T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
464.1 | Significant Other | FOCUS1::BACOT | | Tue Sep 01 1987 05:58 | 1 |
|
|
464.2 | | MOSAIC::TARBET | Margaret Mairhi | Tue Sep 01 1987 07:46 | 12 |
| It originated in the Humanistic Psychology movement in California in
the late 60s/early 70s. At the time, the terms "Self" and "Other" were
in vogue from the popularity of the writings of a certain religious
philosopher (whose name I cannot now recall...can someone else supply
it?). The abbreviation just caught on, as did the rather sillier and
less-general "POSSLQ" (Person of the Opposite Sex Sharing Living
Quarters...pronouce it possel-queue) coined by the Bureau of the Census
in the US.
=maggie
|
464.3 | My new label-he'll love it! | CSMADM::WATKINS | | Tue Sep 01 1987 12:51 | 8 |
|
I always read 'SO' as Significant Other, but from now on it's
'Safe Organ' to me!
In these AIDS-days, that's a pretty appropriate label, provided
it is true.
Stacie
|
464.4 | chuckle,chuckle -safe organ | USAT02::CARLSON | set person/positive | Tue Sep 01 1987 16:02 | 7 |
| So much easier than defining your relationship, ie: lover, friend
I sleep with, boyfriend, husband...
We can just lump them all, male or female into one little phrase,
SO! ;^>
Theresa.
|
464.5 | Well? | TSG::MCGOVERN | Szechuan Vanilla | Wed Sep 02 1987 16:57 | 5 |
|
Sex Object? ;-)
MM
|
464.6 | Double Standard 'ladies'? | DIEHRD::MAHLER | Don't touch me. I'm all slimy! | Wed Sep 02 1987 17:18 | 8 |
|
RE: 464.3 by CSMADM::WATKINS
The first line of this reply is so obviously sexist
and female-chauvanistic that I can't believe it has
been in this file as long as it has.
|
464.7 | in the eyes of the beholder, I guess.. | STUBBI::B_REINKE | where the sidewalk ends | Wed Sep 02 1987 17:22 | 1 |
| well I thought it a slightly risque witticism...
|
464.8 | Justification of Objectification. | DIEHRD::MAHLER | Don't touch me. I'm all slimy! | Wed Sep 02 1987 17:35 | 5 |
|
I'm sure.
|
464.9 | Pthbbbbbbbbt | GCANYN::TATISTCHEFF | Lee T | Wed Sep 02 1987 18:09 | 3 |
| re .6 and .8
Lee
|
464.10 | An object lesson | DSSDEV::BURROWS | Jim Burrows | Wed Sep 02 1987 18:55 | 23 |
| In a way though, what Mike Mahler says about the line being
sexual objectification is true. The note does tend to turn a
person into a sex object. On the other hand what Bonnie says and
Lee alludes to is also true--it really isn't objectionable
objectification. That in turn illustrates that there can be
acceptable objectification.
It is clear that no malice at all is intended by the comment and
we can in fact infer rather easily that Ms. Watkins feels
significant affection for her SO. The comment, though perhaps
just a little risqu�, is humorous and light-hearted. In that
it illustrates that language which *could* be objectionable
if it were taken seriously can be disarmed if we see the
good nature behind it.
It would perhaps be worth remembering this when discussing or
reacting to some of the language used by men about women. That,
too, can be light hearted even when it strays beyond the bounds
of what would be acceptable if we took it very seriously. In
short, it can at times help if we lighten up just a little.
That, of course, requires trust.
JimB.
|
464.11 | thanks | STUBBI::B_REINKE | where the sidewalk ends | Wed Sep 02 1987 22:58 | 6 |
| JimB I think your very last line says it best..."it requires
trust." and I very much want to trust those who write in this
file and am generally apt to assume a silly or unintentional
or foot in the mouth reason rather than a deliberately unkind
or malicious one.
Bonnie
|
464.12 | | ANGORA::BUSHEE | George Bushee | Thu Sep 03 1987 13:10 | 7 |
| RE: .11
Yea, but if it had been a man would you still be saying
the same?
Not saying this in a negative way, I also thought it was
cute. I had just seen some guys get flamed for much less.
|
464.13 | we all can grow | YAZOO::B_REINKE | where the sidewalk ends | Thu Sep 03 1987 13:14 | 2 |
| re some guys getting flamed for less, I hope we can all raise
our threshold of irritability just a little.....:-)
|
464.14 | ???? | BUMBLE::KALLAS | | Thu Sep 03 1987 14:32 | 5 |
| What's with you guys??? How can "safe organ" be sexually chauvinistic
when a healthy person of either sex could be said to have one?
Is this like when the fellow looks at the ink blots and complains
the psychiatrist is showing him dirty pictures?
|
464.15 | Don't Californicate the Language :-) | VAXWRK::CONNOR | San Andreas It's All Your Fault | Fri Sep 04 1987 12:47 | 9 |
| This comes from the same area that brought us:
Havaniceda!!
Can u have more than one SO?
That means one could have an LSO (least significant other)
and a MSO ?
|
464.16 | or an IO (insignificant other) | ULTRA::GUGEL | Don't read this. | Fri Sep 04 1987 14:39 | 1 |
|
|
464.17 | or an SOO - (something or other) | LEZAH::BOBBITT | face piles of trials with smiles | Fri Sep 04 1987 16:01 | 1 |
|
|
464.18 | | CALLME::MR_TOPAZ | | Sat Sep 05 1987 13:50 | 3 |
| A so-so (sort-of s... o....)
--Mr Topaz
|
464.19 | You can call me ..... | HPSMEG::HAWES | | Tue Sep 08 1987 14:40 | 15 |
| I am a female who does not get offended by being called a "girlfriend",
or "lover", or something along those lines.
On the other hand, if my "boyfriend" referred to me as his "significant
other", I think that I would be GREATLY insulted. I would prefer,
more than any of the above options, to be called "Debby".
What I am trying to say, is that I think that SO is STUPID. It
is dehumanizing and trendy, and like I said, STUPID. - yeah, I know,
you heard me the first time.
Anyway, as Sting says, "Rehumanize Yourself".
Ta ta
|
464.20 | Sweetie's always good | PNEUMA::SULLIVAN | | Tue Sep 08 1987 16:03 | 12 |
|
I think the term SO is often used because it doesn't exclude gay
and lesbian relationships the way so many other words do. I
sometimes find 'SO' a little awkward, but the word "lover" often
makes me blush because it's so ... sexy. I think if I used the
word "girlfriend" in reference to my SO, I would get a lot of blank
stares. 1/2 the people would be amazed that I said "girl" and the
other 1/2 wouldn't get it :-)
So it's SO for now.
Justine
|
464.21 | I can call you Betty... | WAGON::RITTNER | | Tue Sep 08 1987 16:50 | 13 |
| Yes, I agree with the last two notes! SO feels too "eighties" and
Wall Street and "technical" to me!! Yet, "boyfriend" and "girlfriend"
are too "high schoolish". And, I would be too embarassed to introduce
an "SO" to, let's say a priest or a rabbi (or even to my parents!!)
as "my lover"!!! I usually introduce an "SO" as "my friend" or as
"my best friend", although this perhaps does my friend a disservice
(even though being friends is certainly a very significant part
of being lovers, so's, whatever). SIGH!!!! Labels!! I don't even
like using Mr. or Mrs. or Miss or even Ms. except in very particular
circumstances (maybe part of growing up in the first-name-basis
environment of the computer business!?).
Elisabeth
|
464.22 | It works well enough in the right context | ULTRA::GUGEL | Don't read this. | Tue Sep 08 1987 17:04 | 17 |
| SO is simply a generic, all-inclusive term. It's rarely used to
refer to specific individual (unless anonymimity is desired), but
is used when the sex and/or exact relationship (husband, wife,
girlfriend, boyfriend) is unknown. For example, I'll say to my
SO (boyfriend :-) ), "Let's have a party and invite all our friends
from climbing and their significant others" rather than "all our
friends and their husbands, wives, girlfriends, and boyfriends"
(too cumbersome).
But I'd say, "Let's invite Pat and her husband over for dinner",
not "Pat and her significant other".
Do those of you who don't like the term have a better term for it?
I don't particularly like "SO", but I haven't heard anything better
or more widely-used.
-Ellen
|
464.23 | 'nother opinion | LEZAH::BOBBITT | face piles of trials with smiles | Tue Sep 08 1987 17:42 | 13 |
| I do not use the term SO because it is "trendy" or "in", I use it
because it applies. My SO is more than a boyfriend, less than a
husband, he is lover, friend, confidante, POSSLQ, etc.....I don't want
to saddle him with a single term. SO is all encompassing, and takes
care of all forms of relationships be they close or not-so-close,
homosexual, heterosexual, etc. By using this convenient phrase, I do
not have to describe in detail my relationship with my SO. I don't mind
being called an SO - particularly as many of a former SO's friends
continually asked him "So how's the wife?" or "How's the Little
Woman?" - and we were nowhere near married.
-Jody
|
464.24 | Nu? So, vat's new with your SO? | WAGON::RITTNER | | Tue Sep 08 1987 18:07 | 16 |
| I don't feel that people who are using the term SO are trying to
be trendy. I just feel the term itself is sterile although it far
from represents something that is sterile. The aspect I do like
about SO is that at least it is something of a vague "title" - not
vague about the caring part of the relationship, but just vague
about the particulars (gender, sexual involvement, "legal" connection)
that some labels tend to shape into stereotypes (i.e. husband, wife,
lover). I guess I feel that if one person should know the particulars
about my relationship with another person, he/she will know because
I have explained the particulars. I don't mind SO being used in
conversation, but I guess I'll stick to using "friend", an equally
unsatisfactory term!!
Towards peace,
Elisabeth
|
464.25 | Answer & Question | TSG::BRADY | No good deed goes unpunished... | Tue Sep 08 1987 18:38 | 13 |
| re: .2
I think the writer you're looking for my have been Martin Buber?
re: .23
>..............................SO is all encompassing, and takes
>care of all forms of relationships be they close or not-so-close,
>homosexual, heterosexual, etc. ........................
I thought 'close' was the one thing *definitely* connoted by 'SO',
if not, the term's completely content-free, no?
|
464.26 | | DIEHRD::MAHLER | Don't touch me. I'm all slimy! | Tue Sep 08 1987 21:52 | 8 |
| RE:.23
because it applies. My SO is more than a boyfriend, less than a
husband, he is lover, friend, confidante, POSSLQ, etc.....I don't want
What makes your boyfriend less than a husband? Kinda know what
you mean, but would like to hear it in words.
|
464.27 | trying to explain - words fail | LEZAH::BOBBITT | face piles of trials with smiles | Wed Sep 09 1987 12:20 | 35 |
| re: -.2 by not-so-close I mean perhaps not living together, or having
a solid relationship although they're going to school in Europe,
or being committed emotionally without spending ALL your free time
together, (it's the best I can do to describe it).
re: -.1:
by saying he is less than a husband, it intimates that I have seen
lots of relationships work wonderfully, but the marriage that follows
crumbles. "Husband" holds connotations, to me, of someone who gets
up, commutes to work, commutes home, eats dinner, reads the newspaper,
and goes to sleep - or someone who feels that now he has a wife,
why bother keeping things new, exciting, and interesting. My
grandfather's girlfriend once told me "The secret of a good
relationship? Never bring the milk to the table in the carton -
use a pitcher" To me, this means doing special things, new things,
considerate things, holding every day as special and singular and
precious. Sure, we plan to marry, but that won't be for a while.
"Husband" also connotes financial responsibility, joint income tax,
and queries of "so when are you going to settle down and have a
family". It means having in-laws. It means being pillars of the
community and having dinner parties for his co-workers.
Yes, these are stereotypes that have been handed down by the media,
but I find them unpleasant and altogether unsuited to the relationship
I want to have. I in no way am assuming that anyone else's marriage
in this file is like this...please don't think I don't know there
are many more exceptions-to than followers-of the rule.
I have
looked and found what I wish to call him...
He is my soulmate (q.v. Richard Bach's "The Bridge Across Forever")
-Jody
|
464.28 | | APEHUB::STHILAIRE | remembrance of things past | Wed Sep 09 1987 12:39 | 6 |
| I don't think of SO as being "less than a husband", just different
than a husband, in that an SO doesn't automatically have all the
stereotyped connotations of a husband.
Lorna
|
464.29 | I prefer "Special One" | GOSOX::RYAN | Equal Opportunity Noter | Wed Sep 09 1987 12:57 | 0 |
464.30 | Pass the guacamole... | DIEHRD::MAHLER | Don't touch me. I'm all slimy! | Wed Sep 09 1987 12:58 | 4 |
|
Ooooh, gnarly, bitch'n, awesome, wave.
|
464.31 | Yeah! That's the ticket! | WAGON::RITTNER | | Thu Sep 10 1987 12:29 | 3 |
| Soul mate! I like that a lot!
Elisabeth
|
464.32 | SO waht's POSSLQ!!! | RDGENG::MCCARTNEY | When God made man she was testing | Tue Sep 15 1987 07:59 | 1 |
|
|
464.33 | People of Opposite Sex Sharing Living Quarters, of course! | CHEFS::MAURER | La vie en rose | Tue Sep 15 1987 08:25 | 1 |
|
|
464.34 | PFFFFFFFT! | JUNIOR::TASSONE | Cruise Nov 9 -16 | Thu Sep 17 1987 14:13 | 12 |
|
Is this like IC (individual contributor). I hate that acronymn.
Manager one says: my IC's are doing fine today.
Manager two says: but what about the NIC's (non-individual
contributors).
Why can't we talk the way we used to? Because we're in such a hurry?
Cathy (who says pffffft to all terminology. let's getting talking
again)
|
464.35 | One hour to go!!! | CSTVAX::MPOWELL | | Tue Oct 20 1987 16:55 | 5 |
| I like soul mate too! And special one sounds special.... So when
I put SO it will mean soul mate! Wait scratch that, it will mean
both!
Tanya
|
464.36 | "He/she's my um...er..." | AKOV11::BOYAJIAN | The Dread Pirate Roberts | Wed Oct 21 1987 03:31 | 4 |
| Friends of mine like to use the term "Um Er". I think it adds
an appropriate amount of humor to the situation.
--- jerry
|
464.37 | | MARCIE::UPR | | Thu Nov 05 1987 01:10 | 14 |
| Boy have I got some chuckles out of this one!
I had been interpreting SO to mean "sweet one" all this time, glad
that was clarified! (I suppose some of us have "sour ones" too.)
I HATE being referred to as "the other half" and will not respond
when someone asks "where's your other half?", I mean, isn't all
of me standing there? I have no SO right now, am I incomplete?
I don't think so....
cj *->
So, that's SO!
|
464.38 | Spousal Equivalent? | KYOMTS::COHEN | Dynamo Hum........ | Thu Nov 05 1987 18:57 | 2 |
|
|