How to call me

Sweetie..

Cutie..

Gorgeous..

Do I look like an object to you? Delicious cake, helpless puppy, an exquisite orchid?

Brace yourself : For kicks on your rear-side before you make the mistake of calling me those again.

 

Baby..

Babes..

Girlie..

Do I come across as a juvenile?

I own my years rather too proudly.

Beware : The next time you call me those would be the last time you would ever need to call me.

 

Man..

Dude..

Bro..

What’s with the magnanimity about treating me as an ‘equal’/’higher form’ – a male?

Please turn around.. and get lost with immediate effect.

 

Pal..

Dear..

Darling..

Hmm.. at times, for a while, for effect – acceptable.

 

But really..

Why not my name?

 

Because..

The more you call me such words..

The more they are likely to transform..

Bitch.

Slut.

Whore.

 

So..

For a change..

By my name, please.

Advertisements

15 thoughts on “How to call me

  1. I could do that, but I think on this blog you’re semi-anonymous on purpose, those calling you by name here would be unwanted. Thus I call you Conjecture girl, since that’s the name you’ve choosen for yourself in this context, or, more frequently, I call you my friend.

    • Baby, babes, babe.. All reek of infantilization to me. Even if ‘babe’ is taken to mean ‘attractive young woman’, the emphasis on ‘attractive’ pushes it to the objectification category. I find neither acceptable.

      • They are infantilizing. But they’re also intimate. Like it or not, adults who are close to oneanother sometimes choose to express that in such a way. I might actually have referred to as cutie or sweetie — but only if the context was that we where obviously flirting with each other, or if we where a couple. I’d never use such terms for ordinary friends who just happen to be female.

      • I guess I have no say about the “intimate” area. My main problem is that these have become “cool” everyday usage! Even so, why does intimate have to have be objectifying or infantalizing, esply in such generic ways? I’d think something more specific to each person – on their quirks, on what they mean/represent to us etc would be more intimate?

      • Ofcourse one can argue that people “should” be more original, or more personal. Nevertheless lots of people aren’t, and I don’t think that’s a terrible sin. It’s not terribly original to buy your girlfriend red roses, nevertheless people do.

        I think though, that one reason such terms are useful to symbolize and demonstrate closeness is *precisely* the fact that they’re inapropriate for someone you’re not close to. You’d be unlikely to refer to your supervisor at work as “cutie”, thus by doing precisely that, you show that the relationship is of a different type.

        When used on a woman who clearly *isn’t* in that kind of relationship to you, though, it can be objectifying and a way of belittling the woman. For example I’d consider it highly rude for a male researcher to refer to his female colleague as “cutie”, because in that context it gives the impression that her primary advantage is being cute, as opposed to being competent, hard-working or professional.

  2. It depends on the person and the situation, I would say. If I am being called ‘babes’ or ‘honey’ or ‘sugar’ just for the heck of it, or just because I am a woman, I would hate it. But then, sometimes, I want to be called by endearing names, and it would seem perfectly right to call me by one at that moment, of course by someone very intimate.

Wanna agree, oppose, or just say 'whatever'?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s