Is the word "lady" patronizing?

[proteus_lives]

I'm in another thread and it's been brought up. It's a gun forum thing and I disagreed with Rachel Maddow and this is what I said, "She's a bright lady but she's wrong on this issue. She's a fighter but she's willing to give up this right? Doesn't make sense."

Is that patronizing or sexist? I can somewhat understand the other poster complaining about the word bright but I have heard it used in many situations. But lady? I have never heard that one before. Is it patronizing? Or sexist? Or does it depend on the way its used?

Thanks for the input.

[brendan120678]

1. Depends on the context, I suppose.

I don't think your use it is patronizing.
At least you didn't use "girl." That maybe would have been a little worse.

[CTyankee]

17. Girl is fine for a girl. My granddaughters are girls. The oldest is going to be 14 later this month.

I will refer to her as a young woman henceforth unless she prefers the term girl. Her sisters, who are 11 and 8 respectively, will remain "girls" in my terminology. They are children altho my 11 year old has reached menarche. As such, she should be classed as an "older child" since she is just that.

I do not approve of people ascribing all kinds of sexual innuendo to these girls who rightfully do not wish to be known in those terms.

[Louisiana1976]

81. I'm 51 and don't mind being called a "girl." Makes me feel young. :-)

[iverglas]

82. and I know

there are hundreds of thousands of middle-aged African-American men who feel exactly the same way about being called "boy"!!!!

Yeesh.

[Shell Beau]

84. What does that have to do with what she said though?

[iverglas]

87. don't tell me, let me guess

I'm actually in the Twilight Zone ...

[Shell Beau]

89. So you think she should be offended? You want her to be offended

by the term lady?

[iverglas]

92. do threads run sideways in The Twilight Zone?

Please, do read the post to which the post of mine you initially replied to was a reply.

Let me give you a hint.

The word in question was not "lady", it was "girl".

[Shell Beau]

97. Excuse me. Girl. I have been reading this whole thread so I am

so sorry to have written the wrong word. Still, if it doesn't offend her, it doesn't offend her. It doesn't offend me either. That isn't to say you can't be offended by it, but why equate it to African American men being called boys? Not the same thing at all.

[iverglas]

98. do people engage in analytical thought in The Twilight Zone?

why equate it to African American men being called boys? Not the same thing at all.

Oh. Really. Well then. I'll remember that next time I'm tempted to call on the long history of women being infantilized, brutalized and denied the exercise of fundamental rights, by social mores, laws, governments and men. INFANTILIZED being the specific issue here.

Why, that just isn't at all like the way African-Americans were treated by social mores, laws, governments and white people.

Thank you for reminding me.

[Shell Beau]

99. Her not being offended by the word girl doesn't have anything

to do with black men who are offended by the word boy. Period. She gets offended by what offends her. That is it.


And let go of the Twilight Zone. We get it already.

[iverglas]

100. to answer my question:

Evidently not.

[Shell Beau]

101. Um, yeah, ok.

Try and have some fun. So serious. Life is too short.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Odin2005]

161. Context is everything. Diminutives can be both terms of endearment AND insults.

It all depends on CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT. In languages like Spanish and French that make distinctions between formal and informal 2nd Person pronouns the same thing applies, the informal can be used as both a form of endearment or as an insult, it's all context.

[Scout]

106. all right, i'll do it

so what's the big deal about "feeling young"? why do you want people to treat and think of you as a child? are you afraid women aren't valued as much as girls are? are you ashamed of having lived to the age of 51? would you rather die than age? do you want to be daddy's girl all your life? are you afraid to be a grown up?

think about WHY it is that you want to feel young, and be treated like a girl instead of an adult.

get it now? sheesh.

and there is nothing wrong with posts by iverglas ... i agree with her 100% on this one.

[Shell Beau]

113. Many people want to feel young. No one should feel like there

is something wrong with them for feeling that either. It is human nature. And no, I still don't get it. She's not offended by it. Neither am I. That doesn't make me not want equality for women or people all together. Some things just aren't offensive to everyone. Most times it isn't used to be offensive.

[Scout]

127. can Louisiana1976 not speak for herself?

perhaps she's too young and girlish :rofl:

[Shell Beau]

131. She checked out I guess. I was just giving my 2 cents.

I am still young though. 31 now, but I still reminisce the days of being only 21. Oh well.

[Odin2005]

162. Taling about youth, your little girl is adorable!

:D

[Shell Beau]

216. Thanks!!!! I happed to agree with you!

;)

[omega minimo]

192. You're too young to remember why it matters and young enough to not need to care

Enjoy it while you can.

[Shell Beau]

203. So basically, you are saying my opinion doesn't matter here.

[omega minimo]

207. LOL. No, that's not at all what I said......

[omega minimo]

191. Especially in the context of the workplace, which is what the Rachel Maddow comment was about.

[omega minimo]

190. Wouldn't apply to you in a professional context though, such as OP comment on Rachel Maddow

[Dr. Strange]

2. Only when Jerry Lewis says it.

[TZ]

102. OMG..Thats the first thing that popped into my head.

:scared:

[Curtland1015]

3. Depends on the context, I suppose. But then ANY word can be patronizing depending on the context.

I don't think there's anything sexist about the word "lady", per se... other than the fact that it defines the person as one sex or the other. But there's nothing inherently demeaning or sexist about it. It's just a descriptive word.

If I said my friend Pete was a smart guy, I wouldn't be implying all guys are stupid and Pete's the exception. The same would be true if I were to say my friend Beth was a smart lady.

But if I were to say "Nice one smart guy!", that would be patronizing. Not sexist in the least, but patronizing nonetheless.

[proteus_lives]

4. I hadn't thought of the word "guy" relating to this.

Good point. Thanks.

[Captain Hilts]

7. Not quite. The term 'lady' assumes a minimum degree of gracious/polite behavior. 'Woman' does not.

[iverglas]

15. the term "lady" is *prescriptive*

It instructs women in the way they are to behave, and rewards them with the label if they conform to the stereotype.

[Captain Hilts]

18. Interesting way to put it! I'd never thought of it that way. nt

[Odin2005]

163. Not in modern speech, it doesn't

At least in my area it is a mere politeness distinction, nothing more. I think you are over-thinking things, language has no memory of usages and meanings that have gone extinct (that's why it's so jarring for people my age to hear "gay" meaning "happy".)

[omega minimo]

193. You think that, because you disregard word origin and history -- yet talk about "context"

"But there's nothing inherently demeaning or sexist about it."

[Boojatta]

5. "Lady" has aristocratic connotations.

Given that you already used "she", there's no reason to use "lady." Instead, you could say, "She's a bright commoner" or "She's a bright citizen."

[Odin2005]

164. Language develops reduncancies all the time.

I'm learning Spanish and redundant usage of direct and indirect object pronouns is common, even required.

[Captain Hilts]

6. Unfortunately, yes. We do not use it in the same circumstances we use 'gentleman'. Its use

coupled with 'men' as in: Men's and ladies apparel on sale, shows that 'women' are more widely expected to behave like 'ladies' than 'men' are expected to behave like 'gentlemen'.

The expression, "Hey, Lady, do such and such!" as shouted by a cab driver has pretty much ruined the word in many contexts.

It's not meant to be a substitute for 'woman'.

[Curtland1015]

11. Well, a lot of words aren't "meant" for things, but that doesn't stop the meanings from changing.

I'm not saying you are wrong in what you said. But the meanings of words change and permutate all the time. Popular usage pretty much effects everything we say.

I doubt most people that use the word "lady" now mean it in any other way than "woman", even if they were completely different terms once upon a time.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

30. Bleh.....

Let's simplify our language to the point we talk like Tarzan.

Oh, wait, we're probably pretty much there.

[slay]

52. Yeah I'm not a big fan of lady.. I prefer

chick, babe, honey, sweetie, sexy, cutie, etc.. :rofl:

[Captain Hilts]

57. In the right circumstances, those are the right words!

Context is everything.

[slay]

60. heheheh

indeed - and as a guy, i'm very considerate and respectful towards women in general, i just can't be tied down by TOO much political correctness.. :)

[Captain Hilts]

62. Neither can I among friends.

[omega minimo]

171. Lady and Gentleman also come from times when Men had all Power/Rights and Women had None

They will never be equivalent

[Odin2005]

173. Words don't have inherent meanings, they change over time.

Just because words have a certain connotation in the past doesn't mean they have that certain connotation now.

[omega minimo]

174. That is not true.

Repeating it doesn't make it true. Claiming the meaning or "connotation" has changed doesn't make it true.

The meaning is embedded and transmitted in the words. The words represent, encode and perpetuate the culture that they reflect.

Being ignorant of that meaning, ignoring it willfully or unthinkingly, changes nothing.

The lack of interest in the origin and meaning of words is an aspect of the Orwellian times we are in, that might concern someone as bright as you.

Yes, it's a hip generational thing now to pretend that meanings disappear because people are ignorant of them -- but it's not true.

Take "shit." Once shocking, now everyones says "shit" and the connotation has changed. "Shit" still means "shit."

"Suck," once shocking, now everyone says "suck." It still means "you suck dick" but most people don't think about it. Still means "you suck dick."


Words still convey the power and meaning encoded in them.

In this case, another example of the discrepancy between male and female social status, used in a way that emphasizes the discrepancy between male and female social status, by someone willfully ignorant of how the words encode the discrepancy between male and female social status.

And I hope you will read those other posts. :hi:

[Odin2005]

178. Wrong, it is true.

A basic principle of language change is that language changes have no memory. When the last person who is used to using "gay" to mean "happy" dies that old meaning dies.

The British curse word "bloody" originated as a less-than polite reference to the Virgin Mary's menstrual fluid ("by our Lady's blood"), the original connotation is so forgotten that there are many linguists that question that hypothesis for the origin of the term.

"Fuck" and "shit" are still used as verbs that retain the original meaning in everyday speech, they are not relevant to the processes I'm talking about.

"Suck" and blow" are in an intermediate phase, but most people are still oblivious to the etymology of those verbs when they use them. I use "suck" on a daily basis and have never used to to mean fellatio. Give a couple more generations and the original connotations will be completely forgotten.

I suggest you read "The Stuff of Thought" by Steven Pinker, it has a lot of interesting stuff on the meanings for words.

I think you are giving words far to much power than is warranted. The Infamous Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is considered nonsense, hardly any linguist rakes it seriously any more, and the accuracy of Whorf's claims have been called into question.

[omega minimo]

179. Did you read the posts?

I don't believe your hypothesis. And you saying "have never used to to mean fellatio" just means you don't know what you're saying. "You suck!" means "You suck dick" and fellatio is too polite a word for the force behind why people say "you suck" -- WHETHER THEY ARE AWARE OF IT OR NOT.

Did you read the posts as mentioned above on this particular case?

"I think you are giving words far to much power than is warranted."

And more and more people in our Orwellian times will agree with you. Including people who write books.

Doesn't make it so.

[Odin2005]

180. This is the mainstream opinion of lingusits.

Disagree with it? Take it up with folks like Steve Pinker and Ray Jackendoff

And Yes, I did read the posts.

In my mind "you suck" simply means "you suck", with no sexual connotation. The sexual etymology is only learned years after kids learn the verb, when those kids use it they sure as heck are not meaning it to mean anything sexual. When kids stop learning the etymological origin of the verb (because people that were around when the semantic shift occurred die) that original sexual meaning with be lost to most people.

Another, less vulgar example is the world "silly", which originally meant "behaviorally pure", than meant "innocent", then "kind", then "naive", then "stupid", and then finally "foolish".

An ongoing semantic change around here is the shift of "guy" to be a gender-neutral term, many people why age will ask a group of women "what are you guys doing?".

[omega minimo]

182. And you know the "guy" thing is bullshit

Women don't have to accept being called that - or anything else - because a bunch of "guys" say so.

I don't care what your (male) experts say. Language and culture and humanity are much more nuanced than this linear, historic March of Willful Ignorance that you are purporting.

And you didn't read the posts.

[proteus_lives]

212. (male) experts?

Your misandry is showing.

[omega minimo]

217. Your ignorance is showing.

It was an exchange with Odin2005, which you didn't read, just crapped on. :evilfrown:

[iverglas]

194. nice one

If I get started, I tend to get a little, uh, wordy. ;)

[Bucky]

8. Gloria Steinem said it was okay to use the word "ladies" again about 20 years ago

If Gloria says it, it's so.

[Boojatta]

9. What if Gloria says that she isn't Gloria?

On the one hand, if Gloria says it, then it must be so. On the other hand, if she isn't Gloria then, starting from the assumption "she says it", we cannot arrive at the conclusion "Gloria says it."

[Bucky]

16. Nice post, Captain Kirk

You and your blasted human logic....

[mitchum]

10. Only if the woman in question is actually acting like a fishwife

[iverglas]

12. what a sad dump this place is

Intelligent, decent people stopped using codewords for "woman" several decades ago.

It's another century now, nay, another millennium, and still there are people who claim to be progressive / liberal / d/Democratic and yet have missed that whole feminism thang.

(And no, I don't give a shit what Gloria Steinem said about much of anything.)

What's utterly fascinating is that the same person who used this patronizing, patriarchal terminology to describe an intelligent woman then tried to insult me by assuring me that I would never be addressed as a lady.

As I said: :wtf:

Also: :rofl: of course.

[Boojatta]

13. "this patronizing, patriarchal terminology"

How do you justify the claim that it's patronizing terminology?

[iverglas]

14. If I wanted to read your moronic bot posts

I'd seek them out.

Or for the equivalent chuckle,

www.jabberwacky.com

[proteus_lives]

21. I wanted other people's opinions.

I have my own and I just to see what others thought. I'm received some interesting answers. (not yours of course)

All you have done with your posts on this subject is prove once again that age doesn't bring wisdom or maturity.

No shocker there. :rofl:

[iverglas]

40. and all you have done is prove once again

that you're a member in good standing of the gun militant brigade with all its racist, misogynist, right-wing underpinnings.

[proteus_lives]

90. Really? I think I know what you really mean.

You're hinting at racist, misogynist, right-wing undertones because I'm a RKBA Democrat? :rofl:

I believe in a lot of things. All people are created equal, a lady has the right to choose, gay people have the right to get married, we should have the public option, we should be able to say what we want, love who we want, worship want we want(or not) and no one has the right to take our guns. Pot should be legal, we should be out of Iraq, Members of bushco should prosecuted for violations of US and international law. Oh and I voted for Kerry and Obama. Yeah....I see where you're getting the right-wing thing.

"that you're a member in good standing of the gun militant brigade with all its racist, misogynist, right-wing underpinnings."

Oh, I get it. People who disagree with you. If they disagree with you then they must be racists and right-wing misogynists right?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

29. "Intelligent, decent people stopped using codewords for "woman" several decades ago."

Why? Did someone ban thesauruses in the the "intelligent, decent" world?

[Odin2005]

165. Words change their meaningsd over time.

"Lady" doesn't have that "patronizing, patriarchal" meaning anymore unless the person is intentionally use the archaic meanings to be an ass.

[Bryan]

19. It is when I use it

"Look, lady, I'm not responsible for this charge, and I want it taken off the bill..."

[Odin2005]

166. I would say "look, ma'am".

[ismnotwasm]

20. Depends on how it's used

I use it on occasion, and I'm a feminist. However, I use it in a slightly sardonic sense, as most words used to describe females are pretty fucked up. As a rule of thumb maybe, wherever one needs to specify gender as in "He's a bright man-- --"She's a bright woman" would work just fine.

To put it in perspective, (kind of) "He's a bright gentleman" would have a bit of a different value impact than "She's a bright lady". For women, gender specific language identifiers, (many if not most belittling or unkind) are entrenched in our language, and words shape culture, so I do understand your puzzlement.

[mentalsolstice]

22. I hate being called ma'am.

I'm only 48...

[newcriminal]

23. Yes, makes me want to vomit. Lady is fine with me.

[proteus_lives]

31. That's always a tricky one.

I've worked many jobs with lots of customer interaction and it's always something to measure first when you address a lady. It's different with guys. I've found that 9 out of 10 men that are 25+ have no problem being called "sir." While women and "ma'am" is a bit of a craps-shoot.

Many of the gray-hair set appreciate it (just like older gentlemen appreciate the "sir") so my rule of thumb is that if the lady doesn't have silver hair then "ma'am" is a no-no. Because a misplaced "ma'am" will get you a very dirty look.

[Captain Hilts]

42. Yeah, it stings, but it is polite. In the military community, I started getting that in my '20s. nt

[Louisiana1976]

83. For me ma'am depends on the context and the spirit in which it's said--

if used in a polite, charming manner I don't mind it, if used disrespectfully or with a rude tone of voice I can't stand it.

[Shell Beau]

86. And you know ma'am is something I say automatically to anyone

older than I. It was ingrained in me to say ma'am and sir to adults from childhood. But now when people say it to me, I hate it because I am only 31, but it is the southern thing to do I guess.

[Captain Hilts]

159. It was beaten into me as well. I do the same. I'm 50. nt

[proteus_lives]

205. I'm from the north and it's hard for me not to say ma'am or sir.

I know some people don't like it but it's pretty automatic for me.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

24. Good God! When did being gentlemen become incorrect

Sorry, this pc SHIT HAS GONE TOO FAR.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

28. It didn't

There are some people who are just looking for an argument.

[Dr. Strange]

37. Please don't use the term "gentlemen."

It is a heteronormative term designed to subjugate people who identify themselves as male in an attempt to fortify the dictates of the prevailing hegemony of a violent culture. In addition, the Oakland Raiders suck ass.

[Captain Hilts]

41. No one said it was. nt

[jobycom]

73. Yeah, because gentlemen don't care if they offend people.

Used to be that being a "gentleman" meant that a person did their very best not to offend. That's being PC. When did being a gentleman come to mean being a rude-ass jerk who gets angry at having to try not to insult people?

[Book Lover]

149. A gentleman would listen to someone who says the word they used is insulting

Oh, did I tell you what you didn't want to hear?

Tough fucking shit.

[Iggo]

25. "Patronizing" is sexist.

:eyes:

[slay]

26. Hey ladies!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy5iQubfV5s

[proteus_lives]

32. Ahh, old Beastie.

Always a treat! ;-)

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

27. The word "woman" can be patronizing too.

As in "Woman, you don't know what you are talking about."

[Schema Thing]

33. intent is everything. This goes for every word ever used in the history of words.

Which makes for some irritating discussions on discussion boards, where people seldom try very hard to clue in on intent but rather sanctify their own perception of what a word means.

[raccoon]

34. I would rather be referred to as "Lady" than as "girl." I can't stand to hear adult

women referred to as "girl." :grr:

Call me woman, lady, active adult, but don't call me girl. I'm nearing 60 and nobody would call a man my age a "boy."

This is one of my pet peeves; I started a thread about it ages ago. Maybe I'll do it again some day. :-)

[Captain Hilts]

36. The use of that in the workplace has really left scars. I'm touchy about the use of diminutives

to refer to women or things female.

[NJmaverick]

35. The whole issue was just a side show and a intellectually poor way of addressing the real issue you

were discussin. One can claim pretty much any word in the English language is offensive in soome way, it doesn't make it so.

[iverglas]

38. really?

There's an "issue" here? --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=252089&mesg_id=252193

proteus_lives Thu Sep-03-09 04:14 PM
61. She's a bright lady but she's wrong on this issue.
She's a fighter but she's willing to give up this right? Doesn't make sense.


Wow. There's some intellectual powerhouse addressing of issues.

The "issue" was that Rachel Maddow enjoys sports shooting but believes that public policy should prohibit the keeping of firearms in homes. (I suspect she was referring mainly to handguns, but the interview didn't specify.) I'm not sure how one addresses that "issue". The thread itself was the usual shit-flinging fest that most threads in the Guns forum consist of.

You all might want to note that the objection was to the phrase "bright lady".

My post was an objection to diminishing the status of the speaker, Rachel Maddow, and the weight of her arguments, by using language the intent and effect of which is to do just that.

Google will tell you how often Hillary Clinton has been referred to as a "bright lady".

Perhaps we can find instances of men of equivalent stature and intellect being referred to in such tacky ways.

Children and protégés are "bright". And we all know what "lady" is, whether we want to admit it or not.


I do not wish to be discussed in this place. This entire thread is essentially a violation of the rule against calling out.

[Captain Hilts]

39. Women should accept a man's opinon of what they should find offensive?

You're smarter than that NJ.

It's not a rock 'em, sock 'em issue, but it has meaning.

[NJmaverick]

54. Intellectually and logically speaking

one still needs to justify a claim of something being offensive. It's not merely enough to declare something offensive. If you don't have at least some minimal standard you are putting people in the position to dictate the language of others on only a whim.

[iverglas]

61. funny thing

I've always expected people posting at a liberal / progressive / d/Democratic discussion forum to both KNOW and CARE about issues like these.

Language is important. And if anyone really does not understand the issue/s, there are internet search engines available to help them learn a little history.


If you don't have at least some minimal standard you are putting people in the position to dictate the language of others on only a whim.

No one here is capable of "dictating" anything. This is just the "political correctness" conversation-ender in another guise. No one who raises the issue of language in a discussion is capable of controlling anyone else's speech -- or has any desire for that to be done.

Your own assertion that the issue is raised because of a "whim" is in fact exactly what you are accusing others of:

one still needs to justify a claim of something being offensive.

No justification for alleging "whim" that I see.

[Boojatta]

66. Does anyone have a desire for the DU rules to be enforced?

From the post that I'm replying to:

No one who raises the issue of language in a discussion is capable of controlling anyone else's speech -- or has any desire for that to be done.

From another post in this thread:

This entire thread is essentially a violation of the rule against calling out.

[iverglas]

69. I think I've made it rather clear

on many occasions that I find every word you type to be a waste of bandwidth.

This website's owners and administrators are entitled to set and enforce whatever rules they choose.

Users of the website are entitled to the protection of the rules to which they agreed when they took out "membership" in the website.

If anybody doesn't like the rules, they're welcome to leave or take the matter up with the owners and administrators.

Your post is a piece of disingenuous shit.

[Boojatta]

72. "disingenuous"

I think that you expressed a sincere displeasure with this thread when you wrote:

This entire thread is essentially a violation of the rule against calling out.

In contrast, the following...

No one who raises the issue of language in a discussion is capable of controlling anyone else's speech -- or has any desire for that to be done.

... appears to be disingenuous.

I acknowledge that you deserve credit for finding and typing a word that fits: "disingenuous." I merely recognized it when it was sitting in plain sight.

[iverglas]

75. disingenuous

You are nothing if not.

The rules of this board are not made by me, but I am ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION OF the rules of this board, because I and EVERYONE ELSE POSTING HERE have agreed to abide by them.

Anyone who wants to post something that would violate the rules of this board, if posted here, somewhere else, is welcome to find a forum for their speech elsewhere.

Anyone who posts at this board has AGREED to control their speech / have their speech controlled AT THIS SITE by the owners of the site according to the rules of this site.

And it really is beyond disingenuous to a few other words starting with "d" for you to persist in asserting that my reference to the rules of this site is a desire to control anyone's speech.

Will you just go away now? You are annoying and pointless.

[Boojatta]

95. "my reference to the rules of this site"

You asserted that this particular thread violates the DU rules, but the DU rules obviously don't include such an assertion.

You could have made reference to the DU rules for any number of reasons. For example, you could have said that they are burdensome and difficult for you to obey. You didn't say that.

You could accuse a person of a "fashion crime" and then characterize the accusation as a "reference to the rules of fashion." More likely, it would be a personal criticism of the way the person is dressed.

When we include a reference to the person who makes the judgment, things become clearer. "I consider that to be a fashion crime" sounds like code for "I condemn the way you are dressed." (We need to be careful here. A person who makes an accusation of a fashion crime doesn't necessarily wish that the fashion crime had not been committed. The accuser may relish an opportunity to accuse.)

Similarly, "I consider the creation of this thread to be a language crime" is a lot like "I wish that something were done to control and/or condemn the speech that is the Original Post of this thread."

[NJmaverick]

71. I'm thinking your response is trying to cover from the fact

that there is no history of the term "lady" being considered a derogatory or demeaning term. Instead you are deciding that you don't like what a poster wrote and lacking a better response you tried to create an issue where one doesn't exist. That's just how it looks to me. If you have some sort of justification for the term "lady" being offensive, I would be more than happy to hear and listen with an open mind. Otherwise I consider your claims frivolous.

[iverglas]

78. I don't give a flying fuck how it looks to you

The initial exchange took part in a context with which you are unfamiliar. So how things look to you are of the most supreme irrelevance to anything.

If you have some sort of justification for the term "lady" being offensive, I would be more than happy to hear and listen with an open mind. Otherwise I consider your claims frivolous.

And I stopped wasting my time on disingenous/ignorant invitations to waste my time some decades ago.

About 1975, I think it was.

[NJmaverick]

80. Then I guess it's settled then

I consider your claims frivolous and with out merit and you don't care.

Although we do agree that you are wasting your time with your slanderous changes (the accusations of lying and ignorance) you are making against me. Then again you seem to have a complete and utter disdain for intellectual honesty so I guess that's to be expected

[Scout]

108. no history of the term lady being considered offensive?

you're kidding right?

if that's true, well then let's start that history right fucking now! someone had to be the first to decide using nigger was offensive, then everyone jumped on the bandwagon. same with all the other offensive words used to refer to a class of people.

[newcriminal]

114. I have read some inane things in here, but lady you take the cake.

Comparing that n word with the word lady is the stupidest post I have ever read. If they gave out awards for stupidity you would receive one for that post. You should be so proud.

[Boojatta]

115. Wait a month or two...

... and slip a reference to "the L word" in some GD thread. If anybody knows what you're talking about, then it will be either evidence that someone has a good memory or evidence that the L word is indeed a terrible thing. See? I'm saying it now myself. I cannot bring myself to type more than the first letter of the L word.

[newcriminal]

116. Come on give it up. What the hell is the L word?

Love is the only thing I can think of. Is that an offensive word now too?

[Boojatta]

117. Lady

[newcriminal]

121. Oh come on you can say lady. I really thought you meant a different topic.

You can say lady in GD. I have never been flamed for it. This nonsense might happen in the gun forum, but not in the lounge or in GD. While I can't speak for all of the ladies of the lounge, I can't imagine any of them being offended by the word lady.

[Scout]

128. like i said, someone had to be the first to challenge use of the n-word too

and i'm sure they were laughed at too.

take your "lady" bullshit, fold it five ways, and shove it up your ass

:)

[newcriminal]

133. Spoken like a true lady.

[Scout]

135. spoken like a true asshole. n/t

[rug]

136. Is the word "asshole" patronizing?

[Captain Hilts]

144. "Shove it up your ass" AND light it on fire. nt

[iverglas]

118. so now I say we leave them to their own devices

the main device being the rope with which they are hanging themselves on their own utter and abject stupidity and assholery.

Can you imagine wanting to make yourself look like that in public??

!

[Shell Beau]

143. You sound all holier than thou now,

[Odin2005]

167. For someone so concerned about "language" your knowledge of lingustics is wanting.

You are not understanding basic principles of Semantics, the concept of CONTEXT and SEMANTIC DRIFT being examples.

[iverglas]

188. my knowledge isn't lacking

I can tell, for instance, that your post had precisely fuck all to do with the content of my post.

If you would like to demonstrate the relevance of context and semantic drift to anything under discussion here, you feel free.

What is under discussion here is someone's choice to refer to Rachel Maddow as a "bright lady" in a situation in which he sought to persuade that her opinion on a topic very disproportionately dear to the hearts of men - guns - was not a good opinion.

Context is very definitely relevant. Semantic drift? Well, if you're referring to "lady" becoming a patronizing rather than pseudo-respectful term, you may have a point.



typo fixed

[Odin2005]

201. That's the point was I trying to make.

Terms of politeness or endearment are very often commandeered as insults. That can happen against ANY term of politeness. Like I mentioned, in languages with politeness distinctions in their pronouns (like English used to have, "thou" was informal and "you" was formal and plural) if you want to belittle and insult someone you use the informal form when it is not appropriate.

I am not denying that the poster was an ass. If I made you think I was defending the person I'm sorry, I was doing nothing of the sort.

[rrneck]

43. The joys of political correctness.

If someone wants to be offended, or at least assume offense to use your own terminology as a truncheon against you, there ain't much you can do about it.

Common courtesy is a cooperative effort that requires latitude from both parties. PC is too often used to manipulate others and frame the discussion. Unfortunately, it can ultimately lead to disingenuous behavior since there is an assumption that if you just use the right word your intent is benign and genuine. Frames work both ways.

[Captain Hilts]

44. Another man telling women what they should find offensive. nt

[rrneck]

45. And what would that be?

Your post is a good case in point.

[slay]

49. Perhaps we should all just be called "undeclared"

like some people..... ... ....

[Captain Hilts]

50. I'm open about my sex in threads like this. nt

[iverglas]

63. I guess the right term here would be

Wow, what a big man.

[slay]

65. 10" Ms. Undeclared

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

70. well I guess I'll have to say it again

PC is too often used to manipulate others and frame the discussion.

Yes.

The accusation of "PC" is used to attempt to silence anyone who objects to racist, misogynist, homophobic or otherwise bigoted language.

It's that simple.

[rrneck]

77. Absolutely

Language is malleable and can be used for good or ill. It all depends on the intent of both participants in the discussion.

It was a pleasure to respond to your post. Thank you.

[jobycom]

76. That's a lazy man's argument to explain being a jerk.

PC has always been here. It was called manners in the past, or the Golden Rule, or just good behavior. Lately the Republicans have managed to make it a bad word so they can still tell their favorite racist jokes and not omit the slurs.

You claim courtesy should be a cooperative effort. Bingo. Then cooperate. Quit using language you know will offend someone and make an effort to consider both parties in a discussion. Use your own definition as you wrote it, in other words, instead of using it to mean "All y'all should let me say what I want and only worry about how I feel."

Shame on anyone on a liberal board for repeating their talking points. Shame.

[iverglas]

79. ---

Can't think of anything to say!

Er, ditto. ;)


edit - but I could add, from your profile:

"Democrats should be nicer than Republicans"

[rrneck]

94. I had to trot off

to Wikipedia and have a look at the term since I hadn't given it much thought since my grad school days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

In left-wing rhetoric
Even before the term PC appeared, the Left mocked its own language usage in the pamphlet Lifeitselfmanship or How to Become a Precisely-Because Man (1956), by Jessica Mitford, about “L and non-L” (Left and non-Left) English, mocking the Communist clichés used by her comrades when talking about fighting the class struggle. The pamphlet’s title refers to the Stephen Potter book series including the title Lifemanship, and replies to Noblesse Oblige, by Nancy Mitford, about the perceptible class distinctions in British English usage, that popularized the phrases “U and non-U English” (Upper class and non-Upper class). <9><10>

In the event, by 1970, New Left proponents had adopted the term political correctness. <1> In the essay The Black Woman, Toni Cade Bambara says: “. . . a man cannot be politically correct and a chauvinist too” — a usage that widened the definition’s scope to include the politics of gender and identity to the politics of ideologic orthodoxy in governing. The New Left thus re-appropriated the term political correctness as satirical self-criticism; per Debra Shultz: “Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the New Left, feminists, and progressives . . . used their term politically correct ironically, as a guard against their own orthodoxy in social change efforts”. <1><2><11> Hence, it is a popular English usage in the underground comic book Merton of the Movement, by Bobby London, while ideologically sound an alternative term, followed a like lexical path, appearing in Bart Dickon’s satirical comic strips. <1><12> Moreover, Ellen Willis says: “ . . . in the early ’80s, when feminists used the term political correctness, it was used to refer sarcastically to the anti-pornography movement’s efforts to define a ‘feminist sexuality’ ”. <13>

It seems that the difference between the use of the term by the right and the left is that the left has used it in the spirit of constructive criticism. The right seems to lack the capability of self reflection to do the same. They turn everything into a bludgeon sooner or later. I used the term in the spirit of self reflection. This thread is about the use of the term "lady" which is simply not a pejorative unless one goes out of one's way to use it as such. Taking exception to the use of the term as a term and requiring through a rush to umbrage to manipulate others by scoring a rhetorical point is disingenuous and manipulative. It shows a lack of introspection peculiar to the political right.

Nevertheless, no offense was intended in the use of the term and if any was taken I apologize.

As an aside here is an interesting article in Salon I ran across the other day.
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/01/c_word/index.html

[Captain Hilts]

145. Right! What's wrong with good manners? Putting people at ease?

Say what you want around your peeps, but in public settings we should be polite.

[Enrique]

48. especially bad when preceding their occupation

"lady cop", "lady doctor", "lady Senator", etc.

[Captain Hilts]

51. Or college team name: 'Lady' Monarchs, 'Lady' Vols, 'Lady' etc. UGH!

[newcriminal]

53. My 2 cents for what it's worth.

I'm female and do not find the way you used lady offensive at all. I'm not offended when sports teams are called lady whatever either. I do believe people will go out of their way to be offended at nothing.

[Captain Hilts]

59. 'Lady' Volunteers, makes them the 'marked' team. The men are the 'norm' and women not.

Just as there is skiing, and 'water' skiing.

Snow skiing is the norm and does not have to be 'marked' as 'water' skiing does.

[newcriminal]

85. Somehow I don't see being marked as lady makes it offensive.

Not being normal doesn't mean it's below normal. It means it's different. By putting water in front of skiing doesn't make it less, it makes it different. The same as lady does in front of the sports team.

[iverglas]

88. uh, "different" FROM WHAT?

Gosh, could it be -- different from THE NORM, the norm being MALE?

Was everybody here really born in 1995?


Do you all really not get the point -- that THE NORM for "human" has always been defined as MALE, with FEMALE being NOT the norm, i.e. DEVIANT?

[newcriminal]

91. Yes different from the male team that use to be the norm.

Your problem is you see it as DEVIANT! It certainly use to be male as the normal especially when we are talking about sports teams. The good thing is it isn't that way anymore, and therefore we need the adjective lady, or special or better if you like. Certainly not DEVIANT.

Your irrational outrage is somewhat comical. I hope you don't have true problems in your life. I don't see how you could handle them.

[iverglas]

93. here's the answer

I don't give a flying fuck what you think, about my "irrational outrage", which is neither merely because you say it is, or my life, or pretty much anything else.

I long since stopped caring what people who don't know what they're talking about or bother to educate themselves think about anything.

[newcriminal]

96. I expected as much.

You have already expressed your "Flying Fuck"feelings (say that three times fast)regarding anyone that doesn't share your opinions. You are right about one thing you are much older than I am, hopefully you will realize things have changed and women do not need to take offensive over such trivial things as the word "lady".

[Odin2005]

168. It's impossible to have a rational discussion with people spouting irrational tirades.

Every time a poster tries to be reasonable you call them a "evil misogynist, racist, sexist, homophobic monster!!!".

[iverglas]

189. I don't recall inviting you to any kind of discussion

I specifically said I was not interested in ANY "discussion" with know-nothings and cretins.

Your point?



typo fixed

[Scout]

109. fine, then if it HAS to be differentiated, we'll call the women's team

the Volunteers, and the boys team the Gentlemen Vols.

satisfied now?

[newcriminal]

110. Fine with me.

As a matter of fact I have heard them call volleyball teams that are males, the male volleyball team, because the norm there is usually female. When it comes to sports it's simply an adjective. As to the snarky "satisfied now" comment, I am not the one with the outrage here.

[Scout]

130. fine with you means jack shit, since it's just not done...

using male volleyball team is not the same as Vols and Lady Vols.

besides, the ball has no gender (look at the balls on that volleyball!) ... it would be the men's volleyball team

:rofl:

[proteus_lives]

147. That's what I'm getting from these posts too.

"I do believe people will go out of their way to be offended at nothing." It's a very "do as I say" crowd. They demand respect but give none.

[datasuspect]

55. yes. and "women" should be "womyn"

and there should be a "herstory" to complement "history"

[gbate]

58. Tell me you're joking. Please.

As a woman, I find the whole "womyn" thing hilariously stupid.

[iverglas]

74. not joking

Mocking. There's a difference.

Mocking a big fat old straw thing, of course. It's so easy to defeat adversaries not present.

[TreasonousBastard]

56. Every word in the English language is patronizing and...

offensive to someone, somewhere.

Even "English," as in "English language" is offensive, harking back to the days of landed aristocracy, empire, and slavery.

Since it is now impossible in this country to address anyone by any name, title, or term for risk of mortal offense and blood libel, I have decided to communicate only in French and Romanian. The fact that I do not speak French or Romanian is not a liability, since that means I cannot possibly offend in those languages, either.

(If that doesn't work, I shall use hand signals to communicate. Foolproof, as I will only need one finger on one hand.)

[Common Sense Party]

64. I prefer the term "broad.'

:hide:

[Captain Hilts]

67. I actually used 'dames' the other day! Context is everything...nt

[Common Sense Party]

68. 'Dames' means 'ladies' in Spanish. Ladies & gentlemen is

damas y caballeros

I should have been offended for being called a horse-man.

[KansDem]

103. What about all the songs that use "lady" in the title and lyrics?

Alabama - Lady Down On Love

Oh Lady Be Good-Ella Fitzgerald

Tom Jones - She's a Lady

I never considered it "patronizing," but then I'm a guy! :D

[Captain Hilts]

112. Context is everything. The term is not, in and of itself, patronizing. nt

[iverglas]

120. uh

I seem to remember this as one of the sickest expressions of narcissism I'd ever heard, and somebody is presenting it here as some innocuous use of the word "lady"??


Tom Jones - She's a Lady Lyrics

Well she's all you'd ever want
She's the kind they'd like to flaunt and take to dinner
Well she always knows her place
She's got style, she's got grace, she's a winner.

She's a Lady. Whoa whoa whoa, she's a Lady
Talkin' about that little Lady, and the Lady is mine.

Well she's never in the way
Something always nice to say, Oh what a blessing.
I can leave her on her own
Knowing she's okay alone, and there's no messing.

She's a Lady. Whoa whoa whoa, she's a Lady
Talkin' about that little Lady, and the Lady is mine.

Well she never asks for very much and I don't refuse her
Always treat her with respect, I never would abuse her.
What she's got is hard to find, and I don't want to lose her.
Help me build a mansion from my little pile of clay. Hey, hey, hey

Well she knows what I'm about,
She can take what I dish out, and that's not easy.
Well she knows me through and through,
She knows just what to do, and how to please me.

She's a Lady. Whoa whoa whoa, she's a Lady
Talkin' about that little Lady, and the Lady is mine.

Yeah yeah yeah, She's a Lady
Listen to me baby, She's a Lady
Whoa whoa whoa, She's a Lady
And the Lady is mine

Yeah yeah yeah, She's a Lady
Talkin' about this little Lady
Whoa whoa whoa whoa
And the Lady is mine

Yeah yeah, She's a Lady
And the Lady is mine.



Christ, that's the sort of person who goes on television reality shows to get the adoration he needs, and then kills the woman who decides she doesn't want to know her place, take what he dishes out, or be his.

[Scout]

134. +1000

that's exactly what i always wanted to be ... a lady, just like in the song.

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

i'd rather be a woman. and i'm doing a damn fine job of it.

[Captain Hilts]

142. I've always HATED that song. Right up there with "Having My Baby." nt

[Patiod]

104. Only if the lady is breatfeeding at Olive Garden

Oh yeah! Another firestorm for the records! Not as good as pit bulls, but better than corn-flake chicken recipes....

[Scout]

107. Patronizing

in the same circumstances but with a man, would you (be honest) call him "gentleman"? probably not.

what's wrong with just calling a woman a woman? a person? how about just saying "Rachel is very intelligent, but i think she's wrong on this issue."

and ladies are not always treated the way an adult woman would be. you have to give up too much to "earn" the "title" of lady. i never wanted to be a lady, i'm happy being a woman.

[Captain Hilts]

111. I'm VERY polite, but I'm no lady. We catch a lot of shit for not being ladies.

Gee whiz, Susan Boyle says 'fuck' a few times and London Bridge falls down.

[iverglas]

119. "Gee whiz"??

Forsooth! Wash that mouth out with lavendar soap. ;)

[iverglas]

196. too obviously --

If Rachel Maddow had been a man, the comment would have been "HE'S AN INTELLIGENT MAN".

Not "bright". Children and subordinates are bright.

(Please let us not forget that it was the PHRASE to which I objected, not merely the word "lady", even if our OP has declined to figure that out.)

And not "gentleman". That word is reserved for very specific contexts and meanings: as a form of address (in which "ladies", as in "ladies and gentlemen", is essentially neutral as well); and to refer to a very particular type of person/behaviour.

I mean seriously: how ridiculous would that sound? "He's a bright gentleman."

Too obviously, "lady" in this context is NOT the counterpart of "gentleman". It is the classic use of "lady" -- to distinguish a particular individual from what is conveyed by the word "woman".

To call someone a woman is, historically, to relegate her to a lower socioeconomic status than a lady, and ascribe lower morals to her than a lady has. I know this because I grew up in the 50s and 60s, and it simply was not acceptable to refer to "the woman" over there. "The lady", always.

And that is the usage in issue here. It may be unconscious, the person engaging in it may not know why they are doing what they are doing, but that is what it is. To refer to the individual in issue as a woman is to "disrespect" her; to refer to her a lady is to respect her.

And how obvious is it that this is disrespectful, precisely because it ascribes less than respectable qualities to a woman??

When has it ever been disrespectful to refer to a man as a man? Quite the contrary, I think.



Typos fixed

[omega minimo]

122. Why didn't you just say "she's a bright person" or "she's a bright woman"?

[iverglas]

123. urgh

It was the double ick, you see.

People really very seldom call men (male human beings of the adult variety) "bright". It's a term applied to people who are younger and of lower status than the speaker - or to make the object of the term appear to be of lower status.

[omega minimo]

125. Well there's that. It's hard to keep up with all the regression these days

:spray:

[newcriminal]

124. What is the difference between "she's a bright lady" and "she's a bright woman"?

[omega minimo]

126. was the poster saying something about a person and funneling their opinion and comments through

a POV based in gender?

If the speaker wouldn't do it regarding a man, there's not reason to do it regarding a woman.

[newcriminal]

129. I understand the difference in "she's a bright person" and "she's a bright lady".

But you asked why they didn't say "she's a bright person" or "she's a bright woman". My question is what's the difference between woman and lady?

I understand your point, about not having to make gender a point at all. I just don't understand how woman is better than lady, and I certainly don't understand how the word lady is offensive.

[omega minimo]

137. You don't understand the concept or the post or you wouldn't be asking this.

I am willing to try again to make it understandable and simple, but it would help if you read the words and actually tried to comprehend them.

(NOT SHOUTING):
If the speaker wouldn't do it regarding a man, there's no reason to do it regarding a woman.

If you need a guide for this sort of question, imagine the same/equivalent terms applied to a male.

Was the poster saying something about a person and funneling their opinion and comments through a POV based in gender?

In the example given of Olbermann, the poster probably would not say "he's a bright gentleman, but...." Probably wouldn't have mentioned he's "bright" at all. The word wouldn't even have been MAN it would have been his name, more like "I RESPECT Olbermann but....." or "Olbermann's smart but...."

As Iverglas has pointed out, BOTH the "bright" and "lady" are dismissive of the PERSON, the brilliant Rachel Maddow.

This OP is a violation of DU Rules and a call out and a BOGUS fail at pretending to "ask" a question that the OP was stubborn and obnoxious about in the original thread. :thumbsdown:

Iverglas is spot on:

"I'm not surprised that you would think it perfectly reasonable to characterize a grown woman with an obviously steel-trap mind as "bright". A word commonly used to describe children and protégés. I wonder how often people describe, oh, Keith Olbermann as "bright"?

" "Lady"? That one's patronizing by definition.

" You didn't need my thoughts. You just need to do a little of your own thinking.

"Not surprisingly, it's a term often applied to Hillary Clinton. (And, interestingly, Monica Lewinsky.) I wonder how often people described Bill Clinton as "bright". Or by some patronizingly euphemistic term like "lady" ... oh wait, there isn't one for men ... because there's just nothing wrong with calling a man a man."


I understand that some men still don't get it and some think that they are being respectful with that language. It's more respectful to try to actualy understanding what we're saying here. Trying to explain clearly. Treat women with the respect to recognize them as PEOPLE first. Not as a separate class defined by and compared to men.

[newcriminal]

138. It would help if you would read my post and answer it not this crap your spewing.

A simple damn question. How is "bright woman" any less offensive than "bright lady". Again I understand your point regarding using the gender at all. I posted that already. Did I not make that simple enough?

As to being in violation of DU rules, I have seen several posts of Iverglas that is in violation as well.

[omega minimo]

139. You don't understand. Read/Think it through and you might. Answer your own question.

THAT's when you understand.

Your attitude and hostility are totally FUCKED UP.

As is the bogus Authoritarian macho asshole demand that I answer THE WAY YOU DEMAND THAT I DO, instead of answering as I choose. Your question is NOT a mistake and will not lead to an understanding.

"...how woman is better than lady?" THAT REFLECTS THE FACT THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND.

I answered your question.

[newcriminal]

140. I did answer my own question. It isn't offensive.

If that's the best you got then I see no reason to further this. As to my attitude and hostility I suggest you read through this thread and see where that comes from. The women on this thread defending that the word "lady" is offensive our by far the most offensive people on this thread.

I see you edited it before I had the chance to answer. I hope you know this "authoritarian macho asshole" is a female, and you didn't answer the question. As a lady I wish you well.

[omega minimo]

141. You didn't think about the answer. Which answers your shortsighted question

Which doesn't get a direct answer because it doesn't make any sense, it's a false premise. A false premise cannnot be answered.

Demanding that I answer the way you demand and using it as an excuse to ignore and dismiss how I answered, is "authoritarian macho asshole" behavior, no matter what the gender.

[omega minimo]

132. "No class" includes missing the point on purpose, adding insults, OPing in another Forum to Call Out

the poster, violating DU Rules, feigning innocence and starting a poll to "ask" what you have stated in the original thread is your stubborn and obnoxious attitude.

[proteus_lives]

146. Obnoxious?

I'm only interested in other DUer's opinion. Any insults were in response to insults and innuendo made.

What point am I missing on purpose?

[omega minimo]

151. Your disingenuousness

is belied by a look at the thread you continued this call out OP from. You stated there that you were stuck to your opinion. Why pretend you're open to others.

[proteus_lives]

152. I'm not calling out anyone.

I wanted to know what people thought.

And the responses have led to me confirming my original opinion. My calling RM a "bright lady" was not misogynistic, right-wing or hateful. I was politely disagreeing.

I acknowledge that the words can be patronizing but so can any word or phrase. I disagreed with other DUer and was attacked. So I decided to see what other people thought.

[omega minimo]

153. THIS OP IS A CONTINUATION OF ANOTHER THREAD AND A CALL OUT, FROM ANOTHER FORUM

AND you're gonna sit here and DENY IT? :wtf:

Of COURSE, "the responses have led to me confirming my original opinion," starting with the fact that you got away with this blatant bullshit AND YOUR'E STILL DENYING IT. :rofl:

AND you stated in the OTHER ORIGINAL THREAD that you had your mind made up.

What a load of crap.

[proteus_lives]

157. Yes, I am because I don't think it is.

I'm interested in what other people think and I'm getting a lot of fascinating responses.

Thanks for chiming in! ;-)

[omega minimo]

169. You're not interested in what other people think.

You're interested in having your smug attitude reinforced. You've already said so.

:thumbsdown:

Let us know when you respect women enough to make a statement about Rachel Maddow with equivalent wording you would use for Keith Olbermann.

[proteus_lives]

175. Then why did I post this poll?

Seems like a lot of trouble if I don't care what people think.

If KO had said the same thing as RM I would have called him a bright gentleman. Gentleman and lady can be polite equivalents of each other.

Oh and I do respect women. Politeness is part of respect.

[omega minimo]

176. Nonsense.

All of it. And I've already commented on the same points. And you're repeating nonsense.

[proteus_lives]

206. I don't think I am.

I'm actually wondering why in an earlier post you implied I don't respect women. Why do you think that?

[LostInAnomie]

148. If said with respect, then no.

[Odin2005]

150. I call my female friends "lady friends", nobody thinks it's patronizing.

:shrug:

[omega minimo]

154. So?

Did you read any of the comments here or in the thread this Call Out OP derived from and learn anything?

[Odin2005]

160. Nobody I know considers it offensive unless used in an obviously rude way

Like an adult saying "hey lady". Around here. "Lady friend" is a perfectly acceptable term when referring to women friends, saying "woman friends" or "female friends" seems stilted or impolite.

[omega minimo]

172. That's not what this thread or the previous thread

were about. It was a specific instance, which the OP came to the Lounge to continue and Call Out the other poster. Read iverglas or my comments on that here and see what you think about the real issue, regarding referring to Rachel Maddow based on gender and not professionalism.

It's dismissive language, patronizing, setting a different standard for women and that's how this OP used it in the Gun Forum thread. When he got called on it, he came over here to start something up and violate DU Rules, make himself feel like a fine gentleman.

[Odin2005]

181. Hence "Context is everything".

Any word can be misused by a jerk to dismiss and belittle others. So should we never say anything ever?

[omega minimo]

183. "dismissive language, patronizing, setting a different standard for women and that's how this OP.."

Why are you more interested in arguing than understanding?

[Odin2005]

184. I'm not the one refusing to understand things.

I''m not arguing, I'm stating linguistic facts. You are dismissing them for no reason, OM. I'm trying to be reasonable and you come and accuse me of misogyny and supporting Orwellian Newspeak. It's frankly offensive and insulting.

[omega minimo]

185. I did no such thing

"I'm trying to be reasonable and you come and accuse me of misogyny and supporting Orwellian Newspeak."

:evilfrown: your false accusations are "frankly offensive and insulting."

[Odin2005]

195. I'm simply trying to give a reasonable scientific explanation for word usage.

I guess that's my Asperger's showing again. :eyes:

[iverglas]

197. and there we have it

"Lady friend" is a perfectly acceptable term when referring to women friends, saying "woman friends" or "female friends" seems stilted or impolite.

It is "stilted" or "impolite" to say WOMAN.

I can think of few things more stilted than calling women LADIES, myself.

And as for it being impolite to call women women -- well, there we are. Kind of my whole point.

"Nice" words have to be used to refer to women. Because being a woman just isn't quite nice.

Do see my post 196. Your demonstration of the entire point is much appreciated.

By the way, "lady friend" is actually a somewhat archaic term used to refer to the object of one's romantic interest. I have never in my life heard someone born since 1950 refer to his "Platonic" female friends collectively as "lady friends". How absurd. And talk about yer stilted ...

[Captain Hilts]

158. Because you know them well enough to say, in your judgment, they're 'ladies'. It's fine. nt

[darkstar3]

155. You really have to be careful with a word so abused as "lady"

A few examples:

"Good evening, milady (or my lady)" - honorific
"I think she's a really nice lady" - simple reference, though person would be just as good as lady. I don't know anyone who would take offense here though.
"Hey lady!" - Dismissive, rude, condescending, etc.
I'm sure you can think of many more examples.

I think your usage here was mostly innocuous, but try and apply my SO's favorite rubric to your statement: If Rachel Maddow were a guy, would you have said the following?
"He's a bright guy, but he's wrong on this issue. He's a fighter but he's willing to give up this right? Doesn't make sense."

Strangely enough, when I look at the sentence above and compare it to your original, I think your usage of lady is perfectly fine. It's your second sentence that makes me blink a little in comparison, since I don't think I personally would ever refer to a guy by saying "he's a fighter, but..."

But I'm just talking about me here. YMMV.

[proteus_lives]

156. If RM was a fella, I would have used that sentence,

"He's a bright guy, but he's wrong on this issue. He's a fighter but he's willing to give up this right? Doesn't make sense."

Or gentleman. That's one of the reason I made this poll. I am curious on other people's opinions.

[omega minimo]

177. the equivalent for "bright guy" is "bright gal." You might have thought twice or even once

about calling Rachel Maddow a "gal" on DU, even in the Gun Forum.

[proteus_lives]

211. I said or gentleman,

Did you finish reading the post?

[omega minimo]

213. Playing word games

doesn't make your logic any less full of crap. Claiming what you would have said and then emphasizing "or GENTLEMAN" as if. AS IF!! :rofl:

End your EPIC FAIL while you still may, bub. :rofl:

[proteus_lives]

214. I'm not seeing anything new from you.

BTW, another question you've refused to answer, in an earlier post you implied I don't respect women. I asked why you thought that. Will you answer this time?

[MrScorpio]

170. Yes, context is everything

But the way you used it was just fine, by me.

[flvegan]

186. This thread's not gone well.

[omega minimo]

187. This thread is a Continuation from Another Forum and a Call Out and should have been locked

[Elmore Furth]

198. The way Jerry Lewis said it -- it was more of a screech-threat like a crow

[1Hippiechick]

199. It's up to the person being addressed, and whose business is it, anyway, EXCEPT the person being

addressed? If she is offended, she can do one of two things: (1) ignore it; or (2) speak up. It will vary from person to person - can't believe there have been this many comments on this question! Where am I?

[iverglas]

200. well, you could always read the thread

and get a clue as to what the discussion was about.

No one was being addressed.

Rachel Maddow was referred to as a "bright lady" by someone who wished to discount her opinion about something.

Does that help at all?

[1Hippiechick]

202. I read the original post - poster amazed at being jumped on about the word "lady" but would not have

been surprised had the attack been on the word "bright" - glanced down the thread - only read the one-liners....and I am still amazed at the number of responses....

[iverglas]

215. good for you

An invaluable contribution to the discussion.

[proteus_lives]

204. I'm not discounting her opinion.

I'm disagreeing with her. Is that not allowed?

[omega minimo]

209. "Rachel Maddow was referred to as a "bright lady" by someone who wished to discount her opinion..."

"Rachel Maddow was referred to as a "bright lady" by someone who wished to discount her opinion about something.

"Does that help at all?"


:spray: :rofl:

[omega minimo]

208. Rachel Maddow has no interest in speaking to the OP about referring to her as a "bright lady, but.."

[1Hippiechick]

218. ???

[Kali]

210. it can be

bet you think about it before you use it again :rofl:

[Generic Brad]

219. Only if the lady is a tramp. n/t