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
2
2
0
I try to remember to use "folks" or "people" in mixed company. If I do slip at home, I have 2 sons and a daughter, I get an , "excuse me, dad", from guess who.
(2)
(0)
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca
PO1 (Join to see), my wife loves, "Say Yes to the Dress, Atlanta" so we get plenty of y'alling. Her brother lives in NC and my niece is doing it as well.
(1)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca, heard, never seen that show (school and family got my time by the chokehold). I'll give you thumbs up anyway. And "mention" you for extra bonus points ;-)
(0)
(0)
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca
Its 200% chick-o-vision PO1 (Join to see). Girls buying wedding dresses and their annoying entourages, is not my style. Unless you need a real good laugh (and I highly recommend some 12oz curls prior to viewing) you aren't missing anything. Usually I'm watching something downstairs with the boys while my wife & daughter are watching this upstairs, but every so often I catch a show with the girls.
(1)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
No thanks, MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca, I'd rather stick to 'Queer eye for the straight guy'. Or not. I'll give you extra 50 points anyway, why not!
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Yes the EOA was right by making the correction. The Army EO policy covers exclusionary language. TC 26-6 The Commander's Equal Opportunity Handbook specifically uses the example of over using masculine pronouns such as "he," "his," or "guys" when referring to no specific person or everyone in the organization. I'm also an EOA and we are taught to discourage and correct all Soldiers from using exclusionary language.
What I don't understand is why leader's make a big deal about being corrected on this issue. It is written in the Army EO program to not use exclusionary language. When has it ever been ok for leaders to pick and choose what standards they follow? I also find it hard to believe our vocabulary is so limited that we have to use "guys" to address a group of Soldiers. How about using everyone, everybody, Soldiers, you all, people, Troops, warriors, all of you, so on and so forth.
This is an easy issue to fix. Be aware of exclusionary language and just don't use it. Plus if its not a big deal like everyone says, it should be that much easier to stop doing it.
What I don't understand is why leader's make a big deal about being corrected on this issue. It is written in the Army EO program to not use exclusionary language. When has it ever been ok for leaders to pick and choose what standards they follow? I also find it hard to believe our vocabulary is so limited that we have to use "guys" to address a group of Soldiers. How about using everyone, everybody, Soldiers, you all, people, Troops, warriors, all of you, so on and so forth.
This is an easy issue to fix. Be aware of exclusionary language and just don't use it. Plus if its not a big deal like everyone says, it should be that much easier to stop doing it.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I'm not suggesting that you are looking at it too deeply, quite the opposite. You are not looking deeply enough and you are telling me you aren't because you think you have been told not to use that word. You have not. You have been told not to use exclusionary language - the two are not the same.
I respect that you personally do not want to use it, but don't drag me or other Army women who use the term and/or haven't complained into your decision. Helping people who don't need or want your "help" is paternalistic and offensive. I respect that you provide a conduit for discussion when someone is offended *and* has expressed that to you. That is an important role. But implying that the officer is in violation of a reg...or even making the claim that the language is exclusionary, when clearly it is not...is going way too far.
I am not trying to debate you into the ground here. I am trying to educate you beyond the box that your EOLC/DEOMI training has put your thinking in. The reason leaders "react" to this type of "correction" is because it is NOT correction - it's just an annoyance. If you really want to help, be relevant. Know the difference between policing trigger words and ending exclusionary language. Remember Basic Training? Was that supposed to be the end-all-and-be-all of training, or was it just the basics? You were supposed to take that training and grow, not go to your unit and tell your PSG that your DS told you to do it that way, so gosh darn it, that's how your gonna do it for always. You have repeatedly given me the equivalent of the, "but that's what drill sergeant said," speech.
I respect that you personally do not want to use it, but don't drag me or other Army women who use the term and/or haven't complained into your decision. Helping people who don't need or want your "help" is paternalistic and offensive. I respect that you provide a conduit for discussion when someone is offended *and* has expressed that to you. That is an important role. But implying that the officer is in violation of a reg...or even making the claim that the language is exclusionary, when clearly it is not...is going way too far.
I am not trying to debate you into the ground here. I am trying to educate you beyond the box that your EOLC/DEOMI training has put your thinking in. The reason leaders "react" to this type of "correction" is because it is NOT correction - it's just an annoyance. If you really want to help, be relevant. Know the difference between policing trigger words and ending exclusionary language. Remember Basic Training? Was that supposed to be the end-all-and-be-all of training, or was it just the basics? You were supposed to take that training and grow, not go to your unit and tell your PSG that your DS told you to do it that way, so gosh darn it, that's how your gonna do it for always. You have repeatedly given me the equivalent of the, "but that's what drill sergeant said," speech.
(1)
(0)
SFC Lamont Womack
CPT (Join to see) I'm not trying to drag anybody into anything. I fully understand what my role as an EOA is. Nothing you just wrote applies to me, how I approach my position or my train of thought. (I do appreciate the input though)
Once again like I said I (me, SFC Womack) would have told whoever made that statement it COULD be perceived as exclusionary. That individual can take that information however they want to take it. I would have left it at that.
I personally don't do it because if I am visibly talking to males and females I am not talking to "guys". This is just a fact. The training I received just reinforces that fact. If it doesn't offend you then it doesn't offend you. The fact that we are even discussing this amazes me.
Once again like I said I (me, SFC Womack) would have told whoever made that statement it COULD be perceived as exclusionary. That individual can take that information however they want to take it. I would have left it at that.
I personally don't do it because if I am visibly talking to males and females I am not talking to "guys". This is just a fact. The training I received just reinforces that fact. If it doesn't offend you then it doesn't offend you. The fact that we are even discussing this amazes me.
(1)
(0)
SSG Robert Burns
I know that that is what is taught at DEOMI. That doesn't mean that it is correct. It is simply someones opinion and misunderstanding of what the word "guys" means. As referenced in any dictionary it is identifying to both sexes. Just because someone else doesn't feel like it does, doesn't make it so.
Avoid things that can be offensive? Honestly, what couldn't be offensive? Even using the word team could be offensive to someone who felt they weren't part of the team. Using the word Soldier's could be offensive if there is a marine in the house. So is Soldier's exclusionary language? Or is it just understood by anyone with common sense and not looking to start something that it is including everyone being addressed.
Also MSG (Join to see) who is SGT Burns? Again according to every dictionary that is the meaning of the word.
Avoid things that can be offensive? Honestly, what couldn't be offensive? Even using the word team could be offensive to someone who felt they weren't part of the team. Using the word Soldier's could be offensive if there is a marine in the house. So is Soldier's exclusionary language? Or is it just understood by anyone with common sense and not looking to start something that it is including everyone being addressed.
Also MSG (Join to see) who is SGT Burns? Again according to every dictionary that is the meaning of the word.
(2)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I think everybody has gotten way too sensitive. Next thing you know, we won't be allowed to say 'good morning' for fear of offending someone.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
I don't think you emphasized "guys", and most likely said it as a parting comment - so it in no way was voiced as a sexist comment. It seems we are in a world that is hyper-sensitive to many comments and some prefer to look at literal meaning rather than colloquial, leaving them to believe it's offensive.
My take ..... no harm, no foul. It was meant as an "at-a-boy" type comment and should be taken as such. In the same manner, my descriptive at-a-boy could be taken the same way I suppose .....
My take ..... no harm, no foul. It was meant as an "at-a-boy" type comment and should be taken as such. In the same manner, my descriptive at-a-boy could be taken the same way I suppose .....
(2)
(0)
CH (CPT) Heather Davis
SFC Womack:
I am correctable and teachable, and I am often times the only female in a predominately male setting. Leaders do not mind being corrected with respect, and I will share with you this NCO's intentions may have been genuine, but the end result is he corrected the situation in anger. You cannot be logical and emotional at the same time, and I am a product of being in since 1984, and I do not see guys as an exclusionary language, however, since I have a fuller understanding I will change my diction.
I am correctable and teachable, and I am often times the only female in a predominately male setting. Leaders do not mind being corrected with respect, and I will share with you this NCO's intentions may have been genuine, but the end result is he corrected the situation in anger. You cannot be logical and emotional at the same time, and I am a product of being in since 1984, and I do not see guys as an exclusionary language, however, since I have a fuller understanding I will change my diction.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I would rather have some use the word "guys" in general terms than refer to me as "girl". In my entire adult life, there was only one person who insisted on addressing me differently or treating me differently because I was a "girl" and he sported a black eye for two weeks because of it.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Come on --- really -- look to the dictionary. person —used in plural to refer to the members of a group regardless of sex . That was old school of thinking guys being a male term only. The SFC needs to get with the future. A compliment is always received positively.
(1)
(0)
CH (CPT) Heather Davis
SGM Manders, this SFC not only addressed me in front of the cadets, he also looked in my eyes and said I have 20 years in. I looked back and told him I had 30 years in. The next step he went over to my senior Chaplain and complained.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
PO3 John Jeter
How can anyone expect unit cohesion if your language separates the members by gender?
(0)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
first, she wasn't. second our units are made up of all different walks of life, both male and female, big and small, to not at least recognize the difference is plain idiotic.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
It's always been my opinion that "guys" is acceptable vernacular when in mixed company. I don't even care that much when the Co says "Gents". If I spend my time getting offended everytime those phrases are used I'd be continuously offended. It's not ment to demean me or be a jab or even not make me part of the group. There are more important things in life. Usually if someone tries to toss an apology my way for those expressions I tell them that if and when I get offended I'll let them know until then CM
(1)
(0)
MSgt Norman Chaney
The remark is not a nice one. Usually preferred in exchange for doing something official which requires real work. In today's gender sensitive world you cannot say any thing to a group unless it is gender neutral. You SOB's is acceptable. Men and women may not be. So, be careful.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I think that they should button that girl scout shirt back up n go cry abt it to mama. This.is.the.military. I know, women should always b respected I get that completely. But guys is like saying y'all. Your addressing a group. It may have a male connotation but it doesn't have to be taken like that. Plus I think calling a female in the military avgirl is way more offensive.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
OMG! Give me a break already. How about we start using 'Good job ladies'. I'm all for EO and using the system as it was intended. But it seems like when someone doesn't get their way the first thing they do is cry to EO that they were discriminated against, harassed etc. I guess they no longer issue a spine to go along with Sergeant stripes.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Oh wait better yet!....what if it's room full of folks like Bradley/Chelsea Manning? And I assume that because I'm in a room full of dudes it's ok for me to say "guys." But Bradley doesn't consider himself a man, he considers himself a woman. Who am I to assume that just because he's got man parts that he's a man?
Maybe I should just use the term earthling, although sometimes I'd even question the validity of that claim. Because some of these "guys" must be from another planet. ;-)
Maybe I should just use the term earthling, although sometimes I'd even question the validity of that claim. Because some of these "guys" must be from another planet. ;-)
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google