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.

[BertrandRussell]

Somebody will post about something they've observed. Something that only every happens to women, for example. Like being called a girl, as a 45 year old professional woman. And another poster will say that "Oh, people use "boy" to describe 45 year old professional men all the time"
Which is simply, observably, NOT TRUE.

On the thread about gendered endearments, people are suggesting that "mate" is non gendered.
Which is simply, observably, NOT TRUE.

Is there a name for it? If not, should we invent one? The Blinker Fallacy?

Confirmation bias works both ways. There was a thread about "bubbly" (on its own, no boy or girl attached) which posters were determined was never, could never , ever be applied to a man despite being shown examples of it being applied to men (often those in light entertainment) and it appearing frequently in the obituaries of young men.

Initially I always wondered why men popped up so tediously often on the Feminism board - then as I read their mansplaining texts I understood why .
It's a free country and all that but there's an inbuilt arrogance in so many of their contributions that's just so .... predictable.

JigglyTuff

But that is the whole basis of the argument. If someone comes on and says 'oh but men are regularly referred to as bubbly boys too' then how do you move on? It's totally designed to shut down the conversation

No Jiggly it is to challenge your bias that "bubbly" is never used about men. "Bubbly boy" perhaps not , but bubbly - yes.

We all come from different places so it may very well be true where the postergascone from and reflects their life experience just as your opinion on the matter likely effects your life experience. I for one have never heard of anyone over thirty as being referred to as either boy or girl. Where I grew up mate was fairly non-gendered although men were more likely to use it. In the U.K. It seems to be r served for men. But that is just what I have seen. I know that indifferent countries, classes, generations etc the social rules differ.

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

@ enoughisenough12 since when has feminism been solely for women to discuss and champion?

My dp calls our 16 year old ds "darling boy" on occasion. I have never heard another father call a teenage boy anything similar, so it would be wrong of me to extrapolate from that single example

So does my husband to my son. I don't think he would do so outside the home but who knows what terms parents use in private.

Jiggly, I'm actually on your side. If the person says "everyone says/does" disagree and change the angle you coming from. Oh and NEVER say google returns zero results....

www.proprofs.com/quiz-school/story.php?title=which-bubbly-boy-is-your-type

Bertrand the Original post on the thread you are writing about read:

*After watching the gender neutral school experiment, we realised DH routinely calls DS buddy, mate and champ as pet names, and DD sweetie.

They're both very young still so ample time to change this if we want. But it's so hard to think of non gendered terms of affection. All we've come up with is darling.

Are there any more?*

---------

It was about people's personal experiences of endearments for children.

It really is offputting to then start a sneery thread about how people have responded to that specific thread with their own experiences of using endearments for children.

I totally agree with the point about using gendered agreements for adults - it is absolutely offensive to use endearments, especially cute, sexual, gendered, or childish endearments for adults and especially for adults you don't know.

However starting a thread accusing people of derailing a thread about personal experience of using endearments for children by posting personal experience of using endearments for children is so offputting. It smacks of "if you don't fallow the unwritten rules, know the codes, toe the line, you are not welcome and will be sneered at". I thought the entire point of Feminist chat was that those who are not academic feminists are "allowed" to chat in a a less formal way without being sneered at for not saying the "right" things all the time.

I want to read and post on these boards but things like this really put me off!

I'm 52 and I've never ever heard a man described as bubbly

Your words Jiggly referring to "bubbly" no qualification about "boy". You may not have heard it but "bubbly" is used for male entertainers like James Corden and it appears frequently in obituaries.

I would call this derailing. I've described here what I think is a good way of understanding this phenomenon.

Isn't it that these comments come from individuals who have once heard someone, for example, refer to a group of men as "boys" and so from this infer it is as likely as being called "girls"? They then use this single experiential instance to interrupt the flow of an argument that is based NOT on single incidentals but on what is typical.

We could say that TYPICALLY grown women are referred to unthinkingly as girls and there is much evidence for this in testimony, in addition it can be easily observed in daily life. Men are also sometimes referred to as boys but this can't be described as either a typical pattern of behaviour or easily observable outside of the individual experience. This individual instance then helps to prove the rule that women are often inappropriately called girls.

My last point is that appropriateness is key. Calling a group of men boys has an indisputable chumminess to it, bringing the men into an "in group", creating a sense of lightheartedness and jollity but also a sense of strength. All boys together, jobs for the boys, boys will be boys, etc.. Calling a group of women girls can have (depending on the speaker) a patronising 'fun' effect that creates a sense of frivolity though ideas about naivety, youth, beauty etc. In any situation this can be inappropriate and undermining but in a professional situation it is very unhelpful to anyone trying to be taken seriously, to say the least.

I think this argument helps clear up other types of derailing such as not all men arguments.

"There was a thread about "bubbly" (on its own, no boy or girl attached) which posters were determined was never, could never , ever be applied to a man despite being shown examples of it being applied to men (often those in light entertainment) and it appearing frequently in the obituaries of young men"

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

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.

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

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.

"It really is offputting to then start a sneery thread about how people have responded to that specific thread with their own experiences of using endearments for children."

As I said, I am not denying people's personal experience. I am objecting to them extrapolating from that personal experience to say that the issue does not exist. I am sorry if I did not make that clear. I thought I had.

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

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.

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/

@ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.