With all due respect, you are making unwarranted assumptions here. You are presuming that this was Karen’s only motivation for inviting Janet along. Don’t you think that one should avoid making those kinds of assumptions? After all, you don’t know these people, and you surely can’t expect the entirety of Karen’s motivations to have been summed up in that brief verbal exchange.
These two women were very close friends, and they got along famously. Not for one moment do I believe that Janet was only being invited so as to provide some sort of gender parity. No, I think the more natural and charitable assumption is that Karen invited Janet along for the sake of her companionship, and she simply used the word “female” as a matter of her speech patterns. This is buttressed by the fact that Karen said she casually used the word female “all the time.”
As MichalEMouse said, it’s best to interpret another person’s terms generously unless there is a reason to think that they should be interpreted as being offensive. I’d say that this principle clearly applies in this case. There is no solid reason to believe that Karen was trying to distance herself from the rest of her gender. One could offer it as a possibility, but that doesn’t mean we can declare it as an established fact. Why ascribe some insidious motive when there’s a perfectly natural explanation – namely, that she simply wanted her friend to come along on this trip?
Let’s put this another way, even sven. Let’s suppose that Janet had said, “It would be nice to have another woman along on this trip.” Would you have likewise assumed that her ONLY motivation was to achieve a more balanced gender ratio? Or would you have figured that this was one of her motives, but not necessarily the only one – or even the primary one?
I daresay that most of us would have picked the latter.
I think this goes to show that certain words carry some gender politics, as others stated earlier in this thread. Because of these politics, people can sometimes read things into them that aren’t necessarily there.
I think you’re getting hung up on the details of your story that was meant to be a simple rebuttal to my claim that I’ve never heard a woman use the word “female” as a noun casually. I may very well have heard a woman use the word “female” in the way your friend did in your anecdote, in which case, it didn’t ping my “weird word usage” radar because that…just doesn’t seem like weird word usage. She’s clearly thinking about gender in that context, hence the choice of the word “female”, and isn’t being weird about it like the “currently dating a female” guy. So point taken, no psychoanalysis of your friend needed.
Seriously, “currently dating a female.” That’s such bizarre phrasing. I even posted in that thread: “A female what?”
I think you’re being needlessly harsh. I cited my story as an example wherein one woman did casually use the word “female” as a noun, and she claims to do so regularly. This isn’t a ‘rebuttal’ to your claim. Rather, it’s simply another data point; after all, my experiences are different from yours. Please do treat it as such.
Now, if people want to extrapolate beyond that story – insisting that Karen did not truly value Janet’s friendship, for example, and that her sole motivation in inviting Janet along was to achieve more gender parity – then I think it’s perfectly fair for me to say “Wait a minute. That’s an unwarranted assumption and an unfair accusation.” In fact, I see that you agree with this, as evidenced by your statement that no psychoanalysis of my friend is warranted.
And that’s perfectly fair. Remember, I never said that your experience was wrong. Quite the contrary; I’ve stated all along that there are diverse opinions on this issue and various factors that can color our points of view.
In fact, it seems that you’re now saying that you could have simply failed to notice situations wherein somebody used the word “female” casually as a noun. I won’t take issue with that. Quite the contrary; it’s perfectly consistent with my own experiences! I’m sure that I would never have noticed such usage either if these two other students (mentioned in the first of my two anecdotes) had not scolded me for my use of the word “female” a long time ago.
Yeah, I’d agree that this is unusual phrasing. It wouldn’t even occur to me to take offense, though. As someone said earlier, some people simply speaking in a more formal manner – perhaps even stilted. That’s just the way it is.
The usage of “Guy” reminds me a bit of Mr. versus Miss/Mrs./Mrs.
In my experience, people who use “female” as a noun often do it right before they try to teach you about “the female brain” or something like that. Like people who say “The gays” or “The blacks” are right about the sum them all up for you in one vile sentence.
It would be just as clear to say “she’s just someone I dated” since gender specification isn’t necessary. Unless the speaker felt a need to emphasize his heterosexuality. I’m not sure why “guy” is such a great word to be emulated anyway.
If speaking from the viewpoint of the present, say “woman;” if from the viewpoint of the past, say “girl.”
I guess I’m not seeing a problem here. Is it a hangup about age? Fear of adulthood? How did man and woman get to be dirty words?
As for multi-age groups, maybe you will like this: Several Turkic languages use compound words made of the words for ‘women’ and ‘girls’ considered all together. E.g., in Uzbek, the expression xotin-qizlar is composed of xotin ‘wife, woman’, qiz ‘girl’, and plural suffix -lar. Grammatically it functions as a suppletive plural form of the word for woman, ayol. (Suppletive means it comes from a different lexical root). The nearest equivalent in English is womenfolk. Of course that has such an old-fashioned rural ring to it, you wouldn’t want to say it unless in reference to a quilting bee, while holding a corncob pipe or chewing on a grass stem and wearing a straw hat. And spell it “wimmenfolk” for good measure.
I know guy is the popular favorite all around, but is it really desirable for women to have a word that emulates it? When you call someone a “guy” you’re calling them a man-shaped dummy made of stuffed old clothes whose purpose is to get thrown onto a ritual bonfire. Cognate of guido, which is no compliment. Derived from ancient Germanic witu ‘wood’.
I can MAYBE understand using the word “female” in certain situations…namely when talking about girls and women in the same breath. It’s silly to refer to a 40-year-old woman as a girl, or an 8-year-old girl as a woman. I would personally word my sentence a little differently to avoid sounding like a misogynistic android.
This is exactly why I usually don’t get hung up on these issues of politically correct word usage. Sometimes there simply isn’t any word that will be completely satisfactory to everyone.
It doesn’t to me; it feels infantilising and patronising. As I said above, I think “lady” has entered the vernacular as a casual, informal, friendly way to refer to women either individually or in groups. “Those ladies over there” feels the same as “those guys over there” - light and friendly.
In my experience, people – usually men – who use “females” that way use it similarly to Sir Mix-A-Lot: “When it comes to females, Cosmo ain’t got nothing on my selection.”
Old High German witu < Proto-Germanic *wiðuz < Proto-Indo-European *widhus ‘wood’.
So guy is preferred because of its casualness? To be casual is such a prized quality that even complete strangers, such as restaurant servers, will address a group of women as “guys” for lack of a feminine equivalent. There are also many servers who say things like “Would you ladies like to see a dessert menu?” where here I think the main linguistic necessity is the plurality of address, for lack of a singular-plural distinction in English second-person pronouns. So that you’ll know they mean all of you instead of just one of you. “You ladies” becomes viable when addressing a group entirely comprising women or girls (or xotin-qizlar or wimmenfolk). Perhaps the reason ladies remains so popular is that it’s age-unbounded; it works for girls as well as women.
One thing I’ve never ever heard anyone say, and by Goddess hope to never ever hear anyone say, is: “You females”! It just is. not. done. By that I don’t only mean it ought not to be done. It really just isn’t done at all, in the sense that no one actually does it. I can conceive of it if at all only in a cheesy action B-movie, where the villain might say “you females.” But probably not even then.
I used to wait tables. To approach a table of adult women and say “good evening, girls!” would have been a very foolish risk, and (IMO) easily more condescending than “good evening, ladies.”
I doubt many people, men or women, have the same level of aversion to the word “ladies” that you do. You’re certainly the first I’ve ever encountered.
As for “you women”—somehow it just doesn’t sound right—it sounds as bad as “you people.” I can think of only one example: “Her husband said: ‘Behold! It is a snare of you women!’” Qur’an, Surat Yusuf, verse 28. And there it is not used in a nice way.
When you’re waiting tables, you’re in a position of a service provider. I wouldn’t consider that a purely casual situation, especially on the part of the server. You’re not a peer and you’re not addressing your customers as peers.
Are you a woman? I don’t know whether you’re expressing how you prefer to be addressed or instructing people on how they should be addressed, and like it.