Women who refer to other women as "You guys" (Also, do young people talk faster?)

[Berkeley Brett]

I hope you are well & in good spirits.

I attended a gathering this weekend at which there were many "college kids." I nearly always find such gatherings hopeful: lots of smart, sharp, witty young people having a good time. I get the sense that the future is in good hands (or at least in hands as good as it was in when I was that age, and probably better (Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect ). (I'm 50 now.))

At one point, one young woman said to a group of (maybe five) young women (presumably about their plans after the gathering), "Why don't some of you guys come with me, and we'll meet you over there."

I've seen this many times, when a woman will refer to a group of women as "you guys," and it always causes me to smile inwardly.

I'm not sure why. I interpret it as a small sign of the greater independence women have achieved over the years, though perhaps I'm reading too much into it. It's just nice to see any and all evidence that half of humankind (and in so many ways the nicer half) is breaking out of the shackles that have held them back for most of human history.

I wonder, does anyone know when women began referring to groups of women as "you guys"? I suspect it would be hard to determine, but I would be interested to know.

As an aside, is this an illusion, or do young people today talk faster than they did 30 years ago? I actually like listening to some of the rapid-fire delivery of some 20-somethings (and the women are faster than the men, it seems), but I don't EVER remember being able to talk that fast! Nor did any of my friends (and they were plenty bright).

Someone sent me a link to this YouTube video on hexaflexagons. The style of speaking of the speaker, rapid and sharp as she gets going, seems representative of the speech of many young people today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIVIegSt81k

Well, your feedback on these matters is most welcome....

--
Brett (in Berkeley, California, USA)
On Twitter at:
http://twitter.com/BerkeleyBrett
(You don't have to be a Twitter user to view this stream of ideas!)

[Steve Hayes]

On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 01:53:44 -0700 (PDT), Berkeley Brett <roya...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>I hope you are well & in good spirits.
>
>I attended a gathering this weekend at which there were many "college kids." I nearly always find such gatherings hopeful: lots of smart, sharp, witty young people having a good time. I get the sense that the future is in good hands (or at least in hands as good as it was in when I was that age, and probably better (Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect ). (I'm 50 now.))
>
>At one point, one young woman said to a group of (maybe five) young women (presumably about their plans after the gathering), "Why don't some of you guys come with me, and we'll meet you over there."
>
>I've seen this many times, when a woman will refer to a group of women as "you guys," and it always causes me to smile inwardly.
>
>I'm not sure why. I interpret it as a small sign of the greater independence women have achieved over the years, though perhaps I'm reading too much into it. It's just nice to see any and all evidence that half of humankind (and in so many ways the nicer half) is breaking out of the shackles that have held them back for most of human history.
>
>I wonder, does anyone know when women began referring to groups of women as "you guys"? I suspect it would be hard to determine, but I would be interested to know.

In 1971 I met two girls from Denver, Colorado, aged 11 and 12, and they used
"you guys" to address males and females alike. I picked the habit up from
them, and have used "guys" to refer to people of either sex ever since, but a
bloke remains male. Previously I used "guys" and "blokes" interchangeably.

Since those two girls would be in their 50s now, I suspect that their children
probably use it in the same way, and that their grandchildren, who will
probably be arriving soon if they haven't already, will also be doing so.
That's three generations.

>
>As an aside, is this an illusion, or do young people today talk faster than they did 30 years ago? I actually like listening to some of the rapid-fire delivery of some 20-somethings (and the women are faster than the men, it seems), but I don't EVER remember being able to talk that fast! Nor did any of my friends (and they were plenty bright).
>
>Someone sent me a link to this YouTube video on hexaflexagons. The style of speaking of the speaker, rapid and sharp as she gets going, seems representative of the speech of many young people today:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIVIegSt81k
>
>Well, your feedback on these matters is most welcome....

--

Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Don Phillipson]

"Berkeley Brett" <roya...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f2b0507c-6336-4395...@googlegroups.com...

> I wonder, does anyone know when women began referring to groups of women
> as "you guys"?

This usage seems to date from 1970-80 viz. the third generation of the
American women's movement (if #1 was the 19th century suffragists,
#2 Betty Friedan, #3 Gloria Steinem et al.)

A difference is that women=guys seems specifically American. Books
of 1920-40 record women occasionally referring to themselves as "chaps,"
which was an affected (upper class) usage but occurred as often between
British as American women. Women=guys now seems not used in the UK.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

I've heard "guys" for a group of women several times on TV in the UK. It
is used by younger women.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Don Phillipson]

"Berkeley Brett" <roya...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f2b0507c-6336-4395...@googlegroups.com...

> I wonder, does anyone know when women began referring to groups of women
> as "you guys"?

This usage seems to date from 1970-80 viz. the third generation of the
American women's movement (if #1 was the 19th century suffragists,
#2 Betty Friedan, #3 Gloria Steinem et al.)

A difference is that women=guys seems specifically American. Books
of 1920-40 record women occasionally referring to themselves as "chaps,"
which was an affected (upper class) usage but occurred as often between
British as American women. Women=guys now seems not used in the UK.

[Christian Weisgerber]

Don Phillipson <e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:

> > I wonder, does anyone know when women began referring to groups of women
> > as "you guys"?
>

> A difference is that women=guys seems specifically American.

I'm pretty sure I've seen it on TV as far away as New Zealand.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de

[Reinhold {Rey} Aman]

Smarmy Berkeley Brett wrote again:

>
> I hope you are well & in good spirits.
>

I'm not, Little Miss Goody Two-Shoes.

Knock off your annoying & ingratiating salutation. It sucks.

Have a wonderful day!!!

--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~

[Christian Weisgerber]

Berkeley Brett <roya...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've seen this many times, when a woman will refer to a group of women
> as "you guys," and it always causes me to smile inwardly.

Then I guess you will be even more impressed by the metonymical use
of male genitals ("having balls", "growing a pair", "busting
(some)one's balls", ...) that you can also observe being applied
to, and among, women.

Conversely, "he is PMSing" is enjoying some popularity.

[Mike L]

I first heard it from American teenage girls between '66 and '68, and
adopted it forthwith. Many British hearers at the time thought I was
being nonsensical, or more so than usual.

--
Mike.

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

Berkeley Brett <roya...@gmail.com> writes:

> I hope you are well & in good spirits.
>
> I attended a gathering this weekend at which there were many
> "college kids." I nearly always find such gatherings hopeful: lots
> of smart, sharp, witty young people having a good time. I get the
> sense that the future is in good hands (or at least in hands as good
> as it was in when I was that age, and probably better
> (Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect ). (I'm 50 now.))
>
> At one point, one young woman said to a group of (maybe five) young
> women (presumably about their plans after the gathering), "Why don't
> some of you guys come with me, and we'll meet you over there."
>
> I've seen this many times, when a woman will refer to a group of
> women as "you guys," and it always causes me to smile inwardly.
>
> I'm not sure why. I interpret it as a small sign of the greater
> independence women have achieved over the years, though perhaps I'm
> reading too much into it. It's just nice to see any and all evidence
> that half of humankind (and in so many ways the nicer half) is
> breaking out of the shackles that have held them back for most of
> human history.
>
> I wonder, does anyone know when women began referring to groups of
>women as "you guys"? I suspect it would be hard to determine, but I
>would be interested to know.

I (b. 1964) grew up in Chicago, and that's always been a feature of my
dialect. "You guys" is simply the plural form of "you", and it's used
irrespective of the sex of the speaker or the referents. It's my
dialect's response to the lack of the "thee/you" distinction, as other
dialects lexicalized "y'all", "yins", or "youse".

Similarly, "these guys" and "those guys" would be used by girls and
women when describing an opposing all-female team. Bare "guys"
referred to specifically men in general, and "the guys" was either the
male members of some group (contrasted with the female members) or
"the group I hang out with", but usually only when at least some were
male.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |Code should be designed to make it
SF Bay Area (1982-) |easy to get it right, not to work
Chicago (1964-1982) |if you get it right.

evan.kir...@gmail.com

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[fabzorba]

On 10월9일, 오전9시53분, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Berkeley Brett <royal...@gmail.com> writes:
> > I hope you are well & in good spirits.
>
> > I attended a gathering this weekend at which there were many
> > "college kids." I nearly always find such gatherings hopeful: lots
> > of smart, sharp, witty young people having a good time. I get the
> > sense that the future is in good hands (or at least in hands as good
> > as it was in when I was that age, and probably better

> > (Cf.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect). (I'm 50 now.))

> evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com
>
> http://www.kirshenbaum.net/- 원본 텍스트 숨기기 -
>
> - 원본 텍스트 보기 -

The application of "guys" to women, though it had previously been
comletely reserved for males,is a sign of just how creative and free
American vernacular is. A general word to signify "everyone around
here that I am referring to" was badly needed, but the only candidate
(that I can think of) was "you folks", and that would not always do.
So the masculine "guys" was dragooned to refer to BOTH males and
females.

Conversely, the comparable terms - mates, cobbers, and blokes, which
are NOT American and not used there, have remained inflexibly male. In
Australia, the idea of including the concept of "mateship" in a
preamble to our Constitution was vetoed as "mates" can ONLY refer to
males. Had we been Yanks, the word would have simply added new
dimensions, and come to refer to women as well. In fact, there is
nothing creepy about women being mates, many women make wonderful
matey friends, and there is really no reason why "mate" could not be
applied to them.

myles [is mates with some sheilas, and they with me...] paulsen

[Dr Nick]

fabzorba <myles....@gmail.com> writes:

> The application of "guys" to women, though it had previously been
> comletely reserved for males,is a sign of just how creative and free
> American vernacular is. A general word to signify "everyone around
> here that I am referring to" was badly needed, but the only candidate
> (that I can think of) was "you folks", and that would not always do.
> So the masculine "guys" was dragooned to refer to BOTH males and
> females.
>
> Conversely, the comparable terms - mates, cobbers, and blokes, which
> are NOT American and not used there, have remained inflexibly male. In
> Australia, the idea of including the concept of "mateship" in a
> preamble to our Constitution was vetoed as "mates" can ONLY refer to
> males. Had we been Yanks, the word would have simply added new
> dimensions, and come to refer to women as well. In fact, there is
> nothing creepy about women being mates, many women make wonderful
> matey friends, and there is really no reason why "mate" could not be
> applied to them.

Hmm. I'd be slightly arch doing it, but I can see no problems in
addressing a mixed crowd with "OK chaps". I might try it some time.

[Donna Richoux]

Berkeley Brett <roya...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

> At one point, one young woman said to a group of (maybe five) young women
> (presumably about their plans after the gathering), "Why don't some of you
> guys come with me, and we'll meet you over there."
>
> I've seen this many times, when a woman will refer to a group of women as
> "you guys," and it always causes me to smile inwardly.
>
> I'm not sure why. I interpret it as a small sign of the greater
> independence women have achieved over the years, though perhaps I'm
> reading too much into it. It's just nice to see any and all evidence that
> half of humankind (and in so many ways the nicer half) is breaking out of
> the shackles that have held them back for most of human history.
>
> I wonder, does anyone know when women began referring to groups of women
> as "you guys"? I suspect it would be hard to determine, but I would be
> interested to know.

I'm sure I said it in California before I left there in 1974. I probably
used it after that, in other US states, but I don't remember now.

It's the logical progression from "You guys" being used to address a
mixed group of males and females. The women who are so addressed are not
thinking to themselves, "The speaker doesn't mean me, or the females,
just the males." No, it was clear that everyone was meant.

Since "you guys" means "you people," it stopped mattering whether the
group was all male, mixed, or all female. Apparently it's more
noteworthy to an observer when it's all female.

"Guy" did continue to mean "male" in other constructions, though -- "a
guy," "two guys," "some guys."

The Subset/Whole problem -- logical oddities always occur when the same
term is used for part of a set as for the whole set. Is a hot dog the
sausage or the sandwich? Are dishes the same as bowls, or all of the
china? Etc.

--
Best -- Donna Richoux

[leno...@yahoo.com]

I am not quite old enough to remember (clearly, anyway) a time when women DIDN'T do that.

But I wish they hadn't started. To me, it's just another example of American laziness and vocal sloppiness. (Side note: I have the impression that "lazy" is becoming a dirty word, though it shouldn't be considered as such. In the 1970s, for example, teachers and librarians used the term "lazy reader" for middle-school kids who chose never to read anything harder in their spare time than, say, excerpts from "The Guinness Book of World Records," but how often does any teacher dare to make that accusation today, for fear of offending a parent or child?)

I also dislike the expression "guys and girls." Not only does it sound to me like an expression used by semi-literate characters in a 1940s gangster movie, but it also implies, I think, that boys shouldn't have to grow up and girls aren't allowed to grow up.

If I had children, I would gently correct them and remind them to say, instead, "girls and boys," "men and women," or, as the case may be, "ladies and gentlemen," just as I'd responsibly correct them when their grammar is bad, as in "ain't." It's all about not sounding like a lazy slob when talking. After all, kids can't get into the habit of speaking eloquently if they aren't made to practice at home, at least.

Imagine, being able to watch the mental literacy of the general population grow again!

Of course, the parents and teachers would have to struggle to watch their mouths too, given the informality of adults these days.

In the U.S., people seem to avoid saying "men and women" whenever possible. When forced to be formal, they say "ladies and gentlemen." Heaven forbid that there should be anything between a high school vocabulary and hyper-formality.

Oh, and check THIS out (from 2004):

http://seattletimes.com/html/living/2001942543_youguys01.html

First few paragraphs:

You guys may not like it, but we're at a cultural watershed.

If you cringed at "you guys," brace yourselves.

What you're hearing is the vibrant evolution of the American language.
Yes, "you guys" is on its way to being proper speech.

Anyone who eats out understands the futility of standing in its way.
Restaurant patrons ages 8 to 80 are addressed as "you guys" — as in,
"What will you guys have?" In fact, linguist Bert Vaux's University of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee students report being specifically told at their
waitressing jobs not to use "you guys.".......

(snip)

Well, I'm glad to hear that SOME semi-informal jobs come with those instructions!

Lenona.

[leno...@yahoo.com]

On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 12:41:46 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:

> I also dislike the expression "guys and girls." Not only does it sound to me like an expression used by semi-literate characters in a 1940s gangster movie, but it also implies, I think, that boys shouldn't have to grow up and girls aren't allowed to grow up.

And regarding that, I REALLY wish the term "manning up" didn't exist. Don't women have an obligation to be brave, independent, responsible and proactive too?

Lenona.

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:

> In message <3985f19e-0c49-4f0a...@googlegroups.com>

> leno...@yahoo.com <leno...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 12:41:46 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
>
>>>I also dislike the expression "guys and girls." Not only does it sound
>>>to me like an expression used by semi-literate characters in a 1940s
>>>gangster movie, but it also implies, I think, that boys shouldn't have
>>>to grow up and girls aren't allowed to grow up.
>

> I don't like ____ & Girls unless the ____ is filled with "Boys". But I
> have always used 'guys' to mean a collection of people without regard to
> their sex. Insisting that guys means males only seems very old fashioned
> to me.

My dad had a three-way distinction: boys/girls, guys/gals, men/women.
My generation dropped "gals", ironically as being perceived as being
sexist, but kept "guys", extending "girls" to replace "gals". I was
probably in my mid-twenties before I became comfortable thinking of
myself as a "man", but I didn't feel I was a "boy" after probably
fifteen or so. "Men" and "women" (together or separately) still feel
very formal to me.

>>And regarding that, I REALLY wish the term "manning up" didn't exist.
>>Don't women have an obligation to be brave, independent, responsible
>>and proactive too?
>

> "Man up" is applied to anyone, male or female. Almost all of these
> expressions have been neutered. Hell, just the other day someone said
> to me, "I'm not sure she has the balls to do that" to which I replied,
> "Oh yes she does." Neither one of us was talking about testicles.

Similarly, I've seen men become hysterical.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |To express oneself
SF Bay Area (1982-) |In seventeen syllables
Chicago (1964-1982) |Is very diffic
| Tony Finch
evan.kir...@gmail.com

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[Christian Weisgerber]

<leno...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In fact, linguist Bert Vaux's University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
> students report being specifically told at their waitressing jobs
> not to use "you guys.".......

Has "waitressing" turned into a generic? Can males hold waitressing
jobs?

[Mike L]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 07:43:53 +0100, Dr Nick
<nosp...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:

>fabzorba <myles....@gmail.com> writes:
[...]

>>
>> Conversely, the comparable terms - mates, cobbers, and blokes, which
>> are NOT American and not used there, have remained inflexibly male. In
>> Australia, the idea of including the concept of "mateship" in a
>> preamble to our Constitution was vetoed as "mates" can ONLY refer to
>> males. Had we been Yanks, the word would have simply added new
>> dimensions, and come to refer to women as well. In fact, there is
>> nothing creepy about women being mates, many women make wonderful
>> matey friends, and there is really no reason why "mate" could not be
>> applied to them.
>
>Hmm. I'd be slightly arch doing it, but I can see no problems in
>addressing a mixed crowd with "OK chaps". I might try it some time.

It is done sometimes, in a slightly jocular tone. "Mates" are not
uncommonly women or girls in BrE.

--
Mike.

[Arcadian Rises]

On Oct 8, 4:53 am, Berkeley Brett <royal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I hope you are well & in good spirits.
>

> I attended a gathering this weekend at which there were many "college kids." I nearly always find such gatherings hopeful: lots of smart, sharp, witty young people having a good time. I get the sense that the future is in good hands (or at least in hands as good as it was in when I was that age, and probably better (Cf.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect). (I'm 50 now.))

>
> At one point, one young woman said to a group of (maybe five) young women (presumably about their plans after the gathering), "Why don't some of you guys come with me, and we'll meet you over there."
>
> I've seen this many times, when a woman will refer to a group of women as "you guys," and it always causes me to smile inwardly.
>
> I'm not sure why. I interpret it as a small sign of the greater independence women have achieved over the years, though perhaps I'm reading too much into it. It's just nice to see any and all evidence that half of humankind (and in so many ways the nicer half) is breaking out of the shackles that have held them back for most of human history.
>
> I wonder, does anyone know when women began referring to groups of women as "you guys"? I suspect it would be hard to determine, but I would be interested to know.
>
> As an aside, is this an illusion, or do young people today talk faster than they did 30 years ago? I actually like listening to some of the rapid-fire delivery of some 20-somethings (and the women are faster than the men, it seems), but I don't EVER remember being able to talk that fast! Nor did any of my friends (and they were plenty bright).
>
> Someone sent me a link to this YouTube video on hexaflexagons. The style of speaking of the speaker, rapid and sharp as she gets going, seems representative of the speech of many young people today:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIVIegSt81k
>
> Well, your feedback on these matters is most welcome....
>
> --
> Brett (in Berkeley, California, USA)
> On Twitter at:http://twitter.com/BerkeleyBrett
> (You don't have to be a Twitter user to view this stream of ideas!)

I;m already used to women calling a group of other women "guys". It
probably started with people addressing a mixed audience with "you
guys" (as Mr. Heyes also remarked) then it was extended to mostly
female, then all female, audiences.

But when I hear a young woman addressing her female pal as "dude" or
"niger" then I really feel the generational gap.

A very (much) mature
Arcadian

[Robert Bannister]

On 8/10/12 4:53 PM, Berkeley Brett wrote:
> I hope you are well & in good spirits.
>
> I attended a gathering this weekend at which there were many "college kids." I nearly always find such gatherings hopeful: lots of smart, sharp, witty young people having a good time. I get the sense that the future is in good hands (or at least in hands as good as it was in when I was that age, and probably better (Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect ). (I'm 50 now.))
>
> At one point, one young woman said to a group of (maybe five) young women (presumably about their plans after the gathering), "Why don't some of you guys come with me, and we'll meet you over there."
>
> I've seen this many times, when a woman will refer to a group of women as "you guys," and it always causes me to smile inwardly.
>
> I'm not sure why. I interpret it as a small sign of the greater independence women have achieved over the years, though perhaps I'm reading too much into it. It's just nice to see any and all evidence that half of humankind (and in so many ways the nicer half) is breaking out of the shackles that have held them back for most of human history.
>
> I wonder, does anyone know when women began referring to groups of women as "you guys"? I suspect it would be hard to determine, but I would be interested to know.

I don't know about women, but I started addressing the girls in my
classes as "You guys" way back in the 90s - about the time when women
started objecting to being called girls.

It's nice at my gym - we're all oldies so we can be boys and girls together.
--
Robert Bannister

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

I may have mentioned this previously. I once walked into an room full of
females at my place of work. Some worked in that room, others were
visiting from their own rooms. I greeted them with "Hello girls". No one
spoke, but they all reacted. The middle-aged and older women smiled. The
younger ones bridled.

[R H Draney]

Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> filted:

>
>I may have mentioned this previously. I once walked into an room full of
>females at my place of work. Some worked in that room, others were
>visiting from their own rooms. I greeted them with "Hello girls". No one
>spoke, but they all reacted. The middle-aged and older women smiled. The
>younger ones bridled.

In the preface to the song "Smut" as included in the Tom Lehrer musical revue
"Tomfoolery", one of the performers observes "there used to be a lot of words
you couldn't say in front of girls; now you can say all those words, but you
can't say 'girls'"....

(The preferred term these days, I believe, is "the differently-crotched")....r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

[Percival P. Cassidy]

On 10/08/12 04:53 am, Berkeley Brett wrote:
> I hope you are well& in good spirits.

I first heard this usage on my second day in the USA (in 1977), when my
host addressed his teenage daughter and her female friend as "you guys":
"What have you guys been doing this morning?"

Perce

[Arcadian Rises]

On Oct 10, 1:20 pm, Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <934c4298-7958-4bde-94af-0c66db31e...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>

>   Arcadian Rises <Arcadianri...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > But when I hear a young woman addressing her female pal as "dude" or
> > "niger" then I really feel the generational gap.
>

> Why would anyone address someone with the name of a West African Country?
>
> --
> Nobody puts one over on Fred C. Dobbs.

So I misspelt the N word. My first thought was right, two "g"s and
capital "N" but it didn't look right so I changed my mind (always a
bad idea).

Now I suspect that most people who use the formula "N word" don't
really know how to spell out the word.

[Steve Hayes]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:18:38 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>In message <k51t5h$28t4$1...@lorvorc.mips.inka.de>

> Christian Weisgerber <na...@mips.inka.de> wrote:
>> <leno...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> In fact, linguist Bert Vaux's University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
>>> students report being specifically told at their waitressing jobs
>>> not to use "you guys.".......
>
>> Has "waitressing" turned into a generic? Can males hold waitressing
>> jobs?
>

>No, but waiter has to some limited extent.

And then there are waitrons.


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Steve Hayes]

Isn't that sexist?

As, it seems to me, is saying that a female "has balls".

One could easily test it out if you compliment a male by saying that he "has
ovaries". If he didn't take it as a compliment, you'd know it was sexist.

[Fred]

On 9/10/2012 4:57 a.m., Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> Don Phillipson <e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
>
>>> I wonder, does anyone know when women began referring to groups of women
>>> as "you guys"?
>>
>> A difference is that women=guys seems specifically American.
>
> I'm pretty sure I've seen it on TV as far away as New Zealand.
>

It's not unheard of in New Zealand, but it is extremely rare.

[R H Draney]

Steve Hayes filted:

>
>On 10 Oct 2012 15:08:27 -0700, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>>(The preferred term these days, I believe, is "the differently-crotched")....r
>
>Isn't that sexist?
>
>As, it seems to me, is saying that a female "has balls".

Any woman who can shout at another driver in traffic "Hey, buddy, suck my dick!"
without a hint of irony has forfeited any right to insist that gender-based
terms make sense....r

[Mike Barnes]

R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net>:

>Any woman who can shout at another driver in traffic "Hey, buddy, suck
>my dick!"
>without a hint of irony has forfeited any right to insist that gender-based
>terms make sense....r

ISWYM, but are you sure [s]he didn't have one? It can be tricky to tell
these days.

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 07:30:57 +0200, Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net>
wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:18:38 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
><g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>>In message <k51t5h$28t4$1...@lorvorc.mips.inka.de>
>> Christian Weisgerber <na...@mips.inka.de> wrote:
>>> <leno...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> In fact, linguist Bert Vaux's University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
>>>> students report being specifically told at their waitressing jobs
>>>> not to use "you guys.".......
>>
>>> Has "waitressing" turned into a generic? Can males hold waitressing
>>> jobs?
>>
>>No, but waiter has to some limited extent.
>
>And then there are waitrons.

When the guys at CERN have finished with the Large Hadron Collider they
will start work on a Small Waitron Collider.

[Arcadian Rises]

On Oct 11, 5:38 am, Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <vemc781begckjctaun432ao76p3hmg5...@4ax.com>
>   Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10 Oct 2012 15:08:27 -0700, R H Draney <dadoc...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> >>Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <m...@peterduncanson.net> filted:

>
> >>>I may have mentioned this previously. I once walked into an room full of
> >>>females at my place of work. Some worked in that room, others were
> >>>visiting from their own rooms. I greeted them with "Hello girls". No one
> >>>spoke, but they all reacted. The middle-aged and older women smiled. The
> >>>younger ones bridled.
>
> >>In the preface to the song "Smut" as included in the Tom Lehrer musical revue
> >>"Tomfoolery", one of the performers observes "there used to be a lot of words
> >>you couldn't say in front of girls; now you can say all those words, but you
> >>can't say 'girls'"....
>
> >>(The preferred term these days, I believe, is "the differently-crotched")....r
> > Isn't that sexist?
> > As, it seems to me, is saying that a female "has balls".
> > One could easily test it out if you compliment a male by saying that he "has
> > ovaries". If he didn't take it as a compliment, you'd know it was sexist.
>

> As far as I know, "has ovaries" doesn't mean anything but describing
> someone who is in possession of ovaries, so not relevant at all.
>
> --
> Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Why not use gender neutral organs such as brains, heart, spine,
stomach (ok, I know those are not all organs) to make a point? And if
you really must use a body-part word to convey courage, why not
"cojones"? it sounds less vulgar and less sexist in a foreign
language.

[Honestly, I know someone who thought "cojones" is a fancy word for
"nerves" or "courage", without bothering to dig for etymology] So
probably usage already neutered "cojones", if not its English
equivalent.

[Mack A. Damia]

In the U.S. "guys" can refer to people in general.

But if that bugs you, wait until you hear the ubiquitous, "Yous guys".

--

[Steve Hayes]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:38:55 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>In message <vemc781begckjctau...@4ax.com>

> Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>> On 10 Oct 2012 15:08:27 -0700, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>>>Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> filted:
>>>>
>>>>I may have mentioned this previously. I once walked into an room full of
>>>>females at my place of work. Some worked in that room, others were
>>>>visiting from their own rooms. I greeted them with "Hello girls". No one
>>>>spoke, but they all reacted. The middle-aged and older women smiled. The
>>>>younger ones bridled.
>>>
>>>In the preface to the song "Smut" as included in the Tom Lehrer musical revue
>>>"Tomfoolery", one of the performers observes "there used to be a lot of words
>>>you couldn't say in front of girls; now you can say all those words, but you
>>>can't say 'girls'"....
>>>
>>>(The preferred term these days, I believe, is "the differently-crotched")....r
>
>> Isn't that sexist?
>
>> As, it seems to me, is saying that a female "has balls".
>
>> One could easily test it out if you compliment a male by saying that he "has
>> ovaries". If he didn't take it as a compliment, you'd know it was sexist.
>

>As far as I know, "has ovaries" doesn't mean anything but describing
>someone who is in possession of ovaries, so not relevant at all.

Not relevant to what?

[Steve Hayes]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 06:47:10 -0700 (PDT), Arcadian Rises
<Arcadi...@aol.com> wrote:

>> Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -

Not sure what that's supposed to mean

>
>Why not use gender neutral organs such as brains, heart, spine,
>stomach (ok, I know those are not all organs) to make a point? And if
>you really must use a body-part word to convey courage, why not
>"cojones"? it sounds less vulgar and less sexist in a foreign
>language.

Quite.

In English, we say "Take heart", not "Take testicles"
In Zulu the seat of courage is thought to be the liver.

But saying that a female "has balls" implies that females lack something in
the natural order of things, and are therefore inferior to males. And saying a
female "has spunk" is even worse.

Same with "differently croyched" -- why shouldn't it be males who are
"differently crotched"?

>
>[Honestly, I know someone who thought "cojones" is a fancy word for
>"nerves" or "courage", without bothering to dig for etymology] So
>probably usage already neutered "cojones", if not its English
>equivalent.

[Robert Bannister]

On 12/10/12 7:25 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:

> But saying that a female "has balls" implies that females lack something in
> the natural order of things, and are therefore inferior to males. And saying a
> female "has spunk" is even worse.

I don't believe this at all, because the same expressions are used of
men. It's not saying that females are usually lacking, but that she is
singularly endowed with... one hopes courage.


--
Robert Bannister

[Steve Hayes]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 07:55:10 +0800, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com>
wrote:

It's interesting that people object to "chairman", which has no sexual
connotations really, and yet let "has balls" pass without a murmur.

[Peter Brooks]

Quite.

[CDB]

On 13/10/2012 2:13 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>> On 12/10/12 7:25 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:

>>> But saying that a female "has balls" implies that females lack something in
>>> the natural order of things, and are therefore inferior to males. And saying a
>>> female "has spunk" is even worse.

>> I don't believe this at all, because the same expressions are used of
>> men. It's not saying that females are usually lacking, but that she is
>> singularly endowed with... one hopes courage.

> It's interesting that people object to "chairman", which has no sexual
> connotations really, and yet let "has balls" pass without a murmur.

It's a question of whose bull is gored.

[leno...@yahoo.com]

On Thursday, October 11, 2012 1:30:13 AM UTC-4, Steve Hayes wrote:
> Isn't that sexist? As, it seems to me, is saying that a female "has balls". One could easily test it out if you compliment a male by saying that he "has ovaries". If he didn't take it as a compliment, you'd know it was sexist. --

Exactly. That's why I don't like the expression "manning up."

And, neither I or my friends say "ballsy" or "has balls." Aside from being sexist, it's just VULGAR!

Lenona.

[Mike L]

I was greeted with derisive laughter when I addressed the chair at a
conference as "Madam Chairman": there was no point in explaining that
my union branch had a woman in the chair, and addressed her thus.

--
Mike.

[Robert Bannister]

That is a totally separate issue. I don't use the expression "has balls"
in polite company whether in reference to men or women.

--
Robert Bannister

[Mark Brader]

Donna Richoux:
> The Subset/Whole problem -- logical oddities always occur when the same
> term is used for part of a set as for the whole set. Is a hot dog the
> sausage or the sandwich? Are dishes the same as bowls, or all of the
> china? Etc.

Not to mention: Is china made of china, or is it all of the dishes?
--
Mark Brader "Fighting off all of the species which you
Toronto have insulted would be a full-time mission."
m...@vex.net "Deja Q", ST:TNG, Richard Danus

[Arcadian Rises]

On Oct 16, 9:09 pm, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
> Donna Richoux:
>
> > The Subset/Whole problem -- logical oddities always occur when the same
> > term is used for part of a set as for the whole set. Is a hot dog the
> > sausage or the sandwich? Are dishes the same as bowls, or all of the
> > china? Etc.
>
> Not to mention: Is china made of china, or is it all of the dishes?

A safe guess: it's made in China.

[R H Draney]

Mark Brader filted:

>
>Donna Richoux:
>> The Subset/Whole problem -- logical oddities always occur when the same
>> term is used for part of a set as for the whole set. Is a hot dog the
>> sausage or the sandwich? Are dishes the same as bowls, or all of the
>> china? Etc.
>
>Not to mention: Is china made of china, or is it all of the dishes?

Is "the end of the day" one minute before midnight, or one minute before
sunset?...r

[Steve Hayes]

Or the moment you fall asleep, then you can say "day is done".

[Arcadian Rises]

That's easy: it's at the bottom of the line.

[Arcadian Rises]

On Oct 17, 3:18 am, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> On 16 Oct 2012 21:26:12 -0700, R H Draney <dadoc...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> >Mark Brader filted:
>
> >>Donna Richoux:
> >>> The Subset/Whole problem -- logical oddities always occur when the same
> >>> term is used for part of a set as for the whole set. Is a hot dog the
> >>> sausage or the sandwich? Are dishes the same as bowls, or all of the
> >>> china? Etc.
>
> >>Not to mention: Is china made of china, or is it all of the dishes?
>
> >Is "the end of the day" one minute before midnight, or one minute before
> >sunset?...r
>
> Or the moment you fall asleep, then you can say "day is done".
>

Right, especially during the siesta.


"You never know when it will strike, but there comes a moment at work
when you know that you just aren’t going to do anything productive for
the rest of the day"

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2012-10-09 11:25:11 +0200, tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) said:

> Berkeley Brett <roya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>> At one point, one young woman said to a group of (maybe five) young women
>> (presumably about their plans after the gathering), "Why don't some of you
>> guys come with me, and we'll meet you over there."
>>
>> I've seen this many times, when a woman will refer to a group of women as
>> "you guys," and it always causes me to smile inwardly.
>>
>> I'm not sure why. I interpret it as a small sign of the greater
>> independence women have achieved over the years, though perhaps I'm
>> reading too much into it. It's just nice to see any and all evidence that
>> half of humankind (and in so many ways the nicer half) is breaking out of
>> the shackles that have held them back for most of human history.

>>
>> I wonder, does anyone know when women began referring to groups of women

>> as "you guys"? I suspect it would be hard to determine, but I would be
>> interested to know.
>
> I'm sure I said it in California before I left there in 1974. I probably
> used it after that, in other US states, but I don't remember now.
>
> It's the logical progression from "You guys" being used to address a
> mixed group of males and females. The women who are so addressed are not
> thinking to themselves, "The speaker doesn't mean me, or the females,
> just the males." No, it was clear that everyone was meant.
>
> Since "you guys" means "you people," it stopped mattering whether the
> group was all male, mixed, or all female. Apparently it's more
> noteworthy to an observer when it's all female.
>
> "Guy" did continue to mean "male" in other constructions, though -- "a
> guy," "two guys," "some guys."

>
> The Subset/Whole problem -- logical oddities always occur when the same
> term is used for part of a set as for the whole set. Is a hot dog the
> sausage or the sandwich? Are dishes the same as bowls, or all of the
> china? Etc.

There was an interesting article by RLG yesterday on this very subject
at Johnson (http://tinyurl.com/dytq4hr). Why is extending "guys" to
women a feminist victory, whereas eliminating the traditional use of
"mankind" to include women was also a feminist victory?


--
athel

[R H Draney]

Athel Cornish-Bowden filted:

>
>There was an interesting article by RLG yesterday on this very subject
>at Johnson (http://tinyurl.com/dytq4hr). Why is extending "guys" to
>women a feminist victory, whereas eliminating the traditional use of
>"mankind" to include women was also a feminist victory?

Because the womyn are making the rules....r

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

Our good china is made in the USA, according to the stamp on the
back. Our everyday dishes seem to imply they're made in Portugal, but
that may be the name of the design.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |Ye knowe ek, that in forme of speche
SF Bay Area (1982-) | is chaunge
Chicago (1964-1982) |Withinne a thousand yer, and wordes
| tho
evan.kir...@gmail.com |That hadden prys now wonder nyce and
| straunge
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |Us thenketh hem, and yet they spake
| hem so
| Chaucer

[Donna Richoux]

Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> There was an interesting article by RLG yesterday on this very subject
> at Johnson (http://tinyurl.com/dytq4hr). Why is extending "guys" to
> women a feminist victory, whereas eliminating the traditional use of
> "mankind" to include women was also a feminist victory?

Because they represent two different solutions to the problem, of
course.

The problem is, do women feel they are being addressed, included, or
described when the masculine-sounding word is used. Could women be
firemen, for example.

There are two possible solutions. Either get a large number of people to
really, really believe in their heart of hearts that "firemen" includes
women, or, two, stop using "firemen" and use "firefighters" or whatever.

I think the second way is easier to bring about, as banning and
substituting are open to regulative control. But "You guys" happened to
takethe first route, a more unplanned way. And the fact that we're still
having this discussion shows that there are a sizeable number of people
who *still* don't think that "you guys" can include females -- as
compared to the tiny number who would argue about "firefighters." The
first route is not easy.

--
Best -- Donna Richoux

[Robert Bannister]

The politicians use it, it means "some considerable time after the next
election".

--
Robert Bannister

[Steve Hayes]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:38:01 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athe...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:


>There was an interesting article by RLG yesterday on this very subject
>at Johnson (http://tinyurl.com/dytq4hr). Why is extending "guys" to
>women a feminist victory, whereas eliminating the traditional use of
>"mankind" to include women was also a feminist victory?

Perhaps we can solve the problem of the feminist taboo on "man" by replacing
it with "guy" -- chairguy, policeguy, postguy, spokesguy,

[Whiskers]

On 2012-10-25, Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:38:01 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
> <athe...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>There was an interesting article by RLG yesterday on this very subject
>>at Johnson (http://tinyurl.com/dytq4hr). Why is extending "guys" to
>>women a feminist victory, whereas eliminating the traditional use of
>>"mankind" to include women was also a feminist victory?
>
> Perhaps we can solve the problem of the feminist taboo on "man" by replacing
> it with "guy" -- chairguy, policeguy, postguy, spokesguy,

Or just use words we already have? Moderator, cop, postie, speaker, ...

I think the practice of some groups of women referring to each other as 'guys'
or 'chaps' is analogous to the practice of some groups of men referring to
each other as 'girls' or 'ladies'; irony, humour, a goad to elicit a
particular response.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[Robert Bannister]

On 26/10/12 12:39 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:38:01 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
> <athe...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> There was an interesting article by RLG yesterday on this very subject
>> at Johnson (http://tinyurl.com/dytq4hr). Why is extending "guys" to
>> women a feminist victory, whereas eliminating the traditional use of
>> "mankind" to include women was also a feminist victory?
>
> Perhaps we can solve the problem of the feminist taboo on "man" by replacing
> it with "guy" -- chairguy, policeguy, postguy, spokesguy,
>
>

That doesn't work in the singular. "Guy" means "man"; "guys" means "men
and women or men or women".

--
Robert Bannister

[R H Draney]

Whiskers filted:

>
>I think the practice of some groups of women referring to each other as 'guys'
>or 'chaps' is analogous to the practice of some groups of men referring to
>each other as 'girls' or 'ladies'; irony, humour, a goad to elicit a
>particular response.

You go, girlfriend!...r