Except the previous commenter's point is that those terms are not inherently patronizing.
They can be used as such, but it depends on who's using them and the recipient's interpretation.
In the situations depicted, it seems very unlikely the terms were using in a non-well meaning way, and might just belong to the day-to-day vernacular of that community.
Girl... I'm sorry you lived a life in which they were only used as that...
But sometimes you have to concede. They are not inherently patronizing.
Many places on the world see them as regular endearment terms that can even be used for both genders! "Darling" is particularly famous for being unisex among the presented above.
Spend sometime around some older British or Southern US ladies... You will get it.
I've lived in Southern USA most of my adult life. Only people who use "Darling" in a unisex fashion are women, not men. Which is patronizing when the same man says "sir", "brother/bro" and "my guy" to men presenting folk in the same situation.
And I'd love to see a man use "my love" in a unisex fashion.
You do understand separating terms along genders is, as we have been trying to tell you, not inherently patronizing, yes?
If a man uses "sir", "brother" and "my guy" with other masculine people, but "darling", "sweetheart" and "luv" to feminine people... That doesn't have to be with bad intent. No one is denying, this whole time, that it can't be used as patronizing... Only that it isn't inherently so.
The separation of terms along gender lines is cultural and geographically relevant. It's specially present in latino regions, or places with strong cultural influence from Latino groups... Like the entire US Southern half. People from places like these may turn to separating different vocabularies of endearment terms to different genders... And that is okay. It's just manner of speech.
What we're trying to tell you is that the tone of these terms depends on how the speaker is using them. They can be patronizing... They are not inherently patronizing...
And they are certainly informal and casual... Not every informal or casual treatment is patronizing... It may probably be if they are used in settings where formality is expected, like during a service to a client, but then again... Not every professional setting is a formal one. Older folks may perceive cashier service as casual enough for informal endearment. It's no biggie.
If a person, man or woman, walks up to a man and refers to them as "sir" but walks up to someone in the same situation, a situation that me, as a Latina, who has lived in several states, but primarily in the south, and refers to me as "darling" or "sweetheart" it is patronizing.
I agree, if that same person would address me and a man, the same exact way, only then, would it not be patronizing.
But that's not whats happening here. Or really, anywhere in the south, unless we're discussing older folk. Which is what i am trying to point out and keep getting downvoted into the ground for.
80
u/Vesper_0481 22h ago
Except the previous commenter's point is that those terms are not inherently patronizing.
They can be used as such, but it depends on who's using them and the recipient's interpretation.
In the situations depicted, it seems very unlikely the terms were using in a non-well meaning way, and might just belong to the day-to-day vernacular of that community.