Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site opus.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!decwrl!amd!fortune!hpda!hplabs!hao!cires!nbires!opus!rcd From: rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Hey, boys and women! Message-ID: <844@opus.UUCP> Date: Thu, 27-Sep-84 15:36:43 EDT Article-I.D.: opus.844 Posted: Thu Sep 27 15:36:43 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 30-Sep-84 03:21:44 EDT References: <366@ism780.UUCP> Organization: NBI,Inc, Boulder CO Lines: 73 The man/woman/guy/gal/... discussion has been going on an amazingly long time without a few particular points coming out. When you're talking to someone, you're communicating (hopefully) and you do that by a (more or less) mutually understood protocol, which is to say you speak the same language. Obviously you have to get to some common ground to start out... "Habla Ud. espan~ol?" "No. Sprechen Sie Deutsch?" "Nur ein bisschen. Englisch?" "Yes. Let's speak English then." But you're still liable to have minor problems. What we (in the U.S.) call a cookie is what many other English-speakers call a biscuit. If you'll ponder that situation a moment, you can use it to get a handle on how to deal with the (similar but emotionally charged) woman/girl choice. You have to agree on which word to use or how to understand each other. For a while, you'll allow the Australian (say) to say biscuit for cookie, but if he's going to live in the U.S., he's probably going to have to change just to avoid the ongoing communications failures. By the same token, if it's accepted to call an adult human female a woman, it's best to do so to avoid the communications failures--let alone to avoid getting wrong emotion-laden connotations. Conventions change: the evolution of "Ms." is a good example. Twelve years ago (or so), you were making a significant social statement to use "Ms." as a title. Today you're making a significant statement NOT to use it. The transition period is interesting but uncomfortable, and people who are dogmatic or pushy about (either side of) a convention in transition are deluding themselves about their own importance. Remember that you're trying to communicate; the process involves both speaker and listener equally. Also remember that the words are only symbols for ideas; they're not the ideas themselves. That leads to another point: It's a serious mistake to try to change people's attitudes by changing language. That's getting the causality backwards, and it's no more likely to work than trying to cure a cough by duct-taping your mouth shut. Language may have to change as a PART of changing attitudes. We develop new words as we try to associate them with new attitudes, and we try to shed old words along with outmoded attitudes. In different periods within the past few decades, the terms "colored person", "negro", and "black" have all held the position of being the polite/accepted way to people of the same race. (It's also interesting that the NAACP retained its name through all three.) Another example--"chick" is a particularly poor choice to use in referring to a woman because it implies so many value judgements. Evolving meanings and evolving language make it precarious to use a dictionary--and particularly the etymological section of it--to understand current significance of a word... > It may interest those who believe that "gal" is a better word > than "girl" when speaking of/to women that my Webster's New > Collegiate says that "gal" is a direct alteration of "girl". So, > in a technical sense at least, gal is as bad as girl. This ignores any connotations associated with one word but not the other, so it's not fair to make the "one is as bad as the other" judgement. There are some principles you can use in choosing words for people. One (mentioned in another posting) is that if you're concerned about equitable labeling of sexes, choose words that are paired. "Man" and "girl" are NOT a pair, obviously. How about: woman man girl boy gal guy lady gentleman female male If, as speaker, you use a word and ignore the connotations placed on that word by your listener, you'll have a problem communicating. If, as a listener, you hear a word and narrowly apply only your own connotations, you'll have a problem communicating. This carries beyond just the "woman/girl" matter. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Cerebus for dictator!