"...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.