Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Let's say I'm a head waiter at the Savoy, and I'm trying to get two women from a mixed group to show them to their table. "Women, if you'd kindly follow me..". Sounds weird. If they were men you'd say "Gentlemen". I'd hate to offen women like Asset so what's the correct (as in PC) form?

Asset Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm not sure you're right about that. People have

> been getting 'het up' over labels for quite a

> while and for good reason.


Some have - some haven't. Some women/ladies/birds have got other things in life to fill their minds :)

TheArtfulDogger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> My father used to call women he didn't know

> sweetheart or darling

>

> Thankfully that sort of behaviour is dying out

> these days

>

> Thankfully and soon, love, there will be no more

> talk like that ;-)


Happy with any of the above - they make me smile.


Not too keen on 'dear' though, although it doesn't keep me awake at night.

TheArtfulDogger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> My father used to call women he didn't know

> sweetheart or darling

>

> Thankfully that sort of behaviour is dying out

> these days

>

> Thankfully and soon, love, there will be no more

> talk like that ;-)


I suppose 'all'? Happy with 'ladies and gentlemen' though [snort!]


My workplace is very PC. I remember a few years ago I was in a small team of women and when we emailed the group we prefaced the content with 'Ladies'. My boss was cc'd into one or two of the emails and told us to stop starting the group emails with the word 'Ladies' - even though we were all female and happy with the term - as he thought it was sexist to refer to gender. he insisted we start the group emails with 'All'.


We took no notice...

To my mind, it's about the signifier and the signified. The word "lady" has connotations that "woman" simply does not. In fact, it has a definition in the OED as such - genteel or refined woman.


I don't like it because of the implications / expectations of an acceptable mode of behaviour it conveys.


That said, where it's the female equivalent of gentleman, I have no problem. Ladies and gentlemen is fine. 'Cup of tea for my lady' at the hairdressers, no problem.

couldn't agree more Asset - the term really grates on me too.


Saying that tho, I am rather more forgiving depending on context/who is using it. Eg. recently didn't mind when a grandmother at my local library instructed her granddaughter to say 'thank you to the lady' (she meant ME - eeks!) for picking up the book she'd dropped...but otherwise, it usually drives me nuts.


but mostly, it depends on context and intention, I think.


edited: for rubbish grammar etc.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • In what way? Maybe it just felt more intelligent and considered coming directly after Question Time, which was a barely watchable bun fight.
    • Yes, all this. Totally Sephiroth. The electorate wants to see transformation overnight. That's not possible. But what is possible is leading with the right comms strategy, which isn't cutting through. As I've said before, messaging matters more now than policy, that's the only way to bring the electorate with you. And I worry that that's how Reform's going to get into power.  And the media LOVES Reform. 
    • “There was an excellent discussion on Newscast last night between the BBC Political Editor, the director of the IFS and the director of More In Common - all highly intelligent people with no party political agenda ” I would call this “generous”   Labour should never have made that tax promise because, as with - duh - Brexit, it’s pretending the real world doesn’t exist now. I blame Labour in no small part for this delusion. But the electorate need to cop on as well.  They think they can have everything they want without responsibilities, costs or attachments. The media encourage this  Labour do need to raise taxes. The country needs it.  Now, exactly how it’s done remains to be seen. But if people are just going to go around going “la la laffer curve. Liars! String em up! Vote someone else” then they just aren’t serious people reckoning with the problem yes Labour are more than a year into their term, but after 14 years of what the Tories  did? Whoever takes over, has a major problem 
    • Messaging, messaging, messaging. That's all it boils down to. There are only so many fiscal policies out there, and they're there for the taking, no matter which party you're in. I hate to say it, but Farage gets it right every time. Even when Reform reneges on fiscal policy, it does it with enough confidence and candidness that no one is wringing their hands. Instead, they're quietly admired for their pragmatism. Strangely, it's exactly the same as Labour has done, with its manifesto reverse on income tax, but it's going to bomb.  Blaming the Tories / Brexit / Covid / Putin ... none of it washes with the public anymore  - it wants to be sold a vision of the future, not reminded of the disasters of the past. Labour put itself on the back foot with its 'the tories fucked it all up' stance right at the beginning of its tenure.  All Lammy had to do (as with Reeves and Raynor etc) was say 'mea culpa. We've made a mistake, we'll fix it. Sorry guys, we're on it'. But instead it's 'nothing to see here / it's someone else's fault / I was buying a suit / hadn't been briefed yet'.  And, of course, the press smells blood, which never helps.  Oh! And Reeve's speech on Wednesday was so drab and predictable that even the journalists at the press conference couldn't really be arsed to come up with any challenging questions. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...