blog.tylerball

Ladies and Gentlemen

mrgan:

You may have seen the YouTube video of President Obama recording the audio for his animatronic figure in Disney’s Hall of Presidents. The clip demonstrates, among other things, a little verbal habit I’m hoping Obama can drop; namely, referring to a group consisting of both men and women as “guys”.

This is feminist kvetching, of course. Perhaps you’ve already decided you disagree with me and bah and humbug to my oversensitive, linguo-conservative ears.

But why is it ok? I mean, why is “guys” safe, and why does “mankind” work as an umbrella term for both men and women? I understand that language changes with use, and a word like “guys” can eventually come to mean precisely nothing the way the filler “like” means nothing; I understand that Obama doesn’t somehow see only the men in the room or consider women to be men, sort of; and I understand that many women don’t object to this term anyway, because there are few - if any - terms of camaraderie that scan as well; and it’s the treatment of women that matters, not what one calls them, damn it. I understand and I agree.

Still, here’s the question: if generic terms - that is, words which don’t convey a specific attitude or mood - for men can become gender-neutral, why doesn’t the same happen with generic terms for women? Calling your male friends “ladies” or “girls” is a very specific type of friendship-testing poke; you can do it because they are your friends. The whole thing is premised on “ladies” having a demeaning air when applied to men. If you were to walk up to a group of men you didn’t know and you called them “ladies”, you’d be downright issuing a challenge: I’m either here to provoke you or to test your sense of humor, because you are obviously not ladies. “Guys” is either flavorless, as in “can you guys help me with the door?” or positive, as in “you guys are great.”

I started to care about this whole “guys” business when I read of Douglas Hofstadter’s awakening to the same. He mentions this example: two small girls are egged on by their mother with the tease “what are you guys, a bunch of girls?” It’s typical, and if you think about it for a second it becomes funny, and then maybe not so funny.

So what to say instead of “guys”, then? Folks, people, peeps, crew, suckaz, team, mofos, pals; or make up something new. It’s up to you - the fact that language changes is a strength here. Surely we’re not lacking in hip words for cool people.

Political correctness is annoying, mostly useless, and it can be taken to Orwellian extremes, especially when some authority demands it. (For my part, I’m merely trying my best to convince; legislation doesn’t interest me.) But PC is neither inherently nor completely wrong. It’s not just a problem of logic that a woman who delivers letters to your door is not a “mailman”, no more than a man who stays home to take care of his children is a “housewife”. It’s that the former name is common and the latter is not: “letter carrier” is stuffy and subject to ridicule (or was, anyway), but all attempts to save the dad’s masculinity are seen as rational and necessary. This is basic, pre-modern feminism: the default human being is not male.

When I say the twitter exhange that precluded this post it really got me thinking:

Firstly: It’s nice to have some meaning on Twitter every once and a while. I’m hoping these two can get together and discuss it further. dalas is also correct in that Twitter is awful for having meaningful discussions.

Second: I personally don’t have a problem with people that use “guys” as a catch-all term. I also believe that it is a bit of a dialect thing. However, I’m male and I can understand the other side.

Finally: I’m resolving to say ‘guys’ less, but I need a similarly succinct replacement. “Y’all,” despite it’s flaws, is in the running.