Posted by Lotg on November 18, 2004
In Reply to: Feminine equiv of "ladies' man" posted by DH on November 17, 2004
: I have encountered a subtle form of sex discrimination which the PF'ers, being connoiseurs of words, might find interesting: There is evidently no feminine equivalent of "ladies man," which yields thousands upon thousands of hits; whereas "gentlemen's woman" evokes only a half-dozen
: While "coquette," "vamp," and the like suggest only flirting; "siren," "seductress," et al bring to mind also sexual activity.
: The closest I have come so far is the slang, "player," which however is de facto applied to men not women. It is as if mankind (or at least the word purveyors) cannot conceive of a woman who dates many men, or plays the field, without her being a slut
I think Dale, it's just one of those imbalances in our social thinking (historically anyway). Don't forget in 'those' days you were allowed to differentiate between men and women.
Granted some of the differentiation was not desirable - such as this - where by implication, a man who ummm... gets about with the ladies is something of a hero, yet a women who 'gets about with the men' is a slut. I must admit, that is one differentiation that I would actually call discrimination.
BUT - it's all part of the history of our language and who we were and the foundation that's lead to who we are now.