Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Manholes are gender neutral now
Options
Comments
-
kikilarue2 wrote: »Being offended by the term manhole and being offended by the decision to update the terminology to maintenance hole are both ridiculous and snowflake-y as f**K. Anyone who has time to worry about this stuff is a lucky human being indeed.
Absolutely. The ones who are upset about the change would never see themselves as the same sort as those pushing for the changes.
The other side are ridiculous and outraged and perpetual victims etc. but WE are just pointing out... just amused... just making the observation etc.
They're two cheeks of the same arse.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »He isn't. I have encountered it on many different occasions.
Under what circumstances, as a matter of interest?
Has anyone ever accused you personally of manwhatever?0 -
kikilarue2 wrote: »Being offended bu the term manhole and being offended by the decision to update the terminology to maintenance hole are both ridiculous and snowflake-y as f**K. Anyone who has time to worry about this stuff is a lucky human being indeed.
Those are very different things. In the first case you are talking about being offended and requesting for things to be changed/removed because they offend you. In the second case you are taking about refusing for things to be changed simply because a small group is offended by them.
To say it simply: the reason the terminology was updated here is indeed that very few people found it offensive. But the reason people might protest against the change is not that they are offended by the new terminology, it is more that they are tired of small lobbying groups making this type of requests because they are offended, and have no patience for them anymore (this exemple can’t be taken in isolation is and clearly part of a trend to promote some kind of right not to be offended, which IMO is toxic as if people can’t control their emotions when they are offended and always expect the world around them to change in order to address their anger, it inevitably leads to more and more friction and intolerance in society).0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Under what circumstances, as a matter of interest?
Has anyone ever accused you personally of manwhatever?
Plenty of times.
In the beer garden of the Bernard Shaw, I was there with my ex who has staunch feminist friends. We were talking about Brass Eye, specifically the paedophile special, and one of them said it was hard to watch. I said that the point of the episode was to make it uncomfortable and to highlight the medias role in hysteria. I was accused of mansplaining and asked if I thought that because she was a woman, she couldn't understand.
During the abortion referendum, I was asked which way I was going to vote by some people while on a night out. I said I wasn't sure yet. I was told that I was a misogynist for even contemplating voting no. I explained that it was a deeper issue than that, you guessed it, that was mansplaining about a subject I had no right to even question unless I was willing to vote their way; then I would be accepted with open arms and my view would be welcome and accepted.
Plenty more examples like that.0 -
Plenty of examples here.
Really puts a damper on an evening out.
The thought and conformity police.0 -
Advertisement
-
Hunky Monster wrote: »Are they making manholes gender neutral because of all the women you see working in drainage?
This right here. All this talk about gender quotas for women workplaces that were traditionally male dominated - of course it always seems to be gender quotas for the high profile flashy desireable jobs. I don't see any feminists arguing for gender quotas in the dirty and dangerous jobs that are pretty much all done by males. i won't hold my breath for the feminists to be looking for gender quotas in the likes of hands on dirty and dangerous jobs such as sewer and wastewater plant maintenance, landfills, heavy vehicle mechanics, knackeries, rendering plants, quarrying, dredging etc.
I'm sure there are a few women working in hands on roles those sectors and fair play to them.
What I find objectionable is the double standard where the feminists only seem to want quotas in the high profile, lucrative executive jobs but conveniently ignore the dirty and dangerous hands on jobs because "oh yeah thats mans work" or whatever. What is good for the goose is good for the gander and I'm sick of hearing of the hypocrisy.
If women want to make up 50% of the CEOs on their merit then thats fine. They can also make up 50% of the people willing to make a living by going down a string of maintenance holes in the lane and verge of a windy regional road in wexford at 3am on a rainy winter night and jet washing a few tonnes of impacted sh!t, rag, fat oil and grease blocking the sewer. Any takers ladies or are ye happy for those jobs to just be left to the men?
FWIW, that work happens to be very well paid on account of the unpalatable conditions and the unsocial hours.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Plenty of times.
In the beer garden of the Bernard Shaw, I was there with my ex who has staunch feminist friends. We were talking about Brass Eye, specifically the paedophile special, and one of them said it was hard to watch. I said that the point of the episode was to make it uncomfortable and to highlight the medias role in hysteria. I was accused of mansplaining and asked if I thought that because she was a woman, she couldn't understand.
During the abortion referendum, I was asked which way I was going to vote by some people while on a night out. I said I wasn't sure yet. I was told that I was a misogynist for even contemplating voting no. I explained that it was a deeper issue than that, you guessed it, that was mansplaining about a subject I had no right to even question unless I was willing to vote their way; then I would be accepted with open arms and my view would be welcome and accepted.
Plenty more examples like that.
Fair enough. I don't know where you go to find so many radical femimists in your life. But thats your experience.
I'm not sure how I manage to discuss and explore different opinions without being accused of mansplaining. Maybe it's just luck.0 -
TheBoyConor wrote: »This right here. All this talk about gender quotas for women workplaces that were traditionally male dominated - of course it always seems to be gender quotas for the high profile flashy desireable jobs. I don't see any feminists arguing for gender quotas in the dirty and dangerous jobs that are pretty much all done by males. i won't hold my breath for the feminists to be looking for gender quotas in the likes of hands on dirty and dangerous jobs such as sewer and wastewater plant maintenance, landfills, heavy vehicle mechanics, knackeries, rendering plants, quarrying, dredging etc.
I'm sure there are a few women working in hands on roles those sectors and fair play to them.
What I find objectionable is the double standard where the feminists only seem to want quotas in the high profile, lucrative executive jobs but conveniently ignore the dirty and dangerous hands on jobs because "oh yeah thats mans work" or whatever. What is good for the goose is good for the gander and I'm sick of hearing of the hypocrisy.
If women want to make up 50% of the CEOs on their merit then thats fine. They can also make up 50% of the people willing to make a living by going down a string of maintenance holes in the lane and verge of a windy regional road in wexford at 3am on a rainy winter night and jet washing a few tonnes of impacted sh!t, rag, fat oil and grease blocking the sewer. Any takers ladies or are ye happy for those jobs to just be left to the men?
FWIW, that work happens to be very well paid on account of the unpalatable conditions and the unsocial hours.
You see theses femminists have a way of twisting everything to suit their lack of confidence and merit.
They'll probably explain they've a friend who's a vet who trudges through **** on a winter's night and have to shove their hand's up a horse's anus,then after that Wade across a river in chest waders to get to a haggard where there's a hen with a flu....
They're covering everything.
But I hear what you are saying, they're only moany aul bats looking for attention and trying to undermine the status quo...
I don't understand their logic tbh0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Fair enough. I don't know where you go to find so many radical femimists in your life. But thats your experience.
I'm not sure how I manage to discuss and explore different opinions without being accused of mansplaining. Maybe it's just luck.
They don't have to be radical feminists, plenty of activists nowadays are Priest like, hunting out sin and heretics.0 -
Those are very different things. In the first case you are talking about being offended and requesting for things to be changed/removed because they offend you. In the second case you are taking about refusing for things to be changed simply because a small group is offended by them.
To say it simply: the reason the terminology was updated here is indeed that very few people found it offensive. But the reason people might protest against the change is not that they are offended by the new terminology, it is more that they are tired of small lobbying groups making this type of requests because they are offended, and have no patience for them anymore (this exemple can’t be taken in isolation is and clearly part of a trend to promote some kind of right not to be offended, which IMO is toxic as if people can’t control their emotions when they are offended and always expect the world around them to change in order to address their anger, it inevitably leads to more and more friction and intolerance in society).
My wider point stands - this minor update in terminology is not a big deal, and if you think it is you have little for worrying about.0 -
Advertisement
-
kikilarue2 wrote: »My wider point stands - this minor update in terminology is not a big deal, and if you think it is you have little for worrying about.
We of course agree the terminology update taken in insulation is futile and nothing to talk about. But as I said taking it in isolation is a mistake and doesn’t allow to understand what is happening.0 -
Joeytheparrot wrote: »No big deal really just make the chairs gender neutral and people can sit in whichever one they want.
Like... a chair?0 -
We of course agree the terminology update taken in insulation is futile and nothing to talk about. But as I said taking it in isolation is a mistake and doesn’t allow to understand what is happening around this.
Even in a wider context, I don't see how making terms that used to be gendered gender-neutral is all that controversial.
This has been doing on for ages - chairman became chairperson etc. It's just language evolving along with the times.
You getting so offended by the way other people get so offended is very meta.0 -
Don't hold your breath. Nor would you be happier if they did achieve gender quotas in those jobs. So while you might be very clever to point out the fact that the dreaded feminists aren't currently lobbying for gender quotas in sewer work, it's not half as clever as you might like to think it is when the elimination of the hypocrisy, by achieving gender quotas in those jobs, would make you even less happy.TheBoyConor wrote: »I don't see any feminists arguing for gender quotas in the dirty and dangerous jobs that are pretty much all done by males. i won't hold my breath for the feminists to be looking for gender quotas in the likes of hands on dirty and dangerous jobs such as sewer and wastewater plant maintenance, landfills, heavy vehicle mechanics, knackeries, rendering plants, quarrying, dredging etc.
I heard a fascinating piece of implicit bias recently. A director in my work was an economist by trade. PhD from Oxford, lectured in the harvard for a bit. Suffice to say he's good at maths - and so is his daughter. She's in the top maths class in school. At a parent teacher meeting the maths teacher told him his daughter is very good at maths... for a girl.
If any of us were told by an English person that you're good at something... for an Irish man. Then we'd know there's a bias at play and we wouldn't be shy about saying so. But calling out a similar bias about a woman's capabilities is met with derision.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »During the abortion referendum, I was asked which way I was going to vote by some people while on a night out. I said I wasn't sure yet. I was told that I was a misogynist for even contemplating voting no. I explained that it was a deeper issue than that, you guessed it, that was mansplaining about a subject I had no right to even question unless I was willing to vote their way; then I would be accepted with open arms and my view would be welcome and accepted.
As a lifelong leftist, this really, really, really pisses me off. I am 100% positive that this attitude from a lot of young leftists is one of the biggest factors in the Brexit and Trump referendum results, and I had to warn friends of mine ad nauseum that behaving like this would put the Repeal referendum in very serious jeopardy.
In politics, you have to earn your votes. You can't expect to win by insulting your opposition and the undecided voter, you have to actually convince them that your position or candidate is the best option. This idea that you can psychologically bludgeon people into submission by harassing, insulting, and talking down to them condescendingly is batsh!t f*cking insane.
During the 2016 US election, I actually did a social experiment on Reddit - I made two throwaway accounts and posted an identical "I'm undecided about who to vote for in November, but I'd love to hear from ye why you're supporting Clinton / Trump and why I should do the same" style thread on /r/The_Donald and /r/HillaryClinton.
The Trump crowd were overwhelmingly upbeat and positive, essentially a sort of "welcome aboard, here's where we make America great again" welcoming where they listed a whole pile of stuff they liked about Trump, his personality, and his policy positions. Most of it was stuff that obviously as a leftist I just disagreed with, but the presentation was one of optimistic friendliness.
The Clinton crowd were unbelievably hostile. I was accused of everything from being a Trump supporter just there to troll their subreddit, to being a closeted racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic piece of sh!t on the grounds that, essentially, "if you haven't already made up your mind who to vote for, what the f*ck is wrong with you?!"
I saw this exact same sentiment from people I knew and from the wider young leftist movement during the run-up to Brexit. No "you should vote remain because these are the good things about remaining", all "you should vote remain because the Leave campaign is made up of idiots / racists / bigots / uneducated morons. You don't want to be labelled an idiot / racist / bigot / uneducated moron..... DO YOU?!" and similarly aggressive, hostile, threatening tactics.
The day after Brexit, I saw many people earnestly post utter anti-democratic sh!te on Facebook etc, saying "maybe there should be an upper age limit on voting since old, out of touch, bigoted morons won't live long enough to deal with the consequences of what they've just done" and other such (in my view) shockingly fascist commentary.
To its credit, the official Repeal campaign tried its very, very best to persuade its nastiest followers to cool their jets by appealing to the common sense that attacking the opposition is not how you convince them to like you and your agenda. They really did. I had friends working directly for campaign HQ and the struggle was very real, in terms of trying to ensure a positive and inclusive campaign from their supporters. But on the other hand, I personally know men who, while initially being ardent supporters of Repeal, got so fed up and pissed off with the "if you have a dick you don't have any right to even have a vote on this tbh" type sentiment that they earnestly considered sitting the referendum out, in a "well if you're going to be like that..." mindset.
I sincerely hope none of them actually followed through on that threat, but I totally understand where it was coming from. Hell, I changed my vote on Lisbon from a yes to a no between referendums, because the shaming, bullying, scaremongering tactics being used against original no voters in the run up to the second referendum utterly disgusted me.
These people are doing far more damage to the left than the right has ever done. Indeed, I'm 100% convinced that the very existence of the alt-right as anything bigger than just a fringe political movement that barely registers in mainstream discourse, is the political manifestation of Newton's Third Law - the SJWs shot first with their regressive thought police bullsh!t, the alt-right is the inevitable 'equal and opposite reaction' to that. It's particularly laughable that they use the word "reactionary" to describe the alt-right ithout the slightest bit of self awareness - yes, it is reactionary, and it's reacting very specifically to your constant, incessant bigotry towards large swathes of the population for holding the wrong opinions.0 -
kikilarue2 wrote: »Even in a wider context, I don't see how making terms that used to be gendered gender-neutral is all that controversial.
This has been doing on for ages - chairman became chairperson etc. It's just language evolving along wit
You getting so offended by the way other people get so offended is very meta.
This is no what is happening though. See the last paragraph of my original post.
The broader question is more should there be a right not to be offended whereby a small group can request for society around then to change because they are offended by it.
Short and sweet video on the topic here: https://fee.org/articles/monty-pythons-john-cleese-on-offense-criticism-and-comedy/0 -
-
This is no what is happening though. See the last paragraph of my previous post.
The broader question is more there be a right not to be offended whereby a small group can request for society around it to change because they are offended by it.
But you're assuming that the only reason language is evolving is because people are offended and you're mistaken in that - you're choosing to see it that way because it fits your world view.
The reality is that language is constantly evolving and this is a fairly natural part of that.
Also, in this instance, maintenance hole is a much more accurate description of what the thing is in that particular case - so it's also a case of the language becoming more appropriate from that point of view0 -
kikilarue2 wrote: »But you're assuming that the only reason language is evolving is because people are offended and you're mistaken in that - you're choosing to see it that way because it fits your world view.
I’m absolutely not making an assumption that all language changes are driven by people being offended, not sure what in my posts makes you think that. Could you quote a sentence so that I understand where you are coming from?
What I have said is that in the case we are discussing the change is indeed driven by some people being offended (and that it is not an isolated exemple). Do you dispute that and would you say that here the change is not driven by people being offended?0 -
I’m absolutely not making an assumption that all language changes are driven by people being offended, not sure what in my posts makes you think that. Could you quote a sentence so that I understand where you are coming from?
What I have said is that in the case we are discussing the change is indeed driven by some people being offended (and that it is not an isolated exemple). Do you dispute that and would you say that here the change is not driven by people being offended?
I read the article in the OP and it says nothing about
- a small group of people being offended
- that the change was actively lobbied for by any such group
Can you explain where you got that idea from?0 -
Advertisement
-
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
I heard a fascinating piece of implicit bias recently. A director in my work was an economist by trade. PhD from Oxford, lectured in the harvard for a bit. Suffice to say he's good at maths - and so is his daughter. She's in the top maths class in school. At a parent teacher meeting the maths teacher told him his daughter is very good at maths... for a girl.
If any of us were told by an English person that you're good at something... for an Irish man. Then we'd know there's a bias at play and we wouldn't be shy about saying so. But calling out a similar bias about a woman's capabilities is met with derision.
Because they aren't even remotely similar scenarios.
Saying that she is very good at maths for a girl is saying that she is well above the standard of other girls her age. She may not the top percentile of students when lumped in with boys but when measured against other girls, she surpasses the average ability.
I'm not sure why the fathers qualifications matter in this story.0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »To its credit, the official Repeal campaign tried its very, very best to persuade its nastiest followers to cool their jets by appealing to the common sense that attacking the opposition is not how you convince them to like you and your agenda. They really did. I had friends working directly for campaign HQ and the struggle was very real, in terms of trying to ensure a positive and inclusive campaign from their supporters. But on the other hand, I personally know men who, while initially being ardent supporters of Repeal, got so fed up and pissed off with the "if you have a dick you don't have any right to even have a vote on this tbh" type sentiment that they earnestly considered sitting the referendum out, in a "well if you're going to be like that..." mindset.
I was actually very impressed with how both the repeal and pro-life campaigns, both in campaigning and how they greeted the result, eschewed the vicious culture warmongering that now dominates discourse in the US and UK. It made me proud to be Irish.
As far as manholes being gender neutral goes, I haven't used the word in years. It just seems lazily vague, like people calling fire engines fire brigades. Access cover and service chamber are more accurate terms.0 -
kikilarue2 wrote: »But you're assuming that the only reason language is evolving is because people are offended and you're mistaken in that - you're choosing to see it that way because it fits your world view.
The reality is that language is constantly evolving and this is a fairly natural part of that.
Also, in this instance, maintenance hole is a much more accurate description of what the thing is in that particular case - so it's also a case of the language becoming more appropriate from that point of view
The manhole was originally a hatch to stick your hand down (a manual hole). The idea of calling it a manhole meaning men (and only men) go down them, is an evolution in the language. Strangely enough, none of the people opposing the current change in language, opposed the change from in manhole from manual hole to hole men use.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Because they aren't even remotely similar scenarios.
Saying that she is very good at maths for a girl is saying that she is well above the standard of other girls her age. She may not the top percentile of students when lumped in with boys but when measured against other girls, she surpasses the average ability.
I'm not sure why the fathers qualifications matter in this story.
No idea where she was ranked in the class..
And if you were told you're good at maths...for an Irish man, you'd rationalise it similarly?0 -
I still call the Aviva Stadium Lansdowne Road0
-
Just how many women actually used manholes? Very few I would say. Actually lets reclaim the way we used to say it and call them shore/sewage covers. It is just feminism after a power grab as usual.0
-
kikilarue2 wrote: »My wider point stands - this minor update in terminology is not a big deal, and if you think it is you have little for worrying about.
If its not a big deal then why are people calling for the change? It not a big deal right....0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »No idea where she was ranked in the class..
And if you were told you're good at maths...for an Irish man, you'd rationalise it similarly?
A teacher, told a parent that his daughter was very good at maths for a girl, implying that out of all the girls in the class she as exceeding the average.
Boys and girls are different and have different aptitudes when grouped together. Obviously there will be outliers that buck the trend but on average, the teacher must have observed that boys tend to do better than girls at that age, at that subject.
The fact that anyone would choose to find a way to make that sexist is telling.
An extreme example would be the USA women's football team. Without a doubt the best footballers on the planet...for girls. When they were put up against a team of 15 year old boys, they were roundly beaten. Does that mean that they are terrible? no. they are the best of the best in their gender category.
And your hypothetical is not relevant without context. If I was in a class in a country which has been known for exceeding the Irish aptitude for mathematics, then yes, I would rationalise it that way.0 -
kikilarue2 wrote: »I read the article in the OP and it says nothing about
- a small group of people being offended
- that the change was actively lobbied for by any such group
Can you explain where you got that idea from?
I note that you didn’t quote what I wrote which made you think I am “assuming that the only reason language is evolving is because people are offended”. Is that statement and the consequence you draw from it taken back then?
With regards to some people being offended by the term manhole, I though you agreed such behaviour exists as you mentioned it yourself in a previous post?kikilarue2 wrote: »Being offended by the term manhole and being offended by the decision to update the terminology to maintenance hole are both ridiculous and snowflake-y as f**K. Anyone who has time to worry about this stuff is a lucky human being indeed.
If we can’t agree on the fact that there are many groups around western society which are lobbying for language changes due to offence caused by those words in light of their ideology, we can can just agree to disagree. In this case one clue is the wording used to justify the change, which is not exactly the language the average person would use and very much marked by activist terminology (that wording makes it very clear that the for people who pushed for the change within the city council, it is absolutely not a small technical adjustment but rather a political fight):
“"In recent years, broadening societal awareness of transgender and gender-nonconforming identities has brought to light the importance of non-binary gender inclusivity," said council member Rigel Robinson, the main author of the measure.
"Therefore, it is both timely and necessary to make the environment of City Hall and the language of city legislation consistent with the principles of inclusion."”0 -
Advertisement
-
kikilarue2 wrote: »Also, in this instance, maintenance hole is a much more accurate description of what the thing is in that particular case - so it's also a case of the language becoming more appropriate from that point of view
Not really. Manhole means that the hole is big enough for a typical man to fit through. Maintenance hole is vague.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement