Is there a name for this thing that seems to happen all the time on feminist threads? It happens on other subjects too,, but it's very noticeable on feminism.

I pulled my boss up a few months ago for referring to a female job candidate as a girl. Ever since then I've been very conscious of not referring to any of our male colleagues as 'boys' because my boss will just be waiting to get me back (in a good natured way). I felt sure I was bound to slip up but actually it's been easy. I obviously think I call men boys more than I do.

@IfyouseeRitaMoreno

Men are just really shit at getting caught, obviously
@elfin I think it's our feminine wiles and our push-up bras that help us evade capture

Perhaps the 96% it was a reference to the prison population then, manc.

There are about 84,000 people in prison in Britain and 80,000 of them are men.

Men are just really shit at getting caught, obviously.

sorry, been busy on the Black Lives Matter website giving them the benefit of my advice

Let me guess @enough you led with "but all lives matter!" amirite?

Well of course I would. I haven't heard it so I thought I'd have a look on the internet to see if that's odd. Which it turns out it isn't.

I agree 'bubbly boy' sounds unlikely but it's not impossible I googled 'bubbly boy' and sadly it's a term often applied to boys who have been killed in tragic accidents

It is almost the default descriptor in those situations- so much so it feels insensitive to copy and paste obituaries to prove it.

@manclife - sorry, been busy on the Black Lives Matter website giving them the benefit of my advice ........
To answer your question, anyone can 'discuss and champion' feminism. However, I have noticed that many of the contributions from men who post on here are goady, aim to 'catch other posters out', and also to derail discussions. Sometimes with a NAMALT approach and sometimes because they are far more interested in promoting their own views rather than listening to women people sharing their own experiences. Doesn't mean they aren't allowed to post - I just find it tedious.
Anyway - enough derailing - sorry OP - back to bubbly...

Not that it matters - but the hits I get for "Bubbly Boy" are a computer game, a character name in a final fantasy game, and one graphic someone posted on Twitter. - it's the third page before I get to it being a description of someone - and even then, those are from books so I don't know if they were real people, or what age they are.

"Bubbly girl" on the other hand is descriptions of women and girls from the off.

I'm not in the UK though, perhaps there are more bubbly boys in the UK (not really)

@BertrandRussell "selective memory to support the unconscious bias". SMTSTUB

Feisty - where the fuck are all the feisty men?

Probably off flaunting their enviably long legs and trim bikini body only 2 months after their wife had twins

@Seek

the only men in Yorkshire I have ever heard call a male 'love' are my dad to my brother in childhood, and my brother to his son.

It would not, and does not, happen anywhere else. But as I say - that's Yorkshire, not Derbyshire

I have a male friend who loves visiting Sheffield/Barnsley (from London) 'cos the (male) taxi drivers call him love. Or at least they used to. So it does happen. It might not be common, and "mate" might be used more, but it's not unheard of.

It's not my bias, Lass. Google bubbly boy. Zero hits. Then google bubbly girls - tons of articles about bubbly girls

Yes it is your bias. You started saying you had never heard the word "bubbly" applied to men and then applied the qualifier to restrict your search terms.

I'm 52 and I've never ever heard a man described as bubbly. Or feisty. Or virginal. Or coy. Or shrill. Or heard men call one another love.

This. In spades. I once got into a classic argument with a Corbynite handmaiden, who did not see why describing Hilary Clinton as 'shrill' was sexist and designed to undermine.

BertrandRussell it seems more that the person doing the extrapolating is you.

OP says "my DH uses gendered endearments what options are there for non gendered endearments?"

Other posters say, "Oh, funny that, it sounds as though your DH is using endearments as gendered which I use for children of either gender"

Bertrand says - "See! People are saying a wider feminist problem doesn't exist! Bloody amateurs, posting their personal experiences on a thread about personal experiences! Don't they know they are meant to post wider theoretical musings about women being called girls, even though that is not actually referred to at all in the opening post! Lets give them a name so we can laugh at them and roll our eyes!"

The phenomenon you are referring to is real - there was a thread on male violence where a poster kept on and on saying she had been attacked by a woman therefore single sex spaces are more dangerous than mixed. If you'd picked that as your example then I'd have been absolutely in agreement.

But instead you picked a thread about personal experience of what people call their children and sneered at people who responded to it at face value, which is hugely off putting to anyone thinking of posting on feminist chat in future without knowing what they are "supposed" to post.

Getting back to the OP - I like 'false equivalence syndrome' to describe this. I heard the PM fall for it during the election campaign. Someone asked about measures to reduce domestic violence and increase the number of women's refuges and she could not resist telling us that men suffered from domestic violence too.

I've heard it in professional and academic settings, too. The topic might be sexual assault and sexual abuse - overwhelmingly perpetrated by men, as we know. Some bright spark - and in my experience, usually a woman, ffs - will feel the need to say 'women can be sexual abusers, too'.

Of course it's true (men can be victims, women can be perpetrators) but these statements seem to be used to prevent us seeing the gendered aspects of crime.

@ BertrandRussel I think that's the problem with nuanced debate and discusssion forums. A post can seem well worded when posted but not read by others the same way.

But as I said before. I agree there is a risk when using gender specific terms.

Really? I must have missed that thread. When was it? Were the obituaries concerned actually quoted?

I quoted some. The thread was mainly about "bubbly" meaning "fat annoying woman". Not everyone agreed . I googled "bubbly" and it featured regularly in obituaries of men, particularly young men. Here is one.

www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/bubbly-kid-was-fatally-shot-by-king-county-deputy-hours-before-high-school-graduation/

It's not my bias, Lass. Google bubbly boy. Zero hits. Then google bubbly girls - tons of articles about bubbly girls.

Exactly. I think that is also a classic derailer: presenting the feminist egalitarian position as being a biased agenda that seeks to restrict people's choices whilst failing to see that the situation we have at the moment is the one that is biased and skewed and which restricts people beyond belief.

Oh dear "zero hits" then "10 pages of hits" you're not helping yourself or the argument.

bubbly is used for young gay men often - whole set of issues with it only being used for gay men and for women and girls and rarely for hetrosxexual adult men and boys assumed to be hetrosexual of course, but it nevertheless is.

That didn't come up in my 10 pages of google hits so well done for finding it

I agree 'bubbly boy' sounds unlikely but it's not impossible I googled 'bubbly boy' and sadly it's a term often applied to boys who have been killed in tragic accidents.
When teaching as I said on the other thread I never used endearments of any kind. I nearly fell over backwards when a visiting teacher called my Y6 pupils 'sweetheart'. To her credit this was to boys and girls.
I have been called 'mate' by a plumber but I agree it's not usual.
What do you want us to do about it Bert? People post all sorts of bollocks on here on either side of your argument I should imagine.