Conference turris::womannotes-v3

Hey Maggie, there _was_ no language topic here!

re: Phil and ladies and women

I _love_ being called a woman. It's so strong and adult. I don't identify with
being a lady; a swear a fair amount and don't shave my legs.

I have problems using the word 'women' for women too. I freaks me out that I've
someone gotten that way, and I wonder why it is.
	Mez

    Mez. I think that saying women to group freaks you out like it does me,
    because we just have it ingrained into our speech patterns after so
    many years. No I'm not saying your old.:-). It just sounds strange to
    say "Hello women" or "woman" out loud. I think nothing of saying "Hi
    men" or "hey man". 
    
    Also, I know women who can swear better then me and I am one of the
    foulest mouthed people I know in certain company, and they, too, don't
    shave their legs. They are not only real women and real people, but are
    also completely and very much ladies when they want to be and I love
    them all.
    
    Phil

	For some reason, the word "woman" connotes sexuality to me.  Much
	more so than lady.  I too would be uncomfortable addressing a 
	group with,  "good morning, women".  However, when I'm referring
	to an adult female person I'm very careful about saying "woman"
	rather than "girl".  Hmmm.


	Sue

>It just sounds strange to
>    say "Hello women" or "woman" out loud. I think nothing of saying "Hi
>    men" or "hey man". 
 
Hmmm, I use "women" in the plural and in the second person all the time.
I talk about "women-friends", I say things like "Good morning, women",
and I also say "Hey, woman" all the time in banter with my woman-friends.
In fact, it became such a habit that I frequently referred to my "Little
Sister" as "Hey, woman!", and, at a very immature [physically and emotionally]
12, she was pretty far from being a woman.  She would get giggly and
embarassed when I did that, but I knew she also liked it.

Anyway, I have no problem with being addressed as "Lady", in the plural
or singular. I have a *big* problem with "a Lady" as in "She is[n't] a Lady",
but "Hey Lady" doesn't bug me at all.  (Perhaps this is because my pseudonym
thoughout college was Lady Luck, so *everyone* called me Lady?  :-)

D!

'hey!, Lady' is the expression with social/sexual overtones for me -- probably
because the overwhelming majority of times I've heard it addressed to me it was
coming from men friends in college.  It felt good.

even then, though, I didn't find much to recommend it in situations that weren't
purely social in nature.

'good morning, ladies,' while not offensive, sends chills up my spine.  During
my formative years this phrase was most often uttered by a nun about to subject
a group of us to some truly Byzantine form of torture, 8-}.  [I guess we can't
all be lucky...]

I still favour a simple 'good morning' or 'hello' which wears well no matter
the gender, race or age of those being addressed.

  Ann

    I happen to prefer "lady" rather than "woman". Yes, I am a woman, but
    when someone else is refering to me, I prefer "lady". When I hear
    anyone say "Hey! Woman!", my skin crawls! To me it's more like a threat
    whereas "Hey! Lady!" is more like a friendly greeting.
    
    The term woman, to me is some one who you don't dare wrestle with!
    Don't get in her way! She's tough! That's not me. I can be tough when I
    need to be, but basically I'm more apt to keep peace than to cause
    trouble.
    
    Just MHO
    Norma

    < When I hear
    < anyone say "Hey! Woman!", my skin crawls! To me it's more like a threat
    < whereas "Hey! Lady!" is more like a friendly greeting.
    
    So... somehow the system manages to corrupt the "good" words as well as
    give its own connotations to "girl" and "lady!"

    A while ago I was in Jordan Marsh looking for a pair of slacks. I
    walked around the ladies department and couldn't find anything in
    my size (I'm fat). Finally I asked a saleswoman where I could find
    a pair of slacks. She said,"This is the *ladies* department. You
    have to go to the *WOMEN'S* department. 
    
    So I guess ladies are skinny and women are fat ? It was news to
    me.
    
    Dee
       

    Same with Juniors (which is the "younger" "more cool" and
    narrower-hipped version of Ladies) and Womens.  I used to have to shop
    in the "womens" department when I was a teen......
    
    -Jody
    
    p.s.  And in addition to Ladies and Womens, they now have Petite and
    Plus, just in case you're not sure where to go.
    

    
    Junior versus Misses, I didn't really know when I should start
    buying clothes from the Misses dept. (I grew up somewhere else).
    I didn't know the fit is actually different. I guess, I started
    buying ladies clothes once I started working, they don't make
    junior suits!! So, when I need work clothes I buy ladies' and
    when  need cheap causal fun clothes I buy junior! 
    
    You know, once I started buying ladies clothes, I started to
    feel "old"! It's like I have crossed a time line. I hate these
    labels...
    
    Eva.

I'm going to be in a friend's wedding later this year and yesterday I
went to the bridal department (I'd rather get my toenails clipped in 
a Cuisinart than be the recipient of all the oozing nicie-niceness of
a bridal department -- ISH!) to look at a dress my friend wants me to 
wear.  In ordering my size, I immediately glanced down to the Women's 
sizes and was confused what 22W, 24W meant.  I asked the saleswoman.
She said, "No, Women's sizes are for large ladies.  You're not large,
you need the Junior/Misses sizes."  What am I, 12????  I'm a woman!

Reminds me of the great chapter in "Sisterhood is Powerful" where a
Bridal UN-Fair is organized.

Carla

    I rarely go into department stores to buy clothes anymore.
    I know of several non-dept. stores that sell clothes that are cut to fit
    me, I visit these when I want "nice" clothes,
    but most of the time I buy generic cotton pants and tops that are
    3 sizes too big anyway so I guess it doesn't really matter what dept
    I go to.....
    And I enjoy browsing through various used clothing stores, looking for
    just the right thing to make me look odd.......
    
    If I am in a dept store, I usually don't pay attention to what the
    specific dept is called, I just look for the clothes I like.  
    Ladies, misses, juniors, plus, petite, tall, skinny, out-of-proportion,
    hips-too-big, arms-too-short, chest-too-flat......barf.....who cares.
    
    Lisa

    
    
    	Language is a virus!  
    
    	I enjoy the sounds and meanings of the spoken word;  
    	each community generates their own unique phrases.  I'm 
    	amazed by the subtle phrasing and odd meaning of a word's 
    	meaning which has been previously unknown to me.  But, 
    	you know that; "to many mnmeonics spoil the message"!!  
    	When you're wrapped up in a descrete culture you might tend 
    	to mimic the environment, for your best advantage.  This 
    	is all and dandy but, when normalized communications fail 
    	can you still be human?  
    
    	I try to look past the 'IF then else' routine and respect the 
    	message.  
    
    	Though, I'm quite curious about the word 'guy'.  I've observed 
    	a group of women greeting each other with 'Hi guys...'; when 
    	only women are present.  I'll admit that this is a very close 
    	nit group, but I'm curious about the greeting.   
    
    							Kelly
    
    	

    What is the purpose of the term SO? Is husband,wife, lover, boyfriend,
    girlfriend out of style? I don't like it. Too nondescript. Some folks
    take it to mean spouse while others take it to mean the person with
    whom you've dated more than twice.
    
    By the way, I don't call men boys or women girls but I have used the
    words "boyfriend" and "girlfriend". 
    
    Kate

    "SO" is useful when you don't particularly care to describe
    your relationship in detail. "This is the woman (separated from
    her soon-to-be-ex-husband) with whom I'm living" is rough on
    one's elderly relatives :-)
    
    

It's also useful when you don't want to be gender-specific: talking to a group,
or talking to a person who may be het, gay, or bi.
	Mez

    
    To me, "SO" sounds kind of shady. Makes me feel like 
    spouse/wife/husband is legit (they have a name for it) and "SO"
    is il-legit (you can't find the word for it or you don't want people
    to know about it). What can people just say girlfriend or boyfriend?
    If people are interested in one's private life, they'll probably ask.
    Using "SO", I think, sounds like one is admitting something is going
    on...but feels uncomfortable/shameful about it!
    
    Eva.

I use SO because there is no other good word.  He is not my boyfriend and she
is not my girlfriend, because I wouldn't date children.  I have no spouse.
"Lover" doesn't seen appropriate in a casual or work environment.  "Live-in"
sounds even more remote/cold than SO.  Also, in a work or other non-intimate
group, I see no reason why they should know the sex of my lover.  

SO isn't nearly as technodweebish as POSSLQ (person of the opposite sex 
sharing living quarters) or MOTAS (member of the appropriate sex.)  And I
*have* heard people refer to "My motas..."

There is just no good word that includes all the different varieties of
relationships - so you either use SO, you use a word that has all sorts of
connotations that don't apply, or you end up with a long, awward phrase
like "the man I have been dating for two years and living with for one year
who is married but legally seperated, and with whom I have minimal commitment."
SO is a lot shorter. :-)

'sides, I like to leave 'em wondering, especially if it is none of their
business.

D!

I don't care one way or another about the names but how about the word
   "companion" ?

That's a riot (.22; Mark?). I'm reading a Marion Zimmer Bradley SF novel, "The
Ruins of Isis". Isis is a planet politically and socially controlled by women.
Older women in positions of authority are allowed to have a companion. A
companion is a male whom they own, and whose responsibility is to please.
Closest parallel to our society seems to be "a kept woman". 

But I bet most people wouldn't think of that right off.
	Mez

where I come from a companion is a person one feeds, clothes, houses and pays
a fairly miniscule amount so that one is not alone and/or helpless.

a friend-for-hire that is more than a servant but _never_ an equal

  Ann

The word companion to me simply means significant other, bossom friend
to quote Anne Shirley of Avonlea, someone with whom you share the best 
half of a split popsicle, best friend.

Re .23 I hope what you meant by "riot" was that it was a funny coincidence 
       that I used the word companion, given your current reading.  I assure
       you it is purely coincidental.

Re .24 it is not at all what I meant.  (I just looked it up in the dictionary
       and it does indeed have as its -second- definition "A person 
       employed to live or travel with another."  I did not know this meaning
       prior to just now, and I sincerely hope that you didn't think it
       was what I meant.)

       P.S. the -first- definition is "a comrade; associate"

I get warm feelings for the word companion but there goes yet another word 
I must use with care.

Mark Metcalfe

Sigh.

Why is it that so many, many perfectly good *general* words, develop very
specific meanings and connotations over the years, such that there is a
lack of such general words?  Why does every word have hidden meaning?  Why
is the dictionary so useless in learning to use a language?

I'm very curious about this. What is it about society and language that makes
people redefine words rather than come up with new words?  (When was the last
time you have heard intimate conversation being refered to as "intercourse"?
Or a bundle of firewood being referred to as a "faggot"?)

D!

My father used the word "intercourse" recently in a conversation to
refer to the exchange of [my] "companionship" and sad to say that I
remember it *because* the flag goes off in one's head to think of the
sex act.  Both of my parents are BIG language freaks and I am but a pale
image of their models.

Right on, D!  

    This discussion of the meanings of the word 'intercourse' reminds me of
    one of the questions that used to be asked of prospective Turtles.  But
    that's another story.
    
    -- Mike

>    This discussion of the meanings of the word 'intercourse' reminds me of
>    one of the questions that used to be asked of prospective Turtles.  But
>    that's another story.

Oh, Mike, are you a Turtle? 

:-)

I wonder if those Turtles are related to the Turtles of the teenage mutant
ninja variety.

D!

    D!,
    
    You bet your sweet--well, you know how it goes.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

    
    
    I've found myself using the word partner more than SO lately, but
    sometimes I say SO.  I'm going to a highschool reunion tonight,
    and I wonder which word I'll use -- if I really panic, it'll be
    "roommate" :-)
    
    Seriously though, I like it when non-gay friends use gender-neutral
    language, too.  I think it's courageous of them to risk being thought
    gay when they're not, but as Mark points out, a word isn't really 
    "neutral" unless everyone (gay or not) uses it to mean the same thing.  
    
    Justine
                                                                         

    Well, instead of SO, how about Main Squeeze.....Lust
    Muffin.....Sweetie...
    
    I like the vagueness implied by SO.  But it, too, has a certain
    definition in my head - (varying levels of commitment include dating,
    SO-ness, married, etc....)
    
    -Jody
    

    .16> "SO" seems so clinical and technodweebish to me.
    
    far be it for us to seem clinical or technically oriented!
    
    (he grins, as he doffs his bunnysuit after leaving the cleanroom)
    

An aside but still on the language thing.

Ever notice how many people pronounce the T in "often."  It grates on me.
Does one sofTen butter?

I met with an Englishman yesterday and he said "ofTen".  I retorted with a
line from "My Fair Lady" where Henry Higgins says, "Why can't the English
learn to speak?"  To which he responded in kind from the same character
inthe same drama, "in America, they haven't used it for years."

Touche.


P.S. It's not the cough that carries you off; it's the coffin they carry you
off in.  :-)

Re: .37  Yes, Mike.  Acceptable.  So is the word "reproceduralizable."
Even the American dictionaries show "often" having the first two 
pronunciations without the 't' and the third with it.

Other bothersome misuses:

I am enthused about this (now colloquial; enthusiastic is "correcter")
I am transitioning.
HaRASS (now more accepted than HARass)

 --- But if finicky diction is bothersome, then balance is acheived.  :-)

    
    I'm interested in the word "cuckold," which means a husband whose wife
    has been unfaithful to him.
    
    Is there a parallel word for a wife whose husband has been unfaithful 
    to her? Or is she still just a wife? If that is the case, can we infer
    that society has deemed the betrayed husband more worthy of naming than 
    the betrayed wife? 
    
    Dorian

    Dorian, I don't think that there is a parallel word. I always assumed
    that it was because there was something basically unmanly about a
    husband whose wife had affairs, implying that he couldn't do the job. I
    also tended to read into it a certain amount of sympathy, i.e. that he
    was duped by his wife, and also the VERY LAST to know, as well as some
    scorn. Last connotation I always got was that the wife wasn't discrete,
    or did this with some regularity.
    
    Perhaps the reason why there is no parallel is so as not to call
    attention to a possible high rate of infidelity among men, to the point
    of maybe over 50% of all wives falling into a parallel category.

    Dorian,
    
    I don't think that there is a common word for a wife whose husband
    has been unfaithful on her. Further there are other expressions 
    that mean the same as 'cuckold' to 'wear horns' is one example
    and in some European countries (Italy) it is an insult to point
    a closed fist at a man with the forfinger and little finger extended.
    This means you are saying that he 'wears horns' i.e. his wife
    is unfaithful.
    
    In the recent past, a straying husband was something that many
    women were culturally brought up to expect and to deal with - that
    was the 'way men were'. (The question is tho, just who were they
    straying *with*). Similarly there are largely lauditory words
    for a man who has multiple sexual partners (stud) while the only ones
    for women are perjoritives (slut).
    
    Since it takes time for words to get into the language the words we
    have today are a reflection of the moral and mores of the  past
    and we need to create words that reflect the present.
    
    Bonnie

I have looked into two Thesauruses and two dictionaries without success.

You'd think that 50% (if the number is correct) of married (and cheated) women
would be enough for a name of their own.  Anyone care to lead society
and coin a name for it?

P.S.  My small dict. says the origin like this:  

      [< OFr. cucu, cuckoo.]

       I guess that means the married cheated man is related to the cuckoo???

P.P.S.  I thought Cad and Slut were more correlary.  I also thought Stud
referred to a single male (therefore not capable of "cheating" on a wife).
Alas, you are correct in that I can think of more female-derogatory names
for unfaithfulness than I can male-deragatory names.

    Cad and Slut are quite different. A cad is rude (often in public),
    while  a  slut's  manners may be perfect. A slut has more partners
    than the person using the word thinks proper.

--David

    "cuckoo" because that bird is reputed to leave its eggs in other birds'
    nests to be hatched.

    re .44 odd, it isn't the *eggs* that are being substituted when we 
    discuss human 'cuckolds' ;-)

    
    and what does it tell us when there is a word for something 'male'
    and not a word for something 'female'
    

Re: 44 & 45  Thanks for the cuckoo lesson; I had forgotten about that!

Re: .46 and .47 The gauntlet is down and anticipation builds as the
readership awaits the ensuing exchange of sex-biased opinions...  :-)
(done in good-natured fun).

    In re eggs and cuckoos..
    
    Until the 19th century it was not known that women had eggs. It
    was widely believed that the man 'planted' his seed in her,
    much as a farmer plants seeds in his field. The woman was regarded
    only as a vessel to nuture the man's child. (Any resemblance to
    the mother came from the 'prenatal influence').
    
    So the cuckoo image is indeed an apt one for the origins of cuckold,
    given the understanding of pregnancy at that time.
    
    Bonnie

And I thought it was "financier"...

    
    Maybe there's no social stigma attached to being engaged to be married,
    but there is to having been married and divorced?

Re: .59 which Re: .58

Lighten up!  It was a joke that evidently eluded some people.  Sheesh!
You guys are no pun.

Mark

P.S. I failed french in 7th grade, so I took spanish in 8th grade.  8^)

It's interesting to note what gets into a dictionary and what doesn't. For 
example, Webster's Third International contains the term "penis envy," but 
does not contain the term "male ego," which some might argue is at least as 
real a phenomenon. (Though I suppose the latter was only discovered since 
the dictionary was published in 1971. Perhaps a future edition will be more 
enlightening.)

The "reality" of penis envy is underscored by the definition itself:

"Penis Envy: the unverbalized longing of a girl or woman to be a boy or 
man."

Nary a qualification in sight, such as, for example, "the hypothetical 
unverbalized longing..."; nary a nod to the context of Freudian psychology 
in which such longing is hypothesized. One comes away with the distinct 
impression that it is a Universally Acknowledged Fact that all girls 
silently long to be boys, all women to be men.

It's also interesting to note the amount of space allotted to definitions 
of different words in dictionaries. For example -- again in Webster's Third 
Unabridged -- if one looks up the word "penis," one finds 13 lines of 
interesting discussion of this important organ. But if one looks up the 
word "clitoris," one finds



2 lines

Dorian

Re: .65

>"Penis Envy: the unverbalized longing of a girl or woman to be a boy or 
>man."

>a Universally Acknowledged Fact that all girls 
>silently long to be boys, all women to be men.

"a" girl is singular; it does not apply or imply all girls or women; only those
who have "the unverbalized longing to be a boy or man."



Disclaimer:
I am making no assertion one way or other) as to the validity of your 
claim against the term itself.

Mark

P.S.  My dictionary gives a one liner "the male organ for copulation 
and urination." and three lines "A small erectile organ at the upper end
of the vulva, homologous with the penis."  (Does this mean the AHD values
the clitoris three times as much?)

Maybe Webster was obsessed but I think it more likely that the amount of space
was not devoted in the dictionary you cite because of someone's supposed 
importance value on anatomical parts.

    Re: -.1
    
    Are you insinuating that a penis and a clitoris are equivalent?   By
    what means do you reach that conclusion?
    
    I don't think the two are at all equal by any stretch of the imagination,
    To get a more accurate representation you would have to add in the
    definition for vagina and urethra.  I did a quick look and got a total of 
    3 lines for the definition of penis; 2 lines for the definition of
    clitoris, and vagina with 3 lines.
    
    Jim

re: .67

I *am* saying that I do not think the dictionary is making a value judgment
in either case and that it is ludicrous to point at the amount of space
each definition generates to connote value.  Sheesh!  How on earth would
you think I was "insinuating that a penis and a clitoris are equivalent?"

MM

>It's interesting to note what gets into a dictionary and what doesn't. For 
>example, Webster's Third International contains the term "penis envy," but 
>does not contain the term "male ego," which some might argue is at least as 
>real a phenomenon.

    Dictionaries are not there to define what is a real phenomenon and
    what is not.  I personally don't think the phrase "male ego" needs
    a separate definition, as it is basically the sum of it's parts
    (and they're both there, 6 lines + 5 lines in my American Heritage
    office edition.)  The definition of "penis envy" isn't quite what
    you'd think knowing just the two component words (so what is it
    envying, anyway??), so it merits one.

    I'm less than thrilled with the definition they gave it, but I think 
    defining it as a "hypothetical ... longing" would have applied an equally
    impermissible value judgement.  I'd prefer a replacement of "the" with
    "an", personally.  Mention of Freud would have been nice in a way, but
    that's the role of an encyclopedia, *not* a dictionary.  Dictionaries
    are there to define words that have already made it into the common
    lexicon, and to define them *as they are commonly used*.  Origin - as
    far as which philosophy spawned the word - is therefore largely irrelevant.
    The definition of "penis envy" using the definite article might even
    be permissible under that purpose - that *is* how the term is generally
    used and accepted.  Much as we may bemoan it, it is a basically 
    patriarchal society out there; the dictionary only reflects that.  And
    changing a society's reference materials is not going to change the
    society itself, only confuse those who have to look these things up.

    I'd be leery of reading stuff into dictionary definitions that isn't
    explicitly stated, though.  For example, what do you get out of the
    AH office edition's #1 definition for male?:

	Of, pertaining to, or designating the sex that produces spermatozoa
	for fertilizing ova.

    Interesting that the dictionary cites the clitoris as homologous to the
    penis, but not vice versa.
    
    Then again, my Webster's only defines the penis as an "organ of
    copulation".  The compilers somehow forgot about its urinary function.
    
    Nancy
    

Re:  .71

With a little imagination, perhaps compilers could come up with a few more
possible uses?

The male is the standard by which we measure?  I hope not, what being so 
closely tied to male ego and all that (tongue firmly in cheek).

When do they come out with new dictionaries.  I read in one that they
do it every ten years (or was it five?).  The trick will be to get on the
panel of compilers and rectify this organizational disfunction.
                       ^^^^         ^^^^^             ^^^^^^^^
Maybe this would be more appropriately filed under "Sexism is alive and well
in..." Webster's dictionary.

Just punning around, people.

Mark

I just find it interesting that a major dictionary would find almost nothing 
to say about this extraordinary organ that is there in women solely for
women's sexual pleasure, except that it is "homologous with the penis"
(meaning same in position or structure or function), but is more than 
eloquent about its homologue. (Re .71 - why not vice versa indeed!) But in
a society that has long attached little significance to women's sexual
pleasure, that's not surprising expected I guess. Some people have never
heard of a clitoris. That in itself says a lot. 

re .70 - Of course dictionaries reflect a patriarchal society. That's just
my point! I was merely providing an illustration (some people have never
heard of a patriarchy...) 

This *is* the language string, isn't it?

Dorian
      

    Re: Mark, a few back
    
    Notes collosion: I was responding to Dorian's note, not yours.
    
    The definition my dictionary has for clitoris seems to be exactly what
    I would have expected, "a small, sensitive, erectile organ at the upper
    end of the vulva; it corresponds to the penis of the male."  If I
    were a dictionary writer, I probably would have done almost exactly the
    same thing.  My definition for penis says only that it is used for
    sexual intercourse and is used for urination.  I would have included
    its anatomical position as well, but other than that  I would have done
    it roughly the same.
    
    There is an interesting viewpoint in that it assumes that everyone
    knows where the penis is located but not necessarily the clitoris.  My
    gut feeling is that this is actually fairly true; I've never met a
    person who didn't know where the penis is but I have met lots of people
    (women included) and didn't know how to find the clitoris.

    > 	Given: 1 dictionary, 1 edition, 1 word.
    
    Mike, you forgot:
    
    1 person's lifetime of learning to evaluate, including the fact that 
    99% of the time the evidence comes up reflecting some hint of patriarchy.
    
    Do you routinely discount other people's experience, as above?
    
    [disclaimer: this is only a rhetorical question.  attempting 
    to answer it will not result in your further enlightenment.
    We both already know the answer.]
    
    DougO

From the Wall Street Journal (thanx to my Pop):

Appleworks Software draws boos from the Coalition of Labor Union Women for its
word-processing synonyms for "woman," such as "female partner ... wife ...
Mrs.," while those for "man" include "member of the human race, human ...
creature, individual, life, mortal, ... person, soul, .. humankind, mortality."

	Mez

re: Note 189.47                 
    
>    yeah.  I'm starting to get uncomfortable with all this focus on chests. 
>    It's strange how so much can focus on so few ounces of flesh.....

That reminded me of a concept I've been mulling around since about Easter. The
concept of 'balls', 'sack', 'cahones' [sp?]. How did a small, delicate,
ill-protected organ come [as it were] to mean strength and daring?
	Mez

>That reminded me of a concept I've been mulling around since about Easter. The
>concept of 'balls', 'sack', 'cahones' [sp?]. How did a small, delicate,
>ill-protected organ come [as it were] to mean strength and daring?

Mez,

My guess is that it is not so much the organ itself, but the gender that has
it.

-Hamp

    	RE: .78  Mez
    
    	> How did a small, delicate, ill-protected organ come [as it were] 
    	> to mean strength and daring?
    
    	Agree with .79 - it's not the organ, but the fact that men are
    	the ones who have them.
    
    	A "lack of balls" equates to "lack of courage, etc." which equates
    	to "being a female instead of a male" (which is seen as an inferior
    	state.)
    

    ha-ha, re .78, .79. .80, exactly, because men have'm.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    Balls:
    
    Accolades hung on critically acclaimed men's writing. "Work by a male
    writer is often spoken of by critics admiring it as having 'balls';
    ever hear anyone speak admiringly of work by a woman as having 'tits'?"
    
    Margaret Atwood, 1982, quoted in A Feminist Dictionary.

    I've heard the expression, "She's got real ovaries," but I'm afraid
    it's still "jocular" rather than genuine slang. 
    
    Ray

re: .82:

    A former (male) boss of mine (not at DEC) once told me I had balls 
    after I asked for a raise.  He then followed up with "...for a woman".

    I was stunned and perturbed by this, but if he'd reacted instead 
    by telling me I had tits, my reaction would have been far less 
    calm and socially acceptable than simply being stunned and perturbed.

	Sharon

    I'm inclined to think that the expression has more to do with the
    emotional make-up of an individual endowed with large amounts of
    the hormones produced by the organ than the relative fragility of
    the organ itself.  
    
    Alison

    
    On a cross-country ski trip last year, the male coleader told me
    I had "brass ovaries", presumably for the daring maneuvers I was
    making (at least he thought).  I wasn't exactly sure of the origin
    of the expression, but knew it was a compliment and liked it.
    

    I recall hanging out with some folks who used to use an
    expression I thought was pretty decent in the unisex 
    category.  I refer, of course, to "'nads".  As in:
    
    	"I can't believe (s)he had the 'nads to do that!"
    
    Steve

    I like the unisex solution, but 'nads just sounds too narly for me. 
    There is definitely something tough (in my mind) about the sound of the
    word "balls".  "Tits" sounds equally as hard to my ears, so I have used
    that version when speaking about a woman.  Of course, I think it
    sounded tough, but men I've said it to haven't gotten the
    analogy right off the bat and something is definitely lost in
    translation.  I suspect that since it's not a widely-used term, that
    "tits" still rings of something sexual in others' ears and seems to
    embarass some.  "Balls" has lost that quality in the context of "he 
    has plenty of...".
    
    I'll just keep saying it until it becomes acceptable.  People have 
    referred to me as having balls, but I didn't like that since I don't 
    have any.  And I don't have the envy either. ;-)
    
    Nancy

    re: .89 and others -
    
    But why use "tits" when the analogous terms is "ovaries"?????????

    possibly because both 'tits' and 'balls' are external?
    
    bj

    err, Steve, want another exception, in 3 syllables?  Having spent time
    in the southwest, one hears 'cojones' (ko-HO-nes) used the same way the
    Anglo culture uses 'balls'.  Means the same.
    
    DougO

    Another south-western term, particularly in hispanic communities, is
    "huevos."

    I'd heard the phrase "dem's da berries" but never thought it refered to
    balls. learn sumthin every day.

    In the SW we also have chichi which I think means tits.

    My mental image of a man I think is being childish always revolves
    around the phrase "no one wanted to play by his rules so he took his
    balls and went home". liesl

    I've been using "'nads" for a while now, every since I saw it used
    in a story. It appealed to me because it was unisex and it follows
    Mallet's Law of Monosyllables. :-)
    
    --- jerry

	The Vanderbilt University band (1978 - 1982) was led by a fine 
gentleman by the name of L. Howard Nicar, a.k.a. "Zeke".

	The band sponsored a number of IM sports teams, including a football
team that seldom scored and never won, but had a hell of a time doing it.
One WAG suggested we name the team "Nicar's Awesome Demolition Squad" or
NADS for short.  That way, our cheer could be...

	GO NADS! GO NADS! GO NADS!...

	This is probabaly the only true Shaggy Dog story I know...


						--D

    Don't know whether its Oz or the fact that people have used it on me
    but...
    
                              "Kutzpah" (sp)
    
    to me means balls.  
    
    ...dale

<         <<< Note 57.97 by TINCUP::KOLBE "The dilettante debutante" >>>
<
<    In the SW we also have chichi which I think means tits.

Uh, Liesl, any relation to the restaurant?  :-}

        Carol

    Re .103
    
    Y'mean chichi's is a milk bar?
    
       :^)    :^)
    
           
          Marg

    re:.101
    
    As for the definition of "chutzpah"...
    
    (mild scatological humor follows a form feed)
    
    Two folks were discussing the definition of "chutzpah". The first
    said, "Chutzpah is when you walk up to someone's front porch, pull
    down your pants and take a crap."
    
    The second disagreed, saying, "No, taking a crap on someone's front
    porch isn't chutzpah. After you do that, and then ring the doorbell
    and ask the person for toilet paper, *that's* chutzpah!"
    
    --- jerry

    "Crusader" - word you use when you want to discredit a political stance 
    (such as feminism) by implying that it smacks of religious fanaticism, such 
    as "She's a crusader for women's rights" or "She's a crusader against
    pornography."
    
    D.

RE: .101 and .105 Chutzpah is one of those wonderful Yiddish words that
	can only be defined by example. The standard one for chutzpah I
	heard growing up was:

	A man kills both his parents and pleads for mercy because he is
	an orphan.

			Alfred

    I went home last night thinking about the Brass B*lls debate, and
    decided to come up with an appropriate subsitute (since I use the
    expression fairly frequently)...
    
    		Tada...............
    
    Brass Ov's!  Say it out loud, has kinda a nice ring to it!
    
    I am going to subsitute it for the Brass B*lls, whenever it is
    appropriate!

I was rereading one of my favorite Pat Califia stories last night in which
the Radical Lesbian Godess-worshipping Communist Seperatist Feminists take
over the country, and are running a totalitarian neo-feminist state (in which
misogyny is considered counter-revolutionary and is a capital offense)...

Anyway, one interesting thing was her use of language, and how all the idiom
of stuff was now female centered.  For instance, our heroine is a hooker,
and her clients are "janes".

I thought of this discussion when I read the line where the heroine
says something like "Hey, whatever gets your eggs off..." (obviously
as opposed to "gets your rocks off.") I think "eggs" make a good colloquial
female substitute for balls.

However it will take a while to convince people that when we say "Wow
has she got eggs!" we means she has a lot of guts and bravado.

D!

    .57, its symbolic Mez, symbolic. Why/how? Well, men are 'supposed to
    be strong and verile', right?  So a body organ only men have is
    appropriate if one accepts this concept.  Ahem, well how about he
    has phallus!! I suppose its just as appropriate, but somehow hasn't
    come (so to speak) into common use.  The whole body organ concept
    of symbolizing verility/courage etc. is an oddment of culture I think,
    which explains why there isn't a similiar body part name for women who
    are courageous. It probably reflects one more aspect of sexism. Jeff

That is one of the thinks I was mulling over Jeff; why _not_ phallus? Seems
like a tougher organ, and just as tied to maleness and reproduction (though it
is also tied to urination).
	Mez

    I was recently told, "If you had them, they'd be big ones!" I took it
    as a compliment.  :^)
    
    grins,
    Marge

    Gee, Marge, I knew there was something about you...  ;-)
    
    I, too, took it as a compliment when a male coworker once told me I
    had more b*lls than any of the men we worked with!  (After all, HE
    considered it a compliment!)
    
    Karen
    

    re boss saying you've got balls:
    
    one of the managers in my old group (at DEC) told me something [good] I
    did took real balls.  my reaction was a look of sheer horror and both
    hands to my crotch.  while the other people laughed, he did not look
    terribly comfortable.  

    
    In an article in the Boston Globe the other day on the governor of
    Louisiana vetoing an antiabortion bill, the term "simple rape" was
    used. I had never heard this term before and am curious to know when it
    came in. According to this article, it means the rape of "women who are
    mentally retarded or otherwise incapacitated so they would not know
    that a rape had occurred."
    
    Is anyone familiar with the term "simple rape"? Is the intent to
    distinguish it from something we might call "compound rape"? Would it 
    apply to, say, women who were under the influence of alcohol?
    
    To me, the term smacks heavily of trivialization of the experience of
    being raped, but I'm trying to reserve judement till I learn more about
    where it came from, & why...
    
    Dorian                             

    People who were retarded used to be called "simple".  
    
    I don't think they've just made up the phrase "simple rape".  It is
    probably an old legal term or a local term that today sounds
    insensitive.  The rape of a "simple" person...
    
    It would not apply to women who are temporarily incapacitated due to
    drugs or alcohol.
    
    I do not think it is meant to trivialize any form of rape, or to make a
    distinction between simple and complex rapes (whatever they would be).
    
    Pam

    .117
    
    I'd like it better if the first were referred to as "rape." I can't see
    that there are any degrees of rape itself. To me, "simple rape" sounds
    a lot like "mere rape."
    
    Also, this article was not using the term as .117 suggests:
    
    "...what is called 'simple'rape, women who are mentally retarded or
    otherwise incapacitated so that they would not know that a rape had
    occurred."
    
    Either someone is mistaken here, or there are attempts from at least
    two quarters to latch onto a term that I personally would like to see not 
    used at all, because of what it implies.
    
    D.

Note 316.5 RANGER::R_BROWN 

>could you please give me a translation? I am infinitely curious; it is 
>best for me to know what someone is saying when hir "talks" to me.

Urg.

Sorry, couldn't help but respond to this.  Indeed, "hir" is a wonderful
word, being an easily understandable gender-neutral pronoun. However, it
is derived from "his" and "her", and is therefore and object noun, not
a subject, and it is almost painful to see it used as a subject.  Basically
your sentance says "...what someone is saying when him or her talks to
me."  

It's true, we don't have a good *subject* gender-neutral pronoun.  I
tend to use "s/he", for lack of one.  unfortunately, this is either
pronounce "she slash he" (awkward) or "she" (which defeats the point.)
However, in written communication, it gets the idea across without
violating any grammatical principles.

(I started using "hir" a few months ago when i saw it on the net.)

D!

    re:.119
    
    Well, there's always the word derived from mashing together
    "she", "he", and "it". :-)
    
    --- jerry

    In Marge Piercy's futuristic society (from Woman on the Verge of
    Time) they use "person" for s/he and "per" for his/her.
    	Linda

    re .121 In 'The Rebel Worlds' Poul Anderson came up with the
    pronoun 'heesh'. However, it was used for a unique 'species',
    each individual comprised of members of *three* different races,
    compound entities having discreet names. (Entities were formed
    without regard to gender of individual members.) 
    
    Biased though it may be, standard 'male default' language still
    has the elegance of simplicity. Pity there's so much baggage.

    
    Since the word "she" already contains the word "he", it makes
    perfect sense just to use "she".  =8-)
    
    Carla
    

I just learned that the term "rule of thumb" came from English common law,
which stated that a man was allowed to beat his wife as long as he used
something no thicker than his thumb.  Can someone confirm this?

From now on, I am going to try *not* to use that phrase at all.  Surely
there must be a less disgusting alternative.

D!

    "Heuristic" is a good substitute

    re:.124
    
    I prefer a different definition of "rule of thumb". Take your
    right hand (I think it was the right and not the left -- it's
    been too long since I've taken physics. Curl the fingers into
    the palm and stick your thumb out. The fingers represent the
    vector of a magnetic field, and the thumb points in the direction
    of electromagnetic propagation. My prof referred to that as
    the "rule of thumb".
    
    While it may not be the original derivation of the term, it's what
    I think of when I hear the term.
    
    --- jerry

    aka the Right Hand Rule, for an inoffensive version
    
    Nancy

    No, the right hand rule is you stick your thumb, pointer, and middle
    finger out at right angles to each other (thumb up, pointer forward,
    middle finger pointing to the left), and if the magneting field is
    going in the direction of the middle finger, and you move the conductor
    in the direction of the thumb, a current is induced in the conductor in
    the direction of the pointer finger.  This is how generators work.
    
    And then there's ELI the ICE man, and all those other tricks we used to
    memorize phases, directions, inductions, capacitances, vector
    summation, etc....
    
    -Jody
    

    If I recall correctly, we called them both the RHR, depending on the
    application.  Could just be the difference in crossing West St...like
    how some folks on your side of the street described current as going in
    the opposite direction to what we in the physics dept held to be the
    "correct" direction! 
    
    Nancy ;-)

This brings back memories of college physics exams where you also had
to deal with the test being on a two dimensional surface (ie, the test
itself).  If the field goes into the page (then you point your thumb
into the page, how about through the page!) ...  I can recall looking
around at all these folks with their thumbs pointing at their tests in
odd directions and moving their thumbs up and down like Roman emporors
deciding if each question will live or die.

I'm not sure I ever got it right!!!  I preferring something I could
visualize better like quantum mechanics!

john the geek

    
    My favorite:
    	
    	"Move the meeting date back."  Meaning make it some date farther
    	into the future.
    	
    	And I always thought in time, _back_ ment the past!  Guess that
    	explains "back to the future".  The paradoxes in this silly
    	language.
    	
    

    re: .131
    
    ah, the memories, I'm laughing heartily just thinking about it.
    
    And the awful panic on someone's face as they realize their
    calculator's batteries just died, and BOTH their neighbors have nothing
    but HP calculators!  
    
    -Jody
    

    RE .133
>    calculator's batteries just died, and BOTH their neighbors have nothing
>    but HP calculators!  
    
    You mean 'cos HP calculators used Reverse Polish, rather than
    algebraic, right ? Mmmm, not a lot of people remember RPN, and even
    fewer would believe me if I said it was easier, more efficient etc..
    
    -Shantanu

    
    	RE: .134
    
    	After spending some time (recently) performing INFIX to POSTFIX
    	(and vice versa) conversions for one of my CS college classes, I 
    	have RPN imprinted on my brain permanently.  ;^)
    
    	On a test, we had to explain the origin of the term, and although
    	I forgot the mathematician's last name - I remembered the dates of
    	birth and death (and the first name.)  I got full credit for my
    	answer.  ;^)
    

    >   After spending some time (recently) performing INFIX to POSTFIX
    >	(and vice versa) conversions for one of my CS college classes, I 
    >	have RPN imprinted on my brain permanently.  ;^)
    
    After spending some time (a decade ago) doing the same, trust me; it
    isn't permanent! ;-)  I always set my window manager to bring up a
    calculator easily, because my officemates invariably keep HP
    calculators in their desks and I have to enter every problem about
    three times to get it right.
    
    DougO

    and it's pronounced   woo-ka-SHEH-vitch, for those who are interested.

    The Secretary of Vocabulary  would know, wouldn't she?  :-)
    
    -- Mike

              Outsiders - even in the inner sanctum

                          Ellen Goodman


         The Boston Globe * Thursday, September 27, 1990


    Woody Allen was once asked if his social life had changed 
since he'd become a star.  Without skipping a beat, the comedian 
answered yes: 'I strike out with a much better class of women."

    This delicious response has popped into my brain repeatedly 
over the years.  This is also what it's like being a successful' 
woman in America.  You get to be treated as the second sex by an 
ever-more-elite class of men.

    I offer this dour thought as a member of the generation of 
women which has broken through several concentric circles 
approaching the center of power.  Time and again, we have played 
the first woman and the only woman in a more rarefied strata.

    Whenever one of our number achieves a new status, others are 
convinced that at last and at least she is now immune from 
second-sexism.  Then it turns out that she is just an outsider in 
an ever-more-inner circle and a newcomer in an ever-more-inner 
sanctum.  The treatment may be more subtle, more difficult to 
assess or to admit, but it is there.

    This pattern may be easiest to see - or easiest to hear - in 
the way men and women interact, the way we talk and listen to 
each other.  What is said, what is heard.

    In my own profession, for example, when big-foot journalists 
gather for talk shows these days there is usually one pair of 
high heeels.  But it's the rare woman in that setting who hasn't 
been talked over, around or through by her male counterparts.

    In politics, where status and titles abound, it is the same.  
During the late unlamented Massachusetts primary, I watched 
former Attorney General Frank Bellotti interrupt the current 
lieutenant governor, Evelyn Murphy, repeatedly and with impunity.

    That they both lost to a more pugnacious candidate, John 
Silber, didn't change my impression.  How "naturally" this man 
worked to dominate the air around this powerful woman.

    There was another variation on this theme in the Souter 
hearings in the Senate.  One afternoon, leaders of women's rights 
organizations testified.  Near the end, waiving his chance to 
question them, Sen. Strom Thurmond set off a linguistic alarm.  
He said, "Mr. Chariman, we have a group of lovely ladies here.  
We thank you for your presence.....No questions."

    One man's chivalry is another woman's chauvinism.  One 
generation's courtesy is another generation's insult.

    But there was something both dissonant and familiar in 
watching these leaders dismissed as charming.  Some of the 
"lovely ladies" rolled their eyes.

    Even if, at 87, Thurmond could be "grandfathered" permission 
to use such phrases, what of Sen. Alan Simpson?  The usually 
witty Wyoming man lost - his humor, his cool - in this same 
scene.  He lectured this Who's Who cast of advocates on the evils 
of eye-rolling and shoulder-shrugging.

    Molly Yard of NOW took another linguistic tack: "You don't 
say to the men, 'Gentlemen, you all look lovely.'" But Simpson 
accused the women of "a tiresome arrogance" and went on to call 
them, deliberatly, "ladies.....ladies."

    With liquid civility, Thurmond had stripped these women of 
any authority except their loveliness.  With patronzing acidity, 
Simpson had put them down for being uppity.

    There are far worse scenes of sexism in the inner sanctums.  
But perhaps none happen with such frequency and subtlety as these 
sorts of verbal cultural clashes.

    Deborah Tannen, a linguistics scholar who has written about 
the way men and women talk in "You Just Don't Understand," says 
that "the way our culture talks to women and [the way it talks] 
to people of high status are at odds.  The higher a woman gets, 
the more inappropriate these words [honey, sweetie, lovely 
ladies] are." 

    The culture of chivalry talks to women as children and calls 
it polite.  The culture of equality is demeaned and insulted.  
Strom Thurmond meets Molly Yard.

    As for Simpson?  His tirade - dare I call it shrill - began 
brewing when this brigade of strong women opposed him.  Which 
leads to the other problem.

    For the most part, women still are in a double verbal bind.  
As Tannen says, "If we talk in ways that get us the floor, we 
will be seen as bitches."  If we don't, we will, like children, 
be seen and not heard.

    It's not easy to negoitate, especially as first women, as 
only women, or as female supplicants before an all-male Senate 
committee.  It's hard to change the culture as outsiders and 
newcomers to the inner sanctums - whether Senate chamber or Big 
Foot Circle, corporate board room or White House.

    We can see the top.  Some can almost touch it.  But even the 
most powerful female voices are still bouncing off the glass 
ceiling.

    RE:.141
    
    Thanks for entering that. She's really said it well, I think.
    
    It takes only a second and a word or two to turn a capable
    businesswoman into someone you don't have to listen to...worry about.
    
    Three women are talking about business in the office. Guy comes along
    and says "Hi Ladies. (that's 1) How's the Kaffee Klatsch?" (That's 2)
    
    Presto! A group of dynamic, problem-solving women are instantly
    gossiping biddies. And at no time did his hands leave his wrists.
    
    --DE
    

    Sometimes, somehow, it doesn't work....
    
    Many years ago I was in a meeting about the future wonders of
    networked computers.  (*Many* years ago. :-)  The speaker got
    carried away, and claimed that we would have so many computers
    linked together that we would be able to store infinitely large
    numbers in them.  I winced.  I spoke, reproachfully but not
    loudly, "Not `infinite'."
    
    He stared at me, then loudly announced that he would tolerate no
    more "emotional outbursts" from me.
    
    After the meeting, everyone else from the meeting gathered
    around me, sniggered, and made snide comments -- and not one
    was at my expense.  The speaker remained at DEC for, oh, another
    two or three months.
    
    						Ann B.

    Yes, amazing how a joke about how two classes of people interact
    can be turned 180 degrees and still make sense. And if Woody
    Allen striking out with 'a better class of women' seems absurd,
    doesn't 'women of high achievement still being put down by the
    men around them' seem equally absurd ? After all, one purpose of
    humor is to show the absurdity of some of our actions.

    
    	RE: .146  Dana
    
    	Agreed.  I thought the use of Woody Allen's self-deprecating
    	humor about his luck in love with women was especially effective 
    	as a way of bringing up a situation that doesn't involve love at
    	all, but the level of respect women are given no matter how high
    	the professional/political environment.
    
    	Excellent article!!
    
    	By the way, there was an incident (in the Senate, I believe) last
    	century where they took the time to offer official ridicule at the
    	idea of women owning property and/or having voting rights.  I'll
    	post it here when I get the chance.
    

    
    
    Thanks for posting that, Dorian.  Something the article refers to
    and that I thought we might talk about in the note about Souter
    was Senator Simpson's verbal assault on Molly Yard and some of the
    other women activists who testified against Souter's confirmation
    at the senate hearings.  I heard a clip from it on NPR the day after
    it happened.  Simpson told the women to stop rolling their eyes
    and to stop looking at him and his colleagues like they were
    "a bunch of boobs."  Reporters interviewed Kate Michelman (president
    of NARAL) after it happened, and she was very upset about it.
    
    I know that big, powerful men often use tactics of intimidation against
    their opponents (male and female), but I cannot imagine that Simpson
    would talk to any man wo was testifying that way -- he spoke to them
    as if they were children!  [If there's interest in discussing this
    incident further, I'll find or start a better note for us to use.]
    
    Justine

    
    	Try to imagine these same Senators addressing Jesse Jackson (and
    	other Civil Rights leaders) as "boys" during Senate hearings - 
    	and/or reprimanding Jesse about the look on his face as though he 
    	were a child.  It's the equivalent of what they did to Molly Yard 
    	etal.
    
    	If the tv cameras hadn't been present, I wouldn't have been much
    	more surprised if they'd stuck their sexual organs in these women's
    	faces, too.
    

    
    Did he call the women by their first names?  ;-)
    
    D.

    	RE: .150  edp
    
    	> And how can something that remains the same for men and women when
    	> turned 180 degrees be sexist?  Answer:  It can't.
    
    	Let's take another look at this.
    
    	Can you imagine that there might be a difference between a man being
    	excluded from dating or having sex with women (as in Woody Allen's
    	anecdote) and being excluded from the consideration given adults in
    	a Senate hearing?
    
    	Woody Allen's remark was self-deprecating humor about his ability
    	to attract members of the opposite sex - thus, the use of his phrase
    	"strike out" with women.  He wasn't talking about being excluded from
    	a women's baseball team when he said this.
    
    	Woody's remark was used as a humorous way to express the frustration
    	in an UN-humorous situation.
    
    	It was exceptionally appropriate.

    Ah, Suzanne, apples and oranges are both fruits so what is true
    for one is true for the other.
    
    						Ann B.

    
    	RE: .154  Ann B.
    
    	Well, sure, if Woody Allen can't get laid, then what right do
    	woman's movement leaders have to be treated with human decency 
    	in the Senate??
    

    	By the way, I'm still trying to find the article in my encyclopedia
    	describing an appalling episode of official ridicule of the idea of
    	women's voting and property rights - it was offered by a state senate, 
    	I believe.

    	At the time, I'm sure that most people scoffed loudly and with as
    	much venom as possible at those who recognized the appalling affair
    	as sexist, even though it's an obvious example by today's standards.
    	
    	In the future, I'm sure that the blatant sexism involved in the
    	Souter hearings will be obvious to people who read about it in the
    	context of their own standards (when our culture is a lot closer
    	to equality under the law than it is now.)

    And, dry speech gives one a powerful hunger for more
    humanity, earthiness, in one's spoken images.
    
    DougO

    
    	RE: .158  DougO
    
    	Agreed!
    
    	I would *love* to see Ellen Goodmen's earthy reaction to the
    	reception Woody Allen's "delicious response" [per E.G.'s own
    	words in .141] has received in this topic.
    
    	She would undoubtedly find another humorous way to describe it.
    

>      Note 57.156 CONLON 

>    	By the way, I'm still trying to find the article in my encyclopedia
>    	describing an appalling episode of official ridicule of the idea of
>    	women's voting and property rights ...

There is a quite a collection of this in the book, _The Slave's 
Slave, Women in Slavery_, a history of Black women in Slavery in 
the America, published around 1986 +/- 2 years. Very interesting
book, albeit grim.

    It's too bad Woody didn't tell the joke thus : "My wife just got
    a promotion. When I asked how she like the new job she said, 'Great;
    I get leered at by a better class of men.'"
    
    You see, it's the same joke, the same premise - the power of one
    category of people to put down another.

    	RE: .161  Dana

    	> It's too bad Woody didn't tell the joke thus : "My wife just got
    	> a promotion. When I asked how she like the new job she said, 'Great;
    	> I get leered at by a better class of men.'"

    	It wouldn't have had the same impact as Woody Allen's self-deprecating
    	humorous line that implies he still can't get a date, despite being
    	famous and rich, though.

    	> You see, it's the same joke, the same premise - the power of one
    	> category of people to put down another.

    	Well, actually, the joke is about wanting something - then getting
    	something really excellent (and great in itself) - but the original
    	thing is still out of reach (although it is out of reach in far
    	better surroundings now.)

    	Woody's remark evokes this self-deprecating image of a little guy
    	who is wildly successful and rich (but still can't get to first
    	base with women when it comes to dating/sex/etc.)  As a joke about
    	oneself, it's humorous.

    	The parallel to the women's movement is that we have made incredible
    	progress in careers/education/etc., but that we're still often denied
    	the respect given adults (although it happens in much more prestigious
    	circles these days.)

    	It's one of those comparisons that is meant to "click" (by people
    	being able to relate to Woody's self-deprecating remark) while the
    	article still makes a statement about a problem with the way women 
    	are treated.

    	Of course, when humor has to be explained to this degree, it 
    	squeezes all the life out of it.  ;^)

    	In the article, it was only meant as an amusing line to get the
    	readers' attention.  It succeeded admirably in that.  ;^)

"[The] valuing of all contributions equally should not be confused with the 
male defined meaning of tolerance. Tolerance can only be exercised by those 
who are in power and is often but another means of protecting that power."

		-- Dale Spender, Man Made Language, 1980

re .-1:
    > Tolerance can only be exercised by those 
    >who are in power and is often but another means of protecting that power.

    "A people will have the worst govt they will TOLERATE."
        

    Tolerance n. [M.E. tolleraunce < MFr. tolerance < L. tolerantia] 1.
    a) a tolerating or being tolerant, esp. of views, beliefs, practices,
    etc., of others that differ from one's own  b) freedom from bigotry or
    prejudice  
    
    	-  Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second
    	College Edition

re:  466.34 (D!)


>   -< like Carla said about fembots >-

FEMBOTS?   Define please!


>    Me, I have absolutely no desire to look like a white-bread model.  

"white-bread model"     Interesting term.


>    (Tracy, my wannabee, runs around the bar all night carrying two to four

And just _what_ is a "wannabee" !?!

						nancy b.

    Nancy, A fembot  (at least the term that I have heard) is a feminazi
    or real radical feminist.
    
    A wannabee is a person that tries to be someone else or plays as if
    they are someone else.....
    
    D!  Correct me if I am wrong....

  The best use I've ever heard for the word "wannabee" was in the phrase
Madonna Wannabee.  ever you've ever seen "them", its rather amazing.  Maybe
sad, at the same time.

Jim

    >FEMBOTS?   Define please!
    
    Do you watch videos?  A good example of a fembot would be the women in
    Robert Palmer's videos, who are all thin, tall, white, wear black
    patent leather slinky clothes, all move in perfect unison, have totally
    expressionless faces and no personality.  (Correct me if I'm wrong,
    Carla.)
    
   > "white-bread model"     Interesting term.
    
    Ya know, Wonder Bread, bland, flavourless, common, doesn't stand out in
    particular, the "food of the masses."
    
    >And just _what_ is a "wannabee" !?!
    
    In this case, it is someone that *I* "want to be".  Since the topic of
    discussion is who we want to look like, well I want to look like Tracy! 
    (And if I can't *look* like her, well...)
    
    D!

    
    re: .170
    
    yes, that's how I would define a fembot.  I scammed the phrase
    from a Bionic Woman episode, where Lindsay Wagner is battling 
    these brainless, programmed, lookalike female robots, called 
    fembots.  the word, and connotation, has remained with me ever 
    since.
    
    Carla
    

    I've seen the term used to describe the female robot in "Metropolis".
    I'd be very surprised if "fembot" and "Metropolis" are contemporary;
    I don't believe that "robots" were all that old an idea at the time.
    So, when was the term "robot" introduced into English?  I.e., when
    did the play "R.U.R." open in this country?
    
    							Ann B.

    Or perhaps another way to define "fembot" is "Stepford Wife"
    (which I suppose will be another obscure allusion to some).
    
    --- jerry

     >   Or perhaps another way to define "fembot" is "Stepford Wife"
     >   (which I suppose will be another obscure allusion to some).
     
    Hmmm, I guess that isn't what I thought of with the term "fembot". 
    Stepford wives were "good girls", obedient, etc, but I was thinking the
    term fembot as referring more toward the sexually alluring, mindless
    sex objects of the media rather than the mindless slave/drone the
    Stepford Wives were.  
    
    The Robert Palmer Women-in-leather don't give the impression of being
    obedient good wives.  In fact, they don't give an impression as any
    sort of "person", merely as moving artifacts.  They are just *there*,
    neither more nor less.
    
    D!

    re:.174
    
    OK, I was reacting to the image of a woman who has no will of her
    own, and is only there for man's pleasure, which is a point of
    commonality between the Robert Palmer-style "fembot" and a Stepford
    Wife.
    
    --- jerry

	in note 594.7 K_JOHNSON makes reference to
    
    >understanding for their "opposite" [sex]
    
    Putting the word "opposite" in quotes started me thinking...why do
    we refer to women and men as "opposites"?  What makes us opposed?  Are
    men and women on the opposite ends of a spectrum?  Not really.  We are
    both human...within the human, sex is more or less binary (with the
    occasional exception of transsexuals, hermaphrodites, people with
    Turner's syndrome, and similar gender-ambiguous types.)  A more
    appropriate idiom might be "two sides of the same coin", but hardly
    *opposites*.  I think women and men are more similar than they are
    different...after all those subtle things people debate like whether
    women are more nurturing or men are more violent, when it comes down to
    it, we all have essentially the same bodies, same brains, same
    emotions, etc.
    
    So - where did this expression come from, and is using it harmful to
    the cause of equality and acceptance between the sexes?  I think it
    might be...
    
    D!
    

    D!
    
    You bring up an interesting point about men and women being
    opposite.  For example, men are good in business, women are
    good at nurturing, men are strong, women are weak, men are
    stoic, women are emotional......The term seems to give credence
    to many of these ill-gotten stereotypes.  I never really thought
    about it before, but it could just be another example of the
    more sublte nuances in our society that help to keep such
    stereotypes alive, yet is meant to be such an innocuous comment
    that one rarely would object to it's usage.  
    
    Christine

    In re opposite -
    When there are only two alternatives (light and dark for example)
    it is natural to call one the opposite of the other.
    
    BJ

    Bad thing language!
    
    opposite can has the same meaning in maths as complementary
    The complement of true is false.
    The complements of red and green is blue
    
    The complement can also mean those members of the set which make the
    	set whole.
    
    Unfortunately, some choose to see complementary as uncomplimentary
    
    
    	P.s. definitions and spellings are taken from the Oxford (england)
    Paperback edition. My Cultural Background is N.W. England-European.

    
    re:.179
    natural, perhaps, but not necessarily wise ;^)
    

    Joe,
    
    often what we do 'naturally' is not nessarily wise :-)
    
    Bonnie
    
    p.s. for the curious, my son today suggested that my pn was wrong
    so I changed it (he of course is more nervous and excited about
    waiting for his daughter to arrive than we are!)

          A neat word seen while catching up on the zillions of unseen
          notes was in the "does unwanted sex = rape" topic...  Someone
          referred to an earlier note (that was later deleted as best as I
          can tell) where "envelopment" could be used for the description
          of intercourse instead of "penetration", etc.  What a cool
          concept!  I definitely prefer the connotations of "envelopment"
          as opposed to "penetration."

          --------------------------------------------------------------

          Also, I saw the word "feminazi".
          What does this mean?
          Why would someone want to refer to themselves as being a
          (whatever)-nazi with all of the implications of the word "nazi"?
          Does this mean there is a clique of anti-Jew feminists?
          Yuck.

          --------------------------------------------------------------

          re:  57.176 (D! Carroll)
                      (from the discussion of "the opposite sex")

          > I think women and men are more similar than they are
          > different...after all those subtle things people debate like
          > whether women are more nurturing or men are more violent, when
          * it comes down to it, we all have essentially the same bodies,
          * same brains, same emotions, etc.

          A person who authored a book on this subject said on a radio talk
          show something very similar to what you said above, D!  However,
          he used the prefix, "potential for" a lot, i.e.,

          "Men and women have the potential at birth for an indeterminate
          number of the same set of emotions and personality
          characteristics".. and would go on to say that what personalities
          and thinking patterns we develop are based on our culture and
          environment.
                                                  nancy b.

        re .183 "feminazi"
        
        Based on where I have seen it I concluded that when
        applied to others it was a derogatory SOAPBOX term for
        "feminist" or maybe for "militant feminist".  When
        applied to oneself that would make it a complimentary
        term for same, with an added "and damned proud of it!" (I
        think the p_n I saw was "glass chewing feminazi".  It
        reminded me of an HOF note of Sandy C's.) The word was
        already being used there when I most recently started
        reading that conference so I can't really comment on its
        origin.  I never interpreted it as anti-Jewish.  I
        suppose it could be more hateful than derogatory.  I
        never asked the users.
        
        Dan

    Dan is correct that 'feminazi' is a term used in soapbox to
    put down or deride feminists. I believe the term originated
    with Rush Limbaugh an Andre Dice Clay clone of a talk show
    host.
    BJ

    While I can understand why someone would want to claim labels like "bitch"
    and "glass chewing," I admit I'm at a loss to comprehend why someone would
    choose to claim a label like "<whatever>-NAZI" (given the anti-Jewish,
    anti-Black, anti-Everyone_who_isn't_Aryan overtones of this one.)
    
    Even as a joke, it falls a bit flat, IMHO.
    
    Oh well.
    
    -jt

    
    When I first saw "feminazi" I thought of "papparazi".  It's not in my
    dictionary so I have no idea if it's spelled correctly.  (You know,
    photogs who chase celebrities and go to extreme lengths to catch them 
    skiing naked ...)
    
    CQ

I thought "feminazi" was a play on "kamikaze" (as in containing explosives
to be flown in a suicide crash on a target).

Kathy

    
    yup - that was my first thought too...
    
    just shows how pure my mind is :-)
    
    /. Ian .\

    .187,188 I agree.  I didn't know just where it came from, I just
    figured it was of Italian extract...

    How nice to learn that it was not a generic insulting term, but
    a targeted one.
    
    						Ann B.

    
    If you can't win an argument through reason, try winning through
    childish name-calling?
    
    

    Kath
    
    I'd kind of thought that one particular noter referrs to feminazis -
    plural and dumps most strong feminists in that pot..
    
    tho I could be mistaken.
    
    Bonnie

    Funny, but I don't ever remember the term "feminazi" being used to insult
    one particular feminist in Soapbox, nor have I seen it used to mean any
    sort of subset of feminists as a group, aside from the one noter who claims
    to be a "feminazi" herself.
    
    More than one Soapbox noter uses the term _in place_ of the word "feminist"
    and it comes across very clearly as an insult to feminists as a group.
    
    The fact that no complaints have been sent to moderators doesn't mean a
    thing when it comes to Soapbox.  The language of much of the conference
    tends to be so demeaning from the get-go that it would be difficult to
    complain about every new insulting term.
    
    IMHO, of course.
    
    -jt

    No, no, no!  You don't understand!  Soapbox doesn't allow people to
    engage in insults or namecalling.  So when someone calls either a
    single individual or a group of people "feminazis", they are just
    *teasing*.  Yeah, that's the ticket!  

    I just don't know where Soapbox gets its negative reputation.  Sheesh!

    -- Mike

    re .198, I know!  I think of Soapbox as a safe haven in a hostile world
    myself. :-)
    
    Lorna
    

nancyb,

    How can you use a word? character string? typo? like "authored" in
    a  note  on  Language? Author is a noun. Authors write. No one can
    "author".

--David

    Actually, I suspect that if Soapbox prohibited the use of "teasing",
    there would be a terrible stink, because that would just turn Soapbox
    into another wimpy "touchie-feelie" notes conference, like Womannotes. 
    Not only that, but then where could those important macho urges be
    expressed, if not there?  I suspect that holding in the urge to be
    macho could be dangerous, so perhaps Soapbox does fulfill a useful
    function in our corporation.

    -- Mike

    
    Deathly serious?  You used that phrase twice, once in ALL CAPS.
    What's so "deathly" about this conference, Kathy?  There's humor
    all around us.  Humor within seriousness.  Seriousness within
    humor.  It's a beautiful balance, and we're women, we can laugh
    and cry at the same time, we can rant, we can soothe, we can let
    other people know what we've experienced and how it felt, how it
    feels now, how we've coped, how we've healed, how the wounds are
    still sore.
    
    I tend my own garden.  If I want non-seriousness, I create it.  If
    I want seriousness, I create that.  No one will provide it for me.
    Responsibility, indeed.  We reap what we sow.
    
    Carla
    

    
    
    In what way do you claim to walk an entire mile in Carla Blazek's shoes
    every day?
    
    -jt

    
    
    
    > Something is amiss here, wouldn't you say?
    
    Yes, something is.  My claim that this conference is "deadly serious"
    was simply my perception.
    
    I now see that it wasn't taken as such.
    
    kath

re: 737.24 (Carla Blazek)

>	There's a buxom blonde who looks like she should be in a
>	Budweiser commercial -- foofy long blonde hair, make-up,
>	big boobs, eensy weensy hips, always tan, 
>       patriarchicly correct -- who wears a "Nobody Knows I'm A Lesbian" 
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	What an awesome phrase, Carla!!  Where does it originate?

						nancy b.

	re: .215 (nancy b.)

>>      patriarchicly correct
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>	What an awesome phrase, Carla!!  Where does it originate?

	My mind.  =8-)

	I've never heard it used before, and like the sound, and
	image(s), of it.  It *is* a cool phrase, if I do say so
	myself.

	Carla

    I just red the most offensive article I have ever seen in the Phoenix. 
    It is entitled "Why women should be called 'girls'" by one Caroline
    Knapp.
    
    (If someone tells me this article is just a joke, I'll be very
    embarassed but happy nonetheless.)
    
    she says, among other things..."it seems an apt time to suplly offended
    friends, colleagues and readers with a brief lesson in the proper use
    of the term, as well as a small bit of advice.
       The advice:  OH, LIGHTEN UP!
       The use: this is the complicated part, and if you're so threatened
    by the concept of being called a girl -- of having other women called
    girls -- you should probably sto reading right now, go take a long, hot
    batch, maybe paint your fingernails, spend some time leafing through a
    teashy women's magazine, and try to remember what's nice about feeling
    female."
    
    She goes on to list the reasons why being called a girl is a *good*
    thing.  The first is that it protects their privacy, because saying
    "It's a girl thing" will send the men away quick.  But it also...
    
    "...offers women, most of whom are secretly burdened by the little
    known and poorly understood Perfectionst Gene that causes them to be
    excruciatingly and ceaselessly hard on themselves, with a critical way
    to excuse the inevitable moment of imperfect behavior (ie [sic]: the
    random bout of weakness or immaturity, the occasional shopping binge or
    the premunstrual moment of explosive rage).  "Ooops!" you say.  "Sorry! 
    Just acting like a girl."
    
    Then she explains how being called a girl relieves women of the
    pressure of being a "woman".  After all, abortion, equal rights, etc
    are all important, weighty "women's issues" are so pressing that it is
    nice to be able to relax under in the name of girlhood.  "It gives you
    permission to sit around giggling with a friend.  To stand around
    gabbing about boys instead of business, or PMS instead of the
    patriarchy.  And to let go of the desperate seriousness with which we
    all pursue the business of being big, strong, grown-up WOMEN."
    
    And she ends the article with this gem:
    
    "A girl is a woman with a sense of humor."
    
    Arrrggg!  I'm seething!
    
    D!

    About two months ago, I received a late Christmas card from a friend of 
    my high school years, who went back to Yugoslavia after graduation.  
    I had a surge of warmth from my heart when she called me "the boy from 
    China".
    
    I want to make it very clear that the rest of this note is not directed
    at Diana, but rather it contains some general observations and opinions
    on the "boy" and "girl" language thing.
    
    I know many women who get upset when they are called "girls".  But the fact
    that few men feel offended when they are called "boys" should give us
    some thought.  When men in the millitary were called "boys" by
    Bob Hope, they cheered.  At the risk of being flamed, I would say that
    some of those who get very upset when they are called "girls" have very
    fragile ego and self confidence in certain areas.  After all, nobody gets 
    upset over something that is trivial and trifle.  If someone had called 
    Einstein stupid, I am sure Einstein would have just smiled.  I am no
    Einstein, not even close.  But to tell the truth, if someone had called
    me stupid, I would have smiled too (I can't make the same claim in some
    other areas though, but those "other areas" are exactly the ones I
    don't have much confidence in myself).  Think about it, it is exactly 
    those who don't think they are very smart who get upset when 
    they are called stupid.  Why give so much power to other people over 
    you over something as trifle and trivial and harmless as the word "girl"?
    
    Now I will admit that calling a woman "girl" is not exactly the same as
    calling a man "boy".  Maybe, for some cultural reasons, the term "girl"
    indeed contains different or even some negative connotations that the 
    term "boy" does not; but, in my opinion, the correct way to solve this 
    problem is to get rid of those negative connotations rather than to 
    avoid its usage.  For example, we can begin by affectionately calling 
    the women in millitary as "girls".  Or Nancy Kassenbaum and Pat 
    Schroeder can set another example by calling each other "girls" 
    (I know, I know even the men in Congress don't call each other "boys").
    
    Eugene, the boy from China

    Xia, you are missing the entire point.
    
    It isn't that girl is insulting.  It is that a "girl" is a child.  I
    don't object to being referred to a child by my friends or loved ones -
    it is affectionate.  But "girl" is a diminutive.  I expect to be
    treated as an adult in some circumstances.  Those circumstances include
    when I am at work, in politics, etc...any place I am expected to make
    adult decisions.
    
    "Girl" is a symptom of that fact that our culture does not take women
    seriously; that even women of the age of majority are still thought to
    be children to some degree.  People who can't be expected or trusted to
    make decisions or take responsibility.  But "girl" is also a *cause*. 
    Language *does* affect how you think!  It is a two-way relationship.
    Imagine a child growing up.  That child learns a lot from the language
    the adults around hir use.  S/he will notice that as she grows up,
    the boys around her become "men", but the girls will stay "girls". 
    What will this tell her about the relative merits of being a boy or a
    girl?
    
    But it isn't just children.  Language affects those who use it.  Try
    this experiment - for the next, oh, two weeks, every time you reference
    a male, call him a "boy".  Every time!  See how your perception
    changes.  I tried that experiment - lo and behold, I discovered that at
    the end of the time, I had in subtle ways lost some respect for men. 
    When I said to myself "Listen to that boy speak" I was less
    inclined to take his opinions seriously.  A lot more negative
    stereotypes came to mind when I imagined those "boys": things like a
    person ruled by their hormones, graceless, immature, greedy and fickle. 
    Then I tried a couple of weeks of calling women "women".  And the
    effect was the opposite - after awhile I found myself being subtly
    *more* interested in what women had to say, having less images of
    fluffy headed, giggly unintelligent girls and more of strong, competent
    women.  The experiment was mind-blowing.
    
    If I had any doubt in my mind about whether I would rather be called a
    girl or a woman by strangers, the article I mentioned yesterday
    convinced me that I *don't* want to be called a girl.  She said it
    takes away responsibility and allows me to act childish!  I don't
    *want* my responsibility taken away.  She said it conjures up images in
    men of giggling females talking about shopping who have nothing to say
    of interest to him!  I don't want to conjure up that image in men,
    especially co-workers and other people whose respect I demand.
    
    "Girl" and "Boy" are not analagous.  Society does not treat adult males
    as children, but it does treat adult women as children.  "Boy" is used
    to refer to adult males on very occasionally and only in limited
    circumstances, and always by other "boys".  "Girl" is used to refer to
    adult females all the time and all over the place, and usually by men,
    often in a position of authority.
    
    It has nothing to do with insecurity, you have *no* idea what you are
    talking about!!!  I am not insecure in my woman-hood.  It isn't the
    same as being called stupid.  For one thing, "stupid" is an insult, and
    those saying it are intending to insult you - you can just ignore the
    insult.  "Girl" is not intended as an insult, it is how the person
    really thinks about you.  Even so, if I were called a girl
    occasionally, it wouldn't bother me - but I get called girl ALL THE
    TIME.  And tell me, Xia, if your boss called you "stupid" (and you felt
    he really believed it, he wasn't just joking around) would you really
    ignore that?  And if every boss you had for years and years called you
    "stupid" how would you feel?
    
    where the H*ll do you get off telling *me* that *my* reaction to a term
    you have never experienced is "insecurity"???
    
    D!

    Also, girl can't be "reclaimed" as a term.  Terms that are reclaimed
    are terms that the users intend to be insulting, such as "faggot". 
    "Faggot" can be reclaimed by gay men calling themselves that, then it
    looses its power to hurt when they are called that by others.  (At
    least, that is the theory.)   But "girl" is not intended as an insult. 
    "Girl" is a way of thinking.  To call yourself a "girl" isn't to
    reclaim the term, it is to buy into that way of thinking.
    
    D!

re:57.221 D!

    D!,
    
    I agree, though I do use and abuse the word. What this is all about
    is the subjective nature of language when examined in a objective
    way.  Webster's dictionary is objective but, our speech patterns
    are not.  The use of many words are habit more than any overt
    action in many cases.
    
    It's my observation as well that "boy" is an anatomical reference
    like with usage in contextual the form of "us men".  An extension
    of this is the concept of age reference.  The "boy" case does not 
    have a strict reference to the behavoural age as in "a night out
    with the boys" which is perceived as very adult(male).  To contiue	
    that thought, "girl" is not as strong a reference to female as it
    is to the age of a female the usage that come to mind is "my girl"
    with the often implied or explicit "little" stuck in the middle.
    Examining the cultural usage does indicate "girl" is a dimunitive
    term and contextually far more sensitive than the term "boy".
    
    Peace,
    Allison

    Wouldn't we all love it if the boys and girls in Congress actually
    call each other boys and girls?
    
    Danny Quayle:    The boy from Massachusetts is recognized for 2 minutes.
    
    Teddy Kennedy:   Thank you Danny boy.  I sumit to you that our right
                     honorable boy George is at it again...
    
    Danny Quayle:    Objection, you can't say that!
    
    Teddy Kennedy:   Who the .... are you to tell me I can't say that?  I am
                     the rightfully elected big boy Teddy.
    
    Patty Schroeder: Now boys, calm down.  You know there are us girls in
                     this chamber, so behave yourself. 
    
    Teddy Kennedy:   I resent that Patty girl...
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Sight, "There is a time for the evening under starlight, A time for the
    evening under lamplight..." and a time for men and women to be called
    boys and girls.  Besides, I will get mildly annoyed if I am called a
    "chink".  But I would rather have him call me upfront so I can make sure
    that I will have nothing to do with him rather than having him constantly 
    calling me that in the back of his mind and me not knowing about it.  
    Whatever happens, a prejudiced person ain't gonna stop calling me "chink"
    whether we allow him to say it upfront or not.  People don't really
    change you know. 
    
    Eugene
             

re .225,

That is all what the "good ole girl" Caroline Knapp was saying.  If people 
would just read carefully and beyond the apparent...

...

Someone sent me a mail message telling me a story about a 40 year old
female lawyer being called by some teenage punk as a "girl" during an
interview.  She then concluded by saying that it is stupid for some
teenager to call a 40 year old "girl".  Now I absolutely agree with
her on that point.  But think carefully about this situation.  When you
hear this story, do you see an image of an immature childish 40 year 
old lawyer or do you see an image of an immature childish teenage punk?  
I rest my case.

Sometimes I wonder if there is a conspiracy to keep so many talented
women (shall we call them feminists?) to waste their energy on trivial 
things like this language business of "boys" and "girls".  Unfortunately,
I don't think this is the case.  I think I know the real reason, but I 
ain't stupid enough to open my big mouth and another can of worms.

The true "feminists" like Maggie Thacher and Patty Schroeders are too
busy to be bothered with who is a "boy" and who is a "girl".  Oh, if
asked, they will sure say the right thing.  They are too smart to
be "politically incorrect", you know.

Finally, let me draw another story from our beloved book "Why Jenny Can't
Lead":

---
...Barbara, a mid-level executive at a large company, was invited by
her boss to help carve up the company budget at the quarterly meeting.
The other men didn't want her there.  They, of course, didn't express
their displeasure directly to Barbara.  They waited until the meeting had
begun.  Then after 10 minutes or so, one of the men called her a "broad".

She reacted immediately.  "How dare you talk to me that way!"  All the 
men became solicitous.  "Oh, we're so sorry.  What would you like to be
called...Ms., Miss, or Mrs.?  What does your husband call you?  Your
secretary?  You children?  What do they call you in the office? In
the kitchen?  In the bedroom?"

Barbara spent the rest of the time discussing how she wished to be 
addressed while the men listened solemnly.  Then they went into the 
bathroom and carved up the budget.  Now they know any time they
want to deflect Barbara from her goals, they have only to call her a "broad".
---

I ain't gonna say anything about this story.  Just think about it.

Eugene

    I refuse to accept being called a "girl" under inappropriate
    circumstances.  I also refuse to look like an idiot changing someone
    else's vocabularly if it seems limited to that option.
    
    Surely there must be a middle ground where I hear it once, request it
    not be used, and then let it go, secure in the knowledge that I tried,
    quietly and without escalation, to change one small part of the world
    with a brief request and one small explanation why.
    
    -Jody
    

    Oh don't be absurd.  Anyone woman who even *made* it as far as a
    high-level executive position is not going to "lose" the meeting
    spending time arguing about what she should be called.
    
    there is a time and a place for everything.  Just because the time
    isn't right to argue about language, doesn't make the use of that
    language correct.
    
    You may not believe this, Xia, but I have energy to spend on *both* my
    career and fighting inappropriate language.  Have you every studied any
    socio-linguistics?  Do you have any idea how important language is to
    our thought-processes?  It is hardly trivial.  Try my little
    experiment before you dismiss it.
    
    -d, first, faggot and girl are not equivalent.  Faggot (in our modern
    language) *means* gay, but it means it perjortively.  Once you remove
    the perjorative aspect, it will still *mean* gay.  Girl *means* a
    youthful female, regardless of its perjorative connotations.  once you
    remove the perjortive aspect (which I don't believe exists anyway) it
    will *still* mean youthful female, and therefore still not be
    appropriate for adult females.
    
    Secondly, we (who object to the term "girl") are not trying to reclaim
    the term.  I resent your telling us we "should".  Whether we reclaim it
    or not is up to us.  *You* should still not be calling an adult woman a
    girl, least not one who has expressed that she doesn't want to be.
    
    To all you people who think that the woman complaining about it will
    cost her opportunities, that is because she isn't *in* power.  But
    remember this: sometimes women *are* in power, and if *you* don't learn
    the lesson to call her a "woman" it may be *you* who loses
    opportunities.  The employee who complains to her boss that he calls
    her girl may never get the promotion. But the employee who calls his
    female boss girl may never get the promotion either.
    
    I took a course last year called "How to Listen Powerfully".  One of
    the things we talked about was things that really *annoy* you when a
    co-worker does it, to the point that you don't listen to what they say
    anymore.  One woman raised her hand and said "When he calls me a
    'girl'".  Just about every woman in that room (about 50) nodded in
    agreement.  Perhaps that will hurt her when she isn't in power.  But it
    will hurt the men who call her girl when she is in power.  Remember
    that your employee or coworker today could be your boss tomorrow.
    
    D!

    sigh. how can something be so clear to some, and so muddled to others?
    `girl' is a diminutive if the person being referred to is an adult, and
    is thus reserved *only* for those who have the necessary emotional
    intimacy to be able to use such a term. i smile when one co-worker
    calls me `kiddo', and cringe when another co-worker addresses me as
    `young lady'...lovers have called me things like `girl', `babe' and
    even `slut', but, again, they had the emotional context necessary for
    such terms to work. if anybody around the office (except possibly for
    ms kiddo :-) called me anything like that, i'd probably deck them...
    
    ...laura

    several themes have run through here.  I have always believed that I
    don't care what someone calls me, I *know* when I'm insulted.  .-1
    expressed this, that context is important in determining your own
    reaction to any label -- but also your response!  An icy smile, a cool
    but brief reproof and return  firmly to the subject at hand, a heated
    tirade, a laugh, a return jibe - each of these is a proper response at
    some time or other.  There can be no hard and fast rule.
    
    D!'s objection to the article she read and summarized for us seems to
    be that it dismisses out of hand the premise that there is any
    legitimate reason for us to reject the label "girl", ever.  For so
    long our legitimate desire to be taken seriously in the worlds of
    business, scholarship, diplomacy, etc was laughingly dismissed and
    disregarded, by alternately calling us "girl" or "witch", that is, by
    either saying we were incapable of serious achievement, or we were
    irredeemably evil.  I see the effort to overcome this dual stigma as
    the reason behind our demand to be accepted as equal adults, and the
    seriousness (often seen as humorlessness) we project.
    
    Men in those worlds (business, scholorship etc) already accept
    eachother as equal adults, so they can be a bit more relaxed about
    labelling eachother "boys".  Their acceptance of the occasional woman
    as "one of the boys" illustrates this.  It is when that occasional
    woman said, but what about my sisters? that a "girl" could not become
    one of the "boys"...
    
    Hence the stereotype, like all stereotypes it is based partly on
    reality, of the humorless feminist.  We're changing the rules on them,
    and they don't understand.  They'll learn.

    ...and the part of that article that is true, says Sara who hasn't read
    it :-}, is that in striving so hard to achieve, to be accepted as adult
    serious contributors, we have in some places reacted so strongly that
    we seem (to some, anyway) to have gone too far.  This shows in the
    negative reactions feminism gave to women who chose to make raising
    children their major occupation ("just a housewife" is a negative
    phrase not only used by men), who chose the part time "mommy track" over
    a 45-50 hr/week full time career (with or without kids at home).
    (Personal bias here; most of the guff and career setbacks I took for it
    were from women.  I was not completely blameless; I did not know how to
    work part-time as an opsys designer/developer either.  I outlasted and
    overcame it, but I won't hide that it happened, nor that women were the
    major players.)
    
    If there's a true part to the article, it's that even as mature, adult
    women, serious contributors of valued achievements, we have feared to
    show the world (ie, outside of =wn= lite topics ;-) ) the frivolous
    side, the girl within us.  It's as if we see it as showing weakness.
    Maybe what Eugene Xia was saying is that true strength need not fear
    exposing its softer side to the world.

    Sara, I agree.
    
    Sometimes I am afraid to show my "girl-self" to the world.  However,
    that is no reason why anyone should call me a girl.  Because, while I
    may have a girl-side to me, I am *still* a woman, and the girl is only
    one small part of all of me, who is woman.  Also, the right place to
    show my girl-self is *not* at work, and therefore referring that part
    of me at work is entirely inappopropriate.
    
    D!

Carroll, I would like to believe that of the few men who write in
this file, we are quite an enlighten bunch.  As far as I can remember
I have never called any adult woman "girl" since my high school days, 
but we all know that most of the "young women" in high school will 
get offended if we actually call 'em "women" and I learned the lesson
first hand being fresh from China and not knowing better.  Of course,
in my writing, I use the term "girl" occasionally to achieve certain
effects as in .224 for example.

I want to let you know that I see your point very clearly despite the fact
so many articles here claim to the contrary.  I am afraid that what I 
(and -b) are trying to say came across as muddled.  I freely admit
that I don't make my point as clear and crisp as that famous edp used
to be able to do here.  But I would like to believe that if one reads my
notes carefully, one would be able to see my point.  I do think calling
an adult woman "girl" is silly in formal occasions, but it is just that,
silly.  And it makes the men who use such term look silly.  It
sure doesn't hurt to remind them of their foolishness from time to time 
as Jody would have done in the appropriate time and appropriate occassion.  

However, my perception (and I emphasize this is just my perception) is 
the term "girl" and "should" have become a sort of "hot buttons" to you 
(just as the term "broad" was a "hot button" for Barbara in that Book of 
Barbara).  The danger with having those hot buttons is that when someone 
presses it, you immediately take an automatic reaction like "How dare you 
call us girls?" or "Who are you men to tell us what we should or should 
not do?" even when the person who pushes it is another woman.  Caroline 
Knapp's article is humorous, but it also contains a very keen observation 
that women should desensitize themselves of the trivial things like "girls",
and being desensitized of such things is a signed of strength rather than
weakness.  Remember hot buttons are very disadvantageous to the ones who 
have them.  Among sympathetic people (I would like to believe I am one of 
them), you will fail to hear what they are trying to say; and among 
competitors or enemies, those hot buttons become tools for them to 
manipulate you (as in the story of Barbara).  And that is the real point 
the book was trying to make.  And I guarantee you a man who calls his 
subordinates "girls" ain't gonna call his boss a "girl".

Diana, I think we met before somewhere in Shrewsbury over a soda,
and had some pleasant conversation during some party.  I would hate 
for us to get upset over this trivial thing (and it IS a trivial 
argument), so can we return to first name basis now?

Eugene

>However, my perception is the term "girl" and "should" have become a 
>sort of "hot buttons" to you
    
    Maybe.  Maybe not.  how do you know how I react when being called
    "girl"?  You have never called me girl.  nor, in fact, have you been
    around when someone has called me girl.  In fact, only once since you
    started noting here in =wn= has anyone even used the term "girl"
    inappropriately and I called him on it.  =wn= (contary to popular
    opinion) is not the real world.  you haven't the faintest clue whether I 
    "immediately take an automatic reaction like... " anything.  It is
    entirely your assumption that because I took offense at this article,
    that "girl" is some sort of automatic, uncontrollable hot button.
    
    As for "should" I haven't said anything about *that* at all and I
    don't know *where* you are drawing your conclusions from.  As a matter
    of fact, I don't like the term "should", and I *do* find it infinitely
    more offensive than being called girl.  So your statement that "women
    should desensitize themselves of trivial things like 'girls'" is grossly
    offensive.
    
    You (and Caroline Knapp) have failed to give me even one good reason
    why it is okay for men to call women "girls".  Ms. Knapp presented
    reasons why women shouldn't mind (I found them unconvincing) and you
    have presented reasons why women shouldn't make a big deal of it
    (equally unconvincing) but you haven't addressed the *issue* of
    whether people should call adult women "girls".  Saying "why are you
    making such a big issue of it?" does still not address that issue.  in
    fact, it dismisses it as trivial and as such it goes right along with
    not taking women seriously.
    
>Diana, I think we met before somewhere in Shrewsbury over a soda,
>and had some pleasant conversation during some party.  I would hate 
>for us to get upset over this trivial thing (and it IS a trivial 
>argument), so can we return to first name basis now?
    
    First, apologies regarding the name thing.  That was my fault due to
    reading notes when I am not fully awake.  I remember people by their
    node names (HPSTEK::XIA) and when I type their real names in I have to
    do a translation to get from node names to real names.  When I am not
    fully awake I sometimes forget to make the translation so "Eugene" comes
    out as "Xia".  I wasn't trying to create distance by using your last
    name.  I *don't* get that personal about notes.
    
    Second, your continued assertion that this is a trivial matter is
    insulting.  I have expressed that I don't feel it is trivial.  Your
    saying it is is basically invalidating my reaction to the situation.  I
    am continually amazed by those who *aren't* hurt by certain actions of
    others can tell those who *are* hurt that it is trivial.  how would you
    know?  It doesn't affect you!!!  You said in a recent note you don't
    like being called "Chink."  Well, from your perspective, that may or
    may not be trivial (you seemed to think it was) but I, as a non-Asian
    person, wouldn't dream of telling you that it is a trivial matter when
    Asian people are called Chinks.  It isn't my issue and I don't know
    what it feels like and so I have no idea whether it is trivial or not.
    
    D!

    This is becoming a back and forth.  I will not discuss it with you in
    -wn- any more.
    
    D!
    
    [PS: By non-argument I meant that saying that it isn't worthwhile to
    discuss something and that that thing is trivial doesn't argue for
    or against that thing.  It isn't a position.]

    
    Interesting discussion. Eugene, "boy" is considered a highly insulting
    term among most black men I know, stemming from the fact that it was
    used to belittle even black men in their 70's, suggesting that no
    matter what their age, they were not adult. There is value in asserting
    yourself, and your right to be addressed as an adult. I have corrected
    MANY people who called me girl at work. Its not the hot button it once
    was, but perhaps that's what makes it so effective when I correct
    people. I lift an eyebrow and say "Girl?" and if it continues, I call
    all the males "boys" until the point is made. Perhaps you never feel
    that your manhood is threatened, but I can assure you, many men feel
    uncomfortable when I turn the tables. They do not like being called
    "boys" by me. And it is clear when I use the term that I am doing it to
    show that I do not consider a group of people to be adult or worthy of
    my professional respect.
    
    My friends who know me know I use the term girl easily and
    frequently... I have said, even yesterday "its a girl thang" when I
    didn't want to have to explain to my date that I'd been discussing
    the intricasies of hairstyles and curling irons with another woman.
    He turned it on me with a "boy thang" later. It went over fine.
    And I say "hangin' with the girls" instead of "hangin' wit da women!"
    It means I''m letting my hair down, and acting goofy. Just as the
    article says. That the girls are comin' over, and we plan to eat
    munchies, paint our nails, play with our hair and DISCUSS BOYS!!!
    
    There are times when girl is very appropriate to me. But never in the
    context of the working environment.

    re .235,
    
    I did not mean to be insulting and I did not mean to invalidate 
    your feelings in any way.  If I appeared that way, I apologize.  I
    do take what you say seriously; otherwise, I wouldn't have bothered 
    to write lengthy responses.  And I fully acknowledge that the issue 
    is important to you--as important as it is for me to convince people 
    that it is a not important, and that is by no mean unimportant
    to me.
    
    In short, we agree to disagree.

    re .236,

    Sorry, I made you feel this way.  I know this is a kinda debate, but
    I would like to believe that we are exchanging our insights and ideas 
    and are trying to help each other in a constructive way.  And I would
    like you to know that even though we oft disagree, I have obtained
    some valuable insights through the various discussions we have had here 
    and among other notes.
                                    
    Eugene

    re .237,
    
    To tell ya the truth, these days, the only one who can make me upset 
    by calling me "boy" is my mother.  As a result, nobody calls me "boy"
    anymore except my mother on occassions.  That is why I had a surge of
    warmth when the "Yugoslavia girl" called me "the boy from China".
    
    Eugene

    
    And I got a teensy-weensy little surge of warmth just reading that the
    girl from Yugoslavia remembered you as the boy from China.  'Well,
    isn't that nice?' I thought.  I'm glad she remembered you at Christmas
    time, Eugene.
    
    CQ

    re .241
    
    I repeat: I know plenty of men who would see red if they were called a
    "boy".  Perhaps though, the following will help you to understand.
    
    "Girl" has connotations of:
    
    	- lack of responsibility
    	- lack of maturity
    	- lack of seriousness
    	- lack of independence
        - lack of adult status
        - lack of self-sufficiency
    
    And many of these deficiencies are remedied by a paternal
    figure/caretaker. These are reasons why many women reject the term. 
    The other point: women are often denied the term "woman", because their
    peers are not prepared to respect them as adults. Because it was, at
    one time, standard to refer to working women as "girls", as if their
    tasks were menial, and could be performed by children, most women I
    know find the term wholly inappropriate and offensive in the workplace.
    
    For example: women in secretarial pools are often "the girls". Women
    doing assembly on factory floors are often "the girls". If men were
    performing these tasks, they were not known as "the boys". If you can
    think of an example in which an adult male, or group of adult males
    performing a job were refered to PROFESSIONALLY as boys, then there is
    a parallel. But I have never seen it.
    
    This is where the offense comes from. If you still don't get it, I'll
    try again.

    i am a professional.
    i have data.
    i have valuable opinions.
    my recommendations should be considered seriously.
    i should be paid well.
    
    when i stand in front of a plant manager who directs an organization of
    600-some odd people, he should consider my recommendation.
    
    when i tell someone responsible for a $500 million fab facility that he
    should do such and so to ensure digital's future as a customer, he had
    best consider doing such and so.
    
    "girl" does not carry the weight i need to do my work.  neither, to
    tell the truth does "woman" - but it works better than "girl".
    
    lee

    see also:
    
    Womannotes-V1
    148 - don't call me GIRL
    
    Womannotes-V2
    80 - girls vs. women - am I too picky?
    
    -Jody
    

    
    I think one reason why adult females so often get called "girls" is
    that a lot of people still can't bring themselves to use the word
    "women", whereas I don't see anybody having an analogous problem using
    the word "men". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe "woman" has until 
    quite recently, been almost a dirty word in our society, with
    connotations of, if not absolute evil, at least advanced age. You'd
    have to be about ninety to qualify for the title. *Why* should this be
    true? Maybe that's another topic ... 
    
    D. 

>I believe "woman" has until 
>    quite recently, been almost a dirty word in our society<...>
>*Why* should this be
>    true? Maybe that's another topic ... 

Not at all. After all, this is the language topic. I'd be interested in
hearing your thoughts on this matter.  I think you are on to something.

D!

    Woman is viewed as improper by the Junior League type of woman.  They
    prefer "lady."   I don't get it at all, but I'm not a Junior League
    type woman.
    
    I like woman, I use it.  I hardly ever say lady.  
    
    Anyone got Emily Post handy to try to get to the root of this one?
    
    judy

         Reminds me of one of the groups of women protesting at Seneca
         Army Depot in New York.  (Similar to the English Greenham
         Common campout.)  A group marched that called themselves
         "Ladies Against Women"  They wore traditional "junior league"
         type clothes, little white gloves, handbags, lipstick and
         carried a sign proclaiming their group name. 

         They gave a tea for the press at which they officially
         deplored the unfeminine women protestors who should have been
         home cooking and cleaning.  Anyway, they did a marvelous job
         spoofing the "total woman" sentiment and then said it was a
         pity to have a perfectly good message diluted by concerns for
         the abondoned husbands of the protestors, husbands who were
         afterall grownups and perfectly decent parents in their own
         right. 

         Whammo. Good fun, and a message pointedly gotten across.  I
         never did any research to see if after that the women
         protestors were taken more seriously as protestors and less
         seriously as bad girls/bad wives/bad mommies. 


         Margaret (who hasn't worn little white gloves since the
                   Easter when I was 7)             

        I have a question.  I have been led to believe that the original
    term "lady" referred to prostitutes.  Does anyone know the origins
    of the word?
    
        Thanks,
    Frederick
    

    .247 -
    
    I don't have much to add - it's just an observation, I know several
    people who have said as much - they just feel uncomfortable using the
    word "woman" to mean, in general, an adult human female, unless they're
    talking about someone who's old, or of dubious moral standing, or both.
    
    Maybe it comes in part from all those droll witticisms from the Founding
    Fathers of This and That? (You know, 'The woman beguiled me, and I did
    eat' ... or however that goes. Must be a Jungian archetype by now, 
    Eve="Woman"=evil. Seeps into the general consciousness of us all.)
    
    D.

    so Ann, shall we start a small revolution and start calling 
    ourselves hlaf-diges?
    
    and how do you pronounce it?
    
    BJ

    When are men on the job routinely referred to as boys?
    
    When they are baseball players.  "The Boys of Summer" etc.
    
    eg when they are playing a game.  And baseball players have mostly been
    very young, at least when they start out.
    
    When they are privates in the military.  Junior rank.
    
    The objection to "girl" is contextual, just like calling a black man a
    "boy".  It has been used as a putdown by those more powerful. Women may
    jokingly call each other "girls", and black men may call each other
    "boy" in a familiar way.  I've heard black people call each other
    "nigger" as a kind of joke, if they are close.  But that doesn't make
    it okay for a white to call a black "nigger" does it?  If you are
    white, you would call a black man "boy" at your peril.
    
    So, I object to being called "girl" on the job, except by my friends. 
    Ditto at the bank, post office, store, and other impersonal
    situtations.  
    
    By the way, I've rarely had this problem recently.  Things have vastly
    changed in the last 20 years.   I've had to struggle for professional
    credibility, but most sexism has been a lot more subtle than name
    calling.  And I've fought subtlety with subtlety.  Baldly objecting to
    being called "girl" doesn't get the job done.  It's the attitudes
    behind the term that are a problem.  How to modify those attitudes, is
    the real issue.
    
    Laura

    At the Susan B. Anthony celebration in early March, I heard an old-time
    waitron ask some of us, "Would you girls like a stuffed mushroom?"
    
    I immediately advised him not to call us girls.  He asked me what was
    the problem, and I told him that this wasn't the crowd to call women
    girls in.  (Not that I think any crowd of women is appropriate, but
    some might not mention it.)
    
    There were over 1000 feminists in the room.
    
    Also, at NOW conventions, I have heard that the hotel staff is called
    together and told not to call the customers girls.  I don't know if
    this is an urban myth, but I like the fact that maybe some people get a
    little CR training.
    
    judy

    
    
    A couple of weeks ago I was at a meeting (3 men and 2 women).  One of
    the men, (someone I hadn't met before) referred to someone (not
    present) as a girl.  I had no intention of saying anything about it,
    but one of the other men in the meeting, I'll call him Sam*, said, 
    "woman, not girl."  That made me feel pretty good to see one man
    educating another, and then later that day when I was driving back to 
    my office I remembered:
    
    
    A few weeks before that meeting, I had been talking to Sam* on the
    phone, and he referred to one of my colleagues (a woman of 40+ years)
    as a girl.  I didn't correct him, but I did use the word woman in my
    next sentence.  Maybe that's all it took?!!!!  
    
    Justine

perhaps the reluctance that so many seem to have with using the word, "woman"
has to do, in part, with the high value placed on "youth" in this society, 
particularly in the case of the females of the species - our culture is geared
to value most highly the female at the age where sexual activity
and reproductive ability are presumed highest...and the implied LACK of youth 
that is attached to the term "woman".  In other words, some people find it 
somewhat anxiety-building to try and figure out HOW to address a female of 
the species who is possibly, or obviously, OVER that magic age at which the 
quality of "youth" is assumed.  There are still many women who are SENSITIVE
to the issues surrounding age, my best friend among them.  She is a 
professional woman, competent and independent....but she LIKES being referred
to as a "girl" because she holds to the illusion that the person so addressing
her actually thinks she is "still young" (a phrase that she probably cannot
define herself, but uses as a magic talisman, indicating she is "valuable").
With the different signals being passed around concerning the use of such
a word out here in the jungle, it is hardly surprising that some people use
the word - even though they do NOT intend to offend or belittle the woman
in question.  They may very well be simply attempting to take the "safe way
out" and apply what they perceive to be an "acceptable" inference of value
to someone....MAY is the operative word.  Only the person being addressed
can decide if the issue is worth fighting, and how much fight it is worth.

I must also agree with Eugene on the question of just how much energy we
should expend on making sure the "politically correct" word/phrase is used.
I agree that language is powerful and changing it should be a continuing
effort for us all.  HOWEVER, I often have a real sense of frustration when
I see competent women "winding themselves up" over the use of language while
NOT addressing the issues that lead to the language in the first place.  I
care much less whether I am addressed as "woman" or "girl" - and I care
a great deal whether I am TREATED as a "girl"....if I am accorded the privilege
of a responsible and challenging career, opportunities for growth, and
a salary equivalent to my male co-workers, I have REAL power, whatever someone
may choose to call me.  Too often, the "establishment" seems to be willing
to grant me the "politically correct" word, but not the equal power.

Now, if we can just figure out how to "re-set" the attitudes of western
culture to value women for their experience, then we can begin to make real
progress...in my mind, the "ageism" we must fight is as big an issue as the 
"purely feminist" issues in which we are making small gains.  The simple
fact is that even these small gains that we see at the ages 20 - 45 are 
denied our older sisters....and I take that personally as I am now 44 - not
long to go.

    
    I can agree that it would be unwise in some settings (such as most
    business settings) to make a big deal about the use of a word such
    as girl.  But (!):
    
       1. If someone did lose her cool and get pissed off, I think she'd
          be completely entitled to that rage, and I would support her
          in it -- at the same time, depending on my relationship with
          her, I might bring up the topic of finding more empowering
          and/or effective strategies for responding.
       
       2. And most importantly.... I don't see anyone here making a big
          deal of it (in an inappropriate setting), and I can't remember
          the last time that I did see a woman make a big deal of it.
          But we're often accused of doing that.  I think it's completely 
          appropriate (and I'm glad to see it!) that women use WOMANnotes 
          as a place to complain about the sexist attitudes and language we 
          encounter.  And I don't think anyone can extrapolate business 
          behavior from the discussions and occasional venting they see here.  
    
          In a business setting, I try to use more discretion in figuring
          out when, whether, and how to call someone on sexist (or racist,
          classist, homophobic) behavior and language, and I encourage my
          sisters to use discretion, too... but not(!) at the risk of
          discounting their feelings.  Generally speaking, I think it's
          important to avoid embarrassing people when they misspeak, not
          because I don't think they deserve it -- sometimes I do, but
          because I think the desire to save face is stronger than the 
          desire to learn, and I don't think I could teach anyone anything
          if I caused him to lose face.  One on one, I might speak up.
          In a coed group, I hope that one of the other men will speak up
          (and I'm happy to report that this happens more and more).
          If no one does speak up, I make a judgement about whether or not I
          want to follow up with the person.  I make that decision based on
          the depth of my relationship with the person, what attitudes I've
          seen on other issues, how open he seems, do I feel like it.  
    
    My point in all this rambling is that women have every right to be
    pissed, in my opinion, and I think we all show remarkable restraint,
    and I resent being accused of making a scene, because I think that kind
    of accusation is often used to silence women.  Some people don't think
    language is all that important -- fine.  Others of us do, and I think
    we have every right to talk about what makes us uncomfortable and why.
    
    Justine
                                 

    well said, Justine!  
    
    I am not a "girl".  I am a woman, a human, an adult.  I, because of my
    size, have trouble with people dimunizing me.  I HATE THAT!  I am not a
    little toy doll, or a little girl, or a little anything.  While it is
    true that I am vertically challenged [   (*8   ], that does not mean I
    am mentally challenged or emotionally challenged.  
    
    I *will* correct people when they use the term girl.  Quietly, perhaps,
    but I *will* challenge that mindset.
    
    Jiminy Cricket!  I have been fully self- and other-supporting for
    years, I have lived through -- and survived -- things most people will
    *never* live through, no matter how old they are.  I am tough,
    intelligent and a survivor, but I am NOT a *girl*.
    
    E Grace

    
    ..."lighten up", huh....?
    
    Sorry, can't.  It's a power trip, too often.
    
    Have you ever...
    
    	been with a group of men who in normal situations wouldn't think
    of calling you a girl, but it's "showoff" time with the boss and to
    position themselves, it's "oh, Julie, yes, she's a good girl, isn't she?"
    
    I have. It's a power trip, and it does matter.  I'm intelligent,
    independant, self-supporting, I carry responsibility for other lives...
    
    I'm not a girl.  I wouldn't want my 20's again for all the treasure in
    the world.  I am a woman, I intend to be an outspoken, happy Crone, and if society doesn't value that, too bad.
    society can just catch up with me.
    
    
    J.
                                                               

I bought "What Do You Care What Other People Think?" by the late
Richard P. Feynman.  One short chapter of it is titled Feynman
Sexist Pig.  Now, I have made all the points I have, so it seems
ungraceful to drag the argument on and on.  Still this one is
so funny (especially the ending) that I just couldn't resist typing 
it in.  In all fairness, I must say the mainstream women's organizations 
are not really concerned with this sort of thing, and me think this Richard 
Feynman guy had one of the biggest egos in history, but at least he admited it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

		Feynman Sexist Pig

		By Richard P. Feynman

		Copied without permission

A few years after I gave some lectures for the freshmen at Caltech
(which were published as the Feynman Lectures on Physics), I received a
long letter from a feminist group.  I was accused of being anti-woman
because of two stories: the first was a discussion of the subtleties of
velocity, and involved a woman driver being stopped by a cop.  There's 
a discussion about how fast she was going, and I had her raise valid 
objections to the cop's definitions of velocity.  The letter said I was
making the woman look stupid.

The other story they objected to was told by the great astronomer 
Arthur Eddington, who had just figured out that the stars get their
power from burning hydrogen in a nuclear reaction producing helium.
He recounted how, on the night after his discovery, he was sitting
on a bench with his girlfriend.  She said, "Look how pretty the stars
shine!"  To which he replied, "Yes, and right now, I'm the only man in 
the world who knows how they shine."  He was describing a kind of wonderful
loneliness you have when you make a discovery.

The letter claimed that I was saying a woman is incapable of understanding
nuclear reactions.

I figured there was no point in trying to answer their accusations in 
detail, so I wrote a short letter back to them: "Don't bug me, man!"

Needless to say, that didn't work too well.  Another letter came: 
"Your response to our letter of September 29th is unsatisfactory..."
--blah, blah, blah.  This letter warned that if I didn't get the 
publisher to revise the things they objected to, there would be trouble.

I ignored the letter and forgot about it.

A year or so later, the American Association of Physics Teachers 
awarded me a prize for writing those books, and asked me to speak
at their meeting in San Francisco.  My sister, Joan, lived in Palo Alto--
an hour's drive away--so I stayed with her the night before and we 
went to the meeting together.

As we approached the lecture hall, we found people standing there giving out
handbills to everybody going in.  We each took one, and glanced at it.
At the top it said, "A PROTEST."  Then it showed excerpts from the letters
they sent me, and my response (in full).  It concluded in large letters:
"FEYNMAN SEXIST PIG!"

Joan stopped suddenly and rushed back: "These are interesting, " she 
said to the protester.  " I'd like some more of them!"

When she caught up with me, she said, "Gee whiz, Richard; what did you do?"

I told her what had happened as we walked into the hall.

At the front of the hall, near the stage, were two prominent women in 
the American Association of physics Teachers.  One was in charge of 
women's affairs for the organization, and the other was Fay Ajzenberg, a 
professor of physics I knew, from Pennsylvania.  The saw me coming
down towards the stage accompanied by this woman with a fistful of
handbills, talking to me.  Fay walked up to her and said, "Do you 
realize that Professor Feynman has a sister that he encouraged to go 
into physics, and that she has a Ph.D. in physics?"

"Of course I do," said Joan.  "I'm that sister!"

Fay and her associate explained to me that the protesters were a group--
led by a man, ironically--who were always disrupting meetings in Berkeley.
""We'll sit on either side of you to show our solidarity, and just before
you speak, I'll get up and say something to quiet the protesters," Fay said.

Because there was another talk before mine, I had time to think of something 
to say.  I thanked Fay, but declined her offer.

As soon as I got up to speak, half a dozen protesters marched down to the
front of the lecture hall and paraded right below the stage, holding their
picket signs high, chanting, "Feynman sexist pig! Feynman sexist pig!"

I began my talk by telling the protesters, "I'm sorry that my short answer
to your letter brought you here unnecessarily.  There are more serious places
to direct one's attention towards improving the status of women in physics
than these relatively trivial mistakes--if that's what you want to call them--
in a text book.  But perhaps, after all, it's good that you came.  For women
do indeed suffer from prejudice and discrimination in physics, and your
presence here today serves to remind us of these difficulties and the need
to remedy them."

The protesters looked at one another.  Their picket signs began to come
slowly down, like sails in a dying wind.

I continued: "Even though the American Association Physics Teachers has 
given me an award for teaching, I must confess I don't know how to teach.
Therefore, I have nothing to say about teaching.  Instead, I would like to
talk about something that will be especially interesting to the women in
the audience: I would like to talk about the structure of the proton."

The protesters put their picket signs down and walked off.  My hosts told
me later that the man and his group of protesters had never been defeated
so easily.

(Recently I discovered a transcript of my speech, and what I said at the
beginning doesn't seem anywhere near as dramatic as the way I remember
it.  What I remember saying is much more wonderful than what I actually said!)

After my talk, some of the protesters came up to press me about the woman-
driver story.  "Why did it have to be a woman driver?" they said.  
"You are implying that all women are bad drivers."

"But the woman makes the cop look bad," I said.  "Why aren't you concerned
about the cop?"

"That's what you expect from cops!" one of the protesters said.  "They're
all pigs!"

"But you should be concerned," I said.  "I forgot to say in the story 
that the cop was a woman!"

    for more on Mr. Feynman, see also:
    
    Mennotes
    266 - women, according to Feynman
    
    -Jody
    

    I think Feynman is extrememly funny, brilliant (although unfortunately,
    only a fair writer) and his books are great fun.
    
    He *is* a sexist, though.  I liked his response to the protesters at
    his talk but I think they were right.
    
    D!

    Naaaw, he ain't no sexist pig.  I read _Surely You Are Joking Mr.
    Feynman_ too.  The only time he acted like a sexist pig was when he
    went to the pig farms (aka the real cheap bars, not refering to the
    cost of the drinks).  He first didn't know the laws of the pigs, but 
    hey the man was brilliant and could turn into a pig if he wanted to, 
    and that was what happened.  Besides, I think we are being unfair to
    the pigs to call 'em sexists.  I mean how would you feel if all of a
    sudden all the pigs start to degrade each other by calling each other
    "uncouth people"?
    
    Eugene
                                        

    Eugene, do you know what the word "apologist" means? He acted like a
    pig. He made his life challenging assumptions and rules - except there.
    
    	-- Charles

    re .267
    
    The book "What Do You Care What Other People Think?" also contains a
    long story about him and his first wife Arlene.  A very moving story.
    
    As far as I know, he gave his female collegues equal respects as he
    would have given to his male collegues and valued their professional
    opinions on their own merits.  As to the "pig farms", well, I think he
    was there looking for "one night stand".  Regardless of one's opinion
    on one night stands in one night cheap hotels, it doesn't automatically
    mean they are sexists, pigs maybe, but not necessarily sexist.
    
    If there is anything that could be said about Feynman's life, it is:
    "What Do You Care What Other People Think?"  I do not necessarily
    agree, but I can admire this kind of individualism.
    
    Eugene
                                                       

    Right.
    
    Like the story in "Surely you're joking..." where he explains that the
    only way to 'get girls' is to treat them like sh*t, and he goes about
    doing just that to 'get' them.
    
    It is also amazing to me how he put so much personal stuff about people
    in his life into "Surely..." and hardly once mentioned his wives.
    
    D!

    I guess anyone (with a strong opinion and conviction) goes out to look 
    for this sort of thing can find something in that book to conclude 
    the fella was a racist or a sexist or whatever.  Others know exactly
    the point he was making.  That fella started off being a "nice guy" in
    the pig farm, and concluded that the only way to be nice to a pig is to
    treat a pig like a pig (Did he actually become a pig himself?  You will
    have to be the judge of that).  Yea, what about Madonna's video tape,
    the one that was rejected by MTV?  Isn't that special?  Pig or no pig, 
    you be the judge, but I sure don't think Madonna is a pig.  She is 
    probably laughing to the bank while people of strong convictions, uh you 
    know...
    
    Why am I having this uncomfortable feeling that this fella is laughing 
    at me from above when I come to his defense?  I can almost hear him
    saying, "Those fellas are nutty..."
    
    Eugene

re: .271

I read _Surely you must be Joking_,
or started to, but didn't enjoy it and didn't finish it.
The author sounded like all he was doing was blowing his own horn,
and I felt he was being arrogant, egotistic, sexist, and
something-else-ist (sort of "Aren't I clever, more clever than the
all those fools" -- showing himself clever or whatever at the
expense of others).  

Those were just my impressions from the first half or so from the book,
and I don't remember specifics.  
I wasn't reading the book *looking* for anything --
I'd never heard of the guy before, and the book was recommended
by a friend.  

	MKV

    Eugene, I don't know why you presume that I went "looking" to prove
    that Feynman was a sexist.  I didn't.
    
    Actually, the name "Feynman" was just a vague recollection I had heard
    somewhere before I read the book.  I had *no* preconceptions.  After
    reading the book, I have some opinions about the guy who wrote it: he
    was funny and smart, but also arrogant, an intellectualist (is this the
    word you were looking for, Mary?), and a sexist.  That was my total
    impression.  I did not go "looking" for any of this - all I went
    looking for was a good book to read.  The whole *point* of the book was
    to get a feel for Feynman as a person, and I *did*.  His sexism was not
    something subtle I had to seek out and dig for - it blared in my face
    the entire time I was reading the book.
    
    I am more than a little uncomfortable at your references to "pigs" and
    "pig farms".
    
    What does Madonna have to do with any of this?  You lost me there.
    
    
    D!, Madonna fan

    re .272,
    
    You are right of course, the guy was arrogant, egotistic, and well
    maybe sexist too.  But come on, it is funny, even Diana thinks so.
    Sometime I think he was just putting up a mask.  You know, scientists
    are usually shy and nerdy people, and a few act outrageously to hide
    it.  In that sense, I can certainly relate.
    
    Eugene
          

    re .274,
    
    Ok, Diana, let's call 'em "hogs" and "hog heavens".  And you are
    right.  Madonna has absolutely nothing to do with Feynman (I don't 
    think they ever met, but I could be wrong).
    
    Eugene

    >even Diana thinks [feynman's books are funny]
    
    Even Diana?
    
    **EVEN** Diana???
    
    What is *that* supposed to mean?!?!
    
    D!

    re .277,
    
    Yes, even Diana.

    
    Reading another conference yesterday I came across something that
    surprised me.
    
    I saw "men" spelt as "myn".
    
    Has anyone else come across this?
    
    My reaction was mixed. Today, I wondered if this is a way that some
    feminist men use to identify themselves with the womyn they support.
    
    My first reaction was less friendly. It first struck me as a way
    of making fun of and belittling this attempt that womyn have made
    to change perceptions of us through language. 
    I thought "Are you feeling so threatened that you have to deride
    our language? That you have to reclaim even this small gesture that we
    have made to establish our own identity?"
    
    As a gesture of solidarity, I'm not sure that I welcome it....
    *If* it's a put-down, I find it both frightening and pathetic.
    I believe it's certainly open to misinterpretation.
    
    What do you think?
                                                       
    'gail

    'gail
    
    if it was the same file I've seen it in, it was originally
    meant as a put down..
    
    and a joke
    
    I ignore it..
    
    Bonnie

re: .279

> I saw "men" spelt as "myn".

> I thought "Are you feeling so threatened that you have to deride
> our language? That you have to reclaim even this small gesture that
> we have made to establish our own identity?"

'gail, I'm a feminist, but every time I see "wymyn" or "womyn" I
cringe.  Some little girls try to be different by dotting their Is with
circles or hearts or smiley faces.  Other little girls try to be
different by changing the spellings of their names - from Linda to
Lynda, from Cindy to Cyndi.  Adults smile condescendingly at these cute
but childishly naive attempts to assert identity, and then they turn
around and play the very same game.  It's hard for most men to take
these women very seriously.

-d

    
    
    >Other little girls try to be different by changing the 
    >spellings of their names
    
    It's usually the parents that give "different" spellings of names at
    birth.
    
    In fact, I would be one to do that too, since I find that I like to be
    "different".  I don't consider that a childish thing.  
    
    I don't like the spelling of "womyn" or "wymyn" because I think it's
    ugly and hard to type/write, so I don't do it.  Plus I don't feel the
    overwhelming urge to make the statement that I'm "denying" my
    relationship with men.
    
    However, in an alternate spelling to a name, I WOULD be feeling the
    overwhelming urge to be different/unique.....
    
    I guess I'd rather deny the idea of conformancy/normalcy than denying
    the existance of a relationship between genders.
    
    kath

    I too cringe when I see womyn, but that's no reason to not take those
    women seriously. I'm sure they have their reasons to spell like that
    and I'm equally sure those reasons are not cutsey.
    
    manisha

    well, I *suppose* it *could* be considered childish to indulge in
    alternate spellings and unique namings.
    
    
    E
    
    
    

Hmmm...you know, I used to argue vehemently against the use of alternate
spellings of "woman".  I realized when I read this note thatIdon't even
notice it anymore!  At this point, in my readings "womyn" is as common as
"woman", and it has become just another alternate spelling, like "color"
and "colour".  It doesn't even jar me anymore.

However, when I was arguing against it (and I still don't use it) the most
compelling argument I heard was that "womyn"did *not* take the "man" out
of "woman." Changing the spelling of "woman" still means that "woman", and
therefore "wife of man" was still the root, and therefore any sexism buried
in the word was still there.  I think I would be much more supportive of
a brand new word that wasn't a derivative of a patriarchal/sexist word for
women.

"myn" of course makes no sense, since the whole idea of the "y" replacing 
the "a" in "woman" was that the two words *sound* the same. The "a" in man
is not pronounced the same as the "a" in woman, and therefore "myn" is not
a reasonable (mis)spelling.

However, the main point I wanted to make is this...

>It's hard for most men to take these women very seriously.

Tough.  I don't think the point of the spelling is to make "men take them 
seriously."  It doesn't matter whether you take it seriously or not - the
women are there and if they chose to spell their identification differently,
there's nothing you can do about it. If it makes you treat them differently
you are exposing your *own* prejudices.

In fact, it is sort of insulting to imply that "these women" even care what
you think of their spelling.  I think this is another one of those "in your
face" things.  "We're here, we're wimmin, we're fabulous, get USED TO IT!"

D!

           
    I like things that shake up the ordinary, the assumptions we make
    without even recognizing that they are assumptions or what their
    origins might be.  It seems that most of modern Judao-Christian culture
    (much of which is expressed through language) has placed women firmly
    in the place of other, as derived from the (male) self.  Adam's rib
    used to form Eve.  The word wo(MAN) reminds us (at least me) that
    we (as a culture) believe that woman comes/came after man, is a subset
    of man.  Sure, there may be more important battles than how we spell
    things, but every time I see "womyn," "womon," etc., I am both repulsed
    (because I do value correctness in spelling and punctuation, even
    though I make my own share of mistakes) and attracted, because this
    simple change of a letter gives me a new message.  That as a
    wom(a)(y)(o)n, I am a whole, complete person, who is "enough" (to quote
    E's wonderful p_name).
    
    Justine
    
    A few lines from Ruth Pelham's song "I am a woman"
    
    	I am a woman here on planet earth
        I have the gift of life in me
        a gift given at birth
    
        No one, nobody, no powers that be
        can ever, ever, ever take that gift away from me.
                           

>    Being taken seriously is precisely what the whole feminist
> agenda is about, and I was pointing out that "establishing (y)our own
> identity" in that fashion is perhaps not the wisest way to be taken
> seriously. 

Not necessarily. "Taking OURSELVES seriously" is a huge aspect of
the feminist agenda. Recognizing our abilities and accomplishments
and potential. Empowering ourselves.

Women are 51% of the population here in the States. That's enough voters
to make/break political agendas. So I think women are often women's own
worst enemies. We need to assume the power that is potentially available
to us, whether or not the men take us seriously.

Kathy

    That "womyn" reminds me of an ancient Chinese story.  A guy got 300 bucks
    (won a lotto or something like that, and that 300 silver bucks was a
    lota money), so he tried to figure out a way to keep it safe.  Finally,
    he decided to bury the coins in his back yard.  So after much effort,
    he did just that, and then he posted a big sign on the spot that said:
    "There aren't 300 bucks buried here."
    
    The next day, his neighbor walked by and saw the note, so he dug out the
    money and took it home.  Then he went back to the site and put another
    note that said: "Your neighbor didn't steal the money."
    
    If you (a generic you) want to change the relation between the words
    "men" and "women", do it right.  Create a myth that the word "men"
    comes from the word "women" (by taking out the "wo" part, which stands
    for wonderful or something like that).  After all the story about the 
    word "women" comes from "men" is just as much a myth (and Adam with his 
    rib, another myth).  Of course, creating a myth is not as easy as saying 
    "There aren't 300 bucks buried here" and it will take a long time.  
    Personally, I think it is another one of those bruhaha.  For one thing, 
    I never new the word "woman" is supposed to mean the wife of a man until 
    I read this note string.  Now honestly how many of us knew that be we 
    read this note string?  So the old myth is already on its way out, 
    why remind us of something we don't know for the better?  Why post a
    "There aren't 300 bucks buried here." sign when nobody else knows there
    is money buried at the spot?
    
    Eugene

-d, I dind't say *you* weren't taking thse women seriously, I meant "you" in
a more general sense.

Any way, this is an old argument and not confined to feminism.  It is
a souce of great controversy in the gay rights movement.  Is it better to
assimilate, to get straights to "like you", to respect you, to treat you
like everyone else, or is it better to say that they don't *need* to
like you and they damn well better treat you well because there are enough
of you to be a presence.

It is the same thing with women.  Some argue that to gain rights, women have
to find ways to get men to accept them as equal. Other women say: why should
we?  We are more than half the population. We don't have to get men to
accept us and give us our place in society; we can *take* our place and it
doesn't matter one whit what men think of us.

I am more inclined the the latter (as per my p_name and other conversations.)
My attitude is that it doesn't matter if men think it is silly to argue about
whether to call us women or girls or how to spell it.  If they think I'm
silly they are just going to be S.O.L. when they discover that women have
suddenly taken on positions of power.  We don't need men to accept us.  It
would be nice, mostly for *them* than for *us*, because that way it will be
less traumatic for them when we take our rightful place.  

But arguing against something because it will make men think less of us - 
well, I think my reaction to that argument is pretty clear.

D!

Gail, I used the word 'myn' yesterday, so I wonder if it was my note you saw.
As I think about trying to explain it now, I realize my usage was
idiosyncratic to the files I note in and the particular people I
discuss things with, so this explanation isn't necessarily going to
make much sense unless you read several of the same conferences I do. 
In Soapbox, 'myn' has been used as a putdown and a reactionary
derogation against alternate spellings of women.  I don't let that
usage get to me; I'm stronger and more comfortable in my positions, in
my feminism, than to let the name-calling bother me.  And I'm used to
the rancorous tone of discussion that prevails in Soapbox, the insults,
and mostly I just let 'em slide.  There are some very intelligent
people there for whom I have a high degree of regard and respect,
though our positions on many matters differs.  So when I use 'myn', I'm
reclaiming what they intended as an insult, I'm turning that word to my
own purposes, I'm asserting my own comfort and refusal to accept their
suggestion that it is an insult.

And when I'm talking to boxers, I'll sometimes use soapbox-isms, even
if we happen to be in another conference at the time, as in my usage yesterday.

DougO 

re: .286 et al.

The word "woman" does indeed incorporate the word "man".  It derives
from the Old English "wifman" (alternately spelled "wifmann"):

		wif     +   man
		 ^	     ^
		 |           |
             "female 	   "adult person (sex unspecified)"
               marker"

German still uses the word "man" to mean "person (sex and everything
else unspecified)", reserving "Mann" to denote an adult male. (e.g.,
"Man kann hier rauchen" [Translated into colloquial English:  "You
can smoke here"]

"Wif" -- or "wife" as it eventually became, took on the
meaning of "adult female", so that "woman" became partially redundant
("adult female person").  We see this in words used as late as the
18th century, for example, "Goodwife" which means "good adult female",
not "good married female".  Later, it evolved to the word as we understand it
today.

Old English had another word for "male adult person", but I don't
remember what it was.  As I recall, it also used "-man" as its ending,
and I believe the prefix was something like "hwus-",  which has come
down to us in "husband".

That "man" later came to denote "adult male".  I don't think I have to review 
why that probably happened :-(

Yours for understanding where we've been so we can get to where we want to go,

Bobbi "deadlines wait for no wif-man" Fox

    
    Thanks Eugene.

>In Soapbox, 'myn' has been used as a putdown and a reactionary
>derogation against alternate spellings of women. 

 This was indeed the original usage in Soapbox. A noter who was uncomfortable
with the feminist movement latched upon the usage of creative spelling by
members of the feminist movement who ostensibly were trying to put some 
distance between men and women by playing an etymological game and attempted to
mock it via imitation. Lately, however, much of the time when I see the term
myn used it refers to a feminist male.

 For example, when I asked a woman why she wasn't coming to a party, her answer,
in part, was "I married a man, not a myn..."

 The Doctah

    
    DougO,
    
    I didn't initially mention which conference I'd seen it in as I
    wanted to avoid getting into a conference "tone-bashing" rathole
    but yes, it was SOAPBOX. So I did take it with the obligatory
    pinch of salt, but it made me think anyway.
    
    I realised after I entered my note here that I didn't notice
    the gender of the person who used the word.....maybe if I'd noticed
    I would have got a different set of implications.....it could
    have been you...
    
    It's interesting to learn why you were using that spelling -
    just reading the note it was hard to know which way to take it.
    
    'gail
    
    

    
    amassing a whole lot of money?
    
    D.

>Short of open revolt, what am I missing here?

D!

To be a little more specific...

women constitute a majority of the population.  If they were to decide en masse
that they wanted something to happen, it would happen, period.

The whole point of the "in your face, get used to it" attitude as that we
won't work *within* the system (elections, promotions) but instead work
to *change* the system.

Women can't get elected into the existing government?  Get rid of the
existing government.  Women can't get promoted into the male-dominated
hierarchy of American business?  Get rid of the whole damn system.

That's what radical *means*, -d.

D!

    re.300 Women may indeed constitute _a_ majority of the population,
    but 'those with a vested interest in things-as-they-are' constitute
    the *real* power group. The elderly on SS, the welfare poor, the 
    government workers, and the gov't.-subsidized business folks are the 
    ones who make darn sure to *vote* in every election, and their vote 
    *always* goes to whoever promises *not* to upset the applecart.
    (And you can bet your last dollar that being female very seldom
    causes one to vote against ones vested interest.)
    
    Radicals, in the sense of 'those who would chuck the whole system
    and start fresh' don't have a chance against that kind of inertia.

         Or, if we are to believe Kitty, do as Nancy did for
    her husband Ronald ("the Reagan".)  Nancy, "mommy," seemed
    to have more power than he did, according to the "tale."
    
    Frederick
    

    Radicals, in the sense of 'those who would chuck the whole system
    and start fresh' don't have a chance against that kind of inertia.

Yep yep - he's right you know...

	King George III

    re.303 You're right, Charles. I should have said, 'those who 
    would chuck the whole system when they are in the minority and
    have not yet convinced the majority'. Of course, in a democratic
    society, once you've convinced the majority, you don't _need_
    to chuck the system, you can fix it from within. The real
    trick isn't 'overthrow the system' , it's 'create the social/
    philosophical/political climate for change.'
    
    Dana

    
    By all means lets try to interpret as many things as possible, as
    insults. 
    
    To give up a chance to be in someones face is simply unforgivable...

    Thanks so much Bob, I always you that you had it in you....
    
    sigh
    
    BJ

    FWIW:  When I first read "wimmin" I thought it was a put-down of women, a
    variant of pronunciation, expressed in print.  "Oh boy, Lester, lookit
    all them half-neckid wimmen in that there pitcher."  Translation:  "Oh
    boy, Lester, look at all [of those] half-naked women in that picture." 
    
    This incorrect understanding lasted for several notes sessions.
    
    I might find it interesting to go back and re-read those notes from a 
    different standpoint, but at the time, I tended to write off such authors 
    as rednecks (to me, this is a negative label) or redneck sympathizers, and 
    to discount their opinions.  In fact, I generally recognized "wimmin" as an 
    indication to hit next unseen.
    
    Turns out it's a variant spelling, intended to empower females (oops)
    and to express the concept "an adult person, not male".  Perhaps
    fem and mas, short for feminine and masculine would be good female-male
    replacement words, but of course feminine and masculine have
    connotations all their own. 
    
    Like Humpty-Dumpty, one may assign arbitrary meanings to words (or
    spelled sounds) but may discover that the message has been mangled.
    
    Me?  I'm a woman.
    
    aq
                     
    be misunderstood.

    In a previous edition of =wn=, I posted Samuel R. Delany's radical
    revision of "Genesis", from the Neveryona series.  One of my favorite
    bits was when Adam, as part of the punishment for her sins, was renamed
    "man" to signify that (s)he was now only a _broken_ "woman" -- sort of
    a diminutive.
    
    Ray

   One of my favorite cartoons showed an executive staring at a 10-year-old 
   girl in a business suit standing on his desk.  She's saying:

	"If you wanted a salesWOMAN, why didn't you ask for one?"

   :^)
   Kathy

>If one of your daughters called
>you up at 11 PM and asked to spend the night at a friends house with "the guys",
>would you assume those other people were female or male?)
    
    Today, female.  In a year or two, I'll probably make her be more
    specific.  :^)
    
    How do you pronounce "gyn"?  Hard g, long i, n?  Or soft g, long i, n?
    or what?  Do you really use that in verbal address?
    
    					- Vick
    

    I use that in verbal address to womenfriends.  
    
    It's pronounced like "guy" with an "N" at the end.  Some women don't
    like to use it since it sounds like "GYN" as in "gynecologist".
    
    I most often use folks, though.
    
    -Jody
    

    
    "politically correct"
    

Heh heh.

Yup.

D!

    OK, I'm gonna ask.....I've tried to figure it out myself, but I just
    can't!
    
    Sometimes noters generalize & they will refer to a person as "he" 
    when they don't actually know what the sex of the person is, & they'll
    type "(sic)" in order to excuse themselves from this generalization.
    What does "sic"mean? I ask, because I was going to use the term once,
    but I really didn't KNOW what it meant, I was just familiar w/ the
    context.
    
    Also, I forget the context it was used in, but can anyone tell me what
    "PC" means? does it have something to do w/ prejiduce?
    
    Forgive my ignorance, but i can stand it no longer!
    
    Bonnie

    "sic" means "as is" or something in latin.  When you're typing
    something in and it has a spelling error, and you don't want to be
    blamed for the spelling error, you type (sic) after it to tell them it
    was in the original.
    
    PC is "politically correct"
    
    -Jody
    

    In the case of the note I just entered, I meant to indicate that
    it *was* a male individual, not a generic one.  Hence, "sic",
    meaning "thus[ly]", or "as [this] is".
    
    						Ann B.
    
    P.S.  Is anyone up for a discussion of "moot" and "mute"?  I ran
    across one of them earlier today.  Elsewhere.

I forget the literal translation.  It is used in a quotation to indicate
that an error, unusual spelling, or other oddity is from the original, so
that the reader doesn't think it was introduced by the current writer.
Some people use it as an editorial comment, to idicate that they
disapprove of a particular usage.  Most editors frown on the latter ussage.

An example:  "A small step for man [sic]; a giant leap for mankind [sic]."

The first [sic] indicates that the "a" before "man" was missing in the
orginial statement; the second could be an editorial comment indicating
that the present writer felt that the original speaker should have used
a more inclusive term.

PC means "politically correct."  As in, "The use of the non-inclusive
term `mankind' is not PC; use earthlings instead."

    No, no, no.  Don't use `earthlings'; use `Terrans'.
    
    						Ann B.  :-)

	But what if you are intentionally trying to exclude earthworms
	and gazelles? Oh, that's not PC either... :)

					Tom_K

Well yeah, I know what the word means, but since I chose to be mute on the
subject, the point is moot.

D!

    If the kitten had mute at the door, I moot have let her in.
    
    K.

"sic" means that the word or phrase is an exact quote -- that it appeared that 
way in the original. 

"mute" means silent or unable to speak. (If you "stand mute" in court it means
you refuse to plead either guilty of not guilty.) 

"moot" means either subject to debate or argument, or, paradoxically, something
already settled or discussed ("a moot point").

Bruce

    Thanks a big bunch, everyone!!
    
    Bonnie

    Got a skid of material back from the personal computer production area
    with a sign on it saying "Not PC material". Had to think a minute...

"sic" is simply latin for "so" or "thus". I was always taught it meant
"Stands InCorected" by that's wrong.

	-- Charles

        re .318
        
>> An example:  "A small step for man [sic]; a giant leap for mankind [sic]."
        
        But I read that he did say "... for a man ...", but the
        static in the communications link covered it up.
        
        Dan

When I was trying to think of the literal translation of sic, all I could
come up with was "and that's the way it was," which seemed too silly to
write down.  But that is pretty close to what -d says it stands for, after
all.


Was the original statement "for man" or "for a man"?  I've heard several
stories about this, but I think the orginal speaker said that he meant
to say "a man," and he thought he said "a man," but he probably did
leave out the "a."  That static theory was a later explaination made
up by someone who was trying to figure out why the quote didn't make
sense.

    i still remember very clearly the quote in question, even though i was
    only 8 at the time. he didn't say `a'.
    
    ...laura

	I read in the Sojourner something about the etymology
	of the word "f*ck", and also a word I've never heard
	of before..  

	"Cunching" -- to pleasure each other

	which is supposedly being used by lesbians to describe their 
	sexual act.  A new word was chosen to get away from the
	violent overtones of words associated with the heterosexual
	act like, f*cking, banging, etc..

<	"Cunching" -- to pleasure each other

Well, it hasn't apparently reached Colorado yet.  That's a new one to me!

   Carol

    It's new to me too. I'm an old softie. I like the softer words when
    referring to pleasurable activities i.e. making
    love,snuggling,cuddling+,cuddling++,cuddling+/-,fooling around,knights
    in naked armor...
    
    Never did care much for violent words like banging and screwing.
    
    Laurie

    Nancy,
    
    What does it say about "F*CK"?
    
    A teacher told me that it came from the phrase, "Found Under Carnal
    Knowledge". Is that true? When & Why was it brought into our language?
    I've often wondered these things, (like, everytime someone sez "F*CK")
    
    I don't particularly care for such harsh words either. I know,
    the original meanings & implications may have been quite different
    than the ones of today, but when someone calls me a C*NT, I don't 
    take it as a compliment, and I don't feel as though I'm being referred
    to as a goddess! Most people who'd use such language wouldn't be
    implying such, either!
    
    Bonnie

    I'm not Nancy, but the AHD says f*ck derives from the Middle English
    fucken, a Germanic verb meaning originally "to strike, move quickly,
    penetrate" (akin to or perhaps borrowed from Middle Dutch fokken, to
    strike, copulate with).  The AHD says further details are uncertain due
    toa lack of early attestations.
    
    -d

    I always thought it was an acronym for "Fornication under Charles (the)
    King".  Don't remember where I read this years ago....
    

    another acronym that has been suggested is 'for unlawful carnal
    knowlege'. all of these are 'urban legends' so to speak. -d's 
    german derivation is the one that I've seen as most commonly
    accepted.
    
    BJ

    
    
    	re: .335 (Bonnis Hussain)
    
    	From the Sojourner letters section, July, 1991:
    
    	"On the Etymology of Fuck"
    
    	Dear Sojourner:
    
    	The English word "fuck" is more than slightly "tarnished"
    	[see Hilayne Cavanaugh in Sojourner Letters, May, 1991].
    	The related Latin term is the verb pugnare, which meant "to fight."  
    	Inherent in the Proto-Indo-European root from which both verbs
    	developed (*bhaghwo-) is the same violence we find in other
    	words describing the heterosexual act (bang, nail, screw).
    	Maleny Nicola, concerned about this lack in our vocabulary, 
    	has suggested the word "cunching", which means "pleasuring"
    	(Lesbian Network, September, 1989( and suggests a caring 
    	mutuality removed from the mindset that bequeathed us "fuck" and
    	its 1,200 synonyms.
    

Note 943.88                      growing up ugly                        88 of 88
WONDER::PTAK "Karen Ptak"                            86 lines   3-AUG-1991 21:49
    
>   my fraternal twin sister was sexy,
    
    Just wanted to point out this (IMHO) funny quirk of our language - twin
    sisters are referred as "fraternal", a word derived from...brother. 
    :-)
    
    D!