventional usage is understood by the English-speaking world to mean
a dependent female child of 12 or younger, and that even as far back
as the Victorian age a female if 16 was known as "a young woman." It
doesn't MATTER to me that this usage is deeply offensive to the people
I'm talking to. The only thing I care about is that I argue incessantly
and boringly until I wear everyone out and give the appearance of
winning an argument even though my reasoning is willfully obtuse and
even dishonest.
In other words, the speaker doesn't give a damn how much he offends
people by calling them by names they don't want to be called.
--Barbara
--
Barbara Hlavin Moab is my wash-pot; over Edom
twain@blake.acs.washington.edu will I cast out my shoe; Philistia,
U Washington JC-21/Seattle 98105 be thou glad of me.ben@cs.warwick.ac.uk (Ben Dessau) (10/11/90)
I'm a 21 year old (male) student. I don't want my speach to offend anyone, and would be perfectly willing to use the word "woman" instead of "girl", but I have difficulty in thinking of most of my female friends of a similar age to myself as "women". I don't think of a male as a "man" unless they are at least 30 and have a position of responsibility over me. The word "woman" to me implies the same age/superiority, and I suppose "girl" does the opposite. I call most males of my age "guys" which has no such connotations - is there a similar word for females? - most I can think of are even worse than "girl". -Ben
wp6@cunixa.cc.columbia.EDU (Walter Pohl) (10/11/90)
Discussing whether or not women are justified in thinking that the word "girls" is offensive is a waste of time. What does it matter? If women here prefer to be referred to as "women," then what reason do you have to do otherwise? Walt Pohl "alt.walt? It has a certain ring to it, no?"
judy@altair.la.locus.COM (Judy Leedom Tyrer) (10/11/90)
In article <12345@chaph.usc.edu> wilber%aludra.usc.edu@usc.EDU (John Wilber) writes: > >In any event, unless you think I am a liar you have no reason to be >upset at me for using the word "girl" if I explain that I mean nothing >derogatory. According to Miss Manners, a person should be addressed or referred to in a manner which the person prefers. Therefore, if I ask you to call me Mrs. Tyrer and you insist on calling me Judy, you are being rude. In the same manner if a woman requests you to refer to her as a woman and not as a girl and you insist on referring to her as a girl, you are being rude. It has nothing to do with your "intentions" and everything to do with honoring a person's request to be referred to in a manner that person feels comfortable with. Judy Tyrer
cel@cs.duke.edu (Chris Lane) (10/11/90)
In article <18086@oolong.la.locus.com> judy@altair.la.locus.COM (Judy Leedom Tyrer) writes: >According to Miss Manners, a person should be addressed or referred to >in a manner which the person prefers. Therefore, if I ask you to call >me Mrs. Tyrer and you insist on calling me Judy, you are being rude. >In the same manner if a woman requests you to refer to her as a woman >and not as a girl and you insist on referring to her as a girl, you >are being rude. It has nothing to do with your "intentions" and >everything to do with honoring a person's request to be referred to in >a manner that person feels comfortable with. Of course, this is not-necessarily-a-feminist issue. Feminism has made a lot of progress by not being polite, and not labeling as they feel comfortable. For instance, if I became a employer or manager or boss of women, and politely asked everyone to address me as "O great masculine lord of the universe and of this office", it would not be feminist of my workers to politely accede to this request of self-labeling. [We might take up the question of how manners and politeness are evolving in response to feminism. This broadens it away from the "what to call people" issue which is getting a bit overworked here. - MHN] Just a thought, Chris -- "Life's a bitch and then you die." cel@cs.duke.edu Down with Gender! Enjoy today.
wilber%aludra.usc.edu@usc.EDU (John Wilber) (10/11/90)
In article <18086@oolong.la.locus.com> judy@altair.la.locus.COM (Judy Leedom Tyrer) writes: >According to Miss Manners, a person should be addressed or referred to >in a manner which the person prefers. Therefore, if I ask you to call >me Mrs. Tyrer and you insist on calling me Judy, you are being rude. As a generality I think this is correct, but I would say that if you insisted on being referred to as "your grand exaulted highness, Ms. Judy Leedom Tyrer" Miss Manners would not approve. Admittedly, "girl" is not quite as obnoxious as that, but the same principle is at work. [Somehow, I don't think that girl-->woman is anything like Mrs.-->grand exalted highness... I don't think any of us are in dispute that "girl" has been used derogatorily, not necessarily by John Wilbur. For example, I know that I have been called "girl" in a derogatory fashion. I have been called such often enough that I am uncomfortable with being called a "girl." I refuse to be called a "girl" even by one such as John who does not mean anything derogatory by it (and I wonder, John; your refusal to listen to those of us objecting to the term smacks of contempt to me -- whether or not you intend it to, you should probably stop and consider why you come across to me like that (please note I don't necessarily think you're being contemptuous, but I'm being honest about the impression I'm getting)) and I think that common politeness then dictates that you should respect that request, whether or not you think that you're guilty of using the word in the way that caused the objection. I think this thread is getting beaten to the ground, considering that people on either side have not budged from their initial positions and are now repeating the same arguments. I'm inclined to let it die, unless there are futher trenchant observations... --CLT]
flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) (10/12/90)
ben@cs.warwick.ac.UK (Ben Dessau) writes: >I call most males of my age "guys" which has no such connotations - is there a >similar word for females? - most I can think of are even worse than "girl". I like to use the word "folks" when addressing a group in an informal and slightly joking way, like "hello folks" where some would say "hello guys". I find this better than making a gender distinction, especially since you don't want to exclude either gender from any group. ajr
baba@decwrl.dec.com (Baba Rum Dudu) (10/16/90)
I would like to ask for a point or two of clarification.
Was the beginning of this thread a story of a person who had an emotional
reaction to hearing a group of student type females calling themselves
girls?
If I am relating to a female human(of any age) who requests that I use
the term 'girl' for her and is not insulted, what should I call her?
ps: All through this I am reminded of Joanie Caucus' sardonic smile upon
hearing a birth announcement of "It's a Baby Woman!".
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich ...!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!baba
or baba@opus.tymnet.com
Claimer: These are only opinions since everything I know is wrong.
Copyright notice: If you're going to copy it, copy it right.gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) (10/17/90)
In article <3870@tymix.UUCP> (Baba Rum Dudu) writes: >If I am relating to a female human(of any age) who requests that I use >the term 'girl' for her and is not insulted, what should I call her? Call her as *she* likes, and drop the silly subject.