From here:
A construction crew working on the campus of Ohio’s Sinclair Community College was forced to halt work until it removed a “Men Working” sign that was deemed “sexist” by a college administrator. A spokesman for the college told National Review Online that the incident, which occurred on November 21, stemmed from the school’s “deep commitment to diversity,” and that it takes that commitment “very seriously.”
In the wake of the incident, the school acknowledged its request may have been over the top, but stood by its commitment to diversity, saying in a statement that, “while it may not have been necessary to suggest that work be stopped, Sinclair stands by its commitment to providing an environment that is inclusive and non-discriminatory.”
The men had to stop work until the offending sign was removed.
Does that mean that, unlike the more snobbish women bishops-manqué in the Church of England, the educated ladies of Ohio’s Sinclair Community College are determined to see women breaking through the hard-hat barrier in order to fulfil their destiny as menial construction workers? Probably not.
Did they object to the word “Men”, or the word “Working”?
Or were they of the opinion that the sign was oxymoronic?
I remember arguing with feminists, back at theology school, back around 1978, about whether the word “man” was sexist or not. I argue that words have connotations, and a word can have different meanings depending on context. To me, this incident is really stupid. And,I am still really peeved, that the blue Common Praise Hymn book, printed in 1998, has butchered several older hymns by removing the word “man”. Damn feminists, certainly can’t complain they are victims in the Anglican Church. Real diversity to me, would mean leaving a few traditional hymns in, with the old language of “Man”. Changing those hymns, shows a shallowness, and I think, caters to the fears and whims of the insecure.
Hello Dave,
I fully agree with your sentiments. At my Parish I attend the “early service” because that is the one at which the BCP is always used. Well sort of. Our current Priest is in the practice of changing words so that the word “man” is either replaced or removed. I however continue to use the word of the BCP exactly as it is written.
I agree, Dave. Those hymns are equivalent to poems or literature, and we don’t go changing Yeats or Shakespeare to make the language more inclusive. I have seen hymns “adjusted” so poorly that I assume it was just someone in the office, with no poetic training at all. Changing these hymns is the literary equivalent of painting over the naughty bits in a Michelangelo fresco.
As a woman I get offended by the pandering to a few. Anyone who has studied languages knows that a group of people who include both sexes are referred to in the male context. This is probably because of shortening “mankind” to “man”. I would like to think that most women are comfortable enough in their own skin that they would find this very patronizing and insulting.
But were they forced to stop work **without pay**? Or does this mean that some nameless administator wilfully wasted someone’s — our — money for this bit of ideology?
I think we know which might be the case.
Pity the poor pensioner, from whom the means of life is extorted in taxes, under threat of prison, in order to pay workmen to stand idle while some overpaid “administrator” fusses about whether “diversity” is being correctly observed.
This is what third-world-style corruption looks like, folks; when real people pay real money which drones then throw away for any reason or none.
“A spokesman for the college told National Review Online”
Am I the only person who sees the hypocrisy in this?
Possibly the specific individual was in fact a man?
Hello Vince,
A good point, however one that in light of inclusiveness does not really make sense. Just because the person who currently holds the position might be a man does not mean that the next person in that person will also be a man. In fact I think it a pretty safe bet to say that when that position comes available there will be women applicants. As long as these “sexist” tems such as “spokesman” is being used than, so we are told, women will feel excluded.
Of course all of this completely ignores certain facts about our English language. One of these facts is that the word “man” has always been used as both a gender specific and gender nuetral pronoun. So the sign reading “men working” could be viewed as gender nuetral. But we all know that the feminazi’s will never see it that way.
“Man” is in fact a substantive, not a pronoun.
Not really.
An example of a substantive word would be “local”. It’s normally an adjective but can be used like this: “Vincent likes to drink vodka in his local”. There it is being used as a noun.
“Man” in the sense we are discussing is, according the the OED, a noun meaning:
“Mankind” is also a noun.
“Manly” is the adjective but I can’t think of any instance of it being used substantively as a noun.
In older times, referring to the word Chairman, a committee would say, “Madam Chairman”, if a woman were doing that function
a chairman is a position, even a title. It is a noun.
Where does substantive come into the discussion???
When I argued with feminists, back in 1978, I pointed out, “man” is a one syllable word. That is quite important, and useful is some forms of speech. But, the feminists I spoke with were young, in their twenties.and, truthfully, neither they nor I were good at intelligent arguing..
Was there a woman in the crew? I suspect not. And if there was one she probably would have had the easy job like flag “person” rather than swing a pickaxe, sledge hammer or shovel, a job which used to be reserved for the older guys or to give a rotating break to the men. And does anyone wonder why blue collar men are thought to be sexist?
Good point Obituary,
I have seen many times highway construction crews where it has always been the one (perhaps token) woman on the crew that is holding the sign while all of the men do the hard hot dirty work. If women truly want to be treated as equals than they should be willing and required to do all of the same work that the men are required to do. Anything less is sexist.
The rules require gender equality and the reality is that few women are strong enough to do the heavy work. Asking women to do the flagging is about the only way the work crews can comply with the law.
If a person is not strong enough to do the job than that person has not met the bonafide occupational requirements and therefore is not qualified for the job. And a person who is not qualified should not be hired, no matter affirmative action says about quotas, oops “proprotionate representation within the workforce”.
The administrator should have been named.
The “Law” is an ass” then. (and that quote was about the equality of women too!) LOL
Hmm. I was using “substantive” to mean “noun”. My apologies. English is not my first language. 🙂
Then your English is very good!
Thanks. My first language is in fact French, and my (non online) life is lived in French.