Thank you Sue for your response.  I promise not to refer to you as a "gal" as it rubs you the wrong way.  

It just seems that more and more of the relics of ancient vernacular are disposed of because they are offensive.  Calling a boy a boy is offensive.  Calling  gal a gal is offensive.  I can't refer to people as folks, I have to call them people.  Language is so restrictive these days, there is a plethora of wonderful words from yesteryear that connotate people in a descriptive sense that are now taboo.

Nowadays, if you call a prostitute a whore, you've crossed that line.  If you call a gay man a fag you are a homophobe and an asshole.  I understand that many words are meant to be hurtful and pejorative.   But then there are words that are innocuous, that are from a prior generation where there is no bad intent, like "gal".  In the old days a woman coudl say "I'm a gal", or "I'm his gal" as easily as a man could say "she's my gal".  A term of affection.  But in the modern word, it hearkens back to a more sexist time.  I wonder if these times are overly sensitive to the point of being restrictive and still sexist?  It seems to me that to take an innocuous word like "gal" which in its day was often a word of affection and kindness, and ascribe it as an insult is kind of weird.  But if the word has that affect, I wonder why.  What does that say about our modern sensibilities?  

I think this is something worthy of deeper thought.  

It seems to me that to take an innocuous word like "gal" which in its day was often a word of affection and kindness, and ascribe it as an insult is kind of weird.

What I was trying to explain to you was that "gal" was not always so innocuous. Seems my post was for naught and my fear of the "overly sensitive" label was spot on.

What I was trying to explain to you was that "gal" was not always so innocuous.

Well the thing is, it is difficult to really see it as not innocuous.  I mean, i find it difficult to conceive of "back in the day" that men or anyone would use the word "gal" in a spirit that was meant to keep women down in any way.  In the day there were songs like "My Gal Sal".  I have tried to look it up.  The dictionary just states it as a slang for woman or girl.  It also references a cockney slang for girl.

I mean, perhaps you feel the label of "overly sensitive" is spot on because you explain the word as not innocuous without example?  I am not saying you are overly sensitive, only that today's world is very sensitive to the words and language that people use.  When common phrases become euphemisms, and normal words become off limits, the label oddly fits.  For example the phrase "tar baby" or the word "negro" are no longer acceptable words and phrases.  It seems like "gal" may be going that route.  

Well the thing is, it is difficult to really see it as not innocuous.

Seems your mind was made up before you asked me for my opinion.  

I mean, perhaps you feel the label of "overly sensitive" is spot on because you explain the word as not innocuous without example?

Sorry I can't recall exact conversations, so I had figured that the following would have sufficed and been even more helpful:

I think that the main problem was in the workplace or a more professional or formal setting. Note that you probably don't see any ads for a "gal Friday" anymore. To refer to a female employee as a "gal" anything is pretty much a relic of what some think was a far more sexist time. It's about as demeaning as calling a male hire a "boy," assuming of course that he's an adult.

As for  your the phrase "tar baby" or the word "negro" are no longer acceptable words and phrases.  It seems like "gal" may be going that route, I so miss the good ol' days. Damn PC police have ruined all the fun.

Sue, I am curious as to whether modern "pc" sensibilities have become ingrained in our emotional reactions to the vernacular of yesteryear.  Language does change and evolve.  Back in the 80's there wa a common phrase "she's fresh" which meant something entirely different from what an elder generation would mean by calling a person "fresh".  Older generations would see that as meaning a person was flippant or disrespectful to an elder.  But in the 80's fresh was a compliment, a clean looking exciting and energetic pretty young girl.  Now that phrase has left popular vernacular entirely.  It was a fad.  

Now "gal" if it is a relic, coulld be considered a fad, but I don't really think it was.  "Groovy" is a fad and a relic from the 60's and 70's.  But if you use it today to refer to somebody, it is not insulting.  No negative connotation.  If today someone called you fresh or groovy, you may not see it as an insult.  But if they call you a gal, it is something that you are uncomfortable with.  

Seems like Webster's dictionary needs to update the word.  It means something else now.  

Thanks for your opinion.  I think I learned something I did not know.  

Personally, I think gal was an acceptable term at the time but used in a way that we now deem inappropriate. The whole context of the way the term was used then has basically been deemed inappropriate. You don't have "office gals" working as secretaries in otherwise male dominated worlds anymore. "Gal" wasn't deemed an offensive word then and it isn't really (in my mind) an offensive word now. But its use does conjure up a time and a place that is now contextually offensive and degrading.

To me, it's none too different from the term "gay" as in "that's so gay" (ie, dumb). In elementary school in the 80's, we used it to mean dumb and we thought nothing of it. None of us now or then intend insult on homosexual people. That the word likely came from that wasn't really known to us at the time. Sometimes, I still want to use the word that way because it was a specific grade of stupid, somewhere in between just plain dumb and moderately annoying.

make it rain you nappy headed ho's

   That would be ironic, but really I had in mind more the level of folks who were involved in firing those attorneys. Think an assistant to Gonzales, or even to Ashcroft (who was held over after the change.) I just can't see a DA having enough pull to be believable, especially if her Rolodex really includes as many top politicos as is being hinted.
   And conspiracy theory? Not really, just an attempt to turn an action around and see if it makes more sense from a different perspective, a different angle. The first thing that occurred to me was to think of emotion (revenge), and ponder why, especially when the chances for a plea bargain sound remote, she would go through all the drama and strife. "Entitlement" was the first thing that sprung to mind, the concept that "they owe me". (Having seen several co-workers get caught for stealing, that is a reason folks start breaking the rules, though there are certainly others.) A sense of betrayal can certainly cause irrational reactions, eh?
    Heck, maybe it's just greed, and she's thinking of the huge book deals down the road. Getting rich just because is also a Beltway tradition, and maybe I just picked the wrong one . . .

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

How can they prove that all her assets were gained illegally?  I mean, she's innocent until proven guilty.  And even if she's proven guilty, how can they discern which of her assets came from her illicit activity and which were obtained legally?  

Fucked up isn't it?

make it rain you nappy headed ho's