 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2007Why is "ladies" politically incorrect?
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. > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 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 > 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. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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"? > At a working level, everyone is equal, according to their assigned > seniority. To observe and comment upon a difference in colour, creed, sex, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 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 > Regards Harry > _______________ > Whatever happened to the expression "You mind your own pints and quarts"? >>At a working level, everyone is equal, according to their assigned >>seniority. To observe and comment upon a difference in colour, creed, sex, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > 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.  SignatureRob Bannister >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 SignatureJohn Chew (poslfit on MD) * jjchew@math.utoronto.ca * http://www.poslfit.com > 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. > 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, 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 > > My CTO (a guy) told me that it was not right, it was demeaning, blah > > blah blah. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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. 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. > > My CTO (a guy) told me that it was not right, it was demeaning, blah > > blah blah. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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. 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 > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 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 SignatureIf televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up. -- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com) > 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 > Brian > > -- > If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who > won't shut up. > -- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com) >>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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > 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 >>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 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > 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. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >>>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 [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >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: 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"? SignatureBrad Germolene ADVANCE REMONIKERIZATION ALERT: Archie Valparaiso is coming (to stay, I promise) in January 2007. On 27 Dec 2006, Brad Germolene wrote >>>> I'd be interested to know what your female colleagues thought >>>> about your mode of address. It wouldn't particularly bother [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > 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. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van >On 27 Dec 2006, Brad Germolene wrote > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >in this case, in some other situations it might well be a big deal >and you should worry about it. 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". SignatureBrad Germolene ADVANCE REMONIKERIZATION ALERT: Archie Valparaiso is coming (to stay, I promise) in January 2007. On 27 Dec 2006, Brad Germolene wrote > 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 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > 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 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > 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. SignatureRob Bannister [...] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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 SignatureMike. > [...] >> Only when it's been swept completely from all walks of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 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. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford [...] > > Full piece at > > http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2106004.ece [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 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. SignatureMike. >[...] >> At the end of the day (Brian), words and names and terms of address [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >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 SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary [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! [...] > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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 a.shole 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-a.s) and therefore have the leisure to "worry" about the most insignificant sh.t, 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 motherf..kers 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 > 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. SignatureRob Bannister >>>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 [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >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 > 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. SignatureRob Bannister On 27 Dec 2006, Ray wrote > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 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. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > 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 a.s". 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. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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. >> I don't know about the US, but in the UK the word 'lady' has a >> history. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 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!) > 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. SignatureRob Bannister > > Your CTO is right. Why did you feel it was necessary to point out > > the all-female composition of the department? [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > 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. > > 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?! > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > organisation (technicians, managers, typists, accountants, > whatever) to second place. Thanks Harvey, Ray > -- > Cheers, Harvey > > Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed > For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van >> > My CTO (a guy) told me that it was not right, it was demeaning, >> > blah blah blah. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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. SignatureEvan 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...... kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | --"lazarus" (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>>My CTO (a guy) told me that it was not right, it was demeaning, >>>>blah blah blah. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 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. SignatureRob Bannister > > 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. But isn't it sexist? I mean, are females that *low* that the only way to address them correctly is to call them something they ain't? Doesn't that reveal the unspoken assumption that "guys" are a better, more dignified group than "ladies"? Or maybe it's OK to call a group of ladies "Ladies" if you're female yourself. It's getting really so complicated, sigh. > -- > Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> > 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > But isn't it sexist? I mean, are females that *low* that the only > way to address them correctly is to call them something they ain't? In my dialect (in this register), it's not really calling them anything. "Guys" (in this use) has simply become a sort of marker of plurality for human (and honorary human, perhaps merely animate) referents. So "you guys", "these guys", "those guys", and vocative "guys" is used for groups of either sex, mixed sex, or unknown (and possibly irrelevant) sex. > Doesn't that reveal the unspoken assumption that "guys" are a > better, more dignified group than "ladies"? "Less dignified", I'd say. I'd use "ladies" if I was being formal. Interestingly, "ladies" (and "gentlemen") is the standard form of address (in my experience) for players, no matter how young, from referees, while as a baseball coach, I called my players (of both sexes) "guys". (It just dawned on me that my reflex as a soccer ref, when addressing a single player, I tend to address him as "son". I haven't worked a girls' game yet. I wonder what I'll say.) > Or maybe it's OK to call a group of ladies "Ladies" if you're female > yourself. It's getting really so complicated, sigh. There is some of that. I remember watching a broadcast of a women's basketball game some years ago, in which only the male announcers seemed to be able to spot the "player-to-player" defense. The female announcer kept thinking it was a "man-to-man". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The Society for the Preservation of 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Tithesis commends your ebriated and Palo Alto, CA 94304 |scrutable use of delible and |defatigable, which are gainly, sipid kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |and couth. We are gruntled and (650)857-7572 |consolate that you have the ertia and |eptitude to choose such putably http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |pensible tithesis, which we parage. > In my dialect (in this register), it's not really calling them > anything. "Guys" (in this use) has simply become a sort of marker of > plurality for human (and honorary human, perhaps merely animate) > referents. Truly. I've seen owners of multiple dogs address same as "guys", for example. > So "you guys", "these guys", "those guys", and vocative > "guys" is used for groups of either sex, mixed sex, or unknown (and > possibly irrelevant) sex. Hmm. I don't go so far. In vocative use, "guys" is as you say. But in demonstrative use, "these/those guys" is more suggestive of maleness. It could refer to a group of people where sex is very much irrelevant (for example, I might refer to the collection of people in an organization as "those guys" even though many of them will be women). But if I saw a group of women, or a mixed-sex group, I wouldn't ordinarily refer to them as "those guys", I don't think. The more abstract my relationship to them, or the more abstract the group itself I suppose, the more likely it is that they'd qualify for guys-ness. >> Doesn't that reveal the unspoken assumption that "guys" are a >> better, more dignified group than "ladies"? > > "Less dignified", I'd say. I'd use "ladies" if I was being formal. For me it's the opposite -- I'd never use vocative "ladies" because it sounds uncouth and undignified; it approaches having something of the quality of addressing adult black men as "boys". (There are exceptions in preserved usages like "ladies and gentlemen", but that's different.) I also deeply disapprove of parents referring to multiple daughters (or perhaps daughters and actual or generalized female peers) with "ladies", a practice I have observed with shock and horror. > Interestingly, "ladies" (and "gentlemen") is the standard form of > address (in my experience) for players, no matter how young, from > referees, while as a baseball coach, I called my players (of both > sexes) "guys". (It just dawned on me that my reflex as a soccer ref, > when addressing a single player, I tend to address him as "son". Jeez, Erk. "Son" seems archaic to me, although for a while in recent times it was a peer-to-peer vocative usage among some urban youth. SignatureSalvatore Volatile >On 27 Dec 2006, Ray wrote > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >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...."? If not, what on earth is wrong with Ray's neutral-tending-towards-affectionately-respectful "Ladies"? SignatureBrad Germolene ADVANCE REMONIKERIZATION ALERT: Archie Valparaiso is coming (to stay, I promise) in January 2007. >>On 27 Dec 2006, Ray wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > isn't the engineering department? By all means point the finger at sex > discrimination, but choose the right targets! 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"? SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) On 27 Dec 2006, Brad Germolene wrote >> On 27 Dec 2006, Ray wrote >>> So how the heck is "Ladies" demeaning, exactly? >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 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. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van HVS filted: >On 27 Dec 2006, Ray wrote > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >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 Signature"Keep your eye on the Bishop. I want to know when he makes his move", said the Inspector, obliquely. >HVS filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >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.) SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. > > 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. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) On 27 Dec 2006, Don Phillipson wrote >>> So how the heck is "Ladies" demeaning, exactly? >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 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. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van >> "HVS" wrote: [someone had asked:] >>>> So how the heck is "Ladies" demeaning, exactly? >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > 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. SignatureSkitt Like you say... a idea what unclips every blind flask of unspired geraniums what ever I is had. --Churchy La Femme >>>So how the heck is "Ladies" demeaning, exactly? >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > group (e.g. sons and daughters in Christ.) Sometimes > a cigar is only a cigar. 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. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > This is an unsafe rule. People address all-male groups > as "Gentlemen". When the colonel tells his officers, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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...) SignatureSML suffering from Beastie Boys STS >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. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ > >It would be "him," wouldn't it? I can't imagine a woman seriously > >addressing an all-female group as "ladies" these days. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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... SignatureSML > 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 >> This is an unsafe rule. People address all-male groups >> as "Gentlemen". When the colonel tells his officers, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >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". SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>> This is an unsafe rule. People address all-male groups >>> as "Gentlemen". When the colonel tells his officers, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > 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. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ >> This is an unsafe rule. People address all-male groups >> as "Gentlemen". When the colonel tells his officers, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >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. SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary >>> This is an unsafe rule. People address all-male groups >>> as "Gentlemen". When the colonel tells his officers, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 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. 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. > 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. >> Drill sergeants in the military were reputed to address their >> recruits [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > recruits in a politically correct way then? Must be hard being a drill > sergeant these days.] Specially if she has been warned about her usage. > 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. SignatureRob Bannister 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. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > 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 ..." [ ... ] SignatureBob Lieblich Trying to resist the worst of PC > 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. In alt.usage.english, Robert Lieblich wrote: >> In alt.usage.english, Ray wrote: >> >What is not demeaning then to refer to a group of women? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >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. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England >> 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..."? SignatureBrad Germolene ADVANCE REMONIKERIZATION ALERT: Archie Valparaiso is coming (to stay, I promise) in January 2007. >But why even mention three names that are clearly gender-marked -- >making it quite clear that three women are being addressed -- instead [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >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. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >>But why even mention three names that are clearly gender-marked -- >>making it quite clear that three women are being addressed -- instead [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >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. 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. SignatureBrad Germolene ADVANCE REMONIKERIZATION ALERT: Archie Valparaiso is coming (to stay, I promise) in January 2007. > It's a ranty sort of day, innit. > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > 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 > -- > Brad Germolene > > ADVANCE REMONIKERIZATION ALERT: Archie Valparaiso is > coming (to stay, I promise) in January 2007. >> It's a ranty sort of day, innit. >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >Thanks Brad, >Ray On the subject of terms of address, it looks weird for, er ... Brad to be addressed as "Brad". SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. >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. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ > In alt.usage.english, Ray wrote: > >What is not demeaning then to refer to a group of women? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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. In alt.usage.english, John Kane wrote: >> In alt.usage.english, Ray wrote: >> >What is not demeaning then to refer to a group of women? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >It might confuse them to be addressed as "Ladies and Gentlemen" and >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. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > In alt.usage.english, John Kane wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > ISTR that there were only three of them, so "Ladies and Gentlemen" would > cause some serious singular/plural confusion, regardless of the sexes. One would also tend to question the speaker's eyesight. SignatureRob Bannister > In alt.usage.english, John Kane wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Mike Barnes > Cheshire, England 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 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. 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 > 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". > ...... > 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 >Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >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. . SignatureSteve 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 >Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >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? SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > What is a "CTO", by the way? Chief Training Officer? Commanding > Terminology Official? Critical Term Objector? Good question. Marius Hancu On 27 Dec 2006, Marius Hancu 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". SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > On 27 Dec 2006, Marius Hancu wrote > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I wondered too; FWIW, my guess is "Chief Technical Officer". What about: Compulsory Transgenderisation Officer SignatureLes > On 27 Dec 2006, Marius Hancu wrote > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I wondered too; FWIW, my guess is "Chief Technical Officer". What about: Compulsory Transgenderisation Officer SignatureLes > On 27 Dec 2006, Marius Hancu wrote > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I wondered too; FWIW, my guess is "Chief Technical Officer". What about: Compulsory Transgenderisation Officer SignatureLes > On 27 Dec 2006, Marius Hancu wrote > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 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 > -- > Cheers, Harvey > > Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed > For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > 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. > > Hello, > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Tell him to shove it. Step 2: Start looking for a new job. > > > Hello, > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Step 2: Start looking for a new job. You need bigger balls. In alt.usage.english, Ray wrote: [...] >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.) SignatureV > In alt.usage.english, Ray wrote: >> So how the heck is "Ladies" demeaning, exactly? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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.) SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >> In alt.usage.english, Ray wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >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? SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary >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. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>>In alt.usage.english, Ray wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > You watched The Vicar of Dibley, I hope? 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? SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >>><swoon> I had forgotten Hadleigh, thank you for that. That Richard >>>Armitage who plays Guy of Gisburne is rather along the same lines - and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >today's paper that John Barrowman's not quite the bloke I thought he >was. What does your mum think of him? 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. SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary [...] > >><swoon> I had forgotten Hadleigh, thank you for that. That Richard > >>Armitage who plays Guy of Gisburne is rather along the same lines - and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You bet, but only because of him. [...] 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. SignatureMike. >> > You watched The Vicar of Dibley, I hope? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >sort of effort. She's only worth the paper she's written on when she >has to work with Ms Saunders. I was going to say that she's not at all bad in 'Jam and Jerusalem' but remembered that Saunders is also in that. SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary In alt.usage.english, LFS 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. > >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! SignatureV > In alt.usage.english, LFS wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > No, no, don't thank me, that's quite all right. Cheaper than sending you > champagne and roses, wot? Happy new year! Same to you with knobs on, Michael. But the champagne and roses would have been rather nice... SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) In alt.usage.english, LFS wrote: >Same to you with knobs on, Michael. But the champagne and roses would >have been rather nice... Oh well. Only trying to help. SignatureV [...] >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". SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. > 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. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > 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. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.