Jump to content

Recommended Posts

For me, it's the intelligent folk thinking it's not worth bothering about that's irritating. I'm surprised at both Otta and Pibe thinking such.


If instead, as women, we should bother ourselves with the bigger questions, for instance, the glass ceiling, then I would ask what creates the glass ceiling? The idea that women are less capable, less ruthless in the boardroom, are more refined and gentle than big, burly men? More "ladylike"? More in need of a special pink pen?


It's a pervasive thing. No individual (or very, very few) means offence in using the term. It's the term itself that's the issue. As long as there is equivalency with the word "man", rather than "gentleman" (which comes with its own expectations of behaviour), it perpetuates the notion that women are to be quiet and seemly.


Words have power and I'm surprised to see people deny it.

Rosie.


Interestingly, huge numbers of threads especially in the Family room started by woman start with "Ladies". Do a forum search and scan down ...are these poor repressed woman or is it one of 'them' words that only the oppressed are allowed to use, or possibly does everyone not see it like you without being repressed/unaware or unintelligent?


edited for split infinitive and similar howlers

Nah dufus, do some reading man before you get all smug and sarky.


If you read my post further up, I said I have no problem with it as a form of address, in the same context that you'd use gentlemen. Thus addressing a group of women, "good morning women" sounds odd, in the same way that addressing a group of men as "good morning men" (unless you're on army manoeuvres) sounds odd. In this situation, "ladies" and "gentlemen" seem apposite.


Equivalency.

Oh what a tangle - as a further illustrattion my missus quite often says Come on Ladies to her mates virtually/or in reality ie if they want a night out etc I'd never say come on gentleman/gents in a similar situation. I honestly can't remember for eg when I heard it said in a mixed crowd apart from clearly ironically nor when I last heard it in the workplace in a non-formal setting...though I'm obviously less likely to pick it up. if my kids bump into a woman on Lordship Lane I suspect I will still say "Say sorry to that Lady" but now return to my home fretting that not only am I a perpetuator of stereotypical gendererism but I am socialising my kids with it....maybe. I think my my mum would be mildley offended if a stranger reffered to her as a woman rather than a lady (i will check) but would other woman of a similar age - it's now becoming an ageist/sexist minefield.

"For me, it's the intelligent folk thinking it's

not worth bothering about that's irritating.

I'm surprised at both Otta and Pibe thinking

such."


I believe in picking your battles, and this one just doesn't seem worth fighting when there is far worse embedded sexism in society.


But I promise never to call you a lady (I'm pretty sure I never would have anyway).

Otta, I genuinely believe the language we use to describe a thing has an impact on the way we perceive that thing.


I studied it in the abstract at university, and felt it to be true then. And having come up against a glass ceiling myself, and been acutely aware of the language my male boss used to describe me and other female employees, I could see first hand that the two things were inextricably linked. And in this case, to my detriment.


That's why it's a battle I think is worth fighting - it's part of a bigger battle that I think is worth winning.

I, for one, would be disappointed if the term 'lady' was driven from common use, coupled with the fact that it would never occur to my female acquaintances to object to that term being used as they would see it as a form of politeness . Long may it continue to thrive!

Then there's the New York cabbie who leans out of his window to yell "Hey, move your goddamn ass lady!"

An English cabbie might yell "Move your bleedin' arse woman!" ...is that better?


I've had midle-aged women (in shops or pubs) call me love, darling, chuck and pet (regional variations) for years but only felt able to reply in a similar vein when I was over 30. Before that it was an impersonal "thanks" because "Thanks ma'am" was out of the question and "Thanks missus" made one feel like the artful dodger. "Thanks lady", although still odd-sounding, would have been as useful as "mate" or "pal" back then.


Re quid's missus saying "Come on ladies", I've heard 'girls' used in similar circs by women well past 50 but maybe there are just more alternatives for men: "Come on guys*, fellahs, boys, lads, chaps (usually ironic), gentlemen/gents (ditto for irony), you-bunch-of-fucks **,


*although this is often used for male and female groups

**only really used in a group of close friends

I don't really think too much about it (I'm genuinely not that bothered by the use of Lady vs Women) but when I do, I think I am with RosieH. So much of what defines a word is wrapped up in intent of use. Add to that, established stereotyping and a simple word can then be loaded with all kinds of meaning. So I would only take exception to the use of 'lady' in a specific context.

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> I don't really think too much about it (I'm

> genuinely not that bothered by the use of Lady vs

> Women) but when I do, I think I am with RosieH. So

> much of what defines a word is wrapped up in

> intent of use. Add to that, established

> stereotyping and a simple word can then be loaded

> with all kinds of meaning. So I would only take

> exception to the use of 'lady' in a specific

> context.


Hmm.... the tone with which someone says addresses you can be offensive, and if the intent is there then I don't think that an innocent word such as 'lady' or 'gentleman', or even 'woman' or 'man' can necessarily contain the insult - it is more the context.


I don't believe there is any right or wrong here, but I do think it is ill mannered to take offence when clearly none was intended. Some find a man saying 'ladies first' insulting, I find it quite charming and am not at all averse to chivalry :), although I don't expect it. I don't find that chivalry demeans me or insults me - I can hold my own in this world very well, including in a somewhat male dominated workplace - I just see it as one of the many pleasantries that a civilised society can extend to each other.

There's a certain school of thought that would say that you moved off the path because you perceived that as a woman she was so weak and inferior that she required an act of charity.


Whether you buy that interpretation seems to depend very much on your general outlook. It's a pretty ugly one that I'm happy not to share.

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

    • Agreed and in the meantime its "joe public" who has to pay through higher prices. We're talking all over the shop from food to insurance and everything in between.  And to add insult to injury they "hurt " their own voters/supporters through the actions they have taken. Sadly it gets to a stage where you start thinking about leaving London and even exiting the UK for good, but where to go????? Sad times now and ahead for at least the next 4yrs, hence why Govt and Local Authorities need to cut spending on all but essential services.  An immediate saving, all managerial and executive salaries cannot exceed and frozen at £50K Do away with the Mayor of London, the GLA and all the hanging on organisations, plus do away with borough mayors and the teams that serve them. All added beauracracy that can be dispensed with and will save £££££'s  
    • The minimum wage hikes on top of the NICs increases have also caused vast swathes of unemployment.
    • Exactly - a snap election will make things even worse. Jazzer - say you get a 'new' administration tomorrow, you're still left with the same treasury, the same civil servants, the same OBR, the same think-tanks and advisors (many labour advisors are cross-party, Gauke for eg). The options are the same, no matter who's in power. Labour hasn't even changed the Tories' fiscal rules - the parties are virtually economically aligned these days.  But Reeves made a mistake in trying too hard, too early to make some seismic changes in her first budget as a big 'we're here and we're going to fix this mess, Labour to the rescue' kind of thing . They shone such a big light on the black hole that their only option was to try to fix it overnight. It was a comms clusterfuck.  They'd perhaps have done better sticking to Sunak's quiet, cautious approach, but they knew the gullible public was expecting an 24-hour turnaround miracle.  The NIC hikes are a disaster, I think they'll be reversed soon and enough and they'll keep trying till they find something that sticks.   
    • Totally agree with you.  🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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