What? How is that related to this tedious tangent, much less to the thread as a whole?
Women are 50%, give or take, of the population. No “feature” of women is any more unique than “features” of men.
No, the point is should open misogyny be acknowledged for what it is, and should commonality be equated with acceptability?
OTTOMH, this is the second time I remember you leaving a thread because you were unable or unwilling to back up your arguments with logic or cites.
“Forget it, Jake LHoD. It’s China Dopertown.”
He doesn’t like the fact that to win a debate you have to actually participate in said debate.
Any time somebody flees an argument muttering “woke woke woke!” under their breath, an angel gets their wings.
All the more reason to excuse Lumpy from any further mention in this thread. This is a place for serious posters gone wrong. Though he is often wrong, I would never ever accuse him of being a “serious poster.”
Amazing that it “dominated” their time and energy while at the same time they provided the majority of calories compared to men.
This is just a pseudoscience just-so story - the kind of crap Patriarchy spews to make its very unnatural imbalance seem like the norm, or inevitable. Women are not helpless bay-engines and you can walk (and gather) and nurse at the same time. They are quite famously good at multitasking, even Patriarchy makes jokes about this.
Only the first is a fact. The second is just bullshit.
That being true, I still can’t not,
That isn’t what the phrase “protected class” fucking means. Stop using legal concepts as if they didn’t have well established meanings.
Protected group - Wikipedia
It’s actually also in some South African English dialects, if you are Indian (also leaked into some Coloured dialects).
You’re right. Slightly rephrased, that directly caring for children tends to take up less time for men than for women, it would be correct; but saying it dominated women’s time is inaccurate.
In any case, using it as part of a claim that men are the default is just so nonsensical that I don’t know how to begin arguing against it. It is like arguing that tails is the default side of the coin because the date tends to be on the heads side.
I worked in an industry with a lot of women. And it was uncommon to refer to a group as “guys”. We’d say, “hey, who wants to go out for a beer?”, rather than, “hey, guys, who wants to go out for a beer?”
I have a (female) friend in software who often wears a t-shirt that says, “‘ladies’ is gender neutral”.
I think a lot of women do, in fact, feel slightly “othered” when referred to with a group of others as “guys”. And i think that mostly happens in places where most of the people are “guys”, and not gals.
Is it a big deal? Of course not. You are still being invited out for beers. But is it a little annoyance that makes you realize you are seen as different? Yes, i think it is.
Yeah, I’ve lived in Durban. “Y’all” still bothers me. But that is just my parochial language preference.
OTOH I know some damn fine curry places, which could cause Indian Indians to emigrate and embrace the second largest Indian population in the world… despite some quite significant culinary differences. Durban curry is impressive.
Why can’t y’all just get all along???
As an employer, I’m very careful not to refer to my mixed staff as “the guys”, especially after I heard a female employee say she wondered why a “girl being called one of the guys” is supposed to be a compliment.
I always assumed it meant something akin to “she’s highly unlikely to complain to HR when we’re wildly inappropriate with her, to her, or in her presence.”
Was I wrong??
I think it mostly means she won’t complain about being called a guy.
The problem I have with this is that “you guys” has been such a very common gender-neutral term for decades now, and to my mind conveys such affable casualness, that it seems a shame to dump it. Alternatives like “you people” or “you folks” just don’t have quite the same connotation to my ear.
To be clear, I am in no way, shape or form defending misgendering. A good friend of mine is a trans woman and I’m super-sensitive about the issue. I just think it’s time that “you guys” was well recognized as gender-neutral. Language does evolve, after all. “Guy” originally meant a ridiculously dressed person, presumably male. Today it means something entirely different.
“Everybody” or just a collective “you” works just fine. Whatever you call them, don’t call them “people”. That’s what a tyrant calls the mob about to chop their head off.