In the Arab headgear thread– ROD had brought up something in jest– the I think could be explored–
Just what is the preferred term for those members of the human race that have the primary reproductive responsibility?
Some years ago, James Stephen's (author) in his book of short story's "Here are Ladies" (made into an off Broadway show in the 1970's) pointed out what a wonderful democracy the US was– the in America even a char woman was a cleaning lady.
But now days, I think most of us prefer woman to lady. (And in some ways being defined as "Lady like" is not the same level of a of compliment is once was.)
Girls is almost a taboo word to use with a female over the age of 15– and young lady is verboten for women over 21. Both tend to sound condescending. But among ourselves– we sometimes have a Girl's night out
So in America– we have gone round– and instead of all being ladies– we have all become women.
Or is this just a NY feminist view? From one half– I'd like to learn the terms you like use to describe/define you– and from the other half– what words do you use– or have learned not to use? And what about signage? Ladies rooms? Or woman's room?
Lady's clothing? Or women's clothing In US- these two term are used to define sizes with women clothing being a large size range– but there are stores that advertize Women's clothing and mean all sizes– and include in their selection are dressy suits and or party dresses.
Or other areas....
Ladies rooms?
At one of the buildings in Cornell University several many years ago some event of sufficient draw for many non-U people to attend prompted some ad hoc signs to be posted to facilitate the finding of the rest rooms. One of the signs read Ladies' Room with an arrow to point towards the location. Someone, in the spirit of the feminist classic, had crossed out the Ladies' and written in Women's. Someone else, skipping a step, had crossed out Women's and written in Woperdaughter's.
Interesting stuff, this! I've long associated woman with the OE wif-man, or wife-man, so there seems to be an ancient suggestion of chattel therein. Call me a chauvinist swine if you will, but I've long considered man to be non-gender-specific in certain contexts.
As for girl, did it not originally mean any young person?
Still bearing the scars from the wet cous-cous (and how on earth did I explain that away to my wife) I am going to keep my mouth shut for a while! But I have asked my daughter the question to get a UK female mid 20s (GSH, seeks relationship..) perspective on the subject.
On the specific question of signage, in the UK the majority of toilets for females that are word signed have "Ladies" but "Women" is common also. Apart from the jokey or themed signs, like the ones in the Veterans club that says "No Man's Land".
Rod
Michigan usage, at least in business and professional circles, indicates that "woman" is preferred, if not "person." There are "chairpersons" of committees, often shortened to "chair." "Lady" is rarely used, except in the introductory phrase, "ladies and gentlemen."
Preferences as to honorifics tend to vary with the professional and social setting; it seems to me that most lawyers, accountants and business managers use "Ms," but that "Mrs" and "Miss" are used by school teachers.
I am happy to report that the use of "Sir" and "Ma'am" have regained acceptance in my circles in recent years. It might be in part because I kept addressing people that way, and they got used to it...
Geoff protests: Call me a chauvinist swine if you will, but I've long considered man to be non-gender-specific in certain contexts.
The word man is, at root, an Old English word meaning human being. The commonly used words for males and females were, respectively, wer and wif. While it was possible to refer to wæpmen and wifmen, I have, in my very limited reading, seen only wæpcynd and wifcynd.
The idea that to be a man you have to be male is the sexist notion. Referring to females as men is not.
Women take back your manhood!
And what about signage? Ladies rooms? Or woman's room?
Most places here actually use the woman symbol - you know, that one with a skirt that looks like a cookie cutter. Otherwise, I usually see "Ladies". But I never really paid attention. I think in general in Canada we use non-verbal signs, possibly for the benefit of those who can't read. Especially on the highway. But that's off topic.
In Germany, of course, the women's rooms are labeled Herren and the men's rooms Da Men.
In reply to:
In Germany, of course, the women's rooms are labeled Herren and the men's rooms Da Men.
Are you sure you don't mean Chicago?
from my daughter, 25 yr old working and living in London:
Ladies - formal context eg in conjunction with gentlemen, or in social
events. If used in work context tends to be condescending. Think Barry
White. Or Alan B'stard.
Women - the generic. Used by men and women, no issues. Just don't overuse it - "people" is to be preferred.
Girls - informal context eg "get the girls to come out for a curry too". Don't use in work unless the girls in your team are using it themselves. Can be used between men in that context.
Females - never ever. Think "creatures" or "the male of the species" as the correct context.
Gals - even more informal and joking, generally used by the old git of the office when joking around.
Birds - the drinking man's reference to the ladies...
Boids - the drunk man's reference to the ladies..
Bitches - ridiculous reference, only to be used in prison situations
Witches - me, nicola and naomi...
(Must-remember-to-stop-using-Gals emoticon)
That gels
with my understanding,
Which gender specific words for professions are still acceptable? Usher has been used for both sexes (no more Usherette) for a while now, as has conductor, not that we have them on buses any more. But waiter/waitress, actor/actress and so on? Some of these have generalised in the plural but not yet (in my experience) to the singular. I don't in general like words of the "waitperson" construction. I accept chairperson, but words such as chairman don't signify the male sex to me anyway.
Rod
Robyn Lakoff (and others) have pointed out that titles like chairperson are markèd - the semiosis here being one of negation. We're pointedly NOT saying chairMAN, so we are referring to the woman in the (biggest) chair. "Chair," in and of itself, is the unmarked varietal.
One wonders, however, whether or how rapidly other sex-marked words will wither and die. What kind of list of -woman or -man words can we generate? These would be words that have no _logical_ gender; merely an "associative" one.
In reference to Rod's immediately previous post - perhaps in this wired world of ours, alternatives like "waitron" aren't far off?
Sparteye wonders: Am I sure I don't mean Chicago?
Well, maybe at the Bittburger Essenplatz on N. Clark.
Here's a good link from CBC (Canada's national public broadcaster and WAY better than PBS
) about their use of "fisher" instead of "fisherman" in their stories. There are other good word discussions on that site if anyone is interested.
http://cbc.ca/news/indepth/words/fishermen.html
Around here, the waiter/waitress dichotomy often gives way to "server." Most actresses I know refer to themselves as actors. Administratrix and executrix are no longer used.
common sense often goes out the window with this stuff and it's difficult to know where to draw the line (as with fisherman in the CBC link). there is no Very Good Reason for having a special word for a female waiter or aviator or executor. on the other hand, why should I have to specify the gender of actor I need for my leading lady when the perfectly serviceable word actress is at hand? "And the Oscar® for Best Actor in a Woman's Role goes to..."
Around here, the waiter/waitress dichotomy often gives way to "server."Which, given what they're usually paid, would be more appropriate since "server" must inevitably derive from servus, the Latin word for "slave"!
In one NH town, Louisa Woodman, a professional woman and staunch believer in women's rights, was the first woman elected chairman of the Planning Board. The Vice-Chair of the Board asked if she wanted to be addressed as Chairman or Chairperson.
She replied : "Chairman is fine, thank you, I have no intention of changing my name to Woodperson."
Now, personally, I have no objection to "Ladies" in situations where, for example, a Maitre d' is gesturing a group of women to a table. Ladies and Gentlemen is fine as a general address to a group.
I think a lot of it has to do with age. If a man in his 70s or over uses girls or ladies, it doesn't seem as offensive as when a younger man treats women as "girls" ... A friend and I were attending a formal dinner for a professional organization and one man at the table asked us : "What do you girls do?"
(Good thing I didn't have a pie to hand.)
Overall, some things like "cleaning lady" are so ingrained that it will take awhile - and an imaginative mind - to think of a phrase to replace it, others like "actor" for both male and female will be changed because those in the profession will keep using the term they prefer until it is part of the language.
I was diappointed that it was not patterned on "Name your poison".
Bill, that is because you are an old fashioned gentleman-- who would insist on calling us all ladies-- no matter what the occation!
(I like mine like whiskey-- strong and neat!)
Have been over all postings to date and find them invariably interesting. Thank God, we don't have zealots here who insist on ridiculous neologisms to avoid perfectly good terms.
A couple of observations. Now that in many churches there are female clergy, it's interesting that the word 'deaconess' which was in use up to the 70s has been quietly deep-sixed; a deacon can now be of either gender and the same word is used for both. Also, the word 'priestess' is never under any circumstances used; a priest, or a bishop for that matter, is also of either gender.
Lawyers, hereabouts at least, are often addressed in writing as 'John Doe, Esq.' Of course, we know that an esquire originally was male, but you now have 'Jane Doe Esq.' I suppose that if the term for an adolescent boy in training as a knight's assistant could be used for a corporate tax lawyer, or one of the unsavory shysters who hang around the courthouse, or the ambulance chasers who prey on the parents of birth-damaged children, it could be used for a woman (not knocking the ladies here).
To look at the other sex, there is a good deal of use of the word 'boy/boys' which no one minds, as in, "See what the boys in the back room will have." In any group consisting entirely of men, they will frequently refer to themselves or each other as 'boys' or 'the boys'.
Lastly, in regard to terms used in the clothing industry, I have always wondered what, exactly, is meant by the term 'misses' sizes/clothing? I don't believe there is an equivalent in men's/boys clothes.
the word 'priestess' is never under any circumstances used
(discreet cough emoticon)
wow
there is, of course, a bureau of standards for clothing sizes-- but roughly-- Juniors-- odd numbers sizes-1 to 15
for younger women-- narrower in the waist and bust, and slightly shorter (Neck to waist, waist to hem) they tend to be for younger women. Misses even numbered sizes 2 to 18 or so. slightly larger in the waist than juniors-- actually the standard from which other sizes are based on. (difference between juriors and misses- is like the difference between regular and "trim fit" in mens clothing) Petites-- can be any size-- just cut shorter-- neck to waist, waist to hem, and sleeve. (since women's clothes don't always come in Long, Reg and Short--Tall women, and very short have the worst of it..)
Worst case is a thin women about 5 foot tall, with large breasts-- she might need a juniors size 3 or 5 skirt--but a Misses 8 for a jacket-- to fit her bust--only now the shoulders, and sleeves would be way to big, and even the back of the jacket wouldn't fit right!
"half sizes" 12½ to 22½-- fuller-- especially in waist and bust.(mens "full cut") Womens 16 (or 18) to 26.. large sizes.. Think of Roseanne-- or Cathrine Manheim.
Size 12 is the standard-- everything is cut larger or smaller based on its relationship to size 12. -- it used to be size 10-- but as america keeps getting larger.. they moved the standard up a notch..
Re: priestess--
I didn't know that "standard" religions ever had any need for the term, at least in earlier days. But don't some
"non-standard" religions have priestesses? Wicca, possibly
voodoo, even Druids?
Lastly, in regard to terms used in the clothing industry, I have always wondered what, exactly, is meant by the term 'misses' sizes/clothing? I don't believe there is an equivalent in men's/boys clothes.
According to the daughter of one of my colleagues, who works for a retailer on the marketing side, the mid sizes for girls in their tweens are in theory intended to compensate for the physical shape changes that the distaff sex goes through during adolescence. But the cynical young thing also informed me that it is being leveraged furiously by all the name brand retailers (and knock-off shops, no doubt) to aid them targeting that same market by getting at the parents through those fashion-conscious misses ....
Religions may get along without priestesses these days, but AWADtalk has a high priestess of its own, long may she thrive.
the distaff sexAhhhggg! PC Police alert! Chauvinist attribution!
Flax-spinning little homebody, huh?
BTW, in her profile, doean't B96 call herself a goddess, not just a mere god?
The CBC url that Bean posted raised a thought about epicene pronouns. [never-thought-i'd-use-the-word-of-the-day-that-fast-in-a-post-I-was-going-to-make-anyway emoticon]
To quote Christopher Robin (or at least A.A. Milne) "If the English language had been properly organized . . . then there would be a word which meant both 'he' and 'she', and I could write, 'If John or Mary comes heesh will want to play tennis,' which would save a lot of trouble."
It is often possible to reconstruct a sentence to use general plurals or avoid pronouns, but I am interested in the board's opinion for the occasions when gender neutral pronouns are necessary. Do you prefer "he or she" "he/she" "his/hers" or do you (like me) [putting his cards on the table e] prefer using "their" "they" as gender neutral singular pronouns?
Rod
and the flummery URL that Belligerent Youth posted yesterday provided (but I can't find it now) an odd press line something on the lines of "This competition category is only open to women pretending to be drag queen artistes!" as if we weren't all confused enough already!
The above was going to be my post but in trying to find the original line I found an even more relevant item. Here is the url.
http://www.oreilly.com/people/staff/sierra/flum/01.01.htm Just search for "Gender Identity" just over half way down.
Rod
doean't B96 call herself a goddess, not just a mere god?yup, geoff. 'god' just seemed a bit....egocentric.
as for the girls/women/ladies thing, i guess i don't really understand what all the fuss is about. after all, that which we call a rose...
i *do* vividly remember being in a dressing room a few years ago, i was probably 25 or so, and overheard a sales girl who appeared to be maybe 18 or 19 ask another sales girl if she could bring something in to "that LADY in room five". i felt so *old*.
In response to 'Ladies rooms?' here is an interesting consideration.
In architecture in the US, when drawing plans of buildings (other than houses), the recommended notation and almost universally used is...
Women's Toilet
The signage that the building owner chooses to use on the doors may be very different.
William
In reply to:
It is often possible to reconstruct a sentence to use general plurals or avoid pronouns, but I am interested in the board's opinion for the occasions when gender neutral pronouns are necessary. Do you prefer "he or she" "he/she" "his/hers" or do you (like me) [putting his cards on the table e] prefer using "their" "they" as gender neutral singular pronouns?
I refuse to use the virgule version or to apply a plural pronoun to a singular noun. I tend to rewrite sentences to avoid those choices, and if presented with an unavoidable use of an indeterminate-sex-singular-pronoun I usually use simply, "he." Occasionally, when the subject of the writing pertains overwhelmingly to women, (such as when referring to rape victims or spousal abuse victims) I use "she."
Sparteye refuses to ... apply a plural pronoun to a singular noun.
Dost thou use the second person singular pronoun when referring to a single person?
[quote]I refuse to use the virgule version .. or a plural for singular[/quote
I agree and do the same. Of course, it's difficult and frequently you find yourself hemming and hawing a bit when you have to some up with something on the fly.
For an interesting, and mostly successful, example of how to use gender-neutral language, you can study the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible (not the latest edition of the Revised Standard Version, which is a different version altogether). We use this in church for all purposes and for the most part it's a good solution to a problem which many people (not me) want addressed, but there have been times when I'm standing at the lectern gritting my teeth over something I have to read aloud and putting a good face on it.
http://www.english.uiuc.edu/baron/essays/epicene.htmThanks Bill, lovely list. I particularly like
h’orsh’it from "he or she, it"
Rod
The use of the third person plural pronoun in a singular context is, of course, marred by the fact that its roots are in the Dreaded Politically Correct notion that women deserve an even break, whilst the corresponding second person usage is from the Acceptable Socially Correct practice of sucking up to our superiors.
>on the other hand, why should I have to specify the gender of actor I need for my leading lady when the perfectly serviceable word actress is at hand? "And the Oscar® for Best Actor in a Woman's Role goes to..."
You could then get Robin Williams from Mrs. Doubtfire or Dustin Hoffman from tootsie as nominees.
>You could then get Robin Williams from Mrs. Doubtfire or Dustin Hoffman from tootsie as nominees.
yes, exactly!
---
I also use "he" in almost all third person singular situations, unless the audience would tend to have a preponderance of women. (it's just my guyway 8)
You could then get Robin Williams from Mrs. Doubtfire or Dustin Hoffman from Tootsie as nominees.
Robin Williams played Daniel Hilliard. It was the character Daniel Hilliard who played Mrs. Doubtfire.
Dustin Hoffman played Michael Dorsey who played Tootsie* (Dorothy Michaels)
Not even Stephen Rea in The Crying Game was playing a female character.
*I'm not even sure that the name Tootsie referred to the Dorothy Michaels impersonation.
In reply to:
The use of the third person plural pronoun in a singular context is, of course, marred by the fact that its roots are in the Dreaded Politically Correct notion that women deserve an even break
Sorry, Faldage, use of they/them/their/theirs to refer to an unspecified singular person antedates the political correctness movement by six hundred years. See http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/austheir.html
Bingley
Oh, Bingley. Oh, it is so good to see you back
here, cintaku.
Bingley points out: use of they/them/their/theirs to refer to an unspecified singular person antedates the political correctness movement by six hundred years.
Interesting link, Bingley. I have added it to my English Language bookmarks.
I had thought that the use of the second person plural for singular had predated the corresponding use of the third person plural by a couple of hundred years. I'll stand by my notion even more firmly now that the modern objection to this usage has *its roots in PCphobia. If this helps you to avoid tripping over me in the dark, then so much the better for both of us.
> I'll stand by my notion even more firmly now that the modern objection to this usage has *its roots in PCphobia. If this helps you to avoid tripping over me in the dark, then so much the better for both of us.
there's some illogic inherent in these statements (standing... tripping), which helps me to stand by my notion that this usage just *sounds wrong (see numerous other threads about usage choice) -- and I'm too much of an OP to change (each of us, of course, is left to his own devices in making this choice).
there's some illogic inherent in these statements (standing... tripping)...
I gots big feet, tsuwm. See my picture in AWADabilia.
Many a fruitless hour has been spent in Editorial meetings and by reporters in the newsroom over the singular use of their rather than having to write he/she.
It was complicated by the fact that the slash was a command to the computer on the ATEX system we used in the 1970s.
So basically we threw up our hands and used their as a singular when the sentence could not be constructed to avoid it.
In Bingley's super link, the sentence about theft could be easily reconstructed to avoid using "their" by eliminating the "taken upon" phrase.
Based on the OE 3rd pers pl pronouns hie, heome and heore (or something like that, the hs were replaced by ths due to Danish influence) I took to using he, him and her for the subjective, objective and possessive, respectively, in non sex specific contexts. I even wrote a tech report for a college tech writing class using that convention. I don't think the prof noticed.
Several issues have been raised as posts have flowed so quickly on many interesting topics. If we are dividing the House (in spite of Lincoln), I want my votes counted.
However, first things first:
In reply to:
To Geoff- doesn't B96 call herself a goddess?"
Of course she does for the very simple reason that she is one, and would NEVER be confused for a mere god. You may have that upon the authority of one who is pleased to acknowledge that he is indeed a votary of our Cara Dea,aka known, to some mortals, as B96. Scribbler is further pleased to acknowledge, as did Dr. Bill earlier,that, in the Highpriestesshood of all believers, he is one who holds that Ann of Hampshire is the true and rightful holder of that sacred office.
My next agenda item is one about which I have, for a very long time,held VERY strong feelings. "You" (sing) and "You" (pl) is established usage but occasionally requires additional explanation to clarify meaning. The use of, e.g. "their, them" with singular antecedents AND singular verbs is anathema to me, seems counter-intuitive, and confuses rather than clarifies meaning. Query? Just what IS the basic purpose of speech if not to convey meaning? I am (on THIS issue) strongly in the camp with Mighty TSUWM, Lawyer Sparteye (enlightened view!) and Lord Baltimore (BYB) and others of the same view. As I look around, it is a PRETTY strong camp. A quick footnote is necessary: Bingley, my dear chap, thank you for that link. I must own that there is no more ardent admirer of our Jane than I, but, BUT --if she had been born in a later century and had had the educational advanatages of, say, a D.L. Sayers she would, without doubt, CLEARLY WITHOUT ANY DOUBT,have been in TSUWM's camp.
Must dash for now -- out of town for a few days -- PLEASE SAVE MY PLACE !!! Further thoughts on "sex" and "gender" and "man, woman" and "lady, gentleman" to follow. Keep the thread! Scribbler
Our dear Scribbler complains: The use of, e.g. "their, them" with singular antecedents AND singular verbs...confuses rather than clarifies meaning.
If anyone wants to come, they IS welcome?????
I think not.
As far as confusing goes, we have lived for a mighty long time with the same first person plural pronoun covering the inclusion and exclusion of the listener and seem to have managed. If you don't think that's confusing you haven't been listening.
Sparteye? Any other lawyers? Know of any cases where this has caused legal problems? Probably any lawyer writing up anything where this could be a problem has taken care to see that the document was worded in such a way as to make the meaning clear, but it is a constant problem in casual speech.
Challenge. Find me a sentence in which the use of the 3rd pers pl pron with a singular antecedent causes confusion and give me the full context.
>If anyone wants to come, they IS welcome????? I think not.
no, of course not. editing to obviate the issue you'd get:
everyone who wants to come is welcome
or
all who want to come are welcome
what's confusing, to someone trying to logically parse the language, is why anyone would want to write:
if anyone wants to come, they are welcome. [antecedants be damned!]
and, to think that we are excluding someone by saying "if anyone wants to come, he is welcome" makes the whole thing illogical.
If anyone wants to come, she is welcome?
If anyone wants to come, she is welcome?
Y'all come!
Thanks, Bingley. Until someone invents or resurrects a pronoun to do the job, what was good enough for the Bard will do for me! I did think it wonderfully apt that one of the two examples of Will using this contentious construction was taken from Much Ado About Nothing.
Y'all come!
That sounds as if Jackie or AnnaStrophic's throwing an orgy. Of course, if it were a boat builder in Charleston, it would be "Yawl come, schooner or later!"
Of course, if it were a boat builder in Charleston, it would be "Yawl come, schooner or later!"Yeah, but AnnaS is in Atlanta, not Atlantis!
what's confusing, to someone trying to logically parse the language, is why anyone would want to write:
if anyone wants to come, they are welcome.Because it is correct English, and often simpler than the constructions used to avoid the issue (particularly in long descriptive text on user interfaces where the repetitive use of the original noun is a little wearing). It sounds perfectly normal to my ears. But that is why I asked the question in the first place, because I was aware some people disliked the usage, and thought this was a good place to ask. Thanks for the feedback. I may modify my behaviour slightly
Rod
what's confusing, to someone trying to logically parse the language, is why anyone would want to write:
if anyone wants to come, they are welcome.Because it is correct English, and often simpler than the constructions used to avoid the issue (particularly in long descriptive text on user interfaces where the repetitive use of the original noun is a little wearing). It sounds perfectly normal to my ears. But that is why I asked the question in the first place, because I was aware some people disliked the usage, and thought this was a good place to ask. Thanks for the feedback. I may modify my behaviour slightly
Rod
>Because it is correct English
and
>Because it is correct English
but see, that's exactly my problem: no matter how many times you repeat that, you're going up against many many more reps of "it's not correct English" that were tattooed (i.e., beat) into my head fortysome years ago. perforce, it will never sound right to me.
All who want to come are welcome.
but, how do y'all pronounce aunt out there in Lake Wobegon?
::glaring into monitor:: are you talking to me?! my aunt is NOT an insect.
Just answer the question.
Is it ahnt or awnt?
my aunt is NOT an insect.I've always said aunt like the insect (just for the record).
Aunt/ant is probably the first pair of homophones that a kid learns - most kids have aunts, and they see ants outdoors, and the two meanings are very different. Makes for early development of punning skills!
In reply to:
Aunt/ant is probably the first pair of homophones that a kid learns - most kids have aunts, and they see ants outdoors, and the two meanings are very different. Makes for early development of punning skills!
The Andy Griffith Show character of Aunt Bea always amused me, although the ant bee aspect was disguised by the North Carolinian pronunciation, "Aint Bee."
Aunt/ant
My dictionary gives choice, but I have always heard "änt" like "are,bar, car, father, part"
and suspect my aunts would have made me regret calling them insects. "ant, cant, pant, rant"
Female--it's *everywhere*!
People will insist that you refer to their dogs as he or she, but will refer to humans as male or female!
Astounding.
Re: actor/actress: "I work with an actor. She is in rehearsal this week." is becoming more common, but is still startling for some people.
In reply to:
I may modify my behaviour slightly
I would hate to think that AWAD was being used as a vehicle for Behavior [sic] Modification!
I would hate to think that AWAD was being used as a vehicle for Behavior [sic] Modification!
Never fear, BobY.
Impossible task (other than for momentary blips) with this group of Ayleurs!
