"guys" - an acceptable form of address for women?

[BelleCurve]

Is this appropriate/acceptable ever to use for a team of women/mixed? Does it matter if the person saying it is male or female?

I am trying to think of an improvement, but "ladies" or "girls" is even worse

Also because men were traditionallly predominant it is only natural that they have more words than us and the words were more widely known and used. Thus when things equalled out slightly these words got subsumed into the egalitarian language.

Like trousers - men did more physical work, therefore trousers were useful to them while women didn't need trousers so badly. So, now it's more equal are we to refuse to wear trousers just because they used to be exclusively male dress?

It's just cutting your nose off to spite your face - you can't change the fact it used to be unequal.

seeker I think you are unbelievably patronizing to women. Stop thinking about yourself a victim fgs.

I am from a family where women held positions of authority for 4 generations. My greatgrandmother and her dsis were running a field hospital during WWI as doctors. My dm was an obgyn and running a clinic in the 50-70s, my mum was an military radio-engineer, she graduated from a super tech uni and being one of the only females at her degree. They had to endure real discrimination on the workplace and at home from their dps (my df, dgds etc and I remember this).

And you are upset because a word used to address a group of females 'comes' from a 'male' world? Get a grip.

'as' a victim obviously

Why on earth should it be considered that pondering if there are better words to use than 'guys' and why few female terms have gone into wider use has anything to do with thinking like a victim?

Oh and I call feminist bingo.

Not sure about the trouser argument. There are countries where men don't wear trousers and do physical work, and many where women do the majority of work (esp thinking subsistence farming) in very restrictive clothes. I see from a bit of Googling that the theory is that women started to wear their husbands trousers during WWII for industrial work because their husbands were away and to save clothes vouchers. That seems quite likely, but women had been working in factories for a considerable time before that.

But Nooka, (leaving aside the 'victim' arguments, I dont really want to get into that) surely if it is wrong that women are not able to wear trousers in other countries or were not in other times is pretty irrelevant.

We can't do much about those things, and we certainly can't improve their lot by boycotting trousers ourselves.

Life goes on and we should wear, and say, what fits the moment and the activity.

I see the word 'Guys' as a generic term for several people you are on good terms with - not men, not women. It's just a generally good and useful term. It may have evolved from a term addressing only men but so what - words do evolve - it doesn't mean it still has a masculine bias, though it retains a notion of that still. Only time can sort that and therefore I think the more we use it for women as well as men or mixed groups, the better.

Think forwards not backwards. There's no point being cross about the past. Let's focus on the future and make the words mean what we want them to mean.

well there could be a point in being cross about the past but really I think that's a separate issue. Sorry my first sentence in the below post doesn't make sense, I hope it is comprehensible what I'm on about all the same.

I don't think it's a bout being 'cross about the past' I think it is about reflecting on the present. I use 'guys' in casual conversation in a similar way that you do, but just because I use it in a gender neutral way doesn't mean it is a gender neutral term - it is an informal term for a boy or man. So when I address a mixed group I am in effect either pretending the women are men, or ignoring them. And neither are good. So I think to myself I should use a different term really.

Not a huge thing as these things go, but the little things do matter in changing culture.

Oh and personally I pretty much always wear trousers, but I do think it is a problem that when men occasionally wear skirts they get a whole load of grief essentially because they are seen as emulating women, and that is seen as bad (the sub text being that women are inferior).

SGM but don't you think that using the word 'problem' devalues this word?

What about these (and I do use them in my day-to-day):
Family
Friends
Colleagues

They are completely gender-neutral, wouldn't you say?

'I use 'guys' in casual conversation in a similar way that you do, but just because I use it in a gender neutral way doesn't mean it is a gender neutral term - it is an informal term for a boy or man. So when I address a mixed group I am in effect either pretending the women are men, or ignoring them. And neither are good.'

No, I disagree...the fact you, and I and countless other people use it in a neutral context means that it is a gender neutral term for the moment in which we use it and for all those who understand it as one.

it is, it is also a non neutral term for those who still comprehend it as male-relevant. It's both, by definition, as the way a word is used can denote and define its meaning (I think) and the more people use it neutrally the more it will mean a neutral thing. Viral etymology, maybe!

Like you could hear a teenage boy using the word 'gay' to describe something he doesn't rate as very cool. You could say 'gay doesn't mean that' and the kid would know exactly what it meant, as would the other teenage boy he was talking to. So in that context it means 'not very cool'. And between other people, in other contexts, it would mean homosexual, or happy, or something completely different probably.

This stuff is so fluid.

I don;t think the use of the word "gay" is 'fluid". I think it is always unacceptable and homophobic - even if that is not the intention.

Why 'gay' is wrong? My gay friend describes himself as a gay. How would you describe him seeker?

I agree about the importance of language. Language also shapes our thoughts, so if we are incorporating sexist language into our lexis - however benign the intention - it can have an attritional effect on the way we view our world and the people in it.

But I do happen to believe that.

yes SGM - i remember a couple of years ago telling myself off for calling dp an 'old woman' when he was fussing about something. it was a throwaway comment, but very telling about how we view older people, particularly older women

Tell you what I hate and I might start a thread about I think. "Fannying about" for messing around or procrastinating. Ugh.

bemybebe - I'm sorry - I didn't make myself clear. It's not, of course, homophobic to use "gay' to mean homosexual. However, it is always, and without exception, homophobic to use it to mean "uncool", or "feeble" or "pathetic". However much people tell you otherwise.

And anyone with a brain larger than a peanut can see why.

Ok, seeker, I got it after SGM's post, it is just I never use it as "uncool". I would not even remember there is this meaning unless reminded. My four teenage/young adult stepkids never use it in this sense either.

Sorry - the peanut brain reference wasn't aimed at you!

didn't think so