A North East university is asking staff to stop using the Geordie term of endearment 'pet'.
The seven-page downloadable document on the institution's website covers language around gender, gender affirmation, sexual orientation and race.
It states that leaders in research reported "concerns about using the 'wrong' language" when discussing equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI).
The guide reads: "Language is always evolving, and it is important to be mindful of any trends. Language can also be individualised – what one person finds acceptable; another may find inappropriate in certain contexts."
Under the section titled 'Talking about gender', it suggests addressing colleagues by their names, referring to groups as "friends of colleagues", adding: "Avoid patronising or gendered terms, such as girls, pet, or ladies."
It also suggests avoiding phrases like “man up”, “grow some balls” or “don’t be such a girl”.
The guide continues: "They are incredibly sexist phrases which you may hear in conversation.
"When these are used to address men, they also perpetuate the stereotype that men can’t be emotional, and simultaneously indicate that men are stronger than women."
During a debate on Good Morning Britain on Tuesday (20 August), broadcaster and author Eleanor Mills said while she loved "the regionality" of terms such as 'pet', the use of them "all about context".
She told presenters Dean Fletcher and Kate Garraway: "There's a really patronising element to it and of course it's all about context.
"You wouldn't call you boss 'pet', 'babe', 'sweetie', 'love'.
"It's about a power dynamic and I think the reason why a lot of young women particularly really don't like being called pet or 'baby' or 'sweetie' or something by a stranger is 'cause it feels rather demeaning, infantilising and patronising."
Former big brother contestant Mark Byron disagreed, and told viewers he did not believe terms of endearment like 'pet' were sexist.
He said: "I think it's sweet. It's part of our regional identity. I'm from Liverpool but I live in central London which we're really lucky it's so multicultural, but you kind of use some of those regional tweaks.
"It needs to be celebrated because it is just a term of endearment."
Local Reactions to the Ban
The university's guidance has been met with mixed reactions from locals. Some, like Paul Thorne, a hospital worker, believe the move is "totally stupid" and that the term 'pet' is simply a friendly word, not sexist.
Others, like Catherine Harris, a retired teacher, echoed Thorne's sentiments, saying that the word is part of the North Eastern dialect and shouldn't be labeled as derogatory.
However, Alan White, a 79-year-old retiree, believes the word can be patronizing and finds it uncomfortable to hear.
A University's Approach to Inclusive Language
The university insists that it has not banned the use of the term 'pet' but instead offers the guide as advice for researchers using inclusive language in a professional setting. The guidance is designed to help researchers navigate sensitive topics, particularly in the context of equality, diversity, and inclusion.
The university's spokesperson stated: "We have not banned these terms. Our researchers asked for advice on using inclusive language in a professional capacity and the guide was created to help them do that."
The Debate Continues
This incident highlights a broader debate surrounding language and its impact on inclusivity. While some argue that the term 'pet' is simply a friendly word and a part of regional identity, others perceive it as patronizing and sexist. Ultimately, the university's guide seeks to provide researchers with tools for navigating these complex issues and fostering a more inclusive environment.
The question remains: is it necessary to police regional dialect in the name of inclusivity, or is it a step too far to suggest that a term like 'pet' is inherently sexist? The debate is likely to continue as individuals and institutions grapple with the evolving landscape of language and its impact on social interactions.
Conclusion: A Friendly Word or a Sexist Term?
The debate over the use of the word 'pet' reflects the ongoing conversation about language and its influence on perceptions of inclusion and equality. It's a conversation that requires sensitivity, understanding, and a willingness to engage with different perspectives. While the university's guidance may be well-intentioned, it has sparked a debate that forces us to consider the complex relationship between language, culture, and power dynamics.
Ultimately, it's up to individuals and communities to decide how they navigate these conversations, ensuring that everyone feels respected and valued.
