This 'argument' is basically the same one politicians and bosses level at British people, regardless of gender: "British people won't do the dirty or hard jobs that foreigners do; that's why companies employ so many foreigners". 'Truth is, we all know the real reason: cheaper labour.
Has political correctness actually gone mad?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
We should change them all to the suffix woman then if it is so meaningless.
Not here in Australia, or at least no solely. There are lots of well paid jobs Australian won't take or won't move to take e.g. seasonal fruit picking. There are abuses of the worker visas with some employers breaking the law and paying below, often well below, minimum wage but that isn't exactly the same as importing workers who will work for less as by law they have to be paid the same. That all said there are still far fewer jobs available than there are people to fill them overall.
Last edited:
I think theres a lot of very dangerous jobs that are quite well played and often male dominated.
Its hard to begrudge them a relatively high degree of reimbursement for it though, don't you think?
Dont think its unreasonable to pay a fireman more than a teacher for instance to pull a random example out of the air (but then teachers are probably underpaid overall?)
Im all for paying nurses more but training more and giving more reasonable working conditions would seem preferable offhand. I dont know what their wages are like though
That wouldn't be the same though would it? A suffix of woman refers to a specific gender. Suffix -man is in reference to humanity as a whole. The problem should be why some languages have adopted the use of man to refer to specifically males as well as mankind as a whole. It doesn't make every word containing -man a male word. Woman and human both have -man and don't refer to males.
I agree. We should only allow they to compete in female appropriate places. Like the kitchen and bedroom. Poor deaes obviosly don't know what is best for them.
Man applies to one gender except we have decided by convention that it can mean men and women when we want it to. No reason we can't change the convention.
We could use a gender neutral term instead to recognise that we now live in more enlightened times. Except the usual suspects would cry "It's PC gone mad".
We already have a gender neutral term and it existed when we weren't enlightened too. Human.
Freshers is the word for this stuffs isn't it?
Fresh Human sounds well so blah.
Fresh Human sounds well so blah.
or person.
although fresh person sounds even more ridiculous.
What if the said person didn't take bath that day, it would be politically incorrect to call him/her fresh.
Just call them "newbies" or "lil shits", there is no gender problems with that.
See this is a problem with how combative it's become between liberals and conservatives. There is a lot of garbage that comes from the right (both sides actually) so when someone makes a valid point you still reply sarcastically. Men do make up a startling percentage of workplace fatalities and it is valid for men to feel concerned about that.
Human is gender neutral in some/many uses (or am I just used to it?) but lots aren't e.g. marksman.
Combative?
That is very mild sarcasm.
Men make up a starling percentage of workplace fatalities because those occupations are predominately done by males. In very many of those occupations overt workplace sexism (actually sexual harassment and assault in the main) still makes is very difficult, bordering on impossible at times, for women to be employed (or want to be employed). So in these cases the issue isn't men getting injured per se., it is that these occupations require safety improvements. It is a bit rich to say "poor injured men" when the reason it is predominately men in those occupations is men's persistent bad behavior.
You want to pay people who put out fires (wonderful and necessary occupation though it is) who incidentally have the highest rate of job satisfaction in most countries, more that the people who educate the next generation and who have some of the worst working conditions and very low levels of job satisfaction? And then people whinge about the quality of teachers.
Combative?
That is very mild sarcasm.
Men make up a starling percentage of workplace fatalities because those occupations are predominately done by males. In very many of those occupations overt workplace sexism (actually sexual harassment and assault in the main) still makes is very difficult, bordering on impossible at times, for women to be employed (or want to be employed). So in these cases the issue isn't men getting injured per se., it is that these occupations require safety improvements. It is a bit rich to say "poor injured men" when the reason it is predominately men in those occupations is men's persistent bad behavior.
It's totally ignoring his point in favour of sarcasm. Doesn't really matter how severe the sarcasm is. And I'd love to see absolutely anything that backs up the idea that the only reason men make up so much of those professions is sexism.
Is that genuinely a problem? It's one of those things that I struggle to relate to because I don't think about gender when I hear marksman or postman, I think about the function but maybe it would be an idea to use the same structure than person and replace all the -man with the suffix -son. A marksson, a postson, a fisherson.
Edit: Even though people will probably have a problem wit the lack of daughters.
I always thought those words were sort of neutral already. As above, I don't think about gender when I hear those words. If we decided to change it to woman, they'd be the same anyway.
Yeah, but why is this a male/female issue since these men were not forced* to do their jobs but individually picked them? The way I see it it's more about opportunities.
*that shouldn't be read like I mean to say that there is no pressure to have a job, there clearly is.
You could say the same when people ask why there aren't more women doing STEM degrees. The reason being they had the choice and decided not to.
But who are you as a male to judge that?
I personally don't think it's that important, but it's not costing us much to change it either so if somebody feels the urge to do it I couldn't care less. To be offended by something like this is more concerncing imo.Yes, so if there isn't a structural (or every other type of) bias against woman where is the issue?
No idea, I never understood that criticism.
His point is sexism bollocks that doesn't deserve any more attention.
And you have plainly never worked on a building site.
Of course actual sexism is only part of the story. Institutionalised sexism is another major part. Plus societal gender role reinforcement. A very few of the sort of jobs we are talking about are more suitable to men because of things like strength.
But who are you as a male to judge that?
Who is offended? it was a genuine question, I don't know if people are actually bothered by these names, some politicians or activists are but are they representative? Also I won't mind a tweak, it's really not a problem.
Bullshit. Women are underrepresented in STEM occupations and it is almost universally recognise that this is simply not due to women "choosing" not to do these occupations. Some of the factors are listed here.
I certainely didn't mean to imply that you were offended, if I did I'd like to apologize. It should be read as a hypothetical assertion.
Wouldn't know who cares either, could be a preventive measure to not become a target of a Twitter shit storm/some politician walking the talk/someone deeply caring about it.
In English the gender neutral terms would be
Humankind
Postperson, Chairperson etc.
Aren't 'pink collar' jobs more suited to women though? Studies have found links between the levels of testosterone and empathy, in that the more testosterone you have the less empathy you have. This would help explain, in part, the gender pay gap i.e. women being attracted to lower paying caring professions.
http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/extra-testosterone-reduces-your-empathy
I know but it is apparently not palatable enough for people to use, which is a fair point. So maybe we should try to find a version that would please the crowd by sounding as well as the most used versions.
Ok
So why do the right wingers get in a froth and shout about PC gone mad when the systematic use of gender neutral nomenclature is suggested?
More utter bollocks. We just think of such occupations that way due to stereotyping feeding into societal norms.
Glad you accept that you are utterly wrong.
Think whatever you like
Hmmm... Pretty sure you’ve sneaked a “man” into the middle of “humankind”. I’m offended.
Language is very important. It subtly and not so subtly effects everything including societal attitudes. As men we aren't as likely to notice gender specific terms like marksman but I can guarantee that many or even most women do.
I think that is your position. Despite the evidence.
It isn't about offence PM. It is about equality.
Just the kind of retort I would expect from you once your completely entrenched views are challenged even a little.
Explain to me how empathy levels wouldn't affect attraction to such jobs at least?
I’m all for equality. Ironically, I think the feminist movement being associated with pedantic nit-picking over words like postman and freshman does more to harm equality than help it.