"Soccer moms" and other outdated idioms

[AnxietyRanger]

Thank you for the well thought-out post, Auzie. I certainly didn't - and don't - mean to be insensitive towards your very reasonable perspective.

Imo stereotyping should be avoided because it has great potential and high odds to be hurtful to the receiver(s). Saying that some labels are not offensive to majority or everyone so it is ok to use them translates into “not everyone matters”.

I wouldn't dare to belittle anyone's importance, but since anything can be hurtful to anyone (to an extent, I find it hurtful that it has been suggested in this thread earlier on I couldn't fully take part because of my gender, which is male), it becomes important to somehow measure the relative merit of the hurt. Some social norms are acceptable, others are not, and that standard can vary from location to location, from time to time. I think it is a legitimate question what language, what stereotypes, etc. are acceptable and what not. It would be unreasonable to respect all hurts as equal, because discussion and society would simply stop at the first unreasonable objection.

I agree with you that stereotyping is a very efficient linguistic shorthand. The stereotyping serves the speaker very well as it takes much less thinking, energy and effort to explain a phenomenon. That is why it is used so often.

I think, to an extent, stereotyping serves society very well, too. Your local TV has a very nice show about border control, one of my favorite reality TV shows (right after Australian Master Chef - got to love Matt and his cravats), and they too profile the heck out of people to do their jobs. It serves a purpose. When we are discussing something as complex as electric vehicle adoption, certainly buying blocs and social groups come quickly into play. If we can't use monikers to describe those, discussions becomes quite hard, quite fast. Now, whether or not the particular term, soccer mom, is appropriate or not - that as a specific question, I think, was left to linger. Some feel it isn't, others feel it still is. Do some people object to the words "soccer mom", or the segment it refers to, I don't know. I guess that too differs from person to person.

On the other side, there are people who are stereotyped, or on the receiving end of that shorthand. When someone boxes me with a label, even with such innocent label like a mum, something in me screams – hey, I am so much more than just a mum, please do not reduce me…It feels disrespectful and disrespect is hurtful. Only my children can call me mum, me being a mum is no one else’s business. I also dislike being described as a part of any market that would label me as a mum.

I understand that. I would argue, though, it is different to discuss average labels, general labels, than to label individuals. I find it quite likely that "soccer moms" is an actual buying bloc in the U.S. If so, discussing it doesn't seem unreasonable. Now, labelling someone into that bloc against their will would be unnecessary and unnecessarily hurtful. It is another question, of course, if the particular words "soccer mom" have become inappropriate. If they have, and that is widely agreed, then of course the polite thing is to leave them in the past. I offered some pointers that they don't seem to be considered inappropriate by many mothers in the U.S., though, so I haven't seen it as clear-cut as some others.

Some people have difficulty understanding how their efficient shorthand can be hurt full to someone else. There are no bad intention, sincerely. The receiver must be overly sensitive, they read into something that does not exist, they should not feel hurt as hurt was not intended. But the fact is that there are label receivers that do feel hurt. Hurt might be small but is difficult to address. These small hurts accumulate as unlucky receivers go through life, as some people are frequently on the receiving end.

I do understand that. The discussion, I feel, has been, has "soccer mom" become a derogatory label - or not. The intent isn't to be insensitive, but to be reasonably sensitive. The disagreement, I feel, has been where "soccer mom" lands on that scale. Like I said, my past experience of the word has come from women using the word proudly.

No one here is judging anyone’s character. We are just discussing and presenting the various sides and consequences of an issue, stereotyping.

I was referring to bonnie's comment:

"when I hear these types of things, it just tells me a little bit more about the person saying it than they probably planned on letting me know"

I would continue recommend against reading too much into singular words in a national, international discussion. Something may just get lost in the translation. It may not tell of the person the thing you think it does.

***

Finally, a thought about putdowns:

But if I said, 'They're just a bunch of rednecks' vs. 'They're just a bunch of brilliant engineers', which one would be negative to you? Right. It's a putdown. Same with soccer moms, etc.

In that context rednecks could be a putdown, sure. But reverse those words:

They're just a bunch of brilliant rednecks
vs.
They're just a bunch of engineers

Which one is the putdown now? Brilliant rednecks actually sounds like a compliment to me - and certainly there are commendable aspects in the generally acknowledged redneck culture as well. On the other hand, even labelling someone as an engineer or, say, a scientist can be a putdown, no matter our appreciation of STEM. There is an entire sitcom based on the notion (and it's brilliant). Secondly, the way that was worded "they're just a bunch" is the putdown in the first place, pretty much anything that follows could seem like a putdown.

They're just a bunch of Tesla owners
They're just a bunch of men

Those too could read as putdowns. Does it make the labels Tesla owners and men something we shouldn't use? Probably not.

Though, arguably gender is considered an outdated idiom by some. There are social experiments in Europe, kids in kindergarten without gender specific colors, toys or activities, relatives not being told the gender of the child (and naturally a name that could apply to either gender) so that the child can grow up gender neutral as long as possible and build their own gender or genderless identity, or so the thinking goes anyway. I mean, certainly these are real and legitimate experiments, but on the other hand I wouldn't judge anyone if they disagreed with that either or if they are very hard to understand in many other parts of the world. Gender too is a label and it can be a putdown, and social limitation, but also it can be the opposite when used positively ("man/woman of the year" type of thing) and it can be a strength. Same with motherhood and fatherhood. Soccer and football.

Language is very dependent on where and how it is used and heard. Language is culture. It is certainly a positive to have diversity in culture. I think we just ran into some cultural clashes, that's all.

In the end, to return to how the topic related to Tesla the car, I think Asphalt&Battery concluded the origins of this thread quite well earlier on:

In my opinion, it's silly to acknowledge something as cliché simply because it is true. I think we can agree soccer moms prefer the utilitarian nature of an SUV. Hence, a soccer mom is more likely to drive a Model X. OP conveniently left out the frame of reference for his initial quote; that soccer moms would not tolerate a lapse in communication from Tesla Motors in regards to false range claims. I think we can agree this to be a true as well. A soccer mom would not have the wherewithal to visit an enthusiast forum to make sense of her X's shortcomings (full pun intended). The blow back would be intensified and it would take a lot more than a dorkified blog post by a CTO to calm them down. In short, Tesla needs to consider their corporate social responsibility when it comes to consumer communication

It is a bit of a technical post from Asphalt&Battery, but it probably is very accurate too. Whether or not the words "soccer mom" are appropriate or not, I guess, remains a difference of opinion. Perhaps studies and/or social practices will unequivocally clarify that in the future.

What is clear, to me, is that nobody should be labelled without their consent. You'll get no argument from me there. I have never even considered labelling anyone here on TMC in my mind (beyond location posted on their profile and that's mostly just to be sensitive towards their origins to the best of my ability - location, after all, is a label people have placed on themselves here), but that doesn't mean I wouldn't consider discussing certain averages and market segments - and thus labels - reasonable. It is a bit like discussing birth-rates. Saying people in a region have 2.5 children, or the like. Nobody is a .5 child, certainly. It is just that sometimes discussing those averages makes sense for some other purpose than discussing an individual.

 

[Canuck]

I don't want to push her too much and end up with a bloody nose if she has a problem and suffers because of it. If her ICE car has a problem it will be bad luck. But if her Tesla has a problem it will be my fault.

I don't find comments regarding spouses hitting each other, even those made in jest, to be even the least bit funny.

 

[dhanson865]

Originally Posted by osama
I don't want to push her too much and end up with a bloody nose if she has a problem and suffers because of it. If her ICE car has a problem it will be bad luck. But if her Tesla has a problem it will be my fault.

I don't find comments regarding spouses hitting each other, even those made in jest, to be even the least bit funny.

I assumed he meant a metaphorical bloody nose, not a physical bloody nose. It would have been the same if he chose "black eye" instead.

Used as a metaphor it isn't a joke and in my opinion isn't in poor taste.

from give a bloody nose - Idioms by The Free Dictionary
give somebody a bloody nose to defeat or damage someone, but not permanently or seriously The pro-Europeans gave their opponents a bloody nose in the debate.

 

[AmpedUP]

Canuck, he was not saying this literally in any sense at all. It wasn't even a try at humor...it was simple use of an idiomatic expression. E.G. "I was working really hard today, nose to the grindstone."

 

[osama]

I don't find comments regarding spouses hitting each other, even those made in jest, to be even the least bit funny.

It was a metaphor: Bloody nose, black eye, egg on my face etc.

 

[Canuck]

I assumed he meant a metaphorical bloody nose, not a physical bloody nose. It would have been the same if he chose "black eye" instead.

Used as a metaphor it isn't a joke and in my opinion isn't in poor taste.

The fact it's a metaphor does not give it a pass in my mind because the metaphor is offensive. We need as a society to move away from inappropriate metaphors involving violence towards spouses. In fact, we have and this metaphor was considered appropriate in the 1950's and '60's but now, with more people being called out on it, we don't hear it as often. I will always call someone out on it and I won't accept excuses for it.

Canuck, he was not saying this literally in any sense at all. It wasn't even a try at humor...it was simple use of an idiomatic expression. E.G. "I was working really hard today, nose to the grindstone."

That's a very different image drawn in the reader's mind than his wife punching him in the face.

It was a metaphor: Bloody nose, black eye, egg on my face etc.

How did these metaphors arise? How do children, first hearing these metaphors, account for how the black eye and bloody nose occurred? We can't become desensitized.

 

[AudubonB]

There are some for whom the term "Canuck" is extremely offensive.

All in all, however, in great sobriety I respectfully suggest all should choose - even on the internet - battles carefully. Just as respectfully, I should suggest that a great many of the battles suggested in this thread were posited quite devoid of such care.

PS: There were no electrons harmed in the creation of this message.

 

[dhanson865]

The fact it's a metaphor does not give it a pass in my mind because the metaphor is offensive. We need as a society to move away from inappropriate metaphors involving violence towards spouses. In fact, we have and this metaphor was considered appropriate in the 1950's and '60's but now, with more people being called out on it, we don't hear it as often. I will always call someone out on it and I won't accept excuses for it.



That's a very different image drawn in the reader's mind than his wife punching him in the face.



How did these metaphors arise? How do children, first hearing these metaphors, account for how the black eye and bloody nose occurred? We can't become desensitized.

I suggest you watch I Love Lucy episode "the black eye" The Black Eye - Ultimate I Love Lucy Wiki

Not every black eye is a case of violence.


Take another phrase "shoot myself in the foot". I'd say anyone under the age of 50 that uses that phrase means it in a neutral way with no idea what the origin of the phrase is. It's commonly used now to mean "inadvertently make a situation worse for yourself" but the origin wasn't nearly that neutral. Are you going to argue about a 100+ year old phrase being offensive that is so old the origin is practically lost?

 

[Auzie]

There are some for whom the term "Canuck" is extremely offensive.

All in all, however, in great sobriety I respectfully suggest all should choose - even on the internet - battles carefully. Just as respectfully, I should suggest that a great many of the battles suggested in this thread were posited quite devoid of such care.

PS: There were no electrons harmed in the creation of this message.

Totally agree with you on choosing carefully, battles and words. I admit that choosing is hard, requires thinking, pausing, thinking again, considering multiple possibilities, etc.

I'd like to add a small comment on "Canuck" or any other attribute that anyone chooses to call their valuable self.

When someone chooses a particular attribute to refer to self or to a group that the self belongs to, there is not much likelihood for such labels to be offensive.

When an outsider throws a label to a group that he/she does not belong to, the risk is far greater. If label thrower happens to be positioned higher on the social pecking order or is in some position of power over the labelled ones, then such inequality lifts the risk of offense to almost certainty.

Luckily on these anonymous threads we all seem to be equal, making it more difficult to throw labels around.:smile:

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Totally agree with you on choosing carefully, battles and words. I admit that choosing is hard, requires thinking, pausing, thinking again, considering multiple possibilities, etc.

I'd like to add a small comment on "Canuck" or any other attribute that anyone chooses to call their valuable self.

When someone chooses a particular attribute to refer to self or to a group that the self belongs to, there is not much likelihood for such labels to be offensive.

When an outsider throws a label to a group that he/she does not belong to, the risk is far greater. If label thrower happens to be positioned higher on the social pecking order or is in some position of power over the labelled ones, then such inequality lifts the risk of offense to almost certainty.

Luckily on these anonymous threads we all seem to be equal, making it more difficult to throw labels around.:smile:

Auzie's perspective in the quoted message is, of course, fairly universally accepted basis for political correctness. There is a need and a place for it.

I would add two sensibilities to it: One is increasing tolerance in an international, multi-language and multi-cultural setting. Taking offence even when it is very likely no offense was meant or understood, is a form of insensitivity too. Labelling someone insensitive just because one took them insensitively can be wrong too.

Finally a word about the difference of discussing labels and labelling people. There is a difference. For example I have never called anyone a "soccer mom" in my life. I've merely observed such a customer and population segment being described and discussed - and made observations on that. The word may have a different sound in one part of America let alone in Australia where the word doesn't natively exist?

In the African-American community there has been talk of not using the N word because it will make the word seem more common and accepted over time, so not even that angle is uncontroversial.