Calling grown women "girls", offensive?

B0jangles · 09-07-2015 10:41AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

But do you not recognise that by correcting himself, he himself realised that referring to the surgeon treating him as "the girl" was inappropriate.

I don't know where you are going with the professionalism = behaving like a robot bit. I'm simply pointing out that as with most things, context is hugely important; what's fine in a casual setting is not necessarily fine in a professional one.

Carlos Orange · 09-07-2015 11:33AM

Wibbs wrote: »

Boyfriend and girlfriend is not the same as both have been around forever and the meaning doesn't seek to juvenilise someone.

Hasn't referring to groups of adult women as girls been around forever?
Granted I'm only an adult since the 90s. 80s adults seem a bit more adulty but that might have been a false perception.

RDM_83 again · 09-07-2015 11:55AM

As a poster on CiF nicely points out there was an article directly above it about the budget talking about the "boys club", its interesting that its only "progressive" to use negative labels on groups of one gender (actually I know I haven't but has anybody ever read an article that talks negatively about a group of women on the Guardian, change 'Chest Thumping' to 'Shril' change 'macho' to 'feminine' and you'd end up harried of the internet by the Tumblr/SRS crowd.

K4t · 09-07-2015 12:08PM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Like others have said, it's all about context. 2 grown women, senior politicians, with serious administrative roles, should never be referred to as 'girls', except maybe by their mothers and close friends. Shocking really that people in this day age don't appreciate that.

Interesting. What about 2 grown women working as cleaners in the toilets of those politician's office? Should the same outrage and condemnation be reserved for when they are referred to as the 'girls' by staff? It's quite clear that this is not as much a gender question, so much as a class one - like everything.

K4t · 09-07-2015 12:12PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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
.

Why can't we all be more like billionaires..

Great article. Ties are definitely one of the most pointless pieces of clothing and exist solely as a tool with which to strangle us into submission of stupid societal norms. It's just sad that only a billionaire is able to say what a load of sh*t it is and be taken seriously.

jimgoose · 09-07-2015 12:18PM

Calling out "'Morning girls!" to those too is over-familiar and rude. "Good morning ladies!" would have been appropriate. "Girls" is not appropriate for grown women in the office or in any place where the women in question are not known to you. One notable exception is in the pub/club where some of them are dancing on the table and one of them is hiding in a corner slugging absinthe out of her shoe. :cool:

Pat Mustard · 09-07-2015 12:26PM

Samaris wrote: »

I agree with some points you make there, Pat, and disagree with others.

I -can- imagine a group of male adults being called "boys", even in a professional context.

However, it's -not- got the same connotations. And the terms aren't quite so loaded. Thing is, someday we will probably be able to use these terms without any issues of background context, and no fear of misinterpretation. Someday, we will not need to be cautious of our words as regards a group of people, because there will be no underlying issues to be concerned about.

In short, just like in any other area of life, one should choose their words by what the other party is comfortable with, not just what oneself is comfortable with. You can make any comments you like in your own mind, but when speaking to and about another, it is mannerly to refer to them as they wish to be referred to. If a pair of mature, professional women do not wish to be referred to as "girls", then that's their prerogative, and to refer to them elseways is rude.

That Guardian article is a contradictory load of boll0x.

First, they say that there's a 'simple rule' that what must be sauce for the goose must be sauce for the gander. Secondly, they say, well, it's sauce for the gander alright and that's fair enough but if you apply it women, you're a sexist.

Calling men 'the lads' is fine. I'd agree with that. But somehow, because some hypersensitive Guardian hack might get offended, it's somehow sexist to refer to women as 'the girls'.

The 'simple rule' is introduced and promptly drop-kicked through the window into the car park, along with logic and reason.

The article is nonsense.

Day Lewin · 09-07-2015 12:34PM

♫ ♪ "Just see what the boys in the backroom will have
and tell them I'm having the same!" ♪ ♫

dont bother · 09-07-2015 12:35PM

kylith wrote: »

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.

yeah it's been a good long while since those days Kylith.... ye've peaked.
that's why drivel like this does the rounds - because feminism has peaked.

and, of COURSE people should be allowed say whatever they like.
I say what i like, when i like, and it's not my problem if people are offended. It's their problem. they could choose to NOT be offended, and realise that it's only words and has no bearing on them (or at least, if they had a strong character within themselves, they could choose to ignore it if they want) just as i am allowed to say whatever i choose, when i choose, to whom i choose.

it's the other persons fault if they're offended, not mine.

ancapailldorcha · 09-07-2015 12:36PM

Pat Mustard wrote: »

That Guardian article is a contradictory load of boll0x.

First, they say that there's a 'simple rule' that what must be sauce for the goose must be sauce for the gander. Secondly, they say, well, it's sauce for the gander alright and that's fair enough but if you apply it women, you're a sexist.

Calling men 'the lads' is fine. I'd agree with that. But somehow, because some hypersensitive Guardian hack might get offended, it's somehow sexist to refer to women as 'the girls'.

The 'simple rule' is introduced and promptly drop-kicked through the window into the car park, along with logic and reason.

The article is nonsense.

I tend to find this with a lot of Guardian articles. It's become very tabloid-esque.

Day Lewin · 09-07-2015 12:39PM

(Just so long as the Boys in Blue don't pounce on me for doing so!) LOL

Cuban Pete · 09-07-2015 12:42PM

dont bother wrote: »

yeah it's been a good long while since those days Kylith.... ye've peaked.
that's why drivel like this does the rounds - because feminism has peaked.

and, of COURSE people should be allowed say whatever they like.

And just as free to face the consequences of that, yes?

dont bother · 09-07-2015 12:43PM

Cuban Pete wrote: »

And just as free to face the consequences of that, yes?

What sort of consequences? Negative ones from the "offended" person?

if that's the case, and they hit me, or got aggressive in a physical way, then they are mentally unstable. nobody should ever be "offended" like that. it's retarded to be honest.

why have people become so fvcking soft? it's lunacy!! harden the fvck up!!

Cuban Pete · 09-07-2015 12:46PM

dont bother wrote: »

What sort of consequences? Negative ones from the "offended" person?

Criticism. Remember, freedom of speech is a two-way street. You're free to say what you like but other people are just as free to say what they like back to you.

Mesrine65 · 09-07-2015 12:47PM

Shame on you Boots :eek:

dont bother · 09-07-2015 12:48PM

Cuban Pete wrote: »

Criticism. Remember, freedom of speech is a two-way street. You're free to say what you like but other people are just as free to say what they like back to you.

yeah exactly my point!!

they SHOULD say something back, and not run away and be "offended" and cry in the corner.

it's ridiculous. say what you like to me, i guarantee you could say "the worst" thing to me, and i wouldnt be offended - why? because i couldn't give a sh!t

why couldnt i? cos it's WORDS!!!!

it's literally just noise from a mouth - do you get it now Girls?

folamh · 09-07-2015 12:48PM

It's sexist if you wouldn't refer to grown men as boys in the same situation.

NachoBusiness · 09-07-2015 12:51PM

Cold War Kid wrote: »

No different to calling men lads or fellas or guys. Will this gender war shyte ever sod off.

Whataboutery.

Reported.

folamh · 09-07-2015 12:56PM

I don't think that "lads" and "fellas" have the same connotations of infantilization as "boys" does.

NachoBusiness · 09-07-2015 01:04PM

folamh wrote: »

I don't think that "lads" and "fellas" have the same connotations of infantilization as "boys" does.

Are you trying to tell me that Phil Lynott knew some hell raising, blood spilling, womanizing infants?

Huntergonzo · 09-07-2015 01:08PM

I never call women girls, that is disrespectful, I call them honey buns.

denhaagenite · 09-07-2015 01:08PM

This did come up in my social group recently actually.

I have a friend who has been single for the last year following quite a long term relationship (11+ years). The city we live in is more like a big town so the group is quite large. His potential interests are all well known to me and since we're quite close he talks to me, at length, about them, even when I've asked him not to anymore. I asked him to stop referring to my friends as "girls" because quite honestly every time he says the word in relation to dating etc it turns my stomach.

I can't quite explain why, maybe it's because these women are people I respect and he's behaving like a 15 year old at the moment, and also treating them as such even though they haven't given him a reason to. I am probably being unfair and should really give a bit more leeway to the fact that he hasn't been single in ages but I can't help how I feel.

I think "ladies" or "women" suggests a bit more respect for females than "girls".

Carlos Orange · 09-07-2015 01:26PM

denhaagenite wrote: »

I think "ladies" or "women" suggests a bit more respect for females than "girls".

Do you respect them when you talk about them?

denhaagenite · 09-07-2015 01:34PM

psinno wrote: »

Do you respect them when you talk about them?

?

dont bother · 09-07-2015 01:36PM

denhaagenite wrote: »

?

i just saw you're in Eindhoven... are you a dutch female?

denhaagenite · 09-07-2015 01:39PM

dont bother wrote: »

i just saw you're in Eindhoven... are you a dutch female?

No, what difference? What did your original question mean?

kylith · 09-07-2015 01:45PM

dont bother wrote: »

yeah it's been a good long while since those days Kylith.... ye've peaked.
that's why drivel like this does the rounds - because feminism has peaked.

and, of COURSE people should be allowed say whatever they like.
I say what i like, when i like, and it's not my problem if people are offended. It's their problem. they could choose to NOT be offended, and realise that it's only words and has no bearing on them (or at least, if they had a strong character within themselves, they could choose to ignore it if they want) just as i am allowed to say whatever i choose, when i choose, to whom i choose.

it's the other persons fault if they're offended, not mine.

Yeah, you can say what you like, but if the other person is offended then they are within their rights to tell you that you've offended them, and that you're an insensitive ass, and they are also within their rights to write an article in the newspaper about how they found it offensive.

Freedom of speech works both ways; you can say what you like, and people can say what they like about what you've said.

By saying that it's other people's problem if they're offended and that they should ignore it you are trying to impose on them the censorship that you feel they are imposing on you. You could, after all, ignore these articles.

denhaagenite · 09-07-2015 01:48PM

Mesrine65 wrote: »

Shame on you Boots :eek:

Come to think of it, this ad might be the reason that I get offended.

orubiru · 09-07-2015 03:01PM

kylith wrote: »

Yeah, you can say what you like, but if the other person is offended then they are within their rights to tell you that you've offended them, and that you're an insensitive ass, and they are also within their rights to write an article in the newspaper about how they found it offensive.

Freedom of speech works both ways; you can say what you like, and people can say what they like about what you've said.

By saying that it's other people's problem if they're offended and that they should ignore it you are trying to impose on them the censorship that you feel they are imposing on you. You could, after all, ignore these articles.

I think that the fact that the newspaper would feel the article is worthy of publishing is more of an issue that the actual issue with people being offensive or insensitive.

It feels like the internet has reached a point where genuinely interesting articles are pushed aside in favor of click-bait headlines such as "Stop Calling Women 'Girls'. It's Either Patronizing or Sexually Suggestive".

Come on now, whatever we think of the usage of words like "boys" or "girls", that headline is utterly ridiculous.

When reading an article like this I think of how I would react if someone was saying these things to me in real life. I'd genuinely think they were making a big drama over nothing. To find that a national newspaper would be interested in publishing an article about it? It seems very silly.

Of course, my thinking that it was "a big drama over nothing" may be seen as Internalized Misogyny by some people.

If I said "hey girls" to some colleagues and they told me to stop "because it's either patronizing or sexually suggestive" I'd probably just walk away thinking that they are total nitpicky morons and they'd probably walk away thinking I am a total clown for calling them "girls". So I wouldn't be friends with those people and they wouldn't be friends with me, and that's OK.

You can't be friends with everyone and there's a bunch of people you wont like for one reason or another. Articles like this are not much more than a public airing of petty, personal, grievances against other anonymous parties. So I don't know why a website like The Guardian would be publishing them.

I wonder if articles like this are an indicator of how the internet is making it more and more difficult for people to socialize with each other in the real world.

She states "I’ll be honest here and say I do think women calling other women girls get a free pass" which is fine, I suppose, but when the article ends with "Beyonce was almost right. But it’s not girls that run the world – although one day it may well be women." I don't really know what to make of that.

kylith · 09-07-2015 03:24PM

orubiru wrote: »

I think that the fact that the newspaper would feel the article is worthy of publishing is more of an issue that the actual issue with people being offensive or insensitive.

It feels like the internet has reached a point where genuinely interesting articles are pushed aside in favor of click-bait headlines such as "Stop Calling Women 'Girls'. It's Either Patronizing or Sexually Suggestive".

Come on now, whatever we think of the usage of words like "boys" or "girls", that headline is utterly ridiculous.

When reading an article like this I think of how I would react if someone was saying these things to me in real life. I'd genuinely think they were making a big drama over nothing. To find that a national newspaper would be interested in publishing an article about it? It seems very silly.

Of course, my thinking that it was "a big drama over nothing" may be seen as Internalized Misogyny by some people.

If I said "hey girls" to some colleagues and they told me to stop "because it's either patronizing or sexually suggestive" I'd probably just walk away thinking that they are total nitpicky morons and they'd probably walk away thinking I am a total clown for calling them "girls". So I wouldn't be friends with those people and they wouldn't be friends with me, and that's OK.

You can't be friends with everyone and there's a bunch of people you wont like for one reason or another. Articles like this are not much more than a public airing of petty, personal, grievances against other anonymous parties. So I don't know why a website like The Guardian would be publishing them.

I wonder if articles like this are an indicator of how the internet is making it more and more difficult for people to socialize with each other in the real world.

She states "I’ll be honest here and say I do think women calling other women girls get a free pass" which is fine, I suppose, but when the article ends with "Beyonce was almost right. But it’s not girls that run the world – although one day it may well be women." I don't really know what to make of that.

The thing is that what may be a 'big drama over nothing' to you may be a serious issue for someone else especially in a work situation. I doubt if I'm alone in having my gender used against me in work. TBH, that your reaction to someone saying 'Please don't call me that, I find it patronizing' would be that they have a problem rather than to think to yourself 'OK, I won't call her that again' speaks volumes.

It's not about being friends with everyone, it's about treating the people around you with respect.

Calling grown women "girls", offensive?

Comments