to want people to use more appropriate language

[SmudgeButt]

I expect a lot of people will say it's a silly thing to want. But I've just filled out a survey for Nectar/Sainsburys and was asked if I used a "manned checkout". Well actually I did - as there was a man at the till.

But is there any reason we can't move into the 21st century and use language which implies that only men work??

I'm tired of being talked to about "man hours" and other "manned" situations. I guess I'm the only one that feels excluded/overlooked/made invisible by all of this.

I'm so glad I'm not you

Bloody hell. I have no words. I dread to think what the feminism board is like if this stuff creeps on here

I've posted for several years on FWR under a variety of names and more often than not disagreeing with the "oh woe, women are so oppressed" stance. On this particular point I think the OP has a point. "Staffed" would be a better word to use and I'm surprised a supermarket is still using "manned"

It would annoy me. ‘Staffed’ is the non-sexist version.

Sorry, x-post there.

But it's been shown time and again that changing words to sex neutral terms does change , over time , how people think. thoughts and words are strongly interlinked. Try thinking without using words.

You can manipulate what people respond to questions by priming them with words beforehand. It's just standard fact.

It really feels like people here are denying what is just a fact. The use of man as a default means people will think man first.

If we use the word 'staffed' in this scenario, are you saying people will finally stop assuming supermarket checkout operators are male?
I'm not sure people do.

If we use the word 'staffed' in this scenario, are you saying people will finally stop assuming supermarket checkout operators are male?
I'm not sure people do

That isn't the point the OP was making. The point is the default use of a masculine term, even in a situation where tills are more likely to be "womanned"

The word manned is unisex whereas the rubbish truck saying men at work (whilst perhaps correct) is sexist

Interestingly, according to this article women in this field earn more than men: “it has been suggested that this is because within the waste management sector, many of the manual, generally lower paid jobs are carried out by men as collection operatives, which could bring the percentages down.”

Oh for fucks sake.

Women, or wopeople?

Man as a verb is related to the assumed sex of the person, i.e. a man. The OP is correct.

Oh give over

I play women's hockey, and I'm pretty sure there were a few shouts of man on today, we also have man of the match as well (we have a donkey too but that's irrelevant)
Wonder if I should take this up with the league

This used to annoy me when I was about 12. I remember my dad saying "what else might be included in the meaning of 'man'?" and of course I realised 'human'! I have always considered that whenever met with words like chairman, workman etc.

On the whole it's much better to be relaxed about this sort of thing, and to pick your battles. I am far more bothered by the creeping grab at 'woman' which is going on atm.

Are you the one who posted about the nativity/inn keeper's wife?

Have you nothing better to do .

@Madambee people can do and care about more than one thing at once, you know. In fact women are known for their multitasking.

But is there any reason we can't move into the 21st century and use language which implies that only men work??
I'm tired of being talked to about "man hours" and other "manned" situations.

Oh FFS lol
I can't even...

You guess you're the only one? I really hope so, not read the comments yet so about to find out lol

YANBU - I've been reading Invisable Women and it does mention specifics like this. Men are seen as the default position and therefore language, like everything else, is centred around them.

A lot of HR policies are now changed so that instead of using 'manned' it would say 'staffed'

I know it's a side issue here, but am I alone in despising the term 'human resources'? We had a long-established accurate word - 'personnel' - which clearly and simply described the body of people who work for a particular company.

For some bizarre reason, somebody influential decided that this standard term was somehow too respectful and 'humanising' and willfully decided to change it to reflect their belief that people were of no specific greater value than computers, desks, chairs etc. - considering that the word 'resources' is basically just a word meaning 'stuff that we use'.

No, it doesn't perturb and upset me greatly or stop me from getting on with my life in any way, but I do find it irritating, especially when 'HR' departments otherwise spend so much of their time trying not to deliberately or accidentally offend any of their employees.

WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll Well said! I couldn't agree more.
I always got the impression that "Personnel" was their to look after the employees but HR is basically there to look after the employer's interests.

Can anyone explain this?

egontoste