“…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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Chiming in with totally baseless comments that aren’t designed to make any other point than how ignorant we all are for speaking out.

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.

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.

Now my panties are in a total wad. thanx alot.

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.

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.

“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.

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!”

And thanks again for recognizing what I have been trying to put across.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

The sooner men and women are treated really equal, the sooner there will be no more fanatical feminists and whining anti-feminists.

@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.

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.

“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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

I don’t see how my stance on language reflecting change in society has anything to do with what you said, could you explain?

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.

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.