you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Just for the record, I've called male colleagues, employees and clients/customers "sweetheart" and "honey" at times over the years in the workplace and when socializing outside of work. Not to belittle or to be sexist to them, but because we had become close and were quite collegial and causal with one another at various points. And also to express sympathy when they were ill, disappointed, disgruntled. Sometimes in a jocular way too.

At the same time, I've been called "sweetheart" and "honey" by males in workplace settings in ways that were sexist and seemed meant to be belittling - and I've been called a whole bunch of other misogynistic terms in work settings that definitely had sexist animus behind them (bxtch, battle axe, sweet cheeks, feminazi, "lezzer," cxnt, cow). But at the same time, I've been called sweetie, honey, darling, love, lovey and so on also by both males and females at work in ways that seemed friendly and I took to be not at all sexist or belittling. The specific context is everything.

[–]Femaleisnthateful[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree - context matters. It can also be highly subjective. I just get the impression from this ruling that the terms used were deemed wrong solely because the claimant didn't identify as a woman, not because of any other context.