Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by edblarney | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

edblarney

I agree that language matters but I don't agree with your assertion.

'Girl' is the feminine of 'Boy' but it is ALSO the feminine of 'guy'.

As in: "the guys and I are going for lunch, are you in?"

There is no condescension or diminution.

View on HN

"This is an indicator of the bubble you're living in. It may be common vernacular amongst all or nearly all of the people you interact with, but it is simultaneously highly disrespectful. It might be worth taking a step back and asking yourself what other things you consider normal might actually be disrespect"

You might want to consider that you live in a bubble - and that your finger wagging is condescending.

'Girl' is the feminine of 'Guy' - just as much as it is also the feminine of 'Boy'.

Consider those words for a moment and their common usage.

I'll bet that 'girl' is your vernacular as much as it is mine, because it's universally common.

"That guy/girl is smart" - both acceptable.

"The guys/girls are going out for lunch" - both acceptable.

"Guys/girls, huddle in, let's chat" - both acceptable.

"The guys/girls from marketing are in town this week" - both acceptable.

Boy, you're wrong.

In what way?

You've attacked me twice now with ad-hominem, even worse, not providing any reasonable argument.

In which case above, do you think the interchange of 'guy' or 'girl' would not be acceptable?

Try to take thoughtful position, without trolling ad-hominem.

What ad-hominem, boy?

I really hope you're not trying to suggest the use of the word 'boy' is some kind of ad-hom attack. The irony would be too strong.

Could it be that you are both living in a bubble and both being condescending?

Yeah, we all live in our own bubble. You're right that I was being condescending. My goal was to point out that things that appear indelibly true to you may not be universally true throughout society. Probably not a fight worth having, oops!

To me? Or to the person you were replying to?

In any case - I agree with you that we are at a time when we need to confront the fact that different social points of view can have equal validity and it's not just a matter of one side overpowering the other anymore.

I meant the collective "you". I think this is true of everyone.

True, but the implication is that you are speaking to people who don't know that, when it's only the poster you were replying to who appears not to know.

There are plenty of examples of OK usage, like calling your daughters 'the girls' or your buddies 'the guys'. but calling a grown woman a girl if you're in a position of power (as a man you may always be perceived as such) can be problematic. In your case, since addressing someone you don't like as a girl (julie horvath) comes off in more a negative light than say your sympathetic tone toward the article's subject ('poor girl'). A female director calling a mother 'girl' could be offensive, but calling her 20 something single female co-workers is more acceptable. A man using the term to refer to a woman who is of considerable age a girl enforces a parent-child authority complex. Not good. However a man calling another man son because of seniority or age is acceptable in most regions that I know of, though not all.

Here are a few other examples:

Being addressed as a boy or a girl by a police officer is really disrespectful. 'Boys will be boys' is really a diminutive phrase when referring to men. 'Boys and their toys' when referring to men purchasing items they like is also dismissive.

Perhaps where you are it is not offensive to list it the way I have, but note that it is not the same everywhere and it's glaring enough that it warranted many people posting it.

Son and boy also have racial implications in the US, particularly the South. It'd be bad form for me to speak to a male, black colleague (given an age difference with me being older) and call him "son". If he were white (as I'm also white) it might be seen as slightly dismissive, but it would hardly be offensive.

In the same sense that we have to be aware of the implications of language and race, we have to do the same with language and gender. Without this, you're not treating other people as peers or equals or legitimate agents (referring to a woman as girl has the implication that she's a child, either needing correction or protection, from you, the big, strong man).

This is, as I noted in another comment, also very regional. I live in the South. I could probably call many women girl here and they'd have no problem with it, without familiarity they call me honey and doll. But I also lived in Raleigh (still the South, but culturally very different thanks to the universities and IBM and others). Girl there would have been seen as offensive or dismissive by many women I knew if the man wasn't someone they knew in a familiar sense.

Well bless your heart. (Sorry, NC Native coming out in me. :P )

Cite - yes I know in some countrys "guys" is used in non gendered way now. But I have Never heard that Girl is the Feminine of Guy

(hint English does not have gendered words like say French does)

This is an indicator of the bubble you're living in. It may be common vernacular amongst all or nearly all of the people you interact with, but it is simultaneously highly disrespectful. It might be worth taking a step back and asking yourself what other things you consider normal might actually be disrespectful.

the more language- and thought-policing you try to push, the more of a right-wing backlash (i.e. trump) you will see from the public at large.

A more plausible explanation is that there is a cultural difference. Things must be taken in context, and every culture has words or thoughts that seem demeaning to another culture, but they were not intended to be. As an example, compare the use of the N word between a group of black people and a non-black group of people.

The fact that you see it as disrespectful is just as indicative of the bubble you live in. Everybody has one, and your statement has not been proven to have value outside of your own.

I agree with the part about everybody being in their own bubble (and I find my comment that you replied to rather cringe-y now in its implication otherwise), but I'm not sure about the part where my statement has not "proven to have value" outside my own bubble. I'm not totally sure what that means, but from my perspective, it is valuable to know when the things you say are disrespectful to a different set of people than the ones you usually interact with.

That was more in reference to "but it is simultaneously highly disrespectful" as if it were a universal truism. It isn't.

Fair enough. I meant "many people simultaneously feel it is disrespectful to them".

Its rather arrogant to simply proclaim someone is living a bubble and that everyone should agree with you that certain words are disrespectful. Perhaps you should take a step back and ask yourself if you're the one whose in a bubble.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com