Just looked it up and the entire first page of searches is about how ‘guys’ is masculine and insensitive to women. I disagree. I think the masculinization of the term is like an unneeded extra filter placed over ‘guy’ but the term itself is innocent. Guy Fawkes was a real person. He did something that caused him to be a symbol of the common person. There is nothing gendered about that. It’s the patriarchal culture that then assumed ‘common person’ refers to males. When I think of Guy Fawkes, it is his actions, not what’s in his pants, that is important. So, while there are many needlessly sexist and sexual phrases in English, I do not view ''Guy" as one of them and, instead, view it as a victim of the patriarchy just like you and me. It isn’t an inappropriate phrase to change or remove, it’s one to reclaim for all people; which is exactly in the spirit of the symbol of who Guy Fawkes is.

  • TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.worldEnglish
    161·
    6 days ago

    Guy comes from the burning of Guy Fawkes effigies on Bonfire Night. They would create these dolls of Fawkes where he was shabbily dressed and burn him for his prominent role in the Gunpowder Plot. Guy Fawkes and the gunpowder plot was not because he was an everyday man. He was trying to return the crown to being part of the Catholic church.

    Child made effigy of Guy Fawkes

    In the 19th century, the term guy was used to refer to a poorly dressed man. Eventually, his image changed as a freedom fighter and some, particularly Catholics, saw him as a hero in the 19th century.

    Guy goes back at least a millennium and was always a male name. Its hard to know for sure, but it probably was the word for wood.

    I don’t know if this unpopular, it’s just a contested opinion. Growing up, it was used either presumptively that masculity is the default or gender neutral. These debates are one way language changed. I don’t know why people care as much as they do. Society literally doesn’t fall apart because words change their meaning.