The little things: Sleazy?

Overheard at work, in a conversation between a couple of people about an email one of them was writing:

“”Looking for the girl in the office”? That sounds sleazy. Very, very sleazy”

…Why? What is ‘sleazy’ about saying that you’re looking for a particular person, whose name you don’t know and whose (assumed!) gender you remember, in an office? Why is that sleazy? What are the assumptions that make it so? What does it say about us, that we consider an entire gender of people intrinsically sexualised by their very existence?

I am a woman. I regularly sit in an office. What is sleazy about that?

4 thoughts on “The little things: Sleazy?

  1. Maybe the person is very aware of gender issues and insists that female colleagues are referred to as “women” and not “girls”.

    It’s possible, right?

  2. I think it might be because it’s being written in an email, in which one cannot decipher the tone? You’d still have context though…

  3. I’m not sure how much benefit of the doubt to extend here, but there’s also the question of what they’re looking for this girl for. Are they writing this e-mail because they want to date some girl they met, but this was the only piece of data they could use to track her? sleazy. Are they looking for the person they think might be interested in what they have to sell/do? less sleazy, though making the assumption that “the woman in the office” is the one that will handle something bothers me, in the same way that I hang up on telemarketers that ask for “the woman of the house”

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s