*promote

How nice of them to put it all in one place for us.

As for all the times I have discussed the use of the word "girl" and how it is not used like "boy" -- somebody did the research. It's included in this vid.

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Friday, August 19th, 2016 1:10pm PDT - promote requested by bareboards2.

Grrrrr...

I don't see how the first one is sexist. He's just an asshole.

The swimming one hurt to watch/hear.

The woman is annoying, but good video.

The first one basically was just an asshole, and later clarified that point. He was basically doing a long-winded version saying "She should spend less time on social media and more time practicing if she wants to win."

It's a shame the delivery didn't math the quality of the points being made.

Boys don't cry -- but some of them certainly play like girls. And by playing like girls, I mean having the goddamn time of their lives. Not that I believe playing with barbies is the height of what a woman does in her youth, but damn, I love those play sets.

DON'T JUDGE ME, NEUTRAL_PRONOUN.

A lot of the headlines made me cringe for sure, sadly the woman sounds like she is just about to fly out into some feminist rant. She needs to take some tips from Samantha Bee.

Wow, the number of people criticising the tone of the woman in this video... I was too busy being angry at the content. So much of the coverage this year was just offensive.

This..

This.

This.

This.

Good lord, this.

How you deliver information is kind of a big deal. At lest to me. And it has nothing to do with how i feel about what's being delivered. Also delivery grates on people differently. I love how Chomsky delivers info where others are absolutely annoyed by it, and why i won't listen to Bill Maher and TNT most of the time(although i agree with much of what they say). Delivery IS a big deal. I doubt anyone here talking about this woman's delivery is discounting the info shes putting out there. At least i assume that. Also delivering in a comedic way is very hard to do well.

No it's not. It's offhandedly alluded to in the vid. Eo.

Some of the actual data is reprinted here, though: http://tinyurl.com/zuvxs2u

But they haven't published a study based on this yet.

Not to be pedantic back at you...

Alluding to something and including the info in a graphic is indeed "included in this vid."

The word "research" includes the concept of "actual data."

But other than that, sure. Nice catch on your part.

I wasn't pedantic, I was being helpful and providing links to interesting data! You're welcome!

None of the data from Grieves' work was in the video, except possibly the word twice. A quote from a press release, which might become part of the abstract, was in the video, with a useful little highlighty thing which probably wasn't in the press report. If I tell you, here and now, that there's a study showing that longer prison sentence are an ineffective deterrent to violent crime, that research isn't 'in my post.'

Of course most sports announcers and commentators are white males.

Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.
Those who can't teach, get into broadcast sports.

My sincere apologies. It didn't read as helpful to me. Leading with "no it's not" set me up for missing that you were adding information, not slapping down an observation of the vid in front of me.

That is the problem with the internet. An offhand phrase carries meaning it isn't meant to. Tone of voice isn't included. Put those two things together, it can sow confusion.

Thank for the additional information. Sincerely.

Agreed, there is a difference between "tone policing" and honest criticism of the delivery.

Lets get away from the stupidity of many of the protagonists of the video, which is painful to watch.

"Women" gymnasts are 16 to 20 unless chinese or anomalies. They actually need a limit to not allow girls under 16. Why should calling them girls be an insult? The "boys" competing in the same event are on average 10 years older. They look like men. Is that wrong, word police?

Sigh. Way to cherry pick data.

Having said that, women are among the worst at calling themselves "girl." I hate it. They infantalize themselves.

I was watching a stupid movie the other day, and the main female character, who was CEO of a small internet startup that was going viral, said -- things are different now. We are called women now.

And for the rest of the fricking fracking movie, she used the word "girl" 99% of the time.

Maybe someday we will knock this shit off. I have hope.

Yes, delivery is important, but please recognise that on a video about sexism, criticising a woman's tone and voice is sailing directly into the Irony Seas.

I am not directing this next bit at you in particular, Eric, but for anyone who wants to know why I wrote the above paragraph. Please do a Google search with the following:

criticising woman's tone -hillary -clinton

and read any of the articles. If you want to relate it to recent political stories, drop the 2 Hillary exclusion terms.

This is VERY important.

I get it and i wouldn't do it as i assume it may be misinterpreted and people would read into "what i really mean". I don't have the want to defend myself if people don't take me at my word. Its a minefield something like this. It helps to know the person/people who make such a critique. Thats why i like the sift. i feel i know many well enough (from past experience) to see where they are coming from. If i didn't know you at all id have no clue what you might mean. Blah blah blah im not good at writing stuff but i think you can understand what im trying to say.

Understood, and I pretty much assumed that, considering you posted the video.

I love that we can have these kinds of discussions without them devolving into insults and craziness, like pretty much all other public sites that allow comments.

And that is why I like the 'sift, as well!

True.

I just wanted to know. What I would next propose is that groups of "women in general" amongst themselves consider themselves to be girls. Like "native americans" consider themselves indians and "african americans" consider themselves black or niggers.

So its not about the word count, but who and how uses the words. So if an old white man uses the word "girl" condescendingly, it is different to athletes calling themselves girls within their group. So counting words is generally a bad idea and misuse of statistics.

Similarly reporting on this and trying to do the same in reverse by using a poisonous tone and attitude doesnt really work, it is counterproductive to the effective presentation of the content.

Now the sports commentators in the video are extreme, but generally sports commentating is difficult because the level of familiarity within a sporting community tends to be much greater than in the general public or given by TV standards. Resulting in awkwardness and miscommunication and hilarity.

And Eugenie is a joke.

I agree with 99% of the examples, but there is one glaring error. Katinka Hosszu was the swimmer from Hungary and the commentary was quite valid. She swam in the 2012 Olympics and did very poorly. She asked her boyfriend at the time to replace the swimming coach she had been with since college. After he took over as her coach and changed her regimen, she destroyed her competition in the World Cup and her dominance carried over to this Olympics.

He is now her husband, but seriously he deserves credit for turning her into a better swimmer in competition. Other than that, I fully agree that the video is quite accurate.

"Poisonous tone and attitude." POISONOUS TONE AND ATTITUDE???!!!???

So, would you like to expand on that phrase, @vil? And perhaps read crushbug's comment above?

Because here is what I hear -- not that you are saying this, but it is what I hear:

Angry women are off-putting. Women with sarcastic voices are off-putting. Women who dare to be anything but sweet and compliant are off-putting.

Men are not "policed" this way. They are allowed a wide range of attitudes in the way they present information. Of course, they CAN be "poisonous" -- but I guarantee you no man's delivery this mild would be labelled "poisonous."

There is a "thing" called "vocal fry" that some women (and gay men) have that pitches their voices high (to be simplistic in its description.) There has been reams written about it. I assumed that most of the comments here were related to vocal fry.

Your comment here is not about vocal fry. Or if it is, wow. What words to use to describe it. Ouch.

So can you use different words to explain what you mean? If I am not understanding you?

As for "word counts not mattering" -- that is categorically not true.

I have been talking about this for forty years and have thought about it deeply, in a logical manner, trying to find the vocabulary to discuss it. I think I have succeeded, and it applies to black people, especially black men, as well as women, both black and white. Here it comes.

Words have values. Words with similar values are interchangeable with gender usage. Words that don't have similar values are sexist and racist. (Even if women do it to themselves, they are indeed engaging in internalized sexism.) If you can take a sentence with the word "girl" being used, and change the gender to male, would you ever -- in that specific situation -- use the word "boy"? If you would, go for it.

And here is where the "word count" matters. Because there are more women than there are men, and yet the word count proves that in the same situation, the word girl is used a lot more. Even if you take out the gymnasts, who are indeed less than 19.

I never say "never use the word girl." Because sometimes, in the same situation, you would indeed use the word "boy."

Let me give you an example.

Old Boys Network. Very powerful men, on the same social and power level, call themselves "boys." Leads to Boys Night Out -- same social and power level.

So can you say Girls Night Out without it being an infantilzation? Absolutely.

Can black people call themselves the n-word? Sure. Same social and power levels. A white person calling a black person the n-word? Nope, nope, nope, nope. Different social and power levels.

This will only make sense to older people, since it doesn't happen as much as it used to. Calling a black man "boy." A grown man. With a job and a family and dignity. Can a white person employing a black man call him "boy"? No. No they cannot.

When is a man over the age of 20 or so called a boy? Very very rarely. Young man, sure. But rarely "boy."

Yet when it comes to women, they are called girls until they die. And they do it to themselves, to make themselves smaller and less threatening.

So. Poisonous. Tell me what you meant, please? Keeping in mind the idea that "threatening" women need to stay in their place?

Reminds me of PC Bro.

https://youtu.be/wXF8MIG_HQI

To some degree I kinda find a lot of sport infantile. Maybe we should just call the men boys more (Lochte springs to mind...).

It did make me cringe though. There were a few occasions where the commentators actually caught themselves doing it and corrected themselves. Thought overall I found the coverage of women in the Olympics to be broadly reverential and not, in the main, patronising, at least not on the BBC where I was watching it.

The narrator's tone in this video was clearly condescending, and that is not how you reach the other side of an argument. Even if every statement she made in this video was objectively factually accurate, the way it was presented all but ensures a full-on backfire effect.

I would compare the tone of this video to the youtuber thunderf00t. Even though he is someone with whom I agree on nearly every topic, I still find the tone of his videos to be overly patronizing, and as a result the message doesn't reach as many as it could.

I usually despise overused, banal platitudes, but there is one, I think, that should be considered. "You attract more flies with honey than with vinegar." Even if it is factually incorrect, the spirit of what implies is clear. You will have a greater chance of conveying your side of an argument if you treat the other side with dignity and respect, even if they don't deserve it. I have learned this the hard way over the years in many of my debates with theists.

-----

All that being said, I can give the benefit of the doubt and say that maybe her tone was entirely for comedic effect, even though I think it utterly fails in that regard, and is a missed opportunity to contribute to a real debate.