to think that all the people who have a problem with people using "girls" instead of "women"

[CartwrightMiss]

Should say "womanfriend" instead of "girlfriend"?

[gron]

No, I don't think so.

I think words shape how we see the world. If they didn't, we'd still be grunting at each other.

Saggy, of course words aren't irrelevant. There's another thread where someone's family are defending their use of P**i because "it's just an abbreviation". Well, just possibly they don't mean to be insulting but clearly they are using insulting language.

I think it's easy to check in your head - would you say "ooh, go and see if that boy is selling fresh strawberries today" - if so, fine to use girl. If you'd use "that man" or "that bloke" or "that stallholder", perhaps girl is the wrong choice

I also very much doubt that most people who refer to women as 'girls' are doing it in order deliberately to offend, are they? That'd just be wankerish, and it'd be relatively easy to call them on it.

What's awful is the times when it's clearly unintentional or ingrained, but has to do with the way someone sees you.

It's only awful if it's offensive to the woman on the receiving end. It's not really up to anyone else to be offended on her behalf, surely?

Well maybe I'm odd because I just don't get it. If someone is calling me a girl in order to put me down, or make me look small, then they could still do that and use the word woman, or lady. Someone who wants to make a dig at me being fat will still be doing the same thing if they call me a larger lady, or cuddly. It's the intent rather than the actual word. If you work somewhere where women are considered inferior, being called a girl is the least of your problems.

A wanker is a wanker whether he uses your appropriate title or not.

You mean, like the tree falling in the forest, did it make a sound if nobody heard?

I tend to think, yes, it did make a sound.

Likewise, I think if a person refers to his female colleagues as 'girls' and his male colleagues as 'gentlemen', yes, it is not good. It's lovely if his female colleagues aren't offended, and all power to them, but to pretend his language ceases to have any discriminatory implications is absurd.

A wanker is a wanker no matter what title he uses for you, it's true.

But what about all those perfectly lovely men (whom I'm sure most of us have met, and there are women like them too), who don't mean the least bit of harm. The man who thinks the girl does just a wonderful job, bless her little heart, but, oh my goodness, dear chap, you can't seriously mean you'd promote her?

'Girl' is used to denote youth and immaturity. There is no possible way that those connotations suddenly disappear in a well-meaning rush, just because someone has kindly patronizing intentions rather than spiteful or destructive ones.

The same things are said on these threads regardless of what the word in question is.

If we were talking about 1950s USA (actually it sometimes still happens in the USA) where there was a cultural practice of white people referring to African American men as boys, and rarely referring to white men as boys, presumably people on here would not see why it was problematic to refer to one group of adults as children and not another.

See, the trouble is, I would see it as sweet. And may well play up to it a bit.
There are different ways to get promotion.

With a woman boss, you would react a different way.
In fact, there are hudreds of different ways to react to someone. Everyone does is all the time.

it not is.

I don't understand what you mean by 'play up to it.' What do you think they're wanting you to do by calling you a girl?

Most people on here who use it seem to say they just use it as a throwaway remark. I don't think they're expecting you to 'play up to it.'

That perfectly lovely man is not prefectly lovely at all - he's a patronising wanker by the sounds of it. Whether he uses girl, lady, woman, he's still a wanker.

I think that might rather be LRB's point, SirChenjin.

I think that what people forget is that language forms our mental furniture. Which reflects our world view. If somebody thinks of women as "girls" but does not think of men as "boys", then they are also thinking of women as childlike, as of a lower start than men.

That's why it doesn't really wash when people apologise for using a racist, sexist or other offensive word by saying they were angry, and used it in the heat of the moment. If the words were not part of your mental furniture, your world view, they wouldn't be available for you to use, however heated the moment.

It is my point - but also, that he probably doesn't know he's being patronizing. Just as plenty of people never question whether they're being patronizing. The fact there's an inequality in the language makes me curious to look for the reason for it. If others prefer to shrug and not worry, all power to them.

The power is mine then

As was said upthread, if the term girl (or boy) is used to patronise or demean, then of course, it's wrong. However, it's perfectly possible to be patronising and still use the correct non-patronising language. I don't think we should get so hung up on the language (or mental furniture, if you prefer), rather the intention behind it. He may not realise that he's being patronising, but he remains patronising regardless of what term he uses to define female.

" If others prefer to shrug and not worry, all power to them."

Hmmm. For me this falls into the "all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

Language is important. The names we give to things-and to people- are important. I don't think we can shrug and not worry- that way nothing changes.

That is very true, it is possible to be patronizing and use the PC terms.

Maybe you're right about not getting hung up on language. I am aware I do it all the time. But then, it'd be very dull if we all had the same quirks.

I think there's room for some of us to care about language and some of us to care about other things.

What is annoying and crappy is when one set of people are screaming 'how dare you use that word, ban it, ban it, let us never discuss anything until we sort out the language!', and the other snarking 'oh, don't you have anything better to do?'. Now that is a daft dynamic to get into.

Yes, language is important - but it is not up to one person to decide what another should or should not find offensive. I certainly don't think the word 'girl' (or 'boy') should be classed as evil in the way that phrase is meant - unless the intention is to demean, as I said previously. Then the intention should be challenged, of course.

Is anyone saying that it is up to one person to say what another should find offensive, chen?

But if he is a position of power, and if in his mind, women are "girls", then it does matter, surely.

I would certainly hope not LRD.