Posted on Jul 12, 2014
When someone tells you "good job guys", is that offensive to you?
30K
337
165
7
7
0
Yesterday I was corrected by a SFC (EOA) when he heard me say "Good job guys" I was speaking to both male and female.
His comments were I should have said good job guys and girls. Your thoughts.
His comments were I should have said good job guys and girls. Your thoughts.
Posted in these groups: 
EO
EO
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 53
34
34
0
I react strongly to being called "girl" outside of friends (a friend, male or female, can say, "that's my girl," or whatever). It's diminutive. I'm an adult. I would expect the same reaction from using the word "boy."
Guys is generic. I use it too. "Hey guys, listen up!" Yep, I do it all the time. We have a Soldier who is very reactive to things like this and pointed it out to me. And I asked her if she felt if I in anyway didn't intend to include her. Meaning, did she truly think I intended to address only male Soldiers? She admitted that I had communicated my meaning but that she felt that people need to "clean up" the language to be more gender neutral. We had a good conversation about the difference between addressing people using exclusionary language and jumping on every single thing that gives a shade of offense. One approach is welcome, and the other would damage her credibility preventing her from being effective at anything.
Keep in mind, at one point, the term "Soldier" only meant men. Rather than demand a separate term, we proudly claimed Soldier.
Guys is generic. I use it too. "Hey guys, listen up!" Yep, I do it all the time. We have a Soldier who is very reactive to things like this and pointed it out to me. And I asked her if she felt if I in anyway didn't intend to include her. Meaning, did she truly think I intended to address only male Soldiers? She admitted that I had communicated my meaning but that she felt that people need to "clean up" the language to be more gender neutral. We had a good conversation about the difference between addressing people using exclusionary language and jumping on every single thing that gives a shade of offense. One approach is welcome, and the other would damage her credibility preventing her from being effective at anything.
Keep in mind, at one point, the term "Soldier" only meant men. Rather than demand a separate term, we proudly claimed Soldier.
(34)
(0)
MSG Wade Huffman
Exactly, Ma'am! Our language is continually evolving, and I do believe that the term 'guys' is now generally accepted as a generic term for a group. You're right on point with your analogy of soldier.
(6)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
No, SPC Jeff Daley, PhD, at the risk of beating the same drum over and over, CONTEXT matters. Take a look at this thread where an NCO admits to persisting in using the word "boy:" https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/am-i-a-racist-or-is-he-a-disgruntled-soldier
It is not about whether the target of the remarks is "secure in who they are." I absolutely can tell when someone is being condescending and pejorative in their remarks. It is not about trigger words. "Boys of Summer," referring to all baseball players is endearing. If you say "boy" directed at a specific Soldier while mimicking Ebonics, you are most likely on the wrong side of the situation. If you consistently call women, "girl," "sweetie," or other diminutive terms and never refer to males that way, you need to look at yourself.
The argument that anyone should endure that treatment because they are "secure in themselves" is utter crap. I am secure in myself, so that means I stand up for myself and don't internalize these kinds of remarks. That's what being secure in yourself means. It doesn't mean tolerating victimization.
It is not about whether the target of the remarks is "secure in who they are." I absolutely can tell when someone is being condescending and pejorative in their remarks. It is not about trigger words. "Boys of Summer," referring to all baseball players is endearing. If you say "boy" directed at a specific Soldier while mimicking Ebonics, you are most likely on the wrong side of the situation. If you consistently call women, "girl," "sweetie," or other diminutive terms and never refer to males that way, you need to look at yourself.
The argument that anyone should endure that treatment because they are "secure in themselves" is utter crap. I am secure in myself, so that means I stand up for myself and don't internalize these kinds of remarks. That's what being secure in yourself means. It doesn't mean tolerating victimization.
The Professional Military Network | RallyPoint
Find service members and veterans like you, discuss military life, and share professional opportunities on the largest military network.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I completely get that people can choose their reactions and can choose to be hurt by something or not. But if you do not mean to hurt anyone with your words, you have the ability to control that too. Is is NOT all about asking victims/targets/other people (whatever term makes you happy) to simple be "secure in themselves" and let it roll off their backs. You can both be a victim of an action/crime *and* do something about it. Somewhere along the line, the term "victim" became synonymous with inaction. The term "victim" only means, "the person harmed/targeted." To pretend it doesn't hurt is called denial - another generally unhelpful response. In my opinion denying the hurt does a second thing which is allowing the perpetrator to believe that their actions had no effect.
In this case, everyone involved means well. No one is attempting to use speech to harm someone else. RP is valuable in this discussion because it is a safe place to "check-in" and see what other people think. If someone is saying something that is generally hurtful, they want to know that, yes, this is not a good way to use language. Saying that the other person should just not be hurt by it doesn't really answer the mail.
In this case, everyone involved means well. No one is attempting to use speech to harm someone else. RP is valuable in this discussion because it is a safe place to "check-in" and see what other people think. If someone is saying something that is generally hurtful, they want to know that, yes, this is not a good way to use language. Saying that the other person should just not be hurt by it doesn't really answer the mail.
(1)
(0)
15
15
0
That guy is someone who sees his position as a power pulpit to enforce his own ideals on other people. That sort of soft-handing would go over like a fart in church in my unit. I have the Brigade's MICO attached to me and we have a ton of females in the Cavalry Squadron and I want to bring more in. Holding women out of the Cavalry has hurt our numbers. That being said, I will still say "guys" often. I try to say "ladies and gentlemen" when in meetings and the like or just say "Troopers," but often the language doesn't fit the situation, and in talking with the female Troopers, they just want to be treated like a SOLDIER...not a female Soldier...so that's what I do. I don't go out of my way to change my mannerism, and they don't expect me to. They expect me to be a damn fine officer, and I expect them to do their damn jobs in a most excellent fashion. No better or worse than somebody with a stack and swivel between their abdomen and their thighs. That guy's a dumbass, and everyone thinks so...his superiors just haven't put him in his place like they should.
(15)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Sir, no one wants to reprimand the EO people. They get hurt feelings, then they target you. Next thing you know, you are answering for using the word, "guys." They have way too much power IMO.
(2)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
EO has a role to play. There is a query and response system established that must be maintained...but it doesn't give them the power to make generalizations about their own opinions.
(0)
(0)
PV2 (Join to see)
COL (Join to see) Sir, how I wished I had someone of your stature when I was in the 3rd ACR in the 80s. Women were definitely not welcomed nor wanted. I wanted to be the best medic in the Cav. I just wanted to be a soldier period.
(0)
(0)
10
10
0
Short answer: Dude's a moron.
Long Answer: With 19 years in, he *shouldn't* fall under the "was coddled too much by helicopter mama and daddy and politically correct" mumbo jumbo, but he sounds like he has serious issues.
I have NEVER gotten offended in a mixed group of men and women being referred to as "guys." I look at it like University Alumni: Co-ed schools have Alumnus (single male), alumna (single female) or Alumni (plural men or mixed group men and women). Single Sex Female organizations such as Sororities are Alumna or Alumnae. When I am referred to as an Alumni member of my university, I don't get mad because it's predominantly male word.
*If, however, one of my young sorority sisters refers to us as Alumni, I DO correct her because as an all female organization, it IS important to know when it's appropriate to use alumnae (sorority) versus alumni (university).
Dude needs to grow a pair and quit worrying about stuff that doesn't matter.
Long Answer: With 19 years in, he *shouldn't* fall under the "was coddled too much by helicopter mama and daddy and politically correct" mumbo jumbo, but he sounds like he has serious issues.
I have NEVER gotten offended in a mixed group of men and women being referred to as "guys." I look at it like University Alumni: Co-ed schools have Alumnus (single male), alumna (single female) or Alumni (plural men or mixed group men and women). Single Sex Female organizations such as Sororities are Alumna or Alumnae. When I am referred to as an Alumni member of my university, I don't get mad because it's predominantly male word.
*If, however, one of my young sorority sisters refers to us as Alumni, I DO correct her because as an all female organization, it IS important to know when it's appropriate to use alumnae (sorority) versus alumni (university).
Dude needs to grow a pair and quit worrying about stuff that doesn't matter.
(10)
(0)
SSG Robert Burns
Im offended that you used the words dude and pair. Please rephrase to respect my feelings. Well not necessarily mine but possibly someone else's who may or may not have the chance of being offended.
(5)
(0)
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca
Morris Albert - Feelings (lyrics)
romantic song & Visit Our forum http://download4u.yoo7.com/
(1)
(0)
8
8
0
Due to I need to address this and have a safe place to share my heart. The SFC addressed the situation, I shared with him when I said "Good job guys" I did not see anything offensive.
He replied Ma'am I have 19 years in.
I replied great I have thirty years in.
Needless to say he wrote my name down and went straight to my Senior Chaplain.
I had to listen to an hour of why did you have to one-up him. I repented and now I am at a cross-road. I of all people promote equal opportunity, and that is why I am asking all of rally point to comment. I want to hear from the junior enlisted your thoughts.
He replied Ma'am I have 19 years in.
I replied great I have thirty years in.
Needless to say he wrote my name down and went straight to my Senior Chaplain.
I had to listen to an hour of why did you have to one-up him. I repented and now I am at a cross-road. I of all people promote equal opportunity, and that is why I am asking all of rally point to comment. I want to hear from the junior enlisted your thoughts.
(8)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
This NCO did not need, nor was it appropriate, to state, I have 19 years in. That statement is made in a way to say, "I have been in longer and I know what I am talking about" The EO or EOA works directly for the commander as earlier stated, but only as an advisor. NCOs do have authority to make "on-the-spot" corrections. However, when the situation includes a person who is senior, caution should be taken. Bearing must be maintained.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
By pointing out his TIS, he was trying to upstage your rank. That is out of line, end of story. It is NEVER appropriate to make such an attempt. Next time, the better reply might be to ask, "And what's your point?" rather than get sucked into the debate.
(2)
(0)
CH (CPT) Heather Davis
CPT Wolfer:
Well said, I realized instantly I was in trouble. I am over it now and I apologize, I should have handled it better.
Well said, I realized instantly I was in trouble. I am over it now and I apologize, I should have handled it better.
(2)
(0)
CW2 Ernest Krutzsch
Pulling the BS card, this is obviously a case of someone trying to be politically correct things to worry about , sorry but "Get over it" There are more important things to worry about!!!
(1)
(0)
7
7
0
He is wrong. Even according to the EO Policy that is pointed out. Look up the definition of guys on dictionary.com.
2. Usually, guys. Informal. persons of either sex; people:
"Could one of you guys help me with this?"
It is not exclusionary because it refers to both sexes. People who are offended by this want to be.
2. Usually, guys. Informal. persons of either sex; people:
"Could one of you guys help me with this?"
It is not exclusionary because it refers to both sexes. People who are offended by this want to be.
(7)
(0)
6
6
0
Maam, I have to partially disagree with the EOA. The term "guys" in the context you used is not designed to be offensive but to make the compliment, or in some cases correction, more personal. I'd like to ask this. What would be better to say? "Good job, group" or "Good job, guys". The former seems so uncaring, so impersonal and generic while the latter has a bit more emphasis and effervescence in it. Yes, the word "Soldiers" can be used which is definitely much better than "group" but I think it's too impersonal also. Just my 3.57 cents worth.
(6)
(0)
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
To clarify: I disagree that using the word "guy" in any way indicates a lack of "basic human respect." Sorry for the confusion SSgt (Join to see) .
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see) Thanks but to be honest, I misread the initial question. That happens a lot lately and I actually saw 'girls' and I know not why, except being Neurological.
(1)
(0)
6
6
0
No.
It is reality apparent by context that you where referring to a group by that pronoun. It is a well understood norm in the english-speaking world that you may do so by using a male pronoun.
That may be "cultural" this or that, and may be in the process of changing (which I won't comment on here -due to blood pressure issues...), but is still an accepted norm. There was clearly no intent to discriminate, nor do I believe any reasonable person could believe that it would create a hostile work environment.
It is reality apparent by context that you where referring to a group by that pronoun. It is a well understood norm in the english-speaking world that you may do so by using a male pronoun.
That may be "cultural" this or that, and may be in the process of changing (which I won't comment on here -due to blood pressure issues...), but is still an accepted norm. There was clearly no intent to discriminate, nor do I believe any reasonable person could believe that it would create a hostile work environment.
(6)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
COL Vincent Stoneking _ I think 'gals' as in guys and gals is the proper term. IMHO. I am one who hates having to parse words due to politically correct gerrymandering but in this case, women have earned the distinction of not being referred to girls and as CPT (Join to see) rightly conveyed, it is diminishing.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I find "gals" awkward. It's dated. It's something I would expect to hear from a D.J. at a sock hop.
(1)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
CPT (Join to see) and just what's wrong with sock hops? I'll have you know that back in my day.....
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
In this day and age apparently one must be careful, even when giving an attaperson.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
I mean really; can you imagine how hard it is to use that term and actually intend for it to be offensive? You'd almost have to spell it out.
"Good job guys!.....and I specifically mean the men, not you ladies out there." Yea then maybe that'd be offensive. But you'd have to explain it in order for it to be. Which means....it's not.
"Good job guys!.....and I specifically mean the men, not you ladies out there." Yea then maybe that'd be offensive. But you'd have to explain it in order for it to be. Which means....it's not.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
I grew up with "guys", as far as I knew, being a non gender-biased term. Case in point. One my favorite PBS shows after "Sesame Street" was "The Electric Company", who's famous alumni include Bill Cosby, Mel Brooks, Morgan Freeman, Rita Moreno and Zero Mostel. In the show opening, Rita Moreno loudly yells, "Hey you guys..." to wake up the cast and audience. Never heard of anyone fussing over the point and it just became part of my vernacular for "guys" to mean group of people. And for those of us in the northeast, "yous guys".
(3)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
And sir, working at Aberdeen in MD, I get busted out for saying "Y'all." Invariably, someone shouts out, "this isn't Texas, hon."
For the uninitiated, "hon" is a Baltimore term defined as "the person I am talking to." It does not mean "honey," "sweetheart," or any of that and is used on any living thing.
For the uninitiated, "hon" is a Baltimore term defined as "the person I am talking to." It does not mean "honey," "sweetheart," or any of that and is used on any living thing.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google