Calling adult females "girls"

[Sam_b]

They are twenty and nineteen. They are not 'girls'.

[precarian]

They are twenty and nineteen. They are not 'girls'.

Twenty and nineteen is very young, in the grand scheme of things. Is there an officially-designated cut-off point where words like "girl" or "boy" can no longer be used?? Your post is hardly indicative of someone with anything insightful to add to this discussion.

[Sam_b]

Twenty and nineteen is very young, in the grand scheme of things.

'Girl' is often used by men to diminish their roles and portray them as weaker. It's nonsense gender marking and should be cut out. Quite frankly fucking irrelevant whether or not it fits in your 'grand scheme of things'.

EDIT: You even fucking qualify it as 'young' in your OP which makes your use of 'girls' even more redundant than it already is.

[precarian]

'Girl' is often used by men to diminish their roles and portray them as weaker. It's nonsense gender marking and should be cut out. Quite frankly fucking irrelevant whether or not it fits in your 'grand scheme of things'.

Jesus fucking Christ..

[The Feral Underclass]

Twenty and nineteen is very young, in the grand scheme of things. Is there an officially-designated cut-off point where words like "girl" or "boy" can no longer be used?? Your post is hardly indicative of someone with anything insightful to add to this discussion.

Would you call a twenty year old man a boy? "Girl" is a term used by men to patronise and infantilise women.

[Sam_b]

Maybe you see issues of gender as flippant as warranting the contentless response you make above precarian, but I assure you they are very real and important to a lot of people, and maybe you should actually think about how you address women in future.

I would have said "young boys"

Straight up lie alert.

[precarian]

'Girl' is often used by men to diminish their roles and portray them as weaker. It's nonsense gender marking and should be cut out. Quite frankly fucking irrelevant whether or not it fits in your 'grand scheme of things'.

EDIT: You even fucking qualify it as 'young' in your OP which makes your use of 'girls' even more redundant than it already is.

Focus on the use of descriptive language instead of the issue at hand. Good one. If they were male, I would have said "young boys" - were you never described as such when you were in your late teens?? They are young. They are facing a 25 year sentence. This is the issue. I'm not interested in your petty snarkiness.

[precarian]

Would you call a twenty year old man a boy? "Girl" is a term used by men to patronise and infantilise women.

Yes I would. In fact, I do! It was not meant to be patronising, so I apologise if you perceived it as such.

[Sam_b]

I wasn't going to actually make a response to this, but to be honest I'm pretty sick and tired of men fucking failing to get the message, in particular in a political context of the past number of years where (at least some sections of) the left are actually taking notice around the issues of gender, sexuality and language. It's all about privilege and power.

Focus on the use of descriptive language instead of the issue at hand

Language is important, I thought this was painfully obvious. By taking male chauvenistic traits and using the term 'girls', which actually fits in very well to an argument I do not subscribe to (to spell it out, the argument is that we don't support/not support these women because they are on the end of a miscarriage of justice, but because they are weak, helpless 'girls') you make it an issue. Issues which involve why much of the left don't 'get it' when it comes to things like liberation. Issues about why old white men dominate politics.

They are young. They are facing a 25 year sentence.

Yes, and everything you say still doesn't make them 'girls'.

I'm not interested in your petty snarkiness.

Those among us who still have no intention of addressing their privilege don't like being called out, we can see it again here.

[The Feral Underclass]

Yes I would. In fact, I do! It was not meant to be patronising, so I apologise if you perceived it as such.

I'm sure it wasn't meant to be patronising, but it is. Women are often infantilised and belittled in this way. We must be careful not to speak about women in a way that reinforces the patriarchal attitudes that women are vulnerable and weak.

[precarian]

I'm sure it wasn't meant to be patronising, but it is. Women are often infantilised and belittled in this way. We msut be careful not to speak about women in this way as it only reinforces patriarchal attitudes that women are vulnerable and weak.

That is quite an assumption to make. Obviously this is open to debate - Which women see it as infantilising and belittling? All women?? Or those who adhere to a particular political outlook? Indeed, taken to an extreme, anything could be described as offensive under these conditions.

In all my life I've never heard anyone describe "girl" as an offensive term - not within the leftist milieu, not amongst left-leaning friends, not amongst the general public.

It is ridiculous to attribute malice to an innocent phrase merely because "some people" interpret it to be offensive.

Anyway, this is really not the issue I can on here to discuss. As you have recognised I did not intend to offend, so I'm leaving it at that.

(I shall not deign to indulge the passive-aggressiveness of "Sam_b")

[Polaris]

That is quite an assumption to make. Obviously this is open to debate - Which women see it as infantilising and belittling? All women?? Or those who adhere to a particular political outlook? Indeed, taken to an extreme, anything could be described as offensive under these conditions.

In all my life I've never heard anyone describe "girl" as an offensive term - not within the leftist milieu, not amongst left-leaning friends, not amongst the general public.

The point is not whether an individual woman or certain demographic of women is offended by your terminology (although that would be a nice thing to consider next time). It is that use of the term 'girl' furthers the patriarchal stereotype of women, that they are weak, naive, and otherwise helpless. And this is not open for debate, it is fact.

That you have never encountered someone who has called you out on it further proves the strength of society's patronization of women.

Edit: Here's a nice article that supports this: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/20...ound-language/

[Sam_b]

Which women see it as infantilising and belittling? All women?? Or those who adhere to a particular political outlook? Indeed, taken to an extreme, anything could be described as offensive under these conditions.

It doesn't matter if some or all believe so. You don't do it. (Here's a good example, by the way). If men are to be allies then they don't use behaviour and language that belittles women and is often designed to enforce patriarchy and gender roles.

In all my life I've never heard anyone describe "girl" as an offensive term - not within the leftist milieu, not amongst left-leaning friends, not amongst the general public.

It's not like the 'leftist milieu' isn't dominated by men, though. It certainly is. When the whole show is run by men it is often harder for women to get their voices heard. That or maybe you should be pro-active and start reading up on feminism, listening to women and so on.

It is ridiculous to attribute malice to an innocent phrase merely because "some people" interpret it to be offensive.

Unless you're now disputing that the term isn't patronising and offensive? Again though as a man it is not up to you to make the rules about how woman want to be referred to, and what they do and do not identify with.

I shall not deign to indulge the passive-aggressiveness of "Sam_b"

I'm not passive.

I'm also not interested in apologism and excuse making for basic tenants of decency.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I might even believe that this is about gender politics, if not for the fact that all of the people who have posted to denounce precarian for their horrifying misogyny - you know, something that never happens and is never tolerated on RevLeft - hadn't completely ignored the stereotype of hysterical women contained in the Daily Hail article. So, what are you hiding, comrades? Why focus on this instead of the main issue?

[precarian]

It doesn't matter if some or all believe so. You don't do it. (Here's a good example, by the way). If men are to be allies then they don't use behaviour and language that belittles women and is often designed to enforce patriarchy and gender roles.

You've provided me with a link to an obscure Australian blog.

Again: Who decides what "belittles" women?? I'd wager the vast majority of women do not find the word "girl", when applied to someone in their late teens, remotely offensive.

Indeed, some would contend that things like glamour modelling is "anti-woman" whereas others would not. Some feminists would argue for the introduction of gender-neutral pronouns into common speech. The point is that what considered "offensive" or "oppressive" in this regard is, of course, relative.

On whose say so must I adhere to your stringent rules regarding the use of the English language? Neither you, nor any of your friends, are the authority on such matters.

It's not like the 'leftist milieu' isn't dominated by men, though. It certainly is. When the whole show is run by men it is often harder for women to get their voices heard. That or maybe you should be pro-active and start reading up on feminism, listening to women and so on.

Passive-aggressiveness again. Obviously masculine barbarians like me, who use words like "girl", don't "listen to women." I'll crawl back into my cave and self-flagellate.

Unless you're now disputing that the term isn't patronising and offensive? Again though as a man it is not up to you to make the rules about how woman want to be referred to, and what they do and do not identify with.

Yes, and it's not up to you either! Nor is it appropriate for a particular minority of feminists to decide what everyone else should think either. It is pertinent to note that, in fact, the majority of the population do not conform to your notion of what is "patronising and offensive."

I'm not passive.

I'm also not interested in apologism and excuse making for basic tenants of decency.

Are you the supreme arbiter of decency??

[Sam_b]

Are you for real?

We have a duty to try and make the left as accessible for all irregardless of gender/sexuality/ethnicity/disability and so on. When people are challenged on their assumptions we get into dialogues about facing up to our own prejudices and privileges. The 'main issue' (gender isn't a 'main issue' anymore?) should also be why there are next to no women on Revleft; which in some ways can be seen as reflective of the left in general.

omething that never happens and is never tolerated on RevLeft

Aye right so when someone starts trying to do stuff about it this gets trotted out as if it's some sort of reason not to continue.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It's fucked up that 2 people of any age and gender face 25 years in jail over cocaine smuggling. I think that the actions of Peruvian law enforcement should be criticized.

It doesn't change the fact that calling them "young girls" and highlighting the fact that they are going "hysterical" plays on certain gender tropes. This is like the RevLeft version of "beautiful young white 15 year old raped and kidnapped" ... it's terrible when anyone is raped and kidnapped, but why is it a bigger deal when the victims of this kind of oppression are attractive white people? How many poor Peruvian prole men sent to Latin American jail every year for the same crime as these girls? I'm not saying that the OP is doing that but clearly the Daily Mail is to sell some papers.

[precarian]

The point is not whether an individual woman or certain demographic of women is offended by your terminology (although that would be a nice thing to consider next time). It is that use of the term 'girl' furthers the patriarchal stereotype of women, that they are weak, naive, and otherwise helpless. And this is not open for debate, it is fact.

That you have never encountered someone who has called you out on it further proves the strength of society's patronization of women.

Edit: Here's a nice article that supports this: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/20...ound-language/

Is it really "fact?" Or is it actually opinion?? It is, indeed, not "fact" that it "furthers the patriarchal stereotype of women" - Only certain people, who adhere to a particular sociological point of view, would view it in such a manner. Many others would not.

[Sam_b]

You've provided me with a link to an obscure Australian blog.

I gave you a link to a good argument, that happens to be written by a woman. Maybe if you happened to read things about feminism and things written by women rather than use 'obscure blog' as a complete deflection then this wouldn't have happened.

Again: Who decides what "belittles" women??

Women do. This has been said several times now.

I'd wager the vast majority of women do not find the word "girl", when applied to someone in their late teens, remotely offensive.

Which has got nothing to do with it whatsoever. We don't take fucking polls so men can say what the hell they want . You're now arguing for your right to use words which have been shown to you (without any actual rebuttal) to be belittling to women.

Indeed, some would contend that things like glamour modelling is "anti-woman" whereas others would not. Some feminists would argue for the introduction of gender-neutral pronouns into common speech. The point is that what considered "offensive" or "oppressive" in this regard is, of course, relative.

Aye, and the point is to hear the arguments that women make for and against it. Women choose what they wish to be identified as. Once you hear that it doesn't mean you kick up a fuss because you're called out on it.

On whose say so must I adhere to your stringent rules regarding the use of the English language? Neither you, nor any of your friends, are the authority on such matters.

It's not about the English language as much as it is not using enabling language so that woman are seen as weak, vulnerable and below men. You don't seem to get that.

Passive-aggressiveness again. Obviously masculine barbarians like me, who use words like "girl", don't "listen to women." I'll crawl back into my cave and self-flagellate.

I don't mean to be passive-aggressive. If you are going to be so flippant about issues such as gender I'll in fact be pretty direct in wanting you to either learn or get the fuck out.

Nor is it appropriate for a particular minority of feminists to decide what everyone else should think either.

You're about two paragraphs away from the 'feminist conspiracy' aren't you?

I wish Revleft silly season would end soon as I'm sick of explaining the fucking obvious to idiots. Take your complex with you on the way out.

I've said my bit and have stuff to do. Hopefully some of the sensible types that posted in this thread will continue if necessary.

[precarian]

I gave you a link to a good argument, that happens to be written by a woman. Maybe if you happened to read things about feminism and things written by women rather than use 'obscure blog' as a complete deflection then this wouldn't have happened.

Women do. This has been said several times now.

Which women?? Where is this representative of the views of "all women" to be found?? How do we gauge the opinion of said collective consciousness?? Is it not the case that, in fact, what is deemed "offensive" and oppressive", in this regard, is totally arbitrary??

Which has got nothing to do with it whatsoever. We don't take fucking polls so men can say what the hell they want . You're now arguing for your right to use words which have been shown to you (without any actual rebuttal) to be belittling to women.

You showed me it from a particular point of view. I'm sorry, but an Australian legal blog does not constitute an absolute tenet of the faith! Many leftists - including, shock horror, women! - will have a variety of views on what is offensive to them.

Aye, and the point is to hear the arguments that women make for and against it. Women choose what they wish to be identified as. Once you hear that it doesn't mean you kick up a fuss because you're called out on it.

Which women?? The ones who adhere to a particular strand of sociological leftist thought?? Again, there is no collective female conciousness which can decide whether innocently-used phrases amount to a grand offence against "decency." Your argument is totally specious.

It's not about the English language as much as it is not using enabling language so that woman are seen as weak, vulnerable and below men. You don't seem to get that.

Who sees women as weak and vulnerable!? You speak about these notions in the abstract! This is totally subjective! Many women, as I've said a million times, do not arrive at this conclusion. A minority cannot possibly dictate the hidden meaning behind certain words and phrases, nor can they castigate those who do not conform to their perception of said terms. It is not possible in a free society.

I don't mean to be passive-aggressive. If you are going to be so flippant about issues such as gender I'll in fact be pretty direct in wanting you to either learn or get the fuck out.

Agree with what I'm saying or "get the fuck out." This about the level of certain people in leftist circles. And you wonder why the left is in the gutter??

You're about two paragraphs away from the 'feminist conspiracy' aren't you?

I wish Revleft silly season would end soon as I'm sick of explaining the fucking obvious to idiots. Take your complex with you on the way out.

I've said my bit and have stuff to do. Hopefully some of the sensible types that posted in this thread will continue if necessary.

I think it is you who has a "complex", dear boy. That much is evident.

Attribute to me a view, which conforms to your stereotype of those who disagree with you, in order to discredit them. Classic.

How mature you sound. In fact, I believe it pertinent to label you a "boy" after reading your irritable and abusive last stand!