Jump to content

Recommended Posts

According to a teacher at my school, Ladies always referred to one another as 'women'; Charwomen always referred to one another as 'ladies'


And I've never understood why, in golf clubs, they have a Men's section and a Ladies' section. Surely it should be either Men and Women or Gentlemen and Ladies?

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.



No your father was a gentleman that is dying out these days

I couldn't possibly, just reading this thread has made me come over all weak and I'm

not sure my pretty little head can deal with it all.

RosieH has put the argument much more succinctly than me.

Also, could people stop accusing me (or others) about getting het up - next you'll be suggesting we have hysterectomies.

Alan Medic Wrote:

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

> 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.


Only in my head? And Asset's? And Katienumbers'? And every other woman who dislikes it.


You're right, you're right, of course you are. Silly old me, to try to tell a man what it is to be a woman, when of course he knows best. (of course, the OED definition was probably written by a silly little woman who didn't know what's what either).


You know how a St George's Cross is sometimes seen as a sign of racism? That's all in my head too of course! What a dolt I've been. What a clever chap you are, with what a sound grounding in semiotics.


I'm off to burn my Lacan in the hearth to make a fire for my husband's tea. But I'll probably have to get him to strike the matches.

"Lady" is a loaded term - it implies

gentility,

> > refinement, delicacy"



To be fair, the vast majority of people who use the word probably don't intend to convey any of that stuff, so is it fair to load their words with the things that you find offensive. Most people will use lady because it is part of the vocabulary they have grown up with.

Otta, I'm not foaming at the mouth about this, but the point is that sexism is embedded in our culture. I'd really rather it wasn't.


I'm not having a massive go at the people who use words that they've grown up with without thinking they might be offensive.


But once those on the receiving end tell them that they are offensive / grating / whatever, it pisses me off if those same people tell me women (or whoever) are wrong to think it and they're going to carry on as usual because it's just all in our heads.


We don't still use "coloured" or "half-caste". My nan never said those words to insult anyone, but she too refused to accept that they could be offensive. The rest of us moved on.

RosieH Wrote:

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

> Otta, I'm not foaming at the mouth about this, but

> the point is that sexism is embedded in our

> culture. I'd really rather it wasn't.

>

> I'm not having a massive go at the people who use

> words that they've grown up with without thinking

> they might be offensive.

>

> But once those on the receiving end tell them that

> they are offensive / grating / whatever, it pisses

> me off if those same people tell me women (or

> whoever) are wrong to think it and they're going

> to carry on as usual because it's just all in our

> heads.

>

> We don't still use "coloured" or "half-caste". My

> nan never said those words to insult anyone, but

> she too refused to accept that they could be

> offensive. The rest of us moved on.



All fair enough, but the fact is that a lot of women / ladies on here have said they couldn't care less. Yes if you said to me you didn't like me calling you something, I'd stop it, but I wouldn't necessarily assume that all of womankind had the same feelings as you about it.

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...