Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

This is actually kind of a pet peeve of mine. I am 23, unmarried, and childless, and am generally referred to as a girl. 23-year-old females who are married and/or have children are almost universally referred to as women. I'm not denying that there's a level of responsibility -- very often but not always accompanied by maturity -- that those women have that others don't, but I find it mildly degrading, anyway. I make a point of referring to myself and my agemates as women or ladies instead of girls.

The situation is complicated by the fact that we have the word "guys" to refer to males of about my age, which is sort of a compromise between "boys" and "men," but no comparable word to refer to females. (The word "gals" is the technical counterpart, I suppose, but who really says that?)

Does anyone else feel this way? It honestly didn't bother me until I graduated from college, and maybe it has something to do with the fact that I look more like 16 than 23, but it bothers me sometimes.

Emiliana wrote:The situation is complicated by the fact that we have the word "guys" to refer to males of about my age, which is sort of a compromise between "boys" and "men," but no comparable word to refer to females. (The word "gals" is the technical counterpart, I suppose, but who really says that?)

I agree that this is the crux of the problem. "Girl" and "boy" are [+juvenile] and "man" and "woman" are [+formal]. "Guy" is [+adult, +casual] which is very useful (especially in a college or young professional setting), but there isn't a good female alternative.

(And then we could get into whether or not "you guys" as a 2nd pers. plural is sexist, but that's a different issue. )

I'm sure that once I've graduate I'll feel the same way as you, Emiliana. Right now I feel awkward when people call me a girl and a woman. Maybe we *should* come up with a better alternative?

I actually think of this occasionally because I get crushes on boys, you know, but I plan to marry a man. (It actually threw me off when former boyfriends referred to themselves as men -- probably because subconsciously I felt they were asserting their worthiness of marrying me even though they were never talking about marriage...)

I think of myself as a girl most often. Maybe because I work with older people. I even think of some of my married friends as girls (unless they're guys). Most often I'm called a "young woman". That works for me...

As a general rule, one automatically is considered a man or a woman if they left puberty before you entered. If this condition us not satisfied, "boy" and "girl" are used until you have gained sufficient respect for them.

Also, the term "guys," though traditionally applied to males, may work on a group of females or a group containing both genders. "Guy," however only refers to a male. "Ladies" is a respectable term for a group of females of any age, but "lady" is best left describing an older female.

Guys and ladies works for me.

I'm most bothered when people refer to a whole group of grown women as girls. That's infantilizing and rude.
I tend to refer to anyone ~high school age or older as men and women. You know, treat people as if they were what they ought to be, and all that.

I think it depends a bit on the context. Generally I refer to people over the age of about 14-15 as "men" and "women", but if I'm having a girls' night out with people, I don't call it a women's night out. And I do have a habit of referring to groups of people as "kids" regardless of their age, which I think I picked up from watching both David Letterman and Krusty the Clown, but I usually only use it around people who know me well.

I call my roommates my children.

NerdGirl wrote:I think it depends a bit on the context. ... And I do have a habit of referring to groups of people as "kids" regardless of their age...

I think I'm here if informal. I've referred to people nearly twice my age as "a kid I met today". I'm not sure what I would refer to myself as, as I don't usually think in that context. I've no problem with being called a boy, nor any other gender-appropriate term, although 'man' may yet be premature, as I've not assumed those responsibilities as of right now.

Perhaps one's sensitivity could be based off of their own perception of themselves? I don't mind being considered a kid, as knowing the kids I know vs many college students I've known I take it as a complement. I also grew up with the self image that I was on par intellectually (and more inaccurately: emotionally) as many that society called adults. As such, a transitional stage isn't really required for me.

The social perception of married individuals automatically being placed in a strata above single individuals regardless of age is as real as it is unfortunate. Also having a child factors in as another bump in status.

NerdGirl wrote:if I'm having a girls' night out with people, I don't call it a women's night out.

"Girls' night" is a fixed phrase, though. (I.e., you're not coming up with it on the spot every time.) Ditto for phrases like "boys' club," "one of the boys," etc.

Tao wrote:The social perception of married individuals automatically being placed in a strata above single individuals regardless of age is as real as it is unfortunate. Also having a child factors in as another bump in status.

I assume you mean in Mormon culture. (I wouldn't say there's nearly the same stratification in the "real" world.)

I also like the word "ladies," even if it makes the utterer instantly creepy!

I am perhaps one of the most informal people you will meet in this respect. "Man" or "Woman" almost never enter into my speech, regardless of the subject it would be attached to. Much more common are "guy," "dude," "chick," (which I will vehemently deny is sexist) "buddy," or "babe." The last two are generally only used for children, although I occasionally refer to my friends in third person as the former. Although, perhaps this is something that I should try to change, seeing as how it has gotten me in trouble before, especially in Spanish. ("ese vato" is generally frowned upon in a professional setting.)

Katya wrote:

Tao wrote:The social perception of married individuals automatically being placed in a strata above single individuals regardless of age is as real as it is unfortunate. Also having a child factors in as another bump in status.

I assume you mean in Mormon culture. (I wouldn't say there's nearly the same stratification in the "real" world.)

I can accept that single people are not necessarily "below" married people in the real world. I would argue, though, that being married automatically gives you an aura of "adultness" that someone in their early 20s could not easily attain otherwise. So while being single has less stigma, being married still adds a level of maturity/respectability in the "real" world.

ahem. wrote:

Katya wrote:

Tao wrote:The social perception of married individuals automatically being placed in a strata above single individuals regardless of age is as real as it is unfortunate. Also having a child factors in as another bump in status.

I assume you mean in Mormon culture. (I wouldn't say there's nearly the same stratification in the "real" world.)

I can accept that single people are not necessarily "below" married people in the real world. I would argue, though, that being married automatically gives you an aura of "adultness" that someone in their early 20s could not easily attain otherwise. So while being single has less stigma, being married still adds a level of maturity/respectability in the "real" world.

There are definitely some cultural factors in play here. In my home culture (middle class white American Protestants), it's similar -- though not as extreme -- what how I've heard Mormon culture described as far as attitudes about marrying young. Hardly a week went by while I was in the States this summer that someone didn't ask, directly or indirectly, when I was going to move home so that I could get married and start my "real" life. In the culture where I live it's worse. Almost anyone who doesn't have a husband/wife or children is considered a "youth," because the expectation is that you get married as soon as you have the independence and financial resources to do so. As a foreigner I'm not subject to quite the same expectations, but I've definitely encountered people who look down on me for being an "old maid." That, or they either try to marry me, if they're male [and single or polygamous] or to get me to marry their son/nephew/brother/etc., if they're female.

ahem. wrote:

Katya wrote:

Tao wrote:The social perception of married individuals automatically being placed in a strata above single individuals regardless of age is as real as it is unfortunate. Also having a child factors in as another bump in status.

I assume you mean in Mormon culture. (I wouldn't say there's nearly the same stratification in the "real" world.)

I can accept that single people are not necessarily "below" married people in the real world. I would argue, though, that being married automatically gives you an aura of "adultness" that someone in their early 20s could not easily attain otherwise. So while being single has less stigma, being married still adds a level of maturity/respectability in the "real" world.

Living in Illinois and living in Maine, I've been shocked at what a non-issue it is for me to be single in my workplace and at school. I think maybe two or three times in five years I've heard someone make a comment to the effect that mothers know X or are better at X, but I don't think I've ever felt that someone looked down on me for being single (and I called one of the "mothers know X" people out on what she said, and she backed down from it).

Now, there are a number of factors in play, here. One is that I'm in a professional setting, so a lot of personal comments simply aren't appropriate. Another is that I've been in academic settings, which have a different system of social stratification. Third, I'm comparing these encounters to Mormon culture, which is ridiculously focused on marriage and family, so I'm likely to see anything that's significantly less so as refreshingly open-minded, by comparison. Last, in a culture in which living together before marriage is widely accepted, the fact that you're not married doesn't necessarily mean that you're not in a stable long-term relationship. I heard someone say the other day that American culture defines you by who you're having sex with (i.e., gay vs. straight, virgin vs. slut, in a relationship vs. not) and I think there's a lot of truth to that. In Mormon culture, where you're expected to stay virginal until marriage, married people also have the cachet of sexual experience and knowledge working in their favor.

However, I'm thinking over my housemate's situation and I'm realizing that she does feel pressure to be married, even in her mid-20s, because a lot of people in her set of friends are now married and starting families, so maybe it has more to do with what the other people are doing in your social set.

Something weird about this thread title I just barely noticed: the way it's set up seems to imply that the term "girls" goes with "men" and "boys" goes with "women." But it does make sense to say "girls and boys" and "men and women."

Sorry to interrupt the conversation. You may resume it...now.

Heh. I'm surprised at myself for not catching that, Dead Cat. I'm sure there's some sociolinguistic implication about why we say "girls and boys" but not usually "women and men," but I'm not sure what it is.

Emiliana wrote:Heh. I'm surprised at myself for not catching that, Dead Cat. I'm sure there's some sociolinguistic implication about why we say "girls and boys" but not usually "women and men," but I'm not sure what it is.

I say "boys and girls" more than "girls and boys."