sexist mode

I don't see how it's sexist for him to refer to a group of ladies as ladies, yet it's okay for you to generalize that the stewards are all stewardesses.

He didn't say anything discriminating about them - so what's the problem?
You did however.

 

He is probably having an affair with at least three of them.

 

You missed the joke.

Anyway...they all have various titles. I don't see how referring to them as "editors" or "runners" or "service reps" could further the conversation I may be having with someone who's not a co-worker and doesn't know them. "Ladies" is just a generic term that describes a nondescript group of Vagina People.

It's way simpler to say "So these ladies I work with went to Golden Corral at lunch and were stinking the place up when they got back" than to say "Four editors, two runners and three factory service reps went to..."

In fact, calling them by their title would be more confusing because it doesn't convey gender. Dare I say it robs them of there gender? Isn't that worse than being "sexist", as you say?

Shit, it's just not that big a deal.

 

I agree. Refering to them as ladies confirms this for sure. I'd start checking his emails, phone and pockets

Actually, poor guy, sound slike he has it tough enough already

 

Funhogg
you think it's really okay that he's thinking about working with "vagina's" and not associates, coworkers? yeah, it does bother me that he is in the midst of this in an intimate office setting

do ya think I go through my day considering the reps at my job as penis's?

sounds fun, but we got to get a bit more grounded

yes it does rob them of gender, as it is taking the focus off whatz' between the legs and what one can do with whatz' between the legs...

it does make it more complicated to name each group of people instead of saying "ladies"... i do understand your points... for real..

 

It sounds like you would be much happier if he was working with males, and the title isn't the issue at all.

And he's your husband - you should know what he's thinking more than some random asshole off the internet (no offense Funhogg) and you can always ask him.

He just called them ladies - you are the one that sounds like you're focusing on what's between their legs.

 

:smilielol5:

 

Duck
Duck Goosed

Sounds like reasonable stuff you got there... thanks

Is there really a way a guy is separating "random" from "his only"... where does that happen in the mind or heart of a man?

 

that s so sexist.
How dare you.

When I worked with pretty much only males , I would say "the guys" when talking to hubby.
Instead of a bunch of names he prolly couldn't remember- or the individ titles of each one.

 

naedhippie

"how dare I"? ge-e-e-e-s louise-hippie... this is conversation reaching a better understanding of the reality of life from peeps that have been there and have another angle on it. .. your token & smokin aint' given u the benefit

 

I think you're overreacting. I call people the boys or the girls depending on who I'm hanging out with, and I'll call them that to their face as well. IMHO I feel bad for your husband if THIS is a issue that bugs you about him. I wouldn't be surprised if you went to other forums and bitched about how he leaves the seat up. Be greatful you have a husband who must put up with petty crap like this, if you were with my husband he'd kick your ass to the curb for not having a decent enough perspective to see that by calling them the "ladies" rather than "diane, jane, and soso" he's simple saving time in the conversation

/endrant

 

You think it's sexist to call women women - HOWEVER you find it okay to assume that every steward is a stewardess and every waiter is a waitress - and you seem to think that guys only think about women as sex object, and cannot restrain themselves (every modern study I've ever seen either put women as more likely to cheat or just as likely to cheat as men), even the guy that you claimed to love and trust when you married.
You are discriminating against ALL men (and even worse, your own husband!) based on a negative media stereotype, and YOU have a problem with ladies being called ladies?
I agree with naedhippie, how fucking dare you.

Do yourself a favor, and stop trying to find sexism in other people, until you eradicate it in yourself.

 

Thats the trouble with Feminism, tends to break down when there is a hot guy involved.

This thread isnt about semantics, its about the OP's jealousy

 

Win!

 

Perhaps we should all cut our balls off or sew up our vagina's for the OP since she really seems to want a magical, genderless world.

 

I would like to compare the post above to the one below:

Now I see a disjunction in the argument being made.

It is argued as being bad because they are females only and not associates that have a title or name.
But, when referring to them individually he does use a name.

So, they are treated as if they have names because that is how he refers to them individually.
Furter, when speaking collectively about them, they can very likely have a host of differing titles.

He can speak to you like this:

or, he can say:

Using "the ladies" is a simple phrasing that gives a "visual description" for filler when there is not important information to be relayed. English is a poetic language and saying "the ladies" when refering to (mostly) all females and saying "the guys" for referring to (mostly) all guys is more poetic and more descriptive than limiting te description to being as generic as possible.

Going too far and listing everyone by name and title breaks up the story with too much detail that is not important to the story. Completely leaving out all descriptive terms is incredibly boring. "The ladies" keeps the story going with something that draws an image to mind. Gender neutral terminology does not do that.

Next:

Gender neutral terminolgy works best when the intent is to be deliberately neutral.

The original titles were "steward/stewardess" for the airline and waiter/waitress for the restaurant.

Those titles have been replaced by "flight attendant" and by "server"

In these particular cases you have large companies that have instituted policies to prevent people from being bothered whether or not the individuals involved are bothered in any particular case. The other uses still occur.

To go further, when the pilot speaks to the passengers regarding the duties of the flight attendants, (s)he () is speaking in a professional manner to passengers that he is not familiar with and about individuals whom he may not know and who may be male. Several reasons to not refer to the "flight attendants" as "Stewardesses".

But, when your husband is speaking to you it is in an unofficial capacity. He also knows the individuals involved.

Also, most people that I know of who are not in the restaurant business still use the terms "waiter" and "waitress".

Sidenote: When constrained all day at work by rules of conduct it is nice to not be forced to follow thenm at home. I agree with MikeE in tat regard.

Gender neutral terminology also works fine in job descriptions where the intent is for the job to be equally available to both males and females.

However, in the relating of a story, people both like visual descriptions and to not be too bogged down.

About this:

I do not believe she used the term "stewardess" and "waitress", unless I just missed it somewhere. So, she left open the possibility of using "flight attendant" and "server". Those would be professional terms usable for either sex and both at the same time.

 

TheGrayRaven
Thanks for the comments... seriously

 

I used them terms - SHE said that the pilot doesn't refer to them as "the ladies" implying that all flight attendants are females.
She also said that the host doesn't say "the ladies will serve you now"
Damn sure the host(ess) doesn't, because most places have mixed gender servers.
She' doing the stereotypical "all doctors are males, all nurses are females" bullshit - which is cool with me and all - when you aren't trying to make something someone else said seem sexist.

(Oh and any quotes of her are paraphrased here)

 

Or, she could have been describing how the pilot of the airplane or the person working for the restaurant would respond in a situation similar to that of her husband: one composed entirely of women. This is especially possible since the discussion revolves around what is the appropriate way to address a group consisting (mostly) of all females. (Note: The most changes to all in the individual stories when the subjects referred to are all female...)

It isn't a stretch in this discussion and when a reason exists which is not merely possible but both reasonable and plausible, benefit of the doubt should be given rather than jumping to attack.

A reasonable statement does not deserved to be attacked merely because it is possible to interpret the statement in a negative light.

 

Or, she could have said that if she meant that.
Or you could let her tell us if she meant that.

And why do you assume that I had the same doubts you do?
Even as you and I are arguing it, I am flabberghasted that you do not see it the way I did.
There's not much of a benefit of a doubt when it looks clear and clean cut to you. Maybe you should have given me the benefit of the doubt instead of assuming I was jumping to attack
I mean really, you could say the person isn't giving the other the benefit of the doubt in virtually any argument..