> As a result of the vote on the proposed ordinance, the word “manhole” would be changed to “maintenance hole” in city documents, the news site Berkeleyside reported. “Human effort” would be substituted for the word “manpower,” and “sorority” or “fraternity” would be changed to “collegiate Greek system residence.”
Maintenance hole makes sense, but "Human effort" sounds pretty alien to me. The use of manpower make sense because of mankind. I guess under this goal mankind would become humankind. Wouldn't "human effort" make more sense then?
This is a positive thing overall, it seems like they are making an attempt to keep laws gender neutral. I think this help ease out sexist laws.
It's interesting how the word 'man' has become a gendered term. Sometimes it does mean 'male human', but it obviously does not in many cases unless you are determined to take offense and apply a wooden, literalness to it. The word cannot defend itself so becomes an easy target for those who want to virtue signal.
That transition from ungendered to gendered "man" took place in the 1600s or so [0], but is sounds like you are referring to a more recent change?
While there's certainly an ungendered use ("mankind", "man-eating tiger"), there's also a long history of gendered use ("man and wife", "man-child" meaning "boy", YMCA vs. YWCA).
That "wooden, literalness" goes both ways. I also remember reading about organizations in the 1800 refusing to accept women, in part justified because the bylaws used "man"/"he" to refer to members. [1]
Wouldn't any public act of virtue have an honest virtue signal? Or are you suggesting that the last 150+ years of decoupling language gender from human gender been dishonest somehow?
> In Old English, as in many of the Germanic languages, “man” generically meant “person” in addition to its current “male person” meaning. The OED, for instance, quotes a 15th-century sermon in which a married couple is described as “riht riche men.” Meanwhile, “wif” and “were,” as well as the compounds “wifman” (woman-person) and “waepman” (weapon-person) or, possibly, “wereman” (man-person), were equivalent to “woman” and “man,” or wife and husband. After the Middle Ages, however, the generic meaning for “man” largely dropped out. “Man” absorbed the space vacated by “were” and “waepman,” while “wifman” evolved into “woman.”
> In 1866, the YMCA's Albany, NY convention refused to seat women delegates, asserting that representation at the convention must be based on male membership.
I think we agree that those in power use language and texts to justify their position, instead of the other way around. They use it as a pretext for their activities.
I think it is fundamentally dishonest to say that 'manhole' is somehow harmful, or implies that only males can use it, or any number of other negative things.
No, this is a pure virtue signal. It attacks an easy target that cannot defend itself and makes a point because the point is to demonstrate power, not to cause any meaningful change.
While I think that some in power do as you suggest, I also think that others do not. You therefore need some other mechanism to distinguish which is well-justified and which is self-justified.
As far as I can tell, the city is making the change on the belief that it promotes equality, and not specifically because it's harmful.
Unless you believe that all inequality is harmful, I don't see how you drew your conclusion.
What would "meaningful change" look like to you? I thought Berkeley had a long history of making meaningful changes.
You appear to be using "virtue signal" in a meaningless way, akin to how the Republicans members of Congress use "socialist" and "communist" to describe anyone to their left.
Has the last 150 years of de-gendering been "pure virtual signal"? Are you going to use "authoress" and "aviatrix" because those poor words couldn't defend themselves?
6 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 21.6 ms ] threadMaintenance hole makes sense, but "Human effort" sounds pretty alien to me. The use of manpower make sense because of mankind. I guess under this goal mankind would become humankind. Wouldn't "human effort" make more sense then?
This is a positive thing overall, it seems like they are making an attempt to keep laws gender neutral. I think this help ease out sexist laws.
While there's certainly an ungendered use ("mankind", "man-eating tiger"), there's also a long history of gendered use ("man and wife", "man-child" meaning "boy", YMCA vs. YWCA).
That "wooden, literalness" goes both ways. I also remember reading about organizations in the 1800 refusing to accept women, in part justified because the bylaws used "man"/"he" to refer to members. [1]
Wouldn't any public act of virtue have an honest virtue signal? Or are you suggesting that the last 150+ years of decoupling language gender from human gender been dishonest somehow?
[0] https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2015/01/11/from-mankind-ma...
> In Old English, as in many of the Germanic languages, “man” generically meant “person” in addition to its current “male person” meaning. The OED, for instance, quotes a 15th-century sermon in which a married couple is described as “riht riche men.” Meanwhile, “wif” and “were,” as well as the compounds “wifman” (woman-person) and “waepman” (weapon-person) or, possibly, “wereman” (man-person), were equivalent to “woman” and “man,” or wife and husband. After the Middle Ages, however, the generic meaning for “man” largely dropped out. “Man” absorbed the space vacated by “were” and “waepman,” while “wifman” evolved into “woman.”
[1] https://www.dmymca.org/about-the-y/y-news/ymca-of-greater-de...
> In 1866, the YMCA's Albany, NY convention refused to seat women delegates, asserting that representation at the convention must be based on male membership.
I think it is fundamentally dishonest to say that 'manhole' is somehow harmful, or implies that only males can use it, or any number of other negative things.
No, this is a pure virtue signal. It attacks an easy target that cannot defend itself and makes a point because the point is to demonstrate power, not to cause any meaningful change.
As far as I can tell, the city is making the change on the belief that it promotes equality, and not specifically because it's harmful.
Unless you believe that all inequality is harmful, I don't see how you drew your conclusion.
What would "meaningful change" look like to you? I thought Berkeley had a long history of making meaningful changes.
You appear to be using "virtue signal" in a meaningless way, akin to how the Republicans members of Congress use "socialist" and "communist" to describe anyone to their left.
Has the last 150 years of de-gendering been "pure virtual signal"? Are you going to use "authoress" and "aviatrix" because those poor words couldn't defend themselves?