[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference turris::womannotes-v1

Title:ARCHIVE-- Topics of Interest to Women, Volume 1 --ARCHIVE
Notice:V1 is closed. TURRIS::WOMANNOTES-V5 is open.
Moderator:REGENT::BROOMHEAD
Created:Thu Jan 30 1986
Last Modified:Fri Jun 30 1995
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:873
Total number of notes:22329

464.0. "??? S O !!!" by SHIRE::BIZE () Tue Sep 01 1987 04:43

    My knowledge of English, though quite sufficient, is almost completely
    academic, and there is a word that is being constantly used in this
    notesfile, and it annoys me beyond reason that I don't know it's
    meaning:
    
    Please, what do the letters  S O  stand for ?
    
    I understand what they mean, i.e. partner, spouse, live-in friend
    of either sex (I think), but not the initials themselves.
    
    			State Owned ?
    			Sesame Oil  ?
    			Sunday Oopla ?
    			Same Origin ?
    			Safe Organ ?
    
    Thanks for your help.
    
    Joana
    
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
464.1Significant OtherFOCUS1::BACOTTue Sep 01 1987 05:581
    
464.2MOSAIC::TARBETMargaret MairhiTue Sep 01 1987 07:4612
    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
                             
    
464.3My new label-he'll love it!CSMADM::WATKINSTue Sep 01 1987 12:518
    
    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
464.4chuckle,chuckle -safe organUSAT02::CARLSONset person/positiveTue Sep 01 1987 16:027
    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.   
    
464.5Well?TSG::MCGOVERNSzechuan VanillaWed Sep 02 1987 16:575
    
    
        Sex Object? ;-)
    
    MM
464.6Double Standard 'ladies'?DIEHRD::MAHLERDon't touch me. I'm all slimy!Wed Sep 02 1987 17:188
    
    	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.
    
    
464.7in the eyes of the beholder, I guess..STUBBI::B_REINKEwhere the sidewalk endsWed Sep 02 1987 17:221
    well I thought it a slightly risque witticism...
464.8Justification of Objectification.DIEHRD::MAHLERDon't touch me. I'm all slimy!Wed Sep 02 1987 17:355
    
    
    	I'm sure.
    
    
464.9PthbbbbbbbbtGCANYN::TATISTCHEFFLee TWed Sep 02 1987 18:093
    re .6 and .8
    
    Lee
464.10An object lessonDSSDEV::BURROWSJim BurrowsWed Sep 02 1987 18:5523
        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.
464.11thanksSTUBBI::B_REINKEwhere the sidewalk endsWed Sep 02 1987 22:586
    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
464.12ANGORA::BUSHEEGeorge BusheeThu Sep 03 1987 13:107
    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.
464.13we all can growYAZOO::B_REINKEwhere the sidewalk endsThu Sep 03 1987 13:142
    re some guys getting flamed for less, I hope we can all raise
    our threshold of irritability just a little.....:-)
464.14????BUMBLE::KALLASThu Sep 03 1987 14:325
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?
464.15Don't Californicate the Language :-)VAXWRK::CONNORSan Andreas It's All Your FaultFri Sep 04 1987 12:479
	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 ?
464.16or an IO (insignificant other)ULTRA::GUGELDon't read this.Fri Sep 04 1987 14:391
    
464.17or an SOO - (something or other)LEZAH::BOBBITTface piles of trials with smilesFri Sep 04 1987 16:011
    
464.18CALLME::MR_TOPAZSat Sep 05 1987 13:503
       A so-so (sort-of s... o....)
       
       --Mr Topaz
464.19You can call me .....HPSMEG::HAWESTue Sep 08 1987 14:4015
    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
    
464.20Sweetie's always goodPNEUMA::SULLIVANTue Sep 08 1987 16:0312
    
    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
464.21I can call you Betty...WAGON::RITTNERTue Sep 08 1987 16:5013
    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
464.22It works well enough in the right contextULTRA::GUGELDon't read this.Tue Sep 08 1987 17:0417
    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 opinionLEZAH::BOBBITTface piles of trials with smilesTue Sep 08 1987 17:4213
    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
    
464.24Nu? So, vat's new with your SO?WAGON::RITTNERTue Sep 08 1987 18:0716
    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
464.25Answer & QuestionTSG::BRADYNo good deed goes unpunished...Tue Sep 08 1987 18:3813
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?

464.26DIEHRD::MAHLERDon't touch me. I'm all slimy!Tue Sep 08 1987 21:528
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.

464.27trying to explain - words failLEZAH::BOBBITTface piles of trials with smilesWed Sep 09 1987 12:2035
    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
    
464.28APEHUB::STHILAIREremembrance of things pastWed Sep 09 1987 12:396
    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
    
464.29I prefer "Special One"GOSOX::RYANEqual Opportunity NoterWed Sep 09 1987 12:570
464.30Pass the guacamole...DIEHRD::MAHLERDon't touch me. I'm all slimy!Wed Sep 09 1987 12:584

    Ooooh, gnarly, bitch'n, awesome, wave.  

464.31Yeah! That's the ticket!WAGON::RITTNERThu Sep 10 1987 12:293
    Soul mate! I like that a lot!
    
    Elisabeth
464.32SO waht's POSSLQ!!!RDGENG::MCCARTNEYWhen God made man she was testingTue Sep 15 1987 07:591
    
464.33People of Opposite Sex Sharing Living Quarters, of course!CHEFS::MAURERLa vie en roseTue Sep 15 1987 08:251
    
464.34PFFFFFFFT!JUNIOR::TASSONECruise Nov 9 -16Thu Sep 17 1987 14:1312
    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)
464.35One hour to go!!!CSTVAX::MPOWELLTue Oct 20 1987 16:555
    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::BOYAJIANThe Dread Pirate RobertsWed Oct 21 1987 03:314
    Friends of mine like to use the term "Um Er". I think it adds
    an appropriate amount of humor to the situation.
    
    --- jerry
464.37MARCIE::UPRThu Nov 05 1987 01:1014
    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! 
    
464.38Spousal Equivalent?KYOMTS::COHENDynamo Hum........Thu Nov 05 1987 18:572