Right or wrong? Calling out co-workers on language choices?

[SKL]

Oh, and the other thing about "boy" is that it has in some contexts been used to refer to a young adult homosexual partner.  And there is also the history of it being used to disrespect black slaves / black men in the Jim Crow era.  The history of "boy" is just different from "girl." 

Though I tried googling first "18 year old man" and then "18 year old boy."  The "man" got me a bunch of mug shots.  The "boy" got a bunch of young-looking teens.

[SKL]

10 minutes ago, Eliana said:

...and what does that say about how we are doing criminal 'justice'?   (though it has appeared to me that white 18 year olds often still get to be 'boys' in the media coverage or sentencing... )

And apparently it is okay for women to remain "girls" for our entire lives.  (unless we attend that girls' school in England that you mentioned in another thread, in which case, even when a child, we could *not* be called girls.)

 

We live in a strange world...

 

...and I don't think word usage is a trivial thing.  (I know you don't either!)  It frames our thinking and is part of creating our environment.  (Yes, being aware of that can be taken to extremes that leave us all focusing on the details of our communication rather than the substance, but I believe we need a balance.)

 

To be fair, you can get a lot of images if you google either "18 year old girl" or "18 year old woman" too.  Fewer mug shots, but then the ratio of mug shot to selfie seems to be a lot different between 18yo males and females.  :P

I actually think that what the "mug shot" observation shows is that 18 year olds in this country are not generally referred to as "men" except in formal situations like when being described in a criminal context.  The "18 year old woman" images were almost the same as the "girl" ones - a bunch of selfies trying to look pretty - and presumably the subjects of the selfies chose to be called either woman or girl.

[SKL]

"gyp" is an interesting example.  I don't hear it much outside of old movies / shows or people of foreign origin.  I think many people where I live would not know the origin of the word.  They might also not know which nationalities are (or were historically) referred to as "gypsies."

My grandmother was from Hungary and people used to sometimes say Hungarians were gypsies.  She did not appreciate that.  But, she has been gone a long time, as have a lot of customs and connections that are essentially forgotten.

Besides that, if I had a coworker who was Romani or any other nationality associated with the term "gypsy," I would not single them out for special treatment if someone ignorantly used the word "gyp" in front of them.  Most people in the US would rather be treated like everyone else in the workplace.  If anything I might take the person aside if I saw the Romani person bristle.  (This assumes today's Mr/Ms. Romani is even familiar with the term "gyp.")  And I'd say a word in private.

If Mr/Ms Romani piped up and said s/he didn't mind, I would still say a word in private.  Because often people will say "I don't mind" to avoid further drama, though they actually would rather not have it happen again.  It seems a very easy thing to fix.  Usually it's just a matter of someone understanding the origin of the word.

[kitten18]

On 4/24/2018 at 12:50 PM, Arctic Mama said:

A kid calling me my first name is not respectful, to be clear.  That’s a heck no, no ma’am, do not pass go or collect $200.  That’s pretty much anathema to basic manners in addressing non relative adults in a society, and I’m from a very casual social climate (SoCal).

I live in SoCal NOW and I can tell you that kids adressing adults by their first name is normal and expected. 

[poppy]

2 hours ago, SKL said:

You're all over the place.  One minute you're talking about women should tell coworkers not to say "girl" on behalf of all women and the environment of the workplace, and anyone who isn't joining the movement is a racist, and that's most of us.  Next minute you're talking like the only person you disagree with is the one person who keeps saying "girl" is pretty much always OK in every context.  I'm just looking for consistency.  If the dictionaries you quoted say that girl can mean "young woman," is it right or wrong?  If it's wrong, is that offensive?  Should someone do something about it?

 

Everyone who isn't joining what movement is a racist?

[poppy]

1 hour ago, Eliana said:

I am saying that I would object to slur being used whether or not an individual impacted person objects to its use because that is part of we build a kinder, more welcoming society (and I, personally, find hearing demeaning language creates an environment I am uncomfortable it, and that has nothing to do with whether the demeaning language refers to me or not.  I find gyp as distressing a word to hear as kike, though casual anti-Semitism does make me feel personally less safe than other demeaning language.)

 

I don't see speaking up about wrong behavior as 'saving' people.  I see it as the responsibility of every member of society - to create spaces we can all feel part of without being belittled or mistreated.

 

This is where I'm coning from.  Just better to avoid racist , sexist or otherwise diminishing language in general. Don't do it because you might find one of "them" in the room who might complain. 

[Ravin]

On 4/22/2018 at 9:19 AM, happysmileylady said:

I am curious if the phrase “guy I interviewed” would garner much reaction

 

"Guy" is informal, but does not have the connotation of "child" that "girl" does. Therefore, "guy" is not semantically equivalent but for gender to "girl." 

[poppy]

35 minutes ago, SKL said:

"gyp" is an interesting example.  I don't hear it much outside of old movies / shows or people of foreign origin.  I think many people where I live would not know the origin of the word.  They might also not know which nationalities are (or were historically) referred to as "gypsies."

My grandmother was from Hungary and people used to sometimes say Hungarians were gypsies.  She did not appreciate that.  But, she has been gone a long time, as have a lot of customs and connections that are essentially forgotten.

Besides that, if I had a coworker who was Romani or any other nationality associated with the term "gypsy," I would not single them out for special treatment if someone ignorantly used the word "gyp" in front of them.  Most people in the US would rather be treated like everyone else in the workplace.  If anything I might take the person aside if I saw the Romani person bristle.  (This assumes today's Mr/Ms. Romani is even familiar with the term "gyp.")  And I'd say a word in private.

If Mr/Ms Romani piped up and said s/he didn't mind, I would still say a word in private.  Because often people will say "I don't mind" to avoid further drama, though they actually would rather not have it happen again.  It seems a very easy thing to fix.  Usually it's just a matter of someone understanding the origin of the word.

 

It's like "sitting Indian style".      Most places now say to "criss cross applesauce".  I don't think 'Indian style' is horribly saying ever, but it's not really a positive cultural reference. Plus kids like the rhyme.  When a fix is easy, why not.

[Bluegoat]

2 hours ago, Where's Toto? said:

 

 

None of the definitions said a VERY young woman.    Just young woman.  So, how old is too old for someone to be called "girl" in your opinion?  And should someone then get offended that you evidently think of them as "old" since they are too old to be called girl?

 

If someone says "girl" in that kind of situation at a workplace, I tend to think of it as someone under about 30, and likely unmarried.  Which in a way seems old, but it's not uncommon for organization with youth wings and such to be open to anyone under 30, or for them to be classed as "young people".  I'd call a similar male version a guy or young guy, probably.  For whatever reason boy usually seems to indicate someone younger to me.  If I said young man, that would correspond to young woman in terms of formality.

[Bluegoat]

Also - this dictionary thing - just because a word can be used offensively, doesn't mean that it is an offensive word. That isn't what that definition was saying at all. Lots of words can be used in a derogatory way but are functional words otherwise.  They don't get cut out because in other usages they are offensive.  

[poppy]

19 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

Also - this dictionary thing - just because a word can be used offensively, doesn't mean that it is an offensive word. That isn't what that definition was saying at all. Lots of words can be used in a derogatory way but are functional words otherwise.  They don't get cut out because in other usages they are offensive.  

 

Of course it's a perfectly functional word! It means female child.

I definitely could be remembering wrong, but, are you English? I am sure there are cultural elements at play.

[Bluegoat]

26 minutes ago, poppy said:

 

Of course it's a perfectly functional word! It means female child.

I definitely could be remembering wrong, but, are you English? I am sure there are cultural elements at play.

 

Yeah, I'm English.

You seem to be saying that because the dictionary says it can sometimes be used in an offensive way, allowing it to be used in a workplace is therefore offensive.  That isn't what it is saying though.

[poppy]

10 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Yeah, I'm English.

You seem to be saying that because the dictionary says it can sometimes be used in an offensive way, allowing it to be used in a workplace is therefore offensive.  That isn't what it is saying though.

 

It is not an  offensive term when used to refer to a child, daughter, young woman, or servant, which is the primary set of definitions.   
Two of the 5 that found say it offensive to "many women".  The other three indicate it is "sometimes" considered offensive or patronizing.

___ sometimes offensive : a single or married woman of any age.
___  Informal: Sometimes Offensive. a grown woman, especially when referred to familiarly:
___ Many adult women consider it offensive to be called girls by other people, esp. men, although this was common in the past, and they might still call themselves or their friends girls.
___  a woman of any age, married or single, sometimes considered a patronizing term
___  2. a female adult, especially a young one.  This is considered offensive by many women.
 

I am guessing you're getting at an idea that it's only offensive if said snidely, or with ill intent. But that's not true. Intent is not the only consideration in determining whether a term is acceptable.   Of course we all have an opportunity to course correct if we screw up.  And we have all, every one of us, screwed up language-wise in our lives.

[Bluegoat]

1 hour ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Just now, poppy said:

 

It is not an  offensive term when used to refer to a child, daughter, young woman, or servant, which is the primary set of definitions.   
Two of the 5 that found say it offensive to "many women".  The other three indicate it is "sometimes" considered offensive or patronizing.

___ sometimes offensive : a single or married woman of any age.
___  Informal: Sometimes Offensive. a grown woman, especially when referred to familiarly:
___ Many adult women consider it offensive to be called girls by other people, esp. men, although this was common in the past, and they might still call themselves or their friends girls.
___  a woman of any age, married or single, sometimes considered a patronizing term
___  2. a female adult, especially a young one.  This is considered offensive by many women.
 

I am guessing you're getting at an idea that it's only offensive if said snidely, or with ill intent. But that's not true. Intent is not the only consideration in determining whether a term is acceptable.   Of course we all have an opportunity to course correct if we screw up.  And we have all, every one of us, screwed up language-wise in our lives.

 

 

So, two things.  IN terms of your definitions:   No, it doesn't say that it is offensive when it isn't used about a child or teenager. It just says that sometimes, it is offensive, there isn't much given about the circumstances of when that is.

In some cases, intent is the only reason a word might be really offensive - that is the reason for it being offensive.  Someone might still misunderstand and feel offended, but that is not because the word or usage was in itself offensive.  

In the case of "girl" there are a few reasons it can be offensive, but that doesn't mean it always is within these parameters you've come up with.

The other thing is, dictionary definitions really don't bear this kind of weight.  They don't give the nuances of all use, certainly not in their short formats.  So to try and draw that from them as if they are an authority isn't that useful.

[gardenmom5]

5 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

No, I don’t agree with you.  I don’t agree because you don’t get to be offended for someone else.  Not your monkeys, not your circus because what he calls someone else is between the two of them.  It has no bearing on your life in anyway.  

Its like if you find it offensive for some couples call each other honey bear and schoompy pie.  You don’t get to tell them not to do it, even if it grates in your ears every time you hear it. 

You are not the sole determiner of which words are discriminatory.  You only get to decide which words make YOU feel discriminated against.  

I haven't been commenting much - but have been reading.

this thought really jumped out at me, especially as it has been the gist of the last several pages of back and forth.

the idea that someone else would tell me what *i* should find offensive and insulting - is, frankly, offensive and insulting. it smacks of parentalism.  It reminds me way too much of my control freak manipulative grandmother who would "tell us" how "we" should think and feel.   uh,, no.   I have a brain, and I'm perfectly capable of deciding for myself what I think about things - especially  words applied to me.  

 

so no poppy - you don't get to decide what I, or anyone else, finds offensive when applied to ourselves - and your continued insistence that you do - is not only offensive - it's demeaning.  you have taken it upon yourself to decide those who don't agree with you - are too stupid or ill informed or whatever, to be able to make a decision on  their own.  you are treating us as "less than".   which is far more offensive than the original clueless incident which started this thread.

[poppy]

10 hours ago, gardenmom5 said:

I haven't been commenting much - but have been reading.

this thought really jumped out at me, especially as it has been the gist of the last several pages of back and forth.

the idea that someone else would tell me what *i* should find offensive and insulting - is, frankly, offensive and insulting. it smacks of parentalism.  It reminds me way too much of my control freak manipulative grandmother who would "tell us" how "we" should think and feel.   uh,, no.   I have a brain, and I'm perfectly capable of deciding for myself what I think about things - especially  words applied to me.  

 

so no poppy - you don't get to decide what I, or anyone else, finds offensive when applied to ourselves - and your continued insistence that you do - is not only offensive - it's demeaning.  you have taken it upon yourself to decide those who don't agree with you - are too stupid or ill informed or whatever, to be able to make a decision on  their own.  you are treating us as "less than".   which is far more offensive than the original clueless incident which started this thread.

 

Is it fun to feel demeaned?  No? Makes you want to respond?   Listen, my INTENT was not to make you feel demeaned, so it's all good, though---- right?  Intent is what matters in causing offense, and your actual objective reaction is irrelevant (apparently).

Just want to be clear. I am not offended on your behalf and I'm not defending you.  I'm defending me.  This isn't, hey that racial /ethnic minority doesn't mind when we use the mild slur, it's not up to you to defend her.  I am a member of the discriminated against group, and I do get a say, in this theoretical office, how members of that class are referred to. 

 

 

[poppy]

11 hours ago, Bluegoat said:

 

So, two things.  IN terms of your definitions:   No, it doesn't say that it is offensive when it isn't used about a child or teenager. It just says that sometimes, it is offensive, there isn't much given about the circumstances of when that is.

In some cases, intent is the only reason a word might be really offensive - that is the reason for it being offensive.  Someone might still misunderstand and feel offended, but that is not because the word or usage was in itself offensive.  

In the case of "girl" there are a few reasons it can be offensive, but that doesn't mean it always is within these parameters you've come up with.

The other thing is, dictionary definitions really don't bear this kind of weight.  They don't give the nuances of all use, certainly not in their short formats.  So to try and draw that from them as if they are an authority isn't that useful.

 

I wrote the dictionary definition when someone said it was "just another word for female". Objectively speaking, it is not a synonym for women.  

"MANY WOMEN" think it is, under all circumstances, when used to refer to an adult woman.  Of course dictionaries just reflect current use and aren't the great authority of all time. But in current use, again, many women think do think it's offensive.  Please accept that.

[SKL]

9 minutes ago, poppy said:

 

Is it fun to feel demeaned?  No? Makes you want to respond?   Listen, my INTENT was not to make you feel demeaned, so it's all good, though---- right?  Intent is what matters in causing offense, and your actual objective reaction is irrelevant (apparently).

Just want to be clear. I am not offended on your behalf and I'm not defending you.  I'm defending me.  This isn't, hey that racial /ethnic minority doesn't mind when we use the mild slur, it's not up to you to defend her.  I am a member of the discriminated against group, and I do get a say, in this theoretical office, how members of that class are referred to.

In the OP situation, I got the impression that the person [not present] who was called "the girl" fell into the "young woman" category, which is listed by most of your dictionary citations as a legitimate use of "girl."  I also got the impression that the OP who complained about it was older than that.  So, if that is the case, then the usage of "girl" for the young candidate was not an offense to the OP, other than the fact that OP did not like the word choice.

Whether the OP is in any danger of being mistaken for a young woman / "girl" is unknown to me.  :)

[gardenmom5]

46 minutes ago, poppy said:

 

Is it fun to feel demeaned?  No? Makes you want to respond?   Listen, my INTENT was not to make you feel demeaned, so it's all good, though---- right?  Intent is what matters in causing offense, and your actual objective reaction is irrelevant (apparently).

Just want to be clear. I am not offended on your behalf and I'm not defending you.  I'm defending me.  This isn't, hey that racial /ethnic minority doesn't mind when we use the mild slur, it's not up to you to defend her.  I am a member of the discriminated against group, and I do get a say, in this theoretical office, how members of that class are referred to. 

 

 

we've all heard your "intent".   multiple people have posted the definition of "girl" - which to a rational person is NOT "demeaning"

having someone insist I feel 'demeaned' by a word which in and of itself is "NOT" demeaning - is insulting.   as I said - reminds me greatly of my narcissistic grandmother.  she loved to tell people what *they* should be "feeling" too.

 

frankly - you are leaving the impression (from other threads as well) you are quick to be offended.

[poppy]

4 hours ago, SKL said:

In the OP situation, I got the impression that the person [not present] who was called "the girl" fell into the "young woman" category, which is listed by most of your dictionary citations as a legitimate use of "girl."  I also got the impression that the OP who complained about it was older than that.  So, if that is the case, then the usage of "girl" for the young candidate was not an offense to the OP, other than the fact that OP did not like the word choice.

Whether the OP is in any danger of being mistaken for a young woman / "girl" is unknown to me.  :)

 

If I remember right, it was someone with a PhD. Typical age to get  a PhD is about 30.  OP didn't say it it was a recent grad or a long term PhD holder. Honestly, the only reason you might assume it's a young woman is because of the use of the word 'girl.".

[poppy]

4 hours ago, gardenmom5 said:

we've all heard your "intent".   multiple people have posted the definition of "girl" - which to a rational person is NOT "demeaning"

having someone insist I feel 'demeaned' by a word which in and of itself is "NOT" demeaning - is insulting.   as I said - reminds me greatly of my narcissistic grandmother.  she loved to tell people what *they* should be "feeling" too.

 

frankly - you are leaving the impression (from other threads as well) you are quick to be offended.

 

The definition of the word girl is female child.    Multiple people have said they personally are not offended by the term applied to any age woman in any context.... ZERO people have provided evidence that it is never demeaning,  except to irrational people.  You're really reaching with that one.

My comment about "intent" was mostly about the comment right above yours: "In some cases, intent is the only reason a word might be really offensive - that is the reason for it being offensive.  Someone might still misunderstand and feel offended, but that is not because the word or usage was in itself offensive.  "   Since I truly didn't mean  to offend you, you have no right to be offended [by that logic ].

But to be clear, I don't care that you don't feel demeaned. I don't think you're wrong to not feel demeaned; it's not about you.  It's about my work environment.

[poppy]

3 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

A teacher, doctor, friend’s mom, or older adult friend?  That still isn’t done in my FOO or our churches there, nor would we have even addressed our soccer coaches or piano teachers by first name unless they requested it.  Your kids really default to it in social settings? 

 

I could accept that our family culture runs a little more strict on manners than might be common now.  But I still can’t see my nieces or nephews calling their teacher John  instead of Mr. B___.  

 

One more reason I’m glad I moved, I suppose.  Alaska and Ohio are both more casual than Cali, in some respects, but it’s still very standard to use appellations of some degree.

 

I live outside Boston which is not a loosey-goosey super casual culture. The kids in my church, homeschool coop and family all use first names with adults.

But your use of "we would have" is telling I think. I grew up in the 1980s /  90s and we did not use first names with adults, ever.   A lot has changed in 30 years.

[Murphy101]

19 minutes ago, poppy said:

 

If I remember right, it was someone with a PhD. Typical age to get  a PhD is about 30.  OP didn't say it it was a recent grad or a long term PhD holder. Honestly, the only reason you might assume it's a young woman is because of the use of the word 'girl.".

 

Holy crap on a cracker. 

30s isn’t a young woman?!

I disagree.

How rude.

i don’t want to have a work environment where 30 somethings are treated like they old or whatever. That’s nuts. 

[poppy]

8 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 

Holy crap on a cracker. 

30s isn’t a young woman?!

I disagree.

How rude.

i don’t want to have a work environment where 30 somethings are treated like they old or whatever. That’s nuts. 

 

It's now rude to refer to women in the 30s as adults?

[poppy]

13 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

So it’s all about you and to heck with whatever anyone else thinks of their own work environment?  To heck with anyone who might fear that a very common and many times NOT offensive word choice might trigger an HR incident, just so long as YOU personally aren’t offended? 

 

 

No. If it was just  me, it'd be absurd.  Many women who are professional adults feel the same. Not on this thread, but, in the actual world. 

I don't really understand why this is so important to you. It's just a word. Use a different word. No problem.

[poppy]

17 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

To the boldest, yeah I was wondering the same thing about you. 

As for the first part, sure there are women who are bothered. There are also women who aren’t and are uncomfortable with the idea of policing such a word and what effect that might have on the work environment, as indicated by all the suggestions here that the op came down too hard and ways to better approach it.  So then.....who wins?  

 

There aren't a lot of words that are questionable-- inoffensive to some, offensive to others. Racial slurs pretty quickly get made forbidden, for example.
If it was a bigger list , I may feel differently. 

[poppy]

16 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

Oh sure there are.  Every year the country has a big discussion about Merry Christmas. 

But it’s not just words, it’s subjects.  There are atheists who get freaked out over being “prayed for”.  In fact, my SIL once mentioned how much she was bothered when someone said “bless you” after she sneezed.  

And even really offensive words like F-bombs and so on might be appropriate in some situations.  

And then there are things like smells (reheated fish anyone?) and sounds (see the thread about the high frequencies adults can’t hear,) the lights....oh and how about cloths that some find offensive that others believe anyone should be able to where what they want?

Our society is FULL of grey areas.  Use of the word “girl” falls in a grey area.  And it behooves all of to assume a lack of negative intent until otherwise indicated.  

 

Sure. But in a formal office context like we're talking about, there are some expected behaviors.   Like not using demeaning terms for people.

Like in a school, there are expected behaviors, i.e. you don't have a holiday celebration for just one religious group. 

But in your private life, calls every woman a girl, roll your eyes in disgust at people who say Happy Holidays, whatever.

Fish smells and other sensory stuff, assume lack of negative intent, yes. But also listen to each other and default to respect instead  of "the PC police ruin everything" scorn. If we all try to respect each other, it is  a better world.

[SKL]

The only offensive words I remember from my professional office days are "d-ck" and "pr-ck" (referring to people not in the room) and the occasional "f-ck" and "bullsh-t."  Also once my boss (older male) called me "honey," but I just thought it was amusing, and when I mentioned it later, he insisted it never happened - so I assume he did not even realize he said it.  It was late hours and maybe he had switched to "how we talk at home" mode.

I do not remember whether or not any males referred to women as "girl," but that could be because I may not have noticed it if they did.  I know for sure that women called women "girls" all the time, and that never struck me as wrong, so why would I react differently if a man said it?  After all, who do you think is teaching men how to speak?  Women are responsible for at least half of that, probably more.

So I believe that any response to change the usage needs to assume positive intent.  You can educate a person in better word choice without implying they are creeps.

[SKL]

Also, I want to point out that I do NOT consider "girl" to be a demeaning term.  I consider it too informal to be preferred in a professional setting.  "Demeaning" implies the person saying it is viewing the woman as less than based on her sex.  (Less than based on age or rank is a different thing - it is true I'm older and more experienced than the young woman who works for me, and there's nothing demeaning about that.)

[poppy]

10 minutes ago, SKL said:

The only offensive words I remember from my professional office days are "d-ck" and "pr-ck" (referring to people not in the room) and the occasional "f-ck" and "bullsh-t."  Also once my boss (older male) called me "honey," but I just thought it was amusing, and when I mentioned it later, he insisted it never happened - so I assume he did not even realize he said it.  It was late hours and maybe he had switched to "how we talk at home" mode.

I do not remember whether or not any males referred to women as "girl," but that could be because I may not have noticed it if they did.  I know for sure that women called women "girls" all the time, and that never struck me as wrong, so why would I react differently if a man said it?  After all, who do you think is teaching men how to speak?  Women are responsible for at least half of that, probably more.

So I believe that any response to change the usage needs to assume positive intent.  You can educate a person in better word choice without implying they are creeps.

 

Well, to be fair, I think that is what the OP was trying to do.  She did not say he was a creep, or bad person, or misogynist. She explained  a few reasons why the term is problematic.  There is no way to explain why it is problematic without saying why it is problematic, of course.   I think that counts as "educating a person in better word choice".

 

I would do it different, yes, I'd just say something like 'I'm sure you meant to say woman, since Brenda is an adult".  But I am sure that kind of reply or any other reference to the subtle sexism of "girl" would feel like an accusation to some men.  People here have said as much.

[SKL]

1 minute ago, poppy said:

 

Well, to be fair, I think that is what the OP was trying to do.  She did not say he was a creep, or bad person, or misogynist. She explained  a few reasons why the term is problematic.  There is no way to explain why it is problematic without saying why it is problematic, of course.   I think that counts as "educating a person in better word choice".

OK, to be fair, then OP needs to be educated in better word choice and better communication method choices.  Which this thread has done, I assume.  :)

There are so many ways to explain why women in an office prefer the term "woman" to "girl" without using miso-this or that-undertone.  Those words set off danger vibes and must be reserved for the worst offenses.  Most people are not creeps and will respond to a kindly worded suggestion.  Many better suggestions have been provided above.

[poppy]

Just now, SKL said:

OK, to be fair, then OP needs to be educated in better word choice and better communication method choices.  Which this thread has done, I assume.  :)

There are so many ways to explain why women in an office prefer the term "woman" to "girl" without using miso-this or that-undertone.  Those words set off danger vibes and must be reserved for the worst offenses.  Most people are not creeps and will respond to a kindly worded suggestion.  Many better suggestions have been provided above.

 

I just posted an edit that I would have done it differently. But it's also worth noting the hostility in this thread is not solely on her method.  "It's just another word for female" and talking about how "policing word choice" is at least as bad.   Based on this thread, I truly think there is no way for a woman to make this request without facingn some nasty judgements.

Now if a guy said it, jokingly, to another guy, that would be OK, of course.
So I guess the safest solution is to find a man and ask him to handle it.  A little ironic, but, there you go.

[SKL]

8 minutes ago, poppy said:

 

I just posted an edit that I would have done it differently. But it's also worth noting the hostility in this thread is not solely on her method.  "It's just another word for female" and talking about how "policing word choice" is at least as bad.   Based on this thread, I truly think there is no way for a woman to make this request without facingn some nasty judgements.

Now if a guy said it, jokingly, to another guy, that would be OK, of course.
So I guess the safest solution is to find a man and ask him to handle it.  A little ironic, but, there you go.

1) One person said "just another word for female."  You can't please everyone.  Are you looking for language that will please 100% of the humans alive today, or just something that sounds reasonable to most?

2) To your last sentence, this goes back to a very wise suggestion that has been made above.  If this is perceived as a problem in the workplace, go to HR and ask that the workplace be educated in proper terminology.  "Unless an employee or candidate is under 18, we do not refer to them as boys or girls.  In the workplace we refer to them as men and women."  That way there is no feeling of one person feeling put down by another (gender regardless) in order to instigate progress.

But then you have to be willing to forego women calling women girls, and also men being called guys or boys.

[poppy]

5 hours ago, SKL said:

1) One person said "just another word for female."  You can't please everyone.  Are you looking for language that will please 100% of the humans alive today, or just something that sounds reasonable to most?

2) To your last sentence, this goes back to a very wise suggestion that has been made above.  If this is perceived as a problem in the workplace, go to HR and ask that the workplace be educated in proper terminology.  "Unless an employee or candidate is under 18, we do not refer to them as boys or girls.  In the workplace we refer to them as men and women."  That way there is no feeling of one person feeling put down by another (gender regardless) in order to instigate progress.

But then you have to be willing to forego women calling women girls, and also men being called guys or boys.

 

The problem with this thread is that it's  basically  only been me  vs everyone so I thought it was safe to assume at least some tacit agreement. It would have been nice to get some backup a few times!

[Rosie_0801]

1 hour ago, poppy said:

 

The problem with this thread is that it's  basically  only been me  vs everyone so I thought it was safe to assume at least some tacit agreement. It would have been nice to get some backup a few times!

 

That's what you get by cherry picking posts.

[gardenmom5]

4 hours ago, poppy said:

 

The problem with this thread is that it's  basically  only been me  vs everyone so I thought it was safe to assume at least some tacit agreement. It would have been nice to get some backup a few times!

the "problem" as you call it - is your insistence you get to tell everyone else what we must find  acceptable or offensive.  if you want to take offense at a word in common usage - that's your choice.  you don't get to dictate to anyone else what we should "think" about anything.

and that really is what has been "the problem with this thread".