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!

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.

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!

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).

I had not thought about that.
Thank you.

May God bless and keep you all indeed.

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.