Conquer Club

The word "penmanship" is now outlawed in the State of Washington, along with most other words containing the word "man." There are some exceptions:

The state likely won't change the words "airmen" and "seaman," for example, because of objections by the state's Military Department, he said.

Civil engineering terms such as "man hole" and "man lock," also will not be changed because no common-sense substitutes could easily be found, Thiessen said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/ ... 0V20130423

I don't think they are trying hard enough. Could a compromise be found and "manhole" replaced by "boyhole?" Santa Barbara, where I live, has a lot of gay men in the area and they have already adopted this as a compromise term. I frequently hear people talking about boyholes (I assume many of my neighbors may be civil engineers or something).

Other terms should be easier to switch. "Manitoba" could be easy to change to "Persontoba," for instance, and "Dennis Rodman" can become "Dennis Rodthing" which is probably more accurate anyway.

What does the gang thing about all this, gang?

I have long been offended the horrible misogyny/misandry using the word "Man" brings, but did you know that asexual creatures are also victims? Take for example the Portuguese man o' war.

- They are found in international waters, yet they are labeled "Portuguese".
- They are called "Man", yet they do not reproduce sexually.
- They are labeled with a singular noun, even though they are obviously a colony of polyps.
- They are unfairly likened to some sort of warship, despite never one being involved in any form of large-scale naval combat.
- They are unnecessarily robbed of the letter “F” in their name.

You know what? Let’s just get rid of all of the nouns and adjectives, I'm sure open-minded individuals can get along just fine using only verbs and adverbs from now on.

saxitoxin wrote:What does the gang thing about all this, gang?

Well...it sort of makes me giggle a little bit, and reminds me that I'm happy I live in Nebraska.

Did the Group of 5 force you to make this thread?

/ wrote:I have long been offended the horrible misogyny/misandry using the word "Man" brings, but did you know that asexual creatures are also victims? Take for example the Portuguese man o' war.

- They are found in international waters, yet they are labeled "Portuguese".
- They are called "Man", yet they do not reproduce sexually.
- They are labeled with a singular noun, even though they are obviously a colony of polyps.
- They are unfairly likened to some sort of warship, despite never one being involved in any form of large-scale naval combat.
- They are unnecessarily robbed of the letter “F” in their name.

You know what? Let’s just get rid of all of the nouns and adjectives, I'm sure open-minded individuals can get along just fine using only verbs and adverbs from now on.

This has potential as the post of the year...Well done

notyou2 wrote:Did the Group of 5 force you to make this thread?

I thought it was the Gang of Six?

Also, what is a "man lock?" I don't want to google/bing it for obvious reasons.

Also also, Washington state has a Military Department? Someone should alert the Pentagon (although, they probably already read Saxi's post).

Who needs it anyway, everything is on your smart phone. I just read the article. They should change manhole to "underground utility access for broads to use because they do those jobs too."

the use of 'man' is archaic. it harks back to the day when the men did everything and women were expected to stay at home, cooking bread in the burkas that they used to hide their black eyes

what's wrong with 'personnel hole'? why should we assume that only men can fix things underground?

haha








seamen

Who cares what the state does? Just ignore the law.

I think we should remove all words containing any reference to gender. That of course includes the word "man" and "woman". Useless sexist terms without any practical usage! Ugh, how I hate labeling people like that. Who are you to say I'm a "man" or a "woman"?

/ concerned feminist

BigBallinStalin wrote:Who cares what the state does? Just ignore the law.

You and I are quite alike BBS. Have you read from my manifesto?

Gillipig wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Who cares what the state does? Just ignore the law.

You and I are quite alike BBS. Have you read from my manifesto?

Was that the one about the cats?

If so, I'm going send you to the pound, where you'll be ground into kitty meat, and sold to Chinese restaurants. Be proud in your new use for the Great Society! You'll become one with us--until we poop you out, of course.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Gillipig wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Who cares what the state does? Just ignore the law.

You and I are quite alike BBS. Have you read from my manifesto?

Was that the one about the cats?

If so, I'm going send you to the pound, where you'll be ground into kitty meat, and sold to Chinese restaurants. Be proud in your new use for the Great Society! You'll become one with us--until we poop you out, of course.

Ouch, just hinting that you're not the source of your ideas seems to have hurt you deeply. Why else this need to go all biblical on me? I suppose you are more sensitive than I thought. I am sorry if I made you feel less special, hope it didn't ruin your day.

/ love Gilli

So I was working today, and I heard that we can't take off our shirts because the women don't get to. So why is my freedom being limited because the women don't want to take off their shirts? You wanted complete equality right? Not saying that I think that women should take off their shirts in public, but considering what we consider swimwear i guess they already do.
*Note using an Ad absurdum comment because I find this simply unbelievably absurd in an attempt for "political correctness".
** I will also note that political correctness has no absolutes, so why do we use it to determine how things should be considering that it is always changing?

rishaed wrote:So I was working today, and I heard that we can't take off our shirts because the women don't get to. So why is my freedom being limited because the women don't want to take off their shirts? You wanted complete equality right? Not saying that I think that women should take off their shirts in public, but considering what we consider swimwear i guess they already do.
*Note using an Ad absurdum comment because I find this simply unbelievably absurd in an attempt for "political correctness".
** I will also note that political correctness has no absolutes, so why do we use it to determine how things should be considering that it is always changing?

I used to feel indignant toward outrageous example of Political Correctness. Recently, I've learned to ignore them because they really don't matter. And, that's the trick to successfully countering PC.

Boss at rishead's place of employment, "dimes, you can't take your shirt off because the women don't get to."

Response, "I'm ok with them taking their shirts off." ~takes off shirt keeps sports bra on~

2dimes wrote:Boss at rishead's place of employment, "dimes, you can't take your shirt off because the women don't get to."

Response, "I'm ok with them taking their shirts off." ~takes off shirt keeps sports bra on~

For the record my boss doesn't care but that's the reason the customer (an important one) gave to my boss, and thus the rule sticks when working on their job site.

If I had a job I probably wouldn't be sent to sites like that.

the other day i went to starbucks, looked the service woman straight in the eye and asked for a 'black coffee'. none of this political correctness nonsense for me.

mordigan wrote:the other day i went to starbucks, looked the service woman straight in the eye and asked for a 'black coffee'. none of this political correctness nonsense for me.

I usually say no cream and sugar, and 9 times out of 10 they always look back and ask "black"

I'm completely serious. I'm sure everywhere is different, but give it a try. Its hard to order a black coffee any other way, not that there is any real reason to do so, but I am actually incessantly polite and nice in real life...until someone...well...gives reason to be otherwise

2dimes wrote:If I had a job I probably wouldn't be sent to sites like that.

Nope....youd be sent to clean out the personnel hole....every time...though once down there, Im sure taking your shirt off is optional.

rishaed wrote:

2dimes wrote:Boss at rishead's place of employment, "dimes, you can't take your shirt off because the women don't get to."

Response, "I'm ok with them taking their shirts off." ~takes off shirt keeps sports bra on~

For the record my boss doesn't care but that's the reason the customer (an important one) gave to my boss, and thus the rule sticks when working on their job site.

Ive had a few jobsites where I was tempted to ask the customer to put their shirt back on.

AAFitz wrote:Ive had a few jobsites where I was tempted to ask the customer to put their shirt back on.

Did you have to work at the dip?