Conference turris::womannotes-v1

        Yes, many of the members of this conference do so object. You
        might look at note 61.* in which several objected quite
        strenuously.
        
        JimB. (Who still talks about guys and gals and has lady friends) 

Well, I believe that this particular instance, ie the use of boy/girl to an 
adult, is in common *non-derogatory* usage in England, shows the culture 
differences. To get uptight here would most certainly be considered pretty 
humourless. I must be careful on the net I suppose. I would think nothing 
of referring to a group of women as girls, men as boys, and together as 
boys and girls. Funny old thing language.


Jerry

> I would think nothing 
>of referring to a group of women as girls, men as boys, and together as 
> boys and girls.

 Now that's a switch.  Usually I hear "men" vs "girls".  I wouldn't 
 mind being called a girl if men were called boys.  Which they 
 don't seem to be in the US.  I usually react very strongly
 against hearing any woman referred to as a girl -- but only
 if a man is talking, now that I think about it.  Hhmmm...I'll
 have to think about why I don't bother to correct women 
 when they use "girl".  

    I have the same reaction to being called "girl" - no matter whether
    the offender is male or female - as I would expect a black man would
    have to being called "boy".  I believe that when women are called
    "girl" the person doing it means to be demeaning whether they realize
    it or not.
    
    Now, a lot of you won't agree with this or won't feel as strongly.
    The real question here is, knowing how some of us feel about it
    why do it and make someone angry at you for no good reason?  If
    that is not your goal, then watch your language whether you understand
    or agree or not.                                           
    
    Sally
       
    
    

>    					I believe that when women are called
>    "girl" the person doing it means to be demeaning whether they realize
>    it or not.


In the US maybe, but you won't find that to be the case here.

    I never considered the implications of being called a girl. The
    replies I've read have made me do some rethinking.  However one
    word that makes flames come out of my ears and mouth is to be called
    a "broad".  I have lectured my brothers and their friends on the
    ugly connotation and have called them by another ugly name for the
    male gender.  They did quit in short order, they didn't like being
    called anything other than men. ;-)
    
    vivian
    

    Most older women who use girl are not using it to be
    demeaning and are often offended if you suggest they
    shouldn't say girl.

    I remember having this struggle with a group of male friends several
    years back when I was trying to get them to use the word "woman"
    instead of "girl".  After a bunch of conversation on it, one of
    my friends said to me, "You want me to call you a woman?  Well,
    that all depends - are you *mature*?"  And I had to crack up and
    call a (temporary) truce.
    
    Next time I'll try to point out that I am in my prime childbearing
    years.  Maybe then they might notice I'm a woman and not a girl!?

    	-Ellen

    re .1-.9:
    
    I think there is already a discussion of being called "girl" by
    your 'peers'. I think there is something interesting embedded in
    .0 however:                                   
    
    a) when does a child start being called a "woman" instead of "girl"?
    and
    b) is it acceptable for the "previous generation" to forever call
    	the "present generation" "girls" and "boys".
    
    Specific reference was made to Grace Hopper, who is old enough to
    be my grandmother. I would not be insulted by her calling me "boy".
    From her perspective, I am but an infant.                           
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    A 36 year old "young man" in my organization kept calling me a "young
    lady" (I'm 34!)  He also refers to his 2 year old daughter as a
    "young lady".  I heard him call a female senior manager "young lady"
    one day, and she said to him "I think you believe that I find that
    flattering."  He looked surprised and said "An attractive young
    lady like yourself wouldn't mind my saying so" in a coy voice. 
    She said a little sharply, "It's not flattering, and I don't like
    it.  I don't think any of the other women around here like it, either."
    I was torn...if the guy had been a jerk I would have told him off,
    but he was one of my strongest supporters in other ways.
    
    And I don't think he really got her message, because he kept calling
    me that from time to time.
    
    It's easy for me to be assertive when someone is being a jerk and
    I don't like them, or care what they think, but it's very hard for
    me to be assertive when there are good intentions and genuine caring
    accompanying the annoying behavior.
    
    I'm still working on this one.
    
    Re. being called a girl...
    
    I don't like it, although I also feel less offended if the person
    doing it is over 60.
    
    I was talking with a group of people one day about why they found
    the word "woman" offensive or hard to use.  Here's what the people
    said that they associated with "woman".
    
    Women's sizes    (usually size 40 or larger)
    Grandmothers
    fallen women
    being old
    witches
    females who did not deserve to be called "ladies"
    
    That's a partial list, but it's scary to see some of those
    associations!
    
    Back in the early 70's, a group of friends and I who worked in a
    Women's Studies Program fought to be called women.  It was hard,
    but as we continued to insist, I felt the word "woman" take on
    connotations for me that included
    
    powerful
    assertive
    not needing to smile, flirt, or please
    calm
    centered
    strong
    independent
    bright and not apologetic about it
    
    I like being called a woman!

    I think we should tell older people that we don't like being called
    boys and girls.  Explain that you understand that to them you are just
    a child, but in reality you are grown, and would prefer to be called
    men and women (by the way, Grace Hopper called the men she worked with 
    "young men").  I don't think we give our elderly enough credit.  They're
    still intelligent human beings and can change.  

    ...Karen

    I once had an argument/discussion about when it is appropriate to
    use the term woman with a Chinese co-worker, ie, he was educated
    in the Chinese culture.   We agreed that it was correct to call
    someone a woman if she supported herself (though we did find out
    along the way that in both are cultures (Chinese and Jewish) that
    men are called boys until they are married).    Then he asked me
    (with a sly grin), "So, do you support yourself?"    At my answer
    of yes, he looked surprised, but said, well, then I shall just have
    to call you a woman!
    
    I heard the other day that NATO got its first woman pilot.  The
    flying instructor (in trying to tone down the media hype about it)
    said, "She may be a girl, but she's one of the boys!"
    
    Tamar

    Just an observation, but when women are going out with their friends
    do they say "Lets go out with the women" or is it "Lets go out with
    the girls/gals; similar to "lets go out with the boys/guys" as 
    opposed to "lets go out with the men".  I myself refer to women
    as women, but I think both sexes are to blame on this one as far
    as perpetuating a former wrong.  Like all other issues, it will
    take time for society to fully catch up.
    
                                        Mark
    

        I've thought about this a moderate amount since I first brought
        it up back in 61.0, and I find that I have to stick by my
        earlier observations. I still use all three types of language
        when talkiing about or addressing people: casual, informal, and
        formal. 
        
        Casually, I still use light and diminutive terms for freinds and
        close acquaintences ("kid", "guy", "gal", "boy", "girl"), I
        still use formalities with older people and people in positions
        of authority and total strangers ("Sir", "Ma'am", "Miss",
        "lady", "gentleman", "young man", "young lady"). And for
        some people who are mere acquaintences, I use the informal
        terms ("man" and "woman").
        
        But... I use "woman" noticably more than "man", and I do so
        because I have been made acutely aware that women are offended
        by both casual language and formal language. I do it because on
        the one hand I genuinely don't want to offend or hurt anyone's
        feelings, and on the other hand because I am very uncomfortable
        when people fly off the handle over little things. 
        
        In short I do it because I don't want to upset the women by
        treating them the way I treat men. Men I interact with casually,
        formally, and very occasionally informally. Women I treat
        informally much more often. I have stopped extending them the
        curteousy of formality, except for ladies enough my senior that
        they are very unlikely to be offended by my old world manners. I
        have also started to keep them at the informal distance much
        longer, keeping them just faces and names rather than someone
        just like me much longer. When I meet another guy, say another
        engineer, I drop pretty quickly into a pretty casual mode.
        If the other engineer is a woman, though, I stay much more
        careful about what I say, worrying about giving offense much
        longer.
        
        This last makes me uncomfortable. All my life I have been much
        more comfortable around gals than guys. I have always been a
        pretty easy going type, quite casual in my approach and
        language. I never thought there was anything odd about girls and
        women doing what boys and men do. I didn't worry about treat
        people differently because of their sex, except that I tended to
        trust and like anyone female more than anyone male (it's based
        on being beaten up by virtually every boy in my 5th grade class
        and none of the girls). 
        
        Today I've had it beaten into me that women are special. They're
        very sensitive about what you say around them, and how you
        address them. Socially, I still am more comfortable making
        friends with the gals, but at work when the coworker is female,
        I hold her at a distance, don't get as close, don't let her into
        the circle as easily as I would if she were male. Today, I find
        that I'm less likely to quickly take a young new-hire engineer
        under my wing if she's a she than if he's a he. I'm slower to
        trust and to open up.
        
        Somehow, the way I've come to view women in the work place makes
        me much less comfortable than way I used view them, but it is
        much more acceptable. They almost never jump on me for my
        abherent language. They seem to feel that I'm treating them
        better. They used to be just other people. Now they're special. 
        
        I think its wrong. I think that if many other senior engineers
        feel and act the way that I do it will hinder the acceptance of
        women into engineering. I think I'm making the old boy network
        harder for them to get into. They aren't "old boys". They refuse
        to be "old girls". They're just women. They're different.
        They're "them" not "us". They used to be "us", at least to me.
        
        I think it was better 5 to 10 years ago. I think I treated the
        girls and ladies better than I do the women. I do know that I've
        changed. I don't like it. 
        
        JimB. 

    re .14
    Ladies Night Out

                  For some reason, the word "girl" has never
              particularly bothered me -- but I'm not fond of
              the word "gal" AT ALL!
    
                  I guess the word "gal" makes me feel like
              we should be wearing cowboy hats if we're going
              to talk like that (and I should refer to the
              men as "cowpokes.")  :-)
    
                  'Course, I'm sitting here with one foot in
              cowboy country, so maybe it's appropriate around
              here...  :-)
                                                
                                                Suzanne...

RE: .18
    Bob, Just as "Negro" and "Nigger" had developed insulting connotations, so
    too does "girl".  Sometimes it is important to change the words used to
    break away from the baggage carried around with the word.  Sure, there
    will be people who prefer the old words, because they were brought up
    with them, and they sound right.  Just as I always spoke good grammer
    from how it sounds, not because I understood the rules.  "Sound" has
    a large influence on our lives, thus it takes a major conscious effort
    to do something that doesn't "sound" right.  However, if enough people
    make that effort it will sound ok, and people will no longer have to
    make a conscious effort to change.

RE: .0
    And my dictionary is one example of why using "girl" is sexist.  You would
    think that "boy" and "girl" would have the same definition with the opposite
    sex inserted, however, "boy" is only defined as "a male child or youth",
    whereas "girl" is defined as "1. a female child or young unmarried woman.
    2. any woman.".  I am never insulted by being called a girl in situations
    where a man would be called a boy, it's just the discrepancies between
    men and girls.  "He's a nice man, she's a nice girl".  And except for 
    certain phrases, men are called men, so call me a woman.

    ...Karen

                     This is going to sound really strange,
                  but until this note, I've never ever heard
                  that women don't like to be called girls.
     
                     One of my Aunts (who was over 60 at the
                  time) once referred to her friends at the
                  office as girls (they were her age) -- she
                  remarked to me at the time that it seemed
                  funny to be calling women in their 60's
                  "girls." (She said that the convention seemed
                  to be that a "girl" is anyone your own age
                  or younger while a "woman" is anyone *older*
                  than you are.)  It didn't bother her at all
                  -- she was just remarking on it.

                     I remember that when I worked for PBS,
                  there was a program about feminists that went
                  into a long discussion about why feminist women
                  refuse to be called "LADIES."  I was working
                  when I saw it (so I didn't pay close attention
                  to it), but I'm *positive* that she said that
                  the word LADY was somehow insulting to women.
                  (I wonder if that's still true.)
    
                     If someone says "girl" or "lady" -- they may
                  be like me (unaware of what the problem is or
                  even that it is insulting.)  As for me, I'm
                  not really concerned about either word -- the
                  only ones that bother me significantly are
                  "broad" and the 4 letter word that starts with
                  a "c" (that's one of the few "colorful metaphors"
                  that I refuse to have spoken in my presence --
                  most other words don't affect me too much unless
                  the intent is clearly to offend me personally or
                  to be sexist/racist/whatever in general.)
    
                                                    Suzanne...

    It's been such a long time since I was first brought up short for
    using the term "girl" with respect to an adult female that it never
    really occurs to me anymore, except in certain cases where I use the
    word deliberately (and carefully) for effect (e.g. kidding where I
    know offense won't be taken). I suspect the degree to which it's
    viewed as an issue is cyclical, depending on how many more serious
    issues are in vogue. 
    
    I view this issue as more significant than, say, the absence of a
    reasonable impersonal pronoun for a person whose gender isn't
    relevant ("he" vs "she" vs "s/he" vs "it" vs "one"), though when
    writing I generally work my sentences around to avoid this issue as
    well. I do have reservations about the degree to which some people
    demand that "girl" not be used to refer to anybody above the age of
    15 (or 16 or any particular age starting with "1"); I don't view
    either a 16-year-old male as a "man" nor a 16-year-old female as a
    "woman" (in general). Use of terminology gets very subjective, but
    there's a connotation of maturity to both words, and it goes beyond
    just being old enough to reproduce. 

    Use of the term "lady" is objected to by some who view it as
    implying sexist behavioral characteristics (knowing her place,
    waiting for doors to be opened, that sort of thing). 

    On the other side of the coin, because the use of both "girl" and
    "lady" are such entrenched colloquialisms, I don't think it's
    particularly productive to flame at people who misuse them. (This is
    rich, of course, coming from someone who chides people for saying
    "functionality", "prioritize", or "less" instead of "fewer".) Some
    of the more negative impressions some people have of the feminist
    movement come from the perception that its adherents concentrate
    overly on minutiae. Calm education never hurt anybody. (When
    somebody says "less" and I say "no, `fewer'", I do so with a smile.) 

    Lady feels much less powerful to me than woman.
    
    Consider the implicit"pictures" conjured up by the following:
    
    lady lawyer		woman lawyer  		lawyer
    lady doctor		womadoctor              doctor
   lady astronaut      woman astronaut          astronaut
    
    
    I was brought up to be a "young lady" (well dressed, always smiling,
    graceful and grateful, looking up adoringly at some well-heeled
    male, conversant with Emily Post).
    
    As a young woman I attended rallys, protest marches, and demonstations.
    A young lady would definitely not have been very comfortably in
    those situations.
    
    I also wrote angry radical feminist prose, jeered at sexist and
    racist speakers visiting campus, and went without a bra.  A young
    lady wouldn't have been caught dead doing those things.  A girl
    might have, but a woman (especially a feminist woman) could write
    the book!
    
    Anyway, I even appear lady-like from time to time these days ( my
    family is just thrilled every time!) but I can do that because I
    am well acquainted with my underlying power!
    
    Holly
    

    
    
    Since I entered the base note I am going to express my feelings
    on being called a "girl"....
    
    I was in a bank this morning and there were three men in line for
    a teller (wearing construction type clothes) who were being very
    rude and downright insulting to the workers in the bank.  The teller
    just smiled and did her job and then wished them a nice day.  This
    was after one of the men stated that "They must know we come in
    here every Tuesday so they have the new girls come in to get training."
    The teller did not finch or even acknowledge the remark.  I have
    seen that teller many times over the last few months and she is
    not in training.  She also has children she supports.  She is not
    a girl and performed her job very professionally.  The men on the
    other hand acted as though they were the most important people in
    the bank and that the rest of us should get out of their way.  The
    had other things to do then to wait in line at a bank.
    
    This attitude that women or other men are there to receive personal
    insults from an individual that they do not even know is one of
    the basis of the anger that women, minority and other oppressed
    peop show at casual usage of words they find offensive.
    
    I will also add that I usually smile and say "woman" when ever I
    am confronted with the term girl in direct conversation.  I did
    not attempt to correct the men in the bank or even remark to the
    woman next to me about their behavior.  So one could say that I
    a don't have enough confidence in my beliefs.  Not so, rather it
    is that over the years I have learned when to speak out and when
    not to (sometimes I still speak out when I shouldn't).  
    
    A previous note touched on one of the reasons I started this topic,
    that is, if you are told that something offen me  * WHY * do you
    continue to say it, do it in my presence?
    
    		_peggy
    
    

     re .23:
     
     Sometimes a speaker/writer uses derogatory language out of habit,
     without even realizing it.  For example, the description of the rude
     men at the bank as "wearing construction type clothes" seemed to be a
     swipe at construction workers, or at least at people who aren't
     dressed as though they had desk-type jobs.  (Was there any value in
     identifying their clothing and/or occupation, except to create some
     sort of generalized image of the type of people they were?) 
     
     I'm against stereotypes.
     
     --Mr Topaz

         RE: .23
    
              Another thought -- would you have been less offended
           if those men had said, "...so they must get the new WOMEN
           to come in for training"?
    
              Wasn't it the MEANING of their words (and the intent
           to be insulting) that bothered you?  Wouldn't it have
           been just as bad if they'd said "women" instead of "girls"
           in this particular case?

              Would you have been angry at them if they'd said,
           "I'm *so* glad we have this girl as a teller again today.
           She is so professional and courteous -- they must KNOW
           we're coming in on Tuesday so they make sure we get the
           most experienced and efficient teller they have to help
           us!"  (Would the word "girl" have ruined what they said
           even though their intent would have been to express their
           highest regard and respect for this person?)
    
              Which counts more (the actual words chosen or their
           obvious intent?)
    
                                                       Suzanne...

       "Lady" can be demeaning in the same way that "girl" can be. A few
       responses here indicate that "girl" would be okay if its male
       equivalent "boy" were used similarly. The same goes for "lady" and
       "gentleman;" both imply refinement, and to use only the former
       implies that only women are or should be refined. 
       
       I don't mind being referred to as a lady if I believe the speaker
       would refer to me as a gentleman were I male. (In other words,
       they can put me on a pedestal as long as they also put men on the
       same pedestal.) However, I don't believe that most users of
       "lady" would also use "gentleman," and that's why "lady" usually
       makes me cringe. 

       					Val

                  I *do* agree that it is completely reasonable
             for women to expect to be called women (instead of
             "girl" or "lady," even though I personally am not
             offended when someone uses those words to refer to
             me.)
    
                  The only case where I feel it is more appropriate
             to say "lady" is in the case where you are talking to
             young children ("Say hello to the lady") because it
             indicates that you are asking the child to show respect.
             In that case, I would tend to *not* say the word "gentle-
             man" in referring to a man (only because the word would
             seem to me to be less familiar to the child and would possibly
             be confusing.)  
    
                  Of course, the fact that the word "lady" is more
             common than the word "gentleman" may be a result of our
             sexist culture (and our use of "lady" and not "gentleman"
             to a young child may serve to reinforce an old sexist
             tradition.)
    
                  If I have any more children, I'll try to remember
             to use the word "woman" (and indicate with my voice that
             the child should show respect.)

                  It seemed like a trivial aspect of sexism when I first
             saw it in this file, but I definitely think people DESERVE
             to be called by words that they feel are more respectful
             and appropriate.  I will certainly keep it in mind *myself*
             from now on.
    
                                                          Suzanne...

        I agree that people have a right to be addressed the way that
        they wish to, and I find that I am doing so more now with women.
        What I feel is sad is that means I am now treating them
        differently from the guys. Because they insist on being treated
        in a special way, I am now more hesitant to accept them as "one
        of the boys". I am sure that I accepted female engineers into
        the "old boy network" much more readily back when I called them
        girls or gals. 
        
        Women, girls or ladies they have the right to be called and
        addressed in whatever way they wish. I try to accomodate. I just
        think that they're ill-advised to be concentrating on unintended
        linguistic slights rather than the intentions of the people who
        are speaking. When I treated female engineers the way I treated
        male engineers, I would get criticized for it. Now that I
        maintain the social barriers longer, making it harder for them
        to be one of the guys, they're happier. They aren't as well off
        career-wise, but they're happier, and that is sad.
        
        JimB. 

    re .28
    
    I find it hard to believe that a slight modification in terminology
    "maintains social barriers longer". In what way are you talking
    about barriers (as opposed to social differentiation, which isn't
    necessarily the same thing)? I find it even harder to believe that
    not being "one of the guys" should have any bearing whatsoever on a
    woman's career prospects. In what way are the women you're talking
    about less well off career-wise?

    So how would you women respond if someone called you a femtech?
                              
      Mikie?

          RE: .31
    
                   My experience (in hearing the word "femtech"
             used) has been that it was NOT meant to be inten-
             tionally offensive.  It was used by men as a way
             to abbreviate the words "female technician" (or
             "an engineer who happens to be a female.")

                   That doesn't make it a whole lot more accept-
             able in MY book -- I dislike the very SOUND of it
             (reminds of a name one might choose for a PRODUCT
             that only women would use.)  Whatever sort of product
             that might be...

                   Field Service Engineers in Digital are probably
             the LEAST likely people to harbor condescending attitudes
             and sexual stereotypes (because of the fact that so many
             of them have seen women sharing the "Field Service Experi-
             ence," which includes carrying a tool kit, working 24 hours
             in one shot, dragging around a car full of parts with them,
             being on standby, solving some *incredibly* difficult system
             problems and having systems "eat their lunch" once in awhile,
             too!)  
    
                   As much as I dislike the word "femtech" (which is
             at least *1000* times more than I dislike "girl" or "lady"),
             I would definitely tend to give the "benefit of the doubt"
             to one who might use that word in my presence.
    
                   Like Marge, I'd say, "Field Service Engineer, please!"
             (And with grins from me, too, because I don't believe it
             is meant to be insulting.)  
    
                                                         Suzanne...

OK, so can someone explain to me the american female habit of addressing a 
group of women as 'guys' ?????    !!!!!

It has certainly struck me as being an extremely odd mode of address, or 
maybe it's a culture difference??


Jerry

    It is much easier to say "Hey, you guys, did you hear blah blah
    blah instead of, "Hey, Vicki, Chris, Donna, Sandy, Ellen, and Denise,
    did you hear...?
    
    I grew up in a "college" atmosphere that doesn't look down on "Hey, 
    you guys...".   We also don't mind "out with the girls" 'cause I
    really think it sounds funny saying "Honey, tonight I'm going out
    with the women".  To avoid all conflict, perhaps I'll say, "tonight
    I'm going out <period>.
    
    How about when a male worker/friend says to another male worker/friend
    " How's the little woman"?  Any comments on that one?
    
    :-) Cat

RE: .-1 ease of speech

Here's a case where I've found a couple of "southernisms" very useful. When
I was a boy in Tulsa, Oklahoma both the terms "Miss" and "Mrs." were
pronounced "Miz". So I addressed Miss Smith as Miz Smith, and Mrs. Parker as
Miz Parker. When the term Ms. came around in the '60's (or was it the
'70's?) I had no trouble adjusting.

Likewise, instead of saying "you guys" I sometimes use "you-all". It works
for any group regardless of size or gender (i.e. even a single person of
either sex can be you-all.)

Regarding femtechs. Is there a corresponding male version? Masctech, or
maletech?

Don.

    re .35
    
    If my husband calls me "the little woman" or "my old lady", or anything
    else other than by name or "my wife/spouse", I jump all over his
    case.  I refuse to let him address me by those terms, and have
    corrected others who have referred to me by those terms in my presence.
    
    These terms are not only demeaning to women, but they are demeaning
    to the relationship.
    
    G

        I'm sorry, I thought I had explained in my earlier note (148.15)
        why the terminology maintains the social barriers, and why being
        "one of the guys" is important to careers. Let's try a brief
        version.
        
        There are four modes of address or reference in English, and
        being moderately traditionalist I use all three and the reflect
        the social relationship between the speaker and the other
        person. They are:
        
        	Intimate	Spouses, So's and other intimates
        	Casual		Friends and close acquaintances
        	Informal	Other acquaintances
        	Formal		Strangers and superiors
        
        Intimate isn't really relevant here so I shall leave it out.
        
        Most people I deal with in a work environment, start out either
        at the formal or informal level depending on the precise
        business relationship. Most of my peers slip into the casual
        category pretty quickly. This is true for males but not for
        females. Females, much at their insistance, are kept at the
        Informal level much longer.
        
        It is not just a question of language. It is a question of how
        people are treated. If you are being extra careful to avoid
        offense there is a social barrier. If you are unsure enough
        about the relationship to act naturally, there is a barrier and
        the relationship is not casual.
        
        As to why this affects careers, there are two reasons. First, a
        lot of what an engineer learns is learned informally and from
        peers or more senior engineers. The process of learning it is
        helped by more open communications channels, by tutelage, by the
        freedom to criticize without being afraid of it being
        interpretted as a hostile gesture. In short, when a peer or a
        senior takes you into their confidence and treats you as an
        equal you learn more.
        
        Second, in engineering advancement is not purely by technical
        expertise and proficiency. There is also an important factor of
        recognition. Somewhere around Principal Engineer it starts being
        important who you are known by and how. Reputation and working
        relationship factor seriously in advancement. Beyond that, the
        informal network (the "old boy" network) is a very important way
        in which information about available jobs and available people
        and other career information is passed. The social circles that
        you participate in at work affect the opportunities open to you.
        
        I used to treat girl engineers almost exactly the way I treated
        guy engineers. Unfortunately, some of the gals didn't interpret
        the treatment and the language that way and insisted on being
        treated as women rather than as one of the guys. Not being one
        of the guys kinda means your not one of the old boys, or that
        you get to be one slower. I now treat women engineers noticably
        differently from just one of the guys. I am more stand-offish
        with them. I advance my social relationship more slowly. I watch
        my language and forms of address more carefullly. I maintain a
        greater physical distance and space. I confide less and expect
        less confidence. 
        
        For those who are junior to me this is at least potentially a
        small career hinderance. If other engineers are acting in a
        similar way then it may be part of a larger hinderance. If, on
        the other hand, they are senior to me then it is a small
        hinderance to me. Unfortunately, women are still found more at
        the more junior levels than at the senior ones. The impact
        on them is more serious than the impact on me.
        
        JimB.

Well, from reading notes in here, guy means *male* in the US. So, will 
someone look within themselves and explain why women use a *male* form of 
address one to another.

please.


Jerry




Re: 'the little woman' if it was said seriously I would be underwhelmed.
If it was said jokingly (which it can be, by someone deliberatly being 
jokingly provocative) then it wouldn't bother me a bit.

          RE: .39
    
                  Are you under the impression that it's a universal
              practice among women to call each other "guys"?
    
                  Not that *I'm* aware of (but then again, I didn't
              even know that women don't like to be called "girls,"
              so I may be somewhat out of the mainstream here.)  :-)
    
                  When referring to a group of people (males, females
              or a mixed group), it seems common to hear these persons
              addressed en masse as "You guys."  
    
                  It has no significance (other than convenience)
              that I'm aware of -- it's just less awkward than the
              alternatives.
    
                  As for "the little woman," that definitely has a
              comical sound to me.  I would assume the person was
              kidding.  My favorite "odd" name for wife is "the
              wife."  ("I'm going home to see the wife.")  Anyone
              want to venture a guess as to whether that is flatter-
              ing or insulting?  :-)    (I honestly don't know!)
    
                                                       Suzanne...

           RE: .38
    
                   You've raised an interesting point.  How far 
               should women go to request verbal expressions of
               "respect" if it succeeds in setting women APART
               from their male peers/co-workers?
    
                   Right or wrong, I've always been "one of the
               folks" among my male co-workers (which means that
               I hear the same language that they hear -- with all
               the "colorful metaphors" in tact -- and receive the
               same doses of playful teasing that they all receive.)
               Personally, I wouldn't have it any other way.
    
                   Do they call me "girl?"  I honestly couldn't tell
               you.  I've never noticed.  When I'm working, I have
               almost no awareness at all that I'm female (and that
               they are mostly male.)  We're just all ENGINEERS --
               we have the same responsibilities, the same career
               rewards, and the same frustrations.  We all sit here
               and take calls (that's what it's all about.)

                   The whole discussion on women's rights (including
               our past oppression, what labels we like or dislike,
               etc.) is all theoretical to me.  When it gets down to
               taking care of business for DEC, I'm a PERSON who works
               side by side with other PERSONS who happen to be mostly
               Engineers (many male and some female.)  Since *I'm* not
               consciously aware of being female all the time, I doubt
               very much that anyone who works with me thinks about
               it either (especially if we have a serious problem to
               discuss.)  Broken computers are a GREAT equalizer! :-)
    
                   As for what you said, Jim, I'm sure that in practice
               you probably forget about gender as much as we do in
               *our* group unless you happen to work side by side with
               a woman who is constantly *aware* of the fact that she
               is a woman (and makes *you* constantly aware of it, too,
               by informing you of her desire to be treated in some
               certain way.)  In that case, she may be doing more to
               *hamper* her equality in the group than helping it.
    
                   When working side by side with men as peers, we
               all have a choice as to how we want to relate to men.
               It's *NOT* necessary to "act like a man" -- but I think
               it *IS* wise to refrain from setting up a lot of "Rules
               of Conduct" for male peers to follow when they are in
               our presence (especially if those rules tend to set us
               APART from our male co-workers.)
    
                   The idea is for all of us to be together (as ONE)
               to do Digital's business.
    
                                                       Suzanne...

RE: .38

    Jim, I suspect you are much more conscious of how you refer to women
    and that makes you uncomfortable.  Other people are probably not
    bothered by referring to women as women and not girls.  I did notice
    that you do not ever refer to your male engineers as "boy engineers".

>        I used to treat girl engineers almost exactly the way I treated
>        guy engineers. 

    The only time you use "boy" is in a phrase such as "old boy network".
    I suggest you stop worrying so much about it.  After awhile, "woman"
    won't sound so strange to you.  I have never felt left out of the
    group because I correct people when they use the term girl.  We are
    all engineers here and rarely distinguish between the sexes.  Try
    treating the women in your group as "guys".  That's an informal
    term that doesn't have to mean men only.  Do people of other cultures
    or religions make you uncomfortable too?  There are certain topics you
    have to avoid around them, but that doesn't mean they can't be one
    of the group.

    ...Karen

    This  topic covers a point which I find one of the most difficult in 
    living in America (like friend Kew, I am British).  I was brought up 
    to use "man" and "woman" as indicators of sex of abstract members of 
    the species.  In normal speech, I rarely if ever referred to anybody 
    as either a man or a woman.  Any female younger than my mother was a 
    girl or a lass, any of my mothers age or older was  treated  to  the 
    honorific lady. When thinking of male acquaintances, a strict parity 
    was observed, the younger  ones  being  lads,  and  the  older  ones 
    gentlemen. In direct address the girls were "lass", or if older than 
    me "miss" and the ladies "ma'am", the lads where "pal" or  if  older 
    than me "friend", and the gentlemen were "sir".  Of course I grew up 
    with more colloquial, and commonly used terms, (I am a geordie)  but 
    I knew  the  Queen's  English,  and  the  proper mode of address (of 
    course as a geordie girls are "hinny" or "bonny lass", and the  boys 
    are  "marrer", but we won't pursue that line.  I might also say that 
    the word "wench" was used freely in its true English  meaning  which 
    approximates closely to that the American readers appear to perceive 
    for "girl".  My grandfather went to  his  grave  never  referring to 
    grandmother  as  anything  other  than wench, or bonny wench, and it 
    certainly never struck me as odd or demeaning.)
        
    /. Ian .\

        Suzanne,
        
        You got the point precisely. It is that when you have special
        rules about how you have to treat a group of people, that means
        you treat them differently, you mentally set them apart. A lot
        of the insistance that females be refered to only as women and
        not as girls, ladies, lasses, lassies, or whatever appears to be
        based on the idea that we should use the same rules for treating
        women and men (a very reasonable notion, by the way). The
        problem is that in many ways there really aren't any such rules
        for treating men. 
        
        I've never known a male who objected to being called by a
        specific word be it man, boy, lad, chap, guy, fellow, kid, sir,
        gentleman or "hey, clown". (Well actually, I have known one or
        two who objected to "Mr." or some other term, but it was
        predominantly either very eccentric individuals or guys who had
        first become sensatized to the "women" issue and generalized it.
        They are basically the exception which proves the rule.)
        
        I have known several women who were tremendously offended by
        being called anything but women. They were predominantly *NOT*
        eccentric individuals. In my life time *lots* and lots of women
        have corrected people who used the wrong female noun. From this
        it is easy to generate the rule that you can treat men and boys
        one way but you *must* treat girls and women another way or run
        the risk of offending them. 
        
        Casual errors in the way I have refered to members of the
        opposite sex at work have resulted in angry outbursts, hurt
        feelings and even tears (on both our parts, incidentally). It
        has caused significant and noticable pain to people I actually
        cared about. I can think of no comparable incident with a male
        either at work or out of work. I don't want to do this to
        people, but to avoid it means that I have to be more cautious,
        more reserved, more careful not to offend. 
        
        In several of these notes people have expressed the opinion
        either that I or that all guys would be offended to be called
        "boy" or "sonny" or "young man" or whatever. In point of fact, I
        don't mind it. When Admiral Hopper addresses me as "sonny", I
        know that it is either neutral or a sign of respect. Diminutives
        and the like are just not offensive to me. I suspect that that
        is hard for most women (at least women who are bothered by
        "girl") to understand. Since they are offended by the one, I
        must be offended by the other. 
        
        It's not the phrase "boy" or "guy" or whatever that is important
        for access into the "old boy" network. It is the casualness, the
        camraderie, the informality, the knowledge that you can "spit on
        the mat and call the cat a bastard" as they say. In the old days
        you had to be careful about kind of language you used around the
        ladies. Out with the boys, or at the club you could be yourself.
        Today, in many ways you have to be careful what kind of language
        you used around the women. In the past you had to worry about
        speaking of a limb as a leg, or a glow as sweat. Today you have
        to worry about speaking of a woman as a lady or a girl. 
        
        As long as we have a special set of rules for talking about and
        to women there won't be real equality. If the guys are not
        demanding about how you speak of them, but the women are,
        then there are social barriers.
        
        Sorry to keep repeating this, but the replies to my notes on
        this topic seem consistantly to indicate that I'm not making
        myself clear. People seem to hear me saying one thing, when what
        I'm trying to say is something different. If I've failed this
        time, I think I'll just let it pass.
        
        JimB.

    re 43 and 44:
    
    Just because women have always been called by those terms doesn't
    mean it's best.  Neither Grace Hopper nor I will tolerate the excuse
    that "it's always been done that way."
    
    Jim, I think if you make an effort now to use the right word, you'll
    find it *becomes* the standard and casual mode for you and you won't
    feel funny about it anymore.  BTW, it sounds like the women you offended
    overreacted a bit.  Maybe this is why you're timid around them now.
    There's always a polite way to correct people's words.

    	-Ellen

        Why don't you just call men "men", since relatively few men are
        likely to object to this.  You will then find yourself treating
        "men" and "women" the same, and your problem is solved.  If you
        want to be "informal", why not just use their names?
        Personally, I don't like being called "man".  I prefer "Dave". I
        know others who feel similarly.  :-) :-) 
        
        Use of "boy" or "girl" to be "informal" reminds me of Dave
        Barry's management advice in "Claw Your Way to the Top"
        regarding maintaining a friendly and casual atmosphere. Carrying
        a 3x5 card, the manager advances on employees and reads
        "So....... John, are you still a white male who enjoys
        photography?  Fine, good...".  The clear message is "I don't
        really know who you are, but can't you see how skillfully
        I'm being 'informal'?"
        
        One-on-one, names are better.  In larger groups, why not
        try "y'all", or even the ever-popular "everyone" instead
        of "boys and girls" as if they were a bunch of schoolkids
        with you as the teacher.
        
        More seriously... I usually won't object verbally if someone
        calls me a "boy", but under most circumstances I won't
        appreciate it much, either.  I dislike "Mr. Butenhof", but
        somehow I don't think "Mister" as a generic address (from
        someone who didn't know my name!) would bother me (much). 
        
        "Hey, clown", I would probably object to under most (although
        not *all*) circumstances!  :-)
        
        	/dave

    Both friend Kew and I have commented on  a  cultural,  or  stylistic 
    difference  between Britain and America in this and similar matters. 
    It has been my experience, without meaning to over-generalize,  that 
    whilst  everybody  is  inclined  to  latch  onto  a single, primary, 
    definition of a word, there seems to be a tendency for Americans, in 
    many  if  not  necessarily  the  majority  of cases, to only see the 
    primary meaning, whereas British auditors are  far  more  likely  to 
    view the usage in context and choose the appropriate meaning, albeit 
    that meaning may well be colored by the positive or negative aspects 
    of the primary meaning.
    
    It  appears  that  to some Americans the word "girl" has developed a 
    primary meaning that is seen as having  negative  connotations,  and 
    hence  they  are  unprepared  to  have the word used in any context, 
    blindly seeing in all cases the negative primary meaning.
    
    I append the definitions of "boy"  and  "girl"  from  Webster's  New 
    International   Dictionary   (3rd   edition).    Unfortunately  this 
    dictionary only runs to three volumes and hence must  be  considered 
    at   best  minimalistic  in  its  treatment  of  words  of  multiple 
    definition, however I feel that on balance both of these definitions 
    have  more  positive senses than negative, and indeed "boy" with its 
    single racialist definition is the more negative of the two.
    
    I continue to believe in the richness of the language and its wealth 
    of  expressive  nuances,  and  also  refuse  to be badgered by those 
    unwilling to apply the mind to the context of the usages they  hear. 
    I will continue to use these words where they are appropriate. 
    
    Some  of  the  reactions I hear to the use of "girl" bring to mind a 
    phrase from my past, as it seems that some people react as  if  they 
    were mewling, mickling bairns not yet weened from the pap.
                
    /. Ian .\
    
    boy:
    1a: a male child from birth to puberty
     b: SON: male offspring
     c: a male person not fully matured or not felt to be mature
     d: SWEETHEART, BEAU: young social partner
     e: PUPIL, STUDENT
    2a: one native to or orig. belonging to a given place
     b: a member of a group, gang, or any kind of association of equals
     c (slang): one classed or identified with a particular profession 
    		or speciality.
    3 (obs): RASCAL, KNAVE, VARLET
    4a: a male servant
     b: one who does light work esp. in the service fields
     c: a male member of a race felt to be inferior
    5 : MAN, FELLOW - used in affection or admiration or familiarity
    
    girl: [ME girle, gurle, gerle a young person of either sex]
    1a: a female child
     b: a young unmarried woman
     c: a single or married woman of any age
    2a(1): a female servant: MAID
      (2): a female employee (as a secretary)
     b: PROSTITUTE
     c: SWEETHEART
     d: DAUGHTER
    
    note that girl not only doesn't necesarily specify or imply age, but 
    originally didn't imply sex either!

>   note that girl not only doesn't necesarily specify or imply age, but 
>   originally didn't imply sex either!
        
        Ah ha, now I've got it!  We can just call *everyone* "girl",
        and nobody'll be treated differently from anyone else! :-)
        
        	/dave  ;->

        
�       Ah ha, now I've got it!  We can just call *everyone* "girl",
�       and nobody'll be treated differently from anyone else! :-)
        
        Why  not?  I  left  in  the  derivation  of "girl" because I was 
        reminded  of  the  earlier  references  to  women   occasionally 
        referring  to themselves in social groups as "guys".  The latter 
        practice is clearly absurd, but the former would at  least  have 
        etymological validity.
        
        /. Ian .\

RE: .47 

>    I will continue to use these words where they are appropriate. 
    
	I think that's the issue.  I think it is inappropriate to use
	"girl" in most situations, especially in a work environment.

	The problem with using a dictionary to justify usage is that a 
	dictionary describes what is being used, not what should be used.
	I remember teachers telling me that "ain't" aint in the dictionary,
	so don't use it.  Well now it is, but it still isn't correct english.
	The other problem is that your dictionary gave a lot of definitions
	for "girl" (as well as "boy").  How do I know what usage you mean?
	I'd hate to think you were calling me a prostitute!  How many
	definitions are there for woman?

	...Karen

� How do I know what usage you mean?

    I agree that the words "girl" and "boy" have  no  place  in  a  work 
    environment.    I  had previously stated that I personally virtually 
    never use either  "girl"  or  "boy",  especially  in  a  semi-formal 
    situation such as work. If you like my "primary meaning" for both is 
    the juvenile one, because of  my  background  I  tend  to  think  of 
    pre-puberty  children  by  such  terms as "bairn", and use "boy" and 
    "girl" as sexually determined versions of "youth" which  clearly  is 
    not  appropriate  for my co-workers (incidentally both "hey boy" and 
    "hey girl" as a means of address were major insults  in  the  area I 
    grew up in).
    
    The point I was trying to make (perhaps rather badly), was that  for 
    cultural  reasons, perhaps, many Americans seem unwilling to look at 
    the context of the usage, and then give the benefit of the doubt  in 
    choosing  the  most pleasing definition to assume, rather they often 
    seem to either discount context entirely, or assume always that  the 
    denigrating  definition  is  implied.  The nature of language skills 
    seems to me to be that we have to realize that many of the words  we 
    use  have  overloaded  (multiple context differentiated) definitions 
    and that we need to look at the total statement as  a  whole  rather 
    than  reacting  blindly to a one possible interpretation of a single 
    word, that may have multiple meanings.
    
    It  would  be  nice  if  everybody   thought   of   every   possible 
    interpretation  of what they say before they said it, but I'm afraid 
    if we did we'd wind up sounding like a lawyers convention...
                                          
    Incidentally, there are words and phrases in common usage  were  the 
    "normal"  American  usage  is harmless, and the British one far from 
    it, and vice versa.  For example a pencil eraser is commonly (almost 
    always)  called  a  rubber  in Britain, I have heard several British 
    ex-pats tell of the time when  they  forgot  this  and  asked  their 
    secretary  if  she had a rubber they could borrow.  Similar a common 
    way to ask for a wake up call is to ask "knock  me  up  at  7am"  or 
    whatever. A recent example in a european notes file pointed out that 
    in much of America "shag" means to follow, run after, or is a dance, 
    which is far from the normal British connotation. In America "Randy" 
    is a harmless name, which in Britain usually reduces the audience to 
    embarrassed  laughter.  In the circumstances it is hardly surprising 
    that we differ in how we interpret a harmless word like "girl" where 
    we are only differing over shades of meaning.
    
    /. Ian .\   
    
    [In  explanation: if a girl asked me if I wanted to shag with her, I 
    would assume that the word girl as applied to her  had  the  implied 
    meaning  "prostitute",  since  no  well brought up person would make 
    such a suggestion in polite society]

    Ian, in his reply .47, seemed to indicate that the [first few]
    definitions of "boy" and "girl" were pretty similar.  But let's
    look at them side by side:

    boy:                            | girl: [ME girle, gurle, gerle - a
                                    | young person of either sex]
    1a: a male child from birth to  | 1a: a female child
    puberty                         |

     -- So where is the "from birth to puberty" for true parallelism? --

     b: SON: male offspring         | b: a young unmarried woman

     -- So where is the "female offspring" definition?  Don't bother
        to look; there isn't one.  This absence could lead one to
        the belief that girls aren't *real* people. --

     -- Why doesn't "boy" mean a young, unmarried man? --

     c: a male person not fully     | c: a single or married woman
     matured or not felt to be      | of any age
     mature                         |

     -- This "boy" definition is a good one for explaining why
        non-Caucasians do not like this term to be used for them
        by Caucasians. --

     -- This "girl" definition seems to lose any usefulness at
        distinguishing between categories. --

     -- Having the two be 1c definitions seems to imply that any
    	female person of any age or marital status is immature or
    	may [should] be considered immature. --

     -- Finally, *none* of the "boy" definitions mention marital
    	status, but two of the first three "girl" definitions do,
    	and the second of them mentions it when it would seem to
    	be unnecessary!

    Further analysis is left as an exercise for the reader.  ;-)

    							Ann B.

    	Initial thoughts tend to side with Ian, in general, since I
    agree the meaning of the words is best found within the frame work
    in which they are used.  But, and this is a big but, the true frame
    work is in the mind of the user, a place too often not readily
    available.  Also, girl may have a number of meanings in the dictionary
    but in daily usae, for me, it references prepubesent females (or,
    females who have yet to mature).
    
    	I remember a long discussion during the 60's concerning an ugly
    word often used in place of negro.  The group contained only 'white'
    people.  In essance, the discussion centered around the proper use
    of the word found so offensive by blacks.  An associate screamed
    out, "The damned word is sufficiently insulting and degrading as
    to have no place in a white person's vocabulary." And stormed out.
    She was perfectly correct.  We were stupid to enter into a discussion
    on the proper use of such an ugly word.
    
    	And now I'm stretching!  Using girl to describe an adult female
    (female over the age of 18?) is sufficiently insulting to adult
    females, at least the majority of same who have responded to this
    note, that it should not be used, at least by adult males.  It is
    important to understand why the term is offensive but it might be
    even more offensive to try to explain when it may be correctly used.
    Ian, I believe, attempted this line of reasoning.

    re  .52:  boy def 1b is "SON" and "girl" def 2d is "DAUGHTER".  They 
    don't line up side by side because  the  Webster's  definitions  are 
    listed  in the order in which they came into use...  However I agree 
    that they are not quite as similar as I may have suggested.

    re .53: The true meaning is in the mind of the speaker, and the true 
    perception in the mind of the auditor. In the circumstances it seems 
    that the only safe time to use a word (ANY  word)  as  a  label,  is 
    after  you  have  heard  the person apply it to themselves, and even 
    then it may be dangerous.  I am reminded that I might call  myself a 
    "limey"  but  may  well  be deeply offended if a casual acquaintance 
    called me by that epithet.

    Perhaps the word has come into  such  disrepute  that  the  time  is 
    approaching  for  the  lexicographers  to  add  another  definition, 
    pointing out the insulting nature of this most modern sense  of  the 
    word more carefully. something like:-

    girl
    	3 slang: a condescending reference to a female implying inferiority.

    /. Ian .\                            
    
    

	RE: .44

	>The
        >problem is that in many ways there really aren't any such rules
        >for treating men. 
        
        >I've never known a male who objected to being called by a
        >specific word be it man, boy, lad, chap, guy, fellow, kid, sir,
        >gentleman or "hey, clown".

	Do you know any black males? It is my understanding that they
	find being called "boy" very insulting, just as insulting as
	I find being called "girl".

	You say that lately you feel uncomfortable around females
	because you feel that you must carefully choose what you say (i.e.,
	not refer to an adult female as a "girl" but as a "woman"). Do you feel
	uncomfortable around black males also, knowing an overwhelming number
	of them don't appreciate being called "boy"? Does watching your language
	around them also make you feel uncomfortable? Are you mentally
    	setting them apart, too? Or do you use the more
	comfortable term "boy" when referring to an adult black male? For your
	sake, I do hope it isn't the latter. While I don't like being called
	"girl", I don't always point out to the people that say it that I don't
	care for it. And rarely do I point it out more than once. But believe
	me, I remember who said it (and I wouldn't be surprised if there
	were a number of black males out there that take this same approach)

	Just for the record, I'm the person that the base note talks about
	(and I promised to break the young man's face, not remove it). I'm
	not big on formality, but I think that as a minimum, I deserve a
	a bit of common courtesy and just general respect as a human being.
	If someone says something and I nicely tell that person I don't
	appreciate it and to stop saying it, I expect that my wishes be honored
	and that I don't have to defend my position to someone that isn't going
	to be convinced and thinks it is a big joke. Experience (and age) wise, 
	I have nearly a decade over this kid, and I just *can't wait* until
	this Mr_Wet_behind_the_ears comes to me with a question. (I should
	point out that most of the top-ranking technical positions in this
	organization are filled by WOMEN, and I think most of them feel the
	way I do about being called "girl").

       	Deb

        I know I said I'd let it drop if .44 was misinterpretted, but
        since a couple of you have explicitly asked me questions I'll
        write on the topic one more time.
        
        Point #1: A number of you have systematically and repeatedly
        misunderstood what I am saying. You have your perceptions of the
        situation which colors what you read so much that I suspect it
        is just plain impossible for you to take from my words the
        meaning that I attempt to put into them. This is very
        discouraging in its implications about communications. 
        
        RE: 148.44
        
        First, as I have said a number of times, I *DO* use the "right"
        word, the socially acceptable word these days. You've won that
        battle. I don't "feel funny about it". What I've been trying to
        say is that as a result, I now treat women differently from men
        where as I didn't before. There are now rules for treating women
        that don't apply to men, just as there were in grandmother's
        day, they are just different rules.
        
        Second, I am not "timid" around women. The readers who know me
        personally can probably assure you of this if you don't take my
        word for it. For the past 20 years I haven't ever been called
        timid or anything resembling it. "Arrogant", "pushy",
        "excitable" "flamboyant", and the like but never "timid". I
        haven't changed my behavior because I am afraid of women, but
        because I can see quite clearly that it causes them significant
        pain and discomfort to be treated in a way that they don't
        approve of. (I also am not fond of negative emotional outbursts
        in public, but are any of us?)
        
        RE: 148.55
        
        Yes, I do know and have known a number of black men. I don't
        *address* them individually as "boy" any more than I have ever
        addressed any female as "girl". The proper forms of address for
        adults are "sir", "ma'am", or "miss" or possibliy "young man",
        or "young lady" for yound adults. For friends and acquaintences
        names are appropriate. I might address or refer to a group of
        guys that included a black as "boys". I've never so addressed
        or so refered to a group of blacks, but I don't remember
        ever addressing such a group at all.
        
        No, I don't say that I feel uncomfortable around females. What I
        said is that there are rules for addressing women and no
        coresponding rule for guys. Women must be treated differently
        today in order to be socially acceptable. I think that is sad
        and unfortunate. I think that this concern for language is
        working against women and maintains the barriers between men and
        women.
        
        To get back to the question of race with which this topic keeps
        being compared, 15 to 20 years ago one had to be very careful to
        only call individuals of African heritage "blacks". All other
        terms such as "negroes", "coloreds", "colored people", "people
        of color", "nigres", and the like were taken to be synonymous
        with "niggers". 
        
        Today while "nigger" and "nigre" have not returned to common
        usage, I beleieve you will find that "negro" and most of the
        variants on "color" have come back without any real conotation
        of inferiority. As they have become more just plain folks we
        have stopped being careful about how we talk about and to them.
        We do nothing that is deliberately derogatory--you don't say
        that sort of thing about anyone--but we take little in the way
        of special care about the language.
        
        Back when we had to worry about whether something we said with
        no intent to offend would be taken badly, language stood to
        preserve the barriers between the races. Now that blacks have
        come to realize tht no negative conotation is intended by terms
        such as negro or color, such words don't cause much trouble, and
        mostly we just treat them as we do each other.
        
        Racism isn't gone, nor is sexism, but these days racism tends to
        be seen only where it exists, whereas sexism is seen where it
        isn't. In the case of racism we now focus on intentions and
        deeds much more than on language. With sexism the language per
        se, regardless of intent is the issue all too often.
        
        RE: 148.46
        
        You misunderstand. I don't have a problem. I think women (or
        possibly feminists regardless of their own sex) do and that they
        don't see it. I am willing to treat women specially and
        differently from men if that's what they insist on. As they have
        said and I have agreed, everyone has the right to be treated as
        they wish. Women (or at least a largish and vocal group of them)
        wish to be treated informally and not casually or formally. Men
        are on the whole are willing and even happy to be treated all
        three ways. I think women are ill-advised to insist on being
        treated differently, but they have that right.
        
        I am not looking for alternative words or forms of address. I am
        reporting that over the years the effort to change the behavior
        and the language of men has had it's effect. My usage and my
        behavior have changed. My language as a whole is now acceptable
        and noncontroversial, but I find that my behavior is to be more
        stand-offish with women that I was with the gals back when. I
        find that I now have rules for treating women where there are
        none for men. I think this works against the better interests
        of women.
        
        JimB. 

>       You misunderstand. I don't have a problem. I think women (or
>       possibly feminists regardless of their own sex) do and that they
>       don't see it.

        I disagree.  It is you who have chosen to treat women
        differently, and you who have shown concern that this is
        unfair.  How can you claim that it's their problem?  As I
        pointed out before, and as others have pointed out, it's
        completely within your power to alter your behavior so that
        you treat women and men the same way... you've chosen not
        to.
        
        In a way, you're right... it's a shame that some people take
        the distinction between "girl" and "women" so seriously.
        They're just words, right?  Of course... keep in mind that
        *you're* taking that distinction just as seriously as any
        "feminist".  If the word shouldn't make a difference, then
        why is it so important to you that they accept "girl"?
        
        The fact that men are less likely to object to being called
        "boys" than women are to being called "girls" doesn't mean they
        like it.  I don't particularly, and I'm sure I'm not alone.  In
        any case, if you're concerned about consistency (and you claim
        you are)... and women prefer "women" where men don't appear in
        general to prefer anything... the obvious solution seems to be
        to refer to men as "men" and women as "women". 
        
        1. You can't relate to co-workers satisfactorily unless you
        can be casual: the situation exists entirely within you.
        
        2. You consider "boys" and "girls" to be casual, and do not
        so consider "men" or "women".  Again, this perception is
        not forced on you from outside.
        
        I suggest, if you're really concerned about the situation
        (and perhaps even if you're not) that you work on altering
        one or both of those points.  Neither you nor your female
        co-workers will then have a problem... regardless of whether
        you believe you have a problem now.
        
        	/dave

    
    
    Dave,
    
    I never thought that I would do this but
    
    
    		THANKS A BUNCH
    
    I think that you just said what I have been trying to say
    in this topic.
    
    _peggy
    

I do feel my query has been answered. This subject is *specifically* a North 
American issue.

Thanks


Jerry

    
    girl would be an improvement on what I'm referred to as...
    
    
                          "KID"
    
    when objecting to this title I'm told "but you're so much younger
    than me!!!" 
    

{RE .35} - Having a relatively tall SO helps.  If somebody asks me how "the lit-
 tle woman" is doing, I say, "oh, six inches taller than you, as usual."

And this reminds me of a funny incident.  I have a friend, Peter, who's about
 5'6" (I guess), who's married to another friend, Angelika, who's about 6'6".
  Shortly after they'd announced their engagement, we were all at a party, and
   word was getting around that they'd gotten engaged.

A friend of a friend of a friend was wandering around the party; he didn't know
 many people, so he had a few Budweisers, hooked his thumb into his belt, and
  swaggered around trying to make friends.  His ultracool macho front didn't
   help much, though.

So he swaggers up to Peter, takes a swig, and says, "Sooo . . . I hear you and
 the little woman are about to tie the knot!"  A dozen people suddenly break out
  laughing.  Mr. Swagger, needless to say, was taken aback . . .

{RE .36} - In Pittsburgh, we had a plural version of you that was pronounced
 "yins."  No panacea, though, as it's often used in the phrase, "yins guys."
  (I'm not quite sure how one would spell it.  It may be a contraction for
   "you ones," in which case one would spell it "you'n's!")

{RE .48} - I used to be a "Kelly Girl."

{RE .57} - Your second point rings especially true to me.  I, and most of my
 friends, consider "men"/"women" to be the casual way of putting things.  It
  really does have casual connotations to me, saying, in effect, that we're
   all prepared to deal with each other as equals here.

I remember when I first became aware that "girl" was offensive.  I started to
 use "woman," but I wasn't comfortable with it.  Then a friend of a friend came
  to visit, and he was going to school at ultra-liberal Oberlin.  He used "man"
   and "woman" very casually, and that just melted my self-consciousness away!
    <_Jym_>

    Thursday night after driving for nearly five hours from Maynard
    to my town in nw Worcester county I stopped to talk to one
    of the men on the town road crew to get his advice as to the best
    way to get the rest of the way home. When I told him how far I'd
    already come he called out "good girl, you'll make it the rest of
    the way!" It was very encouraging and not at all offensive!

    When to use what, or the diplomat is not the only one
    
    who must be diplomatic.  
    
    I am married and my wife is at times a woman, a lady, and a girl.
    I do not intend ever to offend, but how can you tell in advance,
    if the female you have just met is a girl, woman, lady or some 
    other term?  I am not being facious, just curious, I was in the
    U.S. Navy during the sixties when the majority of the black (afro-
    american) men took offense at the use of the word 'boy' we could
    be boys but they were men.  That was a very hard time for the USN.
    
    We survived, One of my dearest friends is a Black Man who was
    In the navy at the same time as I, we met as Civilians working
    in Germany.  I am White and my children call him Uncle Bill and
    you should see my wifes family (Kentucky-Tennessee) cringe,
    when the photo albums are passed and my children refer to a 
    "colored gentleman" as Uncle.  That is very funny, and Bill
    enjoys it, we are closer than my brothers.  We always had
    fun times with the boys and girls.  Now we just need some
    understandings up front.. and no body will be offended.
    
    As for me I am sure of my self so if you want to call me
    anything that does not reflect upon my parentage, or family
    incestual relations, I will not be offended.  You can call
    me Ray, or you can call me Jay...just don't neglect to call
    me.
    
    

< Note 148.63 by USFHSL::ROYER "courtesy is not dead, contageous!" >
    
>    I do not intend ever to offend, but how can you tell in advance,
>    if the female you have just met is a girl, woman, lady or some 
>    other term?  I am not being facious, just curious, I was in the

	If they're over 18, call them woman or lady.  I prefer woman
	myself.  Or call them "person".

	...Karen (just one of the "guys")

    Sometimes I wonder what people prefer to be called, too - most of
    the time I'd rather be "one of the guys" than "girl", anyways. 
    When I get in to work in the morning, I have to walk past the offices
    of most of the people I work with in order to stow my lunch in the
    refrigerator.  Two of these folks happen to be women, and both of
    them are early-birds who almost always get in before I do, and are
    usually taking a coffee break about the time I walk by.  If each
    is in her own office, I say 'Good morning, June' 'Good morning,
    Annette', but if they are both in one office or the other, I usually
    say 'Good morning, ladies'.  I hope they don't mind....
    If I see Ching-Cheng (Taiwan-born male engineer) in Henry's office
    on the same walk, I say 'Good morning, gentlemen' to them, too.
    
    I guess I could try to arrive BEFORE everyone else; then they would
    pass MY office on their way in, and I could get to see what they
    would say - I have the office nearest the door, so lots of people
    walk by me.

    
    Back when I was a man at the ripe old age of 14 I worked for a
    couple during the summer doing what ever needed to be done.
    They were in their middle 50s. The wife always refered to her
    husband and his male friends as "the boys" and the husband 
    refered to his wife and her friends as "the girls". When they had
    company for a week end she would say "we girls are going off
    to chat" or what ever, and him "we boys are going off fishing"
    or what ever. You get the point. I guess we get younger when 
    we get older.
                                  
    People refer to my daughter as "the perfact  lady". Shes 12.
    and my son a "a gentileman" he's 13. I usually think "their
    talking about my kids !". There's another .. are kids goats or
    children ? Don't want to get into that.
    
    What I'm trying to get at is that it all boils down to how
    you feel the label is given. Me I'm not into labels I usually
    pay more attention to the way the label is give not to the label
    its self. 

    My daughter will defiantly inform you that she *is* a kid -- she
    was born in December under Capricorn, the goat . . . 
    
    Though now that she's 13 and starting to feel, and act, like a young
    woman, she probably won't want to be called a goat . . .
    
    --bonnie

    Many replies ago I commented that this (GIRL v WOMAN) issue has cultural
    perspectives. Being quite confused, I included a comment on the matter
    in a letter to a relative back home (I sometimes can't think of a thing
    to say...), and they passed it to a professor of Early English for
    comments.
    
    The upshot was the following:
    
    A boy became a man when he completed his apprenticeship. In the case
    of the gentry, if they did not become a knight then they were assumed
    to become a man on reaching legal majority, and hence control of their
    affairs.
    
    However a girl does not become a woman in such a way. Nor is it age
    related. A girl does not become a woman at puberty, nor, since they
    never achieved control of their affairs, did they do so at the age of
    majority. A girl became a woman when she lost her virginity. This was
    presumed to happen on her wedding night.
    
    Consequently to call an unmarried female a woman was a serious insult.
    However to call a married woman a girl was merely gallantry.
    
    /. Ian .\

    Footnote to .68:
    
    Having seen this historical perspective on the difference between boy/man
    and girl/woman, I have come to realise just how sexist the distinction
    is, in placing the distinction in the male case on the economic role
    of the person, whilst treating the female case on the basis of almost
    chattel slavery.
    
    I really must try harder to avoid lapsing into this ...
    
    /. Ian .\

    another footnote to the discussion:
    
    It's interesting to note that many of our fairly derogatory terms for
    young women (slut, wench, hussy, etc.) were originally nonderogatory
    words intended to cover this category of unmarried females who were
    sexually mature (and often sexually active) but not married. 

    --bonnie

    RE: .-1
    
    Thank you for saying that. I think it's necessary to hear/see these
    things for us to make similar kinds of connections. *I*, and probably
    most of the women here, noticed it right away - it's nice to have
    the "click" noted.
    
    Thanks again
    
    Dawn
    

    Of course. my reply was to Ian's -- 
    
    Dawn
    

    
    
    In a world where sexually active women and men are treated
    VERY differently and where a woman's worth is not based on
    what her intellectual abilities are but on what her body 
    looks like I prefer to be only refered to as a woman.  I am
    aware of the historical meanings of many terms that refer to
    females, and I wish that we could use some of these terms in
    their original context.
    
    The term witch originally was for wise woman, a healer and its
    co-term for males was wizard - Are there any VMS WITCHES out there
    I know a lot of VMS WIZARDS.
    
    _peggy		(-|-)
    			  |
    			  |   The Goddess is the symbol of Female Power
    

    
�    The term witch originally was for wise woman, a healer and its
�    co-term for males was wizard 

     Perhaps, but you havn't taken it back far enough: the word "witch"
     or "wytch[e]" is derived from Wic'ca or "The Old Religion" and is
     genderless, referring to the priest/shamans who could be either male
     or female.
     
     A male Witch is a male witch, not a wizard...
     
     The confusion between the old animalistic religion with its extensive
     pantheon and [black] magic was largely a deliberate propaganda effort
     in the early middle ages on the part of the Roman Catholic  Church
     in an attempt to suppress the last vestiges of the Old Religion in
     rural areas.
     
     This subject has been extensively discussed in DEJAVU...
     
     /. Ian .\
     (Who occasionally considers himself a Witch, but never a Wizard)

    I'm not sure this is the right place for it, but still..
    
    Re: 416.90  Mark Carleton
    
    In the first few paragraphs you describe one aspect which makes
    man better han animals.  I have nothing to add or comment to the
    brunt of your argument, but the wording is pretty lousy.
    
    <flame on>
    
    Haven't you gotten it through your head yet that when _you_ refer
    to "man" it could mean a male, males in general, or humanity, bu
    that when _I_ (and I'm not alone) read "man" it does NOT include
    me or our sisters?!?!?!!!
    
    If you want to discuss what has gotten the human race ahead of the
    animals, PLEASE refer to it as such, fer cryin out loud!  If you
    mean men, call them that!  If you mean men and women, call them
    that!
    
    I know, I know, in English, American, and a zillion other languages,
    the neutral grammatical form is also the male form, but that's dodging
    the issue just as much as maintaining that I am a girl.  Yes, I
    _am_ a girl... when the person referring to me has a significant
    age difference with me (significant =greater than or equal to 20-25
    yrs).  I am NOT, NOT, NOT a man!! does that put me with the animals?!?
    
    <flame off>
    
    I'm not trying to pick on you in particular, Mark, I've just had
    a hard time with a number of people (men) making a general case
    ("he goes to his supervisor with a complaint, `Alan, ...'") and
    making it gender-specific when it is SOOOO easy to use gender-neutral
    terms when you want to make a gender-neutral point.
    
    Please try.           Lee

    I guess this is partially off the topic here, but has anybody noticed
    that the media (entertainment, and news both)  have begun using
    gender-neutral wording, or saying he/she, etc.? 
    
    *BUT* it's mostly in a negative context? I notice this especially
    when they're talking about crime...
    
    "Well, this ax-murderer - he or she must live near the park"
    
    
    I almost never hear...
    
    "The chief of detectives called - she said we'd better solve this
    soon."
    
    This is progress?
    
    Dawn
    

    Re: .75
    
    That's Mike Carleton not Mark.
    
    I thought about whether I should use a gender neutral term instead
    of "man" but decided not to.  I did not choose "man" to exclude
    the women here or to offend anyone.  I have been known to use
    the he/she form and I don't find it much of a problem.  I still
    persist in using the "man" form when referring to the whole of
    the man kind ("person kind?").  I guess that my reluctance to
    change the language is unusually strong here.  I think there
    is a need for a few people to have the courage to stick to
    tradition in the face of strong pressures to change to the
    current fashion.  I know that there are many that feel that we
    must change the language before people will start to change their
    thinking but must we change everything?
    
    					MJC O->

    re .77
    

    Yes, we must change the language, as each of us does to some extent
    every day.
    
    Lee
    
    PS. Sorry, Mike, I could have sworn it was Mark...

    Man the race vs. man the gender
    
    'The race of Man'
    'The race of People'
    'The race of Persons'
    'The race of Human(s)'
    "The race of Mankind'
    'The race of Sapiens'
    'The race of Homo Sapiens'
    
    On sheer ease of speech Man wins out. I learned to use "Man" as
    the term for the human race from a woman, one whose opinion I
    value above all others. If it offends, sorry, but I think you're
    being hypersensitive. 

    This is =womannotes= last I checked, and if I can't be "hypersensitive"
    about the sexist nature of the language used here I wonder where
    the heck I can.  I don't scream about it at the lab, in seminars,
    in social settings.  I think this is an appropriate space to object.
    
    I would suggest that it is "hyperINsensitive" to use such language
    here, rather than "hypersensitive" to object to its usage.
    
    I think the term "humanity" is more appropriate, and don't see why
    that should be difficult for anyone to use.
    
    Just as Black people have made the use of the word "Negro" practically
    archaic, I think the use of the word "man" to mean _all_ of us can
    and should be made archaic.
    
    Lee

    Dana, would you also say "the Man Race"?  I doubt it.  
    

Re Note 148.80                    

ARMORY::CHARBONND "Post No Bulls"                    14 lines  14-AUG-1987 10:50
                 -< this sort of nitpicking harms your cause >-

    
    On sheer ease of speech Man wins out. I learned to use "Man" as
    the term for the human race from a woman, one whose opinion I
    value above all others. If it offends, sorry, but I think you're
    being hypersensitive. 


<Heavy Sarcasm>

Gee, I'd expect that coming from a man.  (Of course, in that context, I 
mean member of the human race.)

<End_Heavy Sarcasm>

Justine

    re: .81    - risking overlap with JOYOFLEX, is there a problem with
    the word "negro"? I would never have thought of avoiding it as the
    correct term. I suppose it must be American usage.
    
    	Which brings me to ask whether you are not wasting a lot of
    time and trouble in trying to change American English.
    
    	Even if you succeed, it occurs to me that "persons" in French
    are always of feminine gender, but I am not sure that the French
    are any less (or more) sexist. Do you really think that a modification
    of language of a tiny proportion of humanity will help anything
    but your personal irritation?

    	If the language permits a distinction between masculine and
    feminine, then make sure that the feminine terms are associated
    with superiority or equality. History shows that languages are
    extraordinarily difficult to change by force. There are probably
    more Welsh and Basque speakers now than there were before 1000 years
    of isolation and oppression, but shades of meaning and associations
    of words can change much more rapidly.
    
    	Dave

    RE: .81
    
    "persons" in French beings of feminine gender. The *word* is of
    feminine gender, not the people (or objects) it talks about."Pen"
    is of feminine gender, too. 
    
    Also, let's not confuse "gender" with "sex".
    
    I am not "hypersensitive" about language. Put simply, if you talk
    about "men", "man", "he", "him" or "his" - you are NOT talking about
    me, nor anything which concerns me. I therefore have no interest
    in pursuing the subject, or in listening to you (whomever "you"
    may be).
    
    If you want to talk about something that concerns me, include me.
    
    We have discussed this a lot here, but there is a poem which someone
    entered not too long ago, which says it all for me. Maybe someone
    could provide a pointer to it....
    
    If it's not so d*mn important, let's just go with "woman" "women"
    "she" "her" and "womankind" for the generic. (kinda puts a different
    face on things, eh?)
    
    Dawn
    

    RE.82  The Human race
           the race of Man
    
    Re others that's 'Man' not 'man'

    re: .85
    	If you insist on setting yourselves up as a minority language
    group, then that is fine by me. I speak English to English people,
    French to French people (as well as I can), and I would try to speak
    American Female to you if we met, but I would not put it on a priority
    list as something to learn. I would prefer to start Spanish or improve
    my German. I would hope you would return the courtesy by attempting
    to speak English Male to me if we met, but maybe we could find another
    common language.

    	I thought the problem with words like "mankind" was the association
    with male gender, rather than that it excluded women (which it does
    not). Similarly, the French word is associated with the female gender,
    but does not upset any French man by an assumption of exclusion.
    
    	I am not confusing "gender" with "sex". "Gender" is an artifact
    of a language - I am told that Russian has more than 3 - and that
    is what I was discussing. You are confusing gender with sex by
    insisting that words that have for a long time been understood to
    apply to the whole huwoman race should now be understood as only
    applying to those with certain sexual characteristics. In Germany
    maidens are neuter, and butter changes its gender as it moves from
    North to South.

    ( I have only included one of the words to which you will not listen
    :-)

< Note 148.81 by GCANYN::TATISTCHEFF >
>
>
>    Just as Black people have made the use of the word "Negro" practically
>    archaic, I think the use of the word "man" to mean _all_ of us can
>    and should be made archaic.
>    
>    Lee

    You point  out  an  intersting  fact:  Whatever term is used for a
    group  other  than the dominant group in a society rapidly becomes
    offensive  and  must  be changed. So we have the sequence Colored,
    Negro,  Black,  Person  of  Color. I don't know what term was used
    before  colored,  nor  if  there  is a new preferred term, but the
    point  is that the community of such people (what's the adjectival
    form  of  "People  of  color"??) have objected to each old term in
    turn and campaigned for the new one. Have they gained anything for
    it?  No. Many members of the society looked down on them, and used
    each word in turn as an insult. One cannot change the attitudes of
    a  population by forcing changes in the language. (Lest this sound
    racist,  let  me  point  out  that  I  support  both  the National
    Association  for  the Advancement of Colored People and the United
    Negro College Fund)

    By asking  everyone  to  use  "woman"  as the only term for female
    human beings we have emasculated the language. I can refer to male
    humans  as  boys,  guys,  fellows,  men, or gentlemen; each with a
    different  implication,  with  only  the word "women" I can't make
    such  distinctions about female humans. One of English's strengths
    is  that it allows subtle shadings and fine distinctions, removing
    those  distinctions  weakens the language. And, as I argued above,
    it probably won't do anything to help women.

--David

    <--(.88)
    
    "By asking  everyone  to  use  "woman"  as the only term for female
    human beings we have emasculated the language. "
    
    I think that's the point. :')
    
    						=maggie

    I am not asking you to change your entire speech patterns.  I am
    asking you to be sensitive to the fact that the words you use (maybe
    unconsciously) rankle me.  And I maintain that _this_ is one space
    where it is not appropriate to presume that the speech patterns
    of MEN are the right ones.  I am not asking you to invent new words,
    or to twist present words into new meaning; I am simply asking that
    when you make the effort of writing into THIS file you extend
    the care with which you (presumably) select your words into
    substituting gender-neutral terms wherever appropriate.  It takes
    little effort, makes me feel less hostile to the message, and...
    geez, I just don't see what's so hard about it!
    
    I could maintain that the reason you are so reluctant is that you
    subconsciously (maybe) don't want to relinquish that controlling
    aspect of the language: it's a "grammatically correct" phrase, why
    not use it to rub our noses in the fact that _you_ are in control,
    not us.
    
    I could maintain that the reason you are so reluctant is that this
    is just one more contest and to concede here would be to _lose_
    in the never-ending battle against women's equality.
    
    But I don't like to ascribe sinister motives to people (even if
    they _are_ the oppressors :)   ) so I prefer to maintain that it
    is merely lethargy -- why change when the status quo is fine with
    you? 
    
    Well, it's _not_ fine with me.  The status quo sucks and should
    be changed.  It is _not_ an outrageous request, and it does _not_
    take a whole lot of effort to comply.
    
    It would not be worth the trouble if we didn't have to hear it _so_
    often.  Think about it: every speech by a male, every lesson taught
    by a male, every book written by a male... nearly all of these contain
    constructs where they refer to the whole of humanity using terms
    which exclude us!  Nearly all of psychology (even in "these enlightened
    days") is derived from studies of MALES (see Carol Gilligan's _In
    A Different Voice_ for an interesting examination of this), and
    studies of women mainly show how they DEVIATE from the male experience.
     Do they rewrite psychology in an attempt to make their "science"
    include women?  No.  Psychology is still by and large a study of
    male behavior and female deviation/underdevelopment.
    
    We are beaten over the head over and over again with our inferiority,
    our "underdevelopment", our deviation from the rest of the human
    race ("Man").
    
    WHY????  WHY assume we deviate??  Is that any better than assuming
    _you_ deviate?? Isn't it better all around if we don't assume EITHER
    sex is the deviant and use gender-neutral terms where possible?
    
    Lee

    When reading the gospel in Church, I regularly re-phrase certain
    phrasings to plural pronoun usage to avoid exclusive language. 
    This I do dynamically in the consequence of reading an exclusive
    language text.  Over time, one gets better at doing the re-phrasing
    on one's feet.
    
    Inclusive language is slowly ..... creeping into liturgy texts..
    
    
    
    

    Well, Lee, seems simple enough to me.  The name of this conference
    is .... womannotes, not girlnotes, not ladynotes, not galnotes,
    or anything else, but *womannotes*, and the one thing the females
    have in common in this file (the only thing) is that we are WOMEN.

    Well, I suggest we all just boycott the "mankind" thing and start
    using "womankind" - you know "womankind" *really does* (really,
    honest!) include *all* people, *even* men! ;-)  Oh, and I really
    do believe that the men of womannotes are "man enough" to know that
    the term really does include them too. :-)  That goes for "sisterhood"
    too - that term includes you too, men! :-)

    	-Ellen

    Ah Ellen, I like that suggestion! In sisterhood can be officially
    defined in this file to mean all humanity, and woman the generic
    term for adult homosapiens....it is certainly worth trying
    
    Bonnie J

    
    
    I think that woman know how to effectively deal with this
    issue - the changing of language - she has been changeing
    it over the centuries - ever since womankind left the caves
    and began to build civilizations in the furtile river valleys.
    
    Of course the was the male helpmate to carry stuff, but it
    was woman who created language, farming, weaving, pottery,
    dance, song and almost every aspect of cultural life.  Why
    even the Goddess choose woman to be her prime example of
    prefection, creating her in her own image.
    
    Over the centuries woman have excelled in the arts,science
    and every realm of womankind's existence.  She even put woman
    in space.
    
    (I think I had better stop - but it is such a great story of
    woman.)
    
    _peggy
    		(-)
    		 |	I am leaving for the Berkshires
    			to comune with the Goddess
    

    By the by, I missed answering a note where a man signed his
    entry "in sisterhood"  due to the rest of the dust up this weekend
    - but to whomever it was, it was noticed and much appreciated by
    both myself and other women noters.
    
    Bonnie J

    This probably won't go over well, but the last 15 or so notes seem
    to assume that all male persons like the language the way it is,
    and all female persons want to change it.  That's just not so. 
    I am a woman, and *I* find things like s/he, his/hers, changes in
    liturgical and other wording to eliminate phrases like "man" (when
    it means "all people") to be very annoying.  So please don't assume
    that this is another battle to be waged between men and women. 
    i think most intelligent people can tell when "man" means "male
    person" and when it means "generic person" or "all persons" from
    the context of the sentence.
    
    Yes, this is *womannotes*, but I don't think that because of that
    we all should alter our language habits.  Some of us *women* like English
    just the way it is.  :-)
    
    Lynne
    

    re .96
    
    Very well said Lynne !!!
    
    Another *woman* who has no problem with phrases like "mankind"....

                       
    kathie

    Even if ~all intelligent people~ can tell the difference between
    generic man and specific man, remember that half the population
    is below average intelligence...
    
    As I pointed out in JOYOFLEX many moons ago, there are too many
    kids nowadays who, when asked to draw pictures of "cavemen", drew
    pictures of adult male humans in primitive dress, whereas several
    generations ago they would have drawn people of various ages and
    sexes in primitive dress.
    
    There *is* a problem in the general population, folks, and it won't
    go away through ignorance.
    
    							Ann B.
    
    P.S.  Yeh, yeh, I know about bell-shaped curves and what "average"
    intelligence really means.  I've just used that image to make a
    point.

    RE: .98
    
    Yes, Ann - I agree.
    
    It doesn't surprise me that kids draw pictures of male "cavemen",
    and *would* of any other "______MAN". This is one reason I believe
    the language *must* change.
    
    I do not believe that young girls, when developing language skills
    (age , what...2-5??) can make the leap in logic needed to "understand"
    that "Man" means male humans. And oh by the way, it means "both"
    men and women. OF course, "women" means female human beings, except
    when we're talking about everybody, then of course "Man" means
    everyone". Huh?
    
    I think this is one of the more important reasons that adult women
    have a difficult time in believeing they can do/be whatever they
    want, and that they are "equal". The stuff you learn very early
    in life is the stuff that sticks with you like glue. And I believe
    that the "generic-man" myth of language is at the root of some of
    these problems.
    
    And the worst part of this is that it is so subtle.
    
    Dawn_who_IS_intelligent_and_still_understands_the_problem
    

    It's because "women" are the invisible part of "mankind".
    You can't draw pictures of them--they don't exist!
    
    I stopped wearing skirts to classes, because if I did, I wasn't
    recognized as an MIT student--I only existed if I adopted the uniform.

    	re:.99
    
    	Changes in language worry me. I can read modern French fairly
    well, but at the moment I am trying to read Rabelais, and it is
    *hard*. I live only about 40 miles from Italy, and it would be useful
    to speak Italian; I would *love* to be able to enjoy Dante in the
    original, but I recognise that these would be two separate projects.
    I find Chaucer difficult to read, and I am told some people even
    have problems with Shakespeare.
    
    	Every change in language is cutting us off from some works of
   art. Living languages change gradually anyway, but they are very
    difficult to change forcibly. You would do better to just change
    opinions, prejudices and attitudes, and leave the language alone.
    It would be just as reasonable an attitude to regard males as the
    deprived group, since they have no *special* word to use to refer
    to themselves collectively.
    
    C.S. Lewis , The Screwtape Letters :-
    "And since we cannot deceive the whole human race all the time,
    it is most important thus to cut every generation off from all others;
    for where learning makes a free commerce between the ages there
    is always the danger that the characteristic errors of one may be
    corrected by the characteristic truths of another".
    
    	Don't change the language unless you really must. sigh... back
    to joyoflex...

    It's hard to draw the line when discussing changes in language. I
    cringe when I hear of people "working issues" or "authoring" papers or
    "prioritizing" "action items". On the other hand, I use "her" and "she"
    almost exclusively when writing. 

    Language is not a static thing; it's always changing. Some changes
    last, some don't. People don't always agree on changes as they're
    happening. I've been told that it's disturbing to see "she" in a memo,
    but that's why I use it. It does distract from the content a little
    bit, but it makes people think. That's a price that I'm willing to pay.

    It's all subjective, I suppose. I find some manager-speak (see 1st
    paragraph) to be really offensive, and a product of laziness or the
    desire to make new words to make something sound more important.
    Making people use (or at least see) feminine pronouns instead of the
    "generic" masculine ones may offend other people, but I think that the
    political gain is more important.

    
    A friend once told me of a conversation she had with a little girl. The
    girl said that she couldn't become a fireman because she was a girl
    (and of course girls can't grow up to be "___men"). At the time I
    thought it was pretty silly, but I've seen the power of words since
    then and now understand it.

    					-- hs

�    < Note 148.99 by VINO::EVANS >
�                          -< One intelligent PERSON >-

�        that "Man" means male humans. And oh by the way, it means "both"
�    men and women. OF course, "women" means female human beings, except
�    when we're talking about everybody, then of course "Man" means
�    everyone". Huh?

    	Look at the word `dough'.  How is the `ough' pronounced?  Now
    	 look at the word `enough'.  Again, how is the `ough' pro-
    	 nounced?
    
    	My point is that the English language has many rules, and just
    	 as many exceptions as there are rules.  Can little kids
    	 pronounce `dough' and `enough'?  Also, look at the word `kids'
    	 which I used in my last sentence.  Do you think I'm referring
    	 to young goats, or to young children?  When you were young,
    	 were you ever confused when someone said `kids' whether they
    	 were talking about goats or humans??
    
    	I'm a male, and when I see/hear `mankind', `Man', etc., I think 
    	 of the human species.  I also have asked � a dozen females in 
    	 my area, and they feel the same way.  At the same time, I'm
    	 not offended/bothered when someone says she/her/etc.  I guess
    	 I never really pay attention to it.
    
    
    
    				-Rich
    
    	

    RE: .104
    
    I suspect one reason you don't think about it much is that you were
    ALWAYS included.
    
    Talking with adults is different, sometimes, than talking with children
    (or goats, even :-)). I won't re-iterate the whole reply, but I
    am very concerned about youngsters developing the sexist labguage
    connections. Language is the way we name concepts. It creates pictures
    in our minds. FireMAN creates the picture of a male fire fighter.
    CaveMAN created the picture of  male cave-dweller. During the formative
    years, girls have  mostly MALE pictures to go by. We have to OVERCOME
    these pictures when somebody finally gets around to telling us about
    "generic man".
    
    From then on, it's like adopting a second language - you always
    have to translate in your head before understanding.
    
    If somebody asked *ME* to draw a "caveman" *MY* first thought would
    be of a MALE cave-dweller, *AND I KNOW BETTER*.
    
    I'd venture to say if every member of this conference were asked
    to draw a picture of a doctor, the results would be overwhelmingly
    pictures of *males*. If women/girls  and men/boys *really* concieved
    of "doctor" as a "generic", the pictures would be (what...? 50-50?
    who's a statistician, in the group? would it be 47-53?) in the
    neighborhood of equal male/female figures.
    
    Language creates pictures in our minds, and it is those pictures
    which create our reality.
    
    *I* think we need to create better pictures.
    
    RE: language changing. My GOD! If I had a nickle for every misplaced
    apostrophe, every "who's" for "whose" (and vice-versa), every use
    of the word "media" as singular and "phenomenon" as plural - I could
    go on and on -  saw in *just* this conference (never mind everywhere
    else) I could *retire* this very minute. (And yes, "nickle for
    "nickel")
    If we're gonna change the language, let's do it for a good reason,
    like including 53% of the human race in our mental pictures.
    
    Dawn
    

    I have always known that "mankind" is defined as all humans.
    Yup. Yeah. Sure. Uh huh. Right. Of course.

    One day I read a copy of a magazine where all the
    pronouns and general words referred explicity to women.  
    Electrifying!  I was included!  And most astonishing, I hadn't 
    realized how excluded and uninvolved I had felt before.

    It's like that 8th grade history crap:
    "The pioneers brought their wives and children to the far west."
    Sure, the women and children grew wheels so the men could push them.

              Meigs

    
    a rose by any other name.....
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    smells just as sweet......

    Re Cavemen.
    
    A few notes back it was pointed out that children asked to draw "cavemen"
    draw adult males in primitive dress, and this was used to point to a
    conclusion that wording has to be amended.
    
    In this case I doubt the validity of your conclusion.
    
    Several generations ago school texts were much looser in there teaching
    of human evolution. The term caveman was widly used to describe a certain
    stage in that development. Children exposed to that teaching would indeed
    treat the term as a generic, and draw a tribal/family grouping.
    
    However today teaching is more accurate. There never was a period in
    human evolution that could be described as "caveman". The people that
    lived in caves on the fringes of the polar icecaps also lived in open
    savannah in more temporate or tropical climes. Today this sort of existance
    would be typified by talking of Cro-magnon, or neanderthal or whatever.
    If todays children were asked to draw neanderthals then I believe you
    would still see the pictures of the mixed family group.
    
    However to me "caveman" conjures up a vivid picture of Fred Flintstone.
    I am not in the least surprised that the question as described led to
    a poor parody of Mr. Flintstone!
    
    /. Ian .\
    
    (And if you really want to replace "caveman" by a gender neutral term
    please use one of the existing valid scientific terms and don't conjure
    up something like "caveperson" :-)

    It was not "my" conclusion about the caveman scenario; however,
    since someone else in this note said that -- despite everything
    she knew -- she was liable to do the same thing, I continue to
    believe that it is a valid conclusion.
    
    For my elaborations on this, please read 143.29 and 147.23 in
    JOYOFLEX.  (In brief, it is my contention that it is a problem
    of inadequate education which well-educated people cannot
    understand, because they were well taught, and that a way AROUND
    the problem should be found.)
    
    							Ann B.

    Ann,
    
    I am not sure that I thought it was your personal conclusion - in any
    event apologies for the wrong attribution. I have been out of this since
    mid-August and have been reading batch extracts the size of War and
    Peace to catch up (1850 WOMANNOTES entries and about 5000 from SoapBox
    alone...)
    
    As an ex-high school and university teacher I would have to agree that
    the well educated have a problem understanding the limitations of the
    ill-educated, and similarly the gifted have difficulties understanding
    the limitations of the challenged.
    
    However I stand by my position that this particular choice is a poor
    one: the word has changed its academic use drastically over the last
    50 years, with a move to [often incorrectly used] scientific terminology
    at an early stage of school education. It is also grossly tainted by
    television and newspaper comics/cartoons ("The Flintstones", "BC", "Wizard
    of Id", "Captain Caveman" and many more).
    
    /. Ian .\
    

    
    How about Policeman, or mailman, or fireman...  What do children
    draw when they hear those words?  Equal numbers of men and women?
    I'm sure there's someone out there who will say the chief of police
    in his town was a woman, and it wasn't until he was 19 that he realized
    that some cops were men... But if you wrote that list of words on
    the blackboard of any elementary school classroom, and asked the
    students to draw pictures, do you think that most of them would draw 
    males or females performing those jobs?
             
    Justine

 Well  the  original  "caveman" story said something like "today they'd draw a 
 man, but a generation ago they'd draw a family group"
    
 Now I can't say what today's children would draw for  these  cases  but  I'll 
 answer  for  a  generation  ago - my childhood.  [Please note that this is in 
 Britain, not America]
    
 Policeman: a man in a blue uniform. Police women then did not patrol the beat 
 - they  only worked in the police stations where I never saw them.  If needed 
 at an arrest site they were taken there in a police  car  by  a  male  police 
 driver. Today police women are common, and do a higher percentage of juvenile 
 work than police men. I would guess that today's kids would be more likely to 
 draw a woman than a man, especially of course if you explained to them that a 
 "policeman" was a "cop".  Incidentally "policeman" is slang. The correct term 
 is  either  "constabulary  officer" or "police officer": both are gender free 
 and always have been.
    
 Mailman: equally there were no female mail carriers. The job requires walking 
 long distances and starting at 4 am.  Both union rules and national laws made 
 this impractical (the union objected to the former, the law to  the  latter). 
 Again  this  has changed a little, but you still very rarely see a woman mail 
 carrier walking the route. Then and now I would expect a male character to be 
 drawn.   Of course in America they are "mail carriers" and in Britain "Postal 
 delivery workers" not "mailmen" or "postmen". (Note: in Britain with delivery 
 to the door, rather than a box at the roadside the average mail carrier walks 
 between 15 and 20 miles a day. Whilst I don't claim that women are in any way 
 incapable  of this the job, which is badly paid is singularly unattractive to 
 women)
    
 Fireman.  Easy: there are no female firefighters (there weren't  and  I don't 
 recall  having  heard of any recently).  Incidentally this is the only case I 
 know of where the job's proper title includes the "-man" post-fix in Britain. 
 However  Fireman is a rank (like Private in the army) and if you are not sure 
 of the person's rank then the correct term is "Fire Fighter".
        
 In general in these cases I would expect, even in  America,  that  even  if a 
 huge  preponderance  of  kids draws male figures, the percentage with a mixed 
 gender perception will have improved.  However that  is  purely  a  guess.  I 
 believe  this  would  even  be  true  if  you  use  the  gender  free correct 
 terminology.   The  jobs  are  perceived  to  be  masculine,  not  the people 
 performing them.  And the words cited are sloppy in the first place: children 
 should be taught to speak correct English (or correct American if you  prefer 
 :-)).
    
 /. Ian .\

 PS "Policeman", "mailman" and "fireman" are acceptable to DECspell. "Caveman" 
 isn't, which further underlines my comment  that  you  cannot  draw  a  valid 
 conclusion from an invalid premise.  If "Caveman" is not a word then asking a 
 kid to draw a "cave man" is asking the kid, explicitly,  to  draw  an  "adult 
 male  cave  dweller"  (else  you'd  ask  for a "cave boy", "cave girl", "cave 
 woman" or "cave family".)

        Re .112, Ian - 
        
        With reference  to  the woman fire-fighters, I seem to remember
        that there was a test case last year in England (London?).  The
        woman was contesting her  rejection  through  the courts, and I
        don't think the case is resolved yet.
        
        It seems that one of  the requirements for the job was a 'chest
        size'  of  X  inches - she  met  the  X  requirement  with  the
        inclusion  of  her  breasts,  but  this  was    deemed   to  be
        unacceptable - rib-cage measurement was the criterion demanded.
        
        Andy.

    That sounds plausable Andy: one of the loopholes in Britain's
    anti-dicrimination legislation is that it is legal to require that the
    applicant fit the uniform provided (usually used the other way round:
    a restaurant can advertise for "waitrons who take a size 12 dress" -
    they have to give it to a qualified man if he fits the dress but ...)
    
    So it sounds like the Fire service in question used the principle in
    reverse (I think they'll eventually lose - it wasn't the intent of the
    escape clause to apply to large organisations, it was to allow for "Mom
    and Pop" operations who couldn't afford to buy new uniforms for the
    new staff).
    
    I remember about 4 years ago Liverpool Fireservice winning a case that
    all firefighters had to have their hair cropped short (crew cut style)
    - they won on safety grounds. That could have been used to keep out
    women, but the actual court case was brought by a young man who wanted
    to wear his hair fashionably long.
    
    Another typical tactic for fireservices is to have a fitness requirement
    that the applicant can carry something like 200 lb in a "fireman's carry"
    (over the shoulder), to simulate rescuing a man from a burning building.
    
    All of these are tactics that are becoming rather transparent though.
    
    (Though I must say that if I passed out in a smoke filled room I would
    hope the firefighter who came in could get me out, and I weigh 180 lbs
    I certainly would be concerned if affirmative action led to a 90 pound
    fire fighter trying to rescue me!)
    
    /. Ian .\

    >(Though I must say that if I passed out in a smoke filled room I would
    >hope the firefighter who came in could get me out, and I weigh 180 lbs
    >I certainly would be concerned if affirmative action led to a 90 pound
    >fire fighter trying to rescue me!)

    Ian,
    
    Don't discount that 90lb firefighter's ability to rescue you.  If she
    has passed the physical requirements for entry, she certainly could.  A
    few years ago I was into some serious weighlifting.  I weighed about
    95lbs, and typically bench pressed about 110.  A male friend expressed
    doubts similar to your own.  I called him on it; I grabbed his 200lb
    body, and picked him up in the "firemen's carry".  Well, I'm only
    5' tall, and he was 6'4", so he dragged a little :-), but that's
    a different problem!  He was more careful about what challenges
    he made to me in the future!
    
    Rita_who_is_too_out_of_shape_to_do_that_now!
    

	If you will pardon a little input from a mostly read-only noter.
I think you will find that female fire fighters are becoming more common
throughout the US. I'm sure it is tough for them to make it in this male
dominated field. It's a tough job to start with (considered by most"ex-
perts" to be the "most dangerous") and physical strength is a large part
of the job. Living with other, usually male, firefighters in a firehouse
built for men adds extra pressure.
	Some women enter the field just to show the men that they can do
the job. They seem to drop out soon, either because they failed ( tried
to do things that they were not physically or mentally ready to do) or
because they proved their point. Some women want to be fire fighters.
These people usually work out much better. Once they prove themselves
and show the others that they can do the job well they are generally
excepted by the other fire fighters. (new fire fighters all need prove
themselves, regardless of there sex, after your life often depends on
the every one doing their job.)
	The most popular area within the fire service for women is in
emergency medicine. It generally requires less physical strength and
more mental work  and personal relations skills.
	As a volunteer fire fighter myself, I'm glad to see a female
fighter or EMT who is successful. It usually means they are good at
what they do and like it.

Jeff Filer
G.B.V.F.D co. 33
	

    There is a woman fire fighter here in Nashua who makes the front
    page of the local newspaper from time to time.  More often than
    not she is filing suit against someone in the department.  It seems
    that the peer pressure is much worse than the job.  In a job where
    there is a fair amount of waiting around, the guys on the force
    have ample opportunity to harass her.
    
    I just skimmed the articles, I'm sure someone else has more details.
    
    			Barbara b.

        As of late, almost all of the pictures of "cave men" I've seen
        in the popular and scientific press have been of women. I don't
        know if it is affirmative action, the effects of "Lucy" and the
        mitocondrial "Eve", or what. I suspect that the children
        now entering school will be more likely to draw cave women.
        
        JimB.

    re nothing in particular:
    
    Over in PHILOSOPHY, Earl Wajenberg posted a little note about the
    derivation of the word "human". That it actually has nothing to
    do with "man" but is instead derived from "humus" as in "earth"
    ('dust to dust' and all that).
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    Irritating that we *still* find that silly claim being used to
    discredit the anti-sexist-language goal.
    
    Few --if any-- feminists with an understanding of etymology want to
    replace the substrings that have an accidental resemblance to sexist
    terminology (e.g., "man" in "human").  Yet those who want to ridicule
    the goal of nonsexist language (and not incidently the feminist
    movement as a whole!) continue to assert that we do.  Pity they can't
    be ethical about it...but then I suppose that's why we still have
    so far to go til simple equality :-[
    
    						=maggie

    Re .115 and others: My fingers were running ahead of my brain again.
    I have no problem with women fire fighters, or indeed any other qualified
    fire fighters. My reservations are purely a fear that in these days
    of affirmative action the physical standards will be lowered to allow
    more women in. As long as the standards required for the job are met,
    then I for one am more than glad that people exist who care enough to
    want to take on one of the most dangerous jobs on earth for such
    ridiculously low pay. (Incidentally I remember seeing statistics that
    fishing is the most dangerous job, with fire fighting and underground
    mining running close behind...)
    
    Re last: yes I know I react to "non sexist language", but my reactions
    are always directed at cases where words are invented - such as
    "chairperson" - where perfectly good non-sexist words already exist
    (moderator, president, leader...). And I so not equate this movement
    with feminism at all. (eg I hate "mailperson" - what's wrong with "mail
    carrier", and we have "fire fighter", and "Police officer" for the other
    cases cited...)

    /. Ian .\

    	When I was running camera for PBS some years ago, the guys I
    	worked with in the studio used to say that I was a "CAMERA
    	PERSON" instead of "CAMERA MAN."  It was a source of teasing
    	and I found it annoying.
    
    	I called myself "CAMERA OPERATOR" -- and in the credits of the
    	shows I worked on, we were ALL referred to as "CAMERA" alone,
    	as in:
    
    
    				CAMERA
               
                            Suzanne Conlon
    			      Fred Smith
    				 etc.

    	I'm sure that over the years, those guys have convinced them-
    	selves that they called me CAMERA PERSON because *I* asked them
    	to (although I used to flinch when I heard them say it.)
    
    	All in all, these guys were great to work with and were on the
    	side of equal rights, but they were unenlightened as to the
    	effect that their words had on women.
    
    	It's amazing how often that sort of thing happens (and you find
    	yourself giving the benefit of the doubt to the uninformed 
    	individual while you choke on the person's choice of words.)
    
    							Suzanne...

    re .120:
    
    > -< (no I'm not killing the messenger) >-
    >
    > Irritating that we *still* find that silly claim being used to
    > discredit the anti-sexist-language goal.
      
    While you say that you are not killing the messenger, it certainly
    feels like it to me. 
    
    I entered the note about "human" because I thought it was interesting.
    I had never heard of it before. I had never made the connection
    before between "human" and "humus". I thought others here might also
    be interested. I was making no claim about the motives of feminist
    etymologists, nor was I trying to discredit anything or anyone.
    That was why I labelled it as "re nothing in particular".
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    re:  Last few
    
    A few years ago in Hartford CT, the Hartford fire department was
    ordered to reduce the lifting requirements for women firefighter
    applicants!  It seems that they had trouble getting women who 
    could lift 220 lbs, and the flaming liberals (at the time) on the
    city council heard about it from some applicants.  It has been reduced
    to (I think) 180 lbs.  I *loathe* this attitude.  I don't care if
    a woman wants to be a firefighter, but she damn well better be able
    to do the job just as well as a man.  I don't want to char in a
    building if I weigh 190 lbs, just because some *flaming idiot* on
    the city council decided that we should have more women firefighters!
    
    As for the bastardization of the English language with such words
    as "fireperson","chairperson", and all the rest of the "-person"
    leauge, why can't we use the "real" words?  Just because they have
    the suffix "-man" doesn't mean that the person is male.  It is
    simply the origin of the word from times when the people holding
    those positions were male.  We still drink "Coke" even though it
    doesn't contain Coca extracts...  I think that perhaps some people
    can get a little over zealous in their quest for equality...
    Actions speak louder than words.
    
    
    BTW - Before I get crucifed - I beleive in the equality of women.
     I just dislike the way in which some people push the issue.
    
    
    Dave
    

    <--(.123)
    
    I understood (well, felt fairly sure I understood, and you've just
    now confirmed me in that belief) that you were offering it as an
    interesting bit of trivia and nothing more, Steve.  But when you
    appended it to *this* string, I could be fairly sure that you were
    thinking of it in connection with the question of sexist language,
    and when we consider that the original posting was disclaiming a
    sexist etymology for the word....
    
    I really wasn't trying to kill, wound, or even startle you.  Honest.
    
    						=maggie

    I never knew the orgin of the word human. Interesting.
    
    Language continues to be one of the problems as it is the
    structure and logic of our thoughts and thus also acts as
    a filter.
    
    I have often faced the gender problem in writing. I deplore
    the s/he and find that when the structure is changed to use
    words such as one,everyone etc. that much of the force and power
    is lost.
    
    I resort to "People" a lot having used this in teaching high
    school students who were neither boys and girls or men and women.
    
    When there is a word that fits such as fire fighter vs fireman I
    use it.
    
    I remember once while chairing a large convention someone remarked
    about the large ribbon I wore that said "Chairman". I laughed 
    and said that "obviously they hadn't met me". Being involved
    in professional activities a lot I use Chair if I am in doubt
    of the sex of the person and Chairman or Chairwoman if I know;
    however, I think that Chair might be better but it sounds awkward.
    (Probably from non-use)
    
    I do believe that terms that describe should be used and that terms
    shoudl not give a hidden discrimatory message. I also think that
    clarity of speaking and writing is very important.
    
    (Just think what it would be like with more sexes-say 5 ,two of
    whom are second class? )
    
    

    	RE:  .124
    
    	Dave, pardon me for being "over-zealous" but I don't like to
    	be called a man just because my job is done more often by
    	men than it is done by women.
    
    	I don't have the problem at the moment because I am an engineer
    	(not an ENGINEER-MAN.)  Thank goodness!  :-)
    
    	When I was a camera operator, I didn't like being called CAMERA
    	PERSON, but there was no WAY I would agree to being called a
    	CAMERA *MAN*.
    
    	I wonder how many *MEN* would mind it if they were called
    	"Software Women" or "Engineer Women" (if those were the accepted
    	terms in our language.)

    	English is a living language (unlike Latin.)  As our culture
    	changes, the language changes with it.  What is the problem
    	with that?
    
    						    Suzanne...

    re .127
    
�    	English is a living language (unlike Latin.)  As our culture
�      	changes, the language changes with it.  What is the problem
�   	with that?
    
    Yes, I really like what has been happening recently to our language:
    I was alive (believe it or not) when people were slinging around
    "horror-words" about what would happen if "the libbers" had their
    way with the language: policeperson, mailperson, etc, etc.  To see
    the whole title lose its sexist content and at the same time become
    more accurately descriptive (police officer, mail carrier) has been
    quite heartening.
    
    It was sort of a reverse of the "Ms Click": all of a sudden, I noticed
    these "new" words and titles and thought, "well, how nice, painless,
    and RIGHT this is."
    
    Lee

    Re: .127, .128
    
    I have no problem with non-sexist terms such as letter carrier,
    and the like.  I suppose it's tough to put the shoe on the other
    foot and imagine being in a postion where a traditionally used word
    would offend me, since I am not easily offended.  
    
    Personally, when I think of a successful female executive - I consider
    her to be *chairman* of the board, and not chairwoman, or chairperson.
    
    I appreciate the fact the English is a living language, and in time
    these words will probably common-place.  Until then, when my house
    is burning, I'll call for a fireman, and not a fireperson.
    
    Dave
    

    Please note that nobody here would ASK you to call for a "fireperson",
    Dave...that's your own background at work busily misconstruing what's
    *actually* being said here. 
    
    Now, you can say that you'll insist on calling for "firemen" rather
    than "firefighters", but I sure hope your house doesn't burn down
    because some of the on-duty crew decided you didn't need them ...your
    insurance might decide you'd been negligent.   ;') 
                                    
    						=maggie

re: "engineer-woman"
    
    *are* there any common words that end in "-woman", indicating the
    typical gender, as  "mailman" and "fireman" do? The only one I can
    think of is "cleaning lady" (which is two words, but it's close
    enough).

    					-- hs

       re .131:
       
       > *are* there any common words that end in "-woman"...?  The only
       > one I can think of is "cleaning lady" 
       
       You are incredibly close -- one such word is 'charwoman'.
       
       (There are lots of 2-word expressions that would qualify -- 'meter
       maids' comes to mind as one where either a male or female can
       perform the job, as long as they are surly, ill-tempered, cynical,
       and foul-smelling.)
       
       --Mr Topaz 

	RE: .129
>					      Until then, when my house
>    is burning, I'll call for a fireman, and not a fireperson.
    
	Gee, I'd call the whole fire department.  :-)    

...Karen

    	RE:  .129
    
    	Just saw a report on CNN (news) and had a taped interview
    	with a member of some big city Fire Department, and written
    	under his face were the words:
    
    
    			Fred Jones, FIREFIGHTER
    
    		        
    						    Suzanne... @^@

    As proof that the English language (as well as the American language)
    is changing, I am reminded of a famous documentary film from the late
    thirties about the herring industry in the North Sea.
    
    The images contrasted the lives of the crews of the trawlers with that
    of the fish handlers on the dockside and in the market.
    
    The crew were consistently called "fisherman"
    
    The handlers were called "fishwives".
    
    Due to recent union inspired changes, a recent update of the documentary
    referred to the crew as "deck hands" and the shore based handlers as
    "stevedores" or "fish handlers". (Though the crew were still all male,
    one trawler had a female Captain and another a female Mate). The shore
    crews are now fairly evenly mixed between men and women.
    
    /. Ian .\

    I agree, fireman was a bad example.  Firefighter is commonly used.
    
    Ooops.
    
    Dave
    

    I like words that "aren't" gender specific.  Such as:
    
    Homemaker (not housewife)
    Coat clerk (not hat check girl)
    Flight attendant (not airline sterwardess or steward)
    Administration specialist (not girl-friday)
    Temporary assistant (not Kelly-girl, and even they have changed
                         this to Kelly Services)
    
    
    Any others, please share.  I just love the sounds of some of these.
    
    Cathy
    

    Bellhop.
    						Ann B.

	Last time I heard a Kelley Services ad, they were
	very non-gender specific in their prose, until
	the very end. Then they said, 

		"... Kelly Services. The Kelley Girl people."

	Sam

    
    re: .140
    
    Well, they *were* the Kelly Girl people for the longest time.
    
    See, the problem with become a household word is that once you're
    established, you find it difficult to let go of the association.
    After all, they spent a long time building a reputation, and are
    probably reluctant to give it up, even though they may want to present
    an image of keeping up with the times.
    
    Perhaps I digress...
    
    DFW

        There aren't many words like charwoman that end in -woman, but
        there are some. More interesting are the words ending in -ster,
        which comes from -estre an suffix that is female in origin. A
        Baxter is a female Baker. A Brewster is a female Brewer. A
        Spinster is a female Spinner. (No, a Hamster is not a female
        Hammer.) Kinda makes you wonder about Teamsters and Gangsters,
        huh? 
        
        The -ster suffix is the only one of the female suffixes that
        have become generic. The -tress suffix as in Mister/Mistress and
        Actor/Actress, Seemer/Seemstress and the -trix as in Aviator/
        Aviatrix, are still quite markedly female. 
        
        The -ster words that have become names are interesting because
        we usually think of surnames as being male in origin, yet given
        the fact that brewing and baking are professions in which women
        have made a very strong contribution, and the existence of names
        like Baker and Brewer, the Baxter and Brewster families almost
        undoubtedly trace back to a woman from whom they take their
        names.
        
        JimB. 

    Personally, I've also liked the occasional word which expresses
    the uniqueness, the specialness of each gender.  When doing some
    mythological research lately, I found that the name Juno (the Roman
    version of the Greek goddess Hera) actually meant "female soul".
    The male soul's masculine complement was Genius (!).  Thus a man
    was said to infused with his Genius, a woman infused with her
    Juno.
    
    And which word stayed in the language to be used today?  Basically,
    the concept of a special Woman's Soul was scrapped and the concept
    of Man's Soul kept and used for the whole species.  I find this
    sad.  Since learning of that particular example, I have found myself 
    wishing for more words like that, that express each gender's
    specialness.
    
    Anyone else know of other examples?
    
    Marcia

    
re .139 (re my .135)�    You are saying someone had a female mate...?
                     
   I'm saying a fishing boat had a female Mate.

   /. Ian .\

	Hmmm, I never actually thought of myself as a (TaDa)


	SYSTEM WOMANAGER     :*) liesl

    re .146:
    
    words have "gender" (not English though, French does)
    organisms have "sex".
    
    >Personally, I'd prefer 'Congresscritter" for both sexes! :-)
                      
    How about "Representative"?
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

RE: .4

"I believe that when women are called "girl" the person doing it means to be
demeaning whether they realize it or not."

Isn't that a contradiction?  How can you "mean" something without "realizing
it"? 

RE: .20

"... that bother me significantly are ... the 4 letter word that starts with a
"c""

If it's the one I think of, it's an insult in any context, just as the male
four letter word that starts with "c" would be insulting in any context.

RE: .21

"Use of the term "lady" is objected to by some who view it as implying sexist
behavioral characteristics (knowing her place, waiting for doors to be opened,
that sort of thing)."

I think of the term "lady" to be a term of respect;  knowing her place, and
waiting for doors to be opened, perhaps, but as knowing her place as a place of
power and ability, and certainly capable of opening her own doors in the
'right' situations.

RE: .27

The reason that I use the term "lady" with my 2 year old, rather then "woman",
is because the two terms are phonetically different.  Using "man", and "lady",
it is much easier to get the fact that there is a difference across, and to
hear the difference in his speach. 

On the other hand, there are those (radical) 'feminists' who don't like the
word "women" or "woman", either, and (miss)spell :-) it 'womin" or "womyn", or
some such.  Can't please everybody, I guess. :-}

RE: .85

(about the default sex in other languages being female)

"Also, let's not confuse "gender" with "sex"."

What *is* the difference?

RE: .90

I used to write using she/he imdiscriminately, using male or female sexed voice
at random.  Mostly it was as a joke, to confuse people who might rigidly
sexist.  I don't do it anymore...  not for any particular reason, except
perhaps I do have occasion to hate select females now...

But, at least in WOMANNOTES I will take the effort to 'call a spade, a spade',
:-) 'call a woman, a woman', and 'a girl, a girl'. :-)

RE: .94

*barf*

RE: .96

Hear Here!  

I like english the way it is too...  

What I hate the most is when traditional songs or poetry are modernized to be
nongender specific, or even if they are changed in other way '''to reflect
these enlightened time'''.  Have you seen the butchery done to "Amazing Grace"?
I'd much rather keep the past as it was, and change the future, rather then
distroy the past... 

RE: .98

"As I pointed out in JOYOFLEX many moons ago, there are too many kids nowadays
who, when asked to draw pictures of "cavemen", drew pictures of adult male
humans in primitive dress, whereas several generations ago they would have
drawn people of various ages and sexes in primitive dress."

Oh really? (she said incredulouslly; not disbelieving, but wanting to know
more about this example)

RE: *

Perhaps it would be nice to have a word for generic humankind, and a word
for generic female humankind which cannot be 'mistaken' for 'man' as 'woman'
is.  Got any propositions?

several notes have implied that it is important to change the *words*,
especially when concerned with teaching children.  I disagree.  I think that if
half of the pictures of beginning reading books had female mailmen, then it
would be understood that an <occupation>man may be of either sex! 

RE: .120

I'm glad you're not all "womyn", here... :-)

RE: what is fashionable

Just as Negro was very much out of style for a few decades, but is now pretty
much neutral (at least where I come from), I predict that in twenty years, no
woman will care (as is here) whether they are called 'lady', 'woman', 'girl',
etc...

RE: .127

Gee, I would have thought the correct title would have been "Camera Operator"...

RE: .128

Yeh, "firefighter", "police officer", "mail carrier", are painless, but I still
cringe at "Congresswoman"!  Personally, I'd prefer 'Congresscritter" for both
sexes! :-) 

What seems to offend sensibilities the most is titles with <*>woman female
explict in them, or <*>person generic explict in them.  These words say to me,
'we're using these words 'cause we've been told to', rather then 'no big deal,
anybody can do anything they want', which is ***really*** what we want said.
Isn't it, women? 

RE: .137

I'm glad to see such a list, but many of these words tend towards jargonese,
such as "Administration specialist".  I won't use that, it's too much trouble;
I'd probably just say "secretary", since I don't know the difference between
'girl-friday' and 'secretary'.

I don't like a lot of these long titles which are *supposed* to represent
*simple* concepts, as a matter of course, which should be represented by short,
easy words.  After a few decades, many of these long titles will be
linguistically 'ground down' and shortened to something managable, but in the
meantime, they're a pain in the throat!

I think that if *we* really want to promote a better world, then *we* should
use more "we", and "our" inclusive speach, rather then 'us' vs. 'them' exclusive
speach!

RE: .142

Very interesting...  It seems that the English lanuage has not been as unkind
to women as some women would have us think! 

RE: .145

Actually I would imagine that a "Manager" is one who 'leads' *men*, so I
imagine a Womanager would be one who 'leads' *women*.  :-)  Anyone know any
better? 

In closing, I used to have a personal name which went something like "Truth ->
Words; Not Words -> Truth".  While our words may shape us in the long run, in
the individual cases it is the meaning behind the words which is important. 

Jim.

    by means of some strange timewarp in this conference, my .146 is
    actually a response to .147. How these two replies got switched
    is beyond me.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    re .148
    
    I was wondering the same thing myself.
    
    Lee

    Jim (to your note 148.147),

    One can "mean" something without *consciously* "realizing it", is
    how it's done.

    Why no use "gentleman" with your two-year old, if you are going to
    use "lady"?  Those two terms are phonetically different, but [should]
    have comparable meanings.  To use "man" and "lady" as parallel meanings
    is, perhaps, to get the idea of the wrong difference across.

    I have racked my brain to remember the source of that example about
    the pictures of "cavemen".  (You're not the first one to ask.)  All
    my subconscious has delivered is a suggestion to "ask William F.
    Buckley, Jr." about how kids in The Old Days drew cavemen.  (I think
    that we have all heard enough uncomplimentary things about the modern
    school system to believe that kids nowadays draw pictures of adult
    male cavemen only.)

    So, following the Buckley clue, I believe that I may have read about
    that example of educational failure in a collection of essays
    written by Buckley's older sister, and originally published by him
    in his magazine.  (I no longer remember her name, or the title of the
    book.)  I would suspect that it is most likely to be in the essay
    entitled "Merry Christmas to Everyone, (Except <some guy's name>)",
    which also speaks quite perceptively about St. Paul.

    Even this will not help you much.  She stated it as something she
    knew; she did not cite a formal study.  I can only point to her
    intellect and integrity, and to that of her brother/publisher, as
    points in favor of the truth of her statement.

    Your suggestion for pictures in beginning reading books is a good
    one; however, there are two objections.  1.  This means putting off
    the perception of gender-free occupations until age six or seven.
    This may be too late.  2.  Experiments involving just such pictures
    have demonstrated that the children remember the people in the
    pictures as being of the "traditional" gender -- NOT as what they
    ACTUALLY were.  (My mother had the devil of a time trying to buy
    some toys and picturebooks suitable for a two-year old which did
    *not* represent all kids as being Caucasian, so implementation of
    your suggestion is liable to be miles in the future.)

    							Ann B.

RE: .151

I see..

If I said "gentleman" to my son, he would translate it to 'genmumble'.  At this
point he loses most of a word after the first sylable.  Now, 'genmumble' is not
by any stretch of the imagination recognizable for a male human. Even if he gets
it as 'gentlemumble', he already knows the word 'gentle', which has little to do
with specifying a male human. 

Maybe I should use 'boy', and 'girl' for the opposite sexes, but then that would
be insulting everybody...

Hmmm off on a tangant, Ric has been playing with a black dog, "Pepper", this
summer, I wonder what he thinks he is putting on his food???? :-)

RE: pictures

True, picture books don't have much impact untill reading age...  But then
the other 'pictures' from real life start at age zero.  but it's probably
even harder to get that reality then the books.

Jim.

    Hi,
    
    I collectively call my kids (girl, age 5; boy, age 3) "guys". Actually,
    "little guys". If I refered to them as that in this file would anyone
    feel offended?
    
    /Les

    I don't think that there is anything wrong with calling children
    "little guys" when they actually are little guys. :-)

    Really funny (in kind of a Bloom-county-esque sort of way) panels
    from Bloom County cartoons this week:
    
    Opus is walking around the offices of the Bloom County Picayune
    newspaper. A flaming arrow with a message on it whizzes over his head
    and hits the wall in front of him.  He reads it.  It's from the radical
    wing of "the women's resoure center."  They're miffed about last
    sunday's cheeky lingerie insert and they're in the foyer threatening to
    set fire to the philodendron.  In the next panel, the militant wing of
    "the radical feminist and lesbian guerrilla alliance" is in the lobby
    and they're also ticked about the recent cheeky lingerie color insert.
    Opus remarks, "Now watch how a professional deftly defuses a volatile
    situation."  He throws open the door to the lobby and sings out
    *"GIRLS!"*.
    
    The next frame shows a headline - "Picayune Ombudsman Found With Nose
    Rammed Down Throat - anatomical miracle". 
    
     

    -Jody
    

    Thank you, Jody.  I have been thinking about entering that one.
    
              Carol

Funny you should mention "little guys"...my father had six 
daughters -- no sons.  He/we alsways referred to us/ourselves 
collectively as "guys", ex. "Can you guys pipe down?!?"  "You guys 
can pitch your tent over there..."  If you guys order the pizza, 
I'll pick it up." etc.

Consequently, I find "guys" trips off my tongue whenever I'm in a 
group of people working on something.  It has always been my 
terminology for those working as a team...until recently, when 
someone said they didn't like it.  I explained where it came from 
for me, and asked that I be reminded when I forget, but that I 
also be forgiven.  It's hard to break the habit of some 30 years 
or so.

Roxanne

     re -.3
    
    Where can I get a copy of that cartoon, I live in N. Chelmsford,
    MA.
    
    _peggy
    		(-)
    		 |	The Goddess performs another miracle - yeah!
    

    Immaturity.  Inability to take care of oneself, must be under the
    charge of a patron.  
    
    And all the dismissal that the above implies.
    
    It's a charged word.  Do you call a young black man "boy"?  (I don't
    mean if he's your son.)
    
    Sure, sure, in certain contexts it's fine.  However, you don't know
    me, so this isn't one of those contexts.

    re .159
    
>    	What does "girl" imply that turns you off?
    
    _my_ reasons, not necessarily justified since I doubt everyone
    consciously intends to say what _I_ hear in that word. 
    
    "girl" implies that I am young and foolish -- I may or may not be
    young, but I don't cotton to being called foolish.
    
    "girl" implies that I am a child who needs a responsible adult [maybe a
    husband, or a daddy] looking out for me, laying down rules for me,
    keeping me in line, keeping me from hurting myself.  I need no more
    parents, thanks, and I am responsible for my _own_ misdeeds. 
    
    "girl" implies that I am inexperienced in the world, that I am in
    need of an instructor.  I think I do just fine in determining when
    I am not teaching myself well enough and am in need of instruction.
    
    I am a tad touchy with the word, being 25 and admittedly "untempered"
    by the wealth of experience which comes with age.  Nevertheless,
    such criticisms should never be _implied_ by anyone, and only directly
    stated by those who have _earned_ the right to criticize me -- my
    intimates, my boss, my close relatives, or those from whom I have
    solicited such criticism (teachers, shrink).
    
    You see?  It is simply not your (you is plural and not aimed at
    anyone specific) _place_ to make such implicit judgements about me
    and my capabilities.
    
    And whether or not you _mean_ these things when you call me "girl",
    they are nevertheless the things I _hear_.
    

    In Peace,
    
    Lee

    My ten year old daughter is a girl
    My fourteen year old daughter is also a girl but she is also
    a young woman
    I am over 18 and no longer a child - I am a woman.
    Girl implies child to me.
    
    Bonnie

    re: where to get a copy of the comic.
    
    it appeared sometime (I believe midweek) last week in many newspapers.
     I found mine in Worcester Magazine, where they put the whole week's
    worth of comic strips right inside the back page.  I will try to
    lay hands on one and send it along.  Your mail stop?
    
    -Jody
    

RE: "guys"

So, I guess in this case that a male pronoun general set inclusive is
acceptable?

Jim.

    "Guys" has in recent times taken on the meaning of persons
    of both sexes in general....at least to some people :-)

    A male friend also did not understand why women took offense to
    girls.
    
    He worked in a business environment with several women, some older
    and some younger, but all grown women.  He constantly referred to
    them as girls, and I contsantly tried to correct him to no avail.
    He just could not understand why women were offended until:
    
    He traveled to a customer site to have a meeting with a colleague.
    During the tour of the site, the colleague started referring to
    the grown black men as "boys" (ie. "hey boy, I want you to meet..."
    or "Could you do this for me boy").  Yet the grown white men were
    not.  My friend started to realize that this colleague was using
    the term boy to make himself feel superior to these "boys" or
    was making the black men feel inferior.
    
    He finally saw it from a males perspective that using the term "boy"
    or "girl" was offensive to its grown male/female recipients and
    that it is an attempt by some to put them in their "proper" place.
    He immediately started to rectify his language patterns.\
    
    Sometimes it is very hard to understand a feeling unless you are
    witness to it or experience it yourself.  I hope this helps men
    better understand this situation, it did for my male friend
    who now refers to women as women.
    
    Suzanne (just trying to offer another perspective - hope it helps)
    

    RE "guy" ...

    Remember that in England, they actually have a holiday to commemorate
    the shortcomings of the male half of society ... 

    
        
    
    
    	You have heard of Guy Faults Day, haven't you?

    <--(.168)

    One reason why 'boys' doesn't generate the same negative feelings
    as 'girls' could be that a 'boy' is a young man and everyone 'knows' 
    that 'men are naturally superior to women.'  Don't forget that there
    are culture's to this day where a woman must be escorted by a man,
    be he 8yrs old or 80, whenever she leaves the family house.  And
    in the past, when the husband died, it was not the wife who became
    the 'head of the family' but the oldest male child, (even if this
    was only an 'honary' role till _he_ grew up). A woman was never
    old enough or mature enough to run the family, in theory.  Though
    there are examples where a woman demostrated great leadership/
    management capabilities.
    

    RE: .170
    
    I agree - that's the difference.
    
    When applied to a *male* in an inferior position, it *is* resented.
    I doubt you could get away with calling a black man "boy" today,
    but it was quite common in days gone by.
    
    Still, I bet women could refer to the men in this file as "boys"
    and generate some pretty heated REPLYs from the "callee's". I could
    be wrong. (Well, it would be the first time, but it could happen!)
    ;-)
    
    --DE
    

    RE: .170
    
    Dawn, there have, indeed, been instance where female contributors
    to this Conference, and in others, have referred to "the boys" or
    "boy".
    
    I, myself, in my Note 637 - "To Have A Few Eyes On Us" - titled
    one reply with something like "One For The Boys".
    
    In general, calling men "boys" in this file does not seem to engender
    the same kinds of responses from males that calling women "girls" (or
    even "ladies") seem to evoke.
    
      Alan

    No, Alan, it generally *doesn't* create the same feeling, and it
    really doesn't have the *same* connotations. USed in the right
    connotation, however, I really *do* think it would get some reactions.
    
    "one for the boys" has the same flavor as "a beer with the boys"
    (Gad, I must be thirsty - "Flavor"? "beer"?)
    
    In general, I agree - it doesn't have the same connotations or "bite"
    that GIRL does. ("bite"? maybe I'm hungry, too!)
    
    Let us chat again if the situation ever comes up...
    
    --DE
    

    How would the male members of this file feel if we consistently
    referred to "the women and the boys" who participate in womannotes?
    (About the 10th time you heard it?)
    
    

    Jim,
    It was not "girls and boys"....
    
    It was _specifically_ "women and boys"....
    
    To bring about the idea of women, an _adult_ term, mixed with boys,
    a _childish_ term. 
    
    Think about it.  Please.
    
    I'm almost tempted to start it,  but it would'n feel right for me
    to use terms that _I_ feel are sexist, even if the audience that
    _I_ feel it is sexist towards, do not feel that way.
    
    Maybe that's the difference between women and boys.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Just kidding......abosloutly  NO offense intended.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ps...How'd it feel?

I don't see what you are getting at...

Obviously (I think you believe this) "women and boys" is not correct, as
is "men and girls", but "girls and boys" seems fine to me...

Jim.

    	RE:  .176
    
    	You've got a good point there!
    
    	How often have I heard (in my life) the two sexes referred to
    	as "men" and "girls" (as if the two terms sounded appropriate
    	together.)
    
    	The whole issue *does* become a lot clearer when the words 
    	"women" and "boys" are put together.
    

    I am currently trying to learn a smattering of Thai, and can assure
    you that the complexity of form, and the potential for insult, in that
    language, is infinitely greater than the trivial "man & boy", "woman
    and girl" situation of [American &] English. (relative age, kinship,
    ordinality in respective families and other things have to be taken
    into account. Any possible - no matter how remote - relationship to
    nobility, and in any event relative social status are all factors in
    choice of word in the Tai dialects).
    
    Personally I do not care if you refer to me as a "boy", I will choose
    to think that it refers to my considerable boyish charm and wit, and
    is intended to show that the speaker thinks these more important than
    my slightly greying, and receding hair.
                                      
    /. Ian .\
    

    Just when you thought this topic had gone away ...
    
    Recently I caught an episode of "Hollywood Squares" (OK: we have the
    TV on whilst we make dinner), and the following question caught my
    attention. Since I didn't tape the show it is clearly a little
    paraphrased... 
    
    Q: (directed to Joan Rivers): "A recent Time Magazine survey showed
    that the majority of women your age, whatever that means, dislike being
    refered to as "girls". Is this true?"
    
    JR: "... <multiple jokes deleted> ... Yes"
    
    Contestant: "I agree"
              
    Answer: "NO, only young women object to being called girls, older women
    actually prefer it"
    
    ===========
    
    Now I don't read "Time", so I haven't seen the survey, so can't really
    add anything to the above, but I must admit to having found it hard
    to believe. Is it perhaps indicative of the demographics of Time
    readership? 
    
    /. Ian .\

    Yuck!  I read Time Magazine weekly and never saw such a thing -
    no survey or results of some such - And I am always keeping my eye
    out for pertinant "woman" topics - I will have to take a look. 
    
    I wonder how "recent" is recent.
    
    Suzanne
    

    The HS show aired this week (Wednesday I think) but was taped out of
    doors in obviously warm Florida environs, so I would guess it was taped
    last fall. From the cars they were giving away as prizes (Jeeps - which
makes it difficult to tell whether they are '87s or '88s) I doubt it could
be much older than that.
    
    Don't know when (or even if) Time actually published their survey.
    (Not every survey they commision is actually published - they may have
    suppresed this one in order to conserve readership.)
    
    /. Ian .\
    

    TIME magazine was unable to "see" 650,000 people in Washington,
    D.C.  - I doubt their ability to cover this topic as well.
    
    They seem to have some sort of congenital blindness when looking
    at certain people.
    
    --DE