Do women have the right to say they feel uncomfortable over a name?

[SarahNade]

I hope this is as safe place to ask this. I am on a discussion on another thread, and it seems many think that a woman has no right to ask not to be addressed by a colloquial term, and if she does ask, she is the one being unreasonable for daring to stick her neck out, she is the one overreacting, for merely asking. Yet the male who went politely asked, gets offended that a woman dares utter her discomfort, and gets abusive with her. So why is it the woman who is 'overreacting' by merely asking not to be called something, but the man is not seen as overreacting by taking offence to her request and getting indignant?

Do women have the right to ask politely not be called something, without being told they are 'overreacting'? Or should women accept being called a term they don't like, shut up and put up with it in case she gets the male in trouble?

@saraclara why gently? Why not just say it?

Because if the person concerned likes you and is using it as a term of affection, it's kinder to be nice than to be blunt.

Actually, it's kinder not to make someone feel bad, whoever they are. So yes, I'd say it gently to anyone (the first time). If I didn't care for the person they might have it said more firmly the second time.

But I wouldn''t say it at all to a delivery man that I was never likely to see again.

This isn't rude. You're desperately reaching:

One item was incorrect (much more expensive item delivered instead of what we ordered....duck instead of chicken!). Being (stupidly) honest I raised it with the driver. He explained that the orders must have been muddled, Fair enough! He searched through the orders. No luck finding the chicken. I said ‘we need something to roast on Sunday’.

A woman stating what she wants, even firmly isn't rude. A man calling a woman "love" when he wouldn't say the same to other men, definitely is being rude, espeically when he didn't apologise and stop when she said she didn't like it.

The bit about his reply saying he wouldn't be abused seemed a complete non-sequitur.

Men who like to patronise women can get quite angry when they're challenged on it.

The women who serve me in the local Dunelm cafe call me darling and give me an extra slice of bacon in my bap. Never have I been so offended!

He made her feel bad. She said so. Why is it up to her to cater to his feelings? The his and her are the giveaway there aren't they?

Maybe he'll stop calling women "love" after this. That would be a win.

This "be kind when someone is treading all over your boundaries" stuff is very new in the culture. Where does it come from?

This "be kind when someone is treading all over your boundaries" stuff is very new in the culture. Where does it come from?

For me, it's more "be kind when you're correcting someone that may not realise they're doing anything wrong".

This "be kind when someone is treading all over your boundaries" stuff is very new in the culture.

Is it new though? It isn't new in these parts that's for sure. Pretty sure women the world over know it all too well as a tenet of female socialization/oppression.

Where does it come from though? "Be kind" is new, it's an injunction very often directed at women, especially feminists.

The only other people I can think of who are told to "be kind" are children, who do need a bit of direction.

Do you think it's up to you to tell other women to "be kind"?

The phrase "be kind" is new to me. Maybe not the sentiment obviously. Although "shut up" was probably how it was previously expressed.

There's nothing wrong with a woman being firm. It's fine. Women need to be firmer.

I thought I'd better come back and reply despite my hiding the other thread. Yes, I was talking about that thread. I thank Bertrand and Whiskey for their common sense and I think StopThePlanet definitely nailed it.

I am puzzled by people bringing up 'class' in this. I am aware there is a greater awareness of class and status in the UK than where I am, however I never, ever would have thought this had anything remotely to do with what class or social status you are in. Anyone of any class or status can be the person using an offensive term, anyone of any class or status can be the person on the receiving end. It is an issue of sexism, not class or status. It is a man calling a woman that, a stranger that he doesn't know, repeatedly, that is the issue. A man. Calling a woman that. Because as history shows, men use terms like that to patronise women. This is fact. So, yes, it is male calling a female the term that makes the difference.

Point is though, it is up to the recipient of the term to determine if they feel it is sexist. Just because some don't feel it is (and use irrelevant women-to-woman examples) doesn't mean it isn't. If you called strangers love at your workplace where I am you would be severely reprimanded. Society has over the last couple of decades decided that men calling strangers and women 'love', 'sweetheart', 'darling' etc is no longer appreciated, and is out. That is now the etiquette, in most places in the western world. Ok so the UK may be still behind the times however that is where education, awareness, and advocating social and cultural change comes into it. Which is what many besides myself on here are trying to do.

Men who like to patronise women can get quite angry when they're challenged on it.

I completely agree it could be that. In the context given most people leant the other way. I don't think they are all excusing patronising behaviour from men.

Another non-point. Can't you see the difference between your family and people you know calling you duck and a complete stranger?

I wasn't talking about family, I was talking about strangers in Leicester referring to us as "me duck".

I think we can all tell the difference between a patronising use of 'love' and the colloquial use of it.

I'd be being generous if I thought as many as 1 in a 1000 uses of the word love are patronising - fewer than that if you live in a 'love'y part of the country.

Since when has "be kind" been anything other than a suggestion not to hurt people's feelings unnecessarily?

If someone is deliberately crossing a clear and obvious boundary, there's no need to be gentle about it.
If someone is accidentally crossing a boundary that they had no idea was there (nor would they be expected to by 99% of the population) then there's no need to make them feel worse about it than they need do.
If it's your boundary and you feel obliged to let them know, be kind.It doesn't matter if they're male or female, 5 years old or 95. there really is no need to be anythign other than pleasant in expressing that you'd rather they didn't do that.

Being over familiar and using terms of endearment like “love” “m’dear” “mon Cherie” and so on are not sexist, derogatory or abusive either as they are between equals. To be offended is to be classist and assert you are not equals but above the sayer.

Not wanting to be called love is nothing to do with class. It's about respect. I wouldn't call the delivery driver love or mate and he shouldn't call me love or mate. This is a business transaction and shouldn't be conducted with terms of endearment or familiarity. And yes, pp have it that the person using the term in the original context was, by repetition, asserting his control of the situation.

"I don't think they are all excusing patronising behaviour from men."

Why not? Lots of women do after all. The OP said she felt patronised and belittled. She was there, not you or those on the AIBU thread.

I'd be being generous if I thought as many as 1 in a 1000 uses of the word love are patronising - fewer than that if you live in a 'love'y part of the country.

It's called casual sexism, and men use it all the time. Calling women "love" when they wouldn't do the same to men is one example of it.

Where does it come from though? "Be kind" is new, it's an injunction very often directed at women, especially feminists.

Well women used to do as they were told, with some blips here and there throughout history. And if they spoke up against men it was mostly amongst each other, or in hushed tones or it was done kindly and nicely and gently.

Women saying no,rejecting men,their advances,their language , women standing up for themselves and their rights, women speaking against male violence and so on should shut up, but that wouldn't really work. So instead there are attempts to silence them by demands to be kind and nice, relying on socialisation,conditioning and any internalised misogyny to do the work for them.

Women having a voice and an opinion means they're unkind.

Since when has "be kind" been anything other than a suggestion not to hurt people's feelings unnecessarily?

I wonder how many men agonise over , debate and discuss hurting someone feelings and how this or that just simply isn't nice.

Haha, my injunction is "Tell him to fuck off".

How unkind.

Op class comes into it here because the original op appeared to be looking down her nose at the delivery driver. She obviously thought that he should treat her with more deference.

He was trying to help her sort out the missing item so I can't see why she then needed to make a "thing" out of him using love. I work in a customer facing role and get called any number of things - love, darling, pet, my first name - equally by men and women and tbh I think they are all over familiar and emphasise the imbalance in the relationship but what's the point in saying anything?

Do you think it's ok for a woman to call another woman love? What's the motivation behind that?

I think most people didn't believe her:

I believe her.

So, is it over familiarity that is the issue rather than sexism?

For me, yes.

Op class comes into it here because the original op appeared to be looking down her nose at the delivery driver. She obviously thought that he should treat her with more deference

What a load of nonsense. It has nothing to do with deference.

I work in a customer facing role and get called any number of things - love, darling, pet, my first name - equally by men and women and tbh I think they are all over familiar and emphasise the imbalance in the relationship but what's the point in saying anything?

I would never dream of using language like to anyone in customer facing role.

Where are you OP if not in U.K.? Are you in the US?

The OP on the ASDA thread was in the U.K. so why would you force your nonUK culture on what is a U.K. regional difference in culture?

Do you want to similarly attack other cultures where delivery men call women “auntie” or “grandmother” as a form of equal to equal address and endearment?

This must be another new thing - accuse women thinking about feminism and how men treat women of forcing their culture on others.

I work in a customer facing role and get called any number of things - love, darling, pet, my first name - equally by men and women and tbh I think they are all over familiar and emphasise the imbalance in the relationship but what's the point in saying anything?

You're serving customers, therefore you don't get to have opinions about how people treat you. On the other hand if you started being overfamiliar with your customers they'd have every right to complain. As you would too about customer service which made you unhappy.