Stop Calling Grown Women "Girls"

[Wolf]

Are you claiming that chicago and Mayim Bialek, two individuals, speak for all women? Most of the adult females I know have no problem whatsoever with being referred to as girls. I've made sure not to refer to chicago as a girl since learning she didn't like it a while back. And I won't refer to Ms. Bialek as a girl either. 😉

Nope. Made no such claim.

 

[Sensualswitch10]

Nope. Made no such claim.

Uh huh. So when turtleboy said:

...the idea of a small minority or an individual making demands of the majority, based purely on their own opinion - individuals electing to speak on behalf of whole sections of society, and declaring certain words offensive or unfit for purpose. It's a trend that tends to antagonise people and lead to conflict.

And you reply quoted:

Women are a small minority of the people?
Do you live in a penal colony?

You weren't implying that chicago and Bialek get to speak for all women? Rokay. I guess we can agree to disagree.

 

[meangry]

Are you claiming that chicago and Mayim Bialek, two individuals, speak for all women? Most of the adult females I know have no problem whatsoever with being referred to as girls. I've made sure not to refer to chicago as a girl since learning she didn't like it a while back. And I won't refer to Ms. Bialek as a girl either. 😉

No. He made that comment in direct correspondence to the notion that turtleboy stated women are a small minority...which makes zero sense.

 

[meangry]

Again, I don't think most people would really have any problem with calling the OP what she wishes to be called.



This is the point that people disagree with. Women use the word all the time in relation to themselves and others. It's not an inherently demeaning term and unless it is being used in a patronising, condescending or otherwise insulting context, I don't see why it should suddenly be a problem. If it is, then someone probably needs to inform the rest of the female population so that they can adjust themselves accordingly.



So anyone who doesn't agree with the OP is a mansplaining, macho fuck, with penis issues? Good to know

Yeah, when they are edgelording and trying to puff out their chest to try and use some hamfisted attempt act intimidating through their keyboards.

Which you'd of easily gotten had you actually read and not attempted to cherry pick so you could feign outrage or concern at my tone. I notice you didn't touch on the etmology of the term girl, its age centrict connotations, and the methods on which we ascribe superiority through terminology such as this, or that informal contextual use of the word makes quite a bit of difference. And I get why...you just disagree with the whole thing, etmology or subconscious usage be damned.

 

[silverstar]

On the list of female ‘oppressions’, this doesn’t make the list. In other words, this shouldn’t be cared about.

That’s because the majority of people don’t.

Ever wonder why this was never a big deal until now? Because it’s not.

 

[turtleboy]

Women are a small minority of the people?
Do you live in a penal colony?

I thought you were willfully misunderstanding me but perhaps you do genuinely struggle to grasp simple statements that are clear to others.

For your sake, when I said:

You haven't once addressed the wider that people actually take exception to, which is the idea of a small minority or an individual making demands of the majority, based purely on their own opinion - individuals electing to speak on behalf of whole sections of society, and declaring certain words offensive or unfit for purpose. It's a trend that tends to antagonise people and lead to conflict.

I was referring to chicago (a minority or individual) electing to speak for the majority (of women). I think that was pretty clear, but you are a unique one.

Also, ignoring everything else I've said and just parroting the phrase 'I don't wanna' over and over again doesn't add any weight to anything you say. It has nothing to do with my views on the subject and is just an attempt to distract people from the fact that you have nothing substantial to add. Honestly, you could teach Scientology a thing or two about deflection and diversion tactics.

 

[turtleboy]

I notice you didn't touch on the etmology of the term girl, its age centrict connotations, and the methods on which we ascribe superiority through terminology such as this, or that informal contextual use of the word makes quite a bit of difference. And I get why...you just disagree with the whole thing, etmology or subconscious usage be damned.

No, I just couldn't be bothered to go through your whole tirade. I disagree because society disagrees with you on that one. As many people have pointed out, the term 'girl' is used widely throughout western society to describe women of varying ages, not just 'young girls'. Numerous examples of this have already been given so I won't repeat them again, but it's clear that many adult women refer to themselves and their peers as girls, so attempts to paint it as demeaning or a means of control, through implied superiority of age just don't hold up.

As has been stated repeatedly, context is everything. Any word or label can be applied in an offensive way but that doesn't then extend to all cases - the word 'woman' can also be applied in an offensive, demeaning or derogatory way and can be used to try and signal inferiority. It's the intention and context that actually counts, and you can't just declare a word unfit for purpose because one person or a small minority (for the benefit of yourself and Wolf: I am not referring to women as a minority) decide that it is. There is just no evidence that the majority of women are offended by the use of the word 'girl'.

Yeah, when they are edgelording and trying to puff out their chest to try and use some hamfisted attempt act intimidating through their keyboards.

Which you'd of easily gotten had you actually read and not attempted to cherry pick so you could feign outrage or concern at my tone.

I'm not feigning outrage. I'm pleased to say I'm not outraged in the slightest, which is why I'm not hurling abuse at those who disagree with my point of view.

 

[_virginie_]

Nah, sorry. I'm grown.

Also, this wasn't intended to stir anything up, for whatever that's worth. The reactions are fascinating though.

As far as the OED goes, there's also one definition of "girl" that is described as "a female servant." And I don't see anything in the definitions listed for OED that read "woman of any age."

View attachment 567961

Try the full OED, link is http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/78475. If you don't have access to it then you should be able to sign in through your local library.

This definition may not be the most useful in defense of the word as it was: "Attested earlier in (often derogatory) reference to women with respect to their occupation or social status: see senses 7 and 6." These two senses are prostitution and servant work, but do not that the word often is used, not always. However, another definition is the following:

"Used as a form of address to a girl or woman. See also my girl at my adj. 2a.Often (esp. in later use) in informal contexts, implying intimacy or friendship between the speaker and the person addressed." Note woman, which contradicts the claim that there is always an age element to the word girl, and intimacy or friendship.

I would be surprised if your local librarian cannot get you access, so you (and Wolf, if reading this) can check that I haven't just made something up and attributed it to the OED. My fault, I should have made it very clear where I was quoting from, especially as this is such a charged issue.

 

[Wolf]

I thought you were willfully misunderstanding me but perhaps you do genuinely struggle to grasp simple statements that are clear to others.
For your sake, when I said:
I was referring to chicago (a minority or individual) electing to speak for the majority (of women). I think that was pretty clear, but you are a unique one.
Also, ignoring everything else I've said and just parroting the phrase 'I don't wanna' over and over again doesn't add any weight to anything you say. It has nothing to do with my views on the subject and is just an attempt to distract people from the fact that you have nothing substantial to add. Honestly, you could teach Scientology a thing or two about deflection and diversion tactics.

It's actually very simple.
You don't want to argue against the request on a personal level, but you want to argue against everything about the request.
"I'm not telling you no, I just have a problem with everything about the way you asked."
You take issue with the OP "claiming to speak for all women", yet, you turn around and elect to speak for the majority of society, including women, in opposition.

A request was made, one damn sentence. Not hard to process.
You can choose to honor the request, or not.

"I don't wanna" is a simplification of your argument. It really should read, "I don't wanna, but I really don't want to have to justify why I don't wanna, so I'm going to take issue with everything about how the request was made."

Your stance, more than anyone else's, is comically illustrative about the problem the OP's post is talking about.

 

[Wolf]

Try the full OED, link is http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/78475. If you don't have access to it then you should be able to sign in through your local library.

This definition may not be the most useful in defense of the word as it was: "Attested earlier in (often derogatory) reference to women with respect to their occupation or social status: see senses 7 and 6." These two senses are prostitution and servant work, but do not that the word often is used, not always. However, another definition is the following:

"Used as a form of address to a girl or woman. See also my girl at my adj. 2a.Often (esp. in later use) in informal contexts, implying intimacy or friendship between the speaker and the person addressed." Note woman, which contradicts the claim that there is always an age element to the word girl, and intimacy or friendship.

I would be surprised if your local librarian cannot get you access, so you (and Wolf, if reading this) can check that I haven't just made something up and attributed it to the OED. My fault, I should have made it very clear where I was quoting from, especially as this is such a charged issue.

You also could have made it clear that you conveniently ignored the portion that would have proven the OP's point.

 

[turtleboy]

It's actually very simple.
You don't want to argue against the request on a personal level, but you want to argue against everything about the request.

No. As I've repeatedly stated, I have no problem with it on a personal level.

A request was made, one damn sentence. Not hard to process.
You can choose to honor the request, or not.

That isn't the part people have a problem with.

"I don't wanna" is a simplification of your argument. It really should read, "I don't wanna, but I really don't want to have to justify why I don't wanna, so I'm going to take issue with everything about how the request was made."

No - this is the point you keep trying to make. It has nothing at all to do with what I'm saying and you know it.

You take issue with the OP "claiming to speak for all women", yet, you turn around and elect to speak for the majority of society, including women, in opposition.

I'm just pointing out the facts. I.e. that there's no evidence for the OP's assertion in relation to the views of women as a whole and therefore no reason to blindly accept it. It's really simple - if society or a sub-section within society begins to find something objectionable then it has a way of making that known. One person on a forum deciding that a term is no longer acceptable to use, doesn't equate to that. I don't need to speak for the whole of society - the fact that most people (and perhaps women most of all) continue using the term to describe adult females in many contexts without any issue should speak volumes. Not to you obviously, but then you do have a special way of interpreting things.

 

[Wolf]

I'm just pointing out the facts. I.e. that there's no evidence for the OP's assertion in relation to the views of women as a whole and therefore no reason to blindly accept it. It's really simple - if society or a sub-section within society begins to find something objectionable then it has a way of making that known. One person on a forum deciding that a term is no longer acceptable to use, doesn't equate to that. I don't need to speak for the whole of society - the fact that most people (and perhaps women most of all) continue using the term to describe adult females in many contexts without any issue should speak volumes. Not to you obviously, but then you do have a special way of interpreting things.

The fact that "society in general" thinks something is okay is a matter of perspective.
I can think of lots of terms "society in general" has stopped using because enough people said something.
And, yes, "But they use it themselves, about each other" is a common argument.

 

[turtleboy]

The fact that "society in general" thinks something is okay is a matter of perspective.
I can think of lots of terms "society in general" has stopped using because enough people said something.

Exactly, society is quite capable of letting a word or phrase fall out of favour when enough people stop liking it - it doesn't really require an individual to decide that on it's behalf. I could decide that I find the term 'Brit' offensive as a way of describing an English person (I don't - it's just an example). Telling other people to stop using it however, would not be met with a very positive response unless it was clear that most (or at least a significant proportion of) others felt the same way. Particularly if English people continued to use the word interchangeably with other terms.

And, yes, "But they use it themselves, about each other" is a common argument.

Yes, because it makes sense.

 

[Wolf]

Exactly, society is quite capable of letting a word or phrase fall out of favour when enough people stop liking it - it doesn't really require an individual to decide that on it's behalf. I could decide that I find the term 'Brit' offensive as a way of describing an English person (I don't - it's just an example). Telling other people to stop using it however, would not be met with a very positive response unless it was clear that most (or at least a significant proportion of) others felt the same way. Particularly if English people continued to use the word interchangeably with other terms.

Words don't just fall out of favor magically. People have to speak up to urge people to stop saying them.
You really think "society" just decides to stop being shitty to people, with those people pushing them?

Yes, because it makes sense.

As long as you ignore context, and pretend everything is the way you see it, sure.

 

[turtleboy]

Words don't just fall out of favor magically. People have to speak up to urge people to stop saying them.
You really think "society" just decides to stop being shitty to people, with those people pushing them?

No one's saying it's magic. Social movements, and social changes happen when enough people feel the same way about an issue. Terms fall out of favour - sometimes rapidly, sometimes over time. An individual unilaterally declaring something unacceptable does not equal a movement, unless it is clear that others feel the same way. Chicago asks not to be referred to as a girl and people (myself included) can respect that on an individual level. If enough other females feel the same way then it gradually becomes something where society may adjust accordingly. You don't get that by one person simply telling everyone to stop. If that were the case, then we'd all be following the laws of Tumblr and having acceptable terms re-defined on a daily basis.

As long as you ignore context, and pretend everything is the way you see it, sure.

In this context it makes sense. Or do you really feel that in this instance, you and two other people should be deciding (on behalf of men and women alike) that 'girl' is no longer an acceptable term? Incidentally, nobody is saying that the term should be acceptable or applicable to every situation. As I have said many times, the context in which words are used is important.

 

[Wolf]

No one's saying it's magic. Social movements, and social changes happen when enough people feel the same way about an issue. Terms fall out of favour - sometimes rapidly, sometimes over time. An individual unilaterally declaring something unacceptable does not equal a movement, unless it is clear that others feel the same way. Chicago asks not to be referred to as a girl and people (myself included) can respect that on an individual level. If enough other females feel the same way then it gradually becomes something where society may adjust accordingly. You don't get that by one person simply telling everyone to stop. If that were the case, then we'd all be following the laws of Tumblr and having acceptable terms re-defined on a daily basis.

So, how many individuals does it take for you to decide it's a worthy opinion?

In this context it makes sense. Or do you really feel that in this instance, you and two other people should be deciding (on behalf of men and women alike) that 'girl' is no longer an acceptable term? Incidentally, nobody is saying that the term should be acceptable or applicable to every situation. As I have said many times, the context in which words are used is important.

You keep characterizing the issue as the OP, a video, and a couple of posters as one side, and You plus the rest of society as the other.
That's a bit presumptive, don't you think?

 

[turtleboy]

So, how many individuals does it take for you to decide it's a worthy opinion?

We're not talking about worthiness. Whether it's enough to say 'society feels this way and we need to change', would require more than one person and two followers though.

You keep characterizing the issue as the OP, a video, and a couple of posters as one side, and You plus the rest of society as the other.
That's a bit presumptive, don't you think?

I'm not characterising it as me and the rest of society - you're doing that.

The onus isn't on me or anyone else to prove you wrong. The OP is the one making the argument in the first place, and you and the angry guy are the ones attacking anyone who disagrees. If you want the argument to be taken seriously then the onus is on you or the OP to demonstrate that most women at least, feel the same way. As I said, if we just adjusted for whatever any individual decides is no longer acceptable then usable terms would have to be re-defined continually.

 

[Wolf]

We're not talking about worthiness. Whether it's enough to say 'society feels this way and we need to change', would require more than one person and two followers though.

You really think one side of the argument only has 3 people on it?
Really?
Or do you think the TMF is an accurate cross-section of society?

The onus isn't on me or anyone else to prove you wrong. The OP is the one making the argument in the first place, and you and the angry guy are the ones attacking anyone who disagrees. If you want the argument to be taken seriously then the onus is on you or the OP to demonstrate that most women at least, feel the same way. As I said, if we just adjusted for whatever any individual decides is no longer acceptable then usable terms would have to be re-defined continually.

As I've pointed out there's no onus on anyone to prove anything to you.
You don't wanna, you don't gotta.
But you're trying to ride the fence of arguing against the request while not arguing with the OP making the request.
That's a tough one, that takes a lot of circuitous logic.

 

[chicago]

This has been a topic of conversation since the 60s, to be fair. Mayim and myself are definitely not the first, or only, people to make this point.

TMF reflecting the real world would be a hilarious and terrifying idea if it were true.

 

[Cosmo_ac]

Frankly, I'm surprised this hasn't ended up in the politics forum yet.

Seems pretty simple to me. Refer to a person as you see best. If I know a person who is fine or enjoys being called something that is less then PC, and vice versa, that's between me and them. As pointed out, context is important.

How do I refer to strangers? Well, I try and be as less offensive as I can, but as i'm not a mind reader, I would hope that if I use a term that they find offensive (and there seems to be a lot these days depending on who you talk to) they point that out and I can talk with them and possibly readjust how I talk with them.

 

[_virginie_]

You also could have made it clear that you conveniently ignored the portion that would have proven the OP's point.

Not really, it isn't as clear cut, but it does still make clear that the world 'girl' doesn't always refer to youth. And 'often' is important to show it wasn't always derogatory, as I pointed out before. The point I was replying to was 'And I don't see anything in the definitions listed for OED that read "woman of any age."', and as you will have seen from now checking the OED, I omitted nothing which proves this point.

The second definition, which I trust you read as well but seem to have 'conveniently ignored', does show that there is a positive, age-neutral definition for the word girl. So context really is everything.

I also hope you can now see that I didn't just make something up on an internet forum. You may disagree with my interpretation, but screaming 'fake news' doesn't help anyone.

 

[Wolf]

Not really, it isn't as clear cut, but it does still make clear that the world 'girl' doesn't always refer to youth. And 'often' is important to show it wasn't always derogatory, as I pointed out before. The point I was replying to was 'And I don't see anything in the definitions listed for OED that read "woman of any age."', and as you will have seen from now checking the OED, I omitted nothing which proves this point.

The second definition, which I trust you read as well but seem to have 'conveniently ignored', does show that there is a positive, age-neutral definition for the word girl. So context really is everything.

I also hope you can now see that I didn't just make something up on an internet forum. You may disagree with my interpretation, but screaming 'fake news' doesn't help anyone.

Omitting information that goes against your contention isn't fake news. It's just disingenuous.

 

[meangry]

I like how apparently it is upon three people to argue in good faith when this thread is filled with people edgelording, ranting about PC culture in a manner that has very little to do with the topic, and others who are trying to have their cake an eat it too in regards to contextual use of the word.

And personally, I don't care if I am attacking the edgelords and the conservative dickheads in this thread. I hate those kinds of people. They add nothing. They come to a fetish board and shit it up with their politics, which seeps into everything. Being around so many beta males who clearly have sexual arrested development issues acting like self righteous incels does nothing for me. Those people are gross.

 

[silverstar]

Kind of like what you're doing?

 

[oldgeezer]

My final thoughts on this topic. "Stop calling women girls."

Without over thinking it...
Seems like a reasonable request for reasonable people.