J.T., the rest of what you wrote in your last post makes plenty of sense, but you’re way off the mark with this part.
Just because you, for some reason, don’t like using the term “girl” to refer to grown women doesn’t mean that it’s wrong to do so or give you the right to demand that others abide by your terminological preference. For your information, it is perfectly correct to refer to a woman of almost any age as a girl. In the UK, we even refer to very old ladies as “old girl”. The American Heritage Dictionary from your side of the pond recognises girl as meaning, among other things, “an immature or inexperienced woman, especially a young one; Informal: a grown woman; a female sweetheart.”
I see absolutely nothing objectionable about its use in this thread, and Jacana has no need at all to desist from terming herself as such or however else she pleases.
J.T., the rest of what you wrote in your last post makes plenty of sense, but you’re way off the mark with this part.
Just because you, for some reason, don’t like using the term “girl” to refer to grown women doesn’t mean that it’s wrong to do so or give you the right to demand that others abide by your terminological preference. For your information, it is perfectly correct to refer to a woman of almost any age as a girl. In the UK, we even refer to very old ladies as “old girl”. The American Heritage Dictionary from your side of the pond recognises girl as meaning, among other things, “an immature or inexperienced woman, especially a young one; Informal: a grown woman; a female sweetheart.”
I see absolutely nothing objectionable about its use in this thread, and Jacana has no need at all to desist from terming herself as such or however else she pleases.[/quote]
Yes, I remember my grandfather using an old edition of Webster’s dictionary to justify calling all black men in a service job “boy.” Sorry, just as I disagreed with him and Webster, I’ll also have to disagree with you and the American Heritage Dictionary.
And the Oxford English Dictionary, which gives it as meaning a “young, usually unmarried, woman” as well as a “(man’s) girl-friend”.
Of course no one can take issue with you for using the word “woman” to refer to such people if you so choose, but you have no grounds at all for even suggesting, let alone demanding, that other people follow suit.
I agree with Jive Turkey.
As a woman myself I am not comfortable with being called a girl.
I’m sure it cannot sit well with grown men to be referred to as ‘boys’ either.
The same applies to women.
There is a distinction (supposedly) between boys and men and girls and women, hence the different words.
A woman is not a girl, they are both female yes, but by no means do these two different words share meaning.
I’m pretty sure that there is a term for a man who allows himself to indulge in sex with a girl…
[quote=“Nunfay”]I agree with Jive Turkey.
As a woman myself I am not comfortable with being called a girl.
I’m sure it cannot sit well with grown men to be referred to as ‘boys’ either.[/quote]
It’s all to do with context for me. I don’t mind being called ‘one of the girls’, or describing myself as a girl depending on the situation. People seem to be fixating on the use of ‘girls’ vs ‘boys’ but I see it rather more as the use of the casual ‘girls’ vs ‘guys’. Or perhaps I should start calling myself a ‘doll’?
[quote]I agree with Jive Turkey.
As a woman myself I am not comfortable with being called a girl.
[/quote]
In Glasgow you’d be called a “wee hairy,” while in Edinburgh you’d be “hen.” In Aberdeen you’d be either a “quine” or an “auld wifie” depending on your age.
I prefer “broad.”
[quote=“daasgrrl”][quote=“Nunfay”]I agree with Jive Turkey.
As a woman myself I am not comfortable with being called a girl.
I’m sure it cannot sit well with grown men to be referred to as ‘boys’ either.[/quote]
It’s all to do with context for me. I don’t mind being called ‘one of the girls’, or describing myself as a girl depending on the situation. People seem to be fixating on the use of ‘girls’ vs ‘boys’ but I see it rather more as the use of the casual ‘girls’ vs ‘guys’. Or perhaps I should start calling myself a ‘doll’? [/quote]
Yes, the context, as usual, is important. While I understand what JT is saying, and I respect that opinion… I don’t think use of the word “girl” is necessarily condescending.
My wife of 15 years still loves it when I call her “my girl”.
I refer to myself and other females relatively close to my age as women. Woman just sounds too mature to me. Maybe when get to a point where I feel like I am an adult, I’ll stop using the term “girl”…don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen, though.
[quote=“Nunfay”]I agree with Jive Turkey.
As a woman myself I am not comfortable with being called a girl.[/quote]
You’re entitled to your own preference, but not to foist it on others. Unless you two want to start a campaign to change the way the word “girl” is commonly used, without the slightest derogatory, demeaning, condescending or in any way negative connotations, by 99% of native speakers of the English language, then by all means go ahead and try. But thank goodness you have no chance of succeeding, because if you did, our language would become that much poorer for having such a flexible, useful and multitonal word reduced to a monotone of rigidly narrow meaning.
Oh, and would you like to be consistent by also depriving us of the use of the word “girlfriend”, replacing it with “womanfriend” perhaps?
Consult any and every English dictionary, including the most recent editions, and you’ll find that they all disagree with you on that score. While little girls, or female children, cannot be correctly referred to as women, the word girl may equally be applied to both older and younger females in formal as well as informal usage. If you are an English teacher, I hope you are not teaching your students incorrectly about this point of usage.
[quote=“Nunfay”]I’m sure it cannot sit well with grown men to be referred to as ‘boys’ either.
The same applies to women.
There is a distinction (supposedly) between boys and men and girls and women, hence the different words.[/quote]
The comparison between the use of “boys” and “girls” is misleading, because the latter carries a wider range of meanings and acceptability in common usage. Nevertheless, you are welcome to call me a country boy and one of the boys, just not, if you please, a good old boy.
And the Oxford English Dictionary, which gives it as meaning a “young, usually unmarried, woman” as well as a “(man’s) girl-friend”.
[/quote]
And I’m sure the OED has the words spic, n1gger, dago, fag, dike and ch1nk, but would you use them daily? While these are obviously worse than your usage of “girl” and they are marked as offensive, your use of the word girl is still mildly offensive to plenty of non-Brits and Brits. I knew plenty of women in England who objected to being called a girl outside of colloquial or mildly humorous usages such as “you’re being a very good girl tonight; I might just give you a treat.” Stop trying to hide behind the defense of “it’s just fine in my country.”
[quote=“omniloquacious”]Of course no one can take issue with you for using the word “woman” to refer to such people if you so choose, but you have no grounds at all for even suggesting, let alone demanding, that other people follow suit.[/quote]BTW dictionary boy, the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English defines girl as:
child< a female child.
daughter< a daughter.
3.>woman< a word meaning woman, which is sometimes considered offensive by women[my italics]
Hmm, isn’t Longman a British publisher?
I didn’t demand that other people refrain from using “girl” in this context; I asked nicely. No grounds for suggesting? Uh, dictionary boy, I just gave you my “grounds for suggesting.”
Yes, as indicated in the example I gave above, context does matter. What are we discussing in this thread? Fucking. If a discussion about fucking doesn’t meet the standard for when not to use “girl”, then I don’t know what does.
[quote=“wolf_reinhold”]I will eschew the word “girl” here so as not to be offensive.
Ya gotta hand it to a broad that knows the ropes in the sack.
[/quote]
You may or may not be trying to get a rise out of me, but in this context I don’t really have a problem with the word “broad.” Most dictionaries would describe “broad” as extremely offensive to women, but it doesn’t bother me when you use it here; to me, the word “broad” implies a certain level of maturity and spunk (that’s courage in American usage, not semen for any Brits reading ) that could never be found in a girl. Nobody would ever call a female child a broad.
[quote=“sandman”] I’ll ask the wife, although she doesn’t seem to have any problems with me.[/quote] Protecting yourself with the qualifier seem, eh?
The wife is resigned to being called a hen, seeing as how her husband is a turkey.
And the Oxford English Dictionary, which gives it as meaning a “young, usually unmarried, woman” as well as a “(man’s) girl-friend”.
[/quote]
And I’m sure the OED has the words spic, n1gger, dago, fag, dike and ch1nk, but would you use them daily? [/quote]
No, because – as the dictionary marks very clearly, which you acknowledge further down your post – they are offensive. I have not seen any dictionary, British or American, that marks any use of the word “girl” as offensive. If you or anyone else finds it so, that is solely your personal issue. It is not sufficient to justify your calling on the vast majority of other English users to stop using the word.
[If Longman’s, which I have never and probably would never consult, does include the proviso that the word “girl” may sometimes in certain very narrow circumstances be deemed offensive by people who have an incomplete grasp of the language and are probably also offended by the use of words like “blind”, “blackmail”, and the like, and who probably need to seek assistance from a linguistic psychologist, then I can only put it down to their having someone like you or Nunfay working in their offices. But I prefer the authority of the Oxford English Dictionary on this point, not to mention my own sound judgment as to what can properly be deemed offensive or otherwise.]
Yes, as indicated in the example I gave above, context does matter. What are we discussing in this thread? Fucking. If a discussion about fucking doesn’t meet the standard for when not to use “girl”, then I don’t know what does. [/quote]
Pardonnez moi? Er, who are the females that men usually, as you put it, fuck? Oh well, yes, that’s right, unless they are paying for commercial sex or committing rape, they are fucking their GIRLFRIENDS, or, as we may say in its shortened form, “girls”.
Oh boy, I really can’t see how it’s hard to get a grasp of such a simple and uncontroversial point!
[quote=“Omniloquacious”]
I have not seen any dictionary, British or American, that marks any use of the word “girl” as offensive. If you or anyone else finds it so, that is solely your personal issue. It is not sufficient to justify your calling on the vast majority of other English users to stop using the word.[/quote]
Can you read? As I wrote above, the LONGMAN DICTIONARY OF CONTEMPORARY ENGLISH says that the use of the word “girl” when referring to a woman “is sometimes considered offensive by women.” Would you like the ISBN? That “sometimes” obviously depends on the context. As I’ve said above, a discussion about sex is surely a context in which use of the word "girl’ could be considered offensive or inappropriate, unless one is talking about actually having sex with a female child, in which case the offense would be statutory rape instead of poor usage. I assume you are only guilty of the latter.
[quote=“Omniloquacious”][If Longman’s, which I have never and probably would never consult, does include the proviso that the word “girl” may sometimes in certain very narrow circumstances be deemed offensive by people who have an incomplete grasp of the language and are probably also offended by the use of words like “blind”, “blackmail”, and the like, and who probably need to seek assistance from a linguistic psychologist, then I can only put it down to their having someone like you or Nunfay working in their offices. But I prefer the authority of the Oxford English Dictionary on this point, not to mention my own sound judgment as to what can properly be deemed offensive or otherwise.][/quote]You don’t have the honesty to mark this as “revised later” or “added later?” Of course not. That might show that despite being a guy of such high standards, you can’t pick up clear details when reading. I’ll promise to go to a “linguistic psychologist” if you promise to improve your literacy. :rolleyes:
P.J. O’Rourke covers this topic nicely in ‘The CEO Of The Sofa’, with his, ahem… “assessment” of Guidelines For Bias-Free Writing (nothing like a sanctimonious, pious, self-righteous drunken republican).
There is nothing wrong with calling men ‘boys’. Have you seen how we behave?
Goddammit! Where is Lich?! Heated debates rage! Input is needed!
Bassman, this is ALL YOUR FAULT! Stupid Bassman and his stupid signature…
This is what happens when we try and be clever, people get hurt, egos are bruised, tears, name-calling, finger-pointing…
) that could never be found in a girl. Nobody would ever call a female child a broad.