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]

'My dh says this and it really irks me. He refers to 'the girls' at work, when in actual fact they are professional women in their forties. Interestingly, he doesn't say 'the men' or 'the boys' at work - they've all got names, you see, so he calls them by name.'

This is it EXACTLY, JockTamsonsBairns.

But men are superior in this world. Always will be.
So women should be stepping up, not hoping and expecting and believing airily fairily that men will step down.
Male isnt the default[I dont think, not exactly sure of the meaning of that word], male isnt the norm, though there are slightly more of them than us?, but yeah, they sure are the superior.

So no, we cant "compete", so we have to work out what we can do.

I really don't believe that. I find it sad you do.

I don't want men to step down. I just don't believe I'm inferior to many men and I would hate to believe other women did.

'Default' means the assumed norm, like if someone automatically assumes you must be white if you're British. It's not necessarily to do with numbers. There are statistically more women than men, I always used to hear (because male babies are slightly more fragile), but I suspect the situation in China has changed that by now.

The reason people say men are 'default' is because people still tend to assume that the 'normal' version of most prestigious things, is a male role. So for example, they'd assume a doctor is a man, even though lots of women work as doctors.

I don't know if 'compete' is the right word, but I do believe we have to get to a point where no-one is thinking 'well, you're a woman, you might not be as good as a man' about anything except peeing standing up. And where no-one is telling men they can't be affectionate parents or excellent nurses or any of those female-default roles.

What are you talking about Ilikethebreeze? You really think women are inferior?

TheDoctrine

Indeed males of school age are boys but saying that someone made a 'schoolboy' error at is a negative remark. There is no widely used female equivalent as 'schoolgirl error' is rarely, if ever used.

'he's a boy' - negative comment

'he's one of the boys' - positive comment

Just because a man is superior, doesnt mean a woman is inferior.
I agree with the Saggy posts.

I thought in the UK it is 106 males to 100 females, and the thinking was that some of them are lost in battles.

I did try to llok up how many males are working in the UK over 50, and how many felmales, but i couldnt find the statistics.
I guess about 60/40 male to femal, but I could be wrong.

oops,sorry for all the spelling errors in that last post.

Actually, if a man is superior, then he has to be superior to something. That is what the word means. So yes, if you're comparing men and women and you say men are superior, you are saying women are inferior. How not?

The statistics are interesting, but 'default' tends to be used to describe social expectations, not numbers. I doubt that 6 women per 106 men are lost in battles, TBH. Might have been the other way around at some point, I suppose.

I really can't get my knickers in a twist over this tbh.

Lads night out
out with the girls
mates round
Who the fuck cares what I am happy to be refered to/as?
Get a grip.

To me whether something is offensive is all down to the context it is said in and meant.

"Just because a man is superior doesn't mean a woman is inferior"

Er - what does it mean then?

No. 6 men lost out of the 106, to bring it dowm to 100 of each.

See, thats the thing.
Women dont have to be walkovers just because men are superior. They can be strong too.
Yes, men may have 51% dominance, but it doesnt mean that women cant step up to 49% does it?

I'm not sure I get what you think the statistics are doing.

Men aren't superior.

And most women aren't walkovers.

I don't know why you think men have '51% dominance', or indeed what that means? Is this still the numbers thing, because if so, you've got it the wrong way around.

???

This page is interesting (always assuming wiki is accurate): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_sex_ratio

The UK has even numbers at birth, but in total, very slightly more women than men. I admit, what surprises me most is how nearly even most countries are, although I suppose you would notice what seem to be even quite small differences.

It would be really really odd at work (though wouldn't happen, as all the most senior people are women) if someone said to the students: 'right, these are the girls who will be teaching you this semester'; 'the girls and I will be marking your essays this week'; 'if you need some help with the key terms, just email one of the girls'.

'Girls' definitely connotes less authority and status than women, or, more simply, just the job they do (lecturers, tutors, team).

*I can see about 5 posters on here who dont like it.

Make that six.*

Make that seven.

Been lurking from the OP, wasn't going to bother posting but this prompted me.

Oh ok I'll be number 8 then

this keeps coming up on threads I'm on and it's irritating me now, but agree with the people earlier who were talking about context and equivalence

there is a weird reluctance to use woman or women where man or men is used, someone even did it on woman's hour today, a man (not a gentleman) talking about a remarkable or brave or inspiring lady

I was trying to say, not very well, that maybe part of the reason males have dominance, especially in the workplace is by sheer numbers.

It did used to be, I think 106 males to 100 females, but now, from that link at least, there are more females being born. Interesting.

I tried to find statisitics on whether at aged 50 or aged 60, if there were indeed many more men left in the workplace. I presume they are, but I could be wrong.
And also, I presume a lot of the women are returnees, having had a break or previously gone part time, so that leaves men to run ahead, work wise [heck I sound like a certain other poster!].

Glad you dont think, LRD that most women are walkovers.

Have to disagree with you about men not being superior.
If you dont think men are superior, then why do you talk about feminism?

I don't think men are inherently superior beings, I think they are advantaged and manage to do very little work yet own or control most of the global resources so they occupy a superior position - is that what you mean?

Oh, I'm with you now! Yes, I agree men are given a superior position because historically they had dominance in the workplace, and they still do to a large extent (though I don't think it's sheer numbers, I think it's more complex than that - numbers of men in powerful positions versus women, for example).

But yes, I agree, feminism is needed so long as men have the superior position.

What I don't get is why you said men always will be superior?

That's a very generous interpretation of Ilikemybreeze's statements!

"Just because a man is superior doesn't mean a woman is inferior"

Oh, for goodness sake Substitute 'privileged' or 'better paid' or 'has access to more authoritative power' or any patriarchal advantage you wish! It doesn't half get on my tits when feminists go all nitpicky over words instead of simply asking the poster for clarification of intent.

I happen to agree women need to "step up" but it's a long & taxing point to discuss on here, and I have other things to do for a change.

The vast majority of men in employment work full-time (86-87 per cent) compared to just over half of all women in employment (56-57 per cent). Significantly more women in employment work part-time (43%) compared to men (13%). Therefore, although more women work full-time than they do part-time, unlike men, the difference between those working full and part-time is not as stark.
www.equalityhumanrights.com/scotland/legal-news-in-scotland/articles/women-men-and-part-time-work/
In case anybody wants to dig deeper on this!

Hah, relieved to see xposts, LRD!