The Bull  permalink

'guys'

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 201 - 244 of 244
  • Message 201

    , in reply to message 200.

    Posted by bigbad_don Est1886 (U3243025) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    >doesn't seem to matter if there was ill intent intended or not, which actually does<

    I don't think well meant harm is any less harm, is it? Not that I think it particularly matters if someone is called lass or not - but as a general point, well meaning discriminatory behaviour is still discriminatory behaviour.
     
    Dependant on whether or not, of course, it is widely accepted and agreed discrimination (in the negative sense - over and above adjectives for either gender). I'm not convinced it is negative discrimination, although I would agree with you that it is discrimination.

    Report message1

  • Message 202

    , in reply to message 200.

    Posted by fellman (U14848647) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    >doesn't seem to matter if there was ill intent intended or not, which actually does<

    I don't think well meant harm is any less harm, is it? Not that I think it particularly matters if someone is called lass or not - but as a general point, well meaning discriminatory behaviour is still discriminatory behaviour.
     
    Are saying fee that you are unaware you have caused harm or given offence or otherwise disturbed somone -accidentally- by addressing them in a form you have no idea THEY have been offended by?
    Perhaps we should adopt yet another Americanism and sport those large pin badges so often seen there but with 'just call me.... nothing else is acceptable to me'.
    I am an ardent admirer of the fair sex and have never knowingly caused any offence nor saught to denigrate, or demean any woman. But really we all have the choice to feel slighted if we are so inclined, which makes the responsibilty for affrontary at the very least a shared one.
    Perhaps if we refrained from searching for offence so diligently and practiced just a little more tolerance of others we would not find it all around us>

    Report message2

  • Message 203

    , in reply to message 168.

    Posted by Surabaya Johnny (U1163609) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    Johnny:...yet 'guys' is not considered derogatory when applied to women!
    I wonder why? 
    Because it's not intended to be derogatory!

    Report message3

  • Message 204

    , in reply to message 195.

    Posted by bigbad_don Est1886 (U3243025) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    The word 'boy' was applied to lower class men. The word 'lady' to upper class women!  Hmmm....ladyboy!

    * chin rubbing moment *

    Report message4

  • Message 205

    , in reply to message 202.

    Posted by bigbad_don Est1886 (U3243025) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    >doesn't seem to matter if there was ill intent intended or not, which actually does<

    I don't think well meant harm is any less harm, is it? Not that I think it particularly matters if someone is called lass or not - but as a general point, well meaning discriminatory behaviour is still discriminatory behaviour.
     
    Are saying fee that you are unaware you have caused harm or given offence or otherwise disturbed somone -accidentally- by addressing them in a form you have no idea THEY have been offended by?
    Perhaps we should adopt yet another Americanism and sport those large pin badges so often seen there but with 'just call me.... nothing else is acceptable to me'.
    I am an ardent admirer of the fair sex and have never knowingly caused any offence nor saught to denigrate, or demean any woman. But really we all have the choice to feel slighted if we are so inclined, which makes the responsibilty for affrontary at the very least a shared one.
    Perhaps if we refrained from searching for offence so diligently and practiced just a little more tolerance of others we would not find it all around us>  
    Exactly what fellman says.

    I'm inclined to think there will always be someone or group possibly queuing to take offence whatever descriptive term is used....and for whatever the reason.

    Report message5

  • Message 206

    , in reply to message 190.

    Posted by Word-Lover - BBC MBs are dead - long live ML (U1160777) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    Don: >Maybe what has been identified in this thread is a blind spot in our [continually developing] language? Maybe what is needed is a word to refer to a mixed gender group....other than 'people' or 'folks'<

    I think you're right. And another blind spot is a word (better would be a choice of words) for "woman" to parallel "chap", "bloke" and (for those who regard it as male-only) "guy". More colloquial than the straightforward "woman" but with no derogatory overtones. It strikes me that "chapess" (as suggested by lord jim back in msg 30) is still not taken seriously so it seems desperate.

    How about "lass"? It's the parallel of "lad" in its old sense (before "lad" acquired connotations of yobbishness). How does "lads and lasses" strike you as a colloquial way to address a mixed group?

    Report message6

  • Message 207

    , in reply to message 205.

    Posted by Fee (U3534148) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    >Are saying fee that you are unaware you have caused harm or given offence or otherwise disturbed somone -accidentally- by addressing them in a form you have no idea THEY have been offended by?<

    Possibly - how would I know if I was unaware of it? I've certainly had people say things to me with absolutely no ill intent which underlined that their view of how I should be living my life was not their view - "of course, it doesn't really matter whether you do that qualification as you'll probably be getting married" (that was 35 years ago - I assume no-one would say it today - it really upset me at the time when said very kindly by a friend of my parents) - "I really don't know how you girls manage to keep working and have such young children - I wouldn't want to do it, why have children and not look after them - but I do admire you" (sounds sarcastic but it actually wasn't).

    (I can't think of better examples at the moment, I expect others can).

    The damage/offence/irritation whatever caused is real regardless of the intent - the intent might be relevant to the degree to which you would hold the speaker blameworthy for having caused that damage/offence etc

    Report message7

  • Message 208

    , in reply to message 207.

    Posted by Fee (U3534148) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    >that their view of how I should be living my life was not their view<

    not my view, I mean - and if their view were the mainstream view (which at one time it was) it would make it very difficult for me to make the choices I have done.

    Report message8

  • Message 209

    , in reply to message 206.

    Posted by orange pekoe (U9563764) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    The great virtue, for me, of 'guys' in its unisex use, is that it covers everyone, while implicitly acknowledging each is an individual.

    Somehow, 'everyone' lumps the group together a little more, whereas 'guys' feels inclusive while retaining the feel of each person being present.

    And without the need to specify male or female. It seems the perfect gender-neutral term, until you realise just how many people don't like it.

    Report message9

  • Message 210

    , in reply to message 169.

    Posted by Word-Lover - BBC MBs are dead - long live ML (U1160777) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    sweet-rocket > If I know that it's the social convention for women to be x y or z, then there's a good chance I'll end up developing a bias towards x y or z.<

    If so, then there's also a good chance that it's the social convention for /everyone/ to be x y or z.

    > We often respond to the expectations around us. <

    Which might or might not be a good thing, depending on the individual case. And if someone else's expectation of you is a bad thing, that doesn't necessarily mean that the expectation is sexist. It might be old-fashioned, or "appropriate in other situations but not necessary here", for example.

    >I noticed the bank clerk today was first name second name on her badge. <

    Was this an ID badge (one that would include a photo & contain other personal details) or just a name badge? I don't recall ever seeing a name badge containing the person's surname let alone title.

    Locki > Wot about the adoption of 'ladette' for fiesty women? Another adoption by females of a male name and its male traits that are perceived to be desirable. <

    It seems reasonable to me, to coin a term for a woman with "laddish" behaviour. I don't really care for that sort of behaviour in anyone of either sex, but that's a different point from the pure linguistic one. As for the word "ladette", I think it would've been better if it'd been "ladess/laddess" (when -ette is put on the end of a word, it denotes small, as in statuette and novelette), but heigh-ho, we're stuck with ladette now.

    Report message10

  • Message 211

    , in reply to message 210.

    Posted by bigbad_don Est1886 (U3243025) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    // > Wot about the adoption of 'ladette' for fiesty women? Another adoption by females of a male name and its male traits that are perceived to be desirable. <//

    Desirable? I'm not sure about that. If someone were to utter "ooh....he's a bit of a lad".....is that particularly desirable? I'd say it isn't. This may sound strong to some but I think it is true nonetheless. Seems to me the closest associated word that ladette replaced was 'slag'.....so I personally think, and would argue, ladette is a positive step in the right direction.

    Report message11

  • Message 212

    , in reply to message 210.

    Posted by sweet-rocket (U11357111) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    sweet-rocket > If I know that it's the social convention for women to be x y or z, then there's a good chance I'll end up developing a bias towards x y or z.<

    If so, then there's also a good chance that it's the social convention for /everyone/ to be x y or z. 


    I don't see why that follows. For example, there was, maybe still is, a social convention for women to smile and placate rather than argue their case.

    Was this an ID badge (one that would include a photo & contain other personal details) or just a name badge? I don't recall ever seeing a name badge containing the person's surname let alone title. 

    It was a name badge not an ID badge. I have a name badge which just has my name and job title (well I would if I could find the dratted thing).

    Report message12

  • Message 213

    , in reply to message 212.

    Posted by Fee (U3534148) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    >I have a name badge which just has my name and job title (well I would if I could find the dratted thing).<

    I have a plethora of the things although I do try to remember to hand them back at the end of events for recycling. At my last place I had a rather clever metal one with a magnet so that it didn't need pinning or something to clip to, They all have first name, second name and some part of my job title.

    Report message13

  • Message 214

    , in reply to message 212.

    Posted by Bearhug (U2258283) on Sunday, 4th November 2012

    Name badges at the last few events I've been at have said

    Emma Bearhug.
    Company Name.


    EMMA Bearhug
    UK
    (That was emphasising the name I'm known by. And country because it was for an internal, international conference.)


    EMMA
    (OK, I wrote that one myself, and I reckoned in a room of 8, we'd manage without surnames.)


    My work ID has my photo and says:

    EMMA
    Emma Bearhug


    This is not just repetition - a colleague's says:

    JOE
    Jonathan Bloggs

    (Well, it doesn't, because it's got his real name, but you get the idea, I hope.)

    They don't include the company name, to avoid lost cards being picked up and obvious where they can be used. But as they include part of the logo and the company colours, this is probably not going to make much odds if someone were determined.

    No titles or anything.

    Erm, what has this to do with "guys"? I was just randomly following on...

    Report message14

  • Message 215

    , in reply to message 214.

    Posted by Hot Cross Nun (U13860520) on Sunday, 4th November 2012

    Tagging on.

    I don't like "guys" to address a group of people of both sexes because to me, "guy" means a male.

    For example, I may well refer to my neighbour on the right hand-side of my property as a a "guy" because he's a bloke.

    I would never call my neighbour on the left-hand side "a guy" because she is a woman.

    Calling women "guys" is another attempt to normalise male behaviour and bring in women under its umbrella to defend it.

    Report message15

  • Message 216

    , in reply to message 215.

    Posted by zen humbug (U14877400) on Sunday, 4th November 2012

    I don't like "guys" to address a group of people of both sexes because to me, "guy" means a male.

    For example, I may well refer to my neighbour on the right hand-side of my property as a a "guy" because he's a bloke.

    I would never call my neighbour on the left-hand side "a guy" because she is a woman.  

    What would you use for the female equivalent of "guy"?

    Report message16

  • Message 217

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Finlay (U14286288) on Sunday, 4th November 2012

    As long as my surname is not Fawkes-who cares?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Report message17

  • Message 218

    , in reply to message 216.

    Posted by Hot Cross Nun (U13860520) on Sunday, 4th November 2012

    Hello, people!








    (covers everyone - a salutation to people!)

    Report message18

  • Message 219

    , in reply to message 218.

    Posted by Abby33 (U6428266) on Sunday, 4th November 2012

    I wouldn't use it myself but I don't mind it, in fact I quite like it. When we are a group of 60ish year old women it makes me feel young!

    Report message19

  • Message 220

    , in reply to message 219.

    Posted by Kate McLaren etc (U2202067) on Sunday, 4th November 2012

    I think someone asked this somewhere upthread but I don't think I noticed an answer - why use any word at all?

    Hallo.
    Good morning (etc).
    Goodbye.
    Are you ready to order?
    My presentation will cover...
    Please could you pay attention while my glamorous assistant...

    No "people" word needed at all.

    Re what gender the word is, I have no doubt at all that if someone said to you "I met a couple/group of guys who..." you would be sure that the people met were men. It simply is a word of the masculine gender. As you know, it is only very recently that "men" included women, certainly in writing. And there are still people who say "mankind".

    It is a pity that in English we don't have a non-gendered word like "Mensch" or "homo" (as opposed to the masculine "Mann" or "vir") but we don't, and it is as silly to expect the masculine noun to include the feminine one as it would be the other way round.

    Report message20

  • Message 221

    , in reply to message 220.

    Posted by bigbad_don Est1886 (U3243025) on Sunday, 4th November 2012

    ....why use any word at all?........  Because it would seem to me impersonal. Who is being addressed or spoken to?

    I was going to say 'all' might be better but that refers to the whole group as one, rather than individuals comprising a small group or whatever.

    Report message21

  • Message 222

    , in reply to message 209.

    Posted by Campbell in Farewell Clogs (U14226916) on Sunday, 4th November 2012

    >>>The great virtue, for me, of 'guys' in its unisex use, <<<

    funny thing is, guys is only unisex in the plural form. (I don't even agree with this, but many do, so let's just accept it for now). You would never say 'See that guy over there?' if it was a woman you were referring to.

    Report message22

  • Message 223

    , in reply to message 221.

    Posted by Campbell in Farewell Clogs (U14226916) on Sunday, 4th November 2012

    >>Because it would seem to me impersonal. Who is being addressed or spoken to?<<<

    the group is being addressed. Obvious in the circumstances. And a group is necessarily impersonal. I agree that no word is technically needed when addressing a roomful of people. It 'may' be added, but nothing is lost if it's not.

    Report message23

  • Message 224

    , in reply to message 223.

    Posted by bigbad_don Est1886 (U3243025) on Sunday, 4th November 2012

    >>Because it would seem to me impersonal. Who is being addressed or spoken to?<<<

    the group is being addressed. Obvious in the circumstances. And a group is necessarily impersonal. I agree that no word is technically needed when addressing a roomful of people. It 'may' be added, but nothing is lost if it's not.
     
    Personally, I would prefer some other salutation than just "hello".....which, forgive me for repeating.....seems impersonal as well as an incomplete greeting.

    Report message24

  • Message 225

    , in reply to message 223.

    Posted by ruralsnowflakebliss (U8131914) on Sunday, 4th November 2012

    Remember I am addressing a room full of teenagers who may be chatting, talking otherwise not engaged.... or they may be heads down working

    I do need a word. It is not technical... I need an opener if I want them all. I use their names for individuals


    Pitch and tone of voice will either get their attention or not.. and I time it. I want two repeats and then 90 percent had better be looking at me and the last 10 settling down. There are a lots of uses of pauses and eye contact too... you lose a class if you forget the waited pause

    I need something... some word that addresses them collectively

    I just felt nothing I ever do is good enough. Teaching is such an inexact science... you have good days and bad days and so little of it is within your control (you really cannot know the childrens moods or what has happened to them in their lives). However you have to plug on knowing the only thing you CAN control are your own responses and manipulate the situation

    To pick up on something like that.... no child has ever mentioned it or appeared to notice it and not to address the things I do know I am not doing right is just...... petty

    OK so I call them 'class'... erm... big deal it is not going to change one ounce of their behaviour or make them learn more effectively

    I know what I need to do.. it came to me when hunting through classroom management books. I saw a pattern and though... oh that is why I find that 1% of boys get away from me.

    It is just 'guys' is the sort of stupid thing an observer notices........ but it is meaningless to change in my context



    BTW I find 'class' cold but it would make no real difference to the children. I do call them s1/ 2 or whatever sometimes but very rarely... again cold..

    Maybe I will just be cold... but it is very interesting. I do not remember ever being annoyed at how I have been addressed as long as the manner was polite

    Report message25

  • Message 226

    , in reply to message 225.

    Posted by Campbell in Farewell Clogs (U14226916) on Sunday, 4th November 2012

    rural - I think all teachers are heroes for getting up there and doing what they do. I'm sorry you're feeling so down about this tiny bit of feedback. For what it's worth I think you sound like a brilliant teacher. And, as many of us have said already, if this was the Only Thing your observer could find to comment on then you must have done Very Well Indeed. You say that she missed other things that would have been more worthy of comment. Which implies you have a very strong ability to see your own 'faults'. You sound like a perfectionist who's irritated by the observer's lack of ability to do hEr job properly.

    Report message26

  • Message 227

    , in reply to message 226.

    Posted by ruralsnowflakebliss (U8131914) on Sunday, 4th November 2012

    I have had the perfectionist rather drummed out of me Campbell! However I do want to stop that 1% of boys taking up far too much of my time

    Still the whole incident has raised lots of discussion (and I can't remember the last thread of mine that went to 200 posts... oh the little satisfactions)

    BTW I have yet to decide what to call my classes on Monday :-

    Favouring 'Oi you lot...........'

    Works in ML :-

    Report message27

  • Message 228

    , in reply to message 225.

    Posted by Fee (U3534148) on Sunday, 4th November 2012

    >BTW I find 'class' cold but it would make no real difference to the children. I do call them s1/ 2 or whatever sometimes but very rarely... again cold..

    Maybe I will just be cold... but it is very interesting<

    I really don't think it matters but I doubt if it would be cold - I would think they would judge "coldness" by your tone of voice and general manner. It makes me feel exhausted just reading your posts, RB - in the same way that it does when I hear my daughter talk about the amount of time and effort she has to put into thinking about managing behaviour rather than about how to improve their understanding of and liking for her subject.

    Report message28

  • Message 229

    , in reply to message 228.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Sunday, 4th November 2012

    Did the observer think the use of 'guys' too informal? Did she want a less colloquial form of address? That has nothing to do with gender issues.

    Report message29

  • Message 230

    , in reply to message 228.

    Posted by Rhona D aka Meen Bonkers (U219830) on Sunday, 4th November 2012

    Tagging on -- I honestly don't see anything wrong with using "guys" in this context, RB.

    One of my favourite teachers back in the day used to address us variously as "Come along, you snivelling little wretches"; or "Pay attention, you miserable worms", or, when he was especially pleased with us, "Right, brats". His tone was invariably affectionate; though no doubt he'd get a black mark nowadays from his PT. (Oh hang on. He was the PT.)

    I use "guys" when addressing my darling, stroppy teenagers (mostly aged 14-15) in my confirmation class - but because I am in Germany, I can get away with just about anything because any English term is viewed as "cool" by them. (Though come to think of it, I was aware of my sister-in-law using "guys" with groups of similarly-aged youngsters when she worked in the YMCA more than 25 years ago.)

    I'd love to be able to use "y'all" - I have a colleague from South Carolina who uses it with *his* groups of teenagers (and, indeed, almost any time he is addressing a group in the plural in a non-formal context). It doesn't quite work with a Scottish accent, alas.

    RB, you are clearly a caring and committed teacher; and, doubtless a very able one. I wish you strength and joy in your work.

    Report message30

  • Message 231

    , in reply to message 229.

    Posted by ruralsnowflakebliss (U8131914) on Sunday, 4th November 2012

    Did the observer think the use of 'guys' too informal? Did she want a less colloquial form of address? That has nothing to do with gender issues.  No idea because she didn't specify. It was written on the form and we didn't discuss it. My fault because I signed the form and we had gone over everything else but it was tacked on in a separate box. I noticed it when I was filing the silly form away. She also observed my fellow subject teacher and didn't comment on use of 'folks'. Roughly equivalent?

    I am assuming gender

    I am also thinking it is her own personal reaction...

    Which she is entitled to but I wish she had said something more useful about my classroom management

    BTW she has once criticised me for my formal tone and 'school marmish' persona (I am not joking BTW and it was deeply out of order in the context... I only go to that when fairly annoyed with pupils but I was so stunned I let her away with it....)

    I do have a formal manner... can't help it. Also use big words... something else picked up on.

    Although I did have a discussion the next day at my instigation after the school marmish bit where I made it plain I was unhappy and felt unsupported

    Not much has changed on that front

    I honestly think something I do winds her up... or it is a style or personality clash. I also think she knows I am easy going and she would not do this with any other member of her department. But heck tough. We are not all indetikits and you can't win them all. My classes and results speak for themselves

    Report message31

  • Message 232

    , in reply to message 231.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Sunday, 4th November 2012

    I'm sure they do rural. I wish you had been my teacher.

    Perhaps she just has an irrational dislike of the word. Perhaps she simply doesn't like Americanisms. Many people don't.

    Does anyone receive a perfect report?

    Report message32

  • Message 233

    , in reply to message 232.

    Posted by ruralsnowflakebliss (U8131914) on Sunday, 4th November 2012

    Thanks locki but I am no paragon and don't win every child... I do take the credit for at least trying though because I think I do.

    I don't want to receive a perfect report... teaching is such you really can't.

    But I don't want picked up on an innocuous word when I know there are far more things I could do with a second eye looking at in that class!

    Report message33

  • Message 234

    , in reply to message 231.

    Posted by Fee (U3534148) on Sunday, 4th November 2012

    >I am assuming gender<

    Ah. I was assuming informality. But then I start from the standpoint that it now refers to a mixed gender group of people so there couldn't be a gender issue. You'd need to know what your class thought it meant - perhaps you should ask them?

    Report message34

  • Message 235

    , in reply to message 233.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Sunday, 4th November 2012

    Yes, I see.

    Actually, as we know from this MB there can be great 'concern' about 'innocuous words! I wonder if she is a MBder.

    Report message35

  • Message 236

    , in reply to message 231.

    Posted by LindaLee (U2777941) on Sunday, 4th November 2012

    So she has criticised your formality (tone and persona) and your informality (use of 'guys')? Hmm. I can understand why you feel you can't please her!

    < My classes and results speak for themselves >

    Absolutely! Surely that's what really matters? As others have said, you seem like a really caring and thoughtful teacher - don't let one person's opinion get you down.

    Report message36

  • Message 237

    , in reply to message 233.

    Posted by orange pekoe (U9563764) on Sunday, 4th November 2012

    Rural, without meaning to bang on about stuff you either already know, or can't change, a couple of things spring to mind.

    It seems like you are feeling both unsupported and maybe even undermined by your superiors in school. This has led to you fixating on this comment about the use of the word guys. Her 'criticism' didn't even come up in your face to face discussion, so evidently it is not that big a deal to her. If you are irritated that it is there on the report for whoever reads them to see, please accept that it will likely be seen as not particularly helpful/constructive feedback from her, and worse case scenario is that it will be read as a very innocuous observation.

    For your own sake, you need to be properly hearing all the positive feedback you were given about the lesson. You already know you are damn good. Unfortunately, grown-ups in the workplace rarely get told how fabulous they are, even when an observation scheme is formally in place as in your line of work. So you have got to take all the good stuff in, and hang onto it, from the more formal observations like you've just had, to seeing the progress of your pupils, and the time such a body did what you asked the first time, or whatever.

    But I don't want picked up on an innocuous word when I know there are far more things I could do with a second eye looking at in that class 
    Next observation, are you able to ask for specific things to be looked out for? This will illustrate your professionalism and self-reflective abilities, and hopefully encourage some more constructive feedback than you've had.

    Report message37

  • Message 238

    , in reply to message 237.

    Posted by ruralsnowflakebliss (U8131914) on Sunday, 4th November 2012

    The focus of the observation is set by school priorities..... it was success criterias and learning objectives

    It is unusual for me to be able to set the focus of an observed lesson

    I do know and agree with the rest of your post orange p and I try to keep a sense of perspective (regained most of it!) but the issue that is coming up is our school does not have a particularly effective discipline policy and how my immediate superior uses it is even less effective

    I am inhibited in my communication with my superior now and I will not refer discipline matters on. Now this may make me a more effective teacher in the long term but it is stressful and isolating in the short term and I am not documenting incidents as I should (oh a big mistake and can bite me on the bum big style)

    It is unneccessary as well... we work best as teachers when we work as a team

    It is a politics game. and I am good at them but her perception of me is set and there is little I can do to change it now.

    Hey ho...... so I do fixate on something stupidly small because for me it shows the underlying perception that is causing a bigger problem

    It is also not that easy being watched do something as unpredictable as teaching when you know there is always a dig lurking

    However counting my blessings and there are many other things that are going smoothly

    Report message38

  • Message 239

    , in reply to message 230.

    Posted by Peggy Monahan (U2254875) on Sunday, 4th November 2012

    (Oh hang on. He was the PT.) 

    What's a "PT"?

    Report message39

  • Message 240

    , in reply to message 239.

    Posted by ruralsnowflakebliss (U8131914) on Sunday, 4th November 2012

    Principal Teacher. Head of a subject department. Immediate line manager of X number of teachers in the department

    A classroom teacher immediate boss and the one you are going to work most with

    Report message40

  • Message 241

    , in reply to message 240.

    Posted by Peggy Monahan (U2254875) on Sunday, 4th November 2012

    Principal Teacher. Head of a subject department. Immediate line manager of X number of teachers in the department

    A classroom teacher immediate boss and the one you are going to work most with 


    Thanks. Why aren't they called Heads of Department? But then as a teacher myself I shudder at the idea that schools use terms like "line manager" too. Or even have that concept. We're all colleagues in a French school.

    Report message41

  • Message 242

    , in reply to message 241.

    Posted by ruralsnowflakebliss (U8131914) on Sunday, 4th November 2012

    We are supposed to be but management speak creeps through Peggy. Principal teacher is very old... I think it is normal enough but now we sometimes have 'faculty heads' Don't ask.

    We also have SMT : Senior Managment team (Head (rector for me) deputy heads. Then we have ESMT: Extended senior managment team (all of the above plus PTs sometimes including pastoral)

    We are all colleagues but if I have to sit at another 'consultancy' meeting where we are shot down in flames for any dissenting views then I may throw up ... or scream.

    It is life

    Report message42

  • Message 243

    , in reply to message 242.

    Posted by orange pekoe (U9563764) on Sunday, 4th November 2012

    It is life. 
    Frustratingly, this is about right, rural.

    Not much consolation, I'm sure, but you are far, far, *far* from being the only one in a similar position.

    Report message43

  • Message 244

    , in reply to message 243.

    Posted by orange pekoe (U9563764) on Sunday, 4th November 2012

    ...and anyway, all is not lost.

    We now have a further fracture line down ML, to add to toilet roll hanging and marmite etc.

    guys: unisex or not?

    Nice one, rural!

    Report message44

Back to top

About this Board

Welcome to the Archers Messageboard.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

This messageboard is now closed.

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Copyright © 2014 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.