I acknowledge that players sometimes refer to each other as "the boys". But in that clip, Errol never uses the term "boys". He refers to the "men's team" a couple of times. And then the "girls". I guess I just find it a little patronising.
I acknowledge that players sometimes refer to each other as "the boys". But in that clip, Errol never uses the term "boys". He refers to the "men's team" a couple of times. And then the "girls". I guess I just find it a little patronising.
+1Originally Posted by liz
(though I would delete ‘a little’).
I noticed Bronwyn refers to them as the girls throughout the interview. People more often than not refer to the boys and the girls when talking about them as a general collective.
It wasn't meant in a derogatory or patronising manner, I feel it's being a little over-sensitive to say otherwise.
What I said was that I found the language a little patronising. I chose my words carefully. I didn't accuse the speakers of being patronising (subtle distinction) and I qualified my adjective in the knowledge that there was likely no intent. I didn't express outrage, or lay out my plans to take the dog and march down Driver Avenue in protest.
Bronwyn has just transitioned from coaching actual girls in the academy, and all the players she is working with now are young enough to be her daughters. So the language doesn't feel so awkward coming from her. It seems more incongruous coming from Errol, given he's a just-turned-twenty-year old who refers to his own team as men. But yes, I get that he is picking up the language from those around him, including his mother.
I merely expressed a hope that we (the football community) can find a way to start referring to the players more often as women. Language does have (sometimes subtle) impacts and I think there's room for pointing that out. It's not being "over-sensitive".
In today's culture, it is overwhelmingly more and more up to the recipient to decide whether a comment is racist, ableist, sexist, patronising etc., and it is worse for the speaker or others to deny the intent/impact of the statement, as you are then gaslighting or invalidating their experience. Women, or any other marginalised group should not have to defend their perception/experience.
If in this case, a woman says they find a comment to be patronising to their gender, then then men ought to listen to that statement and acknowledge the impact, as the men have not had decades and centuries of marginalisation and you just can't compare our experience with theirs.
As a man, I found the references to the girls jarring.
Women have been told forever that they are not as good as men in sport etc, so being referenced as the girls is 100% not equivalent to the men being referenced as the boys.
I agree about the subtle impacts attached to language. Different people will invariably interpret the same words in different ways. Personally, I have no issue when the men are referred to as "the boys" or the women as "the girls". It's quite common these days for language to be scrutinised beyond the intent of what has been said (seemingly something I may be a little over-sensitive about). For what it's worth, I can see you were not trying to go beyond the intent in this case.
In this case, for me, the context of the statement should be enough to settle any misgivings in how it was said. I do however agree that there is room to point these types of issues out without being labeled by the likes of myself!
I will admit that "over-sensitive" was not the best choice of language on my behalf.
I dislike the use of the term "boys" to describe a team of senior AFL players, if only because it seems so often to condone infantile behavior. So I was already strongly predisposed to disliking the term "girls."
Loose translation from the Latin is - I am tall, so I hit out.
+1
I came on here to put up the article about Mrs Gulden coaching....and all I find is people complaining that she used the term 'girls' (and even one complaining about the men being called boys)! Are some just looking for something to whinge about ? Girls/women, boys/men....who gives a @@@@? Let's just be happy that there is a 'womens' team at all.....and yes, it's about time.
Men are occasionally called boys and so too will women occasionally be called girls. Get used to it....there's nothing 'sinister' in it! Let's all move on and just enjoy the footy!
Oh and apologies if some choose to jump on this as 'mansplaining'! It's not....it's just my opinion.
Last edited by stevoswan; 24th July 2022 at 03:40 PM.
+1
I came on here to put up the article about Mrs Gulden coaching....and all I find is people complaining that she used the term 'girls' (and even one complaining about the men being called boys
Men are occasionally called boys and so too will women occasionally be called girls. Get used to it....there's nothing 'sinister' in it! Let's all move on and just enjoy the footy!
Oh and apologies if some choose to jump on this as 'mansplaining'! It's not....it's just my opinion.
+1 Well said. More important things to whinge about than the use of “boys” & “girls”.
It is totally for the women to decide if the use of girls is appropriate or not, regardless of how the men’s team is described.
I openly profess to not being qualified to judge as to what may cause offence to others and I understand that what offends others might not offend me but I am curious as to why some team theme songs reference girls if it is seen by some as patronising ?
I also seem to recall an advert where the female footy team sing the such and such girls after a victory.
Surely if the use of the term girls causes concern to a significant sector of the population then that would be a good place to start.
Times change and some take longer to move with the times than others. Not every woman is going to be put off by the use of the term girls. But if some do, we ought to acknowledge that this their experience.
If you disagree with it, you are free to do so, but telling the women to suck it up or that they are being precious or too sensitive is more (possibly ignorant) sexism.
Re times changing…
At my kids’s school, one of the houses is called the MacKillip Monkeys. Innocent naming a couple of decades ago, but would be considered racist nowadays and unwelcoming for any kids from South Africa, India etc as there is understanding now that monkey is used as a racist insult for some groups. Remember how upsetting it was for Goodes for Eddie MaGuire to suggest he play King Kong in a promotion? Or how Eddie Betts felt when people threw bananas at him? Some thought it was funny as he was a master of the banana kick, but to him it was ignorant racism.
The Washington Redskins - the management has acknowledged in recent years the naming, the caricature of an American Indian Chief and their tomahawk celebrations are insulting to American Indians. However for decades fans were doing the tomahawk motion and many argue that it is PC gone too far etc.
The key thing is, if you or I are not in the group that has been marginalised for decades/centuries, the best thing we can do is listen when someone from that group talks about their experience, instead of minimising what they are saying.
Ask open questions if you want to learn about their perspective, but not prejudiced questions like “aren’t you being too sensitive given the men’s team are often labelled the boys?”
Instead, “what does it mean for you when the women’s team is labelled as the girls by a male player?”
Disclosure - I have a social work background and have experience with people with disability, identify as LGBTIQA+, with mental health issues etc.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks