mcardle@apolloway.prl.philips.nl (Owen McArdle) (09/19/90)
Hi folks, I've been skulking around in the background for a while, and as a result of the current girls/women debate I have a related question - about the usage of the term `coed'. As far as I understand the term (it seems to be peculiarly N.American in usage) it simply means female student. The origin would appear to stem from the time that schools/colleges changed from single-sex to co-educational, the women who then found their way into the previously all-male institutions being tagged as the `coeds' - am I right so far ? (As an aside, how come the men going to previously all-female institutions escaped - or didn't they ? I've never heard an equivalent being used) Anyway, to get to the point (finally, I hear you say :-), every time I hear this term being used the old shackles rise & my blood temp along with them, as I read an implication that female students are somehow `different'. That _they_ are not the real students, but simply a sop to the co-educational system, so to speak. Now I may simply be over- reacting to to a (cultural) difference in language usage (but then the girl/woman debate would seem to provide a welcome precedent for this), and this may be acceptable in all the best (American) homes, but I'd just like to find out how this is viewed by all these people who have such _strong_ opinions about the proper nomenclature for the female population in _all_ social situations... and any others who've managed to stay awake this far :-). Reactions ?? (Note, follow-ups directed to soc.feminism) PS. Apologies for all the brackets, currently undergoing lisp de-toxification :-(). PPS. Save bandwidth - email flames. Owen P.McArdle || e-mail : mcardle@apolloway.prl.philips.nl Philips Research Labs. || 'phone : +31-40-742824 Eindhoven || quote : "Oh no, not again"
pedersen@cartan.berkeley.edu (Sharon L. Pedersen) (09/21/90)
Yay! Another language war! (So much safer than the real kind.) In article <2150@prles2.prl.philips.nl> mcardle@apolloway.prl.philips.nl (Owen McArdle) writes: [what about "coed"?] Sheesh, does anyone actually still USE the word? I remember when I first encountered it, reading the "Anne of Green Gables" series. I figured out that it apparently meant "student at an institution educating both sexes" (i.e., a coeducational institution, but I'm trying to avoid defining a word with a similar word). OK, that was fine, not that it seemed such a big deal to have a coed institution (notice "coed" as an adjective just means "coeducational" and doesn't have any negative connotations). Except this definition didn't really work. Imagine (these are made-up but true-to-life sentences): "Anne met with a group of other coeds for dinner. They decided to go out for ice cream later with some boys they had met." (Another antiquated usage--calling college students _boys_ really stands out to my eye--_nobody_ does that any more, even the ones who call college students _girls_.) Hmmmm. How come Anne and this group of students of both sexes are trying to find a group of just boys to do things with? Gradually I figured out that for some wierd reason, only _female_ students were called coeds. Seemed pointless, but at least now I could understand what Anne and her friends were up to. Owen said it quite nicely: > Anyway, to get to the point (finally, I hear you say :-), every >time I hear this term being used the old shackles rise & my blood temp >along with them, as I read an implication that female students are >somehow `different'. That _they_ are not the real students, but simply a >sop to the co-educational system, so to speak. Yup. And overwhelmingly, being evaluated on their sexual characteristics. The term as used has nothing to do with "studently" characteristics. I mean, have you ever heard _anyone_ say, "I was a coed at Harvard and wrote my senior paper with John Kenneth Galbraith, before I went to Stanford for law school"? > Now I may simply be over- >reacting to to a (cultural) difference in language usage (but then the >girl/woman debate would seem to provide a welcome precedent for this), No, you're not. >and this may be acceptable in all the best (American) homes, No, it isn't. > but I'd >just like to find out how this is viewed by all these people who have >such _strong_ opinions about the proper nomenclature for the female >population in _all_ social situations... and any others who've managed >to stay awake this far :-). Strongly! --Sharon Pedersen pedersen@cartan.berkeley.edu OR ucbvax!cartan!pedersen