Is "Lady" offensive?

[Gar Bageman]

People get offended over such stupid things, I swear...

 

[Romero]

Haha no. I can't speak for certain, since the British press's Stylebook varies (though only slightly). Newspapers don't use courtesy titles at all. Doesn't matter if you have a PhD in anthropology or if you've been knighted. It's a somewhat sly way of saying that nobody, no matter how educated or honored, is above anyone else.

That's interesting, I didn't know that about your media. Norway is an egalitarian community, we don't have classes (except the royal family but they are just 5-10 people). When our Members of Parliament go out of the office at the end of they day they are just normal people like everybody else. Employees do normally talk to their bosses in the same way as they would talk to a colleague. We do not have knighthood in our country (aristocracy abolished 1821), still our media do use courtesy titles for people who have earned the title in another country, for instance the media will say Sir Paul McCartney and Sir Elton John.

And... they will also say Lady Gaga.

It's published by the Associated Press, but it's maintained by a panel of established and decorated editors. It has been the go-to guide on writing for professional publication since 1953. It is constantly being updated to keep up with culture (nobody had to say email back then. Is it written e-mail? e mail? email?) It's not a necessary tool to be able to string together a sentence, but most publications won't take a journalist seriously who doesn't abide by it. The only papers that you wouldn't find it being used in is the small, local fringe publications.

You'd be amazed how stupidly one-sided court cases against journalists are. I'd say 3/4ths of the job is most likely learning how to not get sued.

So the English you learn at college and university isn't good enough? Journalists are educated and I would think they learned all the rules for good language before they graduate.

You can get sued for libel but I can't understand that has to do with the quality of your language. If you write that someone is a liar they may sue you, but not based on the quality of your language.

Do you watch Penn & Teller? They use such terms as "bull****" instead of "lie" etc. It's because they don't want to get sued. Sure, "lie" sounds more like quality language but that's precisely what could get them in trouble. I like that programme.

 

[cheezMcNASTY]

So the English you learn at college and university isn't good enough? Journalists are educated and I would think they learned all the rules for good language before they graduate.

You can get sued for libel but I can't understand that has to do with the quality of your language. If you write that someone is a liar they may sue you, but not based on the quality of your language.

Do you watch Penn & Teller? They use such terms as "bull****" instead of "lie" etc. It's because they don't want to get sued. Sure, "lie" sounds more like quality language but that's precisely what could get them in trouble. I like that programme.

Well, not all of it is avoiding a lawsuit. There are a few stupid rules out there like remembering the distinction that a sheriff is elected and a deputy is hired.

Surprisingly not. Say you're a reporter covering a court case. You call the defendant a convicted murderer. Minor word slip-up, anyone could have done it. But he isn't convicted unless he committed the crime and now he can sue you for saying he was found guilty of something before he was. By that extension, everything he's being accused of having said or done in court needs to be specified as having happened "allegedly." It's funny how an accident can be so easily construed as a lie..

There's also trademark laws to worry about. Nobody uses a Kleenex. They use nasal tissues. You don't get an adrenalin rush, you get an adrenaline rush. You don't Xerox papers, you photocopy them. All the companies who trademark these words pay people to read newspapers all day just so they can pick out these things. Literally.

At least that's how it works in the United States. I hope it's less of a headache in Norway.

 

[Pancham Cutie]

I don't think it's offensive. I don't even understand why it's offensive. For a grown woman, it's repsectable. Why does it even matter if a small majority gives a living doo-dee, I mean if you're lady and you get offended over being called a lady then what are you, or what do you want to be called? To be honest, I don't think it's offesenive, I don't understand why some people get offended over it, and I don't understand why only a minority of people caused this a diliemma (Seriously, a minority.).

 

[tremor]

This is a bit....odd. I have never been offended by someone calling me a lady lol. Now "bitch" is a different story. I think some people just like TRYING to find something to be offended by. It's ridiculous.

 

[Pancham Cutie]

This is a bit....odd. I have never been offended by someone calling me a lady lol. Now "bitch" is a different story. I think some people just like TRYING to find something to be offended by. It's ridiculous.

I don't think b**** is offensive after the song that Meredith Brooks made.

 

[Springhosen]

I don't think b**** is offensive after the song that Meredith Brooks made.

I don't see bitch as offensive either. It has been my experience that a man can do something and it be okay, even commendable, but if a woman does the exact same thing, she's a bitch.

Double standard anyone? I take it as a compliment and go about my merry way.

 

[tremor]

I don't think b**** is offensive after the song that Meredith Brooks made.

I don't see bitch as offensive either. It has been my experience that a man can do something and it be okay, even commendable, but if a woman does the exact same thing, she's a bitch.

Double standard anyone? I take it as a compliment and go about my merry way.

True, true. Hmmm, besides, why should I be offended for what I know I am? I can definitely be one

 

[Romero]

Well, not all of it is avoiding a lawsuit. There are a few stupid rules out there like remembering the distinction that a sheriff is elected and a deputy is hired.

Surprisingly not. Say you're a reporter covering a court case. You call the defendant a convicted murderer. Minor word slip-up, anyone could have done it. But he isn't convicted unless he committed the crime and now he can sue you for saying he was found guilty of something before he was. By that extension, everything he's being accused of having said or done in court needs to be specified as having happened "allegedly." It's funny how an accident can be so easily construed as a lie..

There's also trademark laws to worry about. Nobody uses a Kleenex. They use nasal tissues. You don't get an adrenalin rush, you get an adrenaline rush. You don't Xerox papers, you photocopy them. All the companies who trademark these words pay people to read newspapers all day just so they can pick out these things. Literally.

At least that's how it works in the United States. I hope it's less of a headache in Norway.

From time to time some individual will sue a newspaper over libel, but it's rare. I don't think our journalists are any better than American journalists, but I believe it takes a bit more to justify a lawsuit here. The court can reject a lawsuit if the lawsuit is groundless. And also, it is common that the losing party will have to pay for the whole trial and the winning side pays nothing. This makes people think twice before they sue someone.

We have a complaint commission (of Norwegian Press Association), and when someone thinks they've been treated unfair by Norwegian media they file a complaint to that commission. The media in question have to publish the verdict. Few cases makes it to the courtrooms.

Here, if the media publicly corrects their mistake then there's normally little ground to take it to court. It can happen in severe cases though.

(I'm sorry if I strayed too far off topic)

There's also trademark laws to worry about. Nobody uses a Kleenex. They use nasal tissues. You don't get an adrenalin rush, you get an adrenaline rush. You don't Xerox papers, you photocopy them. All the companies who trademark these words pay people to read newspapers all day just so they can pick out these things. Literally.

I can see it's poor language to say "to Xerox papers", but they could actually be using nasal tissues from Kleenex... I don't understand what Kleenex would have against it, they should be happy when someone mentions their name in public. It's free advertising.

All the trademark crap, it gives me headache. Can I sue them for this headache?

 

[cheezMcNASTY]

From time to time some individual will sue a newspaper over libel, but it's rare. I don't think our journalists are any better than American journalists, but I believe it takes a bit more to justify a lawsuit here. The court can reject a lawsuit if the lawsuit is groundless. And also, it is common that the losing party will have to pay for the whole trial and the winning side pays nothing. This makes people think twice before they sue someone.

We have a complaint commission (of Norwegian Press Association), and when someone thinks they've been treated unfair by Norwegian media they file a complaint to that commission. The media in question have to publish the verdict. Few cases makes it to the courtrooms.

Here, if the media publicly corrects their mistake then there's normally little ground to take it to court. It can happen in severe cases though.

(I'm sorry if I strayed too far off topic)

We have a lot of those safety measures. Also, I think most any newspaper runs a correction if they catch it.

Libel is actually impossibly hard to win a lawsuit over. There are 7 things you have to prove and I haven't taken that class in over 6 moths so I can't remember all of them. One of them is proving that the member of the press was aware of the falsehood or subjectivity of what they said and knowingly wrote it anyway. The problem is that here, people have a large bias against members of the press. Usually it's the grand jury that screws over the reporter, not the plaintiff.

Yes we also have a commission for the media, but it doesn't cover print media. The FCC is only responsible for radio and television (i.e. "broadcast media"). They give out licenses to radio stations to broadcast on certain radio frequencies as well as make sure that all stations are abiding lawful conduct. They're the guys who will literally push a button and shut you off if you continuously break the law.

I can see it's poor language to say "to Xerox papers", but they could actually be using nasal tissues from Kleenex... I don't understand what Kleenex would have against it, they should be happy when someone mentions their name in public. It's free advertising.

All the trademark crap, it gives me headache. Can I sue them for this headache?

A company has the right to control how their name is used in the media. Even if it's free advertising, it's also something they can file away with hopes that they can build a lawsuit with it later. They call out the reporter just so they can say "we told him/her not to use our trademark!" Anyway, another part of it is that your job isn't to advertise for them. The fact that someone used a Kleenex brand tissue shouldn't be mentioned unless it's pertinent to the story.

For all we know, headache is already a registered trademark.

It has been my experience that a man can do something and it be okay, even commendable, but if a woman does the exact same thing, she's a bitch.

Double standard anyone? I take it as a compliment and go about my merry way.

Hey now, let's not forget that works both ways. Girl hits boyfriend, she's either crazy or he deserved it. Guy hits girlfriend and he is instantly an asshole. Not to mention guys are pretty much automatically suspected or presumed guilty of all rape accusations.

 

[Springhosen]

Hey now, let's not forget that works both ways. Girl hits boyfriend, she's either crazy or he deserved it. Guy hits girlfriend and he is instantly an *******. Not to mention guys are pretty much automatically suspected or presumed guilty of all rape accusations.

I didn't say that women were the only ones getting the short end of the stick, sweetness, I just said that being called a bitch is a double standard as men can't seem to take having their own attitude thrown back at them from someone with breasts.

 

[Domasio]

The death of free speech is something that annoys me greatly. Nowadays, saying you're a human being could offend someone, and it seriously needs to be stopped from getting in the way of people's rights.

If somebody is offended, then they just have to grow up, get a grip and stop being childish. If something offends me, like a TV show (no TV shows do, i'm here for 60-70ish years, what's the point in being a bitch about everything?) then I just don't watch it, or if I hear somebody say lots of things I don't like, then I just don't socialise or listen to that person. Takes away the stress that way, and stress is a huge factor in lots of illnesses.

Same thing goes for everything. As long as something doesn't physically harm somebody, or cause them any physical or financial loss, then I should have the right to do or say what I want without people being small-minded.

Unfortunately, small-mindedness and immaturity is getting worse nowadays, in both youths and adults. No respect for other people's rights.

Oh, and the same thing goes for "sins" for the religious. If you don't like homosexuality, don't be a homosexual, but leave those who are to live their lives.



Sorry for the rant guys, I feel very passionately about the direction this world is going in, where using your own vocal chords is becoming prohibited.

 

[cheezMcNASTY]

I didn't say that women were the only ones getting the short end of the stick, sweetness, I just said that being called a bitch is a double standard...

Sorry, I should have typed my point out a bit more. My reply was unintentionally misleading.
What I meant was that in the case of sex (which is what I think you were covertly referring to earlier concerning when a woman would be called one), there's also an imbalance in how attainable it (sex) is. The same is true for my example of domestic abuse. The reason a lot of these imbalances exist is because there are real, anatomical imbalances. That's not to say that we need to be unequal, but it's a pretty fair argument to make that a lot of these social roles, positive or negative, are rooted in something more concrete than ignorance. In fact, just the opposite.

It was determined in the American trial Brown v. Board of Education (integrated American schools if some of you did not study it) that it is impossible for two things to be separate and equal simultaneously. When it comes to this issue, I think that holds true. Equality should be strived for, but it can never truly be achieved. The best we can do is use our common sense to iron out any inequality that is unjust.

When it comes to all of the inequalities I mentioned, I think there's a good reason for them and they don't necessarily need to go anywhere. Women should be winning more rape cases because they're the more common victim. And that's coming from someone who has experienced firsthand how horrifying it can be for a male if a woman abuses this power and falsely accuses him. Just like men shouldn't physically abuse women, women shouldn't abuse their legal advantages. That's as close to equality as we can get, the way I see it.

men can't seem to take having their own attitude thrown back at them from someone with breasts.

I'm not going to begin to read this and think that you literally mean all men are that way. I'm also not going to act offended, because I think its a stupid way to express oneself. All I'm going to say is that in the interest of a comprehensive discussion can we say exactly what we mean?

The death of free speech is something that annoys me greatly. Nowadays, saying you're a human being could offend someone, and it seriously needs to be stopped from getting in the way of people's rights...

If somebody is offended, then they just have to grow up, get a grip and stop being childish. If something offends me, like a TV show (no TV shows do, i'm here for 60-70ish years, what's the point in being a bitch about everything?) then I just don't watch it, or if I hear somebody say lots of things I don't like, then I just don't socialise or listen to that person. Takes away the stress that way, and stress is a huge factor in lots of illnesses.

I agree with you about people getting offended. It's how you get people having the idea that you can sue anyone and it be OK. I see it as a form of social censorship of a most disgusting nature.

What I don't agree with is the idea that you can just shut out things you disagree with for the sake of avoiding stress. I consider this just as much, if not a bigger problem than people being "offended." Now, the freedom of free speech is meaningless if it doesn't also mean the freedom, no, obligation to listen. It's there so that we can hear things we don't agree with and use it to question what we think we already know.

If a man gets on CNN tomorrow and says he believes the earth is flat, can you prove him wrong? Come to think of it, how do I know the earth is round? I've always been taught that way in schools, but by what authority do I know that the earth is round? We have men who went to outer space who can testify that it's round. We have the Hubble telescope which can snap a photo at any moment. We know that the assumption is part of what makes physics and astronomy work. Is that enough evidence for you to believe it? Are all of these credible sources?

Now, this man on CNN has probably spent a lot of time thinking about this. He has a lot of courage to stand up on national television and contradict what we all believe on an elementary level. In short, he has a right to be heard.

It's all there so that we can sharpen our own beliefs and have well-backed opinions. Without voters who care, a democracy like many western countries have cannot function.

What's been happening lately is that people only socialize with, or get news from, sources that they agree with on everything. They believe that all other news sources are biased (and they are, just not in the same direction) and therefore anyone who watches them is an idiot.

Everyone (not literally everyone) believes something different and feels justified in it because they're all swimming in their own soup. Then when two people who disagree clash, each one is positive that they're right. After all, they haven't been legitimately challenged on anything they hold to be true. But they don't know that, so the guy who thinks otherwise is clearly a moron.

The outcome is always the both of them concluding the other is stupid and then running back to their world where they can think everything works the way they want it to.

People can't have conviction in what they believe if they don't challenge it.