Why is "ladies" politically incorrect?
Ray
I'm not a native speaker of English, so I was really surprised when I
got a mild admonition from my CTO for referring to an all-female
department as "ladies".
Basically I needed the help of that department, so in my mail to them I
wrote something like "Ladies, could you please help me with..."
My CTO (a guy) told me that it was not right, it was demeaning, blah
blah blah. I was wondering what should I have used then?! "Guys, please
help me with..."? "Girls"? I think a bunch of guys would be perfectly
OK with being referred to as "Gentlemen", right?
So how the heck is "Ladies" demeaning, exactly? What is not demeaning
then to refer to a group of women? "Women"? "Females"? "The Stronger
Bunch (oh sorry, "bunch" is surely demeaning) of The Species"?
"Grrrls"? "Honored Matres"?
Sheesh. As you can see I'm quite pissed. Sorry.
Adrian Bailey
news:1167198307.0...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
>
> I'm not a native speaker of English, so I was really surprised when I
> got a mild admonition from my CTO for referring to an all-female
> department as "ladies".
>
> Basically I needed the help of that department, so in my mail to them I
> wrote something like "Ladies, could you please help me with..."
>
> My CTO (a guy) told me that it was not right, it was demeaning, blah
> blah blah. I was wondering what should I have used then?! "Guys, please
> help me with..."? "Girls"? I think a bunch of guys would be perfectly
> OK with being referred to as "Gentlemen", right?
Not in your context. I guess you should use a term such as "colleagues".
Adrian
mb
Ray wrote:
> I'm not a native speaker of English, so I was really surprised when I
> got a mild admonition from my CTO for referring to an all-female
> department as "ladies".
There's no pleasing them nohow, so just forget it.
Harry Lethall
> got a mild admonition from my CTO for referring to an all-female
> department as "ladies".
>
> Basically I needed the help of that department, so in my mail to them I
> wrote something like "Ladies, could you please help me with..."
>
> My CTO (a guy) told me that it was not right, it was demeaning, blah
> blah blah. I was wondering what should I have used then?! "Guys, please
> help me with..."? "Girls"? I think a bunch of guys would be perfectly
> OK with being referred to as "Gentlemen", right?
At a working level, everyone is equal, according to their assigned
seniority. To observe and comment upon a difference in colour, creed, sex,
or religious denomination should be avoided. It is demeaning and can cause
insult.
Now if you were in an informal situation, such as the coffe room or office
party, then you probably would get away with it: it would probably be
welcomed.
The incident to which you refer could be regarded as an innocent error, or
just simply very, very minor. But in some circumstances it could be a major
issue. Women assembly workers on a factory floor may accept it or welcome
it, but professional businesswomen in a male-dominated business area may
well take exception to such "sexist" references.
Regards Harry
_______________
Whatever happened to the expression "You mind your own pints and quarts"?
mike.j...@gmail.com
Ray wrote:
> My CTO (a guy) told me that it was not right, it was demeaning, blah
> blah blah.
> Sheesh. As you can see I'm quite pissed. Sorry.
Ray, I sure am glad you don't work for me. If you did, it wouldn't be
for very long with (all) that attitude.
Default User
> Hello,
>
> I'm not a native speaker of English, so I was really surprised when I
> got a mild admonition from my CTO for referring to an all-female
> department as "ladies".
>
> Basically I needed the help of that department, so in my mail to them
> I wrote something like "Ladies, could you please help me with..."
>
> My CTO (a guy) told me that it was not right, it was demeaning, blah
> blah blah. I was wondering what should I have used then?! "Guys,
> please help me with..."? "Girls"? I think a bunch of guys would be
> perfectly OK with being referred to as "Gentlemen", right?
>
What would you have done if it were a department of both men and women?
Why didn't you use that phrasing? Why was the sex of the members at all
germane?
Brian
--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)
HVS
> Hello,
>
> I'm not a native speaker of English, so I was really surprised
> when I got a mild admonition from my CTO for referring to an
> all-female department as "ladies".
>
> Basically I needed the help of that department, so in my mail to
> them I wrote something like "Ladies, could you please help me
> with..."
>
> My CTO (a guy) told me that it was not right, it was demeaning,
> blah blah blah.
Your CTO is right. Why did you feel it was necessary to point out
the all-female composition of the department?
If the department had only black people in it, would you have
written "Blacks, could you please help me with..."?
> I was wondering what should I have used then?!
Colleagues, if any salutation was needed. But I don't see why an
intra-office e-mail to another department needs a collective
salutation.
> So how the heck is "Ladies" demeaning, exactly?
Because it categorises a personal attribute -- the fact that
they're female -- first and relegates what they *do* in your
organisation (technicians, managers, typists, accountants,
whatever) to second place.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van
mike.j...@gmail.com
HVS wrote:
> Your CTO is right. Why did you feel it was necessary to point out
> the all-female composition of the department?
>
> If the department had only black people in it, would you have
> written "Blacks, could you please help me with..."?
His CTO was possibly partly "covering his ass". Most corporations in
Western countries these days have communications policies. Unlike paper
memos, emails cannot be recalled or destroyed. If anything came of the
matter, part of any enquiry would focus on his response.
> > So how the heck is "Ladies" demeaning, exactly?
>
> Because it categorises a personal attribute -- the fact that
> they're female -- first and relegates what they *do* in your
> organisation (technicians, managers, typists, accountants,
> whatever) to second place.
>
I don't know about the US, but in the UK the word 'lady' has a history.
Little girls were taught by their mothers and other female relatives to
behave in a 'ladylike' fashion. A 'lady' was a prisoner in a gilded
cage who sat with her knees pressed together, who did not swear, take
long strides, lift heavy weights, talk in a loud voice, express an
opinion forcefully or in contradiction to a recently expressed male
opinion, drink beer from a pint glass, ask a man for a date, open a
door for herself, aspire to technical knowledge, appear without makeup,
etc etc. Many modern women feel patronized or demeaned or insulted,
therefore, when thus addressed.
Ray
mike.j...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ray, I sure am glad you don't work for me. If you did, it wouldn't be
> for very long with (all) that attitude.
The sentiment is mutual, I assure you.
Ray
Default User wrote:
> What would you have done if it were a department of both men and women?
> Why didn't you use that phrasing? Why was the sex of the members at all
> germane?
Usually I'd just say "guys" if it's a mix. I wasn't aware of the
(subtle) connotation behind what I thought to be just a neutral way of
addressing a group of people. I mean I couldn't have used "guys" to
address them, could I?
But yeah, I'll be using "colleagues" from now on I guess.
Thanks,
Ray
Ray
> > My CTO (a guy) told me that it was not right, it was demeaning,
> > blah blah blah.
>
> Your CTO is right. Why did you feel it was necessary to point out
> the all-female composition of the department?
No... it's just that using "guys" (which was what I'd ve used if the
department was a mix) would be strange, because it's a small department
of 3 and I know all of them personally.
> If the department had only black people in it, would you have
> written "Blacks, could you please help me with..."?
OK, I got your point... I should be more careful next time I suppose.
> > I was wondering what should I have used then?!
>
> Colleagues, if any salutation was needed. But I don't see why an
> intra-office e-mail to another department needs a collective
> salutation.
>
> > So how the heck is "Ladies" demeaning, exactly?
>
> Because it categorises a personal attribute -- the fact that
> they're female -- first and relegates what they *do* in your
> organisation (technicians, managers, typists, accountants,
> whatever) to second place.
Thanks Harvey,
Ray
Ray
mike.j...@gmail.com wrote:
> I don't know about the US, but in the UK the word 'lady' has a history.
> Little girls were taught by their mothers and other female relatives to
> behave in a 'ladylike' fashion. A 'lady' was a prisoner in a gilded
> cage who sat with her knees pressed together, who did not swear, take
> long strides, lift heavy weights, talk in a loud voice, express an
> opinion forcefully or in contradiction to a recently expressed male
> opinion, drink beer from a pint glass, ask a man for a date, open a
> door for herself, aspire to technical knowledge, appear without makeup,
> etc etc. Many modern women feel patronized or demeaned or insulted,
> therefore, when thus addressed.
Hmmm, I see. I didn't know this. So how would you address a female
then? My CTO is American, by the way.
qquito
When you speak to an audience in which there are both men and women,
you may address them as "ladies and gentlemen", but it does not sound
very appropriate to address them as "ladies" only---even when there are
only women in the audience.
I have noticed that when people send e-mails to a group of colleagues,
they start with "Hello, all", "Dear all", or "Hello, everyone", or
"Dear colleagues". Apparently, these salutations can be applied to an
all-female group as well as an all-male group without offending anyone.
--Roland
Ray wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm not a native speaker of English, so I was really surprised when I
> got a mild admonition from my CTO for referring to an all-female
> department as "ladies".
> ......
Ray
qquito wrote:
> This is an interesting question.
>
> When you speak to an audience in which there are both men and women,
> you may address them as "ladies and gentlemen", but it does not sound
> very appropriate to address them as "ladies" only---even when there are
> only women in the audience.
Yes, unfortunately this was not something I was aware of. Heck, I
thought I was being *nice* by calling them ladies :)
> I have noticed that when people send e-mails to a group of colleagues,
> they start with "Hello, all", "Dear all", or "Hello, everyone", or
> "Dear colleagues". Apparently, these salutations can be applied to an
> all-female group as well as an all-male group without offending anyone.
Thanks Roland, I'd better stick to gender-neutral salutations from now
on...
Cheers
Ray
>
> --Roland
Ray
> At a working level, everyone is equal, according to their assigned
> seniority. To observe and comment upon a difference in colour, creed, sex,
> or religious denomination should be avoided. It is demeaning and can cause
> insult.
>
> Now if you were in an informal situation, such as the coffe room or office
> party, then you probably would get away with it: it would probably be
> welcomed.
>
> The incident to which you refer could be regarded as an innocent error, or
> just simply very, very minor. But in some circumstances it could be a major
> issue. Women assembly workers on a factory floor may accept it or welcome
> it, but professional businesswomen in a male-dominated business area may
> well take exception to such "sexist" references.
Thanks Harry! That is a very good explanation.
Regards,
Ray
LFS
> Default User wrote:
>
>>What would you have done if it were a department of both men and women?
>>Why didn't you use that phrasing? Why was the sex of the members at all
>>germane?
>
>
> Usually I'd just say "guys" if it's a mix. I wasn't aware of the
> (subtle) connotation behind what I thought to be just a neutral way of
> addressing a group of people. I mean I couldn't have used "guys" to
> address them, could I?
> But yeah, I'll be using "colleagues" from now on I guess.
>
I'd be interested to know what your female colleagues thought about your
mode of address. It wouldn't particularly bother me to be addressed thus
and from what you say I'd guess you were just trying to be polite. I'm
sure that it's a good thing for us all to be aware of how we address
others and to aim for respectfulness but much depends on context and tone.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Ray
> I'd be interested to know what your female colleagues thought about your
> mode of address. It wouldn't particularly bother me to be addressed thus
> and from what you say I'd guess you were just trying to be polite. I'm
> sure that it's a good thing for us all to be aware of how we address
> others and to aim for respectfulness but much depends on context and tone.
Well actually after the admonition I went to ask them personally how
they felt about that, just to make sure that they were OK because it
would really suck if what I thought to be a nice salutation actually
offended them!
One said she didn't even notice it. One said, no biggie, don't worry
about it (so I guess it actually *could* be offensive in a way, just
that she knew I didn't mean it that way). I didn't manage to talk to
the other one though.
Oh well. At least I learned something new today.
Cheers
Ray
LFS
I think that's admirable behaviour and I don't see why any sensible
woman would take offence under such circumstances.
Mike Barnes
>What is not demeaning then to refer to a group of women?
The problem is not so much the term you used, as your gratuitous
reference to their all being women. Their sex is personal information
that is not relevant to the [work] context, so don't mention it. Address
them exactly as you would a mixed-sex group.
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England
Brad Germolene
wrought:
Isn't the major piece of demeaning going on the dodgy management that
has presumably engineered an all-female department, or at least
passively allowed it to occur, rather than how a low-level employer
might choose to address them? And why do I suspect that department
isn't the engineering department? By all means point the finger at sex
discrimination, but choose the right targets!
As for this specific case, would you criticise someone for addressing
an e-mail to an all-male department with "Fellas...", "Gentlemen", or
"Hey, guys...."? If not, what on earth is wrong with Ray's
neutral-tending-towards-affectionately-respectful "Ladies"?
--
Brad Germolene
ADVANCE REMONIKERIZATION ALERT: Archie Valparaiso is
coming (to stay, I promise) in January 2007.
LFS
Read on. The department in question consists of three women. I can
imagine that it could be quite a challenge to maintain an even gender
balance therein.
And, having been a token woman at one point in my working life, I can
tell you that there is little more demeaning than that.
>
> As for this specific case, would you criticise someone for addressing
> an e-mail to an all-male department with "Fellas...", "Gentlemen", or
> "Hey, guys...."? If not, what on earth is wrong with Ray's
> neutral-tending-towards-affectionately-respectful "Ladies"?
>
--
HVS
> On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 08:30:23 GMT, HVS <harve...@ntlworld.com>
> wrought:
>> On 27 Dec 2006, Ray wrote
>>
>> Because it categorises a personal attribute -- the fact that
>> they're female -- first and relegates what they *do* in your
>> organisation (technicians, managers, typists, accountants,
>> whatever) to second place.
>
> Isn't the major piece of demeaning going on the dodgy management
> that has presumably engineered an all-female department, or at
> least passively allowed it to occur, rather than how a low-level
> employer might choose to address them? And why do I suspect that
> department isn't the engineering department? By all means point
> the finger at sex discrimination, but choose the right targets!
>
> As for this specific case, would you criticise someone for
> addressing an e-mail to an all-male department with "Fellas...",
> "Gentlemen", or "Hey, guys...."?
I'd like to think I would.
I don't see that as simply acknowledging the fact of single-sex
staffing: there's also as an unstated assumption that a girly
couldn't possibly be included in that group.
Brad Germolene
<la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrought:
I find it quite telling that none of the women in question did take
offence: it was, quite typically, a busybody manager who -- no doubt
in the name of "maintaining HR harmony" -- saw fit to stick a spanner
in the works.
I also applaud Ray. He was puzzled by why he got a wrist slap for
being what he (not wrongly) thought was courteous and friendly to a
group of cow-orkers, and came here for some background. For his pains
he was treated by several posters as if he were some kind of Victorian
relic and by one as undeserving of unemployment. (Interestingly, the
only person to find his puzzlement understandable was a woman.)
Where is the limit for all this nonsense? By accident rather than
design English has no sex-specific third person pronoun, so I wonder
how long it'll be before "he", "she", "him", "his" and "hers" are
no-noed because they unnecessarily draw attention to the sex of the
person referred to.
If a piece about Hillary Clinton referred to "her aspirations" to
become the Democratic candidate for the US presidency, why wouldn't
that be classed as being just as "offensive" and "gratuitously
gender-specific" as Ray's pleasant, utterly inoccuous and quite
appropriate (in a sane world at least) "Ladies"?
Robert Lieblich
>
> In alt.usage.english, Ray wrote:
> >What is not demeaning then to refer to a group of women?
>
> The problem is not so much the term you used, as your gratuitous
> reference to their all being women. Their sex is personal information
> that is not relevant to the [work] context,
On the other hand, few people make a secret of which sex they belong
to. I understand that the modern American workplace is a minefield of
political correctness, but I don't understand why it's such a big deal
to approach a group of three women and say something that indicates
they are all actually female. Okay, I wouldn't go quite as far as
"Hey, youse broads!" But taking offense at a polite "Ladies ..."
seems to me to reflect a set of chips on shoulders.
Still, when you have people taking offense at the likes of
"niggardly," 'tis better to be safe than sorry.
If it's only three people (as seems to be the case here), I'd just use
their names: "Gladys, Phyllis, Griselda -- Could one of you help me
..."
[ ... ]
--
Bob Lieblich
Trying to resist the worst of PC
HVS
> On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 10:28:29 +0000, LFS
><la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrought:
>
>> Ray wrote:
>>
>>> LFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd be interested to know what your female colleagues thought
>>>> about your mode of address. It wouldn't particularly bother
>>>> me to be addressed thus and from what you say I'd guess you
>>>> were just trying to be polite. I'm sure that it's a good
>>>> thing for us all to be aware of how we address others and to
>>>> aim for respectfulness but much depends on context and tone.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well actually after the admonition I went to ask them
>>> personally how they felt about that, just to make sure that
>>> they were OK because it would really suck if what I thought to
>>> be a nice salutation actually offended them!
>>>
>>> One said she didn't even notice it. One said, no biggie, don't
>>> worry about it (so I guess it actually *could* be offensive in
>>> a way, just that she knew I didn't mean it that way). I didn't
>>> manage to talk to the other one though.
>>>
>>> Oh well. At least I learned something new today.
>>>
>>
>> I think that's admirable behaviour and I don't see why any
>> sensible woman would take offence under such circumstances.
>
> I find it quite telling that none of the women in question did
> take offence:
Well, except that -- as Ray carefully noted -- one out of the two
women he asked didn't say that it was *inoffensive*, she said it
wasn't a big deal so don't worry about it.
I'd read a pretty clear sub-text into that: that whilst it wasn't
in this case, in some other situations it might well be a big deal
and you should worry about it.
mike.j...@gmail.com
Robert Lieblich wrote:
> I understand that the modern American workplace is a minefield of
> political correctness, but I don't understand why it's such a big deal
> to approach a group of three women and say something that indicates
> they are all actually female. Okay, I wouldn't go quite as far as
> "Hey, youse broads!" But taking offense at a polite "Ladies ..."
> seems to me to reflect a set of chips on shoulders.
Have you ever worked in an office? A verbal greeting to a group of
women with whom you are on friendly terms is quite different from
sending an internal email via company channels to a department which
merely happens to be staffed entirely by females.
Mike Barnes
>Mike Barnes wrote:
>>
>> In alt.usage.english, Ray wrote:
>> >What is not demeaning then to refer to a group of women?
>>
>> The problem is not so much the term you used, as your gratuitous
>> reference to their all being women. Their sex is personal information
>> that is not relevant to the [work] context,
>
>On the other hand, few people make a secret of which sex they belong
>to. I understand that the modern American workplace is a minefield of
>political correctness, but I don't understand why it's such a big deal
>to approach a group of three women and say something that indicates
>they are all actually female.
But he didn't approach a group: this was mail. I can understand why
someone would be surprised that a writer felt it appropriate to mention
the sex of his intended readers, as if that was somehow important.
Tony Cooper
>Hello,
>
>I'm not a native speaker of English, so I was really surprised when I
>got a mild admonition from my CTO for referring to an all-female
>department as "ladies".
>
>Basically I needed the help of that department, so in my mail to them I
>wrote something like "Ladies, could you please help me with..."
>
>My CTO (a guy) told me that it was not right, it was demeaning, blah
>blah blah. I was wondering what should I have used then?! "Guys, please
>help me with..."? "Girls"? I think a bunch of guys would be perfectly
>OK with being referred to as "Gentlemen", right?
>
>So how the heck is "Ladies" demeaning, exactly? What is not demeaning
>then to refer to a group of women? "Women"? "Females"? "The Stronger
>Bunch (oh sorry, "bunch" is surely demeaning) of The Species"?
>"Grrrls"? "Honored Matres"?
>
>Sheesh. As you can see I'm quite pissed. Sorry.
You've had a number of replies on the "Ladies..." issue, but what
strikes me about this is that you were either unable or unwilling to
ask the CTO why he considered the greeting inappropriate and what he
would suggest as an alternative.
You said his admonition was "mild", so I assume that he was reasonable
about it in the "blah, blah, blah"s. Is the CTO so unapproachable
that you can't just say "I understand your point, Charlie, but what
term would you suggest I use?"
I suspect his reply would indicate that no term at all should be used,
but it serves you better for future memos if you make an effort to
learn how he thinks.
What is a "CTO", by the way? Chief Training Officer? Commanding
Terminology Official? Critical Term Objector?
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL
Marius Hancu
Tony Cooper wrote:
>
> What is a "CTO", by the way? Chief Training Officer? Commanding
> Terminology Official? Critical Term Objector?
Good question.
Marius Hancu
HVS
I wondered too; FWIW, my guess is "Chief Technical Officer".
Brad Germolene
wrought:
I'm sure that's true, but if I found myself in a workplace where
something like that happened to me, the biggest deal would be that I'd
be looking for a different workplace PDQ.
Let's look at this in a bit more depth. Let's say three people are
each making a presentation to a group of five people. The first group
of presentees (?) is composed of three women and two men. The
presentation begins, "Good morning, ladies and gentlemen...."
Offensive? Nope. (I hope.)
The second group is composed of five men. The presentation begins,
"Good morning, gentlemen...." Offensive? Nope.
The third group is composed of five women. The presentation begins,
"Good morning, ladies." Offensive? Apparently, yep. (I groan.)
So what is the third presenter to do? The probable answer we'd get
would be that she (yes, she -- betcha thought the presenter was a man,
eh?) should say nothing that draws attention to the unfortunate,
distressing and potentially explosive situation of being faced with a
group of women. But by choosing that route while allowing the other
two presenters to go ahead with their original scripts, we'd be
countenancing selective treatment based on gender just as much as if
the third presentation had begun, "Yo, bitches!"
And why stop there? If Ladies is out, why not do away with the
unnecessarily gender-specific "Mr" and "Ms" and call each other
"Comrade"? And why stop there? Why do we continue to infict upon poor,
innocent children the ghastly trauma of having to bear gender-specific
names?
At the end of the day (Brian), words and names and terms of address
don't matter at all. If you phone a firm to speak to someone called
Sandra and someone called Arthur you can safely expect the former to
have a higher pitched boice than the latter. That's gender-marking but
it's not a problem. No, the problem is that you can also safely expect
Sandra to be the secretary who puts you through to arthur, the
manager. That's not gender-marking; it's sexism in action and it's
still rife. Only when it's been swept completely from all walks of
life should we worry about such piffling trifles as whether it's
acceptable, borderline or a hanging offence to address a group of
women as "Ladies".
HVS
> Let's look at this in a bit more depth. Let's say three people
> are each making a presentation to a group of five people. The
> first group of presentees (?) is composed of three women and two
> men. The presentation begins, "Good morning, ladies and
> gentlemen...." Offensive? Nope. (I hope.)
>
> The second group is composed of five men. The presentation
> begins, "Good morning, gentlemen...." Offensive? Nope.
>
> The third group is composed of five women. The presentation
> begins, "Good morning, ladies." Offensive? Apparently, yep. (I
> groan.)
>
> So what is the third presenter to do?
Easy: it's what all three of them should do:
"Good morning. Today I'm going to tell you about..."
> The probable answer we'd
> get would be that she (yes, she -- betcha thought the presenter
> was a man, eh?) should say nothing that draws attention to the
> unfortunate, distressing and potentially explosive situation of
> being faced with a group of women. But by choosing that route
> while allowing the other two presenters to go ahead with their
> original scripts,
Well, you might be happy ignoring the other two presenters -- but
as I've noted, I'd rewrite their scripts, too.
Anyway, you've switched the discussion from written salutations to
face-to-face communication. They allow different levels of
acceptable formality; different protocols apply.
Leslie Danks
> On 27 Dec 2006, Marius Hancu wrote
>
>>
>> Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>
>>> What is a "CTO", by the way? Chief Training Officer? Commanding
>>> Terminology Official? Critical Term Objector?
>>
>> Good question.
>
> I wondered too; FWIW, my guess is "Chief Technical Officer".
What about: Compulsory Transgenderisation Officer
--
Les
Leslie Danks
> On 27 Dec 2006, Marius Hancu wrote
>
>>
>> Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>
>>> What is a "CTO", by the way? Chief Training Officer? Commanding
>>> Terminology Official? Critical Term Objector?
>>
>> Good question.
>
> I wondered too; FWIW, my guess is "Chief Technical Officer".
What about: Compulsory Transgenderisation Officer
--
Les
Leslie Danks
> On 27 Dec 2006, Marius Hancu wrote
>
>>
>> Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>
>>> What is a "CTO", by the way? Chief Training Officer? Commanding
>>> Terminology Official? Critical Term Objector?
>>
>> Good question.
>
> I wondered too; FWIW, my guess is "Chief Technical Officer".
What about: Compulsory Transgenderisation Officer
--
Les
Brad Germolene
<r_s_li...@yahoo.com> wrought:
>Mike Barnes wrote:
>>
>> In alt.usage.english, Ray wrote:
>> >What is not demeaning then to refer to a group of women?
>>
>> The problem is not so much the term you used, as your gratuitous
>> reference to their all being women. Their sex is personal information
>> that is not relevant to the [work] context,
>If it's only three people (as seems to be the case here), I'd just use
>their names: "Gladys, Phyllis, Griselda -- Could one of you help me
>..."
But why even mention three names that are clearly gender-marked --
making it quite clear that three women are being addressed -- instead
of getting the same result by using the much more concise "Ladies"?
And would you also begin an e-mail to a department staffed by three
men with "Gary, Phil, Graham -- Could one of you help me..." instead
of "Gentlemen/guys/fellas, could one of you..."?
Wood Avens
wrote:
>But why even mention three names that are clearly gender-marked --
>making it quite clear that three women are being addressed -- instead
>of getting the same result by using the much more concise "Ladies"?
>
>And would you also begin an e-mail to a department staffed by three
>men with "Gary, Phil, Graham -- Could one of you help me..." instead
>of "Gentlemen/guys/fellas, could one of you..."?
Come on. You're addressing them individually, just as you would if
their names were Chris, Sandy and Alex.
I think you're winding us up. No-one of the perspicacity and wit of
the real Brad Germolene could be seriously sitting there and telling
us that they're not aware that "Ladies" can have patronising and
derogatory overtones, while "Gentlemen" doesn't. Not in all cases,
and it depends on who's saying it and how and on their relationship to
the group; but it's enough that avoiding it, if in doubt and
especially in professional situations, is simply good manners and
diplomacy.
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Ray
HVS wrote:
> On 27 Dec 2006, Marius Hancu wrote
>
> >
> > Tony Cooper wrote:
> >>
> >> What is a "CTO", by the way? Chief Training Officer? Commanding
> >> Terminology Official? Critical Term Objector?
> >
> > Good question.
>
> I wondered too; FWIW, my guess is "Chief Technical Officer".
Tony, Harvey's right. It's Chief Technical Officer. Well, the truth is,
I didn't get so emotional just because of this incident. It was a long
string of incidents going way back and I guess all that frustration
somehow came bubbling up when I was describing this last one.
Cheers
Ray
Brad Germolene
<wood...@askjennison.com> wrought:
It's a ranty sort of day, innit.
Still, it's not really a wind-up (though I will admit that I may have
been arguing with more vigour than I really think the subject
deserves), because I am genuinely perplexed about why so much
attention is paid these days to the skin of the gender beast rather
than its muscle. Language is the skin, while the muscle is made up of
the genuine inequalities that still abound in our societies, despite
our penchant for kidding ourselves that we live in Wunnerful
Multiculchral Equal Opportunity Knocks, when in fact in many walks of
life we're still stuck firmly in the 1950s.
If, for example, someone at a large car dealership sent an intranet
message to the maintenance workshop that began, "Lads, we've got
another problem with that woman who bought that electric-blue
Mondeo"", I suspect that a manager of the same school as Ray's boss
would object to the use of "woman" instead of the gender-neutral
"customer", while the core (hi, Vin!) problem for society of all the
maintenance workers being all young male (the lads" referred to) while
the telephonists are female remains unconsidered and unchallenged.
That's the only point I'm -- albeit clumsily --making: let's spend our
energy on addressing the real issues rather than issuing edicts on
terms of address.
UC
Ray wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm not a native speaker of English, so I was really surprised when I
> got a mild admonition from my CTO for referring to an all-female
> department as "ladies".
Tell him to shove it.
> Basically I needed the help of that department, so in my mail to them I
> wrote something like "Ladies, could you please help me with..."
It's perfectly correct if, in fact, all are female.
> My CTO (a guy) told me that it was not right, it was demeaning, blah
> blah blah.
Tell himn to shove it.
> I was wondering what should I have used then?! "Guys, please
> help me with..."? "Girls"? I think a bunch of guys would be perfectly
> OK with being referred to as "Gentlemen", right?
Right.
>
> So how the heck is "Ladies" demeaning, exactly?
It isn't.
> What is not demeaning
> then to refer to a group of women? "Women"? "Females"? "The Stronger
> Bunch (oh sorry, "bunch" is surely demeaning) of The Species"?
> "Grrrls"? "Honored Matres"?
>
> Sheesh. As you can see I'm quite pissed. Sorry.
Don't be sorry.
Ray
> It's a ranty sort of day, innit.
>
> Still, it's not really a wind-up (though I will admit that I may have
> been arguing with more vigour than I really think the subject
> deserves), because I am genuinely perplexed about why so much
> attention is paid these days to the skin of the gender beast rather
> than its muscle. Language is the skin, while the muscle is made up of
> the genuine inequalities that still abound in our societies, despite
> our penchant for kidding ourselves that we live in Wunnerful
> Multiculchral Equal Opportunity Knocks, when in fact in many walks of
> life we're still stuck firmly in the 1950s.
>
> If, for example, someone at a large car dealership sent an intranet
> message to the maintenance workshop that began, "Lads, we've got
> another problem with that woman who bought that electric-blue
> Mondeo"", I suspect that a manager of the same school as Ray's boss
> would object to the use of "woman" instead of the gender-neutral
> "customer", while the core (hi, Vin!) problem for society of all the
> maintenance workers being all young male (the lads" referred to) while
> the telephonists are female remains unconsidered and unchallenged.
>
> That's the only point I'm -- albeit clumsily --making: let's spend our
> energy on addressing the real issues rather than issuing edicts on
> terms of address.
If I could agree more I would. I'm glad I couldn't agree more with
this.
Thanks Brad,
Ray
Pat Durkin
"Ray" <ray_u...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167211967.8...@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>
> mike.j...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I don't know about the US, but in the UK the word 'lady' has a
>> history.
>> Little girls were taught by their mothers and other female relatives
>> to
>> behave in a 'ladylike' fashion. A 'lady' was a prisoner in a gilded
>> cage who sat with her knees pressed together, who did not swear, take
>> long strides, lift heavy weights, talk in a loud voice, express an
>> opinion forcefully or in contradiction to a recently expressed male
>> opinion, drink beer from a pint glass, ask a man for a date, open a
>> door for herself, aspire to technical knowledge, appear without
>> makeup,
>> etc etc. Many modern women feel patronized or demeaned or insulted,
>> therefore, when thus addressed.
>
> Hmmm, I see. I didn't know this. So how would you address a female
> then? My CTO is American, by the way.
In the US it is just about the same history. I can recall my Mom
quoting other supervisors of female behavior (her mother and aunts and
all the neighbor women):
Whistling girls and crowing hens
Never will come to a good end.
She whistled beautifully, but always recalled how the many restrictions
on her behavior as a child in the 1930s caused her to be rebellious. As
a mother, she insisted on her independence, having her own job, and her
share in determining how the money was spent. She never corrected our
sisters, for example, about only crossing their legs at the ankles.
That would be in the '50s and '60s. She _would_ point out, however, if
their underpants were showing. Morality was one thing, manners another.
I think she was very happy when levis, slacks and shorts became common
wear for girls. By the '70s they even became acceptable in school and
church. (When my younger sisters played "skin the cat" on the
playground in the '50s, I am sure she thought of morality, but also of
how dirty or clean the underwear was. I could never do that, and just
thought of their falling and breaking their necks!)
>
Wood Avens
wrote:
>That's the only point I'm -- albeit clumsily --making: let's spend our
>energy on addressing the real issues rather than issuing edicts on
>terms of address.
I don't disagree with this, but it's suspiciously reminiscent of the
line taken by various chaps I remember from my activist days in the
70s, who thought that overthrowing oppressive political systems was
much more important than addressing the inequalities between the
sexes, and meanwhile continued to expect the women to make the tea and
keep quiet. (And fulfil other desirable roles.)
The two are synergistic. It's not just that doing one is not an
excuse for failing to do the other, it's that denying legitimacy to
the small details undermines your efforts to deal with the apparently
larger issues, of which the small details are symptoms.
R H Draney
>
>On 27 Dec 2006, Ray wrote
>
>
>intra-office e-mail to another department needs a collective
>salutation.
Address them as "Workers" or "Employees" and see how far that gets you....
>> So how the heck is "Ladies" demeaning, exactly?
>
>Because it categorises a personal attribute -- the fact that
>they're female -- first and relegates what they *do* in your
>organisation (technicians, managers, typists, accountants,
>whatever) to second place.
How about collectively addressing that all-female department as "Gentlemen",
then?...after all, we're now being told that Kate Winslet or whoever is an
"actor" and we shouldn't make gender distinctions in the terminology...and make
sure you always use "he" to refer to an individual person, be that person
concave or convex....
And take the signs off the washroom doors...they're offensive....r
--
"Keep your eye on the Bishop. I want to know when
he makes his move", said the Inspector, obliquely.
Vinny Burgoo
[...]
>I think a bunch of guys would be perfectly OK with being referred to as
>"Gentlemen", right?
Not necessarily. In chippy prole-proud Britain, some men object to being
called gentlemen on class grounds, even when the term is applied as a
meaningless formulaic courtesy.
Cashier: "Who's next?"
Customer 1: "This gentleman was next." (ObAUE: Why is it usually "was"
rather than "is"? Is it usually "was" rather than "is"?)
Customer 2: "Gentleman? Working-class and proud of it, nine of us slept
in an outside toilet and we didn't see a banana until the Suez Crisis
and that Thatcher was a witch and when I was in the army I had to slice
Parma ham by hand for the bloody la-di-da officers, and who the bloody
hell did they think they were, it took bloody hours, and they just
scoffed it down like it was bacon or something, and the Other Ranks
never got bloody Parma ham, did they, no, and another thing ..."
>So how the heck is "Ladies" demeaning, exactly?
If you were British, I'd say it was all down to Gerald Harper. Back in
the 1970s, the ladies considered him the acme of male perfection. All he
had to do was peer down his long nose and drawl his catchphrase,
"Champagne and roses [pron.: 'rose-ears'] for the ladies ['lay-dears']",
for the poor little things to fall in swoon. But the ladies are a bit
embarrassed by him these days and don't like to be reminded of how they
allowed themselves to be seduced by his glib charms. The word "lady" is
such a reminder.
But you're not, so I can't help you, I'm afraid. (Unless it's something
to do with Sir Barry White.)
--
V
LFS
> In alt.usage.english, Ray wrote:
>> So how the heck is "Ladies" demeaning, exactly?
>
>
> If you were British, I'd say it was all down to Gerald Harper. Back in
> the 1970s, the ladies considered him the acme of male perfection. All he
> had to do was peer down his long nose and drawl his catchphrase,
> "Champagne and roses [pron.: 'rose-ears'] for the ladies ['lay-dears']",
> for the poor little things to fall in swoon. But the ladies are a bit
> embarrassed by him these days and don't like to be reminded of how they
> allowed themselves to be seduced by his glib charms. The word "lady" is
> such a reminder.
<swoon> I had forgotten Hadleigh, thank you for that. That Richard
Armitage who plays Guy of Gisburne is rather along the same lines - and
far more attractive than the rather wimpy Robin H.
Whoops, I realise I'm being frightfully unladylike! If you gents posted
material like that, we'd report you...
>
> But you're not, so I can't help you, I'm afraid. (Unless it's something
> to do with Sir Barry White.)
>
--
mb
mike.j...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ray wrote:
>
> > My CTO (a guy) told me that it was not right, it was demeaning, blah
> > blah blah.
>
>
> for very long with (all) that attitude.
Very short sample, really, but enough to wonder how anyone at all would
work under you. Apart from the starving ones who cannot get any other
job.
Don Phillipson
> So how the heck is "Ladies" demeaning, exactly?
No, you missed the point, which is that your supervisor
has become so hypersensitive as to be ready to think
any sex-identifiable word is demeaning.
A favourite story demonstrating this concerns a
Communist-organized conference at the Waldorf-
Astoria hotel in New York in the 1940s. People
paraded outside demonstrating, some for and some
against, so the police riot squad arrived, and a cop
challenged one demonstrator. "But I am one of the
anti-Communists," he or she said. "I don't care what
sort of Communist you are," said the cop, and
bludgeoned the citizen.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Don Phillipson
news:Xns98A656EF...@62.253.170.163...
> > So how the heck is "Ladies" demeaning, exactly?
>
> Because it categorises a personal attribute -- the fact that
> they're female -- first and relegates what they *do* in your
> organisation (technicians, managers, typists, accountants,
> whatever) to second place.
This is an unsafe rule. People address all-male groups
as "Gentlemen". When the colonel tells his officers,
"Gentlemen, tomorrow we must capture Hill 123" he
is using the simplest convention for address. He is
not demeaning the people in front of him, or condemning
the people not in front of him -- and nor is a manager
addressing an all-female group as "Ladies."
These days, any paranoid sociologist is free to argue
that this social convention is an implicit
polemic against female officers, but we need not
treat it seriously. Ministers address their
flock as "Brothers and sisters in Christ" but this old
rubric is not a manifesto against any unmentioned
group (e.g. sons and daughters in Christ.) Sometimes
a cigar is only a cigar.
HVS
> "HVS" <harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns98A656EF...@62.253.170.163...
>
>>> So how the heck is "Ladies" demeaning, exactly?
>>
>> Because it categorises a personal attribute -- the fact that
>> they're female -- first and relegates what they *do* in your
>> organisation (technicians, managers, typists, accountants,
>> whatever) to second place.
>
> This is an unsafe rule. People address all-male groups
> as "Gentlemen". When the colonel tells his officers,
> "Gentlemen, tomorrow we must capture Hill 123" he
> is using the simplest convention for address. He is
> not demeaning the people in front of him, or condemning
> the people not in front of him -- and nor is a manager
> addressing an all-female group as "Ladies."
As Katy has pointed out elsethread, "Ladies" carries social baggage
that "Gentlemen" doesn't.
Regardless of what you might wish the case to be, they're simply not
terms of equal neutrality.
Skitt
> Don Phillipson wrote
>> "HVS" wrote:
[someone had asked:]
>>>> So how the heck is "Ladies" demeaning, exactly?
>>>
>>> Because it categorises a personal attribute -- the fact that
>>> they're female -- first and relegates what they *do* in your
>>> organisation (technicians, managers, typists, accountants,
>>> whatever) to second place.
>>
>> This is an unsafe rule. People address all-male groups
>> as "Gentlemen". When the colonel tells his officers,
>> "Gentlemen, tomorrow we must capture Hill 123" he
>> is using the simplest convention for address. He is
>> not demeaning the people in front of him, or condemning
>> the people not in front of him -- and nor is a manager
>> addressing an all-female group as "Ladies."
>
> As Katy has pointed out elsethread, "Ladies" carries social baggage
> that "Gentlemen" doesn't.
>
> Regardless of what you might wish the case to be, they're simply not
> terms of equal neutrality.
Well, the terms are equal, but the trouble is that some things are more
equal than others.
--
Skitt
Like you say... a idea what unclips every blind
flask of unspired geraniums what ever I is had.
--Churchy La Femme
Jitze Couperus
>
>mike.j...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Ray, I sure am glad you don't work for me. If you did, it wouldn't be
>> for very long with (all) that attitude.
>
>The sentiment is mutual, I assure you.
>
Seconded - having to work for somebody with that attitude
and length of toes (especially when the judgement is predicated
on such a small sample) is a recipe for misery.
During my career in the big corporate world, we were
plagued on an annual basis by obligatory innoculations.
These were mandated by The Ladies (sic) in HR who earned
their keep by hiring expensive consultants to deliver sermons on
on the PC topic-du-jour. Then one year the troops revolted
and demanded a class on how to deal with "the toxic manager".
Under some pressure, HR acquiesced and the class was duly
delivered - and obligatory post-class questionnaires handed out
and returned for evaluation by the independent consultant with
a follw-up report. The uproar and reverberations that ensued
were a delight. A corporate enema was then administered
with a most salutory effect. Staff turn-over in the next few
years was reduced by over 50% while managerial overhead
was also trimmed by a useful percentage of the budget.
Jitze
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
[Re: Female coworkers addressed as "ladies"]
[Someone wrote:]
>>> So how the heck is "Ladies" demeaning, exactly?
> Because it categorises a personal attribute -- the fact that
> they're female -- first and relegates what they *do* in your
> organisation (technicians, managers, typists, accountants,
> whatever) to second place.
Jesus Christ! This jerk Harvey needs a REAL problem!
> Brad Germolene wrote:
[...]
> > I find it quite telling that none of the women in question
> > did take offence:
> Well, except that -- as Ray carefully noted -- one out of the two
> women he asked didn't say that it was *inoffensive*, she said it
> wasn't a big deal so don't worry about it.
>
> I'd read a pretty clear sub-text into that: that whilst it wasn't
> in this case, in some other situations it might well be a big deal
> and you should worry about it.
I'll tell you what you, Harvey, and every other "sensitive" and
politically-correct asshole should worry about: REAL PROBLEMS.
I read a pretty clear sub-text into that -- as usual "sensitive" --
drivel of yours, Harvey; namely, that you don't have any REAL PROBLEMS
in your life (except for being very myopic and an overly "sensitive"
busybodying pain-in-the-ass) and therefore have the leisure to "worry"
about the most insignificant shit, from offended bitches to oppressed
Negroes, even though you're neither a bitch nor a Negro but a typical
white busybody.
Many millions of people have REAL PROBLEMS, such as how to get food
for their starving children; how to get money to pay next month's
rent; where to find a warm & dry place to sleep tonight; having to
take care of a decaying old parent; helplessly watching a spouse or
child slowly dying; rotting away with prostate cancer, lung cancer,
breast cancer, ovarian cancer, or AIDS. These are REAL PROBLEMS.
Call this a reality check or a reconsideration of priorities. All
"sensitive" & politically-correct motherfuckers in this newsgroup and
elsewhere should count their blessings that they don't have REAL
PROBLEMS like the ones listed above and stop ramming their unwelcomed
sensitivities down everyone else's throat.
Not that I would ever wish this on you, Harvey, but if you had a REAL
PROBLEM, such as prostate cancer eating away your body, I bet you
would no longer be concerned and worried about whether some fuckin'
obnoxious female might be offended by being called a "lady."
~~~ Rey ~~~
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/USA-2006.html
Robert Bannister
> Harry Lethall wrote:
>
>>At a working level, everyone is equal, according to their assigned
>>seniority. To observe and comment upon a difference in colour, creed, sex,
>>or religious denomination should be avoided. It is demeaning and can cause
>>insult.
>>
>>Now if you were in an informal situation, such as the coffe room or office
>>party, then you probably would get away with it: it would probably be
>>welcomed.
>>
>>The incident to which you refer could be regarded as an innocent error, or
>>just simply very, very minor. But in some circumstances it could be a major
>>issue. Women assembly workers on a factory floor may accept it or welcome
>>it, but professional businesswomen in a male-dominated business area may
>>well take exception to such "sexist" references.
>
>
> Thanks Harry! That is a very good explanation.
I would add that, if were addressing a group of males, I would be
unlikely to begin with "Men, ...". I might use "Guys"; in fact, I might
use that to a group of females too, but only if I knew them very, very
well. In fact, when you think about it, no form of address is really
necessary anyway.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
>
>
> I'd read a pretty clear sub-text into that: that whilst it wasn't
> in this case, in some other situations it might well be a big deal
> and you should worry about it.
>
So long as he didn't call them "girls", I don't think "big deal" comes
into it. "Small deal" maybe.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> Let's look at this in a bit more depth. Let's say three people are
> each making a presentation to a group of five people. The first group
> of presentees (?) is composed of three women and two men. The
> presentation begins, "Good morning, ladies and gentlemen...."
> Offensive? Nope. (I hope.)
>
> The second group is composed of five men. The presentation begins,
> "Good morning, gentlemen...." Offensive? Nope.
>
> The third group is composed of five women. The presentation begins,
> "Good morning, ladies." Offensive? Apparently, yep. (I groan.)
>
> So what is the third presenter to do?
This is very similar to the discussion we had some time ago about why
Americans use "Sir". The whole point is, why did the presenter feel it
necessary to use a form of address at all? What is wrong with "Good
morning"? No "ladies and gentlemen" or "gentlemen" or "ladies" or anything.
If anything, I find it irritating. It's a bit like the way salespeople
are trained to use your name in every other sentence. Even more annoying
when they use your first name without permission, but annoying anyway.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> Whistling girls and crowing hens
> Never will come to a good end.
This is the way grandma said it:
Whistling woman and crowing hen
Is neither fit for God nor men.
--
Rob Bannister
Steve Hayes
>Hello,
>
>I'm not a native speaker of English, so I was really surprised when I
>got a mild admonition from my CTO for referring to an all-female
>department as "ladies".
>
>Basically I needed the help of that department, so in my mail to them I
>wrote something like "Ladies, could you please help me with..."
>
>My CTO (a guy) told me that it was not right, it was demeaning, blah
>blah blah. I was wondering what should I have used then?! "Guys, please
>help me with..."? "Girls"? I think a bunch of guys would be perfectly
>OK with being referred to as "Gentlemen", right?
Well it can be demeaning, just as a black man calling a white man in South
Africa "baas" can be demeaning, and is often intended to be, even though some
white men expected to be addresses as such by black people even when they were
not their employers.
Funny things titles. They can be both honorifics and deadly insults.
.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
LFS
Indeed, and there are far more important issues to deal with than the
apparent offensiveness of modes of address.
Time for a war story. Way back in the 1960s, before "women's lib" or
"political correctness" were spoken about, I was the only woman
undergraduate on the degree course I took. This presented me with a
number of challenges, some practical, like the lack of toilet facilities
for women in the new wing built to house the department, and others
ontological, like the habit of the law lecturer who addressed the class
as "Gentlemen". Meeting him in the bookshop one day, I plucked up the
courage to point out that I was not a gentleman. Thenceforth he began
his lectures "Gentlemen and LADY": the sarcastic emphasis made me feel
considerably more uncomfortable than I had done when ignored. I learnt a
lot from that incident, which stood me in good stead for a career in a
male-dominated environment.
Sara Lorimer
> This is an unsafe rule. People address all-male groups
> as "Gentlemen". When the colonel tells his officers,
> "Gentlemen, tomorrow we must capture Hill 123" he
> is using the simplest convention for address. He is
> not demeaning the people in front of him, or condemning
> the people not in front of him -- and nor is a manager
> addressing an all-female group as "Ladies."
It would be "him," wouldn't it? I can't imagine a woman seriously
addressing an all-female group as "ladies" these days.
(Yes, yes, I'm sure the interweb machine is full of examples of just
such an event...)
--
SML
suffering from Beastie Boys STS
Wood Avens
(Sara Lorimer) wrote:
>It would be "him," wouldn't it? I can't imagine a woman seriously
>addressing an all-female group as "ladies" these days.
Not quite true, actually. In the slightly conservative-minded realm
of the UK's National Association of Flower Arrangement Societies the
assembled ranks of members of any society will probably be addressed
as "Ladies". This is a female-dominated and in most cases a
single-sex environment, and there's no derogatory implication, and
everybody's happy. Tradition, custom, practice, and the fact that
most members are over 50 helps. It took me a bit of getting used to,
but in the end it reinforced my rule of thumb, which is, if in doubt,
to call people what they themselves prefer to be called.
Tony Cooper
(Sara Lorimer) wrote:
>Don Phillipson <d.phillips...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>
>> This is an unsafe rule. People address all-male groups
>> as "Gentlemen". When the colonel tells his officers,
>> "Gentlemen, tomorrow we must capture Hill 123" he
>> is using the simplest convention for address. He is
>> not demeaning the people in front of him, or condemning
>> the people not in front of him -- and nor is a manager
>> addressing an all-female group as "Ladies."
>
>It would be "him," wouldn't it? I can't imagine a woman seriously
>addressing an all-female group as "ladies" these days.
Of course not. The favored term is now "Greetings, fellow Babes".
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL
Skitt
> (Sara Lorimer) wrote:
>>> This is an unsafe rule. People address all-male groups
>>> as "Gentlemen". When the colonel tells his officers,
>>> "Gentlemen, tomorrow we must capture Hill 123" he
>>> is using the simplest convention for address. He is
>>> not demeaning the people in front of him, or condemning
>>> the people not in front of him -- and nor is a manager
>>> addressing an all-female group as "Ladies."
>>
>> It would be "him," wouldn't it? I can't imagine a woman seriously
>> addressing an all-female group as "ladies" these days.
>
> Of course not. The favored term is now "Greetings, fellow Babes".
They wish! There are rather demanding qualifications for earning the status
of being a Babe.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
Amethyst Deceiver
(Sara Lorimer) wrote:
>Don Phillipson <d.phillips...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>
>> This is an unsafe rule. People address all-male groups
>> as "Gentlemen". When the colonel tells his officers,
>> "Gentlemen, tomorrow we must capture Hill 123" he
>> is using the simplest convention for address. He is
>> not demeaning the people in front of him, or condemning
>> the people not in front of him -- and nor is a manager
>> addressing an all-female group as "Ladies."
>
>It would be "him," wouldn't it? I can't imagine a woman seriously
>addressing an all-female group as "ladies" these days.
Depends on the group. A group of equals, meeting at, say, the pub,
yes, I'd address them as "ladies". A work meeting, probably not.
--
Linz
Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford
My accent may vary
Amethyst Deceiver
<la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
>Vinny Burgoo wrote:
>
>> In alt.usage.english, Ray wrote:
>
>>> So how the heck is "Ladies" demeaning, exactly?
>>
>>
>> If you were British, I'd say it was all down to Gerald Harper. Back in
>> the 1970s, the ladies considered him the acme of male perfection. All he
>> had to do was peer down his long nose and drawl his catchphrase,
>> "Champagne and roses [pron.: 'rose-ears'] for the ladies ['lay-dears']",
>> for the poor little things to fall in swoon. But the ladies are a bit
>> embarrassed by him these days and don't like to be reminded of how they
>> allowed themselves to be seduced by his glib charms. The word "lady" is
>> such a reminder.
>
><swoon> I had forgotten Hadleigh, thank you for that. That Richard
>Armitage who plays Guy of Gisburne is rather along the same lines - and
>far more attractive than the rather wimpy Robin H.
You watched The Vicar of Dibley, I hope?
Sara Lorimer
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 09:38:56 -0800, que.sara....@gmail.com
> (Sara Lorimer) wrote:
>
> >It would be "him," wouldn't it? I can't imagine a woman seriously
> >addressing an all-female group as "ladies" these days.
>
> Not quite true, actually. In the slightly conservative-minded realm
> of the UK's National Association of Flower Arrangement Societies the
> assembled ranks of members of any society will probably be addressed
> as "Ladies".
Why does this make me think of The Manchurian Candidate? Oh dear...
--
SML
John Kane
Ray wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm not a native speaker of English, so I was really surprised when I
> got a mild admonition from my CTO for referring to an all-female
> department as "ladies".
>
> Basically I needed the help of that department, so in my mail to them I
> wrote something like "Ladies, could you please help me with..."
>
> My CTO (a guy) told me that it was not right, it was demeaning, blah
> blah blah. I was wondering what should I have used then?! "Guys, please
> help me with..."? "Girls"? I think a bunch of guys would be perfectly
> OK with being referred to as "Gentlemen", right?
>
> then to refer to a group of women? "Women"? "Females"? "The Stronger
> Bunch (oh sorry, "bunch" is surely demeaning) of The Species"?
> "Grrrls"? "Honored Matres"?
>
> Sheesh. As you can see I'm quite pissed. Sorry.
Where are you ? I have noticed what seems to be the preferred address
for our local female rugby players as used by their team mates on the
sidelines is ladies.
Tony Cooper
<sp...@lindsayendell.org.uk> wrote:
>
>You watched The Vicar of Dibley, I hope?
Speaking of which, we watched the French & Saunders Christmas Special
last night (taped from an earlier broadcast). I am greatly impressed
by those two. They don't *play* different characters; they *become*
different characters. Some of the skits fell flat - as some always do
in any production of a number of skits - but the overall production
was one laugh after another.
John Kane
mike.j...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ray wrote:
>
> > My CTO (a guy) told me that it was not right, it was demeaning, blah
> > blah blah.
>
>
> for very long with (all) that attitude.
I don't blame Ray. The CTO,whatever that is, seems be carrying
political correctness to new and ever more ridiculous heights.
John Kane Kingston ON Canada
John Kane
mike.j...@gmail.com wrote:
> HVS wrote:
>
> > Your CTO is right. Why did you feel it was necessary to point out
> > the all-female composition of the department?
> >
> > If the department had only black people in it, would you have
> > written "Blacks, could you please help me with..."?
>
> His CTO was possibly partly "covering his ass". Most corporations in
> Western countries these days have communications policies. Unlike paper
> memos, emails cannot be recalled or destroyed. If anything came of the
> matter, part of any enquiry would focus on his response.
>
> > > So how the heck is "Ladies" demeaning, exactly?
> >
> > they're female -- first and relegates what they *do* in your
> > organisation (technicians, managers, typists, accountants,
> > whatever) to second place.
> >
>
> Little girls were taught by their mothers and other female relatives to
> behave in a 'ladylike' fashion. A 'lady' was a prisoner in a gilded
> cage who sat with her knees pressed together, who did not swear, take
> long strides, lift heavy weights, talk in a loud voice, express an
> opinion forcefully or in contradiction to a recently expressed male
> opinion, drink beer from a pint glass, ask a man for a date, open a
> door for herself, aspire to technical knowledge, appear without makeup,
> etc etc. Many modern women feel patronized or demeaned or insulted,
> therefore, when thus addressed.
Amazing. As I mentioned before 'ladies' seems to be the preferred term
used by the local female rugby team. I must have misunderstood and
their team members were actually insulting them as they played.
John Kane
Mike Barnes wrote:
> In alt.usage.english, Ray wrote:
>
> reference to their all being women. Their sex is personal information
> that is not relevant to the [work] context, so don't mention it. Address
> them exactly as you would a mixed-sex group.
>
> --
> Mike Barnes
> Cheshire, England
It might confuse them to be addressed as "Ladies and Gentlemen" and
lead to unwarranated assumptions about cross-dressing among colleagues.
Mike Barnes
>
>Mike Barnes wrote:
>> In alt.usage.english, Ray wrote:
>> >What is not demeaning then to refer to a group of women?
>>
>> The problem is not so much the term you used, as your gratuitous
>> reference to their all being women. Their sex is personal information
>> that is not relevant to the [work] context, so don't mention it. Address
>> them exactly as you would a mixed-sex group.
>
>lead to unwarranated assumptions about cross-dressing among colleagues.
ISTR that there were only three of them, so "Ladies and Gentlemen" would
cause some serious singular/plural confusion, regardless of the sexes.
LFS
You bet, but only because of him. <sigh> I've just discovered from
today's paper that John Barrowman's not quite the bloke I thought he
was. What does your mum think of him?
Robert Bannister
>
> It would be "him," wouldn't it? I can't imagine a woman seriously
> addressing an all-female group as "ladies" these days.
The problem here is that I can imagine a woman addressing an all-female
group as "girls", which, of course, would give great offence coming from
a man.
So much depends on the actual make-up of the group and, not least, the
manner in which the salutation is delivered. Personally, I find all
modes of address unnecessary.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
One would also tend to question the speaker's eyesight.
--
Rob Bannister
MyUsefu...@googlemail.com
UC wrote:
> Ray wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm not a native speaker of English, so I was really surprised when I
> > got a mild admonition from my CTO for referring to an all-female
> > department as "ladies".
>
Step 2: Start looking for a new job.
UC
You need bigger balls.
John Kane
Ah yes. The form of address does become nore complicated. Ladies and
gentleman? Gentlemen and madame ? Both seem to be a bit awkward.
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
Pat Durkin
"Amethyst Deceiver" <sp...@lindsayendell.org.uk> wrote in message
news:pa78p25q9hovkirio...@4ax.com...
Drill sergeants in the military were reputed to address their recruits
as "ladies", but those stories were from a time before women were
trained with men--and the terminology was definitely a sexist, demeaning
one.
K. Edgcombe
LFS <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
>Ray wrote:
>> Default User wrote:
>>
>>>What would you have done if it were a department of both men and women?
>>>Why didn't you use that phrasing? Why was the sex of the members at all
>>>germane?
>>
>>
>> Usually I'd just say "guys" if it's a mix. I wasn't aware of the
>> (subtle) connotation behind what I thought to be just a neutral way of
>> addressing a group of people. I mean I couldn't have used "guys" to
>> address them, could I?
>
>
>> But yeah, I'll be using "colleagues" from now on I guess.
>>
>
>I'd be interested to know what your female colleagues thought about your
>mode of address. It wouldn't particularly bother me to be addressed thus
>and from what you say I'd guess you were just trying to be polite. I'm
>sure that it's a good thing for us all to be aware of how we address
>others and to aim for respectfulness but much depends on context and tone.
Just for the record, I wouldbn't have any problem with this form of address in
any face-to-face context, and I'd be even less likely to find it inappropriate
if I knew the speaker was not a native speaker of English. My feeling is that
the manager was grossly over-reacting; but maybe that's rather English of me.
I think I'd find it a bit odd in writing, though.
Katy
Robert Bannister
> I think I'd find it a bit odd in writing, though.
Quite recently, a close friend of mine upbraided me for not including a
salutation in my e-mail - something I never put in unless it's a "Dear
Mr/Mrs/Ms" thing. I thought this funny because his e-mails invariably
start with "Hi" and his wife's often have "Hi folks", both of which I
find incredibly childish in writing.
E-mails I received at work were usually along the lines of:
"Heads of Department
[text]"
Or "All staff [text]", so I would find "Ladies" or "Gentlemen" or
anything else of that nature unnecessary, if not strange. "Hi
ladies/gentlemen" would certainly be over the top. It's bad enough
having to wade through a pile of e-mails as well as real letters without
having to see unnecessary verbiage before you get down to your real work.
--
Rob Bannister
Ray
> Drill sergeants in the military were reputed to address their recruits
> as "ladies", but those stories were from a time before women were
> trained with men--and the terminology was definitely a sexist, demeaning
> one.
What's a drill sergeant to do these days? How does he demean his
recruits in a politically correct way then? Must be hard being a drill
sergeant these days.
Pat Durkin
"Ray" <ray_u...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167442335....@k21g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Specially if she has been warned about her usage.
>
Amethyst Deceiver
I don't think Torchwood has attracted her attention, and neither she
nor Dad were interested in the new Doctor Who so they missed him
there, too.
I knew about JB already, but am happy to continue to swoon over him.
His orientation doesn't affect me, I'd be unlikely to catch his eye
whatever he fancied.
Mike Lyle
Brad Germolene wrote:
[...]
> At the end of the day (Brian), words and names and terms of address
> don't matter at all. If you phone a firm to speak to someone called
> Sandra and someone called Arthur you can safely expect the former to
> have a higher pitched boice than the latter. That's gender-marking but
> it's not a problem. No, the problem is that you can also safely expect
> Sandra to be the secretary who puts you through to arthur, the
> manager. That's not gender-marking; it's sexism in action and it's
> still rife. Only when it's been swept completely from all walks of
> life should we worry about such piffling trifles as whether it's
> acceptable, borderline or a hanging offence to address a group of
> women as "Ladies".
Only a little tangential from Mark Steel in the Indy a couple of days
ago:
<Sylvia Pankhurst
The most wonderful of the suffragettes. Not only did she endure hunger
strikes and arrests for smashing things, but she mobilised thousands of
East Enders in the cause of votes for women, and when their marches
were attacked by police, she urged them to learn ju-jitsu. Then, when
the rest of the suffragette movement supported the First World War, she
resolutely opposed it, and formed a toy-making co-op to raise funds for
injured soldiers and their families. She travelled illegally on foot to
Italy to a socialist conference, then to Russia where she argued
publicly with Lenin, married an Italian anarchist, forced Winston
Churchill to get the BBC to play the Ethiopian national anthem during
the Second World War, and became an adviser to Haile Selassie. Now
that's feminism, not writing pompous twaddle in Sunday supplements
about the phallic nature of a goalpost.>
Full piece at
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2106004.ece
--
Mike.
Mike Lyle
LFS wrote:
> Amethyst Deceiver wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 18:58:10 +0000, LFS
> > <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
> >><swoon> I had forgotten Hadleigh, thank you for that. That Richard
> >>Armitage who plays Guy of Gisburne is rather along the same lines - and
> >>far more attractive than the rather wimpy Robin H.
> >
> >
> > You watched The Vicar of Dibley, I hope?
>
We watched it for the simple pleasure of being enraged at being
exploited by such past-its-sell-by crassery. At least in the first or
second series the scriptwriters and the French woman were making some
sort of effort. She's only worth the paper she's written on when she
has to work with Ms Saunders.
--
Mike.
John Dean
> Brad Germolene wrote:
> [...]
>> Only when it's been swept completely from all walks of
>> life should we worry about such piffling trifles as whether it's
>> acceptable, borderline or a hanging offence to address a group of
>> women as "Ladies".
>
> Only a little tangential from Mark Steel in the Indy a couple of days
> ago:
> <Sylvia Pankhurst
> The most wonderful of the suffragettes. Not only did she endure hunger
> strikes and arrests for smashing things, but she mobilised thousands
> of East Enders in the cause of votes for women, and when their marches
> were attacked by police, she urged them to learn ju-jitsu.
[...]
>
> Full piece at
> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2106004.ece
That's interesting. I missed Mark Steel when the Guardian booted him out and
followed him on-line at the Indie until they turned into a pay-per-view
site. Now they seem to be making themselves available for free again and I
can access the Steel back catalogue. o joy.
We went to see him a few months ago at a small local venue and he was great.
Have you caught any of his Open University lectures? They tend to be on BBC2
or BBC Digital late at night but they are great fun - the half hour on
Sylvia Pankhurst was instructive and hilarious at the same time.
The OU site devotes a page or two to him:
http://www.open2.net/marksteel/
Prolly the lectures are available somewhere on-line for download. I
recommend them.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Mike Lyle
John Dean wrote:
> Mike Lyle wrote:
[...]
> > Full piece at
> > http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2106004.ece
>
> That's interesting. I missed Mark Steel when the Guardian booted him out and
> followed him on-line at the Indie until they turned into a pay-per-view
> site. Now they seem to be making themselves available for free again and I
> can access the Steel back catalogue. o joy.
> We went to see him a few months ago at a small local venue and he was great.
> Have you caught any of his Open University lectures? They tend to be on BBC2
> or BBC Digital late at night but they are great fun - the half hour on
> Sylvia Pankhurst was instructive and hilarious at the same time.
> The OU site devotes a page or two to him:
> http://www.open2.net/marksteel/
>
> Prolly the lectures are available somewhere on-line for download. I
> recommend them.
Are they different from the ones he did for Radio 4? He and Billy Bragg
have done some good entertaining serious stuff on the Home Service.
--
Mike.
Amethyst Deceiver
wrote:
>
>Brad Germolene wrote:
>[...]
>> At the end of the day (Brian), words and names and terms of address
>> don't matter at all. If you phone a firm to speak to someone called
>> Sandra and someone called Arthur you can safely expect the former to
>> have a higher pitched boice than the latter. That's gender-marking but
>> it's not a problem. No, the problem is that you can also safely expect
>> Sandra to be the secretary who puts you through to arthur, the
>> manager. That's not gender-marking; it's sexism in action and it's
>> still rife. Only when it's been swept completely from all walks of
>> life should we worry about such piffling trifles as whether it's
>> acceptable, borderline or a hanging offence to address a group of
>> women as "Ladies".
>
>Only a little tangential from Mark Steel in the Indy a couple of days
>ago:
><Sylvia Pankhurst
>The most wonderful of the suffragettes. Not only did she endure hunger
>strikes and arrests for smashing things, but she mobilised thousands of
>East Enders in the cause of votes for women, and when their marches
>were attacked by police, she urged them to learn ju-jitsu.
Oooh, ooh, from my great-grandmother! She was the first woman in the
country to run her own ju-jitsu school, and worked as a bodyguard to
the Pankhursts too!
/my claim to fame
Amethyst Deceiver
wrote:
>
I was going to say that she's not at all bad in 'Jam and Jerusalem'
but remembered that Saunders is also in that.
Vinny Burgoo
><swoon> I had forgotten Hadleigh, thank you for that. That Richard
>Armitage who plays Guy of Gisburne is rather along the same lines - and
>far more attractive than the rather wimpy Robin H.
>
>Whoops, I realise I'm being frightfully unladylike! If you gents posted
>material like that, we'd report you...
I'd never heard of this Dickie Armitage chap nor knowingly seen him, but
it seems he has quite a following. Here are some (slightly baffling)
pictures for your delectation:
http://www.futilegesture.com/photoshop-fan-art/index.html
And you'll be pleased to know that Dickie is very big in Germany:
http://www.bboard.de/board/fs-50080669nx12776.html
And this leads to an "age-restricted area" (registration required) in
which fans apparently share saucy Dickie-themed stories or something:
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/armitagearmyafterhours/
No, no, don't thank me, that's quite all right. Cheaper than sending you
champagne and roses, wot? Happy new year!
--
V
LFS
Same to you with knobs on, Michael. But the champagne and roses would
have been rather nice...
Vinny Burgoo
>Same to you with knobs on, Michael. But the champagne and roses would
>have been rather nice...
Oh well. Only trying to help.
--
V
John J. Chew III
Robert Bannister <rob...@it.net.au> wrote:
>I would add that, if were addressing a group of males, I would be
>unlikely to begin with "Men, ...". I might use "Guys";
Of about 1600 e-mail messages I sent in the second half of 2006,
one began "Gentlemen,". It was addressed to a small group of male
colleagues, and no one remarked on the salutation.
If the message had been sent to a group of mixed sex, I would have done
as others suggested and addressed it according to the selection criteria
for the recipient list: "Fellow committee members," or "Colleagues,".
John
--
John Chew (poslfit on MD) * jjc...@math.utoronto.ca * http://www.poslfit.com
Richard Bollard
wrote:
>HVS filted:
>>
>>On 27 Dec 2006, Ray wrote
>>
>>> I was wondering what should I have used then?!
>>
>>Colleagues, if any salutation was needed. But I don't see why an
>>intra-office e-mail to another department needs a collective
>>salutation.
>
>Address them as "Workers" or "Employees" and see how far that gets you....
>
>>> So how the heck is "Ladies" demeaning, exactly?
>>
>>Because it categorises a personal attribute -- the fact that
>>they're female -- first and relegates what they *do* in your
>>organisation (technicians, managers, typists, accountants,
>>whatever) to second place.
>
>How about collectively addressing that all-female department as "Gentlemen",
>then?...after all, we're now being told that Kate Winslet or whoever is an
>"actor" and we shouldn't make gender distinctions in the terminology...and make
>sure you always use "he" to refer to an individual person, be that person
>concave or convex....
>
>And take the signs off the washroom doors...they're offensive....r
Too right! If I want to sit down and put my chewing-gum in a bin, I
should be able to.
(I didn't think I had ever seen "washroom" in Australia, in any
context, but Google tells me I must have.)
--
Richard Bollard
Canberra Australia
To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT.
Richard Bollard
>Brad Germolene wrote:
>> It's a ranty sort of day, innit.
>>
>> Still, it's not really a wind-up (though I will admit that I may have
>> been arguing with more vigour than I really think the subject
>> deserves), because I am genuinely perplexed about why so much
>> attention is paid these days to the skin of the gender beast rather
>> than its muscle. Language is the skin, while the muscle is made up of
>> the genuine inequalities that still abound in our societies, despite
>> our penchant for kidding ourselves that we live in Wunnerful
>> Multiculchral Equal Opportunity Knocks, when in fact in many walks of
>> life we're still stuck firmly in the 1950s.
>>
>> If, for example, someone at a large car dealership sent an intranet
>> message to the maintenance workshop that began, "Lads, we've got
>> another problem with that woman who bought that electric-blue
>> Mondeo"", I suspect that a manager of the same school as Ray's boss
>> would object to the use of "woman" instead of the gender-neutral
>> "customer", while the core (hi, Vin!) problem for society of all the
>> maintenance workers being all young male (the lads" referred to) while
>> the telephonists are female remains unconsidered and unchallenged.
>>
>> That's the only point I'm -- albeit clumsily --making: let's spend our
>> energy on addressing the real issues rather than issuing edicts on
>> terms of address.
>
>If I could agree more I would. I'm glad I couldn't agree more with
>this.
>
>Thanks Brad,
>Ray
>
On the subject of terms of address, it looks weird for, er ... Brad to
be addressed as "Brad".
Richard Bollard
wrote:
[...]
>
>Cashier: "Who's next?"
>
>Customer 1: "This gentleman was next." (ObAUE: Why is it usually "was"
>rather than "is"? Is it usually "was" rather than "is"?)
>
[...]
Well he was next, now he's "now" and the next one is now "next".
The way I read it is that the original question was "we are serving no
one, who is next to be served" and the answer means "this gentleman is
now being served (even if he didn't know it) because he was next to be
served after that previous punter".
Mike M
> In the slightly conservative-minded realm
> of the UK's National Association of Flower Arrangement Societies the
> assembled ranks of members of any society will probably be addressed
> as "Ladies".
>
Go, go, Flower Arrangers!
Mike M
Evan Kirshenbaum
> HVS wrote:
>> > My CTO (a guy) told me that it was not right, it was demeaning,
>> > blah blah blah.
>>
>> Your CTO is right. Why did you feel it was necessary to point out
>> the all-female composition of the department?
>
> No... it's just that using "guys" (which was what I'd ve used if the
> department was a mix) would be strange, because it's a small
> department of 3 and I know all of them personally.
Interesting. I wouldn't have any problem using "guys" in that
situation, but *only* because I was on familiar terms with them.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If only some crazy scientist
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |somewhere would develop a device
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |that would allow us to change the
|channel on our televisions......
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | --"lazarus"
(650)857-7572
Robert Bannister
> "Ray" <ray_u...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
>>HVS wrote:
>>
>>>>My CTO (a guy) told me that it was not right, it was demeaning,
>>>>blah blah blah.
>>>
>>>Your CTO is right. Why did you feel it was necessary to point out
>>>the all-female composition of the department?
>>
>>No... it's just that using "guys" (which was what I'd ve used if the
>>department was a mix) would be strange, because it's a small
>>department of 3 and I know all of them personally.
>
>
> Interesting. I wouldn't have any problem using "guys" in that
> situation, but *only* because I was on familiar terms with them.
>
Nor would I, but I'm not sure whether I would use it in an email. Still,
my emails don't start with a salutation.
--
Rob Bannister