Is the "Men at Work" Sign Sexist?

Posted by Alex in Politics on July 20, 2008 at 3:09 pm

After PINK magazine editor Cynthia Good complained that its "Men at Work" and "Men Working" signs are sexist, the city of Atlanta is going to change them – at a tune of $1,000 – to "Workers Ahead."

The project, which involves painting over the existing 50 "Men at Work" and "Men Working" signs with those that say simply "Workers Ahead" or "Workers," will cost a total of $1,000, Atlanta Public Works Commissioner Joe Basista told FOXNews.com.

About half of the city’s 100 Public Works employees are women, said Basista, so he complied with PINK magazine editor Cynthia Good’s request to stop warning passersby of men at work when women were right there alongside them.

Now, she’s going national:

"We’re calling on the rest of the nation to follow suit and make a statement that we will not accept these subtle forms of discrimination," she told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

A sensible correction or political correctness gone mad? What do you think? Link – Thanks Chris Ayres!

this post? Please

Email this

FUN PRODUCTS FROM THE NEATORAMA SHOP:


Kitchen Gadgets	Buckyballs	Science T-Shirts

Giant Microbes Plush Toys (that's the common cold)	Funny T-Shirts	Custom Bobble Heads

COMMENT

196 comments to "Is the "Men at Work" Sign Sexist?"

SenorMysterioso
July 20th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Ricockulous
Chad Cloman
July 20th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
The fact that feminists are dealing with this level of sexism means they've come a long way.

I remember reading about a court case where a woman was acquitted because text of the law in question used male pronouns.
somebody
July 20th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
I'm guessing they'll leave "Manhole" alone.
Santi
July 20th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Q; What's worse than a male chauvinist pig?
A: A woman that won't shut up or do as she's told.
JJohns
July 20th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Nice.

I suppose Ill start seeing about 100% more women out digging holes and patching roads vs taking my money when I visit the office to pay my bills or answering the phone.
Peeves
July 20th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Considering how little it costs compared to other government expenses I think we should agree to not complain about it's possible 'super-PCness'. Also that it seems to be one of the last industries that's slow to recognize that women work for them..even if they're mostly given the flag work that's represented on the signs.
chris a
July 20th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Hey cool, you posted it!

I was blown away when I heard this story on the local news station. What else are we going to make gender neutral because of a couple of people who have nothing better to do than to cause problems?

"subtle forms of discrimination"... back when these signs were printed, probably only about 2% of workers were even women.. Thats not discrimination, thats just proper description. Do any of the women who work on the roads complain about it? I'd like to hear their thoughts.
Bret
July 20th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
It's a good thing no one's heard from the band "Men at Work" for the last 20 years, huh?
bean
July 20th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Looks like it'd be a hell of a lot easier to just put tape over the "men" on the sign. These feminazis aren't complaining about only men being required to register for the Selective Service.
Ralph Woods
July 20th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
I just find it funny that I've never actually seen a woman out in the streets in full construction worker attire, patching the public sewage system, handling a jackhammer or driving an asphalt truck.

Actually, the street where I live has just recently been recapped, and it was actually the first time I took notice of how all 15 workers or so were men. Some quite young, some in the verge of retirement. But all men. And only then I realized I had never seen a woman doing that kind of job.

I'm not saying that women are not capable of doing stuff like that, and I concede that it's possible that they aren't out there doing heavy work on the streets exactly because of sexism ("this is a man's job" - like in the army, the coal mines, etc). But

With that said, a "workers ahead" sign is just as accurate and informative, and might also signal the path to a more egalitarian society in the future. So I'm not opposed to this specific request, as it makes sense.

However, there's no doubt that this request was rooted in acute political correctness gone overboard, what with the bitchiness of the "we will not accept these subtle forms of discrimination" statement (when it's actually more of a cultural staple and relics of a different era) and the immediate lawsuit.

There are nicer ways to go about it and raise awareness without being an asshole and shoving your point down everyone's throats.

And that's the kind of motivation and attitude that we have to watch out for.
Danny
July 20th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
"These feminazis aren’t complaining about only men being required to register for the Selective Service."

ha! now we're talking about some serious sexism. Or or, what about ladies night at bars? I guess those have to go too.
SenorMysterioso
July 20th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Ive seen and know several women that work for the city and not just flaggers. I doubt they care. Second definition of man - a human being of either sex. I think that definition is what the term men on the sign refers to. I dont think men working means males working.

ok Ill share my horrible sexist joke now

- How many women does it take to wallpaper a room?
~ Just one if you slice her thin enough
Aels
July 20th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
"ha! now we’re talking about some serious sexism. Or or, what about ladies night at bars? I guess those have to go too."

Yeah, because sexist ladies' nights at clubs meant to draw in women so they can be ogled at by any given bar's unbalanced male population is *totally* a feminist scene.

I knew I shouldn't have clicked on the comments for this one.

And just so you know, some feminists are pushing for selective service registration, but I'm personally against that as long as *women are still restricted in how they can serve in the military*!

I don't think it's time for Selective Service until women are actual of equal status and can serve on front lines.
Blaze
July 20th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
SenorMysterioso

You owe me a new keyboard, this one is now soaked.
TheGoodReverend
July 20th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
I think it's wrong to frame the question as, are the signs sexist? It's not a question of sexism versus the lack of it. It's a question of whether the gendered language, while admittedly inaccurate at least for most definitions of 'men,' is necessary or preferable to nongendered language. Serious, sensitive writers know to avoid gendered language when speaking about individuals whose gender is not known or not determined. If they can convey the same basic meaning without betraying some gender judgment, they do so. In this case, 'Workers Ahead' sounds like a perfectly reasonable, effective alternative to me. It even includes the bonus 'ahead' that strikes me as a more descriptive warning. It's certainly much better than the awkward 'personhole' from 25 years ago.
carolion
July 20th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
if i have a sharpie handy, i change those signs to "huMENs working." fun!
carolion
July 20th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
(it's grammatically incorrect, i'm aware)
Peeves
July 20th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
'bean' is quite possibly Neatorama's biggest source of shame..give it a scarlet letter A for asshattery to let visitors know this isn't normally a place for idiocy.

Also, notice how these things don't make news until someone complains about how PC it is..which means it's when the government wakes up and realizes that moving progressively should have happened a while ago before they were screamed at by gender-neutral enthusiasts. Of course it would be great if all this happened subtly without the need for grandiose campaigns but guess what, we still have a long way to go obviously so stop complaining about the protesters and start complaining why people still need to protest.
DavidMc
July 20th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Political correctness is such a joke at this stage.

I would like to her the women of neatorama's views on this.
tripleX
July 20th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Most men wouldn't like it either if at their workplace a sign would say 'Women working'.
OO
July 20th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
It is sensible correction in the name of political correctness gone mad.
Technologik
July 20th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
When I myself am driving through a construction area and see one of those "MEN WORKING" signs, the last thing on my mind is only watch out for MEN! This lady obviously has control issue. My opinion: preposterous!
SenorMysterioso
July 20th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Peeves we're all used to Bean by now
LisaL
July 20th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
What a load of horse plop..... that's all I'll say about that
Gorf
July 20th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Who could it be now?
Sammy
July 20th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Are they going to get angry at the Constitution too? Or any other legal documents for that matter.

Ive never seen a woman working out there, now that I think about it.
red
July 20th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
"Subtle forms of discrimination" *shrug* she's right. Why should we accept all the subtle forms of discrimination too. Black people had to endure all that bullshit for a long time as well.
SenorMysterioso
July 20th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
You probably have, everyone looks the same with a pony tail, steel toe boots, work clothes and an orange vests.
James Schend
July 20th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
This surprises me in two ways:

1) That anybody would take offense at this
2) That Atlanta didn't anticipate this years ago and switch the signs the cheap and easy way, as most places have done. (Washington State, for example, has been "Construction Ahead" as long as I can remember. But then again, we're not in the South.)
reyalpdemannu
July 20th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Forget the whole "people starving" thing, let's focus on proper PC verbiage.

Sounds like a plan to me!
Lore
July 20th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
I agree. Where are the women construction workers? I bet they have an opinion on this one way or another. Let's see what they have to say and decide on changing the signs. Regardless of what the signs say we should be careful on the road at all times.
sigh
July 20th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
It's so good to see that things like prostitution, spousal abuse, and other exploitations of women have been completely iradicated, since we now have the time to focus on such trivial things.
Justin
July 20th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
As peeves said earlier, it's not that expensive (as far as government spending goes) so I think I'd let this one slide even if it is stupid.

Guys we gotta pick our battles. Let the feminists have their stupid gender neutral signs.
Zombie79
July 20th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Wow.... what a waste of time. Women likes those make me want to crawl into the kitchen. If this is all they have to complain about, what's wrong? Aren't there people starving in the world? What about homelessness? How about inequality of education? War? Why not focus on real issues in which people are really suffering?

I'm embarrassed to be a woman with women like those defining our issues.
Tixylix
July 20th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Etymologically speaking, I understand that the original german word "man" is not gender specific, and applies equally to male and female humans.

Try looking up "man (word)" on wikepedia, sweetie.
Peeves
July 20th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Zombie79, I'm sure women of the world wouldn't mind if you disappeared into the kitchen either. As far as everyone complaining about 'other issues of the world'..what the hell are YOU all doing about it and how do you know 'these women' aren't working on other stuff as well?
Tina
July 21st, 2008 at 12:33 am
If they really want to make the signs correct they need to change it to..."1 man working, 1 man and 1 woman holding stop/slow signs, 1 guy eating a sandwich, 2 guys leaning on shovels, 1 foreman sitting on the tailgate and...where the hell did the new guy go"
Lenore
July 21st, 2008 at 12:44 am
"Forget the whole “people starving” thing, let’s focus on proper PC verbiage."

Yes, I'm sure they were planning on using the $1000 from the Atlanta Public Works budget to solve world hunger.

All the signs here just say "Construction ahead" or "SLOW Construction Zone". But yeah, if HALF the people working there are women (like it says in the article), they should probably go gender neutral.
Miss Cellania
July 21st, 2008 at 12:50 am
I've seen gender-neutral signs here and there for years. I think in most states, they just replace them with the new language when the signs need to be replaced.

As far as the jobs go, this is a door that swings both ways. There was a hue and cry a couple of years ago about how the majority of college students are now women. People wondered if there was some discrimination toward men in admissions. When they looked at the situation up close, it turns out that men are less likely to go to college because they can get a decent-paying job without a degree. It's still hard for a woman to get someone to teach her how to run a backhoe. I told my daughters if they ever get the opportunity, go for it.
JC
July 21st, 2008 at 2:07 am
It´s controversial crap for me.
DOJ
July 21st, 2008 at 2:09 am
Miss Cellania - "just replace them with the new language when the signs need to be replaced"
This is exactly what I want in tax funded organizations (especially during an economic downturn). But instead they spend $1000 to update the 50 existing signs, and an additional $144 per new sign ordered. I'm not saying they need to fix the world's ills with it. Just fix a pothole or two.

Also, wouldn't it be a lot cheaper to buy 50 of the old signs and repaint them, than to order the new ones at $144 extra?
Idil
July 21st, 2008 at 2:33 am
I think the US has more important things to worry about...

these kinds of things are literally such a waste of time and money...
Evilbeagle
July 21st, 2008 at 3:18 am
This is silly. The whole changing the language to be gender neutral thing is silly, and replacing the signs because a few radical feminists get offended is a waste of money that could go into more useful things. As a woman, I would rather see real changes to combat discrimination than symbolic (ie meaningless) changes.
MoonCake
July 21st, 2008 at 6:48 am
alright, i'm female. here's what i think-- ralph woods had the most non-abrasive, fair assessment of this situation. well stated, honest, and not offensive to even the most sensitive feminist. and ralph-- i've seen almost all-female roadside crews spreading tar and ripping up roads. they're out there, i promise you. maybe it's just the region you live in or something.

i'm not a sensitive feminist and i think this is an overreaction. being politically correct anymore is taboo and now that women DO have equal rights to men they're taking every opportunity to nit-pick at the "men" terms that still exist. and they exist not because the system is still sexist, but because it is IMPOSSIBLE to change absolutely every single sign, poster, book, policy, sticker, and proper name to accomodate all the feminists' social needs. this chick could have EASILY mentioned that "hey! times have changed and these signs need to as well." but also, as someone else mentioned above, that "man" is short for "mankind" and is a universal term for all human beings. when you say "man-power" it doesn't imply that the only people participating are men. it implies that HUMANS are participating. if we want to be COMPLETELY policitally correct, we would say "human power." or "humans at work."

i hate feminists. they overreact about everything having to do with gender equality and are severely harming their own cause. they think that women deserve BETTER treatment than men because we've been oppressed for the last how many years and we have to "make up" for lost time by overcompensating. hence all those dumb-husband commercials-- you know the ones. i can't STAND them. women are not superior to men, and vise-versa. they each have elements that contribute to healthy diversification because yes, we're different from each other. but think of our differences like puzzle pieces. we all have our own specializations and niches, and when placed alongside complementary pieces, we fit together quite nicely to form a pretty picture.
Lesley
July 21st, 2008 at 6:48 am
This is a waste of money. All those millions of dollars spent changing something that doesn't really offend ANYONE could be used to make roads SAFER or CLEANER.

i'm female. i can't stand feminists.
zazie
July 21st, 2008 at 7:03 am
Seems like a waste of $1000 to me.
the man
July 21st, 2008 at 7:06 am
How about a sign for Rhode Island construction zone

It would have to say something like,

"Guys working while a cop gets paid overtime just to watch and some state senator's wife gets paid $40 an hour to hold the slow/stop sign."
LoyLoy Gupta
July 21st, 2008 at 7:11 am
What an absolute waste of money.
Capella
July 21st, 2008 at 8:06 am
As a woman working in a predominately man's field, all I gotta say is - make the bitch pay for the changes of the signs, and leave the rest of us taxpayers out of her little feminist-without-a-cause BS.

Does she have NOTHING better to protest?!

Damn nut job.
Kris Aubuchon
July 21st, 2008 at 8:19 am
You have this woman to thank for the $1000 of unfixed potholes in the area.

Also, maybe this woman should be fighting to be a part of the selective service enrollment – oh wait, feminists only care about things that will BENEFIT THEMSELVES. (even if it's just adding to their smug level)

I'm all for treating women equally, but this woman is an idiot.
jew
July 21st, 2008 at 8:21 am
i'd buy that for a dollar!
Sass
July 21st, 2008 at 8:32 am
Yeah I bet they wasted a lot of money paying to take all those "Whites Only" signs down from bathrooms, drinking fountains and lunch counters, too. Stupid PC bastards! I mean, once they changed the law it didn't matter that the signs were still there, right? And I bet a lot of places remained white only anyway, right? Poor taxpayer dollars at waste, I tell ya. Remember when gay used to be our word? Remember when women couldn't vote?
Evilbeagle
July 21st, 2008 at 9:35 am
Cheapen the cause a little more,Sass.
atanguay
July 21st, 2008 at 9:47 am
Through the proper eyes, EVERYTHING is sexist.
Tim Giachetti
July 21st, 2008 at 10:06 am
Proof that "political correctness" is doing more damage than good.
O.K. They have a point. But, it seems that someone has far to much time to fritter on this rather than making a ground breaking change for humanity.

Bah on the Victorian bullshit in American society.
JivesTheButler
July 21st, 2008 at 11:03 am
We should strive for accuracy and efficient communication in all of our publicly funded endeavors, whether or not they are controversial. The outrage may be unjustified, but perhaps the sign change is not?
violet
July 21st, 2008 at 11:30 am
I can't believe how intolerant both the male and female posters have been. It's a tiny expenditure to correct an inaccuracy. How could you possibly have a problem with that?

But instead of recognizing this as a simple adjustment, people are coming out of the woodwork to insult "feminazis" and generally get their primitive, ignorant knee-jerk reactions on. Nice work. Oh and also, the female commenters are rushing to support the opinions of their idiot colleagues, lest they seem weak, lest they appear to actually care about their own gender and issues around equality. The horror!

Pathetic.
Orjan Morjan
July 21st, 2008 at 11:33 am
Small steps...

And to people saying she should do something about all the misfortune in the world... WHAT HAVE YOU DONE???
Evilbeagle
July 21st, 2008 at 12:27 pm
As a female, and one who is proud of who and what she is, I take exception to those that feel I am trying to act tough or otherwise uncaring about my own gender. This is such a petty issue that has utterly zero meaning. Changing language does not change reality. It's a little band-aid to please those who choose to find offense in everything around them, nothing more. A change in the sign is nothing but frivolous spending. After all, most people drive by these signs not thinking, "Gee, there might be a woman on the road crew..." They drive through slowing down and muttering about the hold up. I don't even look at the road crews to see if there are men or women out there unless they are in the direct path of my vehicle. This isn't about equality. It would be if women were forbidden from working on said road crew. This is about nit-picking.

To complain about this rather than the real issues that affect women on a daily basis that need change is ignorance, complaining just to be controversial, and makes all women look bad.

As for "supporting idiot colleagues", that's a statement that could easily be taken as man hating. Not all men are chauvinistic, just as not all feminists are harpies.
Tim Giachetti
July 21st, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Beagle, this is one of the many reasons I grok where you're coming from. nice to see ya hun.
violet
July 21st, 2008 at 1:48 pm
My point, Evilbeagle, is that it apparently is an issue for some people, and it makes very little sense to castigate those people for having their opinion on the matter. And in this case, making the sign reflect the present day is easy and cheap. Getting offended at people for being offended is dumb. It's popular to pick on people who seem to be "oversensitive" but it actually makes no sense. It's a non-starter.

It hurts you not at all if people want these signs changed. If this were a post about some other tiny expenditure in public works, you would not have commented. So I find it telling that the fact that somebody wants outdated signage changed compels you and others to get up in arms.

And I didn't say all men are chauvinistic; I said that the people crying foul over somebody wanting a piddly sign changed are idiots, and the fact that the issue has a gender component is obviously the operative factor in their overblown responses. To pretend otherwise is a joke.

And as for language not changing reality, well, that's wrong on about a thousand levels.

My main point, though, is that the almost violent reaction people have to other people's sensitivities is absurd. If someone feels offended by something, why does that offend you? It's common sense to say "Well, I may not be personally offended by such-and-such issue, but if it bothers somebody else, who am I to say their feelings are wrong?" Instead of taking that tack, people start flipping out and attacking.

I guess it's just easy to attack people for their opinions on what bothers them and requires less intellectual work than considering where they may be coming from, considering the power of symbols and language in culture, and considering the possibility that stale complaints about an "overly PC" environment are cliched and dense at best, and covers for prejudice at worst.
gryt
July 21st, 2008 at 1:50 pm
It says a lot about the degree of sexism in this country when women proudly state that they hate feminists... How can a WOMAN hate someone for being for equal rights for women? How can anyone hate someone for being against discrimination of women, for that matter?

I will never understand why it is so controversial to be a feminist, when it's not controversial to be, say, anti-racist.
Neatoramawontsendmeapassword
July 21st, 2008 at 2:37 pm
I don't think we even have signs like that here. I think they just say "CONSTRUCTION" or have a little pictogram of a person.
blackjackshellac
July 21st, 2008 at 2:57 pm
I'm going to start asking that all those "Women at work" signs get replace with "Hookers ahead".

ducks!
JohnnyDildonics
July 21st, 2008 at 3:16 pm
this is what i think.

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/8933/cgmk4.jpg
From Atlanta
July 21st, 2008 at 3:19 pm
I went to school in Atlanta for 4 years, drove all over the city, and can't remember ever seeing any of these signs. I can remember all the potholes and horrible roads. Does it surprise anyone that the whole city only has 50 signs? It doesn't seem like a lot.
Everyone mentions that $1000 isn't a lot of money, but I think Atlanta could use it for something better than re-labeling signs.

And finally, I'm not at all surprised that this started in Atlanta. We are the crown jewel of political correctness. I've lived many places, but here everything has to do with whether you're black, white, young, old, male, female, etc. Yes we're from the south. We have a history that isn't the most understanding of others differences (to say the very least) but to go overboard in political correctness (especially when common sense goes out the window) is unnecessary and counterproductive.
Jamie
July 21st, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Violet: "If someone feels offended by something, why does that offend you? It’s common sense to say “Well, I may not be personally offended by such-and-such issue, but if it bothers somebody else, who am I to say their feelings are wrong?” Instead of taking that tack, people start flipping out and attacking."

Because if the idiots don't start flipping out, how will the rest of us know how cool and jaded and above-it-all they are?

Toss in some sexist jokes and gratuitous use of the word "feminazi" and you have the gold standard Trifecta Of Moron that always comes up around issues like these. Thanks for keeping standards low, commenters!
Zombie79
July 21st, 2008 at 4:11 pm
@ gryt

As a women who is offended by these "equal rights" arguments from the feminist camp, I can answer your inquiry. A sign that reads "men at work" in no way offends me, OR limits my right as a woman. What am I no longer allowed to do because of the words on that sign? Am I forbidden from driving? Can I not vote anymore? Must I give up my job? Should I instantly become pregnant and slave away for my husband after reading that?

Women who do choose to be offended by verbiage on a sign they'll MAYBE see for a total of thirty minutes in an entire year, are wasting time and money. There are so many other real trespasses against women that such petty complaints from a group of women who have never known true discrimination is an embarrassment to our gender.

In a world where women are still subjected horrors like female circumcision, anyone who bitches the words printed on a sign is a crime against their rights - should be ashamed.
Evilbeagle
July 21st, 2008 at 4:53 pm
@Tim, thanks!

@violet - Let me just address a few points. I am against any costly public works project that wastes money. You obviously missed where I am coming from, and I feel that this is a waste of money. So, you're wrong about me, which is unsurprising.

I also don't believe in being wasteful because a few people are offended by something. I don't care about pleasing a few people who are overly sensitive, as this woman is. If you do not see that, then, sorry, but you are overly sensitive as this is utterly meaningless.

Political correctness breeds hypocrisy and resentment. I find that when people couch their words in PC terms, they are doing so because it's not really what they mean. I would prefer to have someone call me what's really on their mind so I know where I stand with them. And that is what I mean when I say language changes nothing about reality. The reality doesn't change, the language merely takes on a connotation that is both insincere and ultimately more insulting.

Your comment was certainly degrading to men. Am I offended? No. I am not a man nor do I take up causes. I have better things to do with my world. If someone comes out and says the same thing referring to women, then it would immediately equate to insisting that women stay home and breed.

The only point radical feminism has, or any form of radical thought for that matter, is to bring about sensible moderation. Quite frankly, I don't care if the sign says "men at work", "people at work", or whatever. However, when it comes at a cost to the taxpayer in a world where there are issues that should take precedence, then there is a problem. Because one woman whines about a road sign and gets a bunch of radicals wound up is no reason to waste money, no matter how cheap the sign.

Gender neutrality in all things might seem all pretty and equal, but in the end, it promotes a cultural androgyny that is quite frankly, sad. A road sign, again, is meaningless, but the fact that some wing nut wants to waste money on the matter that might be better spent on actually, you know, doing something good and useful, is simply ridiculous and makes all women look like radical bra burners that no one truly respects.
c-dub
July 21st, 2008 at 5:37 pm
@Evilbeagle:

If you don't think language changes reality, you're not paying attention. Our entire existence is colored by language. The first step in understanding something is applying language to it, and the words we choose have a fundamental effect on perception.
Evilbeagle
July 21st, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Tell that to African Americans who still deal with racism on a daily basis, or to the mentally challenged, who are still getting stared and snickered at by the insensitive, c-dub. Really, it's all just a way to find sneakier ways to be racist, insensitive, sexist, or otherwise underhanded. It's only breeding a hypocritical culture. But, whatever, you are allowed to fool yourself. I prefer reality myself, thank you.
ted
July 21st, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Token gestures like these do nothing to halt real sexism, racism, or prejudice that exists in society, and only serve to inflame and give sexist, racist, and prejudiced people more to grind their axes about.

The only females I've ever seen working at the side of the road were doing the easy job of turning the STOP sign every two minutes.

That being said, it's surprising - no, ludicrous - that Atlanta still has Men at Work signs.
c-dub
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:23 am
@Evilbeagle:
Are you actually responding to my comment? Because I don't see how your points (that discrimination exists, that culture is hypocritical, and that I am somehow fooling myself) have anything to do with my point (that language affects reality).

@ted:
Goodness knows we don't want to upset sexist, racist, and prejudiced people. It's probably best just to let them go unchallenged. Excellent idea.
Evilbeagle
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:59 am
Yes, c-dub, you just didn't like my response. You say language affects reality. Well, I've given some examples where it hasn't. Because that's what things like this sign are all about. Changing the language to give some nit picker a sense of satisfaction even though it isn't changing anyone's attitude. So, no language doesn't change reality, and those who just run around wanting to change the language and get bent out of shape because people are saying "mankind", "manhole cover", and "men at work" are too lazy and too deluded to try and make real changes, making all women look like idiots in the process.

I believe in equality, but I earn my respect as an individual, not by strong arming people into using gender neutral words, which to me, merits no respect.
Tim Giachetti
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:15 am
Umm, this article isn't about anything more than white washing prejudices. Nothing wrong with a label, since everyone labels everything they see. If you're afraid of calling the kettle black, dealing with it, and then moving on, Then nothing will ever change other than the terminology for it.

c dub, get a grip. Me, being a child of the 60s, seeing the bullshit it brought, and then the changes that have come with time, no PC naming of the problem changed anything.

If you haven't lived long enough to have witnessed the riots, police brutalities, fancy names for war, and the political hedging used to go around the problem, then go back to you xbox360 and spout crap to the other 13 year olds you play with.
ted
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:51 am
c-dub, I didn't say "let's pander to bigots". Simply, concentrating on silly issues like this simply gives them more ammo, because rational people object to silly stuff, too.
c-dub
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:11 am
@Evilbeagle:
Those were "examples" of language not effecting reality? Honestly, I don't see any connection whatsoever.

@Tim Giachetti:
So we should still be calling African-Americans "n******" (there's one example) because words and labels are meaningless? The fact is, Tim, that the language we use DOES change our attitudes in a fundamental way.

@ted:
If someone, bigoted or not, has a problem with equality, they have to deal with it: don't expect me to change my behavior to accommodate them.
IggyKoopa
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:30 am
I am incredibly disappointed at the response to this story.

The signs ARE sexist. So much of our language and culture disappears women and the work that we do. I have, in fact, worked for road crews, and I did a damn good job, better than some of the men, but that wasn't good enough to prevent the name-calling, the sexual harassment, the belittlement--all because I had the audacity to have a vagina and do manual labor at the same time.

These road signs add insult to injury to women all over the country who bust their butts doing the best job they can to get the job done and go home. Their contribution shouldn't be erased or silenced by state-funded signs, and they certainly shouldn't be called bitches and feminazis because they're trying to be treated like a human being.
Evilbeagle
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:34 am
@c-dub then you obviously misunderstand the whole idea behind language affecting reality and political correctness. That, or you are being purposely dense in order to try and get a rise out of me, which won't happen. Nice try, though.

Your comment to Tim also show your insistence in being dramatic and purposely thick.
Tim Giachetti
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:07 am
What do you want from a kid who has only known P.C. bullshit Beagle.

He hasn't lived through any real problems yet except the lies he's told about Iraq.

Move along and don't feed this troll.

Buh Bye c-nub
Lenore
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:18 am
@Evilbeagle
Actually, I think all of your examples are proof of language affecting reality. Think of the prevalent use of the n-word, and then other terms used against African Americans. As their place in society has become more secure and their opportunities to succeed have increased, the usage of these words has been condemned. That's language reflecting a change in culture and helping to facilitate it.

Look at the condemnation of the term "retard" and it's counterpart, Mentally Challenged, today. I mean, the fact that these PC terms have even become the norm show that language reflects societal change on a fundamental level, and helps to facilitate that change in the real, everyday world.

I think that it's not so much for the passers-by that are women, it's the workers that matter. And, if you read the article, you'll notice that 50% of the crews that actually work on the roads are women. I think that's an important 50% to be acknowledged, don't you?
Evilbeagle
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:47 am
@Lenore

I have to disagree. The use of language has not affected the way people are treated. I'm not talking about use of the N-word. That's not a word that has ever been truly acceptable, but if you take the term African American (here goes a tangent), first of all, black is not a bad or negative word any more than white is. Secondly, African American suggests division (thought I don't feel it creates it) and is inaccurate. Division because it separates people from being simply American, inaccurate because most AA's in the US don't have a relative in living memory that has ever even set foot in Africa. Seriously, my parents were born in Cuba, but that doesn't make me Cuban-American. Secondly, as a person married to a white man from Africa, if we were to move to the States, he would have more of a right to be referred to as an AA than any black person out there, but that would never happen because everyone wants to hang onto this facade of being multicultural by using all the right phrases.

Society doesn't need a sanitization of language to "change" anything, because it doesn't. That change has come gradually through the different movements that concentrated on equality through realistic and intelligent means. Language that is sanitized and changed to please some perverse need create a new word for everything is as I have said before, breeding hypocrisy. It is much easier to hide behind PC terms and act in racist/sexist ways. I've been there/done that working in the construction industry. To be offended by a "men at work" sign is just looking to be offended and chomping at the bit for drama.

Furthermore, I could care less about acknowledgement so long as I am getting the pay check and the respect on the job that I deserve. I don't deserve it for the mere fact that I am a woman, but because I do my job well and treat everyone fairly. That is why when I was working, I did very well in the corporate, male dominated environment. I don't see men and women, I see people, and I don't stick to my kind when they don't deserve it. Having a set of ovaries doesn't make a person more deserving, as many feminists seem to think because they are in a mindset that the oppressed should become the oppressor. If the sign says "men at work" and I am on that road crew, who cares? I am not out to prove anything to anyone that's driving by. I really don't care about the perceptions of others, nor do I need a pat on the back. That's asking not for equality, but for superiority.

Gender neutrality is a silly notion created by silly people who found that after the womens' movement began to make serious strides, they were losing their relevance. Therefore, they started to get more vocal about changing the language, which again, means nothing. Rather than doing productive things for women, they sit around looking for things to complain and whine about. No one in their right mind respects a whiner, and I have zero respect for this woman who is out to change road signs, nor do I have any respect for the City of Atlanta for complying. There are better, more useful things to do.
Thomas
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:14 am
I'd like to point out exactly how little money we're talking about. If every citizen in Atlanta city limits paid equally for this, we're only talking about just under 1/5 of a penny per person. If you include everyone who's in the greater metro area, the number goes down to just under 1/50 of a penny per person. I found enough pennies in my couch to pay for everyone who's posted here, so don't worry, I've got you covered if you can't float the cost.

To those who say that Atlanta should use the money to fill potholes, or whatever, I'd like to point out that Georgia has some of the best roads in the country. We may be 49th in education, but dammit, we've got great roads.

To those who use this comment section to accuse anyone who's for womens' rights and equality of being a feminazi or whatever (regardless of how senseless this particular issue is), eat a dick.
c-dub
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:43 am
@Evilbeagle:

I honestly don't see any "examples" in any of your comments of where language hasn't affected reality -- I'm not trying to get a rise out of you, I just can't find them. Maybe I actually am missing something. And my comment about the N-word was a perfectly rational response to anyone who argues that words and labels don't matter. It doesn't suit your argument, though, so you disparage it (and me). Let's just say that I'm not crushed.

I do agree with some of your points: I think "African American" is often inaccurate (although I won't argue with anyone who wants to be identified that way). But your contention that the words we use to describe things have no bearing on our attitudes towards them is patently and demonstrably false. If I were to call my wife "Bitch" every day rather than "Sweetheart," you don't think that would color my attitude towards her? Words carry weight, and to deny that is to deny the entire history of human discourse. Yes, I understand that no one is talking about the difference between the words "bitch" and "sweetheart," but you (and other commenters) have taken this opportunity to make blanket statements about the effects of language -- so I'll respond in kind. Frankly, I don't think these road signs would bother me much if I were a woman on the crew, but we seem to be debating much larger issues.

From there, your last comment goes off the rails entirely. You don't want acknowledgment, only respect, but simple acknowledgment is the most fundamental form of respect. No one in this story is asking for special treatment -- only equal treatment. No one is asking for a pat on the back, or to be considered more deserving -- only equally deserving. No one is trying to become "the oppressor" (and you thought my earlier comment was prone to drama). Reading your comment makes it clear that, at some point, you decided to describe accuracy and equality as "special treatment" -- a term that creates the specific reality of your argument. How odd, and how ironic.
Evilbeagle
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:16 pm
@c-dub, actually, I do see where you are misunderstanding the point. A word like "bitch" is a vulgarity, as is the N word. Those are words not used in polite company anyway. Big difference from saying "broad" and "lady". If a person is forced to say "lady" when they mean "broad", the only change is in the language, not the attitude, and that's where the hypocrisy comes in. Say what you mean or don't say it at all. PC takes honesty out of the equation. And at the very least, be accurate. Do you think a "mentally challenged" child chose that "challenge"? I'm not saying that we should point and laugh and say, "Look at the little 'tard." I'm just saying that sugarcoating language doesn't change reality, and it certainly doesn't change attitude. If that were the case, we could just solve every wrong that people do one another with language. I don't believe that women and black people claiming the N or C words to change the connotation by using it are doing themselves any favors either. They just look stupid.

Acknowledgement and respect are two very different things. And if those women on the road crew don't care what the sign says, aren't they really the only ones that matter?

A sign does not equate to equal treatment just as words don't, neither does language. If one is asking for acknowledgement, they are asking for a pat on the back. Is anyone patting those guys on the back? A sign surely isn't. They don't care what it says either, no doubt.

The radical feminist that is so overly sensitive that she can't drive by a "men at work" sign without getting bent out of shape over it is looking for the drama. She is the radical that seeks to oppress the oppressor. Having taken tedious classes during my uni years on Feminist Philosophy, I do know what I am talking about. The changing of language is a misguided attempt to gain an upper hand.

Personally, I don't care what the sign says, but when it costs even 1/5 of a penny to change it for the taxpayer because one small radical, man hating group has issues with it, then I have a problem. And trust me, this is the type of feminist that thinks all forms of sex between men and women equate to rape and a power struggle. I don't have a problem with feminism until it becomes radical in this manner. I hate radicals of any kind, and I will say that at the risk of sounding radical myself.

A bigot is going to say one thing and think another no matter how much you drum language into them. That's the bottom line about language. It's not changing what was changing just fine on its own.
Kitsune
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:38 pm
How about that grand is put towards improving shelters, for both women and men, or perhaps education and lobbying costs for the legalization of abortion, or any one of a hundred things that would improve equality on a far greater scale than a road sign that people rarely read, most likely don't care about and has no misogynistic or sexist intent.

It's a SIGN.

And if I'm working on a road, whether I've got a vagina or a penis, I'd like drivers to know it.

Call me a man if you like-- just don't run me over.

Seriously. PINK needs to focus its priorities. Because unless we've solved every other issue of gender (not female) equality, this is a ridiculous waste of time, money and resources.

Pffft.
IggyKoopa
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Evilbeagle, why do you get to decide how taxpayer money is spent while feminists who disagree with the sign is not?

I reiterate that I once worked on a road crew, and most of the women I worked with disliked the signs because it was yet another way their contribution was ignored or belittled, even though it was always at least equal to the work the men were doing.

It is disheartening to go to work every day and have your petty, mean-spirited co-workers not only dehumanize you and silence your contributions, but to also be the only ones whose work is recognized and respected.

Look at the number of posters here who have said, in effect, that the signs shouldn't be changed because there aren't many women on road crews. We are there.

Take a reality check on your male privilege, or if you're female, ask yourself why you want that patriarchal pat on the head so badly. It's certainly not doing much to further the condition of women.
Tim Giachetti
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Jesus, I go out for a Doctors appointment telling you to not feed the Troll. What happens? I get back and check in here after a few hours and more Trolls come to be fed.

In my best un-politically correctness, if all you douche bags want the change, fucking pay for it out of your own pocket. Get a fucking life with what's left. Move the fuck on.

It's useless to try to reason with the unreasonable.
IggyKoopa
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Tim Giachetti, calling someone a troll is not a substitute for formulating a coherent and intelligent critique of the situation.
Evilbeagle
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Well, Iggy, it's like this. Those feminists are the only ones that care. They are in the minority. Ta da. If the women on the road crews want it so badly, they can pay for the signs. Not that many people care.It's not a step toward equality. It's not helping anyone's cause. In fact, it's just going to breed resentment among those that would rather see that money go toward something that actually improves the community rather than stroke the ego of a small bunch of women with nothing better to do with their time and who think they are still in college and that the world can be changed if someone throws a war and no one shows up.

Acknowledgement comes in a pay check, a promotion, a pension, not a stupid sign that no one really notices. Respect comes with the individual that earns it through action. They are very different things. I can acknowledge a terrorist, but that doesn't mean that I respect them.
Evilbeagle
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:42 pm
I'm female, by the way, Iggy. I have worked with men, and actually prefer to work with men, and found that you are treated as an equal if you deserve it. And guess what? I am a housewife now. A housewife with a degree that thinks terms like homemaker and domestic administrator are pompous BS terms. Call me what you want but I scrub that toilet and iron those shirts all the same. My husband and I are a team effort and have all the respect in the world for one another because neither of us feel that what the other does is more or less and we aren't in a competition. And when we take that little sports car out on the track, I still win, and not because he lets me. I am more empowered than any fluffed up radical feminist that feels she needs to act like an alpha male bully to get her way.
Lenore
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:29 pm
@ Evilbeagle

Fantastic, we agree on the use of the term African American. You used it, so I used it. Get over it.

If you don't think the n-word was acceptable at one time, you really need to research. Not only was it used throughout America until the 1800's, but it continues to be used in many areas today.

As I stated, the language is a sign that change is happening first. The fact that people switched to the term "Negro", and then to "Black" was just evidence that attitudes were changing. However, when people used those terms, their children learned that the old terms were offensive. I, as a child, was told never to use the words N***** or Negro to describe a person, I was told to use Black or African American. I was told why. I'm not going to say that my parents telling me not to call Black people an abominable name caused me to be more accepting of people of a different race, but it definitely had an impact on me (and generations of children with parents like mine).

That whole third paragraph is you. Fantastic. Glad you feel that way. Not everyone does. I don't care that all the literature about my place of work refers to the tutors as "he" and uses male pronouns, but if another girl did I wouldn't call her a whiner or feminazi for it. The fact is, if we change language, people don't associate those jobs with a specific sex. It's psychological, and it happens.

I don't care one way or the other, but saying "This woman is crazy" or the equivalent is just as useless as changing the signs. If you're going to continue complaining about those who whine, you're not getting out and doing something productive. Why don't you?
ted
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Oh man, throwing around terms like "patriarchal" and "male privilege", as if a woman who really doesn't care if the sign says "Men" are just lap dog trophy wife bimbos.

"It is disheartening to go to work every day and have your petty, mean-spirited co-workers not only dehumanize you and silence your contributions, but to also be the only ones whose work is recognized and respected."

I've worked in a few places where women were the ones doing this. Guess what? It goes both ways, regardless of sex.
Lenore
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Evil, you have stopped making any sense at all.

"If the women on the road crews want it so badly, they can pay for the signs."

That is the stupidest thing I have ever read. If you had a job (not that being a housewife isn't a job, it is, I just mean a job back in the corporate world), and your office decides to upgrade computers, how bout they make you pay for it? Or, here's an idea, if the city decides that you need to use extra special envelopes, how about- instead of your company- YOU pay for it? Your comment was completely idiotic.

Women want to be recognized for doing their job, and ask for 1/50th of a cent of the people in the area, and they should just shut up and get over themselves? I think not.
Lenore
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:39 pm
@ ted

Great for you, you were treated unfairly. What she said was true, regardless of what gender you are, and if you feel that way you should take action.
Evilbeagle
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:39 pm
@Lenore

I know the history of the N word. It was acceptable at one time, but always offensive. It was not meant to make a slave feel proud of himself. So, in reality, it was never a nice word. As for Negro, in Spanish, that is the term used and it was never offensive. I don't use it because in English, it's like saying "groovy" or "the cat's pajamas" and "square" and doesn't come to me naturally, but it's not that alien or offensive. And by the way, one of my grandparents is black.

And it comes down to the majority. The majority never even noticed, cared, or cares now about that sign. It's just someone out to make a public point in the worst way possible and it's insulting to all women if they just look at it without feeling like they have to band together and fight the man. Seriously, why hide behind other women and not just be an individual?

As for my doing something productive? I do, actually, but I would rather do for animals in need than people. They are more appreciative. They don't talk. They don't care if someone messes up on their gender. I have all sorts of time to take up pet causes, and I do that. Radical feminists are not one of them.
Lenore
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Speaking of the majority, the majority of people in the US don't speak Spanish, they speak English, so you're "Negro" point is moot. I don't care what your ethnicity is or how Black people in your family are, my point still stands. The fact that its use has faded is evidence of a different way of looking at people with different skin colors. I never said it was used nicely, I said it promoted and was a sign of changing attitudes.

So by your reasoning, as long as the majority doesn't care, social injustice is just fine. Brings to mind the majority's attitude during the Holocaust, Jim Crow laws, and women's suffrage.

Oh well, as long as the majority's cool with it...
Evilbeagle
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Lenore, I just read your first response. No, it's not stupid. It's not the same as upgrading a computer because it doesn't equate to the same amount of productivity. The sign itself is useful for drivers approaching the site, but whether it says men or people are at work doesn't change the function of the sign. So, call it stupid if you will, but in the end, that sign isn't doing anything for the job. If you want a worker to take pride in their work, hire someone who's going to do that regardless, not someone that's going to pout because the sign doesn't validate them. What they do is what validates them as employees regardless of gender. So, yeah, they should get over it. That 1/50 of a cent doesn't need to go into anyone's ego trip.

This sign issue is maybe the stupidest thing I've ever heard. If that's what these so called women feel they need to feel equal or valid, then they are pathetic individuals in need of some real meaning in their lives.
Evilbeagle
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:57 pm
It doesn't change anything, Lenore. Point is, Spanish, English, whatever, prejudices exist no matter what you dress it up ass word wise.

And really, what a cheap shot, Lenore. A sign, the use of language, hardly compare to the Holocaust. You really shouldn't cheapen atrocities that way.
Lenore
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Whatever, I've given up on that point.

I'm not comparing the two events, that would be completely stupid. I'm saying what you said, your exact words, actually, apply to much more than the sign argument.

"And it comes down to the majority. The majority never even noticed, cared, or cares now about that sign."

The majority fails to notice or care about many things. That doesn't mean they should be ignored.
IggyKoopa
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Evilbeagle, you seem to think that I, and others, care about how "empowered" you are. You ARE speaking from a position of privilege. Not all women could just stay home and iron shirts if that's what tickled their fancy. Which is not to say that I don't respect housewives because my mom certainly worked and works harder than anyone I know, but yes, she was privileged to have the opportunity to choose whether to work. In leaner times in my life, she did work because she had to.

Your idea that women who are offended by the sign should pay for new ones is completely ludicrous. I know that a lot of people have wet dreams of having power over others, but this "la la la majority rule la la la" while sticking one's fingers in one's ears is childish. The tyranny of the majority is something to be feared, not celebrated.

Ted, I was not saying that women who don't care about the signs are bimbos. I was saying that the signs are sexist, and that just because some women on the Neatorama comments section say they think they're not sexist, does not make them so. Not everything individual or collective groups of women say or do are feminist, nor do all choices women make create a world where men and women are equal.

"Men working" signs are not at the top of most feminist agendas, but we do what we can, because our culture is about death by a thousand cuts. We work to make small things equal because sometimes the big things like reproductive rights, the wage gap, domestic violence, sexual assault, sexual harassment, healthcare, and many others are a bit too much for us to take on by ourselves, and we don't often see much progress. Getting something that is sexist actually fixed is a nice change.
Evilbeagle
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:09 pm
But it doesn't mean that the minority should get their way on every petty little thing if they bark enough. You miss the point here. This isn't an atrocity, and your bringing the Holocaust, Jim Crow, etc... into a debate about the use of language in a road sign is cheap, because there isn't an atrocity being committed here. There isn't a life or death situation at stake. It's a sign that a few yapping radicals find offensive because they choose to be offended by the pettiest of things. Crying "sexism" over every little thing does not earn a person respect. The majority should rule in things like this because they are the majority and it's their money going into these signs that are only meaningful to overly sensitive radicals that few people really care about.

Anyhow, good night.
Lenore
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Kudos, Iggy.

It's a shame I have to go to work now. This was getting interesting.
Lenore
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Your saying that the majority should rule everything is idiotic. That's the point you're missing. And it's not just a bunch of radicals, it's a number of hard working women who would like to be recognized at their place of work using gender neutral signs. It's not as if they want them all to say "watch for men/women", they just would prefer to not be called "men". I'm sure they get enough of that already. I know how it felt in ROTC.

I'm sure they're this concerned over 1/50th of a penny. Toodles.
IggyKoopa
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:16 pm
This sign issue is maybe the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. If that’s what these so called women feel they need to feel equal or valid, then they are pathetic individuals in need of some real meaning in their lives.

What makes us "so-called women"? Who made you the great arbiter of feminine grace?

If every "Men Working" sign in the country got replaced, I still wouldn't feel equal because...I'm not. Women have to work twice as hard and twice as well to get a quarter of the respect and recognition that men do. Women still make less money for doing the same jobs. Women still have to be concerned that if they go into a career that is traditionally male that they will be sexually harassed or sexually assaulted. When that happens, women still have to worry if they'll be able to keep their jobs if they report, or be accused of bringing it on themselves. Women are still the partner who is expected to stay at home, and if they do work outside the home, they are expected to clean, cook, and iron shirts disproportionately. The people here saying women have gained equality are living in a fantasy world where their privilege has blinded them to all of the atrocities that don't personally affect them.

I have a great deal of meaning in my life. I'm not requesting your validation of how I live. I came here to simply add my opinion on this issue because it seemed a bit like an echo chamber in here.
Evilbeagle
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:27 pm
One more before bed.

So basically, working toward female issues involving domestic violence etc. Iggy are so big that nipping at the heels of some false perception of sexism is okay. That's supposed to have people take women seriously.

I brought up that I am a housewife for one reason. Radicals hate people like me. What they hate more than the fact that I love to take care of my own in a traditional manner is the fact that I have done everything in my life on my own terms. I have hidden behind feminism to succeed in a male dominated world. I always did as I wanted to when I was working. I left that world because I could, can go back to it if I wish, and that I have no desire to makes me even more hated by this type of person.

If you go through life thinking that men are out to hold you down, or that every little sign that has a masculine connotation is an insult, that's sad. If combating sexism is really so important to you, then go about it in an intelligent way and tackle those "too big" issues. All this does is drive hypocrisy and resentment by those that are sexist. And it makes a lot of women roll their eyes and feel embarrassed for their gender.

It's a democratic society, by the way. The majority does rule and should rule or there is no democracy. The minority opinions should be weighed in, but if they involve something petty and wasteful to the taxpayer, they need to be struck down until the majority does care. Making them care is your problem.

Anyhow, I'm bored. Later.
Evilbeagle
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Edit= have not hidden behind feminism.

that's the worst typo I could have made
c-dub
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Has anyone else noticed that Evilbeagle constantly frames this argument in the context of her own life, rather than that of the people actually affected by the story? That says pretty much everything.
IggyKoopa
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:05 pm
You seem to think feminism has given you nothing, and you dismiss the legitimate complaints of women over something that affects you not in the slightest as petty and self-centered.

Next time you see fit to vote, own property, not BE property, earn your own money, spend your own money, walk in public without a male companion, get a job and be paid a decent wage, ask your husband to do something without being beaten, refuse sex without being raped, divorce if you're not happy with the marriage, choose your own partner in life, direct your own destiny, have a drink or a cigarette, wear whatever you feel like putting on, drive a car, have a driver's license, inherit property, swear in public, take your rapist/abuser to court, use birth control, be able to mingle among the general population while on your period, choose whether or not to have a child, or you, know, just live your life, remember:

Feminism is what gave you these things, and trust me, they were not the majority.
lime53
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:48 pm
One thing to point out is the fact that over $1000 has gone into this issue. While that may be the actual amount spent on the actual change, I'm sure there were several more k spent trying to come to this agreement. Aka the resources and money that were utilized just to deal with the issue. It should have never been an issue. I don't believe the city of Atlanta was keeping those signs around to degrade women and make their work disappear. That is clear from the fact that a large part of the workforce is women. Never has a sign like that made me wonder the sex of the person working on the road. Usually it means to me that someone is up there working on the road and I should do them the courtesy of slowing down and try to make their life a little less dangerous by doing whatever the signs say. Not judge who they are and then determine whether I should comply with the signs.
kickinkirby
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:07 am
That last comment of yours was well-put, IggyKoopa. I've been lurking here for a while now, enjoying the debate, and I have to say that Evilbeagle seems very fond of herself. She claims a lot of strength and independence, but I don't think she realizes why she has what she has.
Lenore
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:16 am
I gotta say, Iggy:

I don't think anyone could have put it better.
Evilbeagle
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:12 am
I know why I have what I have, and to compare a whining woman that wants a sign changed to the people that actually worked for real change is an insult to women. A sign is not a step toward anything, and again, is a waste of money.

I am fond of myself, and I do frame things within a certain context because it's what matters to me. I see an individual first a woman second. As should all people. People don't respect a group so much as they respect an individual. I did not come on here to earn anyone's respect, nor do I want it, so I can act arrogantly to get a point across because I don't really care and you don't affect my life in any meaningful way.

Your version of feminism is built on unicorns and fairy dust. Support a real change and then I might have some respect for you.
Tim Giachetti
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:47 am
Hehehehe,

Can you smell what the Beagle is cookin?!?!?

Damn, you all just got a Rock style smack down on your candy asses!
Evilbeagle
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:10 am
I have to wonder Tim, with the way these people claim that the majority doesn't count, if they realize what our forefathers did for us to allow us a democratic process. Oh yeah, but they were white men... my bad.

LOL, I wouldn't call it a smack down so much as I would call it brutal honesty.
Tim Giachetti
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:06 am
Hahahahahahah, "Oh yeah, but they were white men… my bad."

I'm fucking dieing here! hahahahahah
Evilbeagle
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:18 am
LOL, Tim. You keep me coming back and posting on this section. Do you realize that I have a house to clean?! No, seriously, I do.

See, those white men allowed for women to stand up and protest their situation by creating a democratic system. They allowed for the possibility of equality. But don't ask a radical feminist to thank white men for that. Oh no, they were evil, you see.

The radical feminist movement had its time and place. Radicals make way for sensible and realistic debate and change. The time of the radical has passed. Thanks, ladies, but you're no longer relevant.

If people would actually read up on radical feminism, they would see how horrible it actually is. Radical feminists look down on women that have sex with actual men, don't adjust language ridiculously and in every sense, or choose to stay home to take care of their families. So all these people here defending radical feminist tactics like this woman with the sign are defending someone that would see them as an enemy. That's the saddest part of all this.

But hey, I'm done with this topic. I can only handle bandwagon jumping sheep for so long before I get really bored. They've just been reduced to name calling and making assumptions about others at this point. And I am bowing out before I break Cuban and really turn it into a smack down. I'm a lady, and I relish in my femininity far too much to have to start a paragraph riddled with censored profanities.
ted
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:13 am
Wow, so much vitriol for one evening.

Lenore,

"Great for you, you were treated unfairly. What she said was true, regardless of what gender you are, and if you feel that way you should take action."

Exactly. It's true regardless of gender. Women don't have a monopoly on being treated unfairly by the opposite, or the same, sex.
IggyKoopa
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:46 am
I've not resorted to any name calling.

If you should take some time to study the history of the development of our country, and our republican form of government (you might note that it's not a democracy), you would know that many of the founding fathers set the system up so as to avoid the "tyranny of the majority." Democracy does not protect minority rights, but republicanism does to some degree.

I believe that you are the one making assumptions about me. I don't hate women who have sex with men or who stay home to take care of the house or children. The article has nothing to do with these things, either. It's about a sexist sign.

At this point, though, I feel sorry for you. I hope someday you can look past your own experience and see the injustice that others must suffer.
Tim Giachetti
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:01 am
It's an inanimate object. Changing it will not change the ones who ordered it phrased that way.

Some one needs to buy a clue here with the 50k they intend to spend on changing the signs.

It really has nothing to do with the sign at all, it has everything to do with the moors of the people as a whole.

Really, be a bit more intelligent in your thinking. Money thrown at this will not change the general beliefs of the people in power.

There's your "republic" in action.

more bullshit, more bullshit, more bullshit.

"move along, the case is closed and the jury has gone home"
Evilbeagle
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:04 am
I don't recall saying that you specifically were resorting to name calling. Furthermore, this article has everything to do with radical feminism. I did not say you were a radical feminist, but supporting radical feminists is sad when they hate you too.

I don't need to look past my own experience. It's never been negative. Most people like to play the victim, which is the problem. If something bothers you so much, take advantage of the laws that are in place that are there to protect you. If the law isn't there, work to change it. But don't expect support for something as stupid as a sign. That sign is neither sexist or victimizing. That woman chooses to play a victim. When someone is really victimized, no one will care because of people like this. People like this cheapen the cause for all women by being petty.

When there is a vote, the majority vote wins it, does it not? That's the point I am making. If a majority feels something should be a certain way, it is up to the minority to change their mind and make their opinion the majority.

So, oh yeah. I'm done. Go play victim. I would feel sorry for you, but people that play the victim don't deserve sympathy.
Tim Giachetti
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:09 am
All of this is giving me vagina envy.

Poor me.
Look, I've actually been sexually harassed by a female superior.
She got fired, and a few months later got arrested at her new job for the same to a minor.

Again, changing an inanimate objects wording is not going to change the people.
IggyKoopa
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:27 am
When there is a vote, the majority do not always win. See the 2000 election results for president.

I am quite proud to be a radical feminist, and I have yet to meet a feminist that hates me. Of course, I work, take care to use language that does not oppress people, and take turns taking care of my family with my female partner.

I am not a victim, nor has my own life been terribly fraught with injustice, being a white, middle-class American and all.

If "Men Working" signs were the only thing sexist, they would be of little importance. But they are just a brick in a very large wall that makes women's contributions invisible.

Beyond that, there are a lot of things the government does to waste money that chap my hide, but I don't think that trying to rectify sexism or any other inequality is a waste of money. YMMV
Evilbeagle
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:46 am
You are not so radical as you claim, as radicals thrive on hatred for men and women who do not follow their exact agenda. Luckily for real women (and that is not a dig at sexuality because I am all for people being with and marrying whom they wish regardless of gender), the radical is an endangered species. Having dealt with radical feminists, I know how they truly are, and find them to be a setback for us all and unworthy of attention.

When you cry sexism for something like a sign, you are playing the victim. Go for the big issues if you want true respect and recognition. Until then, don't expect any understanding from me.
IggyKoopa
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:15 am
I don't know who these crazy man-hating radical feminists are. I'm apt to believe they're a figment of your imagination because they neatly fit into your framing of the issue.

Again, I am not playing a victim. I am just trying to explain how small instances of sexism contribute to a larger picture of oppression. But you clearly don't understand or want to understand that point of view, so I am done with this conversation. I'll just have to use my new free time hating men and judging women for staying home and being so liberated.
Evilbeagle
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:25 am
LOL, Iggy. I wish I were making it up, but if you actually knew anything about radical feminism, or encountered these people, you would not be calling me delusional. I went into my Philosophy major wishing to explore feminism, and after two semesters, was hunted down in the parking lot by three radical feminists that incidentally, were making it with the teacher, because I stated in class that sex between men and women was not rape. Had it not been for campus security, I would have had the mess beat out of me. The more I read and learned, the more I realized that the radicals are a bunch of nut bags who want not equality, but superiority. Do some reading. After semester two I decided to specialize in medieval politics because these people were absolutely disgusting.

Again, if you feel so oppressed, take up a bigger issue, not some petty sign. There would be no problem with gender neutral signs if the signs in use now were no longer functional, but to take perfectly usable signs off the road to please someone who "feels oppressed" (ie victimized and discriminated against) is pony crap. Waste of money and resources.

Have fun with your false sense of liberation, because it is false if you consider these signs some sort of righteous victory. I told you I don't have understanding or sympathy for the frivolous already. Have a nice day.
Xeal
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:21 am
*Enters the Fray*

I have a logic question for those of you who think fixing these signs is a real priority. What do you fix first? Big problems or little ones? Imagine your country is at war with three other nations, one that has nukes, one that has guns and one that has sticks and stones. Which deserves your focus? With that said... which do you fix first? 50 Men at work signs in Atlanta... or female circumcision in large numbers?

There's a serious flaw in all of this gender-neutral stuff. It has never been about equality. Men and women are not the same, for instance Men are far more likely to become alcoholic. Is beer sexist? Women are more likely to become nurses. Is the medical profession sexist? Or maybe is it because men and women really are different, and are thus attracted to different careers, different past-times and the like?

The key is not to make everything in the world gender-neutral. The key is to have respect for your fellow humans no matter the sex or what they choose to do. If I saw a woman digging ditches in the 90 degree heat for some new freeway, I'd actually have a lot of respect for her. That's some seriously hard work. Of course the same respect goes out to man doing the same work. And of course the sign itself is meaningless next to that.

You know what's amusing? There's been a ton of logic-chopping about whether or not language is sexist, whether or not language can create sexism... but no one bothered to define what language is. Language is just sounds (or letters) that we attach meaning to. The letters and sounds are just the means we use to convey our thoughts. When you see "Men at work" on an orange sign in a construction zone... what idea is that conveying?

Is it a:) Only Men for the paternalistic logocentric feminazi-hating establishment of sexist morons bent on world domination are working here.

Or is it b:) This is a F'in construction zone, slow down so you don't run over workers.

You can read into anything and attach a sexist or racist meaning behind it. What if the sign said "humans working." Well the word "human" must be sexist, because it only says "hu-MAN." What if the sign said "Men and Women working." That's sexist because Men were listed first. Right? What if it said "Construction zone" and had a picture of a little stick-man digging? Sexist, because it's obviously a MALE stick-figure. What if it just says construction zone without any figure whatsoever? Well maybe that's sexist because it omits a reference to women. Or maybe that's perfectly gender-neutral, so now the focus wiill go on the fact that construction workers are 90% male. That must mean it's a sexist industry, right?

Or you can just drop the subject entirely, stop focusing on the specific wording of everything and just try to get the point the sign is trying to convey....

Don't hit a F'in worker with your car. Please? K thx.

Oh and to whomever is comparing this sign to the N-word. Come on. Omission of a gender term is NOT the same thing as calling someone by the N-word. Trolling, much?
Lenore
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:38 am
Xeal, maybe you should actually read what people are saying before saying they're trolls.

Someone said that language doesn't affect societal change. Outside of the sign issue, language has completely done so, and has been remodeled as a result of change itself. So, I used the n-word as that example. As it's been fazed out of use, it reflects changing ideas about a certain group of people. Those perceptions go from "inhuman field hand" to the modern "they're a person with feelings and a different skin tone". In this case, language is sign of change. People use the derogatory term today, sure, but not nearly as much, out of respect for basic human rights.

Really, with the sign issue, I say it should be left to the people that actually live there, and they've already decided. When the arguments started getting larger in scope, talking about majority rule and language's role in society, I (and I'm assuming others) decided to jump in.
IggyKoopa
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:48 am
I'm going to go ahead and say I've done a fair share more reading in feminist theory than you, Evilbeagle, and probably philosophy, too. I'm also calling shenanigans on your little story about feminists wanting to beat you up.

I never understood how working toward equality was such a controversial subject.

Oh, and I DO focus on the larger issues. I'm very involved with activism and policy formation around the issues of rape, the wage gap, the status of women in other countries, sexual harassment, and equal opportunity. I am not playing the victim by calling out sexist BS when I see it. I suppose I could stay home and clean while making excuses for sexist behavior, all the while reveling in my superiority, but there are women and men in the world who suffer because so many people ignore their plight.
Evilbeagle
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:55 am
Great post Xeal. What really amuses me is that people are thrilled to be thrown a little bone with this sign. I just picture a bunch of little lap dogs yapping over a bare bone when the steak is on the counter top and well out of reach. In other words, and empty victory in place to shut people up.

Like you said, there are bigger issues, and if women really wanted to tackle sexism, they would concentrate on those issues. But yeah, I said I was done with this ages ago, so I'm officially out of the fray. I've only been coming back at this point because I am waiting for a phone call and I've been bored with this, and waiting for my sister to call, for a while.

You did hit on an important point. We are different. Men and women are not the same, and it goes beyond the obvious. Neither is better than the other, but those differences do affect some of the things you've mentioned.

And because my Skype hasn't gone off yet, I will have to reiterate another point regarding language. If you are a bigot, and you are using all the PC terms when you speak to me, you are being a hypocrite and hiding behind language, thus dishonest, which merits more disgust from me than your bigotry. I would rather hear what you really mean so I know where the knife in my back is coming from. That's why the language argument, as far as I am concerned, is so heavily flawed. It's a way to be underhanded in one's actions.
Xeal
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:04 am
The N-word was never a pleasant word. It may have once been acceptable among certain disreputable company, but the intent and idea behind the word wasn't just an innocent descriptor saying "you're black." Ironically, of course, much of the Black community uses this word in everyday discourse. Hey N-word, wassup? They must be insulting each other, right? Once again, you have to separate the literal meaning and the point the speaker, sign, book, whatever.. is attempting to convey. In the case of two black men referring to each other as N-word as a greeting, the intent is not the same as a white-slave owner from 1850 using the same word. The words themselves are not as important as the meaning they are conveying.

And quite the contrary to your statement, Lenore, the word is used by that very same Black community all the time nowadays. It is quite common in everyday usage. Does that mean black people are racist against themselves? Doubtful.

Essentially what people are doing here is deliberately misunderstanding the point. One person compared "White Only" signs to the "Men at work" sign. But here's the difference between the two:

The intent of the white only sign was to discriminate, to segregate and to demean. Thus it was wrong. The idea behind it was a discriminatory one, and it was intentionally designed that way.

The intent of the Men at Work sign is only to inform you that workers are ahead (probably so you don't run over them). I highly doubt there was any deliberate intention to demean women. So if you take it in that context, you are essentially -TRYING- to be offended. Try hard enough, and anything will offend you.

Language is a fluid thing. The meaning of words change over time, the ideas conveyed by them are highly dependent on context and situation. And maybe there are a few people who really would completely misinterpret the point of the sign and think of it as a discriminatory device, but for the other 99% of us... well, we just slow down a bit.
IggyKoopa
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:10 am
The lack of malicious intent does not negate the actual message the signs send.

Black people are not racist against themselves because they are reclaiming a word that has historically been used to oppress them.

I know white men like to feel like culture has victimized them, but that feeling is childish anger that they finally have to share their toys with other genders and races.
Evilbeagle
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:16 am
You can call BS all you like, Iggy. And I will call BS on your reading because obviously, you haven't gone deeply enough into radical feminist philosophy if you are spouting the garbage you are spouting... unless, of course, you are merely defending radical ideologies.

I don't feel superior to anyone. I'm not a radical feminist, after all. And if you are so into your activism, then you should realize that getting thrown a little bone is hollow and useless. A sign is not sexist. People are.

Yeah, I couldn't resist that response, because you know what, when a trio of psycho bitches followed me out to my car to beat me up for "betraying my gender" with a single comment sort of sticks with you. I may be a lot of things, but not a liar. I don't care to make my point that badly, especially not you. Funny how women turn on one another, isn't it? That's why I preferred to work with men when I did work. I didn't miss your little housewife dig, honey. You're starting to show yourself now.
Lenore
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:16 am
I wasn't talking about the sign, and I only brought it up because Evilbeagle went off with "tell it to African Americans..."

Yes, the context of the word has changed.

Yes, it is still used in a different way.

Yes, your points are valid.

But still, it was almost exclusively used to refer to slaves in the 1800's as an identifier of "Black person" by almost everyone so, go do some reading. Now, the language itself (which includes meaning and significance of words) has changed. People no longer use it as an insult, or they don't use it at all. It reflects societal change.
Tim Giachetti
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:27 am
Iggy, oddly the name of one of my cats, And you show all the intelligence of that feline.

Really, if you want change, work the ladder of politics and do so.

How many times do people have to be reminded?
"Arguing on the internet is like winning the Gold at the special olympics.
You have won, but you're still a fucking retard."

Now STFU and do something to make a change rather than admonish us with your brilliant bullshit.
IggyKoopa
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:30 am
Considering my degrees are in Women's Study and Political Science with a minor in philosophy, I would say that I've read fairly deeply into the issue.

One time, I got mugged by a black man. An Arab man raped me. A white woman told me I was too ugly and stupid to succeed. I guess that means all black men are muggers, all Arab men are rapists, and all white women are bitches with low self-esteem. Because you say three feminists called you a gender traitor, all feminists must be out to get you.

If you hate us so much, I fail to see why you think every time we try to change sexist things around us, that it is some sort of negative commentary on how you've chosen to live your life. I certainly don't need or want your validation of how I live.
Tim Giachetti
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:33 am
Lenore, I'm Italian, so that makes me a "guinea".
You know what that word means?
Most think it's just a fun moniker for Italian.
It refers to the Italian slave trade off the coast of Africa at the Isles of Guinea.
So, it's basically calling an Italian a N****r.

Do you think I whine every time a white person calls me that?
No
Why? because they don't know any better or the true meaning.

Only time I get riled is when a fellow Italian calls me that because they def know the meaning.

We aren't talking about sign that says, "Caution, bitch with shovel ahead".
We're talking about useless causes that will never change a thing.

Get a life ladies, as for me I will remain who I am and no one here has made a dent in my resolve with your fantasies of change.

"you can paint a turd black, but that don't make it a Mercedes"
Evilbeagle
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:44 am
You really aren't reading, Iggy. I didn't say that I hated all feminists. I didn't say that I was all for sexism (whoo!). I said that the radical feminists are disgusting to me because of all the reasons I have mentioned, as well as the time I nearly got beat up by them. Considering your degrees in Womens' Study and Poly Sci, I am inclined to believe that you are either in denial that this sort of harpy exists, or you are just trying to put a pleasant spin on them.

I am not concerned with how you live. I honestly couldn't care less what you do or why you do it. However, if you are going to claim that I am superior and accepting of TRUE sexist behavior while I clean my house, I am not going to take that in any way other than what it sounded like. And it was exactly the type of "let me look down my nose at the ignorantly oppressed housewife" attitude that is so prevalent in the radical feminist attitude. It is undeniably a negative commentary on how I choose to live my life. I don't feel superior because of my lifestyle, and while people causes are not my thing (dogs don't talk, you see), I certainly don't tolerate REAL sexism. In fact, petty arguments over a sign that's not gender neutral only makes people lose respect for those fighting for the real issues. I know it makes me lose respect, and I'm a woman. Petty whiners are not what I want representing me, and I will always say so. Because I say so, you would paint me as a complete anti-feminist, which I am not, and I have said that too. I just don't believe in wasting time with changing language, signs, and little things that are conceded to shut us up. When you tackle the big issues without acting like a victimized, man hating tool, then the changes stick with a lot less resentment from actual sexists and you don't have to worry about the rest.
Evilbeagle
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:46 am
Tim, you rock. I mean, seriously, if I walked around Miami going, "Yo, Spic" to fellow Hispanics, I would be dead in a ditch.
Tim Giachetti
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:49 am
Beagle hun,

Leave the trash to turn to compost. Let's leave these idealists be. K?
Evilbeagle
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:52 am
Tim, you're right. I'm done with these unrealistic whiners. My sister hasn't even called me yet, but I have had about enough of sitting here waiting for her too, so I think it's time I got the man away from his computer (he works from home) for a good long walk with the dogs and some trash TV on The Paranormal Channel.
IggyKoopa
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:56 am
Honestly, when I first read the story (not on here, either), I thought, "Huh, well it's about time, I guess." I, personally, have not seen a Men Working or Men at Work sign in a long time. All of our signs say "Give 'em a Brake: Workers Ahead."

I only commented on this issue because I read the comments, and what I previously felt was fairly intelligent bunch of people, were making incredibly sexist statements. Incredibly. Most were from men who have the luxury of never paying attention to issue of sexism.

I know that you're original complaint was that it was a waste of money because it's not like the signs were sprouting personhood and telling women they couldn't work at road construction. But nearly all of the complaints about these signs felt very much like, Oh those feminazis, always trying to waste taxpayers money with their stupid little problems.

Of course there are mean-spirited douches within every movement, but again, that does not negate the important work that feminists have done and continue to do.
Xeal
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Lenore, the word was used in a derogatory connotation even then. Slaveowners used it as a means of both identifying the black person and demeaning them at the same time. To say "Black" or "Negro" (which means black, of course) was the non-derogatory word in that era, but even then those words could still be used sarcastically or in demeaning way. The N-word was never used by slaveowners in anything like a respectful manner. The intent was bad. In other words, the fact that people generally do not use the N-word nearly as often in a derogatory sense is a definite improvement. That doesn't reflect a change in language as much as as it reflect a change in attitude. Everyone knows what the N-word means, and what idea lay behind it. They'd just rather not espouse that kind of bigotry.

Beagle, I definitely agree. Men and women deserve to be treated with respect and thought of as equals. Yet equals doesn't mean "identical." There will probably always be more female nurses than male nurses, and more male construction workers than female. Yet I likewise believe that in either case, if the less-represented sex is capable and willing, there should be no barrier to entry. We don't have to look to sexism to explain every disparity, because men and women are different, with different needs, goals and ideas.

This is actually a good thing, when you really sit down and think about it. My girlfriend helps me where I have my failings. I can't plan trip or show up on time for much of anything outside of work. So she helps me there by planning our trips, vacations and such. And she couldn't work a wrench or a hammer if her life depended on it. So when the toilet breaks or the electric goes on the fritz, that's where I come in. And we both work hard, her with animals and me with machines. Does that make me a sexist? I'd like to think not.

Iggy, the lack of malicious intent has everything to do with this debate. The message of the sign is not to oppress women, it's to warn drivers. Most children could figure that out, and yet here we are, as adults, trying to read into a simple warning sign far too much. Take the message it so blatantly offers you, don't try to read sexism into it. There's plenty of real sexism in the world for you to sink your teeth into.

No one is playing the white male victim card here. In fact this is quite the opposite. It's silly and downright idiotic to rename everything for gender neutrality because of imaginary sexism.

For instance, I am well aware of various feminist groups who hate the word "history" because it breaks down into "his-story." So they begin referring to the word as "herstory." Not only is that a hypocritical stance, it also ignores that irregardless of the etymological breakdown of the word, history simply means "story of the past" now, and using the word doesn't make you a sexist. Yet some feminists honestly believe that. Of course by the same logic, "herstory" would be sexist too, but that little point doesn't mean anything to these feminists.

Certainly not all, or even a majority of, feminists believe that, but nonetheless it serves to demonstrate how far you can take this sort of thing. We would have to sanitize our entire language, to rewrite it from the ground up, and burn all of history to make everything truly gender-neutral. Or we can just show each other respect and acknowledge that word-chopping for sake of imaginary discrimination is rather idiotic.

Please note that if a construction company refused to hire willing, competent and capable women, I would be right there with you calling those morons bigots. But a warning sign? Harmless. I don't care if it's one cent or one billion dollars. It's a waste of money.

I'm sure both men and women alike prefer not to be run over by speeding motorists. The sign accomplishes its purpose. Leave it alone.
IggyKoopa
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:24 pm
The use of "herstory" instead of history is not because feminists don't understand the etymology. The usage came about because history and the way it is taught has focused exclusively on the contributions and achievements of men. It would be great if we didn't need a women's history month or an African American history month because the stories of women of all colors, and the stories of African Americans were represented as broadly and deeply as those of (mostly) white men.

I doubt you'll find many feminists who use "herstory" exclusively, as opposed to within a specific context. I don't think I've ever used it in a conversation, to be honest, but it floats some peoples boats, and it's not hurting me any.
c-dub
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:10 pm
@Evilbeagle and Xeal:
The argument that we should ignore small issues until the larger ones are resolved is a complete non-starter. Meaningful change happens – and has to happen – at every level, and at every scale. Criticizing someone for making a change for the better just because it doesn’t happen to be your top priority is hopelessly arrogant. (I’m sure that argument falls on deaf ears, in Evilbeagle’s case at least, since she’s so proud of her arrogance. Her own claims that she’s arrogant – and that’s okay because she doesn’t care what other people think – and that the individual trumps the collective are further proof that she doesn’t have any meaningful understanding of what it means to contribute to society.)

@Tim Giachetti:
Your “inanimate object” argument is likewise fundamentally flawed. Books are inanimate objects, as are weapons, and both are powerful. Inanimate does not equal benign. (And “moors”? Seriously? Moors are either bogs or Berbers, so maybe words actually are meaningless to you.)

@Evilbeagle again:
You should be offended by bigots who use PC language. We should all use language that reflects our true intent and meaning, absolutely – and if we did, there wouldn’t be signs that refer to women as men. You claim that’s not an example of sexism, but that is FUNDAMENTALLY sexist, by any definition. (And I don’t know if you should be so chuffed to have Tim on your side. Acquaint yourself with some of his other comments around here, and you might not be so eager to have him cheering you on. His logic and reason get him about two inches into a debate, and he throws insults and expletives from there. If I find him on the other side of an issue, I know I’m doing everything right.)

@Xeal:
I used the comparison to the N-word because several commenters have claimed that words and language carry no weight. It was simply an example of how patently false that is. Going back to my original point, mindset and language support each other. The words we use influence our attitudes, so we should show some care in how we choose them.
Tim Giachetti
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:39 pm
c-nub,
Always at the ass end of anything, means you're the ass end of everything. Piss off.
c-dub
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Aaaaaand there's a perfect example.
Lenore
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Tim.

I'm Sicilian.

Once again, I don't care about the sign- that was left up to people in Atlanta, and they made their decision. I'm not talking about it.
Lenore
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Wow.

I initially said is that the decrease in the use of the n-word shows a change in attitude.

Language (the use of the n-word) reflects societal change (attitudes toward that kind of word use/discrimination).

That's what I've been saying.

Also, as I've said, the sign is not my concern. I only entered this debate when people started making blanket comments about other issues.
Lenore
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Oh, and Tim, what was your point in talking about racial slurs against Italians?

I don't see how my stance on language reflecting change in society has anything to do with what you said, could you explain?
Xeal
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:52 pm
It's not a matter of simply ignoring small issues. I question whether this is even an "issue" to begin with. At the risk of repeating myself, the key here is the intent of the sign to convey warning.

Does it do this?

Yes.

Is the signing in some way harming women's chances at obtaining a construction job? Does it indicate a practice on behalf of construction companies and municipal government in systematic discrimination against women?

No.

Therefore I don't really see the problem. It's essentially arguing semantics, and my point is that's hardly worth spending money on. For instance one could argue that "men" is in the generic, non-gendered human sense. One could also argue that it's reflective of a bias that no longer exists.

Or it could just be a sign. It won't eat you. It won't sneak into the local HR department and move all female resumes to the bottom of the pile. It won't lurk in the payroll department and reduce female paychecks.

Our disagreement, then, is one of meaning and intent versus semantics and word-choice. I argue that the intent and meaning, in full context, is more important than the choice of words. Why? Because anyone, at any time, could say something without considering it in a politically correct context, and accidentally offend someone who's looking for offense. We are overly sensitive to word-choice, while the real bigots get free pass if they use the right words. That isn't to say word choice isn't important, if the sign said "ONLY Men Working" then there would be a problem. But if we are to have meaningful discourse, we must elevate intent and meaning over vocabulary and semantics.

I doubt the maker of that sign ever thought down the road (sorry, bad pun) it would be subjected to controversy. In perfect innocence, said sign-maker probably just figured a stock phrase like "men working" would do the trick and notify drivers a work crew was ahead. And if the signs do that without hurting anybody, why change them when it's not necessary? If someone said "You know what, when these signs wear out or get to old, we'll replace them with something a little better" that would be fine. But instead they get trashed and more tax-payer money gets spent on something that doesn't do the job any better.

Oh no. The men working signs of doom will steal all female souls and make them into happy-happy submissive housewife slaves of doom shackled to the paternalistic logocentric establishment (okay that was over the top, but amusing to write . At any rate that's how I see it. If a hospital put up "women working" signs at nurse stations, I wouldn't be offended. And that doesn't even has the neutral gender argument of "men" in the generic sense. Remember everyone. It's a person-hole-cover. Don't forget David Letter-person.

As for the N-word. It does carry weight, but like all things it too has changed with the times. In the black community it's a harmless greeting. In the white community, once a derogatory descriptor of black people, it is now anathema, the word-that-can't-be-said. Those who do say it get publicly humiliated for it. Remember Dog the Bounty Hunter... and that was ostensibly a private conversation.

It's easy for us of high education and/or literary intelligence to debate the finer points of language. Those without the gift of words don't have our ability to dance around words, to access a tremendous vocabulary of synonyms, etc etc... That isn't to say they are stupid, quite the contrary for many, but not everyone can be as precise. So we must allow remember that above all, language is for communication, and deliberately reading an erroneous meaning and intent into a perfectly innocent statement doesn't help anyone.

Even politicians, who speak for a living, make grievous misstatements from time to time, sometimes not even realizing they have done so. Does that make them racist or sexist or ten-eyed-polygamous-hermaphroditic-space-alien-from-saturnist? Or did they just not realize the myriad of ways their words could be interpreted? PC culture angers me not because it's designed to avoid offense, which is certainly a good thing, but rather because it encourages people to become offended where offense is not intended. Men working wasn't intended to offend you. Let it be.
c-dub
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:33 pm
@Xeal:

I'm glad you posted that, because it may have revealed the precise misconception at the heart of your argument. You asked the right question – Will the signs harm women’s chances of obtaining construction jobs? – but you provided the wrong answer. It absolutely does, because it promotes the subtle bias that says that women aren’t suited to such jobs. And you should consider the notion that while the sign might have no such effect on you (as doubtful as that is) others may not respond similarly.

Your contention that the original maker of the sign held no bias is likely accurate, but also immaterial. We have the option of carrying on any number of historical biases, many of which were considered innocuous when instigated. That doesn’t mean we should do so, particularly when the alternative is so exceptionally easy and inexpensive. Is this specific issue life-and-death? No, absolutely not. But when we’re confronted with such biases, big or small, we should strive to correct them.

Also, if you’re concerned that “real bigots get a free pass if they use the right words,” then attack THAT issue. Don’t attack the folks that are trying to move things in the right direction, even if they’re not doing in the exact same way you would.

And finally, a bit of an aside: if you don’t think we shouldn’t expect the lesser-educated to acknowledge the distinction between male and female, I’d say you’re setting the bar extraordinary low.
Evilbeagle
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:26 pm
@c-dub If arrogance is not playing into the hands of fools who think that language changes everything and that a road sign is oppressive, then that arrogance is merited. Not because I feel that I am better than others who disagree, but because I feel that I have a load more common sense. Why should I care what others think if they do not directly affect my life? I'm sure you don't care about what I am thinking and that's not a mark against you. We don't know one another. Perhaps if people worried about the immediate things in their lives, they would be better off. And perhaps if people started going for the dragon's throat instead of its toes, people would take the womens' movement more seriously. And this road sign issue is a bit like that. Making an issue of the little things when there are bigger things to do is really almost cowardly, as if tackling real issues would leave some of these people with so little to do that they would lose purpose. And if it's arrogant that I would not associate myself with silly cows bent on creating division instead of real equality by pulling for the issues that really matter and not road signs, then cool, I'm arrogant.

Also, the more PC someone is, the more of their nature they are attempting to hide in most cases. In other cases, they are merely brainwashing themselves into thinking they sound more intelligent or enlightened. I'm not saying we should throw around offensive terms, or fail to be polite and have a bit of class, but changing language, again, doesn't change an attitude in an individual. What would you prefer? Changing actual individual's minds, or forcing an entire society into acting as though they care? I prefer sincerity myself.

Furthermore, Tim has never disrespected me personally. I don't care what he has posted elsewhere because he has treated me with respect since I have begun posting on this site. However, "warning" me about him when you have made it plain that I am far from your favorite person just makes it more difficult for me to take you seriously. And seriously, I mean no disrespect. I'm being honest. I can disagree with a million people and not dislike them for the disagreement, and I even feel that way about you despite lines you've crossed, but I am thinking that maybe you shouldn't have the benefit of the doubt. Badmouthing people in that manner is just ugly.

@Lenore has it occurred to you that a change in attitude might have been the reason for a decrease in the N word? Or does that make far too much sense and go against your rabid defense of a tired argument about language?

@Xael Nothing to add here other than your posts are eloquent, they make sense, and you've brought much to this discussion and said a lot of things that I have been too bored to type out myself or could never have expressed as well.

@IggyKoopa The hijacking of words like history are exactly another issue I have with the radical feminists. I really wasn't even going to go there, but Xael did, so I am going to add my two cents. It's ridiculous, childish, and another one of those things that make a person lose respect for the womens' movement. For one, it goes back to the idea of the oppressed becoming the oppressor, which is the goal of the true radical and utterly wrong. Secondly, it's inaccurate if you look at most hijacked words etymologies, as well as useless. The problem that arises with gender neutrality is that society is not meant to be androgynous. Though Lenore will go off on Spanish language minorities for my saying this, that is one of several languages where nouns are masculine or feminine. Will that have to change too? It would ruin those languages if the change went forward, but I doubt it ever would, nor should it. Of course, only American women matter *big eye roll* so I expect a big backlash on that. Point is, changing the language stinks of the types of people that would revise history to their benefit and is again, like hammering the dragon in the toe. It's a time wasting exercise when real issues could be tackled. Sure, there's no problem with gender neutral road signs, but why the drama about changing it right now and wasting the resources and money instead of waiting until the original ones were no longer functional? Oh yeah, less publicity and posturing.

Ultimately, if we as women want equal respect, we have to throw some of these radical feminist ideas to the wayside that a. make no sense, b. are outdated notions that someone had while on an LSD trip in the 60's, and c. prove ourselves as individuals and not allow ourselves to be victimized, and d. not cry sexism and play victims when we are not. In regard to d. Xael was right. The sign's intent was not to disparage women, but that's what this woman has made it out to be. Who can respect a nut job like that?
Xeal
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Promoting the subtle bias that women aren't suited to construction jobs... that's an interesting choice of words. First of all, man or woman, anyone looking around for a construction job is unlikely to be put off by a "subtle bias" assuming it even exists. Sweat, blood and muscle is unlikely to be deterred by a Men Working sign.

Imagine for a moment a tough woman who likes working with her hands. She doesn't want a cushy office job answering telephones all day, she wants to get her hands dirty. Maybe she was raised on a farm, maybe her father built houses for a living, who knows, but no matter her origins she is determined to make a living for herself in construction. Her work makes her strong, as the hot midday sun above gives her face a solid tan and her deodorant a real test of endurance. She puts up with the mildly insensitive remarks some of her obtrusive male coworkers sling at her and each other. Male camaraderie is a mysterious thing sometimes, but she's learned to put up with it. After work she heads to the bar with the guys and downs a cold one before climbing into the cab of her pickup truck. As she's driving down the road on her way home, she sees a men working sign.

Is this the kind of woman who will burst into tears at the sexist establishment? Or will she just laugh and think to herself "yeah right, like those lazy asses ever work."

I don't say that the signs shouldn't be phased out as they wear out. Sure. When some drunken moron takes out one of the signs.. replace it with a Construction Workers Ahead, or whatever other term is appropriate. Don't waste resources repainting and replacing all of the signs just because someone got a call from a feminist, however.

And though that was an excellent attempt at baiting with the male/female remark, I'm afraid it doesn't quite reason out that way. Remember that one can come to a particular phrase through any number of methods of reasoning, which don't necessarily have to match yours. One can think "These signs were always Men Working before. Why change them?" Or perhaps someone reasoned "Men working... yeah, men in the generic human sense. Okay, that's fine." Or maybe no one really noticed, because no one was offended or discriminated against. I imagine if the local construction companies and municipal government were really discriminating against women, that sign would become a rallying cry. Instead no one cares except the feminists.

The point is that a sexist reason is not required in order to make such a sign, and one cannot expect everyone, especially those without a literary bent, to anticipate the myriad of ways a sign could offend someone or be misinterpreted. Thus we should stick to the obvious intended meaning, instead of trying to word-chop it to death looking for the hidden, super-secret, mostly likely non-existent, subtle-bias.
ted
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Holy cow - wait, should I say "holy bull"?

Hmmmm.... Holy Cattle!

What a warped view of the world some people have. Men are cruel rapists.

What I don't get is, if there is such disparity in pay, why am I not being paid more than my female co-workers? Am I just not standing in the right line when the paychecks come out?
c-dub
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:43 pm
@Evilbeagle:

"Language, again, doesn’t change an attitude in an individual." That is a demonstrably false statement. It simply isn’t true, no matter how many times you say it. Spend a little time reading about the work of Benjamin Whorf (and the very recent studies that have supported it) or just Google the term "linguistic determinism."

"Making an issue of the little things when there are bigger things to do is really almost cowardly." Absurd. According to that logic, we should disregard every opportunity for progress in the world until we've all agreed on The One Most Important Issue and solved that. Don't feed the hungry kid standing in front of you if there's a hungrier kid halfway around the world. Don't mend any broken bones until cancer is cured. Don't even pick up that piece of litter, because there's probably a bigger one somewhere.

"Perhaps if people worried about the immediate things in their lives, they would be better off." Oof. That one takes the cake. I hardly think a more self-obsessed society is an ideal. That, and this contention that offensive behavior only warrants your attention when it's directed at you specifically, speak volumes about your narcissistic character -- and make it possible for me to comfortably disregard every other thing you have to say. Thanks for the debate.

@Xeal:

I'm sure this fictional character you've invented for yourself would be undeterred by a "Men Working" sign, yes, but your eloquent little fantasy doesn't compete with the reality that the women who worked for Atlanta Public Works complained about the signs years ago. And my male/female comment wasn't baiting: you claimed that the less-educated can't be expected to understand the nuance of language, but how much nuance is there, really, in big orange sign that refers to women as men?

The bulk of your argument is based on an obvious confusion of "intent" and "effect." Here's an analogy to illustrate my point: say it's New Year's Eve, and I don't have any fireworks, so I decide to celebrate by shooting my gun into the air. Unfortunately, one of the bullets comes down in a neighbor's yard and hits his dog. Someone yells out, "Hey c-dub! You just shot your neighbor's dog!" Do I say, "No I didn't! I'm not shooting dogs! I'm celebrating!" and keep firing away? Or do I STOP PULLING THE TRIGGER and go help the dog? I certainly didn't set out to shoot the dog, but that doesn't mean the dog wasn't shot.

Likewise, the people who made, purchased and used the old road signs didn't set out to promulgate a bias, but that doesn't mean that wasn't the effect. The intent, in either case, is simply not germane to the immediate remedy. It doesn't make a difference.
Lenore
July 24th, 2008 at 12:07 am
@Evilbeagle

Apparently you can't read, because that's what I said. Let me outline this for you.

Language reflects changes in society.
I used the example of "the n-word".
As society's attitude changes, the use of the word changes.
So, as society's attitude about Blacks changed, the use of that word changed.
As the use of the word changes, society continues to change.
Because people used terms like "Black" and "African American", and told others (namely, their children) that it was disrespectful to use the n-word, people thought "Hmm... Blacks are people deserving respect".
This continued change is due, in part, to the changed meaning of the word.
Those kids, or people who were influenced by the changed word meaning, now have used that perception in society.

Oh... and what exactly have I done that's rabid? I've responded to people who responded to me. That's pretty much what a discussion is.
kickinkirby
July 24th, 2008 at 12:23 am
ted, maybe you just suck at your job.
Evilbeagle
July 24th, 2008 at 2:18 am
I'm illiterate and narcissistic according to c-dub and Lenore, so maybe I shouldn't even answer.

@c-dub The idea behind tackling big issues, Drama Boy, is that if you are piddling around with the little things, and not dealing with the big ones, you are not getting anything done. That's what's wrong with people like you and some of these "movements". If they do too much, they lose relevance. If they twiddle their thumbs long enough, someone else might get it done for them. So why not whine about the meaningless things in the meantime? You sure like to take everything out of context, don't you?

Secondly, if it's narcissistic to look out for my own before I worry about anyone else, then so be it. I'm sure that you aren't such a bleeding heart that you wouldn't put yourself first in most issues. You examples of the starving kid were so far fetched and out of context with what was being said that I am sure now that you are just trying to bait people here. Yes, I am more concerned with what affects me and my family and friends first. They are the people that matter most in my life. Get off your high horse because unless you are the next incarnation of Mother Teresa, you are just pointing fingers in order to be dramatic.

@Lenore If that's not what you were saying all along, why have you bothered arguing the issue? I think I have made my points very clear all along. If we agree, then why is it that we are discussing it? I have said all along that language itself does not change attitudes. Perhaps you can't read, but no, let me go drool and be illiterate in the corner. Furthermore, you've called me stupid already. I thought that a debate, even while heated, wasn't supposed to be about name calling. But maybe I'm not supposed to know about that. See, I can't read.
ted
July 24th, 2008 at 7:02 am
Good one, kickinkirby. I probably do, but that shouldn't matter - I'm a man.
tripleX
July 24th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Just place 'Workers Ahead' signs and be proud that your country treats men and women as equals, and sell the 'Men Working' signs to countries where only men work at the roads, not women, or sell it to gay bars, they love pink signs.

The sooner men and women are treated really equal, the sooner there will be no more fanatical feminists and whining anti-feminists.
c-dub
July 24th, 2008 at 8:50 am
@Evilbeagle:

"If you are piddling around with the little things, and not dealing with the big ones, you are not getting anything done." That's another obvious – and I mean seriously obvious – false statement. You are getting things done, but little things – and many little things equal big things. There is clear value in incremental progress. And I do like taking things out of context, yes, because it's a very simple way of exposing feeble logic. You invoked African Americans and the mentally challenged in your first response to my comments, and you've expressed many of your points in the context of your own life, so your complaint rings more than a little hollow.

I won't tell you that I don't care more about myself and the people in my life than I do about strangers, because I do. You're right, that's human nature. But I would never suggest that society would be better off if we were all even more self-centered. As for high horses, I think your attempts to define the causes that are worthy of other people's attention puts you right up there.

At this point, you're pushing your argument in opposing, contradictory directions. You suggest that everyone focus on themselves and the specific problems in their own lives, while simultaneously suggesting everyone ignore those specific problems if there are larger ones that remain. The former is antisocial, and the latter is absurd. If a mosquito lands on your arm, it's perfectly reasonable to swat the mosquito – no one expects you to build and fund a laboratory to study the problem of mosquitoes. Some people will go to that length, which is great, but it's absurd to expect it from everyone.

But since you don't like my analogies, I'll express the same idea in context. Women who work in the Public Works department filed a complaint about the signs years ago, apparently to no avail. Those women were looking out for themselves and taking action in their own lives, so you must think that's good, right? Oh no, wait, you must think that's bad, because they didn't address the fundamental source of discrimination! The problem, Evilbeagle, is that there is no fundamental source of discrimination, and the dragon you mentioned earlier doesn't have a head – it has thousands. Now it has one less. We should all be glad.
Evilbeagle
July 24th, 2008 at 10:10 am
@c-dub Sorry I was busy looking at myself in the mirror to determine my good side.

Your analogies, with all due respect, suck.

First of all, you are taking things out of context not to expose anything, but to twist them around for the sake of being contrary. First of all, would you kill a chicken for dinner with a Spork or an axe? The Spork is useless and is only going to annoy the chicken and everyone else waiting for dinner. That's what this sign issue is. If you are going to take up a cause, you go big or don't go at all. Otherwise, you are making excuses for failure when the Spork doesn't work.

Secondly, I am far from anti social, and I have no desire or concern if you believe that or not. My point there is that a person is an individual first, then a man, woman, transsexual, whatever. You do things for yourself, stand up for yourself, and don't play the victim, as well as treat others fairly, then you will get respect from all those that you want it from. I don't need to hide behind a bunch of BS "You're discriminating because the ladies' toilet is two feet further away!!!!" or whatever. If a person wants to perceive sexism around every corner, it will be there, but a lot of the time, it isn't. It's like the woman that wrongfully accuses someone of rape. She screws it up for other women when they really do get raped because then there is a general mistrust. Well, in this case, the problem lies in the fact that if every, little, tiny, miniscule thing that isn't even intended to discriminate, is made a big deal out of, then no one will care about the bigger issues. So you look out for yourself and avoid the hens that want to cluck about things that don't matter. A mosquito is a mosquito. Talk to me when you are attacked by a real dragon.

If those women filed a complaint (and I haven't checked out your information because quite frankly, I just got back from a 7 mile walk and I am not in the mood), then they didn't complain loudly enough, did they? So why should anyone take up their "battle" if they can't fight it themselves? After all, no one is raping, circumcising them or not allowing them to make an honest living are they? Most of us don't care about the signs. You know what i care about? The fact that my family in the States is suffering with a poor economy. So wasting money to pacify a bunch of man haters s not a priority.
c-dub
July 24th, 2008 at 11:32 am
"If you are going to take up a cause, you go big or don’t go at all." This is garbage notion, Evilbeagle, and the more insistent you are in promoting it, the more absurd your argument becomes. It doesn't make sense theoretically, and it doesn't make sense practically. We correct wrongs when we see them, where we see them, big and small. That is how progress is made on a thousand fronts, every day, around the world. We can't afford to let the small things slide until all the big ones are resolved. I guarantee that you apply that very logic to your own life a dozen times a day. We all do.

Describe how my analogies are inaccurate, rather than just claiming they “suck,” and I’ll listen. I suspect, though, that the reason you find them so distasteful is that they quickly reveal the fundamental flaws in your logic. In any case, your complaints are obviously hollow: I tell analogies about hunger and litter, and you tell analogies about toilets and chickens and dragons and rape. You spend a little too much time criticizing the same constructs you use yourself for me to take that seriously.

"Checking out my information" means reading the article, just FYI. People take up battles for others all the time, because they recognize that weak does not equal wrong. And it's very telling that you haven't once mentioned the women who work in Public Works, in all the hundreds of words you've written here. You've been too busy demonizing "radical feminists" and jabbering about yourself to consider the people who are actually involved in the issue. You almost got beat up in a parking lot once, so now you've got some crazy chip on your shoulder that prevents you from seeing the simple, fundamental issue at hand with any sort of clarity. It's a sign that refers to women as men, Evilbeagle. That is sexist. Sexism is wrong, and the sign should be changed. You can describe it in whatever convoluted terms you care to, but that's the issue at hand.
Evilbeagle
July 24th, 2008 at 11:55 am
When those little things mean nothing, like this sign, c-dub, it's not helping anything. So why do something for a false sense of victory/accomplishment? Do something meaningful. I'm not saying small in and of itself is crap, but when it's so small that it isn't going to make a scrap of difference, then it is useless. Like this sign. If someone wants to call me a man, they are welcome to if it means that no one is going to run me over while I am working out there. Again, why not wait until the signs were worn out? It's not that big a deal. Oh no, instead, some whack job decides that they have to go RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE OH MY GOD IT'S SO SEXIST AND WRONG. CAN'T YOU SEE THEY HAVE BOOBS? THOSE POOR OPPRESSED WOMEN CAN'T STAND UP FOR THEMSELVES AND DEMAND EQUAL TREATMENT!!!! OH THE HUMANITY!! Give me a break. Those women do a great job, their co-workers and superiors know it, or they wouldn't be on that road crew at all. They don't need saving, and if they didn't get what they wanted they didn't want it bad enough when they tried to get it. They can bite me.

And this is about radical feminism, because that's what it is. Radical feminism isn't useless because three of them wanted to beat me up. It's useless because the attitude of those radical feminists, which is ultimately creating hatred and division, is driving these stupid little things like the sign issue. I don't have a chip on my shoulder, but if it makes you feel better to think I do, go for it. But that is a prime example of that sort of attitude. I've said it already, I am all for a gender neutral sign if it means so much, but don't waste the money on it until the other signs are unusable. There are better things to spend taxpayers' money on.

Weak does not equal wrong, but acting weak does. We aren't weak as women. We have laws to protect us against discrimination, we have more respect from men than we've ever had, and we are individuals who have the power to make our own way. But as long as women keep acting like victims, seeing discrimination where it doesn't exist, rather than tackling issues where it does, they will never have my support. I've done fine without them. So have a lot of other women in the modern age. And if you think we have to have some crutch in order to be strong, or whine about stupid signs for recognition, then you are sexist yourself.
Lenore
July 24th, 2008 at 11:57 am
@Evilbeagle (by the way, caps don't mean yelling or anger, they mean emphasis. No italics in the comments section)

I replied because I started with this:

"That’s language reflecting a change in culture and helping to facilitate it."

Now, in case you haven't noticed, this is EXACTLY what I said in my last post. Language REFLECTS change in culture and helps FACILITATE it.

"I mean, the fact that these PC terms have even become the norm show that language reflects societal change on a fundamental level, and helps to facilitate that change in the real, everyday world."

See? language REFLECTS societal change, and helps FACILITATE that change in the real world. I'm not saying "Language is the cause of change." I'm saying attitude, combined with changing language, is the cause of continued change. The changing attitudes about minorities, partnered with using terms that express humanity to describe them, is the cause of a change in how people are treated.

And you responded with:

"I have to disagree. The use of language has not affected the way people are treated."

So, I continued this discussion with you. Because you said you disagreed. You say that society and attitude change influences language. I do, too. The only thing I've said that you haven't is that language use, in turn, helps to change or shape other people's way of thinking (whether they're conscious of it or not).

As for calling you stupid, I don't remember doing that- would you mind pointing it out? I've called one of your statements the stupidest thing I've ever read, but not you, to my knowledge. I also never said you were illiterate, that was sarcastic. Because you posted almost exactly what I've been saying this whole time (to which, you stated, you disagree), I thought "Well, this is ridiculous." See, I know sarcasm specifically doesn't transfer to the internet, but when you're debating with someone through text, it's pretty apparent that they're literate.
Evilbeagle
July 24th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
@Lenore Fact is, on that statement, I only really half agree. So that's where the disagreement lies... in facilitation, and I missed that, so I apologize.

In calling my statement stupid, the implication was that I am stupid for making it. The tone of the post spoke volumes. So that's how I took it. If that's not what you meant, cool.

Sarcasm doesn't translate well because my own response was riddled with sarcasm. And quite frankly, after responding to someone like c-dub, who accuses everyone of being this or that without even knowing what the high road is, then it all flowed out that way.
Evilbeagle
July 24th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
As for the caps, they were not meant to necessarily describe yelling, just mere hysteria that would have worked better with italics.
Lenore
July 24th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
@Evilbeagle

Ok. Now we both see what's going on. Fantastic. I don't understand how emphasis=hysteria, but ok... that works. Also, I got most of your sarcasm.

I think people, no matter how smart, can make stupid statements. So, yeah... just putting that out there.

And I gotta say, this:

"But as long as women keep acting like victims, seeing discrimination where it doesn’t exist, rather than tackling issues where it does, they will never have my support. I’ve done fine without them. So have a lot of other women in the modern age. And if you think we have to have some crutch in order to be strong, or whine about stupid signs for recognition, then you are sexist yourself."

(I'm Not calling c-dub sexist)

has to be one of the best-written comments here. While I think that the sign issue should have been handled years ago, when the signs were re-made, I do think that this is more important than you deem it, but that's not what I'm getting at, so let me get to my point real quick.

This statement, especially without the sign argument, just as a general rule, is exactly what I believe. It could be more effectively applied to the Duke rape case a few years ago. Good job on it.
Evilbeagle
July 24th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
@Lenore. Thanks. And I know what you mean about the "stupid" comment. At the time, it didn't come off as smart person says stupid thing. It's cool.

And thanks again for recognizing what I have been trying to put across.
Xeal
July 24th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
C-dub: Unfortunately the argument of shooting a gun up in the air is not really directly comparable to the sign. A gun is, of course, a device that anyone not suffering from mental illness can easily understand as dangerous. There's innocent misunderstanding or overlooking potential problems.. and then there's blatant ignorance. The sign falls under the former category while firing a gun up in the air falls under the latter. I should think the distinction would be obvious to you. And you can hammer away at the whole male/female argument, but you're really reading too much into it. The point is that a person can commit an innocent oversight such as the sign without being biased, because they do not consider all of the political correctness issues that may stem from their remarks. Especially when people are so quick to take offense. The point is also that although word-choice is still important, we must give weight to the speaker's true intent and meaning. In other words a simple "well you could have worded that better" would suffice, instead of "how could you be so sexist?"

I don't argue that intent completely negates everything, that would be a ridiculous absolutist position. Obviously we must draw a line somewhere and realize there are boundaries, even to innocent verbiage. The difference between our respective opinions is thus the location of said boundary. Men working doesn't cross the sexist boundary in my humble opinion simply because it doesn't represent any kind of systematic bias against women. The article states that half of the public works department is now female. That's very impressive when you think about it -- obviously the Men Working sign is no deterrent to them or their continued employment. Thus no real sexism is present and it once again becomes an argument of semantics.

Once again this isn't to say the signs shouldn't be replaced in the natural course of things. Changing them all at once because a Feminist magazine called, however, is simply a knee-jerk reactionary response. There is no need to waste resources on something that is not causing a real problem. In other words, a simple statement that the signs will be replaced with better verbiage as they wear out would have assuaged my concern on the matter. I wager most women would have been perfectly content with that response too. Perhaps even a few feminists could have been thusly satisfied, although I won't put too much weight behind that.

Basically, my beef is with reactionary behavior and blowing issues out of proportion, not with general progress. It's a sign. It's not going to hurt you or anyone else. Don't worry about it so much. I'd worry more that the sign fulfills it's function of warning motorists that workers are ahead. If it doesn't do that, then there's more of a problem. It's not like a motorist will see a woman garbed in reflective road gear and think "well she doesn't count, let's run her over!"
c-dub
July 24th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
@Evilbeagle:

“If someone wants to call me a man, they are welcome to.” That’s great for you, but it’s wildly unfair of you to ask that of other women -- women who have already made it clear that they don’t want to be referred to as men. Again, what YOU want as an individual is just not the point. It seems very, very hard for you to understand that you, personally, are neither the subject of the article nor the center of the issue.

“If they didn’t get what they wanted they didn’t want it bad enough when they tried to get it.” That’s all it takes to overcome discrimination? The desire for it to be gone? Have you ever read a newspaper or a history book? If you think you’ve done fine without anyone else fighting for your rights as a woman, then I’ll say again: you don’t know how you got where you are. You might disagree with this sign change, but it was exactly this kind of issue, and thousands more – many bigger but some just as small – that had to be overcome for you to have the rights you have. I know you’d love to take full credit for your position in the world, but you can’t. Another bubble burst, I’m afraid.

And finally, you can contend that the change was a knee-jerk reaction to an assault by a radical feminist, but the article doesn’t bear that out. The Public Works Commissioner said, “We hadn't really thought about it before. I said, let's do it.” The union rep said, “It is a little bit biased to say 'Men Working.’ Women are working, too.” Those are both perfectly measured and reasonable responses, and hardly sound like comments made under duress from an oppressive feminist agenda. You have gone so far out of your way to construct a mythology of evil feminism around this story that it borders on hysteria.

@Xeal:

Oh, for cripes sake, Xeal. If you’re going to argue your point based on the differences between guns and signs, I’m done. The analogy was simply meant to illustrate that the effect of our actions can be far different from their intent. If the one thing you take away from that is that guns aren’t the same things as signs, well, there’s really no point in continuing our debate. We both knew that already.

I’m not claiming that the person who made the sign was sexist, nor am I claiming that the sign a represents a “systematic” bias against women. When addressing the immediate remedy, it simply doesn’t matter if the bias is intentional or not: you actually DON’T have to consider the speaker’s true intent when deciding whether or not to correct it. Nor does it matter that the signs are still effective at getting people to slow down! You don’t pardon a prejudiced statement just because it accomplishes its professed intent.

You would have been happy had they just released a statement that said they’d replace the signs as needed. Me too, frankly. But I’m not going to get bent out of shape that a city the size of Atlanta is making such a minuscule change, particularly when it sends the entirely admirable message that they won’t tolerate sexual bias in their workplace, not even temporarily. Good for them.
Tim Giachetti
July 24th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Are you kids done now? No?

Hrumph. A lot of great statements were made, and a few really ignorant ones too.
At the end of the day, no one wins with this. Again, make a dif by going after the root of this evil.
Yes.
C-nub is the type behind this attitude of "every little thing helps".

Chiming in with totally baseless comments that aren't designed to make any other point than how ignorant we all are for speaking out.
Good job c-nub, you single handedly set back individual thought by 50 years.

Cheers douche bag.
Evilbeagle
July 24th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
@c-dub Obviously you are simply trying to be nasty toward me, because you are twisting everything I say to fit your perception of me. I think we covered earlier that I realize what it's taken for me to have the rights I have today several posts back. Your not worth my repeating myself because you obviously aren't paying attention. I also think that you're just really wearing out the "it's all about you" crap because I know that it isn't. I have drawn on my personal experiences simply to illustrate that it is possible to get what you want if you work hard enough for it, even if you are a woman. There are a million women out there far more successful than I am who have worked harder and made it in a "man's world", and they've done it without hiding behind this radical feminist agenda that likes being offended by everything they see whether it's merited or not. That's not striving for change, it's a desperate attempt to remain relevant in a world that doesn't need the radical agenda any more. I'm not saying sexism is eradicated or that it's a perfect world, but this is desperate and unworthy of a real woman's concern when there are real issues out there for the woman that feels like taking them on. I would like to think that women are above the pettiness and feigned victimization that this stinks of.

Furthermore, I don't care who said it, and I don't care how easy the signs were to change. They are a waste because there are still plenty of usable signs that could have remained in use until they were ready for replacement. Someone outside of Public Works whined, they figured why not, and wasted the money and resources to get it done. And that's the bottom line. It's waste, and so have the last ten minutes I have wasted responding to your drivel.
Evilbeagle
July 24th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
@c-dub I like how you say i make everything about me, but you're doing a great job of it for me, aren't you?
Tim Giachetti
July 24th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
WTF??? Not a perfect world?

Now my panties are in a total wad. thanx alot.
Evilbeagle
July 24th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Awwww, Tim. Sorry I ruined your panties. I guess I shouldn't tell you about Santa Claus either.
c-dub
July 24th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
@Tim Giachetti:

Well, that’s rich: a guy who has trouble writing a comment that doesn’t include a mindless insult claims that I set thought back 50 years.

No one is ignorant for speaking out, but some people certainly show their ignorance as soon as their fingers hit the keyboard. You want to weigh in on my position, really? Then go ahead and demonstrate how any one point I’ve made is baseless. Be my guest. Back up any of your accusations with just a tiny bit of reasoned thought and explanation, and I might not be quite so critical.
c-dub
July 24th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
@Evilbeagle:

I am being harsh with you, yes, because the position you’ve presented here is pretty appalling – and I don’t even necessarily mean your position on the sign. The article obviously pushed one of your buttons; so be it. Maybe a therapist could get to the bottom of that hysterical quagmire, but I can’t.

What actually appalls me is this:

That you suggest we place more importance on ourselves rather than others. That you deem offensive behavior to be offensive only when it’s directed at you. That you consider the weak undeserving of help by dint of their weakness. That you have so little appreciation for people who struggled for rights you enjoy. That when confronted with people working for small changes in their own lives, your first concern is how their gain might harm you. (And before you start complaining again that I’m twisting what you say, I’ll offer to footnote this list using quotes lifted directly from your comments, in full context.)

Now I actually have gone and made this about you, you’re right – but if I were to respond to the actual content of your comments, I didn’t really have a choice.
Tim Giachetti
July 24th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
I'll say it again for you c-nub,

Chiming in with totally baseless comments that aren’t designed to make any other point than how ignorant we all are for speaking out.
Tim Giachetti
July 24th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
And for a guy who wants to make a change to eraqse the line between the sexes you sure have been trying really hard to show how big your MANhood is.

Stop trying to see who has a bigger penis. At this rate the ladies are showing their is bigger. Buh bye, thank you for flying wedontgiveafuck airways.
c-dub
July 24th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
You’re like an infant trying to participate in an adult conversation, Tim. No matter how hard you try to make the words, it still comes out as gurgles and vomit.
Evilbeagle
July 25th, 2008 at 1:12 am
@Tim Notice how c-dub likes to deflect from the actual debate by attempting to tear down a person's character and pretending he's somehow morally superior? Yeah, he's the type that on a jury, would be against convicting a rapist because the victim wore a short skirt. And that is why he is not worthy of my attention at this point.
bloomduck
July 25th, 2008 at 1:52 am
Holy cow! This comments section may have set records for both length and spite.

I'm no fan of C-Dub's attitude, 'Beagle, but you've probably made it too easy for him to criticize you. If that little list of his wasn't kind, it was pretty accurate. Maybe things get lost in the translation, I dunno, but to be honest, a lot of your comments made me cringe. Yikes. Kinda sad.

And it probably doesn't help that you're commiserating with Tim G. about unwarranted personal attacks: he's the worst of the bunch in that regard, far worse that C-Dub. But whatever. I don't know you, and you don't care what strangers think, so lah-dee-dah.
Evilbeagle
July 25th, 2008 at 2:07 am
bloomduck, a lot gets lost in translation when a person cherry picks and reads too much into certain things. Think what you like of me, but my opinion on the actual matter stands as is and is nothing I am ashamed of. As for Tim G, as I told c-dub, he has never disrespected me personally, so just because so and so holds a grudge against him, or anyone else here for that matter, doesn't mean I have to follow suit.

However, the cherry picking and deflecting from the real debate has gotten to a point where responding to c-dub is like talking to a child that covers his ears and singsongs "lalalala". No one has to agree with me, nor would I hold something against a person who does, but no one needs to devote entire posts to blown up perceptions about me either. Perhaps certain things don't translate well, but quite frankly, that's not my problem given that I come here for a simple diversion and friendly debate. Before I stoop much further in responding to him than I already have, I have decided that he doesn't merit my responses, and thus, this will be the last post I make in this particular section.
Evilbeagle
July 25th, 2008 at 2:08 am
edit - "nor would I hold something against a person who does disagree..."
bloomduck
July 25th, 2008 at 2:50 am
Yeah, I know what you mean. But I totally get C-Dub's point about you being pally with Tim. It's like you think it's okay if someone is mean and vulgar to other people, as long as they're nice to you. That's kind of... gross.
ted
July 25th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Wow, thought I'd stop by, and I see this is still going.

And don't forget, bloomduck, "holy cow" is a sexist term. It limits holiness only to those cattle of a particular gender.

As well, it implies a faith-based system that may be offensive to atheists.

A more suitable exclamation would be "Extraordinary cattle!"

It is non-gender-specific and does not carry any religious connotations.

Of course, other animals may feel left out, so please refrain from using the phrase exclusively.
Evilbeagle
July 25th, 2008 at 9:26 am
I wasn't going to even check back here, and likely won't after this post, but I have to say this, bloomduck.

Tim, insofar as I know, is not drinking the blood of virgins, stepping on puppies, or running down old ladies with his car. If I knew he were, then I would not be nice to him. However, there are plenty of people on here who have been far more insulting without the use of the vulgarities. I am not offended by vulgar language, and like everyone else, he has the right to express his opinion, whether he does so eloquently or not. So, if it's gross to be nice to someone who is nice to you, and whose only known issue is being mean to others on an internet forum, then I'm gross. So are a lot of people.

Now...for real...last post on this section.
Xeal
July 25th, 2008 at 9:54 am
C-dub: I don't see this as some kind of grand, admirable message. That's the difference between how you and I see this issue. You would have been satisfied with a statement of replacing the signs as needed, as would I and most other people. This is good and well.

Once again the problem here is the reactionary response and elevation of this issue into something larger than it needed to be. Atlanta isn't sending some grand admirable message that sexism isn't tolerated -- any idiot with a brain can see said sexism doesn't exist if so many Public Works employees are women. The sexism is has already been eliminated, all that remains to be changed is some poorly chosen verbiage that isn't doing anyone any real harm. There's no reason to make this any kind of immediate priority. Simply putting it on the "to be replaced as they age" list would have been more than sufficient.

My problem here is that everything has to be treated as a sex, race or orientation issue. Society, far from it's earlier days as a bigoted thing, has gone too far the other way. We are overly sensitive now, and reality has to be somewhere in the middle.

The reason I had a beef with your gun analogy is simple. There is a big difference between an innocent mistake (sign) and willful ignorance (gun). I also wanted to demonstrate another point, and you illustrated it well for me. You didn't like me micro-analyzing your analogy and taking a meaning from it other than the one you intended. I wanted to show how easy it is to do this, and how frustrating it can be for the speaker. Anyone can intentionally ignore, misunderstand or take offense with just about anything, and at some point we have to draw a line and just say "come on... this is just silly now." You said it yourself, "for cripes sake." This is about how I feel about the sign replacement. In fact, those may have been my exact words.

So I don't glorify Atlanta for their decision. Instead I find that they are reactionary, and undoubtedly feminist groups will find more cases of "subtle bias" which the local government will find necessary to change. I don't like the precedent this sets, and while the signs and the $1000 spent don't mean much by themselves (excepting that the money could have gone to things much more useful)... it does signify a disturbing potential for a trend. That trend being that any feminist group that has a beef can call up the local government and make them change things immediately for silly reasons. Now I could be wrong there, and this could wind up being the only incident of this, but I still don't like encouraging that view. I'd rather those feminists go sink their teeth into some of the major problems out there, important causes I wholly support.
c-dub
July 25th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
@Evilbeagle:

Sometimes personal attacks are distractions, and sometimes they’re deserved (and accurate) criticisms. Anyone taking the trouble to wade through our exchange can decide which category my latest comments fall under. Thanks for the debate.

@Xeal:

Your concern about feminist groups exerting their will over local government ignores the fact that employees of the local government wanted the change long before the feminist publisher arrived on the scene. You object more to the feminist ideology than you do to the actual change to the signs – so the problem isn’t so much that they’re changing the signs, it’s that the change was promoted by someone with an ideology you don’t like. Again and again, you’re ignoring the women who were directly affected by the signs, and I think that’s dismissive and inappropriate.

And there actually is no difference between an innocent mistake and willful ignorance, in the sense that either can result in a biased expression. So while I appreciate your “nuance of meaning” argument, it just doesn’t hold water. They’re big orange signs that refer to women as men. There's no nuance there. If that offends the very women using the signs, I won’t tell them their wrong: it is clear sexism, albeit a minor form. Of course sexism is often far, far more harmful, absolutely, yes. In the larger context, this is a tiny thing – but so is the remedy. If you want to start scrutinizing the budgets of public works departments, knock yourself out; I’m quite sure you’ll find more egregious waste than a department painting over some old signs to show respect to half their workforce.
c-dub
July 25th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Oof, sorry for the bad grammar.
Xeal
July 25th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
C-dub: Do I object to feminist ideology? The answer to that is no, if we are referring to the general principle that women should not be held back, should be paid the same for the same work or not barred from privileges and rights accorded to men.

However that same question can be answered yes, I do object, if it is referring to over-inflating the importance of minor issues, getting angry when a man holds open a door for a woman out of common courtesy (which is likewise accorded to men), deliberately misinterpreting statements to be sexist, the extremist "all men are pigs" belief and other such ridiculous absolutist positions that some feminists subscribe to. Yes that's a run-on sentence, but it should serve to delineate where I draw the line.

Certainly if there was serious complaint about the signs earlier, it would have been wise to state that the signs would be replaced as they aged and left it at that, and if your statement is true, I would fault the government for that error (that still doesn't mean resources need to be wasted, however). And I don't necessarily fault the feminists for calling about the sign either. I think you misunderstand where my frustration is directed. My beef is less with the feminists for acting like, well, feminists.... and more with the local government for the knee-jerk response and the type of behavior that encourages from said feminists.

That isn't to say I don't think many feminists are prone to overreacting and deliberate misunderstanding -- I've indicated that enough times in my arguments to make that position clear. And if you read PINK magazine's statements on the matter I think you might find that attitude to be overreaching. They are "going national" with the issue and saying, as the article states, that they will not allow subtle discrimination like this. It's almost like a little crusade against road construction signs. That is what I find silly. That's why I don't this precedent, not necessarily because I don't subscribe to their ideology. Everyone has a right to complain. That doesn't mean the government should make knee-jerk decisions on a whim, however.

In short... this entire thing could have been a lot less sensationalist and handled in a quiet manner without feminists shrilling about it or governments acting rashly. It is, after all, just a sign, and not a representation of systematic bias, lower paychecks, female circumcision or any number of real issues that harm women around the world every day. Handle it in a quiet manner that doesn't waste resources unnecessarily. Unless, of course, people start running over female workers and using the sign as an excuse. As far as I know, that hasn't happened yet.
c-dub
July 25th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Okay, Xeal. I think we've probably both taken this about as far as possible (whew). But I do have one last question: why do you describe the government's reaction as "knee-jerk"? Where do you get that? The Commissioner's quoted comments are very mild and measured, and I don't see any other evidence in the article that supports your assumption. Your poor opinion of the decision doesn't mean it wasn't made rashly.
c-dub
July 25th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Sheesh, I'm careless today: Your poor opinion of the decision doesn’t mean it WAS made rashly, is what I meant to say. I guess my point is that the decision may have been the subject of a good amount of thought and consideration, you don't know. Which makes me think your description of it as "knee-jerk" is nothing more than an attempt to color the argument.
Xeal
July 28th, 2008 at 8:43 am
C-dub: 'Knee-jerk' is no attempt to color the argument. Knee-jerk is basically referring to how fast the decision was reached, and the strong language the Commissioner of the Atlanta Department of Public Works used in addressing the issue. I will refer you to the following quotes:

"...to take immediate measures to phase out any gender-specific signs by crews and contractors performing work for the city," and to "integrate this requirement into the permitting process to ensure compliance by all others working in the city's right of way..."

Immediate measures? Since when does government do anything fast? Actually the commissioner wants the new signs by the the end of July... not very long after the article was published. Granted, this is a relatively minor project and probably didn't need much time or effort, even with changing all of them out right away, but this focus on pleasing the feminists immediately, as soon as they dial your number, is what disturbs me. The commissioner could have simply said "Hey, thanks for pointing that out. We'll replace them when they wear out with better ones." Simple. Effective. Eliminates the issue with a minimum of waste.

Instead it seems rather sensationalist. Yes Ma'am! We will replace them right away! Pronto! Can I kiss your feet? To be fair, this is a rather typical reaction nowadays when a special interest dials a government official, and feminists are certainly not the only ones to get such a reaction. That doesn't make it any less of a knee-jerk reaction, however. Ironically the rapid response to the issue might serve to demonstrate that in many ways, the typical response to feminism has reversed since its early days. Instead of a hateful reaction, or at the very lease a grudging indifference, people often bend over backwards to please feminists. While I don't really agree with that response either, it does serve to demonstrate just how far the country has come in defeating sexism.

At any rate you are right about one thing... We've probably taken this as far as we can. I'm on my side of the issue and you are firmly on yours, but I will say I respect your debating ability and I certainly did a good deal of thinking about the issue which, at least, isn't quite as simple as it may first appear.

PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT

Stay updated on the comments with

Comment RSS


NEATORAMA EXCLUSIVES Bent Objects: Interview with Terry Border 50 Facts About the 50 United States Furry Logic: Don't Worry by Jane Seabrook and Ashleigh Brilliant Neatorama Update - November 2009 Brainier Than The Average Bear	MENTAL_FLOSS ARTICLES Brilliant Ideas Inspired by Mundane Tasks Hail to the Thieves: Famous Heists We Love They're Alive: Real Scientific Reasons to Believe in Vampires, Werewolves, and Zombies 4 Holy Women Transformed by Cheese Go Directly to Jail: 4 Brilliantly Bungled Crimes	BATHROOM READER ARTICLES Bottom 10 Records: The Worst Albums Ever Recorded Joey Skaggs, The Ultimate Hoax Meister Peru's Pooper Scooper The Evolution of Space Food Cracking Kryptos	CLUEBERT Best Online Coupon Websites 10 Most Useful Online Tools Ever! Using Your Hand as a Ruler Unusual Uses for Ketchup The No Sacrifice Money Saving Tips For Washer and Dryer
See more Neatorama Exclusives	See more Mental_Floss articles	See more Bathroom Reader posts	See more from our online store
NEATORAMA STUFF Contact Us Privacy Policy Suggest a Link » Please use the Upcoming Queue \| FAQ \| Tips	GET NEATORAMA BY EMAIL Email: RSS \| +Technorati Favorite Show Comments	ACTIVE AUTHORS' BLOGS GeekAlerts, I met a possum, Miss Cellania, Rue the Day, Super Punch, Zeray Gazette List of Active Authors	FRIENDS Art of Manliness, Bathroom Reader, Bizarro, Dark Roasted Blend, Dornob, Gajitz, Hobotopia, mental_floss, popurls, Tokyoflash, VideoSift, What is it?, WebEcoist, WebUrbanist

- Your purchase helps support the blog - Thank you!
Road Mice Wireless Mouse	I Love Science T-Shirts \| Onesies	Science T-Shirt (Geektastic!)	Fun Ice Trays \| Kitchen Gadgets	By Artist Mike Jacobsen	Bacon Store \| Offbeat Candies