Terms of Endearment.

[Il Medico]

In Chit-Chat, I used the term 'honey' in a chauvinistic way in an attempt at satire of another's post. It was in bad taste and I apologized. However, people continued to take issue with the word itself. I have never thought of Terms of Endearment like:
Honey, Baby, Sweet Heart, Babe, Hun, Sweetie, and Pumpkin
To be sexist.
I never have seen it this way and use words like this all the time with both men and women. It is a term that shows your affection of someone. I really don't see how it's sexist. Especially considering that these terms are often used by both sexes describing both sexes. I just want to know what my fellow revlefters think. So are these terms inherently sexist? Also, no 'No uterus no opinion' post here Rosa!

EDIT: Pumpkin doesn't really apply to the conversation because it is almost exclusively used by parents to children. It is only there because it is a term of endearment.

[TC]

1. Except with sex partners, children, and close friends, terms like these are used of women by men, and of younger women by older women. You will never hear a heterosexual man refer to (presumably) heterosexual man he doesn't know any of those terms.

2. The only exception to the above is that an older woman might call a younger man 'hun'. There are just no circumstances where an adult man would be called 'sweetie' 'honey' 'babe' 'baby' etc by someone who isn't a. his mother b. his sexual partner c. someone indicating a desire to be his sexual partner. In contrast women are called all of those terms frequently by people they don't know.

3. It *is* sexist to presume and so describe someone as sweet and diminunative simply because they're female. ts demeaning: people seen as sweet and childlike aren't taken as seriously as those who are not.

4. The reality is that if an heterosexual man referred to another as 'sweetie' or 'pumpkin' it would be interpreted as an emasculating and provocative insult. This is precisely because it is an insult to anyone who wants to be regarded as a social equal and not a silly little thing.

[Il Medico]

1. Except with sex partners, children, and close friends, terms like these are used of women by men, and of younger women by older women. You will never hear a heterosexual man refer to (presumably) heterosexual man he doesn't know any of those terms.
What? I don't count in this scenario because I am Bi, but I have many male friends who consider themselves heterosexual who use it for men they don't know or know well. Most don't take offense, but there are homophobes that do.


2. The only exception to the above is that an older woman might call a younger man 'hun'. There are just no circumstances where an adult man would be called 'sweetie' 'honey' 'babe' 'baby' etc by someone who isn't a. his mother b. his sexual partner c. someone indicating a desire to be his sexual partner. In contrast women are called all of those terms frequently by people they don't know.Just to prove a point....Baby, I have no interest in having sex with you. I say such quite often. I am one of those 'love and be close with everyone' type of people, I think who uses it is based on personality rather then gender. Also, although Bi's get the rep of promiscuity (which is a topic for another thread), straight guys are quite randy from my experience. Maybe guys say it to girls more often because they want to be 'sexual partners' as you say.


3. It *is* sexist to presume and so describe someone as sweet and diminunative simply because they're female. ts demeaning: people seen as sweet and childlike aren't taken as seriously as those who are not.1. How is being sweet make your opinions less valid?
2. How does using a term that is meant to show affection make people small and unimportant? Rather it is expressing your personal affection towards them, which makes people feel wanted and important.

[Blackscare]

I think when used in towards women that one doesn't know (not something that I don't think is very common anymore, at least here) would certainly be sexist.
In my opinion what is most offensive about this is not the individual implications of the words (assuming a female is "sweet", etc), but the implication that the male has the power to impose a designation on her and violate her personal comfortability by referring to her with a term of endearment regardless of their relationship, her like/dislike of him, etc. In that way it reinforces coercive relations between male and female.

Used sincerely between lovers, without the goal of degrading a stranger, they're just harmless terms. Like I said, the problem isn't the words, it's the fact that men can degrade/embarrass strangers by asserting that a relationship/mutual-affection exists that doesn't. Much of this is more on the subconscious/symbolic level, of course.

[Il Medico]

I think when used in towards women that one doesn't know (not something that I don't think is very common anymore, at least here) would certainly be sexist.
In my opinion what is most offensive about this is not the individual implications of the words (assuming a female is "sweet", etc), but the implication that the male has the power to impose a designation on her and violate her personal comfortability by referring to her with a term of endearment regardless of their relationship, her like/dislike of him, etc. In that way it reinforces coercive relations between male and female.
This argument seems to disregard the fact that women do this to. I have been called all of the terms I have listed (except pumpkin, that would be kinda wired) by strangers. Women regularly call me Babe, Honey, Sweet Heart, etc. And not just older women. I don't feel my personal comfort is violated, I feel like that person is spreading her/his general kindness and love to me. That makes me feel good. You seem to imply that men showing affection means they only want sex, which is not true.


Used sincerely between lovers, without the goal of degrading a stranger, they're just harmless terms. I still don't see how general affection for other human beings is degrading.


Like I said, the problem isn't the words, it's the fact that men can degrade/embarrass strangers by asserting that a relationship/mutual-affection exists that doesn't. Much of this is more on the subconscious/symbolic level, of course.I am a human, they are a human, thus they share commonality of existence with me. I consider this a bond, making them my brother or sister in the fact we share our humanity. This would constitute a relationship, the general love of humanity. I still don't see how expressing this love with a term of endearment is sexist.

EDIT: I forgot this: Communism is suppose to propagate love of humanity as a whole. Suggesting that showing affection to people you don't know is sexist, would promote as less caring world, instead of world based on mutual respect and love of your fellow man. (women too, I just couldn't think of a term that covered both that sounded appropriate) To quote hugs: :hammersickle:= Love damnit!

[ArrowLance]

They aren't really gender specific and they don't seem derogatory and are usually an expression of affection. I have heard them used by both genders for many reasons, the majority not pertaining to anything of the prurient interest.

[Klaatu]

This really depends on how well you know someone. These terms can work in both directions, and are not mutually exclusive.

They may not always be endearing either. For example, I have actually been offended when a woman calls me "honey" on a public forum, when I know she is being sarcastic.

[Il Medico]

4. The reality is that if an heterosexual man referred to another as 'sweetie' or 'pumpkin' it would be interpreted as an emasculating and provocative insult. This is precisely because it is an insult to anyone who wants to be regarded as a social equal and not a silly little thing.
1. No fair, you can't add something after I responded to you!
2. Pumpkin should be taken off the list because it is almost exclusively used towards children. I only posted it because it was a term of Endearment.
3. It would be considered an insult because of the perceived sexuality placed upon terms of affection. Men would take offense not because you called them silly, but they think you are hitting on them. Most men and women have slight homosexual tendencies (Kinsey Report). Their fear of these feelings causes them to exhibit homophobia, and lash out at those who openly express or they perceive to openly express these feelings. The only reason that you (I am going to assume that your heterosexual for this post) or any other straight man would be offended by me calling them "Baby" or the like would be linked to their fear of the perceived sexuality and their own homophobic feelings. This is also demonstrated in the phobia in males of saying "I love you" to each other. Even the closest friends have trouble expressing that they have affection for each other. They place a sexuality on love despite the many forms of love, friendship being one. The term 'love' like all terms off affection are sexualized by the rather prudish American society. Thus they become taboo out side of boyfriend-girlfriend relationships. This promotes societal homophobia, and is the real reason for heterosexual males taking offense to such terms. They would and don't feel the same when women call them 'sweetie' or say 'I love you', rather they take it for what it is a term of affection.
4. I shall say it once more, expressing affection does not make the person you are expressing this to not your 'social equal', rather it shows your respect and love for that person. Your last objection is entirely grounded in homophobia, which is a topic for another time.

[Il Medico]

This really depends on how well you know someone. These terms can work in both directions, and are not mutually exclusive.

They may not always be endearing either. For example, I have actually been offended when a woman calls me "honey" on a public forum, when I know she is being sarcastic.
I can see you being offended if some on said, 'Now listen here honey...", but if someone (male or female) was to say to you "Hows it going hun?" I don't see why you would be offended.

[BabylonHoruv]

1. Except with sex partners, children, and close friends, terms like these are used of women by men, and of younger women by older women. You will never hear a heterosexual man refer to (presumably) heterosexual man he doesn't know any of those terms.

2. The only exception to the above is that an older woman might call a younger man 'hun'. There are just no circumstances where an adult man would be called 'sweetie' 'honey' 'babe' 'baby' etc by someone who isn't a. his mother b. his sexual partner c. someone indicating a desire to be his sexual partner. In contrast women are called all of those terms frequently by people they don't know.

3. It *is* sexist to presume and so describe someone as sweet and diminunative simply because they're female. ts demeaning: people seen as sweet and childlike aren't taken as seriously as those who are not.

4. The reality is that if an heterosexual man referred to another as 'sweetie' or 'pumpkin' it would be interpreted as an emasculating and provocative insult. This is precisely because it is an insult to anyone who wants to be regarded as a social equal and not a silly little thing.


I have to disagree with 2. My wife calls men honey and babe all the time. Now I'll admit she might want to be the sexual partner of some of them, but not all of them. Nor is she older than all of them.

[Mujer Libre]

CJ, I pretty much think that what TC has said absolutely applies on this message-board and in most cases in real life.

I don't mind a little old lady calling me "sweetie" but if a man I don't know does it... Grrr.

Of course context is everything, and it depends how well people know you as to whether using terms that are so loaded with sexist meaning is appropriate. You may see people on these boards referring to one another with similar terms, but that's usually because they know one another quite well, and are comfortable with it, and know that they're not being patronising. I'd suggest that you hold off using those terms till you know people better, and generally don't ever use them in a combative, patronising way, because nobody, even a close friend, would appreciate that.

[Il Medico]

I agree that these terms can be used in a chauvinistic or sexist way ML. I just don't think the words themselves are explicitly sexist. However, many people seem to. If they aren't used in a patronizing or chauvinistic way, then I don't see why men or women would be offended.

P.S I agree some of those I would not use with strangers, however, I do have the habit of calling people hun, honey, and baby. Not in a bad way, just like "how it going hun?", or "whats wrong honey?" I don't use these terms gender exclusively either. I think it is probably a matter of context. Thanks for your input!

[Killfacer]

Out of habit i sometimes refer to women as "love". It's more of a local bristol thing though. My female colleagues at asda also call me "love".

It can be pretty patronising in alot of contexts though.

In fairness though i also use the words babes when talking to male mates. Last time i spoke to Comrade Joe on MSN i called him sexy babes. I do it to most of my mates.

[Dr Mindbender]

I get called 'love' by women all the time. Once on a blue moon i even get 'hun' or 'babe'. It doesnt bother me though. I think using terms of endearment is an expression of sexual identity and nothing to be 'policed'. What bothers me most is the social shitstorm that would come from gay men referring to straight men in the same way.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say there appears to be some burden on men (straight and gay) specifically to refrain from this.

[Module]

Another badly worded poll...
Edit:
I voted 'yes', not because they're "inherently" sexist, but because, as TC said, when they're used by men towards women they don't know, it's patronising and creepy.
And, CaptainJack, no offense, but the fact you're bisexual is actually of no consequence. "I can't be sexist towards women as a man because I'm also attracted to men!" Who the hell cares, seriously.
When you said it to PrairieFire, you weren't using it affectionately, you were calling her silly. The fact you called her 'honey' was also because you were calling her silly. You were implying that you felt sorry for her, considered her childish because she clearly didn't know how silly she was being - not such an eloquent explanation as perhaps was possible but you can use your imagination to get a full picture of what I mean.
This entire thread just sounds like you scraping the bottom of the barrel for some reason to make yourself believe you weren't being a patronising chauvinistic wanker. As for 'I have heterosexual male friends that freely call eachother such things' .. erm... I would feel equally comfortable responding to that with either "Bullshit" or "They're obviously exceptions to the rule" so I'll just say both.
People aren't offended when they're not used in a patronising and chauvinistic way. The thing is that the way such 'terms of endearment' are used between two strangers, it is overwhemlingly in a patronising way.
Fathers don't even call their sons 'darling'. It doesn't sound right to do so - fathers want their sons to be strong, independent, intelligent adults, not sweet little things that need adult (or male) protection. But for girls that's a good way to be. That's why strangers (usually men) can feel comfortable calling girls 'terms of endearment'.

In fairness though i also use the words babes when talking to male mates. Last time i spoke to Comrade Joe on MSN i called him sexy babes. I do it to most of my mates.So this basically reinforces the fact that men don't get called terms of endearment ... :s

[Il Medico]

Another badly worded poll...
How? I am only asking if the word is sexist itself, not if it can be used in a sexist way.

Examples:
Word that can be used in a chauvinistic or sexist way: love, hun.

Word that is based on sexist view of women and is inherently sexist (although does not always have to be used in a sexist way): '****', '*****'.

[Klaatu]

"I can see you being offended if some on said, 'Now listen here honey...", but if someone (male or female) was to say to you "Hows it going hun?" I don't see why you would be offended."

Again, it depends on how a conversation is going. If a female is writing (or acting) in a condescending manner,
or otherwise disagreeable manner, then proceeds to call me "honey" or "sweetie," I am likely to just tell her
to buzz off. If she were being agreeable and friendly, I would take it entirely differently, but that's me.

No one is going to call me "honey" anyway, because I'm just an ugly old fart. :lol:

[Il Medico]

Edit:
I voted 'yes', not because they're "inherently" sexist,
But that was the question!


but because, as TC said, when they're used by men towards women they don't know, it's patronising and creepy.
Then why is it not patronizing when a women says it to a man?


And, CaptainJack, no offense, but the fact you're bisexual is actually of no consequence. "I can't be sexist towards women as a man because I'm also attracted to men!" Who the hell cares, seriously.
When did I say I couldn't be sexist because I'm Bi?


When you said it to PrairieFire, you weren't using it affectionately, you were calling her silly. The fact you called her 'honey' was also because you were calling her silly. You were implying that you felt sorry for her, considered her childish because she clearly didn't know how silly she was being - not such an eloquent explanation as perhaps was possible but you can use your imagination to get a full picture of what I mean.
One the post you are referring to was to the Sock puppet illian. I had written an apology to PF and was about to write one to her as well (as I thought she had also been offended) when I read a rather nasty reply to my apology to PF. I felt this action need criticizing.


This entire thread just sounds like you scraping the bottom of the barrel for some reason to make yourself believe you weren't being a patronising chauvinistic wanker.
I was being patronizing in that one sentence. However, this was on purpose to prove a point in that we were not being patronizing in the first place. Doing this was in bad taste and I have apologized. However, people continued to take issue with the word itself. This it got me wondering if people believed that word like that (terms of endearment) were inherently sexist. That is the purpose of this thread.


As for 'I have heterosexual male friends that freely call eachother such things' .. erm... I would feel equally comfortable responding to that with either "Bullshit" or "They're obviously exceptions to the rule" so I'll just say both.
Call 'bullshit' all you want it doesn't make it less true.


People aren't offended when they're not used in a patronising and chauvinistic way.
You finally answered my question.


The thing is that the way such 'terms of endearment' are used between two strangers, it is overwhemlingly in a patronising way.
Fathers don't even call their sons 'darling'. It doesn't sound right to do so - fathers want their sons to be strong, independent, intelligent adults, not sweet little things that need adult (or male) protection. But for girls that's a good way to be.
I don't deny this is how it is in society, but it is not how it always is. I never would use such terms, which are meant to show affection, in such a way.


That's why strangers (usually men) can feel comfortable calling girls 'terms of endearment'.
So this basically reinforces the fact that men don't get called terms of endearment ... :s
Ummm....yeah. Maybe were you live this is the case. But here women use terms of endearment towards men far more then men use them towards women.

[TC]

This thread can be summed up as CaptainJack making utterly implausible attempts to deny the social reality of how words are actually used in real life to deny the fact that when he exercises male privilege, thats what he's doing.

No, actually, calling someone, basically, a child, when they're an adult who you don't know, is inherently condescending. Doing it in a sex selective way as it is done in practice, is inherently sexist. The term 'hun' (especially when used by women understood as being sexually ineligible given the specific dynamics at work) is no way equivolent to the term 'sweetie'. Adult men actually call adult women they don't know 'sweetie', all the time, when they're not hitting on them (which was my point: that its *not* a sexual advance, it diminishes the other). Unless you happen to live on some parallel world, adult men in english speaking cultures, in real life not on msn with your cool-to-be-alternative buddies, don't do that towards each other unless they're 1. gay 2. want to start a fight. Its because they know it connotes childishness and social inferiority and these are things that are socially acceptable to attribute to women you don't know but not men you don't know. This is sexist. Get over it.

[Il Medico]

This thread can be summed up as CaptainJack making utterly implausible attempts to deny the social reality of how words are actually used in real life to deny the fact that when he exercises male privilege, thats what he's doing.
1. I don't deny that terms of endearment are often used in a sexist and demeaning manner.
2. I hardly think you are qualified to judge how I use a word in real life. Nor is your stereotyping that men are always patronizing and sexist when they use terms of endearment, helpful.
3. And your point and everyone else arguing your side's view seems to be "That because it can be sexist it must always be sexist!".

The rest I have covered in previous replies.

[Kyrite]

I'm not sure whether it can be considered the same things but i only use the term 'Mate' while talking to male friends. It has nothing to do with me valuing their friendship more it is simply a pattern of speech from where i live (London). To me it would sound odd to call a woman 'mate'.

[Bilan]

Like all words, context is everything.

[hammer and sickle]

Its all about context. Certainly these terms could be used in a sexist manner but if a boyfriend calls his girlfriend Honey,Sweety,Baby etc. no its usually just a sweet nickname like "pookeykins".

[Il Medico]

"pookeykins"
Isn't this what the mother of Cartman or whatever on south park calls him?
I also suppose you could add terms like Guy, Mate, and Love to the list. These don't seem as controversial among the ranks of revleft though. Perhaps they are not seen in the same context as those I previously listed.

[Module]

Yes, "context is everything":
'*****' isn't sexist when used to describe a female dog. 'Nigger' isn't racist when used as a historical example of racism. 'Fag' isn't homophobic when talking about a ciggarette.

[Jazzratt]

I also suppose you could add terms like Guy, Mate, and Love to the list. These don't seem as controversial among the ranks of revleft though. Perhaps they are not seen in the same context as those I previously listed.

1) Guy & Mate aren't seen in the same way as other terms of endearment because blokes tend to use the terms to describe other blokes. They do not sound belittling or creepy.

2) "Love" has a well deserved place on that list. Dodgy strangers that insist on calling every woman they encounter "love" (or "sweety", "sugar", "honey" or whatever) tend to make people's skin crawl.

3) Once again it should be noted that the objections to these terms are that they are creepy and belittling. Even if they aren't intended to be dismissive they often sound that way and they certainly do not make it look or sound like you are taking the other person seriously; especially because most of them sound immensly childish.

[amandevsingh]

2. The only exception to the above is that an older woman might call a younger man 'hun'. There are just no circumstances where an adult man would be called 'sweetie' 'honey' 'babe' 'baby' etc by someone who isn't a. his mother b. his sexual partner c. someone indicating a desire to be his sexual partner. In contrast women are called all of those terms frequently by people they don't know.

My Drama teacher calls my 'angel', 'honey', and 'babe'... Based on point 'C' it seems odder then ever.

[black magick hustla]

i like it when older women call me hun

[Il Medico]

i like it when older women call me hun
I agree. I rather enjoy it when people call me terms of endearment (as long as they are not using it in a mean way). Any terms of endearment really, except for pumpkin, not a fan of that one. Anywho, I was wondering, people keep saying it is creepy and belittling for strangers to say them to people they don't know. Do you guys feel the same way for both men and women saying them? Or is it just creepy for men to say them to strangers.

[Black Dagger]

i like it when older women call me hun

So do i, but that is usually because of context right?

[Invincible Summer]

I agree. I rather enjoy it when people call me terms of endearment (as long as they are not using it in a mean way). Any terms of endearment really, except for pumpkin, not a fan of that one. Anywho, I was wondering, people keep saying it is creepy and belittling for strangers to say them to people they don't know. Do you guys feel the same way for both men and women saying them? Or is it just creepy for men to say them to strangers.

When it's an older woman (I'd say 50+) saying "dear" or "luv" (I'm thinking of some Irish lady that works at the grocery store I go to and calls everyone that) saying it to a younger male/female, it seems okay for some reason. Perhaps it's a sort of "motherly" type of thing (not sure how feminists would interpret this).

But when an older man says it, it just seems creepy. Perhaps it has something to do with the idea that people in the West are generally socialized to see men as powerful, dominant beings (sexually and otherwise), and therefore when they are calling a younger male/female a diminutive name - "son" or "hon" or whatever - it can be taken as a form of exerting dominance. And somehow sexual connotations are worked in.


I really dislike it when older men call me "son" or "lad" as if I'm totally ignorant and they're giving me "fatherly" advice. I find it extremely patronizing.

[fiddlesticks]

For some reason the term toots always seemed more demeaning than sweetie or babe or anything else, no matter the context. I don't know why I think so..does anyone agree with this?

[amandevsingh]

I really dislike it when older men call me "son" or "lad" as if I'm totally ignorant and they're giving me "fatherly" advice. I find it extremely patronizing.

I like that one, makes me feel like they are genuinely helping me along with what I am doing, though I can see where you're coming from. ;)

[Il Medico]

I really dislike it when older men call me "son" or "lad" as if I'm totally ignorant and they're giving me "fatherly" advice. I find it extremely patronizing.
'Son' I like. I feel respected, not patronized (again context of course). 'Lad' I kinda of agree, especially if they say something like "Look here laddie".