Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for December 5, 2013
Deadline scheduling: coming soon?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 27, 2013
ACPI for ARM?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 21, 2013
Guys, guys, guys.
Kernel prepatch 3.10-rc5
Posted Jun 10, 2013 14:52 UTC (Mon) by micka (subscriber, #38720)
Posted Jun 10, 2013 15:16 UTC (Mon) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167)
Historically "guy" could refer to any youth or to a male, and it's true that the residual implication about gender is more slight today but for example a native English speaker would probably never say "guys" when referring to an exclusively female group.
It doesn't really deserve this much analysis, but I've written it now.
Posted Jun 10, 2013 16:24 UTC (Mon) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
Guys, gals, ?
Posted Jun 10, 2013 18:28 UTC (Mon) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054)
Posted Jun 10, 2013 19:21 UTC (Mon) by Wol (guest, #4433)
I find it hard to use the word "guys" if there's even just ONE girl in the group. I'd have to say "guys and gals".
But yes, I understand that in American, the gender connotation has pretty much been lost.
Posted Jun 10, 2013 21:18 UTC (Mon) by ebiederm (subscriber, #35028)
Posted Jun 10, 2013 23:44 UTC (Mon) by wahern (subscriber, #37304)
Plus there are the reactionaries who insist on using masculine pronouns for people, and feminine for objects, as if resorting to 18th century usage is supposed to somehow resolve the issue--I suppose because "sexism", per se, didn't exist back then. These people are roadblocks to change just as much as somehow who insists on abominations such as "s/he".
And just because both men and women use "guys" doesn't necessarily make it okay. Men used to regularly beat their wives, and their wives used to accept the treatment as normative, even defending such behavior. That didn't make it okay. People are habituated to all sorts of unfair and prejudiced social behavior, even if they don't realize it.
I tend to agree that "guys" is about as gender-neutral as such a word can become, but I'm not about to make myself the arbiter of the sufficiency of its neutrality.
Posted Jun 11, 2013 9:34 UTC (Tue) by Wol (guest, #4433)
The correct masculine antecedent is "wer-man" - the feminine equivalent "wif-man" has morphed into "woman", while the masculine version has been lost.
(So a wer-wolf is really just a male wolf :-)
Posted Jun 11, 2013 11:33 UTC (Tue) by nye (guest, #51576)
No, it's a man-wolf. A man that turns in to a wolf.
The obvious corollary is that a female werewolf should be called a wifwolf, though I suspect few would understand WTF that means.
Related: the word 'gynoid' doesn't seem to have gained much traction either, despite a fair few people actually using it.
Posted Jun 18, 2013 9:57 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
The origin of the word before PIE remains, of course, a subject of much academic debate. I doubt there is enough data to ever come to any firm conclusions, but I've been wrong before...
Posted Jun 16, 2013 2:39 UTC (Sun) by jzbiciak (✭ supporter ✭, #5246)
For me, "guy" and "dude" are pretty much gender neutral, unless something else about the context reinforces a male bent. And yes, I admit, that the range goes from neutral to male; there isn't anything obvious that tilts "guy" or "dude" in the female direction for anyone anywhere. It's more the case that "guy" and "dude" went from implying male gender to losing that implication.
The age threshold I've observed in my neck of the woods (Dallas/Fort Worth, TX) seems to be about 45 or so, perhaps plus or minus a couple years.
Posted Jun 16, 2013 16:35 UTC (Sun) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
I tend not to participate in groups where the term is commonly used, for other reasons. People I find interesting simply happen not to use the word.
Posted Jun 16, 2013 19:41 UTC (Sun) by corbet (editor, #1)
Posted Jun 10, 2013 17:51 UTC (Mon) by tonyblackwell (subscriber, #43641)
In this context, I think "regimen" may be the correct word. For example, one may talk of a chemotherapy regimen, but it would be incorrect usage to say chemotherapy regime. I suspect regime is incorrectly used at times.
Posted Jun 10, 2013 22:58 UTC (Mon) by willmo (guest, #82093)
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/regime (def. 4)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/regime?s=t (def. 5)
Posted Jun 11, 2013 8:45 UTC (Tue) by rvfh (subscriber, #31018)
And it was very informative, thanks!
Posted Jun 18, 2013 9:53 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
So this is a word that jumped from Italian to French to English to American English, shifting meanings all along the way, from a proper name to an epithet to a description of a thing to a description of different classes of people, and now is making its way back into British English again... all in the last 500-odd years.
(In the UK the tradition of burning effigies on bonfires on Bonfire Night persists, though generally they are not effigies of the Pope anymore, that's just tacky and insensitive. Instead we have effigies of, well, everything you can imagine! The local bonfire had *43* effigies on it, one per scout troop involved, most buried deep inside because there were far too many to fit on top, but one of the ones on top was a sea serpent. My favourite effigy of the last few years has to have been one from last year, an absolutely perfect, instantly recognizable Spitting-Image-style parody of Rupert Murdoch...)
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds