This morning I awoke to a fantastic post by Karen Mangiacotti, who wrote about being labeled “the penis mom” because of an email she wrote pointing out the gender discrimination in a school’s request for “dads” to help with trebuchet project:
Dear teachers and parents:
Are you guys seriously only asking for Dads?
Is lifting done with a penis?
Thoughtfully yours,
- Karen
It’s bad enough that she got in trouble for using the word “penis” but I noticed several comments that, while agreeing the initial call for dads was sexist, questioned whether making a joke was an appropriate response. One commenter even suggested that this was not a “direct” means of communication.
The hell it isn’t. Jokes are communication. Full stop. And Freud’s with me on this one. There is no way that people didn’t “get” the joke, whether they thought it was funny or not. And all that crap about being “appropriate” is just more social oppression. Not following social expectations is one of the main sources of humor, which is why it it can be such a powerful force for change. And (surprise, surprise) the gender of the joke-teller matters, and women telling jokes are far more likely to provoke offense – and this is why we don’t have enough women in comedy. Yet.
Anyway, I just wanted to say that Karen Mangiacotti’s joke was great on every count: well-written, effective, and (to me) funny. And to anyone who thinks jokes are an inappropriate forms of communication? I think her thirteen-year-old son had it right: “Screw them.” Keep ‘em coming, Karen!
I’m with you. Preposterous to argue that “penis” is inappropriate, or that humor is an ineffective or inappropriate means of critique.
And I’m with her (Karen/Penis Mom) on all but one count:
Why on earth would someone use sexist language (the masculine generic “guys”) to critique sexism?
Now get ready for a stream of indignant comments about why “guys” is just super and women (aka “girls”) use it and like it. Yeah, that’s what they used to say about using “man” and “men” to mean “everybody, including people with vaginas.” And to those defenders of sexist language I’ll say the same thing that Penis Mom Jr. said, “Screw.”
I think “guys” is simply a generic term for people with penises and people with vaginas. Go over to Language Log, type “dude” in the search box, click around on some of the links, and you’ll find a fine discussion on how the same thing is happening with that word. Whether we like it or not, it’s the way real people talk.
I’m a community college teacher, and I use the penis joke regularly. When students are working in groups, I often assign them roles: “In this class, I get to make the rules, so the recorder/secretary must have a penis, and the person who reports what the group came up with back to the class may not have a penis.”
Students get it immediately. Penisness or penislessness shouldn’t determine their behavior.
“I think “guys” is simply a generic term for people with penises and people with vaginas. Go over to Language Log, type “dude” in the search box, click around on some of the links, and you’ll find a fine discussion on how the same thing is happening with that word. Whether we like it or not, it’s the way real people talk.”
Wow, did I predict that someone would feel the need to mansplain that “guys” is A-okay, or what? Yes it’s a “generic term,” the masculine generic. As Philip’s classroom exercise illustrates, we’re capable of taking the time and effort to change culture, not just swirl around in our filth because that’s the way “real people” do things (Philip, “the way real people do things” is that someone with a vagina is the secretary, and someone with a penis, preferably a tall, good looking white someone, is the spokesperson. You seem willing to challenge this–why not language too?). “Folks” or other non-gendered terms are more appropriate than perpetuating the idea that masculine terms apply to everybody.
Here’s a fun exercise:
Try substituting the word “gals” every time you would ordinarily use “guys” and see how many penis-people feel included.
I’m gonna have to side with Philip on this one, mostly because I come from a region where I grew up using “guys” as a generic term; I also call my collaborator (and other women) “dude” all the time. And really, I’m all for forgetting this history of words like “bitch” and “slut” and making them non-gendered and general terms of abuse.
And no, it’s not fair that the masculine marker, rather than the the feminine, inevitably becomes the generic term, or that there are a billion more derogatory terms for women than men. But this is a case where you have to pick your battles and (for me) fighting these particular cases of common usage isn’t a battle worth fighting. Sometimes dwelling on the history of the word is a way of not letting go, which is what worrying about “guys” feels like — and to be honest, I’m more concerned with the male subject being the assumed norm where it *isn’t* specifically marked by in grammar, such as in work and government policies. And don’t even get me started on how intonation can affect how offensive or not it is.
Basically, I think it’s everyone’s choice whether to use “folks” or “guys”, but I don’t think it’s feasible, or even reasonable, to ask people to stop using gendered markers altogether.
“And really, I’m all for forgetting this history of words like “bitch” and “slut” and making them non-gendered and general terms of abuse.”
Yes, you couldn’t be more right. That’s the way to fight the old sexual double standard–use sexist terms to do so! It’s really best that we use misogynist slurs to police everyone instead of simply refusing to use them to describe anyone.
Didn’t say best, that’s a loaded term; most pragmatic, perhaps. And actually they’re no longer sexist terms if you use them to describe men, women, cats, cars etc. Note that I’m not trying to tell you how talk; you’re free to fight that battle and make your own choices — but, for the record, I’m not giving up my right to call men sluts or women dudes.
Kelly:
Nearly everyone has a pet language peeve: “Don’t end a sentence with a preposition,” or “avoid passive constructions.” Some countries even have lanuage police. The French, for example, try to ban Anglicisms (“le drugstore”) from street signs. But most of these attempts are futile. Language is a living thing, and people will talk they way they talk. “Guys” or “dudes” used to refer to both people with and without penises is becoming more and more common whether you or I or anyone else likes it or not.
With that said, it’s also true that language changes. One of the changes I’ve noticed in academic English is using both masculine and feminine pronouns for antecedents like “anyone” or “everyone.” “Everyone turned in his paper on time” used to be standard. Today, writers are much more likely to write “Everyone turned in his/her paper on time.”
And because “his/her,” “he/she,” or “s/he” tend to be a bit awkward, writers will sometimes use “he,” and at other times, “she.” Careful writers make sure that “she” is the pronoun of choice when something good is happening: “Anyone who got all A’s on her quizzes will not have to take the final exam.”
“Guys” or “dudes” (not in my dialect) is informal, and IMHO, is absolutely non-sexist: “C’mon guys, let’s quiet down and get started” works far better for me than “C’mon class,” or “C’mon students,” or (ugh) “C’mon ladies and gentlemen.”
Yeah, see, I don’t even like “his/her” because it’s so damned awkward, and I don’t like choosing “she” any more than “he”- that’s still gendered, no? So, as you may notice, I just go with “they.” Prescriptive grammar doesn’t like it, of course, but as you rightly point out, the problem with prescriptive grammar is that it doesn’t reflect the changing nature. of real language. That and that whole not working thing, when it comes to how people talk.
“And actually they’re no longer sexist terms if you use them to describe men, women, cats, cars etc.”
Really? So YOU personally have the power to change the entire cultural meaning of words through YOUR own personal choices? I can’t say I’m thrilled to her that you’re on the linguistic vanguard if you are so attached to words like “slut”–it’s regressive to police people’s bodies and sexuality. That said, I suspect once you get older you’ll have a greater personal sense of what these words mean–trust me on that one. Youth masks misogyny.
And Philip, I understand that changing language is awkward. I just believe it’s worth doing. “Folks” is a fine non-gendered alternative to “guys”–I’ve never had students snicker or roll their eyes at that one.
Well, I’m very glad to find out you’re omniscient. That gives me real confidence in your ability to change the world.
“Folks” is good. Thanks, Kelly.
wopro: “They/their” will probably become standard usage sometime down the line, but, meanwhile, be prepared for some prescriptive peevitude.
QED!
“Everyone” and “Everybody” are also good alternatives. “People” works in certain contexts too.
Now, I wonder if anyone has anything to say about Penis Mom or the original post?
not gonna lie, i haven’t read this yet, but i promise i will.
i’ve been out of the loop and i just wanted you to know that what we once had can be once more.
never forget, never surrender, never back down (starring james from twilight).
Guilty on this end too…and I keep toying with the notion of video, so maybe I’ll need tips!