Thursday, March 26, 2009

There's no good word for it

My piece on the lingering mysteries surrounding the Symbionese Liberation Army evinced a number of interesting and strange responses. The strangest was sent to me as a private email; I will not reprint it here. The second strangest comment, which I published, was this:
Emily Harris is an out lesbian who lived a mile from my house when she was arrested. Calling her partner her "ladyfriend" is too stupid for words. Unless you're trying to be cute, please realize it's 2009 and most of us are insulted with that kind of silly phrasing.
Wow. So the word "ladyfriend" is now considered an insult to All Lesbians Everywhere? News to me.

(Odd thought: Could my correspondent actually be Emily? Or her ladyfriend?)

On the same day which saw the arrival of that outraged comment, I learned that someone else had objected to my previous usage of the very same word. Richard Roeper -- yeah, the movie critic -- slams Cannonfire in a book which I have not yet read. Apparently, Roeper was irked by the 2004 "Bush bulge" controversy, which first came to widespread public attention via this humble blog. That seminal post begins with this announcement:
While watching a re-broadcast of the debate, my ladyfriend noted something odd: Bush seemed to have a wire, or an odd protrusion of some sort, running down his back.
Roeper objects to the term "ladyfriend," which he thinks died with Frank Sinatra. Or so I have been told.

I never met Sinatra, but my stepfather knew him. The Chairman of the Board probably would have used the term "that broad I'm shacking up with." Which is a very vulgar phrase. One should say "that broad up with whom I am shacking."

At any rate, my ladyfriend never objected to the word "ladyfriend." She is not a girl and I am agonizingly far from boyhood. Thus, "girlfriend" and "boyfriend" have never seemed right.

Emily's neighbor and defender suggests the word "partner." No. A thousand times no.

"Partner" is a business term. Spade and Archer were partners. So were Rogers and Hammerstein, Wilder and Diamond, Laurel and Hardy, Gilbert and Sullivan, Jobs and Woz, Hewlitt and Packard. And so forth.

Why am I so adamant on this point? Because a number of innocent words have taken on sexual connotations -- and in our debauched age, the non-sexual meanings are in danger of being overwhelmed. Thus, we must now think twice before using words like "gay," "straight," "screw," "prick," "boob," "boner," "jerk," "rubbers" and so forth. I don't want "partner" to be one of those sexualized terms. I don't want schoolkids in 2030 to titter when they discover that an old book contains the sentence "I just made partner in the firm!"

Come to think of it, the word "titter" will probably make them titter. Maybe even "firm."

My point is this: It may soon become impossible to compose a sentence of any length without conveying an unintended sexual message. ("Heh heh heh. He said 'length,' Beavis.") That's why I prefer a world in which one can say that Abbott and Costello were partners without implying that the two slept together. Although poor Lou certainly got screwed.

Now, I really don't care whether Emily WhateverHerNameIsNow takes offense when I refer to her "ladyfriend." She is a murderess and a kidnapper, and her wounded feelings are of no concern. Still, I must ask: If not that word, then which word?

26 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ladyfriend is a stupid term partly because the term lady is sexist. It refers to a distinction between an upper class woman (lady) and a lower class one (woman). It refers to idealization of women, something that places them on a pedestal and thereby limits their mobility and freedom in the world. It carries with it a bunch of connotations about proper behavior for ladies as opposed to women. If a woman is your friend, call her that without adding "lady" to the front of it (e.g., similarly avoid lady reporter, lady politician, lady firefighter). If she is in a sexual relationship with you, call her something else (lover, fiance, even girlfriend would be preferable). Ladyfriend is not just archaic and paternalistic but annoying.

Anonymous said...

I always liked using 'buddy', as in 'my buddy', and I could also address her directly as 'Buddy'. Love Chet Baker's version of the song, too. It's also how I address the dog, cat, or whatever. In my memoirs she's the Ball and Chain.

OTE admin said...

The objections are as stupid as the "niggardly" controversy a few years ago. I can't believe the whole thing.

Joseph Cannon said...

Anon 7:56, I think you are being silly.

"Ladyfriend is a stupid term partly because the term lady is sexist. It refers to a distinction between an upper class woman (lady) and a lower class one (woman)."

How is that sexist? The "gentleman" and "man" distinction also holds.

("But that's different!" No it isn't.)

"It refers to idealization of women, something that places them on a pedestal..."

No it doesn't. "Lady" is simply a term of respect. Period.

"Fiancee" implies that a marriage is impending. That word would prompt others to ask when I am getting married, and my answer -- "None of your business" -- might cause bruised feelings. Besides, most Americans cannot remember the fiance/fiancee distinction. You forgot it yourself. And I can't make accent marks on this keyboard.

"Lover" implies adultery. That term really IS archaic. Every time I hear it, I'm taken back to the era of horseshoes on cobblestones.

No-one over the age of (say) 22 should use the phrases "girlfriend" and "boyfriend."

And now you must excuse me. I have to go feed my doggyfriend.

Bob Harrison said...

I rail against these absurdities constantly. Females, even those of different sexual persuasions, prefer to be treated as ladies. Males, even the macho chest-thumpers, prefer to be treated as gentlemen. It is a matter of treating people with respect, nothing more. My students call me by my first name but I always call them Mr. or Ms. It's a small thing but it establishes an appropriate avenue of communication. Sorry, Anon. You are still a lady to me.

Anonymous said...

I like "ladyfriend". It has some mystery to it, and a bit of humor when used nowadays. I objected to the word "lady" for many years, becaue I associated it with the patriarchal desire to limit women's equality. Feminists weren't considered "lady-like". But gentlemen, of course, had a far wider prerogative to express their interests in the world. So the class-based work embodied behavioral restrictions for women that the equivalent word did not hold for men. To the degree women object to the word, that's what it is about whether they can express it or not. I certainly felt the restrictions in the word when I was very young and had no tools to even think about much less express it.

I used "main squeeze" on a loan application to explain my relationship with someone one time. The bank understood. I got the loan.

I remember the days when the IRS finally had to incorporate people living together unmarried. They came up with "persons of opposite sex sharing same living quarters". To which Mark Shields wrote the song, "Won't You Be My POSSLQ". Of course, POSSLQ wouldn't work for Emily Harris and her, uh, main squeeze.

Congrats on the Richard Roeper mention. LOL. How funny is that?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Okay, so I'm a gay woman and I don't think that Ladyfriend or Lover are bad when describing who you are with. I'm not offended by either because to me they are apt descriptions of my own relationship right now.

I think what thoughts or feelings that people associate with a word may come from their own personal experiences so I don't think that there will ever be a word that will not offend anyone. Sometimes we all need to just take a step back and realize that we don't all think the same therefore what some words mean to one person may not mean the same to another.

Anonymous said...

From the Desk of Bulge Girl (which seems by far more euphemistic than "ladyfriend'):

I rather like the term ladyfriend over girlfriend for several reasons, but to which I will not go into detail here.

My gentleman friend, Mr. Cannon has every right to address me as such. He has always addressed me as such, never as girlfriend.

@Anonymous 7:56; There is something wrong with being called a lady, being placed on a pedestal, or being characterized as different than a prole?

How Mr. Cannon and I address one another is our concern. While it is in a public forum, to call it "stupid" demeans me and Mr. Cannon's affections for me. I do not do anything to chide you for your anonimity, but c'est la vie, no?

I am a lady. I am an anachronistic enigma. The term ladyfriend is far more appealing to me than girlfriend. Drop it and live with it.

Ms. Vandal

Anonymous said...

Ms. Vandal, your gentleman caller in-waiting says his stepfather knew the chairman of the board, so I have to ask: Do you love the theater but never go late, and get too hungry to wait till eight?

Would you also like being called 'lady' and 'ladyfriend' if it was Jerry Lewis calling to you?

Anonymous said...

"Dude, she's not my special lady, she's my fucking ladyfriend. I'm just helping her conceive, man."

And to think, I always assumed you were just a fellow Little Lebowski Urban Acheiver!

Anyway, people who complain about this need to get outside and see there's real strife in the world to rail against.

Joseph Cannon said...

Ms. Vandal has had the dubious privilege of meeting my stepfather. I think that meeting taught her why it was called the "rat pack."

I'll have more to say about my stepfather after his passing. History will be unkind to him because I intend to write it. For now, let me say this: Buddy Rich liked to travel with him, because my stepfather was the only person who, by comparison, made Buddy seem like a nice guy.

Not joking.

Anonymous said...

Buddy Rich was entitled, the way Tiger Woods is entitled. Unlike Tiger, though, Buddy could drop his sticks and walk off when he didn't get everyone's undivided attention. (His West Side Story, part 2, in b&w on YouTube: Wow.) It's probably unfair to condemn Rich since he obviously was a genetic mutant, being part bumblebee, and having more insect instincts than most.

Anonymous said...

My little on-line group just had the same converstaion about the sexualization of words. One member hated the used of the word "f@cked," to describe an unpleasant and inescapable situation since in her mind it described a man's overpowering of a woman. "Screwed" same thing.

My argument, like yours, was: If we made up a word and started using that in place of the f-word or s-word, how loong before people started using that word as a euphemism for sex?

And I have no problem with the "ladyfriend", "gentlemanfriend" label. For some reason "lover" makes me cringe, but not enough to go spouting off about how I am offended or anything.

Anonymous said...

I'm a 60's throwback who uses "girlfriend" to describe friends who are women and "boyfriend" to describe current and ex-lovers. If someone doesn't like it, they are an object of pity to me for the narrow little spot their heart occupies. Why should anyone allow language to tyrannize the soul when actions speak way louder than words? I'm with bob - it's all about respect. We all have built in radar that is there to alert us, if we are able to access it, when we are not respected and need to vote with our feet.

Anonymous said...

I tried to post earlier, don't know why my comment didn't come up (maybe I forgot to hit the button)? But I'm delighted that someone at last put in the reference to that scene in 'The Big Lebowski.'

catlady

Anonymous said...

The last paragraph is sooo funny.

Anonymous said...

My best friend has always called my boyfriends my "beaus" and I've always liked that.(She adores anachronisms and also calls the movies "the picture show," and her husband her "old man."

Since I'm not married and don't presently intend to be, and since my beau and I don't live together I can't call him my "partner," aside from the fact that as Joseph says, it's a horrible way to refer to your lover. I will often refer to him as my "gentleman friend" only to see the raised eyebrows...

As many posters have noted, what does it matter? A rose by any other name and so forth and so on, n'est-ce pas?

Cyn said...

How about calling her/him your anonymous friend? It's gender neutral, too.

Anonymous said...

I don't have a problem with your use of the term "ladyfriend", if for no other reason than because there was no malice intended, but while in this case the objection is an overreaction, I don't think the argument against the use of "lady" is *entirely* frivolous. The sexism comes from the fact of language, as a mirror and shaper of our reality, in and by which titles of feminine power and status like "dame", "lady", and "queen" have been debased to, at worst, a level of contempt. In an egalitarian society this may not be a bad thing as such, but the corresponding masculine titles, "sir", "lord" and "king", for some reason don't seem to have suffered the same degradation. It could be inferred from this that the common usage has to do with reducing even the most powerful women to the level of the common woman, with the effect of diminishing the whole lot.
- Snarkhis Khan

Anonymous said...

No matter what term is used to refer to people who are romantically/sexually connected, someone will find a reason to object.

That applies to any term we use to label people, no matter how well intentioned.

Some people live to be offended.

Anonymous said...

I think Snarkhis summarized it well. I can understand the objections to 'lady' and it raises my own hackles when I hear it used in a manner that implies proper behavior or classes of women. However, using it with respect with no patronizing tone underlying it is fine by me.

--J

Gary McGowan said...

"...need to get outside and see there's real strife in the world to rail against." (in comment above)

Amen to that. Bravo! Hear. Hear.

WHAT IN HELL IS WRONG WITH US?

Gary McGowan said...

Someday I'll firmly remember that if I hit "enter" under certain conditions, the words are irretrievably off and posted...

I'd intended to say more in my comment above without knowing just how to say it. But something about twenty-plus comments, some half of them Anonymous, incidentally, with little sign of anyone attempting a shot anywhere near directed at the Beast as HER maws bear down on us...

Have we given up on our republic?

Are we losing our ability to weave language to express thought? losing our ability to think? to fight?

"Yea, man, I told you so. This new lieutenant would get us all killed. Now here we are waiting to die. Nothing can be done for it." And let's talk of other things as if it were not so . . .

Rich said...

Looking forward to your bio of step-dad -- I thought the strangest comment on the long thread was that CIA asset Colston Westbrook simply "volunteered" at Vacaville, presumably out of the goodness of his heart.
so -- you had a volunteer, who was at one time or other a spook, teaching inmates about the joys of Communism. Lots of prisons really favored this approach, I suspect, particularly in Reagan's California.

tamerlane said...

My Insignificant Other objected to the term "lady friend", but was cool with "wench." I was her "sex puppy."

Whenever I referred to a lover as "my partner," everyone assumed I was gay.

My lesbian friend simply calls her (CA-certified) wife her "Beloved."

I just spent the day with my 41 year-old "girlfriend."

Seriously, folks, who gives a frak?