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?

In Scotland we have 'pal', which genuinely is used for boys and girls. Probably more for boys, but very definitely for girls too.

Mate is almost always used for boys and men, apart from during a short period during the nineties when Men Behaving Badly was all the rage.

"Males get harsher sentences than females". Yeah like that accounts for them being 95/96% of the prison population.

@BertrandRussell
For excellent and well researched and understood reasons.

Could you supply a link to support this? I ask as all the stats I can find suggest otherwise.

Sorry, manclife- it's not relevant to this thread, and I assume you are just as good at googling as I am. Probably better.

Manclif but guys is absolutely NOT gender neutral, is it? It makes 'honorary' men out of the women....and not in a good way.

mancliffe - as that isn't really the topic of conversation, why don't you start a thread on that. It wouldn't be a TAAT as it has very little relevance to this one.

Otherwise, it just looks like you want to derail this thread, rather than engaging in the topic of this one.

But just to get you started - this book makes a good starting point. Enjoy the read.

Helping you out here, Manclif :)

Men more likely to commit violent or serious crimes for which custodial sentence more likely.

Female criminality is more usually fraud, shop lifting, handling stolen goods - rarely violent, usually at the less serious end of the spectrum.

&tiktok thanks for the hand.

Anyway back OT most dictionaries have 'guys' as being gender neutral (including OED and merriam-webster) though I haven't checked the Mary Daly intergalactic dictionary but I would be interested to see if it is referred to.

In Scotland we have 'pal', which genuinely is used for boys and girls. Probably more for boys, but very definitely for girls too

It's more of a Glasgow thing?

"Guys" is definitely male.

buddy friend folks

buddy is definitely something I'd see as male.

Friends is becoming used more in schools for young children to try and be gender neutral.

we could call it the "Bubbly Boy Law

Well you could but given how often "bubbly" appears in obituaries of men and is almost the default descriptor for boys and young men, including a 7 year old boy killed in the Barcelona attack, you might come across as a bit crass.

Well you could but given how often "bubbly" appears in obituaries of men and is almost the default descriptor for boys and young men, including a 7 year old boy killed in the Barcelona attack, you might come across as a bit crass Yes. it's actually made me tear up a bit. All these men and boys who have died in accidents and been described as 'bubbly' I had no idea.

Well you could but given how often "bubbly" appears in obituaries of men and is almost the default descriptor for boys and young men, including a 7 year old boy killed in the Barcelona attack, you might come across as a bit crass.

Oh for god's sake Lass don't be emotionally manipulative. That's pretty sick implying that I don't care.

A guy is a man in most online dictionaries

Guys may mean both sexes

But i don't understand how singular means man and plural means men and women

So i reckon it is gendered...and has just been redefined

Most gender neutral terms come from the male default. Women are other.

I'm guilty of using guys to term a mixed group of friends. But I've heard it from my peers most of my life and don't make the assumption it's someone trying masculinise the females in the group.

Suzy homemaker - now there's a phrase I can fucking do without. No guy would ever call another doing domestic things Johnny homemaker. Makes my blood boil

ifyousee said it better...and posher...and shorter

Wow - we were talking about adults. I'm appalled by you capitalising on a child's death to make your point Lass. That's utterly disgusting behaviour. You should be wholly ashamed

JigglyTuff

Wow - we were talking about adults. I'm appalled by you capitalising on a child's death to make your point Lass. That's utterly disgusting behaviour. You should be wholly ashamed

Oh cut it out.

I'm appalled at the gleefulness with which "bubbly boy law" was grabbed at having remembered how often the phrase "bubbly" appeared in obituaries the last time this was discussed.

"Oh it's never used about men" which was untrue then and untrue now. And it is used about men- I found loads of obituaries of men where it was used.

You clearly had your own bias and don't like it being pointed out you were wrong so don't start climbing on to the high ground now.

Lass, my comment about the "Bubbly Boy Law" that you saw fit to quote was made two pages before the mention of obituaries came onto the thread.

I appreciate that you get a kick out of playing devil's advocate on these threads with your exhausting whataboutery but you are going too far with that sick comment, implying that I care more about about a political point than the death of a child, of a human being.

It's pretty fucking offensive and manipulative and the kind of emotional "gotcha" crap that the Daily Fail would be proud of.

Rita, I mentioned obituaries several times as it was a point which I had noticed the last time this discussion was raised. Yet at least 2 posters continued to argue oh no this is word is never used about men.

I note that despite it becoming clear the expression is used you didn't have the grace to acknowledge your own bias or that your oh so clever little comment was wrong and offensive.

You are complaining what I posted is shocking and manipulative but you still can't admit you were wrong even in the face of a recent event showing just how wrong you are.

It was meant to hit home to you and Jiggly yet you still won't admit how you wrong you were. Your attempt to clamber on to the high ground now is pretty unimpressive.

You are complaining what I posted is shocking and manipulative but you still can't admit you were wrong even in the face of a recent event showing just how wrong you are.

Manipulative yes, shocking no.

Yet at least 2 posters continued to argue oh no this is word is never used about men.

Not never. But less often. You seem to be saying that to assert that it is a phrase that is used less often for men is to dismiss the pain and loss felt by that poor boy who was called it. I mean, what the actual fuck?!

Your logic is so flawed and normally that just bemuses me but now you are being insulting.

Once again, my comment was made an hour before yours and I didn't minimise that boy's death in any way. You owe me an apology.

No I do not owe you an apology.

Your comprehension skills are lacking for starters. I did not say you chose to minimise that child's death- that is your spin.

Goodness knows how you have managed to come up with this from what I said You seem to be saying that to assert that it is a phrase that is used less often for men is to dismiss the pain and loss felt by that poor boy who was called it. I mean, what the actual fuck?! (although it is so garbled I'm struggling to make any sense out of it)

You came up with what you thought was a terribly witty little phrase. You had ample opportunity afterwards to concede it wasn't as witty, far less accurate, than you thought but made no attempt to do so. And are still not doing so.

Hello, bit late to the party but yes I completely know what you mean.

I think it comes from some people not being able to consider that their own experiences might be in the minority.

So for example, the chat about the use of 'mate', I read many of your observations on that front and sat here thinking 'wow, I never realised me and [particular group of female friends] were so unusual in referring to each other as mate!'.

Whereas some people assume that normal for them = normal for everyone. So would think 'me and my friends use mate all the time therefore everyone must use it all the time.'

I think lots of the time it's also partly due to the institutionalised acceptance of certain terms, so the frequency with which they are used no longer registers. For example 'love' (I appreciate there's a regional variation on this one too but just for the sake of example), women get called love very often, far more than men, however I think some people have ceased to notice when women are even called it. So they simply know that women get called it, AND can remember some times men were called it too so conclude men AND women are called this equally. Because they can't recognise the inequality in the frequency.

Just theories... but I think they're relevant.

Also Bertrand just want to say I always enjoy your intelligent input on threads.