Minor peeve

[cjsmith]

Minor peeve: people who are not military, police, or firefighters using the word "civilians" to describe those-who-are-not-them in a self-serving, I'm-better way.

I'm fairly content when I see it used in a way that just sort of looks like the writer couldn't figure out how to say "outsider" because he'd forgotten there was a word "outsider". That's just somebody being a bit dorky, and God knows I have enough dorkiness myself. I forget words all the time.

The peeve for me is people who use it to puff themselves up somehow, like they're extra total macho cool because those OTHER people are CIVILIANS. To me, that kind of puffing up is valid for -- yet almost never bragged about by -- folks who put their lives on the line in some seriously shitty situations in order to serve or save or protect others. Don't try to fake that status with this ex-military gal. It no worky.

Comments

[plymouth.livejournal.com]

I usually call them "mundanes" or "'danes" for short.

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

Oh yes! Where did I first hear that? Science fiction conventions, perhaps?

[dafydd.livejournal.com]

1) I try very hard to use the word "citizen." "Mundanes" is reserved exclusively for fannish or Burning communities, and I acknowledge it as derogatory.

2) "The really good ones don't need to brag about it."

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

1) And from you, I wouldn't perceive the word "civilian" as derogatory, either. Reason: see point two. :-)

[dafydd.livejournal.com]

*smoochonnacheek* :)

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

*smooch back* :)

[plymouth.livejournal.com]

it would be more of an insult if it weren't for the fact that it's contrasted with an equally derogatory word for the insiders - freaks :)

[dafydd.livejournal.com]

Which is why I smile and say "Thank you" when someone calls me a freak. It baffles 'em!

[plymouth.livejournal.com]

nono, I mean I actively refer to myself and my friends as freaks in the same breath as calling others mundanes. It's not supposed to be any kind of reclaiming the word - it's just descriptive and accurate.

[warlord-mit.livejournal.com]

That's why the MODERN word for "those" people are "Muggles". ;)

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

*chuckle*!

[billeyler.livejournal.com]

Interesting. Wondering what the context was.

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

The recent one, the reminder of my peeve but not an example of it, was a writer trying to figure out who else in a coffeeshop was participating in NaNoWriMo. The peeve examples tend to be Super Macho Manly Guys Of The Type Who Wouldn't Take Orders If They Were Put On A Plate With A Side Of Mashed Potatoes trying to make like they've got half the guts it takes to sign up as a soldier. I haven't seen that one lately. Probably not for years.

[platypus]

I see "muggles" has already been mentioned :). That's what geocachers call non-geocachers (and the need for an 'us and them' mentality is because it's generally best not to draw the attention of non-cachers when you're hunting).

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

Ahh, I'd forgotten about the geocaching usage! I should go 'caching again some time. :)

[theoctothorpe.livejournal.com]

Word!!

++

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

:-)

[meep.livejournal.com]

"Laypeople" or "amateurs" is useful.

Now, in my line of business, I usually say "non-math people", "non-quantitative people", "non-actuaries", or "marketing".

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

Yes, those are good. (It took me a long time to realize "lay" didn't only mean "non-clergy"!)

The addition of "marketing" to that list cracked me up. In my computer programming jobs, we've said that sort of thing a lot: "non-techies", "non-programmers", "people who won't be writing the code", or "marketing". :-)

[shoutingboy.livejournal.com]

I've used the term to describe non-theater people, though not in a condescending way. But, yeah, given that I've got a friend stationed at Kirkuk, I really need to use a different word.

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

See, "not in a condescending way" just means eh, there might be a more strictly accurate word. (Though Merriam-Webster Online does list "outsider" as definition 2b.) But you're not trying to make yourself look better by it.

Kirkuk, huh? Not an easy one. :-/

[hitchhiker.livejournal.com]

"users" :)

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

There is that. :-) (Although I keep thinking of Tron, in which the users were gods.)

[hitchhiker.livejournal.com]

the hoi polloi! (a greek remark)

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

I never knew that that meant literally until your comment spurred me to go look it up. Fascinating that it's become a derogatory phrase!

[klwalton.livejournal.com]

This is a rant for another day, when I haven't had three glasses of wine on an empty stomach on top of a good-ending-in-shitty day and don't have to be up at 6 AM, but, honestly? I have a really hard time with "mundanes". *And* "civilians".

Because, and I know you know, I have so many friends in the Press who *have* put their lives on the line in order to serve (and we can have the discussion of what it means "to serve" when one is a member of The Press, if you want, but I think you know), who would *never* call non-Press people "civilians". I also have a child of my body who is probably heading for the Sandbox early next year as a Marine. *I* am a civilian. I've never covered a war zone. I've never served in the military. But if anyone would like to talk to me about how Tim put his life on the line more than once as a member of The Press in a war zone...

I'm ranting, I realize. Because, honestly? He would never refer to anyone as a "civilian" in contrast to himself. And yet? He put himself in harm's way.

I think I'm agreeing with you :).

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

I figured (kind of hoped, actually) you would weigh in with your thoughts on this. I too get the sense we're essentially in agreement. Sort of like daffyd (firefighter and EMT) said above: the good ones don't brag.

[moriamerri.livejournal.com]

Ah, CJ, you are a never-ending wealth of wonderful topics.

The words for NOT and opposite-of are
interesting to start with -- and then with the us/them split it
all takes on quite a bit more tension in the mix.

Muggles is an interesting one. I couold see adopting it as
a word for "other" in so many possible contexts. It has a
bit of a superior edge, but then there's also the aspect that
the muggles are intentionally kept ignorant of "us". Which is
a bit different........ Renaissance faire people sometimes
call non-R-F people "mundane" (which is also used for modern
clothing, as in "wearing mundanes".) (I think it only applies
to people who are visiting the faire, but I don't actually know.)
The problem with mundane
(of course) is that it means "boring" and "ordinary". I never
used it because I'm not sure if it is pejoritive (and I've been
on the border of this "us" much longer than part of it.)
People in some spiritual groups call people who are living "in
the world" "householders". This threw me for a long time.
It's in contrast to, say, people who are monks or otherwise
"not living in the world". I think it particularly refers to
people who have children -- but I'm not sure I "get" all the
meaning of it. Which, um, I suppose goes with the territory
where us/them is concerned. (I would never have heard this
word except for a friend who used it with me even though I was
neither a householder nor a monk-type.) Householders is not
at all deragatory (at least as I've heard it used.) But then,
us, it's actually
a division of "us" rather than a word for "not us".

Now, if every group that needs to refer to "not us" would just
come up with a word for non-us that is clear and doesn't mean
we are better, that would be cool.

Or (oh wow!) what would be REEEEALLY cool is if we had a modifier
that could be used to say "minus pejorative meaning" or "minus
judgements". I think my vocabulary would be instantly much
expanded..... and so much less awkward. Descriptive less
judgement is a bit tough in English, we have it all mixed
together. Sometimes I can barely talk for trying to figure
out how to say what I mean less pejorative words and less
superior words. I'm sure it is odd to watch :( I need to
just get over it and use the word "straight" for example.
It just always sounds mildly pejorative to me, at that level
where no one will really claim it is, but it isn't nice.
(And of course, if I'd get over it, then I could use it NICELY
instead of awkwardly, and then maybe I could put a nicer
tone on it, instead of the "I'm using a word here that feels
yucky to me because I don't have any more neutral word to use"
tone.)

Don't know if I've ever heard the use of CIVILIANS you refer to.
If so, I wouldda probly been busy just trying to figure out what
it referred to. I think I agree with your peeve though, anyway,
as the principle makes sense.

Moria

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

I love your idea of the "minus pejorative meaning" tag. It would be so useful! Heck, there are even days when I wish it were mandatory, so that people wouldn't be able to produce deniable underhanded little snidenesses, and would have to own up to being a snot or a jerk.

Honestly, I get annoyed any time I see people puff themselves up by comparisons to others, whether they use the word "civilians" or say "Well I'M from CHICAGO so..." or any other form. I want to say "Get the bleep over yourself, buddy, and get down off that pedestal. We're all human." It seems so common to deny the snobbiness afterward, too. "Oh, that was just in fun. Geez. Lighten up." Yeah, it may have been just in fun, but how many times has he mentioned Chicago in the last week? He thinks there's something to it, all right, or he'd lay off it. Ugh. I'll go talk to someone other than him, know what I mean? I don't need more "joking" one-upmanship in my life.

[moriamerri.livejournal.com]

oh... now you are getting into rich territory! If we somehow could reinvent language such that descriptive words and evaluations were separate --- well, it would be ONE step closer to a kind of clarity that would make for a nicer life. I think there are some other things I'd want beyond that -- it feels like a good "1st step" of a bigger desire (for me). But, sure, I'd go along with mandatory separation of pejoritive.

I'm puzzling out what to say about the "snot or jerk" part and the "one-upmanship" part. I have some unresolved questions in this area -- maybe some that you are pointing to and others that may contrast (or maybe conflict?) with what you're saying, I'm not sure.

Like, um, I have the idea that people REALLY LIKE to have their preferences acknowledged. Call it "values" if you like. Tastes, values, preferences..... Is it that we identify with these? Is it that we think we are better? Or something else? If I want to relate to people who share my value about [cats, flowers, chocolate, world peace] OR if I want to relate about [cats, flowers, chocolate, world peace] at what point am I being a jerk? Is it only when I'm against [anti-cat-activities, war, anti-chocolate-propaganda]? Or is it more about feeling disconnected from people who dislike cats? When is it "being a snot or a jerk"? I DO think my prefered things are "better" -- that's why I prefer them. I DO like to know others who see the extreme valueableness of cats and who may understand the significance of some of the cat-related events in my life. I'd go so far as to say that my valuing cats can even be a way to express other (unstated) values (the stuff I call "cat values".)

The underhandness part -- ug. This is a really sore spot for me. I wish there were always a way to know (or even inquire and find out) what people mean. I can't give you a list but I'm sure there are dozens of cases where asking gets "that was just in fun" or equivalently beyond-useless responses. (Could we make a list of these forms of speech, and then figure out how to ask and get actual clarity?)

For me ambiguous meaning is hard to respond to. (I'm trying some new ways.... but it is certainly a tough area.) My guess is that probably under the underhanded presentation (1st layer) there's the one-upmanship, but that under that there's probably a couple other layers -- maybe feeling scared or alienated or lonely around all the non-Chicagoans?-- from which comes the part you called "snotty" -- and maybe more that's past that. One option is to skip past the snottyness to what else is going on. I wonder where "what are you wanting me to know about people from Chicago?" would take you [assuming here that this is asked with genuine curiousity]. [I'm not saying it would take you far, I'm just WONDERING.]

OK, lots o' grist in the mill.

Moria