Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GreeneFam
The fact that they are females had nothing to do with anything. I did re-read my OP and agree that I used that term a lot, but I would have been just as upset if a MALE student had refereed the game. The gender was not the issue. I am sorry you are taking such offense at the adjective FEMALE.
I can only assumed I used the term FEMALE to better describe who had been chosen to officiate. If it was a middle aged white balding man, I would have said middle aged white balding man.
|
I agree that we should be gracious to our guests. I also agree that it is O.K. to call our guests on their evident biases. The repeated references to female officials also drew my attention.
I agree with the OP in acknowledging his assumption that the term "female" was used "to better describe who had been chosen to officiate." That assumption, however, has the evil (is that too strong a word? naw...) connotation of being less able or less qualified. That's the way it was used, anyway, and I think it's helpful for Garth to have pointed that out.
After the professed assumption, our guest didst protesteth too much. He said: "If it was a middle aged white balding man, I would have said middle aged white balding man." Actually, no he wouldn't. As another has observed, our guest did not describe the age, race or hair status of any of the men in the scenario. And, if that's how he would have described the man, why don't we know the age of the faculty member and/or the race or hair quality of either officials?
These are small points, yes, but this is not "political correctness." This is calling a bias and bias and the collective effort of all of us to root out biases (our own, as well as others') will strengthen our society. IMHO.