Lots of words have successfully conveyed meanings for lots of years. Some of the meanings have been pretty nasty.
And I still disagree that being ticked off by something, whether slightly or considerably, has anything to do with “claiming victimhood”.
There’s a catch-22 about such things.
Nobody’s upset? Then nobody’s upset so why change anything?
Somebody’s upset? No need to listen to somebody who sounds upset! So we’re not gonna change anything.
“Ladies” is OK when formally paired with “gentlemen”. “Ladies” when the men are just “men” has a condescending, or at least fussy, tone to it.
And I don’t think anybody in this thread has said that you can’t say “women”.
But a lot of the time when addressing people you don’t need to use any of these at all.
That’s not exactly what the issue is. The issue is whether they’re using a term they consider genuinely nongendered, or whether they’re using the default male. Unless you know the person well, it can be difficult to tell.
Speaking of “ladies”, my wife (now 70) had a cousin (deceased about 6years ago) used to refer to herself and the female friends she chummed with as “me & the broads”. Man it was funny.
Oh wait (no pun intended). If Elmer_J.Fudd had said, “you realize that the words waiters, actors, and heroes have always been gender-neutral” I would have agreed.
It’s the singular form that’s an issue - or perhaps a side-issue, since what we are talking about in this thread is the plural form. I think I now understand a little better what @Elmer_J.Fudd meant.
On the other hand, the singular form did come into play, since I mentioned referring to Johanna as my “hero” rather than “heroine.” Which I will gladly withdraw and replace with “heroine” if it is indicated to me that she prefers it.
Plus, I’ll try to be careful in general with those words. My general rule is, “it doesn’t matter much if I do, or do not, find a term offensive. If person(s) being referred to find it offensive, then I should just man up (heh) and make the effort to accommodate, as a sign that I respect their experience.”
I’ve used the term “gals” in lieu of “guys” a lot, and no one’s ever protested. But you’re right in that I had to search for an “appropriate” way to refer to women. “Ladies” concerns me because (more in the past than these days) some took it to reflect their age, I believe. Would the women here protest “gals”? I really try to use it instead of “guys”, but “guys” (as hard as I scrub) has been embedded in my brain, and can sporadically be uttered by me, out of habit.
“Man” is both gendered and gender-neutral, depending on use. Niel Armstrong was not supporting the patriarchy in his famous moon step quote.
I’m male, I don’t particularly care that ships and navy vessels etc are referred to as “she” even if they are named after, for example, male US presidents.
I mean, I drive a Toyota Hilux Double cab truck. Her name is “Sarah”, chosen by my kids.
Depends on your audience, I suppose; ‘ladies and gentlemen’ omits non-binary members of the audience (if present) and they may or may not care about that.
It is both, agreed, but I think there is a valid argument that even neutral forms of ‘Man’ could have an accidental effect of reinforcing a tradition of male dominance. Like postmen, firemen, watchmen, manmade - these are technically non-gendered terms, I think (or maybe not), but their prevalence could create an unhelpful background in a world where gender inequality is also common.
Someone said upthread that prescriptivism never works and I agree, but as a thought experiment, imagine there was some new term to be coined and the people in charge of the language (I know we don’t have those) ruled that it would carry the suffix ~woman, and they presented a completely sound etymological argument, with proper citations, for how that was, in fact, just a gender-neutral way to say the thing and was the most reasonable and logical way to say the thing.
What would men in the role think about being given a title that carries the suffix ~woman, whilst being assured that, no, it’s not a gendered term at all - it just looks like one.
Neil Armstrong always maintained that he actually said, “That’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind,” rather than “That’s one small step for man.” Including the article “a” makes more linguistic sense, emphasizing that a single individual took the step on behalf of all humanity. While some might argue that “a man” carries a gendered implication, in this context, “mankind” refers to humanity as a whole and is considered non-gendered.
Charwoman* is a close match. Not sure if it is well known in the USA, but usually shortened to Char in the UK.
It is clearly gendered. Yet men work as “chars”.
On a lighter note… what about Superwoman?
* later edit. It occured to me that the US audience may be unfamiliar with the term. It describes (more or less) a female janitor/house cleaner. It is now out of fashion but has never been pejurotive. Just a job description.
Yeah, I suppose ‘Tea lady’ might be another one (also a largely outmoded role) - it is a gendered term by accident of the fact that the role was only given to women - that has subsequently changed and where the role still exists, it is no longer restricted to women.
How would men feel on being employed to be a ‘tea lady’? I feel sure that for a lot of men, the assurance that it’s just a perfectly ordinary name for the people of any gender, who make the tea would ring a bit hollow.
Notable that we also talk of a “male nurse” - “nurse” isn’t a gendered term in itself, but having been a profession dominated by women for so long, we do (or did) feel the need to add the qualifier so that people understand that yes, this really is a guy and yes, he really is a nurse.
The nursing roles of Matron and Sister are interesting - these roles are open to male applicants. This (male) writer thinks it’s time to drop the gendered terms.
I was at a party talking to a non-binary person, who said that their department chair addressed the group as, “ladies, gentlemen, and Chris”. It made me realize that in my professional life, no one ever referred to us as “ladies and gentlemen”, and in fact, that part of the introduction had simply gone away. A similar meeting at my company would have begun, “Welcome to the quarterly actuarial summit…”
In my extemely limited experience, a “nurse is a nurse” regardless of gender.
The “female as a nurse” has gone the same way as “french maid”… into selective porn.
Anecdote: for my second child, my wife was moved into emergency surgery. I was quickly dressed in scrubs and moved into the operating room. On my way in, the lead (male) nurse asked me “are you the doctor?”.
Thank you! In this case, either term is fine. Supergirl is classed among super heroes; super heroines is not a thing. Words are funny.
You mentioned my linguistics. Yeah, nobody’s being prescriptivist here. I’m suggesting maybe the linguistics here isn’t so cut-and-dried, but still in play; I’m considering it from that angle, and the conversation here has been really helpful.
Etymological fallacy aside, isn’t it bizarre that we’re all calling each other terrorist bombers?
Midwife or sage-femme in French. I’ve heard some men in that profession use “accoucheur” but I don’t know how widespread it is.
I used to buck a little at being referred to as “a woman engineer” because I didn’t much care for the qualifier. I’m a woman. I’m an engineer. But I didn’t want to be seen as a different type of engineer than my male colleagues. Why did my gender need to get mentioned at all, when theirs never is?
I’ve changed my perspective on that a little. I still don’t like the label, because I feel it doesn’t matter to me, but it matters to other people both in how they perceive me (for good or bad; both need to be addressed) or in how my career may help women and girls feel represented and that they can work in this field as well. I’m learning to embrace it for other people, who see value in it that I don’t.
To bring this back to “guys” I sort of feel the same conflict; while I don’t want to be called out and highlighted for being a woman, I’m increasingly aware of how sometimes women are erased or ignored and it would be nice not to be. Ideally, a gender-neutral term would not also have a “male” meaning. If such a word doesn’t exist, perhaps we should invent one. Or, normalize female-coded words for groups that include men or are all men. What’s good for the goose, right?