I guess there are several themes and discussions going on in regards to a post by Tall Skinny Kiwi. I’m going to touch on sloppy language and lack of apology for it.
I agree with what Maggi Dawn said. She rightly pointed out to Andrew that Girls, Girls, Girls, didn’t play well with either gender.
In Europe, linguists know distinctions in gender language in non-english is a bit more flexible.
I think a large part of his blog audience is in Australia, the UK, and North America, and using the term ‘girl’ for young women or adult females is as uniformed as calling a man ‘boy.’
Female Chinese ‘girls’ may well be used by God, Andrew.
When does a female transition from girl to womanhood? Menses? Growth of breasts? Engagement? Marriage? Is a widow or single a ‘girl?’
Do males become men when their genitalia produce sperm, they grow facial hair, and their voices deepen? Are they a ‘boy’ if they are widowed, single or of legal age in their cultures?
I expect unawareness and ignorance from western teens as they deal with language in thier peer bonding or as some university students learn to navigate through life, but do those of us in the workforce or leadership have an excuse?
Here are standard North American guidelines from Random Dictionary.
It is inappropriate to refer to a female that is legally of age as ‘girl.’ During the teen transition time in western culture, young woman (young man) is deemed non-offensive.
Avoid these slurs in general, business and social communication:
Girl.
Girls. (when referring to adult women)
Chick.
the Fair Sex, etc.
These terms are inappropriate with strangers, in writing or in any public situations
It is acceptable for a woman to use the the term ‘girl’ or ‘girlfriend’ (terms of affection) within an intimate group of female friends.
It is considered rude for an adult to use these terms in public discussion and mixed gender discourse.
There are far more important responses coming out of Andrews post than my beef, which isn’t about feminism or political correctness. This is about respect. I don’t see why men or women need to be spoken to or about in this manner.
Well, quite apart from the obvious irritation it causes to women, research (and there’s plenty of it) suggests that this is not just a matter of semantics or being cute; it actually has a detrimental effect on the lives of real women in real jobs and real relationships. The rest of the world - whether gladly or reluctantly - has recognised that the language of power is an issue that cannot be dismissed.
I’m going a step further Maggi. I don’t think the ‘effect’ is healthy for society or it’s men either.
Girls, girls, girls sounds like a porno ad, an attempt to be cool, or get attention.
And, I honestly believe Andrew didn’t mean it that way. But that’s how it reads.
Search
Subscribe 
You are currently browsing the Bene Diction Blogs On weblog archives.
Related Entries
For blog design, Wordpress or MovableType coding or blog consulting, see cre8d design.
I hope we can all learn about the power of words from this, no matter where one is in the debate. Both the original comment by Andrew and the resulting feedback have shown that words have a power we don’t completely understand.
I agree that words have power. Great and sometimes terrible power. While we sit in comfort in front of our computers debating our cultural impropriety, the ‘girls’ in China are imprisoned, raped, tortured and killed for loving Jesus Christ.
I’m glad God is awake. May He hear our prayers.
“Girls, Girls, Girls”, wasn’t that a bad 80’s song by Motley Crue?
I remember when one of the guys on the Cross Country team said something off color to one of the girls on the team. My dad was the coach. He told the guys they were to say nothing to the ladies on the team that they would not feel comfortable saying to his wife. That shut that stuff up real darn quick.
I think it’s a fairly appropriate standard. Don’t call me anything that you wouldn’t feel comfortable calling me in front of my husband. If you can say, “Hey, girlie, get me a cup of coffee.” in front of Jeff, then go for it–but don’t count on keeping your front teeth.
The original post used the term girls.
He was quoting a speaker regarding the church (Sunday School) in China.
Fair enough.
Andrew’s point was, here are the girls, where are the men?
I think that needed to be addressed.
I think I hear you, B.D. I remember sitting in a church service and feeling real alienated because the Senior Pastor kept calling the men to take charge, to take accountability for their families, and to come and pray around the altar as men. When I asked him about it later, his point was that there weren’t many men in leadership positions in this church and we needed the men to stand up and take some leadership roles. He appologized for making me feel alienated, but said he wasn’t going to stop callin the men to lead. Instead he would try to do it in a non-offensive way.
The next week he went on and on about the importance of allowing women to do things in the church and how much he appreciated the women taking leadership roles since the men wouldn’t. Then he called the men to be accountable and take leadership roles.
Sure, yeah, not offensive at all….
He was at least trying though. And I’m sure Andrew was too. He’s in a ministry field that is dominated by women, mainly because women aren’t allowed to take positions of service in established churches. We have had to go where the men wouldn’t, taking the less appealing assignments, while the men could pick and chose a bit more. Andrew J. has chosen a hard field–Missions. Chruch Planting is another field that is going to see more and more women in it–as well as small dying churches being taken by women. And may God bless their faithfulness.
Missy:
I had not thought about that.
Thank you.
May God bless and keep you all indeed.
Dear Bene.
Quite frankly, as a user of English on a fairly regular basis (and one who hears more than enough of it as well), I think the argument is more piss than vinegar and more vinegar than substantial cause. True, it is possible to use “girl” in either pejorative or patronizing manner. This must be determined by context though.
From where I hail and labour, “girls” is only as derogatory or disrespectful as the speaker intends. My mother works with females between 15 and 25 as well as older widows. She refers - without qualm - to the younger crowd as “girls” and the widows as “ladies.”
Personally, I use “girls” as the feminine equivalent of “guys.” So far as I can tell, it’s only those who have been heavily influenced by the victocrat mentality perpetrated by more extreme branches of the modern feminist movement that care one way or another. Perhaps I live in a special place, but most of those bearing the double-x chromosome that I live and work with don’t see anything wrong with calling females under 20 by the term “girl” in regular conversation - and will apply the term more broadly in friendly conversation.
From the perspective of a decidely WASPy male in Southern California, women who have so strongly objected to Mr. Kiwi’s use of “girls” are doing far more damage to the public persona of women than Mr. Kiwi has (even if we accept that his use of “girls” was wrongful) - for though I’m certain it was never their intent, they present modern womanhood as nothing but a bunch of whiners who tilt at windmills with far more verve and sway than ever did Seņor Quixote. Fortunately, I know that they aren’t representative of womankind (though they may represent the newer breeds).
The Dane:
I think Andrew clarified his intent and since it was his post, only he could do so.
Regional use of language in any culture has it’s own flavour, I agree with that.
This discussion was international and I think I perceive it differently than you do.
Males and females took the opportunity to say what useage of the terms meant in their lives.
I cannot and will not call any of the participants ‘whiners’.
Language is an evolving, living thing.
I saw this comment thread and supsequent spin off posts as an opportunity to listen, to understand and learn carefulness of speech outside of my small circle. It was an opportunity to hear.
I demand ‘respect’ from my commenters.
Yes, demand. I ask that they remain aware they are speaking to others from all over the world.
And after two years I have yet to delete a comment. I still find that surprising and hopeful.
The Thinklings had two guys-chick posts up.
The ‘chicks’ weren’t offended and the ‘guys’ weren’t offended because it was used within their own tribe and was inclusively playful.
To merely intellectualize the discussion at Tall Skinny Kiwi would diminish the richness and worth of the individuals who chimed in.
I acknowledge that the terms don’t hold emotional weight for you. But I also acknowledge that for many others in this world they do, and that does not diminish them or me.:^) Blog on!
Ben. i respect you and those who take part in your discussions. Really I do. And believe me when I say that, as well, I understand that there is an international flavour to the discussion. That’s why I was making reference to things from my position, not even as an American but as a Southern Californian.
And though I feel the liberty to call people whiners if I believe them to be such, I didn’t just now call anybody whiners. I was, however, trying to get across that when women (or any other group that feels themselves abused) pick so minor an issue to become enraged over, they appear to many who do not share their grievance to be whiny and hence unimportant (for emotionally charged petition against what most see as minor will often be considered whiney). Really, if the distinction between girls and young women is the hill where the fighting is going on, then I’d say the battle for female equality is well over and done with - since if there were real issues at stake, this matter of subjective semantics would not have raised the hackles it did.
While I am happy to have new perspectives unfolded to me, I found the attitude of the miffed women disturbing. It seemed far too intolerant for those who are supposedly battling intolerance. I didn’t like what I saw and didn’t see it as a great example of what progressive Christian women should be focusing on. But that was my take and I could be wrong.
Pax, yo.
Yo The Dane:
Aha. I was hoping you’d bite on the ‘respect’ sentence. You didn’t disappoint.:^)
Of course you respect me and my readers. You have consistently shown self-repect and that makes all the difference.
I accept your points as coming from a ‘So Cal resident.’
“…I was, however, trying to get across that when women (or any other group that feels themselves abused) pick so minor an issue to become enraged over, they appear to many who do not share their grievance to be whiny and hence unimportant (for emotionally charged petition against what most see as minor will often be considered whiney). Really, if the distinction between girls and young women is the hill where the fighting is going on, then I’d say the battle for female equality is well over and done with - since if there were real issues at stake, this matter of subjective semantics would not have raised the hackles it did.”
Yes, there were/are much larger issues at stake.
I couldn’t agree more. I didn’t see this comment thread eruption as a battle for female equality, although I acknowledge that many of the commenters may well have.
Subjective semantics.
Good one.
We all come from that place don’t we?
Isn’t maturity acknowledging that we do?
Then as we sort that sad reality out, perhaps we can turn our gaze outward and prayfully and soberly learn what it costs to be a Christian in China.
In other words, words have powerful meaning and import, but are they the end in themself?
Am I hearing you correctly? Blog on!
I think you are. Good job - I’m not noted for being the clearest of chaps in a pinch.
Oops. I just noticed that in an earlier comment, I called you Ben. Apologies to all involved parties. I don’t want people thinking I have a pet name for you. Everyone, everyone… Bene and I are not dating/courting/dating.
LoL.
You gotta love typos.