Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It's never occurred to me that the term "lady" could possibly be deemed offensive. Surely it's simply a manner of speech that fits into what is being said as demonstrated in the waiter example.


If a stranger of the female gender picked up a book in the library which my toddler dropped, I too would tell my child to thank the lady, it's simply descriptive and sounds nicer than 'woman'. I don't think I've heard any toddler use the word woman.

Asset Wrote:

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

> I object to being referred to as a lady. The more

> I hear lady/ladies being used the more it grates

> on my sensibilities.

> I know it's scary and intimidating for some but

> seriously, get in the 21st century. I'm a WOMAN.


I take it from this then that you are not a lady.

I used to hate lady because of the connotations associated with it, but I now prefer to own it and stamp all over it!


What gets me het up though, is anyone declaring that such and such behaviour is not ladylike. So what! I don't want to be ladylike, so bugger off!

Nope, are you a lord?

I didn't actually say it was offensive merely that I objected.

I find it belittling and patronising personally.

MrBen - you could just say "follow me please".

It would appear I'm in the minority with my opinions but perhaps that's just because it is an insidious yet becoming more outdated way of referring to women and in 50 years it won't be used - unless you are actually a titled lady.

I for one do not defund it insulting to called a woman.

Now, all you little ladies, I've got stuff to do.

I would hope that in 50 years we won't have 'titled ladies' either. Now that really is an archaic idea ;)


Asset Wrote:

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

> Nope, are you a lord?

> I didn't actually say it was offensive merely that

> I objected.

> I find it belittling and patronising personally.

> MrBen - you could just say "follow me please".

> It would appear I'm in the minority with my

> opinions but perhaps that's just because it is an

> insidious yet becoming more outdated way of

> referring to women and in 50 years it won't be

> used - unless you are actually a titled lady.

> I for one do not defund it insulting to called a

> woman.

> Now, all you little ladies, I've got stuff to do.

I also hate the label thing. And when being asked if you are Mrs or Miss, but men don't have to state whether they're married because their label doesn't change.


I dislike the connotation thing. Ladies and Gentlemen is fine, men and women is fine, husband and wife is fine. Man and wife? Grrrr. You never hear Woman and Husband!


I think they should be abolished; it's class and gender nonsense.

It's a minefield out there. Opening doors, offering seats, even speaking to someone. Personally, I just go with whatever feels right (generally opening the door, offering the seat, and using 'woman' or 'lady' without conscious thought as to which is more appropriate). If I get it wrong and someone is offended, well, you can't please everybody all the time.

It's not rocket science, so I don't know why people are over-complicating and refusing to understand, unless they're genuinely imbeciles.


Ladies and gentlemen is fine - it's a form of address. Otta, equally, you wouldn't say "hello men" to a group of men - it sounds ridiculous.


But as a description it's asinine. Would you say, "there's a gentleman in my department who..."? No, you'd say, "there's a man in my department". But people persist in saying "lady" in the same circumstances. Or 'lady doctor' and its ilk.


"Lady" is a loaded term - it implies gentility, refinement, delicacy - it comes with a whole set of messages that piss women off because men aren't subjected to the same set of expectations.


If in doubt, where you'd use "man" for the male equivalent, use "woman". Where you'd use "gentleman", use "lady".

"If in doubt, where you'd use "man" for the male equivalent, use "woman". Where you'd use "gentleman", use "lady"."


Well quite, but then I guess some people would use these words where others wouldn't.


Have to say though I don't really see the big deal. If people don't like it, then that's up to them I'm not questioning it. It just seems that there are worse things to get het up about.

RosieH Wrote:


> "Lady" is a loaded term - it implies gentility,

> refinement, delicacy - it comes with a whole set

> of messages that piss women off because men aren't

> subjected to the same set of expectations.


'Loaded term' my elbo. Only in your head. Strange creatures as *Bob* said.

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

    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
    • I do hope NOT, wouldn't trust Farage as far as I could throw him, Starmer & co.  He's backed by GB News which focus's predominantly on immigration while the BBC focus predominantly on the Israel - Gazza conflict.   
    • Everyone gets the point that Corbynites try to make with the "total number of votes cast" statistic, it's just a specious one.  In 2017, Corbyn's Labour got fewer votes than May's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes). In 2019, Corbyn's Labour fewer votes than Johnson's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes); and he managed to drop 2.7 million votes or 6.9% of vote share between the two elections. I repeat, he got trounced by Boris F***ing Johnson and the Tories after the Brexit omnishambles. It is not true that a "fairer" electoral system would have seen Labour beat the Tories: Labour simply got fewer votes than the Tories. Corbyn lost twice. There is no metric by which he won the general election. His failure to win was a disaster for the UK, and let Johnson and Truss and Sunak into office. Corbynites have to let go of this delusion that Corbyn but really won somehow if you squint in a certain way. It is completely irrelevant that Labour under Corbyn got more votes than Labour under Starmer. It is like saying Hull City was more successful in its 2014 FA Cup Final than Chelsea was in its 2018 FA Cup Final, because Hull scored 2 goals when Chelsea only scored 1. But guess what - Chelsea won its game and Hull City lost. Corbyn's fans turned out to vote for him - but an even larger group of people who found him repellant were motivated enough to show up and vote Tory.
    • I guess its the thing these days to demonstrate an attitude, in this instance seemingly of the negative kind, instead of taking pride in your work and have standards then 🤷‍♀️
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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