Calling grown women "girls", offensive?

Menas · 09-07-2015 08:55AM

kylith wrote: »

Or we now live in a society where one can say 'actually, I find that offensive' and be able to have it taken seriously.

And it is good that we can call people on it when they say something offensive - I certainly do.
But do we need the media telling us what to be offended about or stirring the pot?

lazygal · 09-07-2015 08:59AM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Or maybe people need to accept that not everyone has the same view or opinion on things as they do and that there's nothing wrong with that. It doesn't automatically mean the object of their outrage is being sexist/racist/xenophobic/homophobic/<insert whatever similar term here> - as I said above, context and intent are key.

Remember the old days? When people had cop on, got on with their own lives, and weren't afraid to call it as they saw it, rather than looking for offense everywhere or being labelled as <insert ist/ism here> for it? I miss that!

I often find people who like to think they 'call it like they see it' think they can spout any old offensive drivel under the guise of 'calling it like they see it'.

irish_dave_83 · 09-07-2015 08:59AM

Its all about context - Most women are smart enough to know if someone is being condescending towards them. Same goes for most men.

kylith · 09-07-2015 09:00AM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Or maybe people need to accept that not everyone has the same view or opinion on things as they do and that there's nothing wrong with that. It doesn't automatically mean the object of their outrage is being sexist/racist/xenophobic/homophobic/<insert whatever similar term here> - as I said above, context and intent are key.

Remember the old days? When people had cop on, got on with their own lives, and weren't afraid to call it as they saw it, rather than looking for offense everywhere or being labelled as <insert ist/ism here> for it? I miss that!

Or maybe people need to accept that they can't say whatever they like and expect everyone else to deal with it. It may not automatically mean that they're sexist/racist/xenophobic/homophobic/<insert whatever similar term here>, but it does mean that they place their desire to say something over having consideration for how others may feel about they say.

Remember the old days when it was acceptable to smack your secretary on the ass ass you passed by, or to dismiss a woman's opinion because she was 'just a girl'. We got away from that by developing to the point where we could say 'that's not acceptable', and we will continue to develop.

zeffabelli · 09-07-2015 09:00AM

Menas wrote: »

And it is good that we can call people on it when they say something offensive - I certainly do.
But do we need the media telling us what to be offended about or stirring the pot?

Problem is if everyone is getting offended then no one can say anything. The tyranny of over sensitivity.

How does this enhance the tolerance the moral police are trying to enforce?

strelok · 09-07-2015 09:00AM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Remember the old days? When people had cop on, got on with their own lives, and weren't afraid to call it as they saw it, rather than looking for offense everywhere or being labelled as <insert ist/ism here> for it? I miss that!

that's not true though, it's just back in the old days the people getting offended were conservative christians by and large so todays young and hip population finds their offense-taking hilarious and quaint whereas todays offense-taking is serious and really quite telling of the moral vacuum society finds itself in

zeffabelli wrote:

How does this enhance the tolerance the moral police are trying to enforce?

if everyone is too afraid to say anything at all the world will at least look like a fairly tolerant and easy going place.

newport2 · 09-07-2015 09:16AM

sunshine and showers wrote: »

It depends on the situation, really. If it was in a professional context, I'd be offended tbh.
Best to air on the side of caution and say ladies.

I've read Guardian articles saying the term "ladies" is also offensive

_Kaiser_ · 09-07-2015 09:24AM

It's ironic that despite the notion of our "modern" society being more liberal and tolerant than ever before, that tolerance only extends to those who get with the consensus.. increasingly defined by whatever crusade or viral outrage is current on social media.

Anyone who questions or disagrees with this is labelled as a <-ist> dinosaur, a relic to be dismissed, ridiculed and marginalised in favour of the more "evolved" opinion. You see it here on this forum all the time when any sort of (apparently) "controversial" topic rears its head. As I've said before, in an age of instant update social media, it's apparently more important than ever to be "liked" and validated by the group.

Of course the problem arise when those who aren't as "enlightened" don't just use words but take actions that undermine and take advantage of the society in question - but apparently it's no longer "cool" to call that out for fear of being labelled by the SJW's.

Lucky for me I've never been cool or worried about what people think. I'll make up my own mind and use my own moral compass and ideals from how I was raised (as a functioning, contributing member of society) to decide for myself, rather than waiting for Facebook/Twitter to do it for me.

biko · 09-07-2015 09:30AM

It's actually more offensive when grown women refer to themselves as girls.
And same for grown men.

lazygal · 09-07-2015 09:31AM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

It's ironic that despite the notion of our "modern" society being more liberal and tolerant than ever before, that tolerance only extends to those who get with the consensus.. increasingly defined by whatever crusade or viral outrage is current on social media.

Anyone who questions or disagrees with this is labelled as a <-ist> dinosaur, a relic to be dismissed, ridiculed and marginalised in favour of the more "evolved" opinion. You see it here on this forum all the time when any sort of (apparently) "controversial" topic rears its head. As I've said before, in an age of instant update social media, it's apparently more important than ever to be "liked" and validated by the group.

Of course the problem arise when those who aren't as "enlightened" don't just use words but take actions that undermine and take advantage of the society in question - but apparently it's no longer "cool" to call that out for fear of being labelled by the SJW's.

Lucky for me I've never been cool or worried about what people think. I'll make up my own mind and use my own moral compass and ideals from how I was raised (as a functioning, contributing member of society) to decide for myself, rather than waiting for Facebook/Twitter to do it for me.

This is just a rant. I for one am glad that the offensive stuff some people think they can say is called out for what it is. We have homophobes complaining that they can't be homophobes without being called homophobes. I'm happy such people have to account for their views rather than being lauded for 'telling it like it is'.

09-07-2015 09:32AM

I would love to know whether the article writer or anyone that finds it offensive ever referred to men as boys, as lads, etc. Because, you know, that wouldn't be hypocritical at all at all.

zeffabelli · 09-07-2015 09:33AM

lazygal wrote: »

This is just a rant. I for one am glad that the offensive stuff some people think they can say is called out for what it is. We have homophobes complaining that they can't be homophobes without being called homophobes. I'm happy such people have to account for their views rather than being lauded for 'telling it like it is'.

Problem is if your not wearing rainbow body paint these days you're a homophobe.

_Kaiser_ · 09-07-2015 09:34AM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Anyone who questions or disagrees with this is labelled as a <-ist> dinosaur, a relic to be dismissed, ridiculed and marginalised in favour of the more "evolved" opinion. You see it here on this forum all the time when any sort of (apparently) "controversial" topic rears its head.

lazygal wrote: »

This is just a rant.

Thank you.. point proven.

lazygal · 09-07-2015 09:35AM

zeffabelli wrote: »

Problem is if your not wearing rainbow body paint these days you're a homophobe.

No, the problem is that thinking gay people don't deserve to be treated equally because they're gay isn't just 'telling it like it is'. Nice stereotype with the rainbow body paint. I must ask my gay friends if I'm a homophobe because I don't wear rainbow body paint. And whether they are, because they don't wear it either.

lazygal · 09-07-2015 09:35AM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Thank you.. point proven.

Lucky for you that you don't care about that, isn't it!

EDIT; Is that you, John Waters?

One eyed Jack · 09-07-2015 09:36AM

biko wrote: »

It's actually more offensive when grown women refer to themselves as girls.
And same for grown men.

Grown men referring to themselves as girls? Rory O' Neil will be disappointed

_Kaiser_ · 09-07-2015 09:41AM

lazygal wrote: »

Lucky for you that you don't care about that, isn't it!

Indeed, but again thank you for proving my point which was not about agreeing with someone's stance on an issue, but about them having the same freedom to express it.

We should always be able to question and disagree/debate an issue. It's when that's stifled that things go wrong.

galljga1 · 09-07-2015 09:44AM

biko wrote: »

It's actually more offensive when grown women refer to themselves as girls.
And same for grown men.

If grown men want to refer to themselves as girls, well that is their business.

zeffabelli · 09-07-2015 09:48AM

lazygal wrote: »

No, the problem is that thinking gay people don't deserve to be treated equally because they're gay isn't just 'telling it like it is'. Nice stereotype with the rainbow body paint. I must ask my gay friends if I'm a homophobe because I don't wear rainbow body paint. And whether they are, because they don't wear it either.

Well they created the stereotype with the rainbows so they can thank themselves for that.

Special Circumstances · 09-07-2015 09:58AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I would love to know whether the article writer or anyone that finds it offensive ever referred to men as boys, as lads, etc. Because, you know, that wouldn't be hypocritical at all at all.

Next weeks article to declare Cork a pariah state on par with North Korea, boy.

Crooked Jack · 09-07-2015 09:59AM

This type of pedantic whinging shit makes a mockery out of what the feminist movement was initially about and actually belittles the very real problems women face in other countries where a strong feminist movement could make a real difference

Egginacup · 09-07-2015 10:00AM

Liam O wrote: »

I do agree, it's a badly written article and it was actually one of the comments that got me thinking. You'd never really hear a couple of circa 50 year old men be called "boys" but these 2 were called "girls" which I guess is disrespectful.

Ever see the Derry Apprentice "Boys"?

Some of them are as old as Methusaleh

Wibbs · 09-07-2015 10:04AM

I personally don't like referring to women as "girls" and make pains to avoid it. If I use the word girl I'm referring to someone under 15 or whatever. I also can't abide the more recent one where grown women refer to their partner as "the boy". Itchy hair time. Boyfriend and girlfriend is not the same as both have been around forever and the meaning doesn't seek to juvenilise someone.

Crooked Jack · 09-07-2015 10:08AM

Wibbs wrote: »

I personally don't like referring to women as "girls" and make pains to avoid it. If I use the word girl I'm referring to someone under 15 or whatever. I also can't abide the more recent one where grown women refer to their partner as "the boy". Itchy hair time. Boyfriend and girlfriend is not the same as both have been around forever and the meaning doesn't seek to juvenilise someone.

How about everyone, boys and girls, men and women, stop being so bloody precious.

B0jangles · 09-07-2015 10:09AM

Context is everything - friends, family etc, can call you girl/boy/wee lad, pet, lovey, whateverthefeck yez are happy with, but in a professional situation or when the person addressing you is a stranger I think it is generally disrespectful to use diminutives.

For example, there was an interview on the radio a couple of days ago and the (very nice, friendly) man being interviewed was talking about a hospital stay he'd had recently and in passing referred to "the girl looking after me", paused and then corrected himself "I mean, the surgeon looking after me". Now he obviously meant absolutely no offence at all, was very appreciative of the treatment he'd received but there is no way on god's earth he'd have referred to "the boy looking after me" if the surgeon had been a man.

(before anyone runs off with the idea I obsessively listen out for this kind of stuff, I don't. I only noticed it because he corrected himself)

SpaceTime · 09-07-2015 10:16AM

I know one older Dublin woman who calls ALL men "that auld fella"

So for example the 24 year old male nurse looking after her one day is "that auld fella"

The man who works in the shop is "the auld fella"

All women are also "that auld one"

If she doesn't like them just prefix with "fekkin"

Day Lewin · 09-07-2015 10:20AM

@kylith

we now live in a society where one can say 'actually, I find that offensive' and be able to have it taken seriously.

I concur. Talk about a recipe for grievance! Everyone feels entitled to sulk about something. Lighten up, lads. AND girls.

CruelCoin · 09-07-2015 10:26AM

Liam O wrote: »

Thoughts? I realise this could be a tough topic to discuss properly on here but the article has me thinking (maybe more than it should).

I don't see near the same level of response when men are called boys or lads.

Mindless PC crap.

One eyed Jack · 09-07-2015 10:31AM

B0jangles wrote: »

Context is everything - friends, family etc, can call you girl/boy/wee lad, pet, lovey, whateverthefeck yez are happy with, but in a professional situation or when the person addressing you is a stranger I think it is generally disrespectful to use diminutives.

For example, there was an interview on the radio a couple of days ago and the (very nice, friendly) man being interviewed was talking about a hospital stay he'd had recently and in passing referred to "the girl looking after me", paused and then corrected himself "I mean, the surgeon looking after me". Now he obviously meant absolutely no offence at all, was very appreciative of the treatment he'd received but there is no way on god's earth he'd have referred to "the boy looking after me" if the surgeon had been a man.

(before anyone runs off with the idea I obsessively listen out for this kind of stuff, I don't. I only noticed it because he corrected himself)

See it's not just context then, but also intent, and as you point out, you're aware he didn't mean it diminutively, and there was no offence meant.

Personally, I think some people have some very odd notions about what 'professionalism' actually means. It doesn't mean encouraging people to behave like robots around each other. It means encouraging people to be aware of themselves and how they interact with other people and to be aware of how their behaviour may be interpreted in the environment they're in.

Richard Branson for example has always had an aversion to ties -

http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/why-it’s-time-to-say-bye-to-the-tie

And he works in a professional environment with some of the top leaders in business. I've found that it's usually people who are very unsure about themselves are the worst offenders for taking offence at every little slight to pick a person apart to make themselves feel superior in some way, and that's the very definition of a lack of professionalism IMO.

OneOfThem · 09-07-2015 10:38AM

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Best to air on the side of caution and say ladies.

Ladies!! ? So what, like a some Duchess or something? Because that's all women should be, right? Pretty things that wear nice dresses and laze around waiting to be impregnated so they can give their Lord an heir?

Couldn't possibly be for anything else than giving a husband children and passing on the family name, no?

You make me sick.

Calling grown women "girls", offensive?

Comments