Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!jarthur!ucivax!gateway
From: bdelan@apple.COM (Brian Delaney)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Girls, girls, girls
Message-ID: <10254@goofy.Apple.COM>
Date: 17 Sep 90 18:23:04 GMT
References: <9009122207.AA10780@houston.cs.columbia.edu>
Lines: 115
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: crimee.ics.uci.edu

In article <9009122207.AA10780@houston.cs.columbia.edu>
travis@houston.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey) writes:
> In any case,the use of words like "girl" or "women" signals an attitude of
> respect or the lack of one.  You entirely miss the point by claiming that
> they are all words describing the same concept, when _every_ word is rich
> with connotations and secondary meanings.

Absolutely true, Travis.  The problem is, we don't all agree on what
those exact secondary meanings are.

The use of the word "girls" in place of "women" may indicate a lack of
"respect" for some people.  It may not for others.  For some people,
terms like "girl' and "boy" are not diminutive, they are friendly.
For some people, words like "woman" sound formal, clinical and stuffy.
Just as there are men who dislike being called "Mister."  To some
people, the title is simply polite and respectful; to others it is
stuffy and classist.

For that matter, the very word "respect" has this problem as well.
Remember parents and teachers who would tell you to "respect your
elders," when they really meant "defer to us"?  Is this the sense of
the word "respect" that you mean?  I doubt it.  But, for a person who
heard the word "respect" used this way all their lives, your petition
that we treat women with "respect" may not have its intended effect.

So, what do we do when we have two people talking to one another; one
of whom thinks that "girls" is friendly, while the other thinks it is
disrespectful?  One poster reasonably suggested that we should call a
person whatever they prefer.  There are problems with this, chiefly
concerned with figuring out what default to use untill you get to know
them better, but this can be ignored for our purposes here.

A far bigger problem is that actions, just like words, have a rich
range of connotations and secondary meanings.  And, for some people,
*the action of having to second-guess what someone wants to be called
has connotations of disrespect for the speaker*.

So, we have two people here. One feels that "girls" is just a friendly
noun.  There are no negative connotations to this word in their
dictionary. For this person, the primary meaning for the word "girls"
is not at odds with its secondary meaning. However, this person also
feels that having to modify their speech, and use a word that is
uncomfortable, just because someone else has a problem with it, is
disrespectful to the speaker.  The primary meaning of this action is
simply, "Try not to offend people unnecessarily."  This is hard to
argue with. However, for this person, the secondary meaning is, "It is
your job to steer clear of whatever verbal sensitivities I may have,
and if I am offended by your speech, it is your fault."  This person
feels that there is no power sub-text in the use of the word "girls",
but that there *IS* a power sub-text in having someone tell you how
you are allowed to talk.

The second person feels that "girls" is disrespectful.  While the
primary meaning may be O.K., the secondary meaning of subordination is
unacceptable.  However, this person also feels that there is no
negative secondary meaning to the use of "politically correct"
phrases.  This person at least claims to have no problems calling
people by whatever names they choose, and they develop no negative
feelings of having to "jump through the hoop" when they modify how
they speak to adapt to the listener.  To them, there is a power
sub-text in the use of gender nouns, but none in the use of
politically correct phrases.  The latter is simply not an issue for
these people.

So, when these two people get together, what happens?  Conventional
wisdom holds that the first person should be "considerate" of the
second persons wishes, and call them "women", "wimmin" "Ms", or "Grand
Omnipotent Poohbah" if that is what they want.  "People have a right
to be called what they want," is the explanation given.  O.K., I can
buy this.

But, don't people also have a right to speak as they wish?  In this
little conversation, the first person is doing all the adapting, and
the second person is doing all the demanding.  If the important
principle here is consideration for other people's feelings, what
happens to the first person's feelings?  When is the second person
supposed to be "considerate?"

Part of the problem here may be that both people are trying to be
considerate, *but they don't agree on what that means.* Both people
want a polite, friendly conversation.  But one person thinks that the
way you have a friendly conversation is to be careful not to say the
wrong thing.  So, the burden of a polite conversation lies on the
speaker.  The other person thinks that the way to have a polite
conversation is to be careful not to take something the wrong way.
Thus, the burden of a polite conversation lies with the listener.

The issue here is not sexism.  The first person may be the most rabid
feminist supporter around.  The issue is how one *expresses*
themselves.  While most of us may agree on the denotation and primary
meaning of a word or action, the connotations and secondary meanings
are far more individual.  So when we tell this person that "girls" is
disrespectful, we are telling this person that their personal
dictionary is *wrong.* But, it is not wrong. It is merely different.

A little while ago, someone quoted Mark Twain: "Saying that words are
"merely words" is like saying that it is "merely dynamite." "

This is cute, but I think that it is misleading in an important way.
Words are not dynamite.  Words by themselves do nothing. *PEOPLE* are
dynamite.  And when they are unstable, then words can be used to set
them off.

In my example conversation, what can these people do?  They both have
contradictory notions of how one goes about be polite and respectful.
The best thing they can do is to remember that words are indeed just
words.  This makes the dynamite more stable, and less likely to be set
off by the words.  When they remember that words are just words, then
our second person won't mind quite as much hearing those words, and
out first person won't mind saying them.

*******************************************************************************
Brian "High Tech Sex and Affordable Firepower" Delaney
Disclaimer: NOBODY, least of all Apple, thinks the way I do.
*******************************************************************************