To be angry that the Chief Constable chose the words..

[seeker]

"gentle" and "a chatterbox" respectively to describe the two women police officers who were murdered on duty yesterday.

Can you imagine those words ever being used to describe a man?

Why take bits of SharonGless's highly reasonable post out of context for the sake of it?

Because, Jessie, that's the only way they can sustain an argument when she has so clearly asked for it to stop.

I notice that many posters have since followed her request and left the thread. I'm doing so now.

The radfems who have latched onto it regardless of the feelings of the bereaved will soon have it all to themselves.

I'm torn on the insensitive timing front.

When I read Seeker's post yesterday morning this story had only just broken and it did feel very raw.

And though I nodded in agreement at her point - I knew others were genuinely very upset and offended.

On the other hand, what better time to debate this issue?

And I can also see that some posters are genuinely offended by the women in question being patronised.

Sallying, what I don't understand is why you think we should stop talking about something because SharonGless wants us too.

There are thousands of discussions here everyday, there will always be someone with a direct involvement. Every thread would be shut down.

YY to Proud - I said upthread I don't think Aibu was the place and the timing was bound to hit a nerve. But this is a talk forum and surely talking about the issues raised after the murder of these women - all the issues raised - is both inevitable and useful. Certainly I'm thinking about the issue - another fence sitter but I'm thinking.
Either way, I think the label of 'disrespectful' is wrong, not to mention the amount of abuse flung at seeker.

What about this analogy (I'm prepared to be told it's a load of bollocks)

Say two black police officers were killed, then another black person says "I think there might be something a bit racist in the way they were described in the news".

Even if the consensus was that no, it wasn't really racist, I still don't think the person who suggested it would be so roundly criticised as they have been on here.

I used that part of her post because she was being held up as the very poster who didn't want this debate. Not as an attempt to manipulate what she said

And frankly, we all interpret posts the way it suits us.

I think they would be. The problem is some people seem to go out of their way to try to be offended by things which were very much said in a positive way about someone.

Or perhaps they are offended without even trying of course?

I was offended by "young girls" and I didn't have to try even one little bit!

It was the "young girls" bit that got me. I mean "young boys" for 23 and 32 year old male police officers? Never in a million years.

fotheringhay,not the same at all,as the majority of people on here do not think the women officers killed would have been offended,and not their relatives either because the relatives gave the words to the Chief Officer to say.That is how I understand it.

I was offended by 'young girls'. Then I read the points on here about wanting to make the women human, about acknowledging the loss of the whole person, about even encouraging witnesses.
And now I'm not sure what I think. But I still fail to see why it shouldn't be calmly discussed.

amillionyears - I'm talking about one unconnected person suggesting it was racist, not the majority. And in my example I think the person may well have been disagreed with by almost everyone (as here) but I believe they wouldn't have been criticised as much for suggesting it.

fotheringhay I think they might be by some people who thought the words weren't racist or that they were but the person speaking them had good intentions and so it shouldn't be brought up.

As I said way ^, there is humanising eg "brave women" and demeaning and infantilising "young girls"

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think that excusing "young girls" as "humanising" is entirely specious.

There was an argument ^ that it could appeal to people who may have information. Stressing their youth/vulnerability. Perhaps the end justifies the means in some cases?

I'm a feminist and proud to be one. I also think language and choice of words is important.

I would normally be up in arms about describing a women in their 20s and 30s as girls.

But somehow, in this instance, I understand why he used the word. They were both women who have been needlessly slaughtered at the early stages what should have been long and productive lives.

They should have lived to their 80s and beyond. To have grown old surrounded by children, nieces, nephews, grandchildren. To have enjoyed and celebrated weddings, births, promotions at work, and all of the many many things that make life rich and worthwhile.

And they won't.

I understand why he might have used the word girls rather than women. It's to convey a sense of the cutting short of a life in its very early stages. To hammer home the absolute tragedy and loss that their families have to endure.

Arguing over it just seems so utterly pedantic.

And I think the specific situation of a senior officer speaking the words of the family is specific to the forces - so a strange situation really.

The idea of any of my superiors at work describing me in public as bubbly or a chatterbox is awful. But my superior staff would not have been placed in the situation of having to articulate my families views.

Perhaps that is part of the problem - one statement trying to reflect women who were much loved family members, well liked colleagues and respected professionals.
I don't know how anyone threads that needle.

I agree, pagwatch.

It's certainly not the most clear-cut example of sexism I've ever seen, by a long way. But I'm glad there are people like seeker who are keeping an eye out for it (eternal vigilance, sort of thing!)

eternal vigilance is fine so long as it doesn't ignore the fact that sometimes language is chosen for a reason that has nothing to do with sexism.

Or indeed allow for people in extreme grief and shock to not always use the most appropriate language.

Exactly Theboss.
Earlier I listened to a radio debate about the women soldier giving birth in Afganistan.

A Female Sergeant Major talked several times about the "boys and girls", referring to the soldiers.

Is someone going to tell her she is sexist and unprofessional?

I would.

But people still shouldn't be condemned for suggesting it (maybe just told they're wrong)

How about:

"They were were much loved family members, well liked colleagues and respected professionals."

That would do it nicely. Paggy you can have his job.