I worked for years in R and D for company computer application programs. I have trained one class after another of adults in the use of various other programs, including Word and Excel. Some users were fairly adept at computer usage and picked up the protocols quickly. Others needed Computer 101 (turn it on like this--this is a keyboard, this is a mouse, this is a monitor...).

Experienced or not, I saw a tendency for women and men to use the associated nouns differently. Not all women; not all men, true, but after many training classes, the following seemed to hold:

Women, even when they are talking about objects, like computers, tend to personify them. When the computers slowed down (not enough bandwidth or buffers not clearing), women would say the computer was tired. Didn't want to play nicely.

They gave the computers names (they gave their cars name, too) and ascribed emotions to them--my car doesn't love me, didn't feel like starting today. Some of the men did, too, but much more tongue-in-cheek, slightly embarrassed, even.

Many men, often when they were talking about people (especially good-looking women), tend to objectify them (Did you see that awesome pair of tatas walking by?). Describing a car problem, they won't say the car is old and tired (personified) but has a lot of wear and tear (objectified) and will go on to point out the rust spots on the trim, the oil smears on the engine, etc.

I think the conclusion is that words used reflect how differently men and women navigate their worlds. Women swim through a sea of colorful relationships and people. Men drive around concrete fixed objects and things, using object nouns rather than social and emotional ones.

Is this difference nature or nurture? Probably some of each. I've seen many women who have learned to work effectively in the world of objects and results. I know a lot of men who have developed passion and concern for their family, society, the world.

The Buddha taught detached compassion. The compromise?