Comments on: Low-Hanging Fruit

By: mkilby

mkilby — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 02:27:52 +0000

@ Brian (16) - Back in college I was once berated for using the term “girls” (along the lines of “that term is so demeaning”); then, about a week later I shifted gears in mid-sentence to say “woman”, and was told “please don’t say that, it makes me feel so old”. Ooops. This may be the reason why it was also possible (at least back then, and at that college) to hear the term “guys” used for a group of people that included (or was composed entirely of) women.

By: Robert

Robert — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 20:23:14 +0000

I was glad to see a strip I actually _read_ on a regular basis show up here.
One point - that is SO not Omar. It’s Quincy. Confusing the two is, or should be, rather embarassing. Omar is the thin, misanthropic, light skinned guy who is always at his computer. Quincy is, well, the guy here.

That said, I’ve always thought Dana was more attractive than Robin. Apparently, Kevin agrees with me.

By: Cidu Bill

Cidu Bill — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:09:22 +0000

“Y-chromosome deficient”?

By: Brian

Brian — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:01:03 +0000

IMO, the term “females” has come into widespread use by younger guys because every other eligible term has strikes against it.

It’s risky to call any human female over the age of 18 a “girl”, because some females regard it as diminutive - i.e. like calling them children - and take offense.

If a younger guy says he wants to pick up “women” — it sounds like he’s after a cougar.

“Gals” is far too country-western sounding.

That leaves terms like “chicks” or “babes” or other even riskier slang expressions.

So — we’re left with the technically accurate, age-neutral term “females”. If that gets stigmatized also, maybe we’ll be forced to say “human females” - but until 100% of you pick a single term that won’t offend you or give a misleading impression, I suspect “females” will persist.

Guys on the other hand would pretty much prefer to be called anything but “boys”…

By: Tullia

Tullia — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:08:05 +0000

@Kate C — yeah, me, too. It used to be just a geek thing, calling women and girls “females,” but it’s spread to nerds and other socially awkward types. What I hate about it is the fake clinical nature of it: you usually say “male” and “female” in medical, biological, or zoological settings, as in “the male seahorse is actually the parent which bears the young” or whatever. Whenever I hear someone calling women “females,” some of that carries over, like the person (99% likely to be a guy) is talking about a horse or a sea lion or something, a less-than-perfectly human collection of organs and instincts. I’ve never heard anyone call a man a “male,” except maybe in the phrase “the male of the species.” No, men and boys are guys, or often just … no word needed.

By: Kate C

Kate C — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:02:53 +0000

I should add, I love the use of the word “female” in this strip (which has been used before). I can’t explain it, but it’s a word I assoicate with slightly sleazy college-aged men. It’s not female students” or something; it’s always “females.” They like don’t feel entirely comfortable with “women” but know that “girls” isn’t always taken well, so it’s “females.”

By: Molly J

Molly J — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 07:11:39 +0000

Really love your peaches wanna shake your tree…

By: Brian Leahy

Brian Leahy — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:23:27 +0000

When I was a kid (say around 25-30 years ago) people actually dressed up to go to Red Lobster…

By: Tullia

Tullia — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 06:13:41 +0000

No, Red Lobster is just the epitome of cheap and nasty. Everything’s frozen and shipped long distances and sometimes not even unfrozen by the cooking (my parents used to take us kids there). Takes no forethought or imagination to choose it and you can’t go nuts on the liquor and hence inflate the tab. And yet it’s still a “real” restaurant with tablecloths and waitresses, and nothing much can go wrong to spoil your date … though even less can go truly right. Overall, makes a decent choice for a date you don’t want to expend any effort whatsoever or much cash on.

By: Cornbread

Cornbread — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 05:20:56 +0000

Is there some significance to the reference to Red Lobster? Is that the destination of choice for throwaway dates with girls you’re only using to get closer to their prettier friends? A reference that these girls are usually fat (never mind the hypocrisy that would imply on the part of the speaker - he’s already a chauvenist, there’s not much that’ll redeem him)?