Something (Possibly) Worth Thinking (and Responding) Over
Julia and I were IMing the other night, and I noticed the way that I was using the word "guy." I started thinking about possible reasons that we use the word at all (in a gender-specific way), rather than saying "boy" or "man." The only thing I can think of is that it blurs age divisions to include all males that we could possibly engage in any sort of sexual relationship. I think I first started using the word as a substitute for "boy" in fifth grade or so; I distinctly remember the weird feeling I got when choosing between the two, though I couldn't (or, perhaps, wouldn't) place my finger on exactly why. I'm not sure, but it seems like the whole "guy" category is a sort of haze that allows us to objectify males in a way in which it's already acceptable to objectify girls and women. Or, maybe it's a way to give older boys sexual status without endowing them with other signs of adult rank, while at the same time allowing young men the freedom to play with sex for a few years without accompanying adult responsibilities, i.e. marriage. After all, we rarely ever talk about "married guys." I'd appreciate your help in sorting through these things, as 1) they could be completely misguided notions, and 2) I can see possible connections to some rather disturbing trends I've been noticing more and more and might be worth thinking about.
posted by Nina at 7:11 PM
7 Comments:
Observation with no conclusion:
The opposite of "guy" is "girl". The opposite of "boy" is still "girl". If we accept Nina's thoughts about what it means to be a "guy", then our language would imply that there is no such role for females. They are simply "girls" until they become "women". *Furrows brow*...
except, josh, that in Nina's etymology, guy does have an opposite:
we talk about "the ladies" "chicks" etc.
But because younger "girls" are already socially sexualized, we still talk of females as girls well into college without perhaps needing to make that distinction.
Interesting thought, Nina.
I agree with Josh that there is no female equivalent for "guy." While terms like those Michael listed are very provocative and considered by many as offensive or dirty, "guy" seems almost completely acceptable in casual conversation. Maybe we need figure out what makes one a man and what makes one a woman, as opposed to a boy or girl. After all, I am a little jostled by universities referring to us as "men and women"...
Another thing about Josh's comment: I don't think that being a "guy" necessarily cuts one off from either boyhood or manhood. In fact, the term is basically restricted to social situations between peers; everywhere else, "guys" become "boys" and "men" once again. Like Michael said, I think that girls have long been sexualized in our culture, and sexual behavior among young women is much less acceptable than it is among young men; maybe this is simply evidence of this.
My two cents (more facetious than on the point, I’m afraid):
1) The etymology of “guy” comes from burning effigies of our old friend Guy Fawkes. A “guy”, from this point of view, is in essence a straw figure without real substance. A “guy” is not a real person; it is empty of any real existence or life. When referring to “a guy” or “guys”, this perhaps assigns the person(s) being referred to some degree of inconsequentiality or anonymity? It smacks, anyway, of casual deindividualization.
2) “Guys” is also often used androgynously, to refer to a group of people that may be mixed or of either sex. In such cases, it doesn’t really have any real meanings attached anymore, it’s basically just a pronoun. (Of course, in some languages the third person plural pronoun for a male or mixed group simply assumes the masculine form as well.) Although our standard English usage pronouns “they” and “them” are neuter, does this reflect a tendency towards masculine identification of an ambiguous group?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Always with the Guy Fawkes. Bravo, roomie!
Post a Comment
<< Home