In early 2022 I heard something which has remained, lurking, in the back of my mind. There were many moments, many still evenings, where I sat thinking – attempting to consider how, if I could go back in time, I would properly respond to what I heard.
Now, 2022 was a big year, as most years seem to be these days. Russia invaded Ukraine, the Supreme Court of the United States made one of its most controversial decisions ever when it overturned Roe V Wade (1973), and, least importantly, I took a college debate class. Early in my undergraduate degree, I was, as I still frankly am, synthesizing my world view while trying to be as lazy as possible. It was in this debate class I overheard something from one of my peers – an argument I was not sure how to respond to.
I like arguing. To be clear, not the ‘yell and throw things’ kind of arguing. I like the ‘practiced and informed discourse’ kind of arguing; the kind of arguing that can actually change someone’s mind. Not only are such arguments, debates if you will, fun but they allow you the opportunity to refine what you really believe. Thoughtful argumentation is a fantastic way to visualize one’s maturity and to become a more well rounded person. My peer’s argument has stuck in my mind for some time because it did what I essentially described above, it challenged me.
The argument made by my peer was not particularly well presented or supported, as you’ll see soon. It did, however, make 20 year old me uncomfortable. I didn’t know how to respond. I had never considered what they were claiming, and I, consequently, chose to withhold my opinions and sit silently. Well, 4 years later when the discussions of that class are entirely inconsequential and I don’t even remember the name of my peer – I have chosen to respond to their argument.
The exact wording they used has surely escaped me, but, nonetheless, this is their argument as I remember it:
“The word ‘babe’ should not be used to refer to a romantic partner. This is because it comes from the word ‘baby’ which makes it inherently possessive and sexist. Someone who uses the word ‘babe’ only uses it to establish dominance over their partner.”
My peer’s argument was not given in one of our class’s formal debates. If it was, it would be much longer than what I have provided. It was, however, given during a period of casual discussion amongst the classroom. At the time, I did not go out of my way to probe further. Consequently, the above is all I have to represent their views on this topic. While that is not ideal, it still gives us a basis to address the question: should you call your partner ‘babe’?
Argument Structure
By addressing my peer’s argument we will essentially answer the broader question of ‘Should you call someone [your romantic partner] babe.’ Now, there are two things we must address before we can properly consider this question. Firstly, using ‘babe’ as a term of endearment among partners is common. Lots of couples refer to one another as ‘babe’. Secondly, calling someone ‘babe’, not necessarily a partner, can absolutely be problematic. The word ‘babe’ can and has been used in contexts that are overtly disrespectful, harmful, and sexist. This is most prominent in situations where it is employed to address a stranger or skew existing power dynamics. Keep in mind that the context in which this word is used plays an important role in its reception, if not its meaning as well.
However, neither of these things are actually pertinent to responding to my peer’s argument. The problematic uses of the word ‘babe’ outside of a relationship were not directly referenced in my peer’s argument. Additionally, whether or not the word ‘babe’ is used commonly or uncommonly has little bearing on the argument because my peer simply asserts that ‘babe’ should not be used to refer to a romantic partner. This claim could be made equally well if addressing 1% of people or 90%. While I would argue that both of these things are worth considering; they are not, in the sense of pure argument structure, to be implicated in the argument as a whole.
With these things in mind, let us break down my peer’s argument into its parts.
“The word ‘babe’ should not be used to refer to a romantic partner. This is because it comes from the word ‘baby’ which makes it inherently possessive and sexist. Someone who uses the word ‘babe’ only uses it to establish dominance over their partner.”
“The word ‘babe’ should not be used to refer to a romantic partner” Is the argument’s main conclusion.
“which makes it inherently possessive and sexist” is an intermediate conclusion used to support the main conclusion, and it is supported by the premise “This is because it comes from the word ‘baby’ “
“Someone who uses the word ‘babe’ only uses it to establish dominance over their partner” is an unsupported independent claim used to support the argument’s main conclusion.
Attacking Their Support
Premise 1
My peer’s first premise asserts that ‘it [is] inherently possessive and sexist.’ In a sense, they argue that the word ‘babe’ has essential, and thus unavoidable, qualities that make it problematic. This is an intermediate conclusion used to support the argument’s overall conclusion, and it itself is supported by the premise ‘it [the word ‘babe’] comes from the word ‘baby’.’
A theme to remember from this article: addressing / disproving the subjective qualities of a term, especially as it applied to a non lexical use, isn’t practical. I will present lofty questions regarding how we should subjectively interpret words later, but for right now we cannot simply disprove this intermediate conclusion. We can, however, attack the premise given to support this intermediate conclusion: that ‘babe’ comes from the word ‘baby’.
After doing some etymological research on the words ‘babe’ and ‘baby’ I was able to discover that ‘baby’ is the diminutive form of ‘babe’ and, actually, superseded ‘babe’ once it came into common use. That is to say, the word ‘babe’ actually came before the word ‘baby’ (I will credit the etymology websites I referenced below). In strict argumentative fashion, this harms the claim that “babe’ is inherently possessive and sexist’ because it undermines the only support provided for this claim, that ‘babe’ comes from the word ‘baby’. In fact, we are able to show that common etymological consciousness believes the opposite is true.
If this were a real argument and not an article I am writing one-sidedly, this would be the part where my peer gets to counter my attack on their premise by providing evidence that I am incorrect or which strengthens their claim. Since that cannot happen here, we will proceed with the following knowledge about this part of the argument:
while it could possibly be true that babe has essential possessive and sexist qualities the argument has given no meaningful reason for us to believe this is the case. Consequently, we will deny the truth of this claim until provided with further evidence.
Premise 2
My peer’s second premise asserts that ‘someone who uses the word ‘babe’ only uses it to establish dominance over their partner.’ This is another claim used to support the argument’s overall conclusion, but, unlike the previous claim, it is not given with any measure of support. We are, however, not going to disregard this claim because we were not given additional reasons to believe it. This is a broad statement about the world at large and thus is or is not true.
I personally call statements like this ‘all statements’ because they make a sweeping generalization that all of something exhibit some quality or behavior. This is evident because the claim says that someone who uses the word ‘babe’ only does so for a specific reason. Words like ‘only’ are very powerful and are why ‘all statements’ are so dangerous and remarkably easy to disprove in many cases. They are essentially saying every possible person who uses the word ‘babe’ will do so with nothing but the specific intent they describe, to establish dominance over their partner.
To disprove an ‘all statement’ all you need to do is show that there are some, one or more, cases where the ‘all statement’ is false. For example, if we could prove that 999 people use ‘babe’ only to establish dominance and 1 person doesn’t we have effectively disproved the ‘all statement’ and further shown the argument lacks sound support. That may sound silly at first but this kind of reasoning is crucial to formal debates, especially in a legal context. Technically, we could even show that everyone who uses the word ‘babe’ does so to establish dominance and for a secondary motivation – this would disprove that it is only used to dominate. I would recommend you don’t make an ‘all statement’ unless you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is true and even then, do not allow yourself to become so comfortable that you generalize an entire group of people.
So, to disprove the ‘all statement’ I will simply present a personal experience of my own. I call my girlfriend ‘babe,’ but I do not do so with intent to dominate. In fact, I have never been fond of the word ‘babe’ in a romantic context. My partner, when we first began seeing each other, requested I call her ‘babe’ because she likes it. I would not have done so otherwise. I call her ‘babe’ because it makes her happy, and her happiness becomes my happiness. This is easy for me to prove personally because I know my own motivations. in this respect. Even if I am the only person in the world who uses babe without an intent to establish dominance, which I greatly doubt to be the case, I have still undermined my peer’s claim and damaged their overall argument. I have shown that there are some contexts in which their claim is false; thus, I have revealed a thread of disbelief in their argument.
Coclusion
By damaging the argument’s given support we have reduced its strength and shown that it is worth questioning. Despite that, we have not conclusively disproven my peer’s argument and shown that either the word ‘babe’ should be used to refer to a romantic partner or that the word ‘babe’ should not not be used to refer to a romantic partner. Saying it should not not be used to refer to a romantic partner is essentially different from saying it should be used but that kind of reasoning is not worth discussing now.
I am not going to attempt to present a structured counter argument which makes a decree about how we should use the word. I both do not think such an argument is necessary nor that I could adequately prepare one I strongly believe.
Some Questions
That being said, I would like to pose some questions for you to consider:
…is it not so that making a sweeping claim about a great number of people, which narrows and decisively decides their motivation, is a dominating act itself?
My peer claims that everyone who uses ‘babe’ in the context of their partner only does so to establish dominance over their partner. Regardless of the truth of this claim, is it not so that making a sweeping claim about a great number of people, which narrows and decisively decides their motivation, is a dominating act itself? Is the arguer, in this case my peer, attempting to establish dominance over these people by deciding for them their own intentions and using said intentions as a moral ground against their actions? Are such actions a reduction of one’s personhood or are my peer’s declarations appropriate because they, while possibly exaggerated for impact, draw attention to a situation where the word ‘babe’ can be abused? Make no mistake, I can absolutely imagine a scenario where the word ‘babe’ is used harmfully in a relationship, though I have never experienced or encountered one.
Is ‘babe’ sexist inherently as a slur can be racist inherently? Or is ‘babe’ sexist in particular contexts as some words can be racist in particular contexts?
Allow us to assume a significant portion of people, whatever that may be to you, use the word ‘babe’ in the fashion described by my peer. If this is the case, do we have reasonable grounds to permanently dismiss the usage of this word? Would doing so be a net good for the world or is making such a demand unreasonable and intrusive? There are a great many examples of words which are effectively ‘outlawed’ because of their potential for harm. Despite being, in the most literal sense, just a collection of letters. I would certainly agree that there are words best left unsaid, which can do harm when spoken. Terms, such as slurs, which are intentionally designed to demean and reduce come to mind. These are ‘just collections of letters’ that can do immense damage and propagate inequality, something my peer alludes to ‘babe’ doing as they describe it as inherently sexist. Is ‘babe’ sexist inherently as a slur can be racist inherently? Or is ‘babe’ sexist in particular contexts as some words can be racist in particular contexts?
So, should someone who uses ‘babe’ with such a mindset be expected to alter their practices and perspective due to another person’s moral claims? Even if they were initially ignorant to the potential for abuse and had never once used the term in a context where it caused harm?
Finally, what about people who have never considered the implications of the word ‘babe?’ I believe it most likely, with how commonly the word is used, that at least some people have used ‘babe’ because ‘babe’ is commonly used. In many places it is colloquially understood that ‘babe’ is a term of affection without any regard to its etymological origin or potential for harmful use. So, should someone who uses ‘babe’ with such a mindset be expected to alter their practices and perspective due to another person’s moral claims? Even if they were initially ignorant to the potential for abuse and had never once used the term in a context where it caused harm?
Final Thoughts
That wraps up the current extend of my thoughts on the subject in question. If you cannot tell, I have not decidedly figured out my feelings regarding my peer’s argument nor how I would answer all the questions I posed above. Additionally, I do not think this article would benefit from being longer than it is.
Before I go, I would like to make clear that this is not a moral judgement of my peer nor is it intended to realistically depict my peer’s views or personality. I do not remember this person very well. I cannot recall their name or face, only a menagerie of the many arguments they presented during our time together in an undergraduate debate class. In this sense, please consider the use of ‘my peer’ in this article to essentially be a literary device intended to catalyze a thought experiment and not a way of addressing of a real person.
Finally, I sincerely hope you enjoyed reading this article. I hope you found it engaging and a well suited deviation from the ‘content made for blind consumption’ I see too frequently on the internet these days. If you have any thoughts about my peer’s argument, my counters to it, the questions I posed, or anything else – please feel free to comment them below or contact me with the form on this blog’s homepage. It would be a great pleasure to continue this discussion.
Thank you for your time,
– Wyatt