34 Comments to 'Why we still need feminism'
Subscribe to comments with RSS
:: Trackbacks/Pingbacks ::
No Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Why we still need feminism
Posted By katie allison granju
One of my responsibilities here at WBIR is to book our weekly public affairs program, “Inside Tennessee.” In this role, I have spoken with hundreds of local candidates over the past several years.
Today, however, was a first for me, as Democratic candidate for Property Assessor Andrew Graybeal referred to me as “darlin’” in discussing his planned appearance with me.
Yes, he called me “darlin’”
Sigh.
Jul 22nd, 2008
I occasionally slip and call women “hon”, maybe once a month or so, especially if I’m tired or distracted. I’m not seeing why I need re-education, though — it’s just a verbal tick, since I call my wife that all the time, and wires in my brain sometimes get a bit crossed.
We lost real feminism back in the 60s when it was taken over by the strident, shrill, hateful and angry contingent of women who hated being women and all that being a woman entails. We have not had true feminism in many, many years.
A real feminist loves being a women, being feminine and being recognized as such. A true feminist celebrates the strengths and abilities of women without having to denigrate those of men. A true feminist does not hate - herself, other women OR men. A true feminist LIKES being called darling, honey and other terms of endearment that recognize and celebrate her femaleness. A true feminist will also call men terms of endearment without it being flirtation or an invitation to bed.
These women that insist on perverting and corrupting the good name of feminism in the name of hatred of both men and women need to go back, research some history and anthropology and learn what it really means to be a woman, and learn to love and celebrate that - and stop hating!
Yeah, you’re right “anonymous.” “True feminists” also love having their rear ends pinched on the job, and they especially like making less money than men for doing the same jobs…come to think of it, if a woman truly embraces her femininity, she really shouldn’t even need to vote!
Damn those pesky suffragettes!
You still have it ALL wrong, Katie. But then, that’s expected from you. You can have respect, without hate. You can ask for and get equal rights, without hate. The problem with these so-called feminists that you cozy up to, Katie, is they only know hate and anger. They, and you, need to get over it, darlin’
This sort of post is exactly why “feminism” as a political movement has died a long and ugly death: because it requires devoting an inordinate amount of energy to constantly seeking a reason to be offended.
Most of the women who were initially drawn to the empowerment promised by “feminism” were eventually repelled by its leaders who told women that they weren’t proper members of the sisterhood if they didn’t actively seek out reasons to be angry at men who didn’t behave like submissive pets (and, subsequently, to disrespect those men who did submit to their endless list of grievances for lacking the backbone to stand up for themselves).
Did he demand that you dress in a skirt? Do your laundry? Ask why you were doing an interview instead of home cooking dinner? Make a sexual advance?
News flash: men and women use terms like this with each other all the time. Women call men “darlin’” and vice versa - especially in the South where virtually everyone is addressed in a familiar manner rather than living by Emily’s Rules of Etiquette for Not Offending the Pompous and Self-Righteous. It’s not sexist or discriminatory, and to take it as such says a lot more about you than it does about him.
Katie, you’re the one who brought up a woman having her rear end pinched. Did he or didn’t he? If he didn’t, then you’re just constructing an illusory straw man to prop up an unjustifiable spitefulness on your part. Your response to Anonymous was full of venom and way over the top.
As far as the canard about being paid lower wages for the same work, study after study has shown that - when raw wages are corrected for years of experience in the field, time away from the profession to raise a family, actual hours worked, etc. - men and women are paid approximately the same amount *when the job is, in fact, actually comparable*. This canard arose primarily because of invalid comparisons between job types (yes, secretaries make less than the managers they work for - but don’t try to tell a “feminist” that. They work in the same office so they should get the same pay. If they don’t, they’re obviously the victim of a misogynist salary structure.), differences in experience (yes you may both be truck drivers, but if you’re new to the job and he’s been driving for 10 years, he’s going to get paid more than you. If you took off 5 years to raise a family and return to the field you’re not going to make the same as a male colleague who worked all the way through), and so on. Every study in the last decade that had ever shown disparities failed to account for such obvious differences - mostly because they were commissioned or performed by people who willfully ignored data points that failed to reinforce their previously held viewpoints.
This is a tired complaint arising out of a tired and long-since discredited ideology. If he had derided your ability to perform your job because you were female, if he had made unwanted sexual advances, or done anything which would constitute *actual* sexism then I would stand behind you in any complaint you had about his behavior. But since the best you could do to find offense was a simple “darlin’,” then he obviously didn’t.
Quite frankly, you should be ashamed that you took what was obviously an innocuous comment with no ill intent behind it and rather than ignoring it if an unintentional slight was made (as pretty much every other thinking person would do) you took such umbrage that you needed to share with everyone just how petty you were…It’s not a pretty sight….
I once worked with a guy who persisted in calling the youngest woman on our staff “honey”, “sweetie”, etc. She put up with it for a long time, until one day when he said “would you do x please, honey-pie?”. Her answer: “sure, sweet cheeks.”
That cured him.
Mr. Anonymous, I disagree with you completely. I’m a woman, a feminist, and I like men (especially the one I’m married to). But language matters. Calling a woman you don’t know “darlin” is to diminish her, in much the same way that white people diminished African-American men by calling them “boy.”
And before you get all hot and bothered about the comparison, I’ll submit that sexism is just about that last acceptable overt form of discrimination in this country - as the crap Hillary Clinton had to put up with in the recent primary clearly illustrates.
“study after study has shown that - when raw wages are corrected for years of experience in the field, time away from the profession to raise a family, actual hours worked, etc. - men and women are paid approximately the same amount *when the job is, in fact, actually comparable.”
Actually, that’s not true. Controlling for those factors reduces the disparity, but it doesn’t eliminate it.
Go Katie. I thought it was a measured response to a woman who called you full of hate for responding to being denigrated in your professional job. And to Jim, who think feminism is dead and anonymous who thinks we should get over it, since you don’t seem to understand the concept, please don’t try to explain feminism to us.
Leaving aside the brilliant and devastating talk-radio style analysis by a couple of the commenters; one data point, especially one as vaguely described as this, doesn’t really say anything about Mr. Greybeal’s attitudes. Maybe he just slipped up. Like I said, I do it from time to time myself, and while I have plenty of personal foibles and prejudices, lack of respect for women is pretty low on the list. Fortunately for me, I don’t have the media to publicly document and comment upon my verbal blunders.
Steve-
Is there any professional context in which it would bother you for a man to refer to a woman as “darlin’”?
Katie
Well, yeah. Obviously it’s not appropriate at all, unless the man/woman know each other, are comfortable with each other, there’s no condescension intended, the woman understands that and doesn’t find it annoying, etc. etc. All I’m saying is that everyone unintentionally makes the occasional faux pas that doesn’t have any subcontext. Not to say that that is the case here, but your description of the event — really, the entire lack of a description– doesn’t give me much to work with here.
Gemini,
You’re right…notice I said “approximately” when citing the factors that I did. There are other factors not included and not subject to easy control in a study. Namely, things like men tending to be more aggressive in negotiating a starting salary or arguing for raises than women, being less risk averse in choosing to move to a new company in exchange for higher pay rather than sticking with a lesser salary with a known and more stable quantity, women tending to choose to work for companies which offer better benefits or more genial work environment over men’s general preference for a higher salary, etc. We could spend all day running down the various factors, but the bottom line is that once all the factors are controlled/accounted for, the disparity is either completely eliminated or inconsequentially small.
Also, does a woman calling a man “darlin’” diminish him? This sort of semantic argument is ridiculous. I’ve been called darlin’ more times - by women who were my superiors - than I care to count. This is an artefact of language used by both genders, especially in the South. It is offensive *only* when accompanied by other behaviors which indicate its intent as a term of condescension.
To use your example of calling a black man “boy”. It is certainly not racist for me to watch a black NFL running back (my personal favorite, Emmitt Smith), score a touchdown and shout “Look at that boy run!” any more than shouting it at a white man (say, Daryl Johnston) who scores the same touchdown. Again, it’s context which decides the intention.
Your lack of ability or unwillingness to consider context is a personal problem and not a problem of the speaker. In the context of Katie’s situation, there was no other context to indicate that he was otherwise condescending to her so it would be both unfair and unwise to attribute to him any ill intent.
You are making a choice to take offense by a word regardless of its use in context. That’s a very self-limiting point of view and simply demonstrates a lack of both contextual comprehension and analytical thinking. It’s just overly simplistic straight-line thinking: he used the word, so it’s sexist. The world isn’t that simple, just because you want it to be black and white doesn’t mean it is or that other people have to buy into your way of thinking.
It’s also no more valid, nor due any more deference, than if I chose to be offended by the use of the word “the.” Choose to be offended regardless of context if you like, but don’t be surprised people who can actually differentiate between the two cases laugh at your knee-jerk reaction.
With regard to your comment to “Mr. Anonymous” whom you claim is a man, but about whom you have no idea. Armed with nothing more than your prejudices based on the fact that since he/she disagreed with you, then it must be a man. Reveals a lot about your worldview, and simply serves to reinforce the point I made about the enforced solidarity of the sisterhood which turned off so women. I don’t claim any special knowledge myself, but from the writing style and the points being made, my educated guess is that Anonymous is actually a woman. But, unlike you, I wouldn’t presume to know.
With regard to what Hillary Clinton “had to put up with,” at the risk of turning this thread into something else entirely: that’s absolutely ridiculous and given the undeniably racist comments by her surrogates about Obama, she’s not the one who could file a legitimate complaint about discrimination during the campaign. And I say this as no fan of Obama. Thank God I didn’t have to choose, but I would have trusted her to be more pragmatic in office and would have held my nose to vote for her if there were no other choices. But to say she was in any way victimized by her gender is ludicrous.
Happy Feminist -
Just because you say I don’t understand feminism doesn’t make it so. I have a beautiful and loving wife who holds two Master’s degrees, is three years away from a doctorate and who is in every way my equal; a joyful baby daughter who will be raised to be a strong and independent-thinking woman; a sister (who holds both a CPA and Masters degree) who takes a second seat to no one in asserting a woman’s rights in the workplace or anywhere else for that matter and would probably be on the verge of physical violence were someone to infringe on them, etc. I am surrounded by strong, independent women who I would fight to death defending if the occasion arose. Claiming that I “don’t understand the concept” is plainly ignorant on its face.
Trying to claim someone “doesn’t understand the concept” is just a coward’s way of trying to end an argument without answering any arguments which run counter to their point of view. If you have something constructive to say, then say it. Doing the rhetorical equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing “La La La I can’t hear you” while hoping the other person will just go away is spectacularly ineffective.
There is a big difference between feminism (the legitimate desire by women to be treated as equals) and “feminism” (the political movement which demonizes men and seeks perpetual victimhood rather than true empowerment). I stand full square behind the first, which is alive and well, but the second is dead and gone. Note that I have been careful in my comments to differentiate between the two. Your inability to separate the two and notice the fetid smell of decomposition of the second is a failing of yours, not mine.
Doing the rhetorical equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing “La La La I can’t hear you” while hoping the other person will just go away is spectacularly ineffective.
Rats.
This sort of post is exactly why “feminism” as a political movement has died a long and ugly death…
Your lack of ability or unwillingness to consider context is a personal problem and not a problem of the speaker.
You don’t know what the context was either, Mr. Long Winded, but that didn’t stop you from attributing ill-intent.
If you look at my first comment, you’ll see that I was (and remain) willing to stand behind Katie should she provide *any* additional context which made it clear that his intent was other than completely innocent. The fact that 1) it is extremely unlikely that she would have omitted additional context in her original post had there been any, and 2) she has thus far refused to provide any additional context despite my asking very pointed questions to find any, pretty makes the context clear. He said darlin’, and she took offense. Period. Full stop.
If there’s more, then I will reiterate my original point. But I’ve yet to see it, and neither has any of the commenters who have already convicted this poor guy of sexism just for using the word no matter what.
As far as attributing ill-intent, I didn’t. Either Gemini is unable or unwilling to consider the context of the statement. The statement as posted is factual as stated and, as such, is an internal problem of hers, not the fault or responsibility of anyone else. How is that attributing ill-will?
If you’re referring to my characterization of the long and ugly death of “feminism,” I stand behind that statement. As a political movement it was a hideous twisting of a legitimate cause, and everyone should be glad it has been discredited and resigned to the “dustbin of history.”
“We could spend all day running down the various factors, but the bottom line is that once all the factors are controlled/accounted for, the disparity is either completely eliminated or inconsequentially small.”
Oh yeah, there must be factors that explain the disparity because it couldn’t possibly be simple discrimination. Bah. I repeat, that’s not what studies have shown. I can find examples if you like - you show me counter-examples.
As far as context is concerned, a person running for public office who isn’t personally acquainted with a journalist he is speaking with has no business calling her “darlin.” In THAT CONTEXT it’s sexist, and it’s unprofessional.
If you look at my first comment, you’ll see
I kinda tuned out after the first couple of sentences.
Gemini -
I’ll give you this: once you account for all the factors I mentioned, add in others that I didn’t mention in the interest of brevity (for Steve K.’s sake), and find that there’s still remains a difference of any statistical significance that there is a good chance that it is due to discrimination. But, in the end, we’re talking about something in the 1-2% range - not a big enough difference to use it as some sort of club to claim a broad range of discrimination.
I myself was once fired from a job at which I was the only male because I didn’t take part in the female gossiping and backbiting in the lunchroom or behind closed office doors - in short, just for being a male in an all-female office. Where’s my victimhood? Should I wear it on my sleeve and get the hair on the back of my neck up every time I could possibly perceive an insult to my manhood?
Both sexes can be unfair to the other: but theoretically even if we were to agree that there exists some sort of systemic salary discrimination it would have nothing to do with the subject at hand which is the taking of offense at an innocently offered comment with regard to context.
It’s plain that you are stuck on “sexist” as the answer to every question, but there’s a big difference between imperfect etiquette and sexism. I’ll give you that it may not have been in the best choice to be so familiar - especially given that Katie is evidently unfamiliar with the common custom in the South of calling pretty everyone within earshot “darlin’” - however, you cannot claim sexism without other confirming behavior….even if you use capital letters to say it emphatically…
Steve K. -
Tuned out after the first few sentences, but found quotes you took enough of an exception to several paragraphs in that you needed to comment on them. Interesting…I’ll take it from your lack of response that you agree I have attributed no ill will…
once you account for all the factors I mentioned, add in others that I didn’t mention in the interest of brevity (for Steve K.’s sake), and find that there’s still remains a difference of any statistical significance that there is a good chance that it is due to discrimination. But, in the end, we’re talking about something in the 1-2% range - not a big enough difference to use it as some sort of club to claim a broad range of discrimination.
Again, I say: show me the data.
It’s plain that you are stuck on “sexist” as the answer to every question
Piffle. To my knowledge, his is the only “conversation” you and I have ever had, so making such a sweeping statement is sort of the pot calling the kettle back with respect to context.
I stand by what I said: in this context, i.e. a person running for public office talking to a female journalist he doesn’t know personally, it’s both sexist and unprofessional to call her “darlin.”
Gemini -
You and Katie are the ones making positive assertions regarding the blatant sexual discrimination in salary practices. I have refuted your point by stating that each and every study which claims to show this has been fundamentally flawed because it failed to account for all of these factors.
Cite the study that shows discrimination, and I’ll show you which factors they failed to take into account in their calculations (provided, of course, that we’re talking about an actual study and not just some headlines from a newspaper claiming that someone somewhere proved it…Produce an actual study which includes all the data and the actual analysis).
Since it is your positive assertion that the studies take each and every one of these factors into account and still show discrimination, the onus is on you to provide the proof. You can’t just claim systematic discrimination without any proof other than your word that it exists and that somewhere a study purports to prove it.
In essence, you’re asking me to prove myself innocent, and I’m telling you that in this country the burden of proof is for you to prove me guilty. You want to indict the whole economic system of something which is, in fact, illegal; and your best offense is: it’s true because you said so?
You claim to be able to produce the studies to back you up, so I challenge you to do just that.
Cite the studies (or even a single study) that accounts for all these factors and still finds widespread systematic discrimination, or else be shown to be the sort of perpetual victim that was “feminism”’s only real product.
With regard to my comment about you being stuck on “sexist”, you’re constructing a straw man in order to make yourself feel better about not being willing to consider that there might be anything *other* than sexism involved despite not knowing the heart or mind of the individual involved. I was obviously referring to this conversation and the myriad of questions within it that I have posed to which you have had one single answer: “La La La SEXISM La La La”
Katie,
When Obambi called a female reporter “sweetie” did you have the same reaction? Do you feel Obama is sexist? Is a property assessor’s lack of pc credentials more important than someone running for President? With older men, I, personally, never give it a second thought if they call me sweetie, honey, darlin’ etc. In their own way, they’re usually trying to put me at ease, not hit on me or in some way insult me. I guess it’s how you view it. If you want it to be sexist, it is.
Since it is your positive assertion that the studies take each and every one of these factors into account and still show discrimination, the onus is on you to provide the proof.
Umm, no. You’re the one who first brought up what studies show, not me. You said (before I even posted anything):
study after study has shown that - when raw wages are corrected for years of experience in the field, time away from the profession to raise a family, actual hours worked, etc. - men and women are paid approximately the same amount *when the job is, in fact, actually comparable*.
I disagreed that this is so, and asked you to provide evidence. I’m still waiting.
The other thing you don’t get is that it doesn’t really matter what Graybeal’s intent was. I’d assume that he didn’t intend to say something offensive. But the end result is the same: calling someone he only knew in a professional context “darlin” was unprofessional and sexist. It’s 2008 and he’s running for public office; he should know better.
And I think I’m pretty much done saying that.
Kerochee, I don’t know about Katie, but yes, I thought Obama was out of line calling the reporter “sweetie.”
You can’t say in one breath that “maybe he didn’t mean to” which means you essentially agree with me that he had no ill intent (which has been my point all along) and then in the next breath say it doesn’t matter because he’s a bad man anyway. To believe that to be the case, is the overly simplistic straight-line thinking I mentioned previously which, quite frankly, doesn’t play in the real world.
Since you are unable to step up to the plate by naming even so much as a single study purporting to show systemic discrimination against women in salary practices, I’ll toss you a softball with something I found with about 30 seconds of Googling:
http://maloney.house.gov/documents/olddocs/womenscaucus/2003EarningsReport.pdf
Going through the report produced by the GAO (hardly a non-partisan organization staffed as it is by career bureaucrats who lean heavily to the left politically, but for the sake of argument let’s assume it is), it acknowledges that there is a disparity between the pay for men and women (which I’ve never disputed). However - and here is key part - the report runs down numerous explanations *a great many of which I mentioned in these comments* (with apologies to Steven K. as to my “long-windedness”) as to why this disparity exists.
*None of which includes systemic discrimination against women*
You have to get to page 66 of the 79 page report in order to find any mention of potential discrimination, and even that mention is tangential at best. The report itself didn’t find any, they merely mention that some “experts” think maybe that, in theory, it might exist (which even that much, I was willing to grant you). In the preceding paragraphs, they even point that those “experts” were drawn from advocacy groups, i.e., groups whose entire existence is expressly predicated upon the creating the perpetual victimhood I wrote about in my earlier comments.
So basically, Gemini, I return to my original point: your entire claim of systematic discrimination is completely debunked by the objective examination of the facts.
I found this report without even having to do any serious digging, so it’s not like this was some super hush-hush secret that had been hidden from you if you had cared to investigate the matter before boldly declaring that I was completely and utterly wrong on the subject based on nothing more than your personal beliefs.
Basically what you’re left with to support your peculiar theory is you and your ideological kin who insist that it must exist simply because you believe it exists. But honestly, the Emperor has no clothes no matter how much you fervently believe otherwise…
Also, does a woman calling a man “darlin’” diminish him?
In a professional context, yes. Yes, it does.
You can’t say in one breath that “maybe he didn’t mean to” which means you essentially agree with me that he had no ill intent (which has been my point all along) and then in the next breath say it doesn’t matter because he’s a bad man anyway.
Sigh. Not that you’ll get this, but that’s not what I said. I didn’t say he was a bad man. I said no matter what his intent what he said was sexist and unprofessional. I also said that in 2008 a person running for public office should know better.
I’m done with this conversation. I’ve said what I thought - repeatedly - and you’re only going to keep twisting it around. No longer worth it.
Since sexual discrimination is a violation of federal law, you have accused somebody who is, by all accounts, not guilty of anything other than being - by your estimation - less professional than you demand. You can’t accuse someone of breaking the law and walk away from it like you didn’t do anything more than claim he had broccoli between his teeth. You did something far more serious than that whether you want to admit it or not. It would be nice if you took responsibility for defaming his character without sufficient evidence, but if you’re not willing to do this then there’s no point in further belaboring the point.
By your lack of response, we can also safely say that the salary discrimination issue is settled as well. Again, it would be nice if you had the class to admit that you were wrong when you accused me of making up things wholesale, but no one can make you do that either, so there’s nothing left to discuss on that issue.
Have a great day
Jim … you rock. Seriously. I’ve been taking notes and trying to stay nice and quiet, as difficult as it is. This topic is one in which I can get some serious snark going on. I hate how feminism has been co-opted into this ugly, angry political dogma by women (and some men) and used as a medium of hate. As one commenter above noted, it is hatred against both men and women. Ugly indeed.
I am a feminist of the original kind … that which was promulgated by my great- (…) grandmother, Abigail Adams. Recognizing that men and women are different and that each gender has contributions to all aspects of our existence, and are just as worthy and valuable, is the basis of classical feminism. It is not about who is better, or who is a victim, or who is being offended … it’s high time to put away the angry version of feminism that seeks to victimize women and criminalize men, and get back to what is important, empowering all people.
Sorry to inform you LissaKay and Jim, but your version of feminism is not the only one (for example, I don’t see hate being promoted except by you two).
http://diaryofafreakmagnet.blogspot.com/2008/07/bigger-fuller-bouncier-ginger-hosts.html
STEP RIGHT UP and git’ yer feminism, kids! We got all kinds o’ feminism here. We got radical feminism! We got second wave feminism! We got third wave feminism! We got pro-feminist men! We got religious feminists! We got sex worker feminists! We got ever’ kinda feminist, ’cause as all feminists know, we ain’t no monolithic group that’s gotta agree on ever’ damn thang. There’s room for ever’body at this here booth, so step right up and claim yer prize!
Since sexual discrimination is a violation of federal law, you have accused somebody who is, by all accounts, not guilty of anything other than being - by your estimation - less professional than you demand. You can’t accuse someone of breaking the law and walk away from it like you didn’t do anything more than claim he had broccoli between his teeth.
Good grief (I’d like to say something stronger, but you’d probably find it not ladylike)! Where in heaven’s name did I accuse anybody of breaking a law?
I said Mr. Graybeal used sexist and unprofessional language in speaking with Katie.
It’s just dumb of me to even respond to this, since of course you know sexual discrimination law doesn’t apply in this situation.
And if it makes you happy to declare some kind of victory over me, go ahead. You can win. I’m happy just knowing I’m not a total ass.
“Happy” Feminist perfectly exemplifies how today’s feminist sees the world. I say “empower all people” and you see hate. Thank you for the sterling example.
Unfortunately this is the end result of “feminism,” and puts on perfect display the exact point I was making about how this ideological sisterhood works to enforce its solidarity and why so many women were ultimately turned off by it.
A reasonable person would see comments like those from Anonymous, myself and LissaKay which are in complete support of total equality for women and see a kindred spirit. But because we strayed from the orthodoxy which requires seeking out offense at every opportunity, demonizing men and repeating ad nauseum the long-since disproven “facts” which are required in order to justify their state of perpetual victimhood, we are - in Gemini’s words - “total ass[es]” and in Happy Feminist’s words - full of “hate.”
Thank you both for illustrating this point better than any prose I could have written on the subject [and yes, Steve K., I know I've written a lot already:)].
As long as there are kitchens and laundry, there will never be equality.
Wow, there was a lot of cross-talking going on here. I don’t know if there’s anybody listening anymore, but… here go my $0.02.
Jim, Anonymous, LisaKey: I see your point, Mr Graybeal may have simply followed a cultural habit of his, not meaning anything sexist. It might even have been a way to make Katie feel at ease.
Gemini, Happi Feminist: I see your point. In a professional context, using a familiar term of address, even one that actually implies endearment (say, ‘darling’, ’sweetie’, or even ‘dearest’, ‘my love’, etc.) would be demeaning — perhaps because in our culture, ‘endearment’ makes one think of parents and children (funny how lovers can call each other ‘baby’), which is not compatible with the professional context.
Let me propose a parallel situation. Suppose I’m a vegetarian, and in some official gathering someone offers me food containing meat. What should my reaction be?
Note: the person who offered me the food containing meat did not want to offend me, to imply that I should think eating meat is good. S/he may actually simply have thought that I was hungry and wanted a bite.
However, I might still feel a bit angry at the fact that society as a whole still sees meat as simply food, and doesn’t often think of possible ethical (to say nothing of health) issues involved in eating meat.
So: should I be offended? Or should I sympathize with the person who offered me food, despite the fact that I don’t want to accept it?
Tough call. I think, however, that it is possible for me to be offended at the underlying cultural assumption that meat is just food without being offended at this particular person for having offered me meat.
Maybe that’s the best solution then. Often when we travel, after all, we come to places where people behave a little differently. The people there might be offended at some of the things I do or say, and I might be offended at something they do or say. If we accept that we’re all human, though, we may perhaps still get along without unnecessary hurt feelings.
So I’ll advocate a middle position. I’ll agree with Jim, Anonymous, and LisaKey that Mr Graybeal may have had no sexist thoughts whatsoever in his mind, and might perhaps even be OK if Katie had answered with another “darling’”. They might have simply shared a laugh about culturally implied meanings and gone on with their work.
I’ll also agree with Gemini and Happy Feminist that a person should mind his/her language when speaking in public. One may make mistakes, and they may be seen as simply that: mistakes, without any implied support for or against feminism (or any other ism). But one should always take into account the possibility of offending others. Life is tough in the professional/public arena, even for people who sincerely want to be good. I hope Mr Graybeal realizes that. And Katie too.
As for the stuff on salarial differences… only Jim actually went out to find some data. I wished others had done the same. At least speaking for myself, I still remain unenlightened as to the real reasons behind men’s and women’s salaries here.
“Is there any professional context in which it would bother you for a man to refer to a woman as “darlin’”?”
How about the one where the woman looks the man in the eye and says to him in plain tones, “Please don’t call me darlin’, or hon, or sweetie. My name is xyz,” Or are we men just supposed to get it without being told? Seriously, you want things to change, WORK TOWARDS CHANGING THEM. Posting something on the internets isn’t the correct action. Posting a complaint about Guy’s actions in a forum where Guy is unlikely to be notified is kind of missing the point.
Standing up for yourself in a positive way; addressing what you feel to be an unpleasant situation while still maintaining a good interpersonal relationship with Guy; making society a better place for you, Guy, your family, and random people you don’t know (e.g. my daughters): THAT’S feminism. That’s empowerment. Of course, that’s also just being an adult and taking responsibility for your world and your actions.
“Also, does a woman calling a man “darlin’” diminish him?
“In a professional context, yes. Yes, it does.”
Funny, after 12 years in aerospace engineering, I’ve never felt diminished, demeaned, or insulted to be called darlin’, hon, sweetie, etc. Should I be? Crap, what have I been missing out on??? That’s it, I’m going to HR right now!
disconnect has made a good point and I don’t even think he realizes his own truth. Men generally do not feel demeaned when referenced by a female as: hon, darlin, sweetie, and the such. Why? Cause they have been called that all their lives by their moms, aunts, and other females. disconnect go to HR, I am right behind you to plead guilty!
I must confess, I think I have used my last endearment, the gents will be so disappointed. They will probably think I an upset with them, poor babies..hehe. Sorry, slip of the tongue.