NationStates

Vassenor wrote:

Duhon wrote:
This has a lot more weight than others.

I mean, having a beef with fucking "manhole".

FUCKING.

MANHOLE.

So basically what we're saying is it's dangerous to accept that not everyone who works in the sanitation department is a man.

Vassenor wrote:

Duhon wrote:
This has a lot more weight than others.

I mean, having a beef with fucking "manhole".

FUCKING.

MANHOLE.

So basically what we're saying is it's dangerous to accept that not everyone who works in the sanitation department is a man.

Highever wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
So basically what we're saying is it's dangerous to accept that not everyone who works in the sanitation department is a man.

Pretty sure they are just showing how absurd it is to find an issue with what to call a hole leading to a sewer system but, sure, label them as a misogynist or something.

Vassenor wrote:

Highever wrote:Pretty sure they are just showing how absurd it is to find an issue with what to call a hole leading to a sewer system but, sure, label them as a misogynist or something.

Who said anything about misogyny?

Vassenor wrote:

Duhon wrote:
This has a lot more weight than others.

I mean, having a beef with fucking "manhole".

FUCKING.

MANHOLE.

So basically what we're saying is it's dangerous to accept that not everyone who works in the sanitation department is a man.

Highever wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Who said anything about misogyny?

Oh of course I forgot, you only vaguely imply things or toe the line so that you can always deny that you technically said it. Unless something else was meant by saying Duhon was saying they don't want to accept that it isn't only men who work in sanitation.

Soon, there will be no more manholes in the city of Berkeley, California. There will also be no chairmen, no manpower, no policemen or policewomen.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

Soon, there will be no more manholes in the city of Berkeley, California. There will also be no chairmen, no manpower, no policemen or policewomen.

"I was stopped and frisked by a policeman."

"I was stopped and frisked by a policewoman."

Do these statements sound the same to you?

People are not "gender neutral." Hormones plainly influence us, and it is idiotic to ignore them.

Vassenor wrote:

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:"I was stopped and frisked by a policeman."

"I was stopped and frisked by a policewoman."

Do these statements sound the same to you?

People are not "gender neutral." Hormones plainly influence us, and it is idiotic to ignore them.

Yes, actually, they do. Same as if you'd said "I was stopped and frisked by a police officer".

Wallenburg wrote:

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:Isn’t manhole a shortening of “manual access”; etymology for ‘hand’ as in the word ‘manual’?

No, it's literally just man and hole put together, because men go through the hole. Any etymology authority will tell you this. I don't know where you are getting this alt-history of the word. I certainly don't see how "access" gets shortened to "hole".

The term manhole comes from the 19th century and originally referred to a small access hole in the top or side of a boiler that was covered with a heavy metal plate bolted in place. These holes were not meant to provide access for a man to pass through, but for an arm and hand to reach the inner parts of the boiler. “Man” in this case refers not to the gender of the worker, but is from the root word that means “hand,” as in the word “manual.” Indeed, some old boiler manuals use the words “manhole” and “handhole” synonymously. Sewer manholes were probably so-called as an extension of the general term that meant “an access hole” and the gender-specific meaning followed naturally, albeit somewhat erroneously.

This is the same error one sees in the claim that terms such as “man the rudder” or “man the post” are gender-specific when in fact they simply refer to the actual holding of something with the hand (like a rudder), or are instances of synecdoche where “man,” meaning “hand,” is used to refer to a (gender-neutral) person (as in “all hands on deck.”)

Manholes, mostly found in the streets of cities, serve as access points to various underground utilities including sewers, electricity, telephone lines, gas lines and storm drains.

The Name
The term "manhole" comes from the simple idea of how the hole was used--by men who entered the hole to locate the tunneled area beneath the ground.

Other Names
A manhole may also be called an access chamber, utility hole, maintenance hole or inspection chamber.

Name Issue
According to The New York Times, leaders in Sacramento, California, decided in 1990 that the word "manhole" was sexist, and the city now refers to manholes as "maintenance holes."

The Covers
Manhole covers are noted for more than their original role as coverings for in-ground holes. Their covers often display complex, detailed patterning considered to be artwork by fans and photographers.

This is an excerpt taken from What’s in a name?—The Controversy Over “Manholes”

Duhon wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Yes, actually, they do. Same as if you'd said "I was stopped and frisked by a police officer".

There is no reason, utterly no reason, to be this suspicious of words that have no freight of bigotry in them nor were ever intended to be so freighted. I mean, "man" was used to specifically mean "any one human being" or "mankind as a whole" irrespective of differences of sex till the end of the nineteenth century, without the added freight of it meaning "all males belonging to Homo sapiens sapiens".

Vassenor wrote:

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:"I was stopped and frisked by a policeman."

"I was stopped and frisked by a policewoman."

Do these statements sound the same to you?

People are not "gender neutral." Hormones plainly influence us, and it is idiotic to ignore them.

Yes, actually, they do. Same as if you'd said "I was stopped and frisked by a police officer".

United States of Americanas wrote:So yeah, I agree with Berkeley. They’re not the government they’re not forcing people to do it, it’s encouragement to move in a direction away from our gender obsessed world.

As a private institution of higher education they have a legal right to regulate what speech is permissible on their property.

America has a problem with misogyny built into American English.

Saint Arsenio wrote:

Ifreann wrote:It is weird how you are so literal yet fail to read my post.

I'm not literal. At least in my opinion. I just don't understand how I've failed to read your post. You said I'm acting like gendered words killed someone, when nowhere in my posts have I even implied that. I've also asked you a question that you have yet to answer. I believe you're trying to divert away from it.

Ifreann wrote:

Saint Arsenio wrote:I'm not literal. At least in my opinion. I just don't understand how I've failed to read your post. You said I'm acting like gendered words killed someone, when nowhere in my posts have I even implied that. I've also asked you a question that you have yet to answer. I believe you're trying to divert away from it.

Okay, I will spell this out for you, once, but this is very tiresome.

You said "I've lost people I know because I've used "Gendered" words."

The phrase "I've lost someone" is often used to mean "Someone I know has died".

And I think it's funny to read your post as saying "People I know have died because I've used "Gendered" words."

Farnhamia wrote:

Cappuccina wrote:Then why change the words in the first place? Why change the terminology if there's no reason to do so?

It's Berkeley. Do you really think there's a conspiracy to make everyone hate men, even including men themselves?

Kowani wrote:

Cappuccina wrote:I.e, the change is ideologically motivated. Extend feminist misandry to even the most trivial corner of society.

This is what we call fearmongering, people. Learn to recognize it.

Vassenor wrote:

Cappuccina wrote:Then why change the words in the first place? Why change the terminology if there's no reason to do so?

So what harm does this change cause?

Recidivism wrote:

EastKekistan wrote:. Libs will try to "equalize" STEM by setting up strict racial quotas and trads will simply attempt to ban STEM due to the misguided belief that it is a part of liberalism or something..

No, they won't, since the use of racial quotas in college admissions was ruled unconstitutional in 1978.

Clemson University’s College of Engineering, Computing and Applied Sciences has rolled out quota goals for faculty hiring and student enrollment rates in an effort to increase racial diversity and assist other “underrepresented” groups, according to a draft proposal obtained by The College Fix.

Quotas limiting the number of male students in science may be imposed by the Education Department in 2013. The White House has promised that "new guidelines will also be issued to grant-receiving universities and colleges" spelling out "Title IX rules in the science, technology, engineering and math fields." These guidelines will likely echo existing Title IX guidelines that restrict men's percentage of intercollegiate athletes to their percentage in overall student bodies, thus reducing the overall number of intercollegiate athletes.

Recidivism wrote:

EastKekistan wrote:Haha. They are already de facto doing that through AA. Neither libs nor trads believe in meritocracy.

Affirmative action does not necessarily mean "racial quotas." Racial quotas are a form of affirmative action. Your claim that affirmative action constitutes de facto racial quotas is just ignorant, and if it were true, many universities would have been sued already.

Nor does support of affirmative action necessarily constitute a rejection of meritocracy. Merits have to be considered in context.

Vassenor wrote:

Duhon wrote:
This has a lot more weight than others.

I mean, having a beef with fucking "manhole".

FUCKING.

MANHOLE.

So basically what we're saying is it's dangerous to accept that not everyone who works in the sanitation department is a man.

Duhon wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
So basically what we're saying is it's dangerous to accept that not everyone who works in the sanitation department is a man.

And basically what I for one am saying is that words like fucking "manpower" and fucking "manhole" aren't fucking loaded terms, ready to inculcate sexism into the vulnerable like fucking linguistic stinkbombs.

I mean, look at me, I pepper almost every decent interval between fucking words with fucking variations of fucking "fuck", but does that mean I wanna fuck tonight?

Vassenor wrote:

Highever wrote:Pretty sure they are just showing how absurd it is to find an issue with what to call a hole leading to a sewer system but, sure, label them as a misogynist or something.

Who said anything about misogyny?

Vassenor wrote:So basically what we're saying is it's dangerous to accept that not everyone who works in the sanitation department is a man.

Vassenor wrote:

Highever wrote:Oh of course I forgot, you only vaguely imply things or toe the line so that you can always deny that you technically said it. Unless something else was meant by saying Duhon was saying they don't want to accept that it isn't only men who work in sanitation.

Or we're just assuming that this must be the work of those evil feminists trying to erase the mens from history.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

Soon, there will be no more manholes in the city of Berkeley, California. There will also be no chairmen, no manpower, no policemen or policewomen.

"I was stopped and frisked by a policeman."

"I was stopped and frisked by a policewoman."

Do these statements sound the same to you?

People are not "gender neutral." Hormones plainly influence us, and it is idiotic to ignore them.

Vassenor wrote:

Duhon wrote:
There is no reason, utterly no reason, to be this suspicious of words that have no freight of bigotry in them nor were ever intended to be so freighted. I mean, "man" was used to specifically mean "any one human being" or "mankind as a whole" irrespective of differences of sex till the end of the nineteenth century, without the added freight of it meaning "all males belonging to Homo sapiens sapiens".

Where is anyone claiming the word is bigoted?

Shofercia wrote:
It's a waste of money to utilize resources to reprint the manual code of those terms, to have staff members change them online, and so on. I understand that dearest Gavin Newsom believes that money magically grows on trees, but that's not really the case.

Saint Arsenio wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Okay, I will spell this out for you, once, but this is very tiresome.

You said "I've lost people I know because I've used "Gendered" words."

The phrase "I've lost someone" is often used to mean "Someone I know has died".

And I think it's funny to read your post as saying "People I know have died because I've used "Gendered" words."

It's tiresome for you because you're fighting for a point you have yet to make clear. Do you know what's funny? How, in the beginning I said "I've lost people I know because I used "Gendered Words," and you assumed they died, yet you call me the literal one. You used a key word in your second to last sentence: often.

The definition of often: frequently; many times -- Not all the time.

You may find what I said funny (which, I don't see how someone losing someone they knew is funny, but I can see we both have different sense's of humor), but personally, I find it quite funny that the majority of people on this forum understood what I meant, yet you can't understand it. It's a simple sentence, person.

Ifreann wrote:

Saint Arsenio wrote:It's tiresome for you because you're fighting for a point you have yet to make clear. Do you know what's funny? How, in the beginning I said "I've lost people I know because I used "Gendered Words," and you assumed they died, yet you call me the literal one. You used a key word in your second to last sentence: often.

The definition of often: frequently; many times -- Not all the time.

You may find what I said funny (which, I don't see how someone losing someone they knew is funny, but I can see we both have different sense's of humor), but personally, I find it quite funny that the majority of people on this forum understood what I meant, yet you can't understand it. It's a simple sentence, person.

I found it. This is where humour goes to die.

Vassenor wrote:

Duhon wrote:
There is no reason, utterly no reason, to be this suspicious of words that have no freight of bigotry in them nor were ever intended to be so freighted. I mean, "man" was used to specifically mean "any one human being" or "mankind as a whole" irrespective of differences of sex till the end of the nineteenth century, without the added freight of it meaning "all males belonging to Homo sapiens sapiens".

Where is anyone claiming the word is bigoted?

Vassenor wrote:

Duhon wrote:
This has a lot more weight than others.

I mean, having a beef with fucking "manhole".

FUCKING.

MANHOLE.

So basically what we're saying is it's dangerous to accept that not everyone who works in the sanitation department is a man.

Cappuccina wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Where is anyone claiming the word is bigoted?

You did.

Vassenor wrote:
So basically what we're saying is it's dangerous to accept that not everyone who works in the sanitation department is a man.

That's implying that the word is intended to mean that it's an access hole for men to use.

Vassenor wrote:

Cappuccina wrote:You did.



That's implying that the word is intended to mean that it's an access hole for men to use.

Did you pull something reaching that hard?