If you referred to a group of men as “Lords,” do you think some of them might feel like you were being a little bit condescending?
The possibility that the entirety of some school board or another is crazy is approaching 100%. The chance that any one particular school board is entirely crazy is less. Same as in lottery tickets. The chance that someone will win is low. The chance that someone will win is quite high sometimes.
That’s not the point. The point is that AKAIK and based on my experience that calling a group of women “ladies” in a professional setting is not offensive. Some apparently disagree and I’m curious as to why. Would a group of exclusively men be offended if I said, “Gentlemen, let’s go to lunch.”?
Or maybe the guy isn’t telling the whole story. Could you entertain the possibility that there might be another side to this.
Sure. You?
Most certainly, which is why I am withholding judgement until the whole story comes out.
Of course there is a possibility that this is the entire story.
I think we can discuss whether starting an email “Ladies,” is appropriate or not in this day and age without the whole story coming out.
Here is an article from the Boston Globe, written as a direct response to this Easthampton incident, that addresses the issue. (Might be paywalled, not sure).
While not everyone will be offended, several diversity and inclusion experts told the Globe, the word has a long and complicated history, and can hold negative connotations when used in inappropriate settings, such as in contract negotiations in Perrone’s case. Instead, it’s best to ask people how they want to be addressed to avoid alienating or upsetting anyone, they said.
Elisa van Dam, vice president of allyship and inclusion at the Institute for Inclusive Leadership at Simmons University, said the word “ladies” can be infantilizing in a professional setting.
While some people may appreciate being addressed as “ladies,” it can be an informal and inappropriate word to use when negotiating contract stipulations and in the workplace, said Jen Manion, a professor of history and sexuality, women’s and gender studies at Amherst College. And if someone referred to them in such a way at work, Manion said they would “flip.”
It’s possible you may want to re-think your use of the word in some settings. YMMV.
It’s sort of weird how far you’re going to avoid a pretty simple question.
You could just say “hello”. Or “greetings”. Or anything that didn’t make reference to the gender of the people you are addressing.
But that’s really a non-sequitur. One of the people he was addressing has made it clear she wasn’t offended (the executive assistant). The other person he addressed was the committee chair, who voted against his hiring.
It’s seems likely to me that a person that didn’t want to hire this guy used this “microagression”, as well as perhaps his contractual demands, to get some board members to flip.
Most likely there will be another public session where the details will come out. Someone will try to force a public vote.
Superintendent salaries and benefits are all public anyways, so if it’s truly a contractual/negotiation issue it will become obvious very soon.
The biggest issue, to my mind, is pressing ahead with a candidate when you can only muster a 4-3 vote to hire him. That’s bad board leadership. Even if you disagree you need to make that vote unanimous, or at least overwhelmingly supportive.
This response by one of the individuals so-addressed (including the capitalized “HOWEVER” to emphasize that, while she doesn’t mind be addressed as a lady, others do) doesn’t read to me like the decision wasn’t about the email.
From the same article:
According to the Easthampton Police Department, a call came into the city’s dispatch at 11:53 p.m. on March 23 requesting the well-being check.
A city police officer responded to Perrone’s address after midnight, made contact with him and reported that the “party is all set,” according to the city’s police log records.
At this point, it is still unclear who actually made this call.
Sure, but like I said before, Mrs Cad (a woman) was reprimanded by a man for using the term “ladies” at work because “it is offensive to women” so the guy’s story is not outside the realm of possibility.
As a note: the women did not complain about the term, just her male boss.
It is which is why I wasn’t able to read it.
I can’t seem to find a gift link option, so you’ll have to settle for the quotes I excerpted, which directly address the question.
I did answer your question. You do not seem to like the answer.
No, you haven’t. I asked which was more likely between two scenarios. You’ve only addressed whether one of the two scenarios is at all possible.
That part about the wellness check is pretty weird. I don’t call the police when someone doesn’t answer their phone at 12:30AM. I wouldn’t even call someone at 12:30AM because I wouldn’t expect them to answer their phone. Even if he had agreed to take a call that late I’d just think he fell asleep. I thought maybe if he had some kind of ancient phone with no ‘answering machine’ some young person might panic at encountering such a thing, but then I realized young people don’t make phone calls.
And the possibility of some guy being a liar approaches 100% even faster. Do you have a point, or are we just making inane statistics observations?
Maybe if I knew someone was expecting an important call from me and it kept going straight to voicemail I’d wonder if they got in a car accident or something. That seems very fast for a wellness check though if the reporting is accurate.