J
JamalChristophr
Guest
Is “gals” really offensive?? I never thought twice about it. Why?
Ladies Only: Top 10 Most Important Qualities In Choosing a Husband
- Status
J
JamalChristophr
Guest
I think when I said girls I meant girls, but will have to check now.
B
Bruised_Reed
Guest
Actually, this sort of goes to the difficulty I’ve been having making my list. I’ve been reading qualities other posters are listing and a few are qualities I want expect in all relationships, some in all close relationships but some would be specific to choosing a husband but I still would want some of the other qualities. It’s making my list making difficult…
T
ToeInTheWater
Guest
I find myself in total agreement with this list. So why am I posting? Well, I noticed that some women added “financially secure” to this list. But I suspect that means different things to different women. It is not just the gender stereotype about women being mercenary and wanting to be rich trophy wives. (Which no one has evoked in this topic, but I suspect that is mostly because it is meant to be women-only.)
So, for the sake of the more jaded male posters who may read this topic and conclude that “see, I was right all along, women marry for money, not love”. That’s not the point here. Some women adhere to traditional gender roles in marriage, and hope to stay home with the children, even homeschool; for such a woman, financial security in a spouse would be much more important than for a woman like me, who has a professional career and don’t plan on quitting completely when kids arrive on the scene. (Although I may cut back on my hours).
However, I think “lives within means/manages money well” would be important universally. I’d hope men consider it when seeking out wives as well, because even if you plan for a traditional gender-role marriage where you bring in all the bacon and your wife i a SAHM, unless you’re planning on treating her like a child, she will still be involved in managing the money, even if she doesn’t earn it. I don’t think most women want to join the idle rich when they marry, but most women don’t want to be paupers, or one impulsive financial mistake away from becoming paupers – most especially don’t want their children to be.
I’d also like to comment on what seems to be a contradiction on the surface – that so many women have stated that being a “good kisser” is important, while rejecting the idea that prospective spouses should have sex to test if they are “sexually compatible”. The idea is NOT that sexual compatibility isn’t important at all. It’s that you don’t actually have to have sexual intercourse in order to get an idea of what a prospective spouse would prefer in the bedroom, whether they approach the act selfishly or lovingly, etc.
All this being said, I personally don’t find kissing to be that important, but I think this is mostly because I’ve never had a “bad kisser” experience, and because I come from a culture where kissing is not seen as important as in mainstream “Western” American society. (Not that people, especially those below the age of 40 or so, DON’T kiss, but kissing is certainly an imported idea, as opposed to it being a centuries-long tradition. I’ve rarely seen my parents kiss, for example.)
As for the whole “gals” gaffe on the part of the poster; I don’t mind it, but I WOULD like to caution him is, that I sense a tendency to group all women together, and that is not accurate. Please don’t assume that what women are saying here applies to every single woman, as every single woman does NOT have the same values when it comes to what she wants in a husband. (Same for men, I am sure – for example, on CAF, many single men seem to want wives who accept traditional gender roles, but in RL, many men WANT their wives to keep working even after having children.)
I’ve noticed many of the posters here who have dating dilemmas are falling into the trap of thinking “all women are essentially the same, I just need to figure out the ONE fool-proof dating strategy that works on all women”. (Or vice versa for a woman assuming all men are the same.)
Even where financial security is concerned, some women don’t care as much, either because they have an idealistic “love will find a way” attitude, or because they are financially independent already; for example, I know a doctor who is married to a waiter.
Certainly, the role of physical attraction, as well as what features trigger such attraction, will be quite different based on the woman. Where height is concerned, it is important for some women, but I personally don’t care at all. I am a little less than 5 feet 2 inches. I have been attracted to very short men, and when I say very short, I am talking of a man who was pretty much the same height as myself and would be “very short” compared to the average man, as well as tall men. I’ve never had the chance to date an actual dwarf, but I wouldn’t see that as any impediment either. I find Peter Dinklage very attractive.
One fairly superficial factor that matters to me, but may not to other women, is the importance of the way a man’s voice sounds. The men I have found attractive have looked very different, but they have had (at least to me) very pleasant voices. I can think of a man I rejected as romantic material (in my head, at least, he didn’t like me that way either so I never had to reject him) mostly due to different political and philosophical beliefs, but certainly his voice not being what I found that pleasant to listen to, did have something to do with it as well.
I also have often found that as I got to know a man better and found his personality and character to be attractive, that I actually started to find him more physically attractive as well. The opposite is also true. Sometimes, I have found a man to be physically attractive at first, yet quickly found my attraction diminishing if I found him to be, well, a jerk.
B
Bruised_Reed
Guest
I don’t find it offensive and I don’t know anyone else that thinks it is. It sounds kind of retro to me, though. But what is the casual equivalent for women? For men it’s “guys” and since all the options for women are somehow problematic “guys” is almost gender neutral. Oy.
J
JamalChristophr
Guest
Thanks, Reed. And it is rare when I say “girl’s” and mean women. So I think my comment on the modesty thread is where the reference was made and I did mean girls. (Moms should teach their girls modesty when they are girls, so they don’t have to go through some abrupt parental transition when they shift from “girls” to “young women”
…that is my take…cross threaded, though it may be.
G
Gertabelle
Guest
To me it only sounds kind of old-fashioned, and maybe a little mid-western. It’s not offensive to me at all
I would think** if one speaks and writes with respect**, then “offense” is more likely to be in the ear of the listener than in the intent of the writer/speaker.In the context of relationships, one can learn which words carry unintended meaning. But on a forum site such as this, I really think we readers need to err on the side of charity. CAF members come from all over the world, and we can’t assume words have the same meanings/connotations in every part of the English-speaking world.
Personally, I didn’t see anything in JC’s posts that were disrespectful to women
Gertie
E
EasterJoy
Guest
On the financially secure front, you have to ask yourself if you would pass St. Joseph over. That’s why I think financially responsible is more to the point. It matters that you have similar ideas on what that means, why you think it is important, and so on. What kills marriage is not money. It is fights about money.
As for “superficial” factors, they hit on emotion. It is difficult to make all the sacrifices of marriage without the emotional consolation of pleasing someone that you are pleased to know you can please. I don’t know that this is superficial. If someone thinks he or she is too superficial, I wouldn’t try to turn that off. I’d instead try to cultivate an appreciation for more important things. Then you’re still admiring what you truly admire.
X
Xantippe
Guest
I’d agree with most of that, but I think it’s not unimportant that St. Joseph only had one wife and one kid to support.
T
ToeInTheWater
Guest
Only in some traditions, though. The Eastern Catholic/Orthodox take on St. Joseph is that he was a widower who already had many children when Jesus was born, and it is these step-siblings who are the ones called “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus in the Bible.
Another difference is that unlike St. Joseph, the OP does NOT live in a society in which most women are utterly dependent on a man (whether that be father, husband, or male relative) to support them financially. Of course, if the OP’s goal is a traditional household in which the husband is the sole breadwinner and the wife is a SAHM, the St. Joseph parallel is more apt. But I haven’t heard that from the OP as far as I know.
I guess my point was more, the OP (or other men reading this) should no more say “Welp, guess I’ll never get a wife until I’m loaded” than he should say “Welp, guess I’ll never get a wife until I grow another foot in height”.
J
JamalChristophr
Guest
Yes, this thread has been immensely helpful for me, and it should be for the other “guys” ( ) who happen to read it.
TiW made a good point. I think the main thing for me is that I’d like to further clarify the kind of man I should strive to be as far as thinking about marriage goes and what the, more or less, mature, devout Catholic woman might, from her vast experience, be looking for, generally speaking.
This thread has been an eye opener for me, and I hope to comment further a bit later. I do understand that women may have different “lists” depending where they are in their lives, from 20 and not yet married, to 70 and married 50 years and all in between.
Thankyou, Ladies!
) who happen to read it.TiW made a good point. I think the main thing for me is that I’d like to further clarify the kind of man I should strive to be as far as thinking about marriage goes and what the, more or less, mature, devout Catholic woman might, from her vast experience, be looking for, generally speaking.
This thread has been an eye opener for me, and I hope to comment further a bit later. I do understand that women may have different “lists” depending where they are in their lives, from 20 and not yet married, to 70 and married 50 years and all in between.
Thankyou, Ladies!
J
JamalChristophr
Guest
I’m just still working things out financially and job-wise so it is of some consideration obviously. What DW potentially might do is open for discussion. And just FYI, I’m 5’ 8" and that is stretching, though I wouldn’t bee too bashful asking a 5’10" …woman out.
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
The only people who would be offended by the word ‘gals’ are people who are really looking to be offended.
T
ToeInTheWater
Guest
And just FYI (as I already mentioned), since a man’s height or lack thereof, doesn’t factor into my attraction to him at all, my response to your revelation about your height is, “So?” I must confess, I don’t even understand myself why so many women have issues about dating a man who is “short”. More reasons why you can’t generalize.
Regarding finances, I also think that a couple being in agreement about who works or doesn’t work for income (as SAHMs and SAHDs certainly DO work) and what the approach to money management should be, is very important to a marriage. I certainly don’t think it’s fair for a man to just assume that, say, a “nice Catholic girl” will automatically quit her job to focus on motherhood the instant she gets pregnant, the “nice Catholic girl” might actually gasp LIKE working, and last I checked, there is no Magisterial teaching that states “women who are mothers may only work for dire financial necessity”.
And while certainly it can be difficult to know exactly what your approach to raising children will be, I think this is important as well to have some idea. I’ve noticed a wide variety of options discussed on CAF, from Attachment Parenting to “traditional” discipline that relies on corporal punishment to a large extent. While many CAF posters are involved in home-schooling, many use Catholic schools, and some even send their children to the “big bad secular government schools”. Now, this is not really an appropriate topic to debate these issues, but I DO think it’s important that prospective spouses aren’t diametrically opposed and open to compromise in such matters.
J
JamalChristophr
Guest
Oh, I didn’t figure you cared TiW…I was just throwing that out there.
J
jeannetherese
Guest
Perhaps people relate to the word differently in accordance with where they happen to live.
I took it as a friendly/informal way to say you women, and would expect it to be considered pretty ordinary in the mountain states. Thinking of the western song Buffalo gals won’t you come out tonight…
I’ve grown up around the expression-it’s colloquial english.
However, if you haven’t grown up around it it sounds suspiciously like you girls (female children) and may well push a few buttons. Or perhaps, to some, it might seem a bit informal for people you do not know well.
From wictionary
Pronoun
you gals
Code:
(idiomatic, colloquial, chiefly Canada, US, Australia, New Zealand) You (plural).
Hey you gals!
Code:
See you guys and its usage notes.
This expression is most often used to address a group which the speaker knows is composed entirely of females.
Unlike y'all or the French vous, you gals is typically said only once in an utterance, after which you is used. For example:
I'm going to be on the outside baseball diamond at noon if you gals want to practice. You should bring some water because it's going to be hot.
O
oldgraymare2
Guest
I am always curious when I see responses like that, based on the way that other people use language.Perhaps people relate to the word differently in accordance with where they happen to live.
I took it as a friendly/informal way to say you women, and would expect it to be considered pretty ordinary in the mountain states. Thinking of the western song Buffalo gals won’t you come out tonight…
I’ve grown up around the expression-it’s colloquial english.
However, if you haven’t grown up around it it sounds suspiciously like you girls (female children) and may well push a few buttons. Or perhaps, to some, it might seem a bit informal for people you do not know well.
From wictionary
Pronoun
you gals
Usage notesCode:(idiomatic, colloquial, chiefly Canada, US, Australia, New Zealand) You (plural). Hey you gals!
Code:See you guys and its usage notes. This expression is most often used to address a group which the speaker knows is composed entirely of females. Unlike y'all or the French vous, you gals is typically said only once in an utterance, after which you is used. For example: I'm going to be on the outside baseball diamond at noon if you gals want to practice. You should bring some water because it's going to be hot.
I guess that I don’t understand them, because everyone has certain phrases or words that are regional or local as to where they live, or as to where they grew up.
As was already mentioned, people post here on these forums from all over the U.S., and from all over the world, so in my opinion, they should be used to seeing differences in the use of language from others, and not necessarily think that the use of some of these words are negative, and have negative meanings.
I grew up in the Midwest, and using either the words “gals” or “guys” was very common when referring to either a group of women or men, or for the word “guys,” even a group of men and women together, or just women, as in, “What do you guys want to do tonight?”
No offense was meant in any way.
Where I live now, other words and phrases are used instead. The words used are just regional to where I live.
P
Pax2u
Guest
Well, I find this offensive. More than being called a “gal”.
X
Xantippe
Guest
I was just realizing that 1) jockeys are really short for North American men and 2) they are famously popular with the ladies.
X
Xantippe
Guest
I think male female terms often come in pairs:
boy/girl
man/woman
guy/gal
gentleman/lady
etc.
I think it is properly offensive to use a generic or respectful term for the male (like “man”) and then use “girl,” “gal,” or whatever for the female. I think people are on much safer ground when they use matching terms. It’s probably over-sensitive to get prickly at “gal” when “guy” is being used at the same time, but not over-sensitive when somebody is talking about “men” and “gals” in the same breath.
- Status