Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    
    
    You/they might want to consider the "context" of which "girls" is
    used.  For instance, being a secretary, I don't see anything wrong
    with referring to the other secretaries in the area as "girls",
    somehow, tho, wageclass 4's may want to be considered women.  That's
    THAT context.  However, I prefer, in other instances, to use the
    word "female".  As in the cases you presented, I agree with you.
    
    I don't "like" thinking as myself as a woman, per se (which I am).
    Somehow, I think of a more matronly type person, (which I'm not).
    And I enjoy being a "girl" and act like a "girl", overall, I still
    prefer female_type_person.   :-)
    
    /c

    
    Girl = a female person who is my age or younger
    
    Woman = a female person who is older than I am
    
    
    I don't know why, but that seems to be the way my brain works. I
    nearly _never_ actually use either word, though.  I guess I'm a
    bit self concious of my own quirk.  I like the word "individual"
    to be used in place of girl/boy, man/woman, lady/gent, or the infamous
    "person".
    
    Marion
    

    Many years ago at DEC, my supervisor led a stranger into my office,
    explaining that he was to be my new cubbymate.  Then he introduced
    me with "Julian, this is Ann, our girl programmer."
    
    I thought, "Uh, oh.  This has got to be stopped.  And Julian
    should learn what sort of cubbymate he's getting."  Then, in a
    nauseating cheerful manner, I replied, "Yes!  I program girls!"
    
    This had two results:  1.  Julian realized right away that I was
    weird.  2.  The next time my supervisor introduced me, he almost
    swallowed his tongue, but he did get it right.  "This is Ann, ah-
    another one of our programmers."
    
    							Ann B.

    I once  coached  a  high  school  girls  volleyball team. It was a
    conciousness-lowering  experience.  Perhpas  the girls on the team
    were not interested or immature, but it took a lot of adjusting on
    my part.

    The first  day  I  explained that jewelry could cause injuries and
    the rules prohibited it for that reason. It took three weeks until
    we were down to 1 or 2 girls trying to practice with jewelry.

    Then I  addressed  them  as "women". (My high school coaches often
    addressed us as "men"). They all objected, and wished to be called
    girls.

    There were  other  interesting things I learned (did you know that
    modern  girls  don't  have  knees? If you tell them to bend at the
    knees,  they  bend  at  the waist.), but the things that stood out
    were  the  lack  of  familiarity  with  coaching (They never could
    remember  to  look  at  the bench between plays), and the absolute
    rejection  of  the  word women to describe them. With all this, we
    had  a  lot  of  fun,  and  actually  won  a  few  games (not bad,
    considering  that  many of them had never played volleyball when I
    started.)

--David

    I like the use of "woman," because I aspire to be one (still feeling,
    however, rather like an old girl) and notice how much more easily it is
    being used now.  
    
    A primo way of putting women down is by appealing to their fears
    of being trivial, or not nice, or not really understanding (as in,
    "I'm sure he doesn't mean anything like that, he's my brother's
    best friend).
    
    I think it's important for the 80.0 to indicate that she's as un-
    comfortable with being called girl, as men would at being called
    boys all the time.
    
    Briana

    I don't believe that one is being picky when expressing a preference
    for how one wishes to be addressed. However, if one ignores a more
    significant matter while insisting on the proper form of address,
    *that's* being picky. 
    
    	"Hey, lady, your car's on fire!" 
    
    	"Kindly address me by name or use no title at all!"
    
    	<BOOM!>
    
    -b

    Language not only reflects a state of affairs, but also programs
    us as to how we look at things. While calling a woman "girl" seems
    trivial, and certainly that one thing does not enslave women - it
    is part of a whole system of language which refers to women as somehow
    "less than" or trivial in some way.
    
    I believe it is *vital* that our language include women as fully
    participating adult beings. "Girl", "chick", "broad", "skirt",
    "bimbo" and many other similar words are used commonly to refer
    to women as a group, and they all trivialize and demean us.
    
    Dawn
    

    
    re:.8
    
    I sense here a number of attitudes and assumptions that are at best
    unpleasant and at worst dangerous. Among them:
    
    -the people in charge are right
    (don't argue with the coaches choice of language, even if it's wrong,
    save your energy for doing what the coach tells you to do)
    -men know what women want/need
    (don't bother men with 'trivialities', stick to the important,
    job-related, *male-defined* stuff)
    -men are doing women a favor by granting their rights
    (don't look a gift horse in the mouth)
    
    Anyone else read it that way?
    

    i prefer to be called a woman.  while i may still be a child in
    many ways, that is MY business (and, sometimes, the business of my
    loved ones) and no one who is not very intimate with me has the
    right to pronounce me or my actions as childish by calling me girl.
    
    older people (ie. they have 3+ decades on me) are allowed to call
    me a girl, because in comparison to them, I am a child.  also, 
    they are likely to have very different socialization from me.
    
    my way for handling people who call me a girl is generally to pull
    one of the old my-blood-is-icy-blue-and-aren't-you-pitiful-with-such
    -blaring-social-errors looks.  (i come from old russian blue blood
    stock, so i know this look all too well.  the eyebrows would go to the
    ceiling if it were possible, but the rest of the face is blank).
    
    this has been remarkably effective at dec.  but it is occasionally
    too subtle.  my next tactic is to say something like "are the BOYZZZ
    coming too?"  this should be said with as tiny a sneer as possible,
    and the eyebrows up in the ceiling again.  verrry direct eye contact
    with the offender, over the rim of your glasses if you have them.
    
    some people are soooo dense as not to get this, so i correct them
    (if necessary) in private, saying that i find the term pretty offensive
    and could they please pick another one (suggest "woman") to use
    around me.  that lays it on the table so that the next time they
    "slip", they cannot pretend they don't know it is inoffensive to me.
    
    if they _still_ don't get it and you are forced to deal with them,
    pick out a really stupid nickname for them and USE IT.  if they
    object to being called potato ears or jimmy_dear, then you can promise
    never to call them that unless they call you an equally offensive
    term (such as "girl").
    
    no it's not a trivial, pickayune thing; if it bothers you, it bothers
    you.  you have the right to be addressed in a manner inoffensive
    to you.  i use these tactics because i hate to feel like someone
    else can pull my strings and get me talking hot feminism (ie largely
    discrediting myself with a lot of people) in such an easy way. 
    i also use them because i so seldom have to; i may be an average
    sized woman, but there aren't a whole lot of people out there with
    the temerity to declare war on me after i've indicated that something
    is an issue of war.
    
    lee

    
    Instead of playing catty eye games, why not call it what it 
    is (insulting), and inform the offender clearly that you
    are not pleased...?

    Although I feel secure enough to accept "girl", I would prefer to
    be called "woman".  Now chick, broad, skirt, etc., are another matter
    altogether!  Men aren't the only ones who use different names -
    women do it when speaking about men, too.  "Guys", "boys", etc.,
    etc.
    
    Sue
    

    re:.12
    
    True, but other than the occasional "I'm getting together with
    the girls", how many times do *women* use the "pet" terms for
    women?
    
    At least "guys" and "boys" are used just as much by men themselves
    as by women.
    
    (And when it comes down to it, "guys" is more and more often being
    used for either or both sexes.)
    
    The "pet" terms for men never seem as denigrating as the ones for
    women do.
    
    --- jerry

    
    This is an issue I continually waiver on.  As an undergrad PE major,
    calling someone a "girl" was tantamount to calling her stupid.  I
    was a fledgling feminist, and was wont to launch into a scathing
    attack on anyone who dared call me a "girl".  

    These days, I guess that I have mellowed.  Maybe it was the influence
    of my niece, who always said she was a "gril", or "boys and grils".
    I would tell her that the word was "girl", but she steadfastly clung
    to "gril".  Now, whenever I hear the word "girl", I have to smile,
    so it is hard to get upset.  I find myself referring to people of
    all ages as boys and grils!

    It's all contextual though.  Coming to Digital from the world of 
    "Big Oil", it is a relief just to see women being treated fairly.
    I still flame when I hear someone using "he" to describe the user,
    or customer.
    

    re .4

    After I graduated, and was coaching in a small school, I continued 
    to avoid "girl", even though the players I was coaching were high 
    schoolers.  At first, the girls giggled at being called "women", 
    but I found that it gave them more confidence to stand up to the 
    boys, and to feel pride in what they were doing.  Soon, I had some
    budding feminists among my players.  (This was to get me trouble
    later, but that is another story!)  This was in the late 70's, so
    maybe times have changed.  I know I am tired of seeing and hearing
    so many of the women engineering students renounce feminism.  Who
    do they think opened the doors of those programs!??

    
    Sharon

Re .11:
"        
    Instead of playing catty eye games, why not call it what it 
    is (insulting), and inform the offender clearly that you
    are not pleased...?
"
    I think the reason is what a few above have alluded to, and Lee
    said explicitly: If a woman goes beyond subtlety in protesting
    something like this, the protest tends to LOSE credibility because
    the woman will be dismissed as a 'strident feminist.' She loses
    ground on the very issue (trivialization) where she's trying to
    gain.
    
    Chuck

    I seem to be in the minority! I really don't mind being called
    "girl".... I even use that term myself to refer to other
    woman (i.e. going out with the girls, etc). Some note
    back stated girl was "my age or younger" and woman
    "was older than myself". I agree... that's usually MY reference
    point as well. I DO NOT, however, like the terms BROAD, CHICK,
    GIRLIE, DAME, SKIRT, etc. As a matter of fact, when I watch
    old movies with my husband, and if any of he above words are
    used, George knows my dander is up! If not used in a derogetory
    (sp) manner, "girl" is perfectly acceptable to me. I am
    secure enough in my womanhood to allow that.

    Maybe we could combine this Note with Note # 60.
    
    Then the title could be "Lady vs. Woman vs. Girl vs. Female
    vs. Skirts vs. Pantsuits................." :-)
    
    Having been a reader of Womannotes for almost a year, I have noticed 
    that generally, when a female writer refers to women as "ladies"
    or "girls" in her Notes, there usually is little criticism of her
    choice of words.
    
    In the theatre, the actors/actresses are always referred to as "girls
    and boys" during rehearsals.
    
    And do women find the term "girl-friend" offensive?
    
      Alan                                             

    I can tolerate girls (or even guys - as a gender nonspecific - if
    used in an affable tone as in, "Hey, you guys, get a move on").
     This doesn't mean I don't notice it, just that I can tolerate it
    - it mostly depends on the tone in which it's used, and the words
    that surround it - the phrase "Jeez, you girls can't do *anything*
    right..." - would probably get my dander up a bit.
    I don't like broad, chick, girlie, dame, skirt, honey, moll,
    powderpuff, etc...
    
    When I refer to the "women I work with", for instance, I use just
    that phrase.  When I'm talking about friends of mine who are right
    around college age, and often include myself in talking about "us"
    as a group, and am feeling colloquial/informal, I occasionally use 
    the phrase "wimmings" (to which the masculine reference I would
    use in this situation would be "mangs").  This is, of course, peculiar
    to me and a few close friends, though...
    
    -Jody
    

    
    answering the two base questions --
    1) yes, i am aware of the language being used around me, though
       i try to interpret the feeling rather than the specific words.
    2) i'd consider this to be very trivial.
    
    i always thought "insults" only hurt if they were true, and if they
    weren't true, they should be ignored.
    
    when i was younger i used to get annoyed because everyone would
    mispronounce my last name.  after awhile the kids at school saw
    that this got me upset, so any time the wanted to get my goat they
    would mispronounce my name.  i might as well have put a little
    button on myself that said "press to make me upset"  so, i kinda
    see this (being called girl instead of woman) as turning control
    of your emotions over to others.  in order to get you upset they
    just have to call you girl.  so i would say just ignore it, if
    they're trying to insult you, its not worth acknowledging, and
    if they use it out of their custom then they mean no harm.
    
    for what its worth,
    
    Bob

    
    I agree wholeheardedly with .16.  I use the words girls often and
    am constantly being corrected on it.  I believe that anyone born
    prior to the fifties might have a slip of the tongue when it comes
    to using "girls" vs "women," and I guarantee it is never meant to
    offend.  It is what we were brought up with.  Can't one be for
    equal rights without being hung up on terminology?  Naturally,
    dame, broad, chick are insulting and always have been.  Girls does
    not fit into the same category.  I suspect that it is really a
    generation thing, and should be looked upon as such.  Maybe we
    should spend more of our energies on being nice to one another. 
    

    
    While trying not to get hung up on linguistics, I do believe that
    use of such terms as "girl" when referring to a mature woman can,
    and often does, have the effect, of subtly discounting that woman.
    Conciously intended or not, it occurs.
    
    Outside of Digital, I am a practicing attorney.  I can't tell you
    how many times I've had Court Clerks refer to me as "Dear", "Young
    lady", etc. in cases where my male colleagues would be referred
    to as "Counselor".  I  believe this gives a message to those within
    hearing, that I don't quite deserve the same professional respect
    as the male attorneys.  
    
    

    I agree, you do have to determine the context of the way the term
    is used.   Referring to a group of your friends (like- goint out
    to lunch with the girls) is not used in a derogatory manner.  
    
    One of the things I find myself doing when someone calls me a girl
    is put myself in the reverse situation.  If I were a male at age
    23, would I be referred to in this situation as "boy" or son?
    
    I tried it out one time while on the playing field.  Being the catcher
    on my college softball team, I was able to make conversation with
    the plate umpire.  After referring to our team as "you girls", I
    very quietly and calmly (as Lee put it- so as not to blast him with
    hot feminism etc..) said "ladies, you ladies hustle off the field".
    
    Seeming a bit disgruntled he continued on with "girls".  I figured-
    it's hard to catch yourself and I shouldn't be picky.  But at the
    next opportunity, I referred to him and the other umpire as "you
    boys", and not in a disrespectful manner either.  Needless to say-
    he was very insulted, and made his point known on the next 3 beautiful
    pitches labeled as balls (which is a different matter in itself).
    
    Terri
    

    Since I haven't seen it mentioned yet, does anyone have a problem
    with their husband/SO calling them "My Old Lady" ? 
    
    I can't stand that...first I am not old (22), and it seems so
    derogatory.......does anyone know how to cure it once and for all?
    

    
    
    RE:  being called a "skirt"
    
    Once, when called a skirt, I asked the offending party "If I were
    dressed more casually, might you call me a "coolot"?
         
    
    RE: being called "hon" as in short for "honey" - which makes me
        cringe
    
    I once worked with a woman some 15 years my junior who called me,
    (and everyone else) "hon".  It bugged me to a frazzle.  One morning
    when I walked into the office and she said "Hi, hon", I looked at
    her and said "When you call me 'hon', do you mean it as in 'Atilla
    the ...'?"  We both chuckled a bit, and she never called me that
    again.
    
    Marion

    	For the folks who don't mind hearing women referred to as
    	"girls," I saw a movie a couple of weeks ago that might
    	possibly change your minds about it...
    
    	This is an old Paul Newman/Joann Woodward film that I'd never
    	even heard of before (something like "A New Kind of Love" or
    	something.)  Joann's character was sort of tomboy-looking
    	(and was the only woman in the film who wasn't actively and
    	desperately seeking a husband.)  She fell in love with Paul
    	Newman, of course, and ended up getting her priorities straight
    	by the end of the film.  Typical late 50's romantic fantasy... 
    
    	At *any* rate, the thing that struck me about the film was that
    	they had to have used the word "GIRLS" at least 5,000 times in
    	the course of the film.  After the first few thousand times
    	of hearing "girls" "girls" "girls" (at least twice in every
    	sentence in some parts of the film), I was ready to throw my
    	shoe at the TV.
    
    	It wasn't just the word itself.  It was the way they said it.
    	I have seldom seen a film that did such an excellent job of
    	demonstrating why the women's movement was a dire necessity.
    	Women were portrayed as silly marriage-seeking fools who would
    	say or do almost anything to capture a husband (and all in
    	the interest of love, of course.)  I would imagine that Joann
    	Woodward can't even believe that she made this movie and would
    	like to see it burned (whether she is a feminist or not.)
    	
    	This film doesn't miss a single unfair stereotype that has
    	ever existed about women in the history of western civilization
    	(and I daresay that if it was presented at a meeting filled
    	with feminists, it would be enough to incite a riot.)  :-)
    
    	Luckily, it is one of their more obscure films, but it does
    	effectively demonstrate why the word "girl" can get on the
    	nerves pretty badly (especially if one is subject to hearing
    	it frequently.)
    
    	It played on cable about two weeks ago, so if you happen to
    	see it coming, you may want to watch it.  (Just remember to
    	lock up all your throwable items for a few hours after you
    	watch this monstrosity.)  :-)  :-)

    RE: .22
    
    >                     After referring to our team as "you girls", I
    >  very quietly and calmly (as Lee put it- so as not to blast him with
    >  hot feminism etc..) said "ladies, you ladies hustle off the field".
                                 ^^^^^^      ^^^^^^
    
    Terri, if you look at some of the replies in Note # 60, however,
    you'll find there are some people who consider the word "ladies"
    to be a pejorative. also.
    
      Alan 

    While one word "G" "I" "R" "L" does not make an earth-shattering
    situation out of how one addresses someone, it *is* an indication
    of how language in general describes people.
    
    My rule of thumb is: If you could use "boy" for a male in that
    sentence, then "girl" is OK. (Going out after work with the boys/girls)
    
    Likewise, if you would use "man", then use "woman"; "gentleman"/"lady".
    
    Now this unfortunately has the side effect of defining women in
    terms of men, but since we're talking about societal views of adulthood
    and capabilities, "male" is the standard.
    
    
    Sidenote 1 - When I called my students in from the field, I used
    a variety of addresses, but always in pairs: OK ladies and gentlemen,
    let's go....or "boys and girls"....but really, I used "sportsfans"
    mostly. :-)
    
    Sidequestion 1 - Anybody have any idea how to handle it when it's
    a ..er.."superior" who uses the term "bimbo"? And you're already
    teetering on the brink of being considered a humorless, feminist,
    bit*h  (the last 2 being, in some minds, redundant) ??
    
    Dawn
    

    I am not comfortable with being called a "girl," except in accepted
    idioms (again, "going out with the...).  I am no longer a child.
                                                                    
    I am also uncomfortable with "lady" except in certain uses (ladies
    and gentlemen).  In most cases, the user doesn't _know_ if I'm a
    lady (and wouldn't refer to a man in the same situation as a gent).
    It is also, as has been pointed out, laden with all the implied 
    rules--many of which are sexist and offensive--that go with being
    a lady.
    
    I am a woman.  What is so darn frightening or difficult about calling
    me that?
    
    Re .24:
    
    I've worked for three years with a man who always refers to his
    wife as "my bride."  I know both of his sons' names, but I have 
    no idea what his wife's first name is.  I wonder if he does...
    
    -Tracy
             
    

    
    
    It seems to me that there are at least three issues here, and it might
    help to separate them to make sure we're all talking about the same
    thing at the same time.
    
    The first issue I see is the large issue of - Do words like girl,
    lady have any political significance such that we ought to avoid
    using them to refer to adult females.  That issue has been discussed 
    a lot here and in V1 of the file, and I'm not sure how much motion we're 
    going to get on that one.  For example, I think those words are loaded, 
    and I try to avoid them.  Others may not feel as I do, and they use those 
    words comfortably.
    
    The second issue I see is something like this: if I have a problem 
    with these words, and someone I know uses them, should I mention
    my discomfort to him or her.  And if so, how and when?  Are there times
    when it's better to let it slide and times when it makes sense to speak
    up?   I think these are questions that we can address, but only if
    we acknowledge that some of us feel comfortable with these words, and
    others of us don't.

    The third issue I see is related to the second.  If you are someone
    who sees no harm in referring to women as girls or ladies, or
    (and perhaps more especially) if you see using the word lady as
    a form of politeness, then what do you do when someone in your life
    tells you that she (or he) is uncomfortable hearing those words?
    Should you discuss it?  Should you avoid using those words in
    the presence of the offended person?  Should avoid using them
    altogether or when you are uncertain of the audience?  Or should
    you go on using them because *you* know your intentions are
    honorable?  I think these are also questions that we can
    address here.  

    The second two issues of the three that I've described seem to 
    have more to do with consideration for fellow humans than
    with feminism.  How do we manage to live and work together
    with those who see the world differently from us?  I think
    it would be helpful for this discussion if we could be clear
    about what issue we're addressing.  Are we trying to convince
    someone that lady is/is not a fine word to use, or are we
    trying to get support for how to raise the issue of our
    own discomfort with a co-worker or supervisor?  I think things
    get awfully confusing when we mix together issues of "right 
    and wrong" with how-to information for those in need of support.

    Justine
                                                

    re. 28 and 30
    
    I guess again- it is the context in which you use terms.  In the
    example I had given, I considered ladies to be a better reference
    than girls-  now if it were YOUNG ladies, to me that may be a different
    story.  I guess the point here- is to avoid going to the point of
    absurdity with terminology (How will one ever complete a conversation?)
    you must consider the context.
    
    Terri
    

    re:  .24 (how to cure "my old lady")
    
    	...may be TOO drastic, but if he refuses to stop calling
           you this, try referring to him as "the old prick".
           sort of reminds me of "my main squeeze"....I can't stand
           that one....orange juice always comes to mind.
    
    
    re:  .25 ("hon")
    
    	...an aunt of mine is from Baltimore, MD. She has ALWAYS
           and will continue to call everyone "hon". (what's going
           on, hon; would you get the phone, hon; etc). Maybe it's
           just the great southern hospitality she's been
           brought up with......I kinda like it, coming from her.
           But if anyone else (excluding my hubby) called me that
           I'd SHOW MY DISPLEASURE. 
    
    
    pat
     
    

    In my opinion, common courtesy dictates that you refer to people
    in a manner that is acceptable to them.                   
                                                              
    If someone named Susan tells me she doesn't like to be called Sue,
    I won't call her Sue.                                     
                                                              
    If someone who is black tells me he/she doesn't like to be referred
    to as a Negro, I won't refer to him/her as a Negro.       
                                                              
    So if I don't want to be called girl (and I've told you that), you
    shouldn't call me girl--even if you don't agree or understand.
    
    -Tracy
        
    
    	                                               
    
    

    I do know a number of young women who get upset with other young
    women who insist on not being called a girl. 
    
    However, my oldest son corrects me if I ever refer to any woman
    in his college as a girl...at the college level at least this
    is quite a 'hot button'.
    
    Bonnie

    p.s. girlfreind/boyfriend for the person you are dating seems to
    apply no matter the age...I have talked to women and men of all
    ages who use the term to mean someone they are romantically involved
    with.

    	In the course of my job, I have Field Service engineers calling
    	me from all over the country to ask me questions about the
    	recommendations I've made to resolve hardware problems on their
    	customer's VAX systems.  Because of the fact that I am the rank
    	of a Product Support Engineer (and board certified, etc.), I
    	know for an almost absolute fact that I outrank every single
    	F.S. engineer who calls me on the phone (unless he or she happens
    	to belong to Product Support.)  Not that it's any big deal,
    	or anything, but it just makes the following scenerio a little
    	ironic...
    
    	Some male engineers thank me for the advice I've given them
    	by saying, "Thanks, Hon."  (Not many do this, and I am absolutely
    	dead positive that they don't mean it in a derogatory way. 
    	In fact, I am convinced that they say it because they are trying
    	to be congenial.)  So I don't mind it.
    
    	But sometimes, it strikes me as sort of odd.  It would be like
    	a Captain in the Marines calling a Major "Hon" in the line of
    	duty.  Y'know?  It just feels very odd.  :)

    As so many said, context is all (well, almost all), especially
    in considering the source. I can't imagine anyone calling a
    woman a "doll" or a "dame" (let alone a "skirt" or -- god help
    us all -- a "frail") these days and getting away with it, but
    it wouldn't even register on my consciousness to hear, say,
    Bogart using those terms in a 1940's movie. For better or for
    worse, the terms feel "right" in a context like that.
    
    I can't see "bimbo" being acceptable under *any* circumstances.
    Well, I suppose I can see it being used as a deliberate insult,
    but that doesn't really classify as "acceptable" in any case.
    
    "Main squeeze" doesn't bother me that much, being somewhat humorous
    (I've rarely heard it used without tongue-in-cheek), and used for
    either sex.
    
    "Girlfriend/boyfriend" I try to avoid like the plague. For one
    thing, I dislike the lack of terms that refer to a friend of the
    opposite sex who is not a romantic partner. I like to use "SO" or
    "lover" or "soulmate" for a romantic partner, and "womanfriend"
    for someone who is both a woman and a friend, and no more than
    that.
    
    (And why is it that women can have "girlfriends", but men can't
    have "boyfriends"?)
    
    --- jerry

    re: .38
    
    men can't have "boyfriends" because it implies they are homosexual,
    and if they are not homosexual they are sometimes insulted by this.
    
    re: "the old lady"
    
    after I had moved in with my first SO, his friends would come up
    to him and ask, "So how's the little woman?".  This is one application
    of "woman" that I do not endorse.  Particularly because I was bigger
    than any of them, and it sounded like I was some minor appendage
    to his life.
    
    -Jody
    

    re: .34
    
    Pat, I couldn't help but giggle at the thought of my SO saying to
    his Marine friends this is my old lady and I turn around saying
    Yeah this is my old prick......it ought to turn some heads, I'll
    let you know what happens.......tee hee
    
    
    TammyG

<    p.s. girlfreind/boyfriend for the person you are dating seems to
<    apply no matter the age...I have talked to women and men of all
<    ages who use the term to mean someone they are romantically involved
<    with.

	Ah Bonnie, it cause we're all young at heart when we're in love.

	liesl

> Note 80.18  LEZAH::BOBBITT 

>    When I'm talking about friends .... 
>    ... and am feeling colloquial/informal, I occasionally use 
>    the phrase "wimmings" (.. the masculine reference ... "mangs").  
 
     In our silly moments,my husband and I talk about 
     "muffins" and "breadsticks."  :)

I think the sound of the words "woman" and "women" partially explain
why so many people reflexively use "girl" and "girls." 

For one things, the English-speaking ear likes consonants and strong 
accents.  Witness other words that entered the language comfortably 
and rapidly:  blacks, Afro-American, hippies, yuppies, beats.  People
words get used a *lot* and aesthetically, we want them to pop off the 
tongue, even the pejoratives: polack, mick, ruskie, boche, brits.

In fact, I've been wondering .... has anyone else noticed how often
"woman" and "women" are mispronounced on TV and radio, as though the
speaker made a hybrid of the two words before uttering it.  
(I may be over-sensitive here. I spent 1958 thru 1964 hearing our
parish priest say "Mary, Mother of God, blessed art thou among
weeemin..."  

What we need is a better word, one that comes equipped with consonants 
and accents (stress?) for the English ear.  A stab ...

   woman = fem
   women = fems
   girl + woman = wirl 

Meigs (who is actually named Marie but likes the consonants in Meigs)

    re:.39
    
    �men can't have "boyfriends" because it implies they are homosexual...�
    
    Exactly my point!  If a woman referred to another woman as her
    "girlfriend", would a homosexual relationship be implied or inferred?
    
    So why the inequality?  (This is a rhetorical question. I'm not
    sure there is an answer other than the usual "our society is whacked".)
    
    --- jerry

    jerry-
    
    unfortunately in many instances, if a woman refers to another woman
    as her girlfriend- a homesexual relationship is implied.  The pendulum
    swings both ways for men and women regarding this topic.  In fact
    many people are so much aware of homosexuality, that they often
    times look for it when it doesn't exist... even in innocent jestures
    such as referring to your friend as your girlfriend or boyfriend.
    
    terri
    

    My 76-year-old grandmother refers to her 67-year-old live-in lover
    (they've been together for almost 10 years now) as her boyfriend.
    
    --bonnie

re .44

    Interesting...I've often referred to a friend as my
    "girlfriend" as in "I went to the ballgame last weekend with
    Debbie, a girlfriend of mine" and I don't think anyone ever
    thought twice about it.  Or maybe they just didn't say
    anything to me...Several years ago I started trying to clean
    up my own speech patterns and tried "woman friend" instead of
    "girlfriend" and it seemed to take people aback just a bit. I
    finally dropped the gender and now mostly use "friend." 

re .43

    I don't know why it seems so peculiar for a man to say
    "boyfriend" but a woman can (maybe) say "girlfriend."  (Other
    than, yes, our culture is sick in many ways.)  Does it make a
    difference if it's a child that says it, rather than an
    adult?  Could it be a belief that women's friendships with
    each other are less important, less mature, more "childlike"
    (and non-sexualized), than men's friendships?  I think men
    who are emotionally very close are more apt to be suspected
    of being sexually interested in each other than women in a
    similar relationship--maybe because men have often been
    viewed as generally more interested in sex?  More nearly
    rhetorical questions to answer yours... 

    -- Linda

    I think it depends a little on the activity.
    
    Several of my young, married (and by that I assume heterosexual)
    female friends say things like "My girlfriend and I are going shopping"
    or "My girlfriend and I are going to a baby shower" or "I was talking
    with my girlfriend on the phone last night".
    
    I've never heard them say things like "I went dancing with my
    girlfriend last night...oh, yeah, our husbands came too".
    
    

    Could someone please clear up considerable confusion at this side
    of the Atlantic?                                         
                                                             
    In some of the notes I've seen reference to "my SO" etc. Just what
    does SO stand for?                                       
    
    As far as your discussion on girl vs lady/woman etc. goes, it works
    both ways for me: I don't mind being called girl by someone I know
    respects me for what I am. I know it's meant in a nice cosy way
    and many of them probably know me since I was a girl (I'm 31 now).
    I use the term "girl" myself in contexts like "one of the girls",
    "a night out with the girls" etc., but I absolutely hate it if terms
    like "all you girls" comes from someone who is not at all
    familiar/friendly etc. with any member of the group he's referring
    to.
    
    Terms like "Honey" I reserved for my (now-ex) husband, who comes
    from your side of the world. The man in my life right now just calls
    me by my first name (in all circumstances and contexts). The local
    custom in the UK seems to be that everyone calls you "Petal", "Flower",
    "Love" etc., from the attendant at the petrol station to the cashier
    in the DEC canteen. Now THAT I most strongly object to (and I don't
    think I'm picky either), because it implies familiarity that simply 
    doesn't exist.
                             
    Oh dear, reading this sounds like I have some hang-up on people
    being too familiar and coming too close. I don't really, honest!
    
    Gilla
    (whose teutonic upbringing and feeling of self-worth is sometimes
    showing)
    
    
                                                             
    
    

    re:.48
    
    "SO" means "Significant Other", a term that was created by
    psychologists to mean, in general, someone who is very important
    to you, but has sort of been pre-empted to mean, specifically,
    a Spouse-Equivalent, boy-/girlfriend, lover, whatever. In fact,
    that's why people use it -- so they won't have to say "my
    spouse/lover/{boy,girl}friend/whatever".
    
    --- jerry

    RE: How come women have "girlfriends" but men don't have "boyfriends"
    
    1. AS we know, it is much more likely (and generally accepted) that
       a woman be called a "girl" than a man, "boy".
    
        Imagine a group of woman co-workers standing in a group chatting.
        The boss comes over and says "Would one of you girls please
        go <do whatever>?"
    
        Same scenario, group of men chatting. Boss comes over and says
        "Would one of you boys please go <do whatever>?"
        Nope. Wrong. Doesn't play in Peoria.
    
    2. As we've also noted, it is commonly accepted to refer to each
       as "boyfriend" and "girlfriend" even when the people involved
       are adults.
    
    3. Since the term "boy" is not conventially used except in #2 above,
       then use of "boyfriend" when applied to another male, evokes
       the image in #2. This does not play in Peoria, either.
    
    So guys generally use the macho term "buddy" - "My buddy 'n' me
    [sic] went fishing last week-end"
    
    (My boyfriend and me...etc? Nope. Won't work.)
    
    Dawn
    

    Re .50: Your question #1 made me laugh, as I don't see any difference
    in the two statements; any boss of mine who tried the "girls" routine
    (unless everyone present had an understanding that it was a humorous
    usage) would have been stared down...
    
    -b

    Re. .46
    
    > I think men who are emotionally very close are more apt to be suspected
    > of being sexually interested in each other than women in a similar
    > relationship--maybe because men have often been viewed as generally
    > more interested in sex?
    
    I think it may be that society typically under-estimates the capacity
    for strong emotion in men and prefers to over-estimate men's sexual
    nature.  They guess that a close relationship between men is more likely to
    be based on sex then on emotions.  Perhaps they are right more often
    than not.  
    
    The same seems to be true with the relationship between men and
    children.  A man who likes kids is assumed to be a child molester.
    
    					MJC O->

    I hate being called a "girl"!  For all the reasons already mentioned.
    I think "sonny" would be an appropriate equivalent form of address.
    
    When he wants to wind me up, Keith addresses me as "the little lady",
    "the wife", or even "chattel".  When he talks about me to other
    people, he simply uses my name.
    
    When I am talking about friends, male or female, I would simply
    say "friends", or "my friend Rita" or whatever.
    
    Re. Gilla's reply (sorry, can't remember the number), she's right,
    everyone here does refer to you as "petal", "ducks" etc.  In the
    north of England, where I come from, the common form of address
    (in shops and so on) is "love".  Having been brought up with it,
    I don't mind it.  But there is a shop near where I live where the
    shopkeeper addresses Keith as "Sir", and me as "Young lady".  The
    result has been that I will not shop there any more.
    
    Helen.

This issue is what I consider the 'touchstone' in any women's forum. If
it has to be discussed, I might as well discuss it in any of the other forums
in my life. 

To .0: of _course_ not wanting to be called 'girl' is acceptable. You deserve
the full support of this forum.

I can hardly believe we have to discuss this.
	Mez

There are situations where it is well worth the effort to correct those
who use the term 'girl', as in the example in .21. It seems that certain
professions (or maybe all professions) can keep women in their place
by using the term 'girl'.

BD (before DEC), I was a Medical Technologist. Now here's a field 
that, I would guess, is 95% female-staffed. Yet, the frequent complaint
of the women was/is the lack of respect paid by doctor's and even
nurses. 

Early in my lab career, I grew to *HATE* being referred to as 
'lab-girl'. Even female nurses would use that term in referring to 
Med Techs: 'has the lab-girl come up yet?' or worse - ' oh, lab-girl!!!'
I used to educate the offender with, 'my name is Nancy'. It was then 
that I decided to always refer to my co-workers as 'tech'...
'I will have the lab tech come up right away'.

On a recent stint at the lab working per diem, I noticed the use of 
'girl' by one of the techs. (Women even do it to themselves.) The 
status of the lab techs has not improved and they are still complaining 
about the same issues. The use of 'girl' is but a symptom of the 
attitudes of the hospital population toward the profession(s) which are 
predominantly occupied by women. I do not believe the situation will be 
improved until the underlying attitudes change. One way we (women AND men) 
can draw attention to the atttudes we wish to change is to not accept or
use such titles as 'girl'. 

Re: .0 - No, I don't think it's nit-picking.

Nancy

    
    re .52
    
    > A man who likes kids is assumed to be a child molester.
    
    Who is assuming?

    >> A man who likes kids is assumed to be a child molester.
    
    > Who is assuming?
    
    Stories about the danger to our children from male childcare workers,
    gay male foster parents, fathers who want custody of their children
    sure seem to take up a lot of space in the papers these days.  There
    is no doubt that the dangers do exist but I think that many innocent
    males are losing out because of the distrust that is bound to result.
    
    Just this week, a story in the Globe on the Richard Gardner case
    in Road Island said that friends had seen him take an interest in
    hanging out with younger children some months ago.  Do you think
    that moms all over new england will be on the lookout for older
    boys hanging around their children?  Do you think they will be
    bothered by young women doing the same thing?
    
    					MJC O->

    	It can be very difficult finding a form of address that does
    not offend. My wife and I still laugh about the time I was being
    fitted for a pair of jeans, and the (woman) assistant said "Ooo
    You're deceptive duckie".
    
    	Now I find it a little difficult with a neighbour's son. He insists
    I should "tutoi" him by right both of age and friendship ( he is
    21, and I am about twice that), while I still find it a little
    difficult. At school we learned to use plural forms as polite when 
    speaking to someone one did not know well (and it was assumed we would 
    never know a French person well).
    
	I can imagine it would be similarly difficult to change other
    speech patterns.

RE 0.  NO, I DON'T THINK YOU ARE BEING PICKY TO TAKE
	UMBRAGE AT BEING CALLED A 'GIRL!'

For myself, I am a woman, I behave like a woman, I am
womanly and under *ALL* conditions in which a female 
noun is appropriate, I prefer to be called a WOMAN!

Sometimes, sigh, I just can't summon the energy to
argue any more...  But, that doesn't mean it doesn't
bother me... it still does.   Of course, what bothers
me equally are references to "man-hours" or "man-weeks" 
instead of work-hours or work-weeks...

Tamar

    	After I corrected a friend 3 times, "women, not girls", s/he
    said something like "you take that seriously don't you". Darn tootin'.

>Of course, what bothers
>me equally are references to "man-hours" or "man-weeks" 
>instead of work-hours or work-weeks...

Oh yeah! I think engineer-months has a real nice ring to it, as a matter of
fact.

[that sure felt good]
	Mez

    ...had dinner at a restaurant Friday night, and the waitress called
    us "women" - "Are you wwomen ready to order?" (She didn't stutter
    I mistyped that)
    
    Now, this was a tux-shirt-and-tie-black-jackets-on-the-waitrons
    type place, and I never expected it! Somehow, it looks *awful*
    written as above, but she said it very politely and matter-of-factly,
    and it sounded great!
    
    --DE
    

I also do not like being called girl. I don't agree with the statement that
women = females older than me, and girl = my age and younger. I generally
consider females of my age (32) to be women. Now I will use the term
girlfriend to refer to female friends at times, and I may also use the
term "going out with the girls". Somehow it is different hearing the word
girl used by women than men.

I also am willing to overlook a man who is much older than me calling me girl. I
will give leeway due to upbringing and the fact that to some older men I may
seem like a girl due to the difference in age.

Before I came to DEC I worked for Tektronix. Tektronix was a CMP of DEC's and
we were involved in a training session for DEC. I came to the show to make sure
everything was set up and working. There were a couple of problems so I asked
the DEC guy for help. He went to another CMP and said " This girl needs ...."
That burned me up, becuase he was clearly several years YOUNGER than I was.
I didn't say anything because of the situation, but since I have joined DEC I
have met this individual, and the memory of being called girl still rankles.

So a man (or boy) who is younger than I am calling me girl is offensive.

Muggsie
    

    	One thing that I've begun to notice (since joining this file)
    	is how many movies/TV_shows being made TODAY still call women
    	'girls.'  It is really disheartening.
    
    	Interestingly enough, though, the one group of people (whom I've
    	been noticing FOR YEARS) that DO use the word 'women' are
    	Newscasters.  I can remember many years back being surprised
    	by hearing phrases like "18 year old WOMAN" on the news.  (I
    	was surprised because it struck me as so different from the
    	way the rest of our culture would have referred to this person
    	at age 18.)
    
    	They probably did it to match the phrase "18 year old MAN"
    	(to make the point that people aged 18 or older can be mentioned
    	by name on the news, and if arrested for something, can be tried
    	as adults.)
    
    	My guess is that the phrase "18 year old WOMAN" comes more from
    	this particular distinction than from any efforts to treat women
    	with respect.  Even so, I like hearing it.
    
    	When will movies and non-news TV shows ever get the message,
    	I wonder?  I'd be satisfied if they used the word 'women' (no
    	matter what their reasons for doing it were!)   :-)

    It seems to me that women who are "offended" by being called "girls"
    are oversensitive. Women who prefer to be called women rather than
    being called girls I have no problem with. If somebody calls me
    "boy," I am not particularly impressed with them. I won't, however,
    make an issue out of it. A rose is a rose...
    
    Mark

    <--(.66)
    
�     It seems to me that women who are "offended" by being called "girls"
�     are oversensitive. 

    Mark, you reveal your social privilege with that statement.  Would you
    say that a black who rejects "nigger" or a jew who rejects "kike" is
    oversensitive?  No?  The words are used for the same purpose: to lower
    the social and professional standing of the person they're directed at.
    "A rose is a rose" only in the abstract, as several thousand years of
    recorded history should convince you. 
                                    
    						=maggie

    Mark,
    
    Suppose you address a group of black men as "boys", then tell them
    they are just being oversensitive when they bloody your nose.
    
    I don't usually make an overt issue out of being called girl, either,
    but they won't get the same perks (return business, friendship,
    go out of my way to do anything with/for them) that they would have
    if they would have referred to me as a woman in the first place.
    
    Any term other than women when used across from MEN "men and ladies"
    implies that women are inherently different from men.  Ladies (in
    this context) implies that all women have to be ladylike at all
    times, men can just be men.  Ladies and Gentlemen, are analogous
    terms, implying that both need to be/assumed to be well-mannered in
    this context.  Likewise, I don't really have a problem with "boys
    and girls", while diminutive, at least it's not sexist.
    
    Elizabeth

    At a valuing differences workshop that I recently attended there
    was a video that addressed the issues of girl vs woman. It was
    the best explaination that I had ever seen and I will try to
    recall it here.
    
    Many of you may be familiar with the Transactional analysis
    breakdown of how people relate to each other
    
    i.e.     Adult  <------> Adult
                      \  /
                       ><
                      /  \ 
             Parent <------> Parent
                      \  /
                       ><
                      /  \
             Child <-------> Child
    
    When a grown man (or woman) refers to another adult in a serious
    i.e. business mode, as a girl (boy) then they are putting themself
    in a parent position to that other adult. Two adults my mutually
    refer to each other with a child name if both are in a less serious
    mode and this is okay. But in a business/professional situation
    we should be dealing with each other as adults not parent to child.
    
    Bonnie
    

Re:
>I agree with the above, did anyone else notice and take exception to the 60min
>apology.

Yes. Not only did I object to the use of the term "ladies", but I thought
that the apology was delivered in an offensive manner. He said something
like, "yes, a FEW of the bankers were women". To me, the way he stressed
the word "few" when he said it made it sound like those people who had
written to complain were being petty little nitpickers. He might as well
have said,"Sorry if we offended you, girls."!

    
    Maybe Brooks Bros will be out with a 100% worsted wool gabardine
    hair suit with impeccable Italian tailoring for the air personas
    to deliver apologies in (and be more believable thereby)...

    >Mark, you reveal your social privilege with that statement.  Would you
    >say that a black who rejects "nigger" or a jew who rejects "kike" is
    >oversensitive?  No?  The words are used for the same purpose: to lower
    >the social and professional standing of the person they're directed at.
     
     Maybe I should have signed the note "Marsha." Then I wouldn't get
    the knee-jerk sexist backlash. I'd only get the "you're making it
    tougher on the rest of us" backlash. When *I* refer to a woman as
    a "girl," I most certainly am *not* trying to "lower the social and
    professional standing" of anyone. Unless the term is used in a
    derogatory fashion, those who take "offense" at the term girl are
    overreacting (warning, caveat coming) in my opinion. Your opinion
    may differ.
    
     The fact of the matter is that people are affected by things
    differently. You may wear a brand of perfume that I dislike, but
    that others are offended by. You may say things that others disagree
    with, but that I am offended by. Taking offense to something to
    me is a pretty strong statement. All that I ever stated was that
    I felt that women who are "offended" by something like being called
    "girl" are taking things a little too seriously.
    
     The fact remains that there are still men that feel that women
    have no place in business, women aren't as good as men, women this
    or women that. I am suggesting to you that the ultra-radical feminists
    are in their own way no better than male chauvinists. Certainly
    you'll find this hard to swallow as it affects a group of which
    you are a part (general gender). Perhaps a bit more inspection may
    lead you to understand that radicalism is too reactionary in nature,
    and must instead be replaced by moderation (on both sides.) 
    
     I do not make excuses for men who are chauvinistic or sexist in
    their business relations. I find them repulsive, as do you. I don't
    think "offense" ought necessarily to be taken when a man refers
    to a woman as a girl. Nor do I think it would make a whole helluva
    lot of sense for me to take offense at my secretary for calling
    me "boy."
    
     I'm not sure that comparing girl to nigger is a valid analogy.
    Girl can (believe it or not) be used in a manner which is not
    derogatory at all. I don't think you can say the same for nigger.
    
    Mark

    How old are you, Mark?  Not very, I suspect.
    
    						=maggie

    	RE:  .74
    
    	> Then I wouldn't get the knee-jerk sexist backlash...
    
    	You didn't.  You *gave* a knee-jerk sexist reaction to the
    	queries posed by Maggie.
    
    	Surely you don't intend to be oversensitive and reject that
    	characterization of your attitude, do you?
    

    in re .74
    
    When a man, esp a man who is a woman's superior, refers to her
    as a girl he is putting himself in a father role and her in
    a child role. This isn't appropriate in a working situation.
    At work we should all treat each other as adults.
    
    Bonnie

You know, I _love_ the tenacity of the women in this notesfile. Thank you all
for again restating the obvious, with clarity and patience, for those of us who
just get tired of it, and long for more FWO.
	Mez

    RE: .78
    
    I second Mez's "Thank You". Honestly, I *swear* we've said the
    same things over and over in here at least a thousand times.
    Sometimes it gets to be just too much to junp in and say them
    YET AGAIN to the poeple we just said 'em to.
    
    --DE
    

    to Maggie- I'm almost elevn [sic]
    
    Mark

    I'm sorry you won't tell me, Mark...the question was asked in all
    seriousness.

    re: .74
    
    � When *I* refer to a woman as a "girl," I most certainly am *not* 
    � trying to "lower the social and professional standing" of anyone. 
    � Unless the term is used in a derogatory fashion. . .
    
    While I believe you don't mean the term in a derogatory fashion,
    Mark, how is anyone who doesn't live inside your mind supposed
    to know that.  And given the historical� perspective of the term
    (devalue women, specifically in the workplace), I think the 
    interpretation is entirely justified.
    
    When I began working at Polaroid with eight women as a data entry 
    operator, I wouldn't have dreamed of using the term "girl" any more
    than I would have used the term "nigger".  After a few weeks of
    getting to know one another it became o.k. for us to use slang
    with one another - I could say, "Hey let's vamoose to the caf.
    girls, before the boss comes back and finds us a bunch of make-work
    stuff to do."  But we were no longer strangers and our experiences
    together over time had established that we considered each other
    equals; when that happens, it seems to me that slang/shorthand
    can be acceptable (maybe not, too - depends on the individuals and
    group).  The point is simply that unless all parties know each other
    well and have established the acceptability of using less formal
    terminology, words such as "girls" are inappropriate for the work
    place.
    
    Steve
    
    � I doubt it'd take much poking around to find that some of that
      "historical" perspective is as recent as five minutes ago. . .
    
     

    I agree that if a woman is intentionally referred to as a 'girl',
    in a derogatory fashion, it is wrong.  
    
    However, if it does come up in general conversation, it is just
    another word.  Just like all the letters in my message here are
    words.                                    
                                              
    Since I am very comfortable and secure in who I am, I do
    not take offense when 'this word' is used.
    
    I personally dislike when women make a mountain out of a non-exist
    mole hill.
    
    Colleen

       So for those of you who think we should not take offense how would
       you handle the comment MY MANAGER made to me, a senior technical
       specialist... he walked by my desk to see if I was participating
       in a field test, his words, "Well, young lady, are you going to
       be part of the test". He's maybe 5 years older than me - for you
       who care, I restrained myself. liesl

    re .85
      
    If you are bothered by being called young lady by someone who is
    only 5 years older than you ... jeez. I suppose you'd have rather
    he said "old hairy hag.":-) I guess he should just refer to you
    by your badge number to keep you from flipping out and axe murdering
    him in his sleep. So- should I slug my manager if he calls me young
    man and he's not 20 years older than me? Or should I simply have
    an attitude problem the rest of the day? I mean, why didn't you
    file a claim of harassment?
    
    Mark (understanding women less since reading this file)
    

>    Mark (understanding women less since reading this file)

Well Mark, try listening instead of making inflammatory statements. If
understanding is what you're after.

I reserve the right to chose my own mountains. And you [all] can chose yours.
But don't tell me mine are molehills. They're important to me.
	Mez

    re Mark
    
    actually, the man could have called her Liesl.  I know, novel idea!
    
    Lisel, geez, ya did good.
    
    vivian
    
    

RE: .87 (Mez)

Hear, Hear!

    The point that Mark is missing (and that nobody here seems to want
    to  make  yet again) is that using dimunitive language for someone
    in  a traditionally powerless group reenforces that powerlessness.
    Women  are  still  struggling  to  be  accepted  as  equals in the
    workplace,  so  it  does matter that they are referred to in a way
    that recognizes that.

--David

    I notice that the boys in the office don't appreciate being called
    boys, and are pretty vehement about correcting any woman that makes
    a mistake in calling them that.  so should it be any surprize that
    women don't like being called girl??
 
    vivian   

    People, people, lighten up.  Do I detect some insecurity here? 
    I feel as if I've taken a giant step back in time to when I'd hear
    things like, "Janie/Joey, get back to your own side of the cafeteria",
    or "No, you can't play, this is for girls/boys only".  Guess I was
    wrong to have thought those days were over.
    
    The only comment I can add.........."Sticks and stones may break
    my bones, but words can never harm me".
    
    Linda
  

    	I have very mixed feelings about this issue.
    
    	I generally don't take offense at what I'm called so long as
    it's not "Tracey, you ignorant slut!"  My *general* experience has
    been that most of the time offense is not meant and so I don't take
    it.  (Of course I'm sure that the industrial engineer didn't mean
    offense when he walked by an office with three women, (two in senior
    technical positions, one in a senior financial position)  hammering
    out a problem that we caught with standards setting that if left
    uncorrected would have cost the corporation millions, and commented 
    "ah! a hen party!" Intentional offense or not, they *still* had to 
    grab me by the belt to keep me from going over the wall after him!  :-) )
    
    	But.  I also understand the power of language and how important
    it is to stop reinforcement of stereo types at this level.
    
    	My conflict is over the correct way and time to address the
    issue.  Perhaps because this issue is not as important to me as
    others, I prefer to deal with it "off-line" and fairly quietly. 
    
    	I have two reasons for considering this issue of lesser importance
    (for myself).  1) Just as language influences reality, reality
    influences language.  My personal opinion is that as progress is made
    in other areas, it'll be easier to affect the language with so much
    "bloodshed".  2) It's an easy way to *appear* to be non-sexist while
    hugging your original prejudices very tightly to your chest.  (To
    give an example, a man that I knew who had a problem overcoming
    his sexism, thought he was being very hip and with it to tell me
    I was using sexist language.  What did I say?  I said a man was
    bitching about some thing.  He told me that that was sexist because
    the term implied female.  I told him that applying a term with female
    connotations to describe a man's behaviour was the ultimate in
    *non*sexist language.  As far as I was concerned, he totally missed
    the boat.  Rather than spending his energy making sure that he gave
    equal merit to ideas that came from his employees be they male or
    female, he was playing language games. )
    
    	But as Mez (?) said, you choose your mountains and molehills,
    I'll choose mine.   (Sorry, if I incorrectly attributed that.)                                              
                               
    tlh
    
    

<    If you are bothered by being called young lady by someone who is
<    only 5 years older than you ... jeez. I suppose you'd have rather
<    he said "old hairy hag.":-) I guess he should just refer to you

       Mark, you seem to be deliberately misunderstanding. As Vivian
       said why couldn't he call me by my name? He did not refer to
       either of the male specs he spoke to as "young gentlemen", he
       used their names. He was being patronizing. Just so you won't
       have to look it up - patronize - "with an air of stooping down to
       an inferior"

<    by your badge number to keep you from flipping out and axe murdering
<    him in his sleep. So- should I slug my manager if he calls me young
<    man and he's not 20 years older than me? Or should I simply have
<    an attitude problem the rest of the day? I mean, why didn't you
<    file a claim of harassment?
    
       I specifically stated that I did nothing. You sure managed to
       make me into a violent criminal. I doubt that anyone who knows me
       would ever accuse me of that sort of activity. I did not have an
       "attitude" problem for the rest of the day, I'm a professional
       and don't let that sort of thing interfer with getting the job
       done. You seem to have a lot of hostility to work out. nuff said.
       liesl

    um, is anyone listening...? doesn't exactly seem like it..
    
    to repeat..
    
    in a business situation for a person in authority (supervisor
    manager etc) over another, to refer to a subordinate in a business
    context by words like girl, boy, young lady, young man, is to put
    them in a parent role over that person. Period. If people at work
    who talk, lunch, party, whatever, together, wish to call *each other*
    boys or girls, then that is by mutual consent...you have all chosen
    to move mutually to the 'child' level of interaction (which does
    not mean you are acting like children..it means that you have agreed
    to let down the barriers, the walls, the conventions etc).
    I think that this is where some of the problem lies...women or
    men say "I don't object to being called 'girl' or 'boy' by my co
    workers." and I agree that in the context of non business/work
    situations esp between people who socialize together that girl/boy
    is entirely appropriate. What is not appropriate is when a supervisor
    or manager uses words that connote a parent-child relationship
    in a business situation.
    
    Bonnie

    As Bonnie has said not a few times, using "girl" (and "boy") is
    implying a parent-child relationship. In fact, if you trace the
    word "patronizing" back to its Latin root, it denotes exactly
    that type of relationship.
    
    (The significance of the usage of "patronizing", which specifically
    implies a *father*-child relationship, and thus a male-dominant
    viewpoint, I leave as an exercise for the reader.)
    
    Mark, whether offense is intended or not is irrelevant. I'm sure
    that there are any number of people out there who really, truly,
    and seriously do not intend offense when they use the word "nigger"
    (or perhaps "colored" may be a better example here). Does that mean
    no one should take them to task for using it? And how will they
    ever learn that other people find it offensive if no one makes an
    issue out of it?
    
    Likewise, it's not for you (or any one person) to judge how someone
    should react to something. If someone is hurt or offended by some-
    thing, then it is their business, and their business *only* (well,
    I suppose it's also the business of the offender). Third parties
    are not in a position to judge what should be or should not be taken
    as an offense by someone else.
    
    --- jerry

re: attitude problem

I was telling a coworker I'm looking forward to the holidays, because I've
developed an 'attitude problem'. At my last job they kept blowing off very real
complaints by calling them an attitude problem, so the phrase is pretty much a
joke to me. My coworker said: There are no problems, only opportunities.

I've got an attitude opportunity!

re: Bonnie

Yes, I'm listening. And learning! But I'm perhaps not your primary audience
:-).

re: Names

They're pretty wild stuff. I do care very much how I'm called; perhaps more
than others. For instance, my first name is Mary Ellen (two words, one name). I
don't like being called Mary (someone close to me called me that, and he's
dead). No one seems to have a problem with that. My name isn't Mrs. Joseph
Marconis. Only my mom-in-law has problems with that (and the occasional
leg-pull from coworkers :-). I'm not a girl. But someone this one causes tons
of controversy.

	Mez

    re .98
    
    Coins of many realms - I first heard the term "insurmountable
    opportunity" about 18 years ago in New Jersey...

    re: .86
    
    � . . .should I slug my manager if he calls me young man
    
    While I'd recommend against slugging your manager at all, how
    would you feel if your manager was a woman and addressed you
    as "young man" - you know, in that tone the teacher used to
    use?  Also, how can anyone to determine "intent" other than
    by words and actions?  And when the words are those that have
    been (and are still) used to devalue individuals, what would 
    the reasonable supposition be?
    
    Steve
    

>    Mark (understanding women less since reading this file)
    
hey, boy!  You got a problem understanding other people when they say 
right out what they think?  It's 'cause you insist on telling them what 
they say ain't so!  To understand anybody but yourself you gotta listen 
to them.  Telling them when they say "I am offended" that what they are
really saying is "I am over-sensitive", is not expressing an opinion.  
It is an attempt to erase the reality of the other person's existence. 

This might be too sophisticated a concept for a boy like you.  Lots of 
kids have trouble realizing that anything exists outside themselves.
Babies especially have trouble distinguished between "self" and "other".
As most children develop into adults and take their place in the 
society of Womankind, they grow out of it and learn to see things from 
other points of view.  They learn to hear what others say, take it as 
valid, and give them the acknowledgement and respect for their feelings 
and experience that is essential in civilized relationships.

Unfortunately, many boys remain socially stunted and unable to achieve
this type of skill.  It is unknown if the inferior performance of boys
is due to the genetic weakness of only one X chromosome, the hormonal
deficiencies natural to the male sex, or if it is merely social
conditioning that trains boys for a lifetime of aggressive
self-centeredness in order to compensate for their inability to relate
constructively to others.  

While Woman's evolution has fitted her for a complex role managing a
sophisticated network of human relationships, boys have had few
responsibilies in maintaining the social relationships that are
necessary to civilization.  This lack of responsibility may have
contributed to their pursuit of destructive pasttimes.  Their inability
to manage the demanding art of listening and responding to others as
equals may account for their tendency to develop simple hierarchical
systems, that although barbaric, are at least easy to understand. 

The patriarchal family, where a male father rules over a woman and her
children and treats them as property, is used as a model for a system in
which great white fathers rule over inferior men (poor, non-white, etc.)
and all women and children.  These inferiors are often reminded of their
child-like status by the use of language that diminishes them and
makes it hard for them to be treated like full adult human beings. Of
course, anyone who objects to that kind of language is ridiculed, so
that chance of people being able to change their feelings of inferiority
by describing themselves and their lives in a more positive way is
minimized.  The bad habits of patriarchal personal relationships extends
over into world affairs, resulting in the kind of craziness we see in
South Africa, the anti-choice movement, and the nuclear arms race, for 
example.  The current state of society is is a clear case of boys getting
completely out of hand with this kind of behavior.  To save
civilization, their mothers are going to have to put a stop to it and
get these boys to grow up and behave like mature Women.  

I know this may have been too long and difficult for the average boy to 
sit through, especially if there are any sports on tv.  Anyway, it is 
encouraging that the annoying habit boys have of telling others what
they are ("oppression") rather than letting those others define it for
themselves ("freedom") may not be entirely their fault.  It may be
possible to cure it with therapy, or maybe even hormone treatments. 
Someday we might look forward to a time when boys attain true equality,
and can share in the difficult task of maintaining the social fabric of
civilization rather than destroying it.  Meanwhile, you don't mind if I
call you, boy, right? 

    re -1
    
     No problem.
    
    Mark

    Thank you, thank you, thank you, Catherine.
    
    I fall very heavily on the side of changing the language to help
    along the changes in society. If the language changes, then the
    attitudes of people will change with next generation.
    
    My parents, who are very conservative, never used derogatory terms
    like "nigger" or "purty reeking" when I was growing up. I think
    they simply considered it beneath themselves, rather than thru any
    liberal notion of equality. However, because of the way they expressed
    themselves, I grew up with much less prejudices than they have.
    I was rather shocked, when in my mid teens, I realized that they
    were rather prejudiced against blacks.
    
    My father told my younger sister that he would disown me if I ever
    dated a Negro. Well, by then it was far too late. I never would
    have occurred to me that I shouldn't.

    It's that same with "girl" vs "women". If we all change our language,
    the next generation will have less sexism to deal with. It may be
    slow, in and of itself, but changing the words we use, changes the
    way we look at things.
    
    Tamzen
    

    Catherine,
    
    I think your .102 is great.  I wonder if anyone with half an attention
    span could miss your point.    
    
    Dondi (with a delighted grin and sparkle)

    Really now, people. I think you guys are making me out to be Snidely
    Whiplash here. (ok so my true id has been found) :-)
    
    I have the right to have an opinion regarding other people's feelings.
    This does not mean I sit in judgement of them any more than I have
    been judged in the last twenty notes. Actually, I judge people less
    than that. All I have said is that in my opinion, some things that
    some people find "offensive" I only see as less than ideal. I have
    never defended a man's right to denigrate his employees or coworkers.
    I have never said it is ok to call a woman girl. What I said was
    I think people who find being called "boy" or "girl" to be OFFENSIVE
    are overreacting. I didn't say they had to like it. I didn't say
    they had to agree with me. I didn't even say they had to stop feeling
    offended by it.
    
     The nature of offense is that anyone can feel arbitrarily strongly
    about any subject. There are people who feel that movies like "The Last
    Temptation of Christ" are offensive and as such they should be banned.
    I think it is an overreaction, especially from those who have not
    seen the film. Personally, I am bothered by the subject matter of
    the film, though I haven't seen it. What I've heard isn't impressive.
    There are VP's in this company who feel PERSONALLY OFFENDED that
    there exist notesfiles such as this, that are not work related but
    are supported with company money, resources, and time. Personally,
    I think they are wrong. As far as I'm concerned, they may object
    to the existance of these files. I think they would be crossing
    the line of reasonability if they stopped these conferences.
    
     Insofar as they subject at hand is concerned, my feeling is that
    it is fine to object to the reference of female employees as girl.
    It is an issue which should be addressed. If you, as an employee,
    are addressed as girl, and you don't like it, you should say something
    like "would you please call me by my name?" or something similar.
    If your request is met by anything less than full cooperation and
    consideration, THEN it is reasonable to be offended. Believe it
    or not, all men aren't out to denigrate women. REading some of the
    replies here leads me to believe that some of you are under this
    impression. I just don't see why there has to be such problems in
    the workplace that work stops getting done.
                                 
     You can look at any molehill and call it a mountain. That doesn't
    make it so. You can also look at any mountain and call it a molehill.
    That doesn't make it so either. What you consider a mountain or
    molehill is colored by your own perspective on the subject. This
    is especially true when a certain subject affects you and/or hits
    your hot button. (or one of them) My opinion of your opinion is
    no less valid than your original opinion. If you desecrate my opinion
    on the grounds that it is just an opinion, what does that say about
    how people should view your opinion?
    
    Mark

    Mark,
    
    I appreciate your taking the opportunity to defend yourself. Many
    people feel that it is up to them to know when they are offended
    and when they aren't, and when it's appropriate to feel that way.
    I understand that you feel differently, and I suppose we'll all
    have to live with that difference.
    
    No one here is advocating work stoppage because they've been called
    a girl. No one is advocating being unspeakably rude. And I don't
    think people here believe that most men go around intentionally
    denigrating women. I believe that without having one's awareness
    raised, one can easily go around insulting or offending people 
    unintentionally.
    
    However, many women have stated repeatedly that they don't like being
    called "girl". They've explained why (politely and repeatedly). The
    point is that you can continue to call women girls if you so choose.
    Now that you've read some of these replies, though, you are aware
    that many people find this practice offensive, and we're aware that
    you're aware.
    
    Liz

    RE: Catherine
    
    Brava! Wonderful, absolutely wonderful! 
    
    RE: Language (One of those Womannotes-Revisited Topics)
    
    Language does not simply describe our world to us. Certainly, when
    we are adults it does. BUT: While we are growing up and learning
    about our world, language forms our PERCEPTIONS of that world. WE
    see what we see, and judge it the way we judge it because of our
    language. "STicks and stones, etc" and "Names can never hurt me."
    Wrong. They certainly can. Centuries of describing people in certain
    language can indeed prevent people from perceiving accurately.
    Five minutes of verbal description of someone can ruin a person's
    reputation. Imagine how hundreds, thousands, of years of description
    can affect how we percieve people.
    
    The deaf culture is different from hearing culture. Very different.
    Even the jokes are different.  Why? Because the *language* is
    different. 
    
    Language creates our world for us. "My girl will call you to set
    up a lunch date." creates a whole different gut perception than
    "My secretary will call you...etc." 
    
    --DE
    

    
    YAHOO Catherine!  Excellent!
    
    
    SLL

Well its confession time I guess - but it was someone picking me (a WASMM) up
on my use of GIRL that made me realise (well about a week later) that I 
am/was 'ageist' ie I see people younger than myself in a different light.
 
This person I referred to as a girl was only a bit older than my daughter - 
but I was not refering to her as an independent person due to some kind of 
transference or similar - and yet in face to face conatct with her - I did 
not consciously do this !

IT HURT that I was less than I wanted to be but the person who gave me the
feedback was gentle (ok so I am asking to be mothered) BUT she  stopped me in
my tracks and made me see something clearly.

So - KEEP ON TELLING  US WASMM'S (and others) it does get through sometimes !

Roger



WASMM = white anglo saxon middle-aged man(ager)

    re: 102
    
>>      You got a problem understanding other people when they say 
>> right out what they think?  
    
    It seems to me that this comment you made about Mark can be directed to
    you (and others) as well.  After all, why should his opinion have any
    less merit or value than yours?  I'm not picking on you in particular,
    I'm just using this comment as an example of what I am seeing more
    often in this conference. 
    
    re:  others
    
    I am sorry to say that I feel this conference is starting to
    deteriorate.  If a man gives an opinion and the women don't like
    it, the man gets slammed.  If a woman gives an opinion and the men
    (or man) doesn't like it and slams the woman, all the woman take
    on a "how dare you" attitude.
    
    We are all adults here.  I find the name calling and slamming on both
    sides uncalled for from a, supposedly, professional group of
    individuals.  I realize I may have gotten off track from the base
    note (although not an uncommon occurrence in notes).  Perhaps this
    should be a new topic (one may already exist, I don't know).

    Colleen    
    
    
    
    
    

    Maybe the problem is that all too often it isn't men giving opinions,
    it's men giving pronouncements.  Sorry, but I have a problem with
    that.  It's insidious, subtle.  I applaud people with strong opinions
    but have little time for those who speak to me from "on high". 
    I think you're asking for tolerance in general Colleen, and so are
    a lot of other folks.  
    
    Dondi

  I took a linguistics course back in college called "Language, Sex, and Power"
which was quite good.  There is a lot (as other replies have also said) evidence
that our use of language does affect the way we think, even it sometimes
subconsciously.

  Whether you think that *you* do this or not, using terms like "girl" have a
specific connotation which, when used for an adult, is a deragatory one.  There
is a whole slew of words present in the English language that help perpetuate
the current "power" class and denigrate those not in "power."  For example,
there are quite a few "feminine" words which are used to denote something
diminuitive or weak.

    I submit that the subject has been hashed to death (again).  If
    Mark (and others) haven't gotten the point already this time around,
    they're not going to.  As it stands, I'm starting to feel a little
    overdosed by all the explanations and I'm in agreement with them!
    
    I realize that the desire is educate is strong.  I was mostly through
    a response of my own before I realized that it wasn't going to
    contribute anything new to the discussion.  I decided that, had
    I been on the receiving end of all these repetitious reactions,
    I would have overloaded and started ignoring them.
    
    The point is not that you shouldn't contribute, but that it's
    worthwhile to pause a moment and consider what your response will
    add to the current discussion.

    RE: < Note 80.113 by HACKIN::MACKIN "Sometimes you just need a KITA" >

>>    there are quite a few "feminine" words which are used to denote something
>> diminuitive or weak.

    ... or beautiful or peaceful or precious or ...
    
    As far as I'm concerned, those "feminine" words reflect positive,
    not negative characteristics.  It's a fact of nature that human
    women are weaker than men.  So what?  (unless arm wrestling or foot
    races are important to you)  Women have so much to offer in other
    areas - it's unfortunate that some women (and men) don't recognize
    their respective positive areas and appreciate them for what they
    are.
    
    --Bob

	RE:  .84
    
    	> I agree that if a woman is intentionally referred to as a 'girl',
    	> in a derogatory fashion, it is wrong.  
    
    	The cultural norm of referring to adult humans as "men and
    	girls" *is* intentionally derogatory on a cultural level 
    	(whether any individual who uses those terms is making a 
    	deliberate attempt to insult anyone or not.)
    
    	It is precisely this cultural norm (of using common language
    	to imply that women are on the level of children next to men) 
    	that is offensive.  The individual use of such language
    	can be offensive (or at the very least, disturbing) although
    	I'm sure that many of us react less to an individual who
    	uses the terms unwittingly than to the cultural practice
    	in general.  (I know that *I* am less bothered by most
    	individual occurances than the widespread cultural phenomenon
    	that is involved in the first place.)
    
    	There are other examples in our culture (which have been
    	provided in this topic) that demonstrate how 'names' can be 
    	used to promote prejudicial attitudes towards members of 
    	ethnic/racial minorities.  The use of the word 'girl' closely
    	parallels the dynamics involved when words like 'nigger'
    	and 'kike' are used.
    
    	One doesn't have to be a member of the group being insulted
    	by derogatory labels to be significantly offended by the
    	use of such labels.
    
    	>However, if it does come up in general conversation, it is just
    	>another word.  Just like all the letters in my message here are
    	>words.                                    
      
    	If racial/ethnic slurs come up in casual conversation, does
    	that make them alright?  If your reply had been filled with
    	such slurs, do you really think that your note would have
    	been 'just words'?
    
    	>Since I am very comfortable and secure in who I am, I do
    	>not take offense when 'this word' is used.
    
    	Are you trying to imply that people who *are* offended by
    	the use of racial/ethnic/sexual slurs are NOT comfortable
    	and secure in who THEY are?
    
    	How does that apply when MEN are offended by the use of the
    	word 'girls' to describe women?  What is it about themselves
    	do you think would make them uncomfortale and/or insecure enough
    	to be bothered when OTHER PEOPLE are insulted?
    
    	>I personally dislike when women make a mountain out of a non-exist
    	>mole hill.
    
    	I find it interesting that you single out women here (after
    	having read all the replies from men who gave their reasons
    	for being offended by the use of the word 'girls' to describe
    	adult women.)
    
    	Is it that you DO like it when men make mountains out of non-
    	exist (?) molehills, or is it that you tend to think that
    	issues that concern women as a group should be dismissed,
    	in most cases, as irrelevant?
    
    	Just curious.

It strikes me that there is a substantial parallel between this discussion
and similar discussions which took place in the 60's.  Up to that time the
polite, non insulting term for black people was "negro".  During the race
riots of that era it was brought to our (caucasian) attention that black
people preferred to be called "black", and that the term "negro" was deemed
to be insulting.  I remember being a bit surprised by this at the time.  But
ultimately I decided that people probably had a right to be called by what-
ever designation they wished, and if blacks were comfortable with the term
"black" and uncomfortable with "negro", then there was no reason for me not
to make the effort to change what I called them if I didn't wish to offend.
Today I'm quite comfortable with "black", and I seldom even think about it
any more.

In the case at hand women wish to be called "women", not "girls".  I happen
to understand this desire better than I understood the black desire in the
60's, but that isn't really relevant.  For me it suffices that women prefer
to be called "women", so that is what I do.  I don't think it's an awful
effort for other men to go through.

Call women "women".  Then we can all move on to more pressing topics.

					--Q (Dick Wagman)

    re:  several
    
    Mark, if there's one thing I'd assure you it's that I don't 
    mean to sit in judgement here, particularly on a personal basis;
    and I'll go out on a limb and bet that none of the noters here
    have meant to do that.  From where I sit, nobody has, but if you
    feel like your being judged, please let us know the words that
    are giving you this feeling.  We all have lots to learn here.
    
    I think what *has* been going on is that you said you thought a
    woman shouldn't automatically take offense from the word 
    "girl" in the workplace.  It may not be meant as a devaluing term; 
    it *certainly* has not been intended that way when you, personally, 
    have used it.
    
    What followed have been others' reasons why it will be *heard* as
    a put-down (with the possible exception of within a group of very
    close friends who've established various kinds of linguistic slang
    and shorthand as "o.k.").  But I strongly suspect no one is trying
    to judge any individual.
    
    One other thing I do heae is some of the strain at repeating words
    and discussions.  And this raises something that's been kicking
    around in the back of my brain for a while: how do we (the noting
    community) allow and encourage new members to join in an "old" 
    discussion?  
    
    If what we're engaged in is, to some extent, expanding our awareness
    of ourselves and our world, and trying to "make a better place",
    is it not likely that things will have to be often repeated, re-phrased,
    re-hashed?  Rome wasn't built in a day and our brave new world won't
    be either.  While it may feel tiring from time to time, perhaps
    it's a good thing from a couple of angles.
    
    First, if nothing had to be repeated, it seems to me there'd come
    a time when "it's all been said" and there'd be no reason to do
    anything other than read the notes already written and perhaps vote
    for the opinion one likes best.  Second, a new voice, even when
    it states something that's already been discussed, gives us all
    the chance to re-examine ourselves and our views; these things
    have the dangdest way of changing over time.
    
    Steve
    

            
    What I have to say is in all seriousness.
    
    I would like you *all* to know that this lengthy topic has not been
    in vain.  I had a question I put out in the lady vs woman. topic.
    I no longer have that question.  I see the answer quite clearly.
    
    And I owe it to the well spoken words of people like Catherine T.
    and Mez and Bonnies S and R.  I will never use the G word again.
    
    I would also like the author of 80.115 to explain himself when he
    says that women are weaker than men and perhaps define what "respective
    positive areas" women are supposed to fill.  Do men have respective
    positive areas.  If so please tell me what mine is!
                 
    One last note.  I happen to be of several mixed bloods (I consider
    myself to be a majority of minorities.) and I'm extremely sensitve
    to words of ethnic degradation (just like what this topic is all
    about!).  In conjunction with other 'understood' etticate (sp?) of
    notewriting could we perhaps somehow lessen the impact of those
    words. I would suggest something like n_g__r or p_l__k.  Granted
    they are equeally offensive but I'm sure you would like me to fill
    up my notes with the F word either
          
    Once again thank you all very much for setting me straight.
    
    Luis

    <--(.119)
   
�     In conjunction with other 'understood' etticate (sp?) of
�     notewriting could we perhaps somehow lessen the impact of those
�     words. I would suggest something like n_g__r or p_l__k.
   
    Luis, I think I agree with you about this one (at least the "n**ger"
    part).  To an awful lot of people, seeing "f*ck" written out in
    "cleartext" would be _much_ less offensive than seeing "n**ger" with
    its historical burden of dehumanising oppression.  At least "f*ck" has
    some generally enjoyable associations!
                                  Thanks!
    You've changed _my_ thinking. 
    
    						=maggie 

218.211>    You may not have noticed, but the word "guys" has been slowly,
218.211>    through usage, turning into a gender-neutral term. I've seen any
218.211>    number of occasions in which a woman will refer to a group of
218.211>    other women as "you guys".
    
	Actually, I've noticed the same thing. Do women mind this? I'd
	wonder if they would consider it the same as always saying "he"?

					Tom_K

    Well, I certainly don't mind it, and in fact do it quite a lot. Praps
    it's because of the term's semi-non-gender-linked origin: a "guy" is
    the dummy that's burnt to celebrate the anniversary of the (failed)
    Gunpowder Plot of 1605 in England, and named for Guy Fawkes who is
    usually thought to have been one of the chief conspirators (tho I seem
    to remember reading something about his actually having been framed...
    can any of our UK members enlighten me?). 
                                                     
    						=maggie

Reminds me of "Guys and Dolls", but I find myself using it anyway.
	Mez

    	I've used guy as a non-gender specific term my whole life. 
    (Maybe it's cause I'm from Ohio originally?)    
    
    	I'll never forget the offended looks I got when I moved to SC
    almost 20 years ago and first a group of girls (2nd graders) as
    "you guys".
          
    tlh
    

    If I am the only female in the group and someone referres to us
    as "you guys", I look down, make a "pouty face" and say "Thanx a
    lot!"  All in fun, of course.  I think that they now do it just
    to have me do that.
    
    K.C.-the-34A

    re: guys - Where I came from - Kentucky - you can just say "you
        all" and be really gender-neutral!
    
    re: taking "offense" - To Mark and others:
        Being called a "girl" instead of a "woman"
        makes life just a wee bit more difficult because it makes me
        _feel_ different, less adult, less professional.  Then it makes
        me sad - disappointed that I still have to deal with those
        feelings, and sad that whoever used the term either doesn't
        understand, or doesn't care, that it makes things more difficult!
        I don't necessarily feel offended (unless the _intent_ is clearly
        to put me down), but I _do_ feel like sighing as I continue the
        struggle!
    
        Had a poem published once that describes these feelings - will
        try to copy it in here from home.
    
    Nancy

    re .128
    
     I perfectly understand your feelings (as much as is humanly
    possible given the gender difference). I find your reaction to said
    activity to be perfectly reasonable and understandable. Someday
    said activity will die a lonely death...
    
     Mark

Call Me a Woman

I am twenty-five
And when I am called a girl
I speak like a girl;
I flirt and giggle and play dumb.
But when I remember I am a woman,
I put away childish things
And speak out, and share, and love.

I am thirty-six
And when I am called a girl
I think like a girl;
I feel incompetent
So I serve and help the men around me.
But when I remember I am a woman,
I put away childish things
And work and create and achieve.

I am fifty-two
And when I am called a girl
I understand like a girl;
I let others protect me from the world.
But when I remember I am a woman,
I put away childish things
and decide, and risk, and live my own life.

                    (c) Nancy R. Smith

(Inspired in part by I Corinthians 13:11:
  When I was a child
  I spoke like a child
  I thought like a child
  I understood like a child
  But when I became a man [sic],
  I put away childish things.

>  But when I became a man [sic],

I always wonder how much of this is due to translation, and how much really is
in the orginal words.
	Mez

Nancy, 

That is a beautiful rendition of what we are trying to accomplish in
this file!

justme....jacqui

    re:.131  How much of that is bad translation...
    
    	If I think of it, I'll check Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
    when I get home.  Generally, when a translatin is given that is
    questionable, they will give the Hebrew or Greek word and possible
    translations for it.  For instance,  in the Old testament, Hell, in
    the sense that we have today, was nonexistant.  All the words used
    were things like "pit" and "grave", but the King James version
    translates them as "hell".  The closer translation is given in the
    concordance. 
    
    	Having said all that though, in this case, I'd bet that it is
    an accurate translation.  Unless I'm remembering wrong, I Corinthians
    is a letter from Paul to the church at Corinth.  Since 1) he was
    speaking for himself (he *was* a child and then a man) and 2) he
    wasn't overly fond of women  (He was the one that said women should
    cover their hair in church to avoid distracting those otherwise
    chaste men with their sinful hair.  He was also the one that said
    it was better to marry than burn, while implying it wasn't much
    better. :-)), I'd guess that he *did* say man.  
                     
    	tlh
    

    	Well I'm home and I actually remembered to look it up.
    
    	I Corinthians is, as I remembered, a letter from Paul to the
    church at Corinth.  Paul was speaking of himself.
    
    	The concordance says that the original word there is ANER (with
    a - over the E - I'm using a VT100 so I can't compose character
    on that one).  ANER means an individual male.
                                                      
    	(Note: I'm not saying that there ain't a lot to find fault
    with in Paul's writings.  Just check back a Chapter or two to I
    Corinthians 11:1-15.  (This is the section where women are told
    that it is shameful for them to not cover their heads while it is
    shameful *for* men to cover theirs (while prophsying (sp?) because
    "A man has no need to cover his head, because man is the image of
    God, and the mirror of his glory, whereas woman reflects the glory
    of man.") (The translation I quote from here is the New English Bible.
    But you can't blame this one on the translation, it's equally obnoxious
    in any of the half dozen translations I have.))   
                          
    	But I've probably taken this far enough down a rathole for
    this note.  If anyone wants to continue to discuss gender in the
    bible and translation thereof, etc, we should probably move to a
    different note...                                         
    
    tlh
    

    Re: .0 (!)
    
    I prefer to be called Charles, not Chuck or Charlie. I don't like
    diminuitives of my name. I can easily extend that to women who don't
    like diminuitives of "woman", such as "girl". If you prefer to be
    called a woman, you aren't being too picky. It's a matter of your
    personal preference.
    
    [To others]
    
    If you are in the company of people who prefer to be called woman
    rather than girl, then politeness requires you call them women (I guess
    you could leave instead). It seems clear to me that almost all of the
    women in this file prefer to be called women. To be polite, you should
    respect their wishes.
    
    	-- Charles (not Charlie)