chaps
Dennis Baron
or elsewhere has met any resistance? The analogous use of *guy* or
*guys* in the US has had a split reception, some people arguing that
it is perfectly neutral, others saying it is yet one more example of
a masculine doubling as a generic.
Dennis
--
deb...@uiuc.edu (\ 217-333-2392
\'\ fax: 217-333-4321
Dennis Baron \'\ __________
Department of English / '| ()_________)
Univ. of Illinois \ '/ \ ~~~~~~~~ \
608 S. Wright St. \ \ ~~~~~~ \
Urbana IL 61801 ==). \__________\
(__) ()__________)
Evan Kirshenbaum
>Can anyone tell me whether the gender neutral use of chaps in the UK
>or elsewhere has met any resistance?
I'm confused. Which gender isn't allowed to wear chaps?
:-)
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories | Feeling good about government is like
3500 Deer Creek Road, Building 26U | looking on the bright side of any
Palo Alto, CA 94304 | catastrophe. When you quit looking
| on the bright side, the catastrophe
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | is still there.
mck...@ul.ie
> Can anyone tell me whether the gender neutral use of chaps in the UK
> or elsewhere has met any resistance? The analogous use of *guy* or
> *guys* in the US has had a split reception, some people arguing that
> it is perfectly neutral, others saying it is yet one more example of
> a masculine doubling as a generic.
and has been for about two decades now.
--
"If England sleeps, shall Ireland dream?" : Se/an macEoin
-------------------------------------------------------------------
John McKeon, Material Science Dept. University of Limerick, Ireland
The Meach
>In article <baron.92....@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, ba...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron) writes:
>> Can anyone tell me whether the gender neutral use of chaps in the UK
>> or elsewhere has met any resistance? The analogous use of *guy* or
>> *guys* in the US has had a split reception, some people arguing that
>> it is perfectly neutral, others saying it is yet one more example of
>> a masculine doubling as a generic.
>I caan tell you that in Ireland, the term "lads" is gender-neutral,
>and has been for about two decades now.
However, I have been accused of *ageism* when I employ this term. . .
--jm
wil...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
> or elsewhere has met any resistance?
I suspect it is a lot less widespread than people have been making out.
Speaking as a Public-School-and-Oxbridge educated man it conjures up thoughts
of terribly clubby Public-School-and-Oxbridge educated men with jobs in Daddy's
company and blonde bombshell girlfriends with brains almost as small as their
inamorati's guzzling champagne in fashionable wine bars. (Cultural
stereotyping? Surely not!) I certainly don't hear it used non-gender-
specifically, and I hear it used to men very rarely.
--
Stephen Wilcox | For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
wil...@vax.oxford.ac.uk | outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.
Sue Miller
>In article <baron.92....@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, ba...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron) writes:
>> Can anyone tell me whether the gender neutral use of chaps in the UK
>> or elsewhere has met any resistance?
>
>I suspect it is a lot less widespread than people have been making out.
>Speaking as a Public-School-and-Oxbridge educated man it conjures up thoughts
>of terribly clubby Public-School-and-Oxbridge educated men with jobs in Daddy's
>company and blonde bombshell girlfriends with brains almost as small as their
>inamorati's guzzling champagne in fashionable wine bars. (Cultural
>stereotyping? Surely not!) I certainly don't hear it used non-gender-
>specifically, and I hear it used to men very rarely.
>--
>
This whole thread started because I complained to Mandar when he
referred to me as a "chap" (singular). I love the way threads
get spun off, because it wasn't a plural usage of chaps that I
was protesting. Not that I've ever heard the words "chaps" or
"lads" used for mixed groups of males and females anyway. Must
be something outside the social groups with which I have contact.
It really chaps my hide. :-)
David A. Johns
# Can anyone tell me whether the gender neutral use of chaps in the
# UK or elsewhere has met any resistance? The analogous use of *guy*
# or *guys* in the US has had a split reception, some people arguing
# that it is perfectly neutral, others saying it is yet one more
# example of a masculine doubling as a generic.
Are you aware of anyone who uses "guys" for females or mixed groups
in the third person? In my experience it's always second person, so
that no ambiguity is possible, since the sex of the addressees is
known.
Well, theoretically it could be used to address the males alone in a
mixed group, but I don't believe I've ever heard such a usage. In my
suage, in speaking to a mixed group, "Do you guys want to go bowling?"
would unambiguously address the entire group. If I wanted to single
out the males, I'd have to say something like "OK, addressing just the
guys now [third person!], do you want to go bowling tonight?"
David Johns
wil...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
I heard a very odd use of the gender-non-specific `chaps' on Christmas morning
on Radio 4. To replace the usual heavyweight Today programme they had a
listeners' selection of favourite radio moments. To fill out time there was a
phone-in competition, which one of the presenters plugged by saying:
`Our chaps are manning the phones, or should I say personning the phones.'
Odd!
Evan Kirshenbaum
>Are you aware of anyone who uses "guys" for females or mixed groups
>in the third person? In my experience it's always second person, so
>that no ambiguity is possible, since the sex of the addressees is
>known.
Of course. Me. (Demographics: born Chicago, 1964, live Bay Area.)
I'm a big fan of women's basketball, and its quite common to refer to
the other team as "these guys" or "those guys". (Then again, they
also play "man" or "man-to-man" defense--I once heard an announcer
call it a "person" defense, and it really sounded weird!)
For me, "these/those guys" can refer deicticly or anaphorically to any
group group: male, female, mixed, or unknown.
"These/those/the girls" can only refer to a group of all females. It
would only be used if the sex of the referents were being emphasized
or used to disambiguate the referent.
There is no easy way to do the same for a group which is male or
mixed. "The guys" almost always means a male group (or the male
subset of a group), but it also has a meaning roughly "the gang" or
"the crowd I hang out with", which can be all female.
>Well, theoretically it could be used to address the males alone in a
>mixed group, but I don't believe I've ever heard such a usage. In my
>suage, in speaking to a mixed group, "Do you guys want to go bowling?"
>would unambiguously address the entire group. If I wanted to single
>out the males, I'd have to say something like "OK, addressing just the
>guys now [third person!], do you want to go bowling tonight?"
I think I'd say "Do the guys want to go bowling" if it was a large
group and try to disambiguate "Do you guys want to go bowling" by
eye contact if it was a small enough group.
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories | U.S. farm policy is, along with North
3500 Deer Creek Road, Building 26U | Korea and the Stanford liberal arts
Palo Alto, CA 94304 | faculty, one of the world's last
| outposts of anti-free-market
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | dogmatism.
David A. Johns
# I'm a big fan of women's basketball, and its quite common to refer
# to the other team as "these guys" or "those guys".
Hmmm. I can do that too, but it's kind of a special case, I'd say.
At a party, could you say "Ask the guys out on the porch if they want
to order a pizza" if you knew only women were on the porch? How about
"See if those guys want to kick in on a Christmas party" at the
office, pointing at two women?
These don't work for me, and I don't think I've ever heard them. But
it wouldn't surprise me if "guys" were progressing in that direction.
I distinctly remember the shock of hearing "you guys" for the first
time in my life when I went away to college in 1959, so apparently the
town I grew up in, in Massachusetts, wasn't using it at that time.
David Johns
Evan Kirshenbaum
>
># I'm a big fan of women's basketball, and its quite common to refer
># to the other team as "these guys" or "those guys".
>
>Hmmm. I can do that too, but it's kind of a special case, I'd say.
>
>At a party, could you say "Ask the guys out on the porch if they want
>to order a pizza" if you knew only women were on the porch?
I said "the guys" worked a little differently. If I knew that the
group was all female, I probably wouldn't say it.
>How about
>"See if those guys want to kick in on a Christmas party" at the
>office, pointing at two women?
Perfectly acceptable and likely my first choice.
>These don't work for me, and I don't think I've ever heard them. But
>it wouldn't surprise me if "guys" were progressing in that direction.
>I distinctly remember the shock of hearing "you guys" for the first
>time in my life when I went away to college in 1959, so apparently the
>town I grew up in, in Massachusetts, wasn't using it at that time.
This may just be a historical change. It has always been part of my
dialect, but I wasn't born until 1964. It might also be regional (I
grew up in Chicago). My father (b. 1943, Chicago) uses it, but I
don't know he used it that way as a kid. I think he's also is more
likely to mark all-female groups. (Interestingly, he (and his father,
come to think of it) use "gals" for all-female groups, whereas my
generation uses "girls".)
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories | Feeling good about government is like
3500 Deer Creek Road, Building 26U | looking on the bright side of any
Palo Alto, CA 94304 | catastrophe. When you quit looking
| on the bright side, the catastrophe
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | is still there.
(415)857-7572 | P.J. O'Rourke