I think that's the point of disagreement. Is it ever appropriate to address an adult "woman in distress" as "honey" if you are an older male and not in a relationship with her? Similar to "boy", whether correct or not, many (most?) Americans, particularly younger, currently feel that it is never appropriate.
If your parents and grandparents were also from the Deep South, there is some likelihood that they would call a young black man "boy" without necessarily intending offense. The argument that eventually won out is that regardless of intent, such language is belittling and inappropriate. I think the change was for the better, while also accepting that often no harm was intended.
I was in elementary school in North Carolina in the late 70's, and there was still an "unreconstructed" older generation who proudly clung to an "outdated racial terminology" -- some in spite, and some on the theory that they meant nothing wrong by it. Perhaps at the time they were right, perhaps they weren't, but clearly current society would argue against such usage.
I'm asserting that regardless of your intent, your use of "honey" (and defense thereof, particularly the "protective" aspect) is parallel to the way that "boy" (presumably, depending on your age and culture) strikes you. A web search for "honey sexist" will give you a summary of the current consensus.
The attacks were personal, against my person, and not against the content of my post.
To the extent that your choice of phrasing is part of the content, I think it was mostly about the content. I'd guess that 'ksenzee' (who from other posts I think is female) was genuinely asking if your post was parody. You are probably right that the implication was "if you think that's socially acceptable you would be a bad person", but I think it really was in the context of "but surely you can't think that".
(I personally agree with much of your rant about the inconsistencies of "equality", but this may be because I'm probably midway in age between you and much of the rest of the HN audience. I will note though that your wife's opinion on whether 'gender equality' would have been a "big step down" is an important factor to consider.)
Again, over again, one more time, yet again, here on HN I was not addressing any particular woman. Instead, there was full anonymity on both sides. So, there was nothing personal involved. I used no names and, really, know no names of the women, and the women don't know my name. So, what I wrote was not really personal. I never claimed or suggested that what I wrote would be appropriate to say directly from a particular man to a particular woman in a real office, employment context; guessing or concluding that I was so suggesting was an unjustified "extrapolation" and, likely, some hypersensitivity to some of the attitudes of political correctness. So, clearly one should take what I wrote as what a man would tell his wife, sister, or daughter.
In our society, in a case of such anonymity, such use of honey is common. E.g., Trump says in public that he "cherishes women". Well, maybe he does. But that is not the same as him walking up to a particular woman, one of thousands at his rallies, and saying "I cherish you". Everyone knows this difference.
On my parents, my mother was born and raised in Ohio, and my father, in Upstate NY. He met my mother in Ohio, and they got married in Ohio. My father went to the Old South because that is where his employer wanted him. My parents had no sympathy at all for the racial norms of the Old South; my ancestors are from England and Germany, but I hated those norms of the Old South and got the hack out of there ASAP. I'm in NYS and don't want to go back to the US South. My mother's approach was clear: Since she did work, she hired a maid for some of the house work. The maid was Black. Mom was sure to make the maid's US Social Security contributions. That was extraordinary.
No. No it is not. Jesus christ. You do not get to call a woman you don't know "honey", "darling", "sweetie", "sweetie pie", "sweetheart", "sugar", "baby", "doll", "angel", etc. If you do know her, you better either be her father or mother, or significant other. I don't care if you're from the South. I'm from the South. Fucking stop it.
I grew up in the Old South: Addressing a US Black, "boy" is always an insult. Since growing up, I've seen a lot of the US: Addressing a woman in distress, e.g., "constant nightmares", affectionately, "honey" is quite appropriate with nothing wrong at all.
For your
> It's not extrapolating to actions beyond your post,
clearly my
> You are extrapolating for no good reason.
was in response to the ksenzee
> Please tell me this post is performance art and not the way you actually talk to women in your real life.
So, the ksenzee "extrapolation" was
> the way you actually talk to women in your real life.
Of course not. Again, yet again, once again, over again, one more time, the OP was not 'the way the women in the OP would talk to people in an office in real life' but was, as I said, over and over, intimate and my post was in that context and similar and also not as in "real life". That is permissible without being too personal due to the OP and the anonymity -- I was not addressing any particular woman.
> this doesn't make it an attack
Some women are suffering in their attempts at professional careers, and I gave them quite a lot of advice to help them in their careers, fairly carefully written, with good information, not easy to discover, e.g., can be attacked and sabotaged from jealousy and competitiveness from doing the work well, and, net, the attacks cost me five points at HN. I was attacked.
The attacks were personal, against my person, and not against the content of my post. That is, the attacks were essentially "for thinking and writing the way you did, you are a bad person". In particular, for my advice to the women, there were no responses at all. So, the attacks were aimed not at my advice but at me, personally.
<rant> A strong suspicion is that the attacks were because the attackers believed that I was violating some of the norms of politically correct gender equality. On that issue, I will note that, as I explained, I, too, was sexually harassed in a professional, office, academic, employment setting. But, of course, as a man, I didn't get "nightmares". And I will quote E. Fromm, The Art of Loving: "Men and women deserve equal respect as persons but are not the same." Right, they are "not the same" -- women "deserve" equality of respect but are not "the same", that is, not 'equal' in all things. E.g., we don't have women playing in the NFL. So, 'gender equality' can't claim that the genders are equal in all respect, e.g., we don't have women playing in the NFL. And, as we can clearly see from the OP, the women are complaining about being sexually harassed while men also get sexually harassed by women and don't complain, that is, there is sexual harassment going in both directions, but the women complain and the men don't -- men and women are not being treated "the same"; full 'gender equality' doesn't hold.
With full 'gender equality', the women in the OP have nearly no grounds for complaint. But I believe that the women very much have very strong grounds for complaint so can't accept the politically correct gender equality fully. So, I am setting aside what is politically correct and being very sympathetic for the suffering women. So, for the way I am treating the women, 'gender equality' would be a big step down for the women. I don't want that big step down for women. So, I tried to help the women. And, in this goal, I was treating women with lots of extra compassion and caring, was being protective, e.g., called them "honey" and was attacked for that. In my post, my record on women was clear -- I was the prof who recommended hiring the woman who did so well. Also, elsewhere my record on women in professional careers is clear: My wife and I both got Ph.D. degrees, but she went to graduate school first, and financially I put her through and she didn't put me through. And during our marriage, until she died, essentially all the money money put into the family checkbook, which she carried, was from me, in particular, from my work, and not from work or anything else from her. So, for my wife, 'gender equality' would have been a big step down. Finally I will quote an expert on US society: "In the US, women are privileged characters." The expert was correct: In US society, in many ways, women are treated much more nicely and gently, with much more in sympathy, empathy, and compassion, than men are -- no small thing and no joke. And I believe that that is just as it should be. Why? Simple point -- men don't have babies.</rant>