NationStates

Springfeal wrote:

Galloism wrote:Put that strawperson away.

Strawman! Perfect super villain.

Waitaminute... Scarecrow is gender neutral. They're made of straw, right?

Godular wrote:

Springfeal wrote:
Strawman! Perfect super villain.

Waitaminute... Scarecrow is gender neutral. They're made of straw, right?

Too late! I already called it!

Galloism wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
But it's totally oppressive to swap one gender-neutral term for another gender-neutral term!

Put that strawperson away.

Says the person who argued this was oppression because of appeal to worse problems and because manhole is totally a neutral term.

Galloism wrote:

Vassenor wrote:So have we actually established what makes this bad beyond it triggering rightists?

I mean, it's somewhat interesting that their city code explicitly has a Commission on the Status of Women, while having no Commission on the Status of Men, and yet they remove "manhole" references in the pursuit of gender equality.

It's somewhat amusing that they do something for equality that does nothing to further equality, while simultaneously preserving explicit inequality of representation to the council in their city code, wouldn't you agree?

https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Berkeley/

It's section 3.48

Edit:
And they, like other places, are pursuing arrests disproportionately targeting men as a gender and black people and Hispanics. But don't take my word for it.

https://data.cityofberkeley.info/Public ... /xi7q-nji6

But "manholes", a gender neutral term, in the city code. That's the bigotry they need to fix.

Vassenor wrote:

Galloism wrote:Put that strawperson away.

Says the person who argued this was oppression because of appeal to worse problems and because manhole is totally a neutral term.

Galloism wrote:I mean, it's somewhat interesting that their city code explicitly has a Commission on the Status of Women, while having no Commission on the Status of Men, and yet they remove "manhole" references in the pursuit of gender equality.

It's somewhat amusing that they do something for equality that does nothing to further equality, while simultaneously preserving explicit inequality of representation to the council in their city code, wouldn't you agree?

https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Berkeley/

It's section 3.48

Edit:
And they, like other places, are pursuing arrests disproportionately targeting men as a gender and black people and Hispanics. But don't take my word for it.

https://data.cityofberkeley.info/Public ... /xi7q-nji6

But "manholes", a gender neutral term, in the city code. That's the bigotry they need to fix.

Did I say this was oppression, or did I point out the reality that it actually does nothing to address the oppression of society based on gender in any way shape or form?

Basically, to use a random race comparison I just invented, this is like making sunscreen exempt from sales tax and declaring that now that we've addressed this longstanding issue of racism against white people, we've done a good job of addressing the racism in society today and can punch out.

I mean, I guess you can make sunscreen exempt from sales tax if you want. It's not really a big deal to me either way. But you've done nothing to address racism. You just did something that made you feel good for the moment, while ignoring all the major extant race problems in society.

Make sense?

Vassenor wrote:

Springfeal wrote:Eh, not even news worthy.

But it's totally oppressive to swap one gender-neutral term for another gender-neutral term!

Berkeley certainly doesn't seem to think terms like "manhole" are gender-neutral, lest they wouldn't be on a manhunt for words with man in them. Let's not act like this is just replacing colloquial terms with "technical" ones like you stated earlier.

Can we get an option added to the poll saying "Why are there 1200+ posts about swapping "manhole" with "maintenance hole"?"

Wallenburg wrote:Can we get an option added to the poll saying "Why are there 1200+ posts about swapping "manhole" with "maintenance hole"?"

I agree. It's a non-issue, since they're just changing the text in laws and not outright banning the words.

Okay, no, just..no.

These people seriously need a lesson in the English language. Unless used in the particular context of a singular human male, the word "man" is gender-neutral. In 1900, the word "mankind" referred to all humans, both men and women. The dictionary hasn't changed. A women, though not a man, is still a member of the race of man. Fifty years ago, when Neil Armstrong landed on the moon, and called it "One giant leap for mankind," he wasn't being chauvinistic. It simply sounded better than "humankind," a rather weak-sounding word. These people are simply trying to make an issue exist where there is no issue. In the end, it doesn't matter, as long as there are still those of us who aren't stupid enough to fall for the Orwellian Newspeak being pushed upon us.

Antityranicals wrote:These people seriously need a lesson in the English language. Unless used in the particular context of a singular human male, the word "man" is gender-neutral. In 1900, the word "mankind" referred to all humans, both men and women. The dictionary hasn't changed. A women, though not a man, is still a member of the race of man. Fifty years ago, when Neil Armstrong landed on the moon, and called it "One giant leap for mankind," he wasn't being chauvinistic. It simply sounded better than "humankind," a rather weak-sounding word. These people are simply trying to make an issue exist where there is no issue. In the end, it doesn't matter, as long as there are still those of us who aren't stupid enough to fall for the Orwellian Newspeak being pushed upon us.

“Pushed upon you” It’s a fucking maintenance code.

Kowani wrote:

Antityranicals wrote:These people seriously need a lesson in the English language. Unless used in the particular context of a singular human male, the word "man" is gender-neutral. In 1900, the word "mankind" referred to all humans, both men and women. The dictionary hasn't changed. A women, though not a man, is still a member of the race of man. Fifty years ago, when Neil Armstrong landed on the moon, and called it "One giant leap for mankind," he wasn't being chauvinistic. It simply sounded better than "humankind," a rather weak-sounding word. These people are simply trying to make an issue exist where there is no issue. In the end, it doesn't matter, as long as there are still those of us who aren't stupid enough to fall for the Orwellian Newspeak being pushed upon us.

“Pushed upon you” It’s a fucking maintenance code.

This type of activism will move past that in the future.

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:

Kowani wrote:“Pushed upon you” It’s a fucking maintenance code.

This type of activism will move past that in the future.

Clearly, the city Council of Berkley will enforce its will upon the nation.

Kowani wrote:

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:This type of activism will move past that in the future.

Clearly, the city Council of Berkley will enforce its will upon the nation.

There are activists across the nation, who push for shit like this. Berkley cannot but doesn't have to do anything to the rest of the nation.

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:

Kowani wrote:Clearly, the city Council of Berkley will enforce its will upon the nation.

There are activists across the nation, who push for shit like this. Berkley doesn't have to do anything to the rest of the nation.

And I’m sure they’ll all be listened to. It’s not like them actually getting anything done requires a certain set of circumstances.

Well it's not like "womanhole" doesn't any more pleasant.

Maybe this is America's latent Puritanism at work - remove anything remotely sexual.

Bear Stearns wrote:Well it's not like "womanhole" doesn't any more pleasant.

Maybe this is America's latent Puritanism at work - remove anything remotely sexual.

Breaking News: Berkeley reclassifies manholes as gloryholes, in recognition of the great services public sanitation does for our modern society.