Frustrated! Addressing people by their title, and other 'old-fashioned' sayings

[Feraud]

I prefer "dudette."

At least we recognize the feminine version!

It's even worse when a student's mom refers to her daughter as such...

Eesh, that is worse..

 

[sheeplady]

But, honestly, you're not subverting the gendering of language. Calling me a "guy" suggests that the best policy is to call women like men. You are not degendering language, you are further instilling the patriarchal tendencies of our society to hide and conceal women's contribition and values. The only acceptable slang terms for a group of women and men is a formerly masculine word, because men are valued more than women in such a society. As such, men cannot be called by a female term (as this would devalue the man given the preference and bias towards men) but women can be called such a term freely.

The use of the term "guys" for everyone, male ans female, is evidence of deeper social issues. If you want to turn convention on it's head, start calling mixed groups by feminine slang and terms.

ETA: this is what upsets me by being called a guy. I find it really annoying that someone not recognizing my gender by using a male term is ok, but's not ok if a refer to a mixed group as "dames" "ladies" etc.

 

[Feraud]

Well said sheeplady.

 

[Captain Lex]

I consider my agency with language more of a rudder than a steering wheel: people at least know what I mean when I address a group of women by "guys"; the convention exists, my justification is for the preserving of that convention, not creating it. Calling a group of guys "ladies" a) is counter-productive to communication because it lacks that convention entirely, b) might be perceived as attempting to communicate something else (because, indeed, there is a convention to addressing a group of men as "ladies" and it is demeaning to women) and c) doesn't actually have anything to do with why I think it's justified, to wit:

I said earlier that I thought this was a fitting way of atoning for the co-opting of the word "man" by male humans. In the short run, yes, calling a group of female humans by a conventionally male name might seem to devalue the contribution of women, but the original sin of the language was not to devalue the women but to put extra value on men, i.e. giving the men the right to go by what was once the gender-neutral term. Thus I am participating in the reclamation of some male-centric terms as they transition to being gender-neutral.

I personally feel that said change is inevitable, based on how I have seen it in practice in my life — I am merely justifying my participation in it, and perhaps exposing a brighter side of the issue for those against.

EDIT: I am a grammatical descriptivist: ergo the argument "but the word 'guys' is male-gendered" is not really true, anymore. What I am instead addressing is the argument "but the word guys ought to continue to be male-gendered because it once was", which I believe I have argued against adequately.

EDIT2: I would be absolutely on your side, sheeplady, if the usage was calling all-male or mixed groups "guys" but all-female groups still had a different term, as we have in romantic languages; that would be untenable. But that is clearly not the usage we're seeing; we're seeing the word being used even by women to groups entirely composed of women. This cannot mean that women are being made secondary to men; it can only mean that in the minds of many daily English speakers, "guys" is a thoroughly acceptable term for an arbitrarily-composed group of human beings. I, for one, am refreshed that such a term can even exist.

EDIT3: Yes, indeed, the origin of that usage may well have been patriarchal — though I cannot say that I'm sure of this — but that couldn't really be said to matter.

 

[sheeplady]

I consider my agency with language more of a rudder than a steering wheel: people at least know what I mean when I address a group of women by "guys"; the convention exists, my justification is for the preserving of that convention, not creating it. Calling a group of guys "ladies" a) is counter-productive to communication because it lacks that convention entirely, b) might be perceived as attempting to communicate something else (because, indeed, there is a convention to addressing a group of men as "ladies" and it is demeaning to women) and c) doesn't actually have anything to do with why I think it's justified, to wit:

I said earlier that I thought this was a fitting way of atoning for the co-opting of the word "man" by male humans. In the short run, yes, calling a group of female humans by a conventionally male name might seem to devalue the contribution of women, but the original sin of the language was not to devalue the women but to put extra value on men, i.e. giving the men the right to go by what was once the gender-neutral term. Thus I am participating in the reclamation of some male-centric terms as they transition to being gender-neutral.

I personally feel that said change is inevitable, based on how I have seen it in practice in my life — I am merely justifying my participation in it, and perhaps exposing a brighter side of the issue for those against.

EDIT: I am a grammatical descriptivist: ergo the argument "but the word 'guys' is male-gendered" is not really true, anymore. What I am instead addressing is the argument "but the word guys ought to continue to be male-gendered because it once was", which I believe I have argued against adequately.

EDIT2: I would be absolutely on your side, sheeplady, if the usage was calling all-male or mixed groups "guys" but all-female groups still had a different term, as we have in romantic languages; that would be untenable. But that is clearly not the usage we're seeing; we're seeing the word being used even by women to groups entirely composed of women. This cannot mean that women are being made secondary to men; it can only mean that in the minds of many daily English speakers, "guys" is a thoroughly acceptable term for an arbitrarily-composed group of human beings. I, for one, am refreshed that such a term can even exist.

EDIT3: Yes, indeed, the origin of that usage may well have been patriarchal — though I cannot say that I'm sure of this — but that couldn't really be said to matter.

I think we may be fundamentally approaching this from a different perspective. You're approaching it from a "use" perspective, whereby the use of the term changes the meaning over time (such as being used for groups of all females.) I'm approaching it from a "meaning" perspective, whereby the use of the term doesn't necessarily fully change the underlying meaning. If the term "guy" was no longer seen as a male engendered term, I'd buy your statement. But many people here have stated they don't see it as such. For me, if a term comes from a meaning that supports the patriarchal way of thinking about people, I'd prefer not to use it. If people still see a term as "male" but *extending to females* I think that such a term is still a male term and reflects the preference for using male terms for females. I'd never refer to a mixed group of people as "guys" or a group of all women.

Like many things in life, we cannot see the chains that bind us in society. The reason why people use the term "guys" is because they've never sat down and thought about how using a male-gendered term reflects the greater power relationships in our society. Society chose to use a male term, on purpose, rather than a female term. A lack of introspection doesn't change the fact that society purposefully chose that term because it placed higher value on men and many people (right in this thread) find it to refer to men. In regards to your remark, elevating men above women is the same in my mind to de-valuing women.

The example you gave about calling men ladies is devaluing to women is correct, but calling men ladies is only an insult because we are working in a patriarchal society. We live in a time where the term "ladies" can be used in a way to denigrate others- notice that the only terms that you could use to address others that can be used as an insult are feminine terms. (I am trying to think of a male term that is similar, but I cannot think of one.) Men are also devalued when being called ladies, because this patriarchal society has decided that femininity is not a value it cherishes. Only a few people benefit from a patriarchal society benefit from it's structure. Men (particularly men who don't ascribe or measure up to the norms and standards for me) are also devalued. If we got rid of the patri

As far as terms to address a large group, why not "everyone" or "y'all." Both are terms without an modern association with a gender. I think the core of the argument is if you believe that the system is workable from inside (changing the meanings of terms) or if we should start fresh (using new terms).

 

[Captain Lex]

I think we may be fundamentally approaching this from a different perspective. You're approaching it from a "use" perspective, whereby the use of the term changes the meaning over time (such as being used for groups of all females.) I'm approaching it from a "meaning" perspective, whereby the use of the term doesn't necessarily fully change the underlying meaning. If the term "guy" was no longer seen as a male engendered term, I'd buy your statement. But many people here have stated they don't see it as such. For me, if a term comes from a meaning that supports the patriarchal way of thinking about people, I'd prefer not to use it. If people still see a term as "male" but *extending to females* I think that such a term is still a male term and reflects the preference for using male terms for females. I'd never refer to a mixed group of people as "guys" or a group of all women.

Like many things in life, we cannot see the chains that bind us in society. The reason why people use the term "guys" is because they've never sat down and thought about how using a male-gendered term reflects the greater power relationships in our society. Society chose to use a male term, on purpose, rather than a female term. A lack of introspection doesn't change the fact that society purposefully chose that term because it placed higher value on men and many people (right in this thread) find it to refer to men. In regards to your remark, elevating men above women is the same in my mind to de-valuing women.

The example you gave about calling men ladies is devaluing to women is correct, but calling men ladies is only an insult because we are working in a patriarchal society. We live in a time where the term "ladies" can be used in a way to denigrate others- notice that the only terms that you could use to address others that can be used as an insult are feminine terms. (I am trying to think of a male term that is similar, but I cannot think of one.) Men are also devalued when being called ladies, because this patriarchal society has decided that femininity is not a value it cherishes. Only a few people benefit from a patriarchal society benefit from it's structure. Men (particularly men who don't ascribe or measure up to the norms and standards for me) are also devalued. If we got rid of the patri

As far as terms to address a large group, why not "everyone" or "y'all." Both are terms without an modern association with a gender. I think the core of the argument is if you believe that the system is workable from inside (changing the meanings of terms) or if we should start fresh (using new terms).

You are correct, I do not for a moment believe we could start fresh. It is foolish even to try. If the power were placed into my hands to bring in a new era of gender-neutral terminology, I'd delve into the past of our language and bring out the perfect set of new terms. I would not say guys at all; I'd say something perfect, perhaps Latinate in origin. But this wouldn't work. People try it again and again with gender-neutral pronouns (under the absurd notion that 'they' is somehow wanting in this respect) and it has never succeeded, and will never succeed. Language is resistant to will, and indeed has a will of its own.

That will may indeed have begun using guys, plural, as an expression of patriarchy, but now it is used utterly benignly. Any baggage of offense communicated is the fault of the listener, not the speaker.

If we desire to have gender-neutral language (which I absolutely do), I can either embrace the current trend towards it, or I can fight it - and if, miraculously, I succeed, we will simply lack such terminology, as it would require five times the effort to introduce new ones as well.


EDIT: And I do say "everyone" and "y'all", but I reject categorically decisions that lead to less flexibility in diction. I wish also to say as many other things as are clear: and it is certain, since this has become an issue in the first place, that many people think this is a clear way of communicating.

EDIT2: That is to say, "everyone" has a different connotation than "guys"; it's less personable. "Everyone" addresses a group as a unit; "guys" addresses a group as many individuals. At least, that's my perception of it. "Hello everyone" is what a flight attendant says. "Hello guys" is what I say to my friends and coworkers.

 

[Widebrim]

ETA: this is what upsets me by being called a guy. I find it really annoying that someone not recognizing my gender by using a male term is ok, but's not ok if a refer to a mixed group as "dames" "ladies" etc.

Which shows the folly of the whole practice: Nobody (I hope!) would look at a woman walking down the street and remark, "Who's that guy." If it is considered illogical if used as such in the singular, how then does it suddenly become valid when used similarly in the plural? The same should apply to such collective, (now) archaic plurals like "mankind."

 

[Captain Lex]

Which shows the folly of the whole practice: Nobody (I hope!) would look at a woman walking down the street and remark, "Who's that guy." If it is considered illogical if used as such in the singular, how then does it suddenly become valid when used similarly in the plural? The same would apply to other archaisms such as "mankind" or "man-made."

For the same reason that 'they', originally and still a plural pronoun, is a (the!) widely-used gender-neutral singular pronoun. Context matters. The question I am addressing here is not, by the way, 'how did this come to be', as I could not tell you. The question I am addressing is 'is it bad that it is so', which I do not believe it is.


EDIT: As I have said, words (and usages) like mankind and man-made stem from the fact that "man" originally meant the whole human race. Those usages are perfectly valid. It is man meaning male human that we should be upset with!

 

[Widebrim]

EDIT: As I have said, words (and usages) like mankind and man-made stem from the fact that "man" originally meant the whole human race. Those usages are perfectly valid. It is man meaning male human that we should be upset with!

Right, regarding the fact that "man" originally meant the whole human race, but it is this very (archaic) association which should render the word "mankind" invalid.

 

[sheeplady]

Right, regarding the fact that "man" originally meant the whole human race, but it is this very (archaic) association which should render the word "mankind" invalid.

I agree. Language can go both ways. If we accept that a term can lose it's gendering, then logically it can also gain it. I prefer humankind.

 

[dnjan]

What I find very strange is how some women actually object to being addressed as "Ma'am" because it makes them feel old. [huh]

I tend to use "Miss" unless I am pretty sure they are at least 20 years older than me.

 

[sheeplady]

Ma'am used to make me feel a bit old. Now not so much, but the first time I was called ma'am was when I was 20, and that made me feel old and taken aback since it was by someone my own age.

All women are miss unless they are 20 years or more older than me.

 

[rocketeer]

A couple more of my pet hates, somteimes used here in the Lounge even 'Nailed it!' for 'got it right', 'Pulled the trigger' instead of 'I have ordered something' and just about anything abbreviated or partially such as 'Rehab'. Being English I always prefer to be called English rather than British and when talking about L.A. it is always 'Los Angeles', a beautiful name for a beautiful city.
Grr Grr, had to wake up and have a rant
John.

 

[dnjan]

'Pulled the trigger' instead of 'I have ordered something'

Perhaps I am reading more into it, but to me "pulled the trigger" implies more of a thought process (should I or shouldn't I, etc.) than just "I have ordered".

 

[HudsonHawk]

Perhaps I am reading more into it, but to me "pulled the trigger" implies more of a thought process (should I or shouldn't I, etc.) than just "I have ordered".

Of course, it can be argued that many who "pull the trigger" haven't really thought about it at all.

As for idiomatic expressions, I find a certain charm in their use in informal conversation, as long as they are not vulgar or offensive. I am often fascinated by the origin of some expressions, and see an interesting insight into the culture that created them.

 

[dnjan]

Of course, it can be argued that many who "pull the trigger" haven't really thought about it at all.

Perhaps that is more of a "shotgun" approach ...

 

[Widebrim]

A couple more of my pet hates, somteimes used here in the Lounge even 'Nailed it!' for 'got it right', 'Pulled the trigger' instead of 'I have ordered something' and just about anything abbreviated or partially such as 'Rehab'. Being English I always prefer to be called English rather than British and when talking about L.A. it is always 'Los Angeles', a beautiful name for a beautiful city.
Grr Grr, had to wake up and have a rant
John.

Add to the above, "Are you still working on that?" by food servers who want to know if you're still eating your meal...As regards the use of L.A., we just prefer it sometimes for expediency's sake (and Los Angeles is a beautiful name). I also agree with you on the use of English rather than British, since the latter could also refer to Scot, Welsh, or Northern Irish.

 

[rocketeer]

Add to the above, "Are you still working on that?" by food servers who want to know if you're still eating your meal...As regards the use of L.A., we just prefer it sometimes for expediency's sake (and Los Angeles is a beautiful name). I also agree with you on the use of English rather than British, since the latter could also refer to Scot, Welsh, or Northern Irish.

Never really experienced anyone asking if I have finished a meal[In a restaurant], especially if I am still eating it. But I guess if it is starters and the main course has just arrived.... Dont think the chef would be impressed if it had to be heated up.
My Aero Leather jackets have "made in Scotland" on the label as many items did in 'The old days'. And it produces pride to see Made in England, Made in USA, Made in Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Canada, and anywhere else etc. Sometimes this can only be seen on expensive items in tourist shops these days but then! I wanted a souvenir maple leaf key ring from my Niagara trip, only to read the inscription, 'Made in China' on the back. I bought a postcard instead.
John

 

[Dave E]

Add to the above, "Are you still working on that?" by food servers who want to know if you're still eating your meal...As regards the use of L.A., we just prefer it sometimes for expediency's sake (and Los Angeles is a beautiful name). I also agree with you on the use of English rather than British, since the latter could also refer to Scot, Welsh, or Northern Irish.

Hmm, I am both English and British, so don't really have a problem with that. The Welsh and Scots are also British, whether they like it or not

Actually, to be fair, as my grandparents were respectively English, Welsh, Irish and Scottish, I am pretty definitvely British.

(Oh, and the Northern Irish aren't British, technically, It's the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.)

 

[Dave E]

"Ma'am" is a curious one for me as a Brit. I don't think it's something we would say except to a superior. It definitely suggests deference for me. The Queen would be "Ma'am", but a I wouldn't address a random woman that way. I'm not sure I have a good way to address a woman my age or older whose name I don't know, actually. One younger (or plausibly younger looking than me) I would call "Miss". North American useage is definitely different in this regard, "Ma'am" seems less 'loaded' somehow for you (or such is my impression). Hmm, I suppose I might use "Madam", but it's oddly formal, and maybe even rude.