Is the word "vivacious" demeaning to women?

Parent Cafe
101

Sue22–I agree with you. The larger part of the article was thought provoking. Since Mary Jo Frug was the subject.

But the dean’s comments at the end only make sense IF you think “vivacious” is truly a sexist comment. And was INTENDED as a terribly sexist comment.
Otherwise it just sounds asinine, self-indulgent and undermines much of what she truly was trying to convey in the article.

It appears written as an afterthought-- a personal and public jab . Unworthy of anyone in her position.

But your view may vary. So carry on!

102

.".What about 'we are lucky to have her" - insulting to consider it luck and not her hard work that brought her to that position?

That one would be totally misconstruing the meaning, when you say “we are lucky to have X”, it usually is a compliment that means that X is an outstanding contributor and that of the many places they could be, they are with us. It doesn’t imply the person was lucky to get there, it says we are lucky to have them.

But yeah, the whole point is that while words have power, and yes they can hurt, demean, do damage, again it comes down to intent. Sometimes people use words without even thinking, like “Jew me down” or “Gypped” or whatnot, and they may not even be aware they are offensive, so the best thing to do is tell them why it is offensive, most times you tell someone that and they will not use it again.

103

It seems that university speech codes (ref #100) listing ‘do use’ and ‘don’t use’ words are an ever evolving and changing set. It is going to be hard to keep up.

How about this…we get some hot (as in on fire, ahead of the curve, really good at what they do) CS majors (marjorets, majorits) to program a human ‘bark collar’. You know, those things that shock your puppy if they bark at the wrong time. Of course, this item would have to be made available in all the appropriate forms so that each and every individual has exactly the form they need tol ensure they are not micro-aggressed.

Each incoming freshperson, frosh, new entry individual, can be issued this device which must be worn at all times until graduation. The device is remotely updated as needed with all the words one can not/ should not/ must not use. Then, if an offending word is uttered a ‘no-no we don’t say this’ shock is issued to the wearer. Shock level can be increased based on the number of ‘no-no’ words uttered by said individual.

Good grief…

104

Re post #56, one can just imagine the reaction of the crowd if the student had introduced the “lusty” Dean. lol.

It would have been interesting if the student had referring to the Dean as “high energy.” That is gender-neutral in my opinion. I’d guess that most of the audience would have laughed (except for some of the Republicans), because of the obvious political allusion. Sorry if another poster has already posted this suggestion. I have not read beyond #57 so far.

Someone once thanked me (sincerely, I think) for a “fulsome” introduction, which I found awkward because of the connotations of the term–I don’t think the speaker was aware of them at the time.

Generally, I think that comments on personal characteristics are out of place in a professional introduction of anyone. Some years in the future when I retire, though, if one of my colleagues thought to mention that I was “kind,” I would not object. I try to cultivate that quality. Mostly. Perhaps more off CC than on it.

And speaking of kindness, I think that the objectionable calls the student received were even more out of place.

105

Here’s a thought exercise. Imagine a male dean of the same age as Rosebury being introduced as “young and vivacious” and the reaction such an introduction would engender.

106

I think sometimes it’s just an attempt to humanize and personalize a high up person who might seem otherwise unapproachable.

107

I agree, MOWC, that’s probably the origin of the choice. But as wise folks have said, over time, the message is what’s received by the listener, not what the speaker thought he was conveying. And in between lies a lot of necessary consideration.

108

I think with regard to that particular introduction the word “young” is more problematic than “vivacious.” But going forward when I want to communicate high energy I will use the word “dynamic.” Can’t see anyone objecting to that.

109

Language is very fluid. And it varies from generation to generation. Which seems to be discounted at times.
“Gay” still means “bright and merry” to some elderly seniors. Pot is something you’d cook veggies in.
Trash is something you take out to the curb-- not people. We didn’t have “trash” talk.
You always have to consider the source.

And yes, the dean was offended for being called “young”. Well, if the shoe fits…it’s a tribute to achieving goals earlier rather than later in life. Gotta agree–she’s not old enough to appreciate it.:slight_smile:

I do think words matter. “Brassy broad” from a client may be a total compliment of respect. I know that guy personally. And I know some “brassy broads” who wear that as a banner.
Time to smile and nod (you do learn things on CC!). Your boss telling you that may be a different thing altogether (or not–depends on the boss actually). Everything in context.

Earlier is the commenting on how you dress in the work place…
Guys (peers of course) get a “job interview”? comment and women get the “you look nice”. Poster asked if women should be upset that they “look nice”.
But who should really be the upset party here? What if a guy said “job interview?” to you? Shouldn’t you be telling the guys they look nice?
(Course where I’ve worked the saying was “You clean up pretty good!” which is TOTALLY gender neutral.)

110

Sue22–Post 105–I asked students about this. Many weren’t aware that vivacious is mainly used for females. Many said that they would have introduced males in the same manner.

Perhaps that is actually the better trend to be inclusive rather than exclusive.

111

Just as the dean could easily have explained to the student her “feelings” about the term, someone should have explained to the dean that she was being a highly sensitive person. Her conduct in the passive aggressive manner is not acceptable in my opinion and especially for someone in her position and just as she “called out” the student, someone should “call her out”. Cuts both ways IMO.

112

Well, she may be " called out" but the wish is that it is with much more grace than she has exhibited.
Hoping all ends well.

I do think this discussion about gender neutral language is worth pursuing beyond this particular incident.

113

If were the Dean, I might have called the student into my office, and read the synonyms provided in Thesaurus.com, as quoted in post #55 by PrimeMeridian, with varying tones depending on the nature of the synonym:

“active, aggressive, animated, ball of fire, breezy, brisk, demoniac, driving, dynamic, enterprising, forcible, fresh, hardy, high-powered, indefatigable, industrious, kinetic, lively, lusty, peppy, potent, powerful, red-blooded, rugged, snappy, spirited, sprightly, spry, stalwart, strenuous, strong, sturdy, tireless, tough, unflagging, untiring, vigorous, vital, vivacious, zippy”

I could actually see this as a good quick element on a TV show–maybe with a few of the adjectives removed to shorten it–but keep in “demoniac” [gravelly voice, sidelong glance of well-justified annoyance], “lusty” [outraged, questioning tone], and “zippy” [what can one say about “zippy”?]

Personally, I think “spry” ought to be avoided until the person designated as “spry” is at least 90. This strikes me as an age-ist term. It suggests to me that the speaker is surprised that the other person can still move easily . . . at his or her “advanced” age.

I am not sure what the other faculty member was doing in the Dean’s office with the young man. But given the comments reported on this thread, I think it is possible that the other faculty member had referred to the Dean as “vivacious” in a setting where it would have been okay.

Actually, as quoted, Thesaurus.com is not all that good. “Forcible” and “forceful” are quite different terms.

114

“we are lucky to have X”, it usually is a compliment that means that X is an outstanding contributor and that of the many places they could be, they are with us. It doesn’t imply the person was lucky to get there, it says we are lucky to have them.

@musicprnt - that is my point exactly. So many innocent things can be misinterpreted if people want to parse every word…

115

I’m a woman and I wouldn’t mind being introduced as vivacious at all or see it as sexist. I could think of men I’d call vivacious. I’m taking a women’s studies class currently, so I find the question interesting. I guess one thing I’m learning about myself is that I don’t have a victimhood complex.

116

@gouf78-
Would your students really introduce a male speaker as “bubbly, sparkling and perky?” I would suggest that if they don’t know the meaning of a word your students should avoid using it.

I agree that this was not a hangable offense, but words do matter, and the words chosen to introduce this woman, IMO were unprofessional, and yes, sexist, even if unintentionally. I don’t think anything more than a brief apology was required of the student but I also don’t think the dean should be required to remain silent about her experience of sexism in the workplace.

117

QuantMech–That’s the trouble with a thesaurus. It lists a whole lot of terms that aren’t the same as synonyms. It’s simply a word choice list for writers looking for a word to fit a description.
Still gotta pick and choose. Nobody said “spry, forcible, demoniac”. Those all have their own definitions.

The faculty member was not present initially. He only went afterwards to tell the dean that the student probably had learned the word “vivacious” from him.

118

The whole word thing can become problematic. Especially when dealing with how language develops. For example, English usage over a long period of time has developed where the word “man” is indicative of the entire scope of human beings (I seem to recall that in the Romance languages, a mixed group uses the same indicator as a group of men alone ie male plural, might be the origin), so we have words like chairman, committeeman, mankind. People have attempted to change them, to use words like “chairperson” , or 'first year student" instead of freshman, but in common usage the word “man” has been used to refer to men and woman for so long that the context isn’t there, and changing things like that are awkward, to say the least, contexts change, as someone else pointed out, words that once were routine have become taboo, but words that once were taboo or meant to be demeaning have been recycled into something else. The worse example of it I ever ran into was at an inclusive language church, while I agreed totally with the idea that far too much of the religious texts the church used centered around men, and it was deliberate, and that inclusive language homilies and even psalms and such, made sense, but when they started rewriting the lyrics of classic carols with their idea of inclusive language, it went too far IMO (sorry, “God Rest Ye Merry Gentlepersons” didn’t cut it with me, was going too far).

Quite frankly, I would rather see a lot of women called chairmen (as in chairman of the board), committeeman, alderman, etc, rather than changing it to ‘chairperson’ and having, as is still common, being a man filling the spot.

119

Sue22–vivacious doesn’t mean chirpy, perky, happy, jaunty–it means “full of life”. With energy.
A thesaurus is not a dictionary. None of those words are synonyms of one another. They are related but don’t mean the same things. Vibrant is not jolly. upbeat is not chirpy,

120

This situation is different from many other incidents of sexism that most women experience.

The dean runs the law school. She is the highest authority in the school. Being that offended by a poor choice of words by a student who was probably awkwardly and nervously trying to compliment her during a public introduction is just not appropriate.

I’ll give my frank (albeit male) perspective. By reacting how she did, the dean undermines her own authority. This is a mistake that people new to leadership positions sometimes make. By complaining about the incident as strongly as she did, she is implicitly refusing to see herself as the ultimate authority figure who is the final arbiter of what “punishment” this transgression deserves. It’s the old “the buck stops here” lesson.

And if she doesn’t see herself as the person with ultimate authority, then no one else will either

She should have decided how she wanted to handle this (minor) incident, followed up to make sure it happened, and then moved on to deal with the 1000 other more important things involved in running a law school.

Playing the role of someone victimized by a 25 year old student isn’t something that a CEO can do without negatively impacting their own authority. I would send the dean to a training class for people new to a senior leadership position.

C’mon lookingforward. I wasn’t exactly subtle when I wrote that I hoped “she has a husband who can tell her how to do her job” :slight_smile: If that and a smiley didn’t make it clear that I was satirizing a stereotypical sexist reaction then I don’t know what would.