
Berkeley set to ban gendered words like 'manhole' and 'manpower' - smaili
https://www.yahoo.com/news/berkeley-bans-gendered-words-manhole-195405363.html
======
tomohawk
It's interesting how the word 'man' has become a gendered term. Sometimes it
does mean 'male human', but it obviously does not in many cases unless you are
determined to take offense and apply a wooden, literalness to it. The word
cannot defend itself so becomes an easy target for those who want to virtue
signal.

~~~
eesmith
That transition from ungendered to gendered "man" took place in the 1600s or
so [0], but is sounds like you are referring to a more recent change?

While there's certainly an ungendered use ("mankind", "man-eating tiger"),
there's also a long history of gendered use ("man and wife", "man-child"
meaning "boy", YMCA vs. YWCA).

That "wooden, literalness" goes both ways. I also remember reading about
organizations in the 1800 refusing to accept women, in part justified because
the bylaws used "man"/"he" to refer to members. [1]

Wouldn't any public act of virtue have an honest virtue signal? Or are you
suggesting that the last 150+ years of decoupling language gender from human
gender been dishonest somehow?

[0] [https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2015/01/11/from-mankind-
ma...](https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2015/01/11/from-mankind-mansplain-
descent-man/0k6FAgVxohB3jKW2L6kQFM/story.html)

> In Old English, as in many of the Germanic languages, “man” generically
> meant “person” in addition to its current “male person” meaning. The OED,
> for instance, quotes a 15th-century sermon in which a married couple is
> described as “riht riche men.” Meanwhile, “wif” and “were,” as well as the
> compounds “wifman” (woman-person) and “waepman” (weapon-person) or,
> possibly, “wereman” (man-person), were equivalent to “woman” and “man,” or
> wife and husband. After the Middle Ages, however, the generic meaning for
> “man” largely dropped out. “Man” absorbed the space vacated by “were” and
> “waepman,” while “wifman” evolved into “woman.”

[1] [https://www.dmymca.org/about-the-y/y-news/ymca-of-greater-
de...](https://www.dmymca.org/about-the-y/y-news/ymca-of-greater-des-moines-
blog/2017/03/29/women-and-the-y-a-brief-history)

> In 1866, the YMCA's Albany, NY convention refused to seat women delegates,
> asserting that representation at the convention must be based on male
> membership.

~~~
tomohawk
I think we agree that those in power use language and texts to justify their
position, instead of the other way around. They use it as a pretext for their
activities.

I think it is fundamentally dishonest to say that 'manhole' is somehow
harmful, or implies that only males can use it, or any number of other
negative things.

No, this is a pure virtue signal. It attacks an easy target that cannot defend
itself and makes a point because the point is to demonstrate power, not to
cause any meaningful change.

~~~
eesmith
While I think that some in power do as you suggest, I also think that others
do not. You therefore need some other mechanism to distinguish which is well-
justified and which is self-justified.

As far as I can tell, the city is making the change on the belief that it
promotes equality, and not specifically because it's harmful.

Unless you believe that all inequality is harmful, I don't see how you drew
your conclusion.

What would "meaningful change" look like to you? I thought Berkeley had a long
history of making meaningful changes.

You appear to be using "virtue signal" in a meaningless way, akin to how the
Republicans members of Congress use "socialist" and "communist" to describe
anyone to their left.

Has the last 150 years of de-gendering been "pure virtual signal"? Are you
going to use "authoress" and "aviatrix" because those poor words couldn't
defend themselves?

------
gen3
> As a result of the vote on the proposed ordinance, the word “manhole” would
> be changed to “maintenance hole” in city documents, the news site
> Berkeleyside reported. “Human effort” would be substituted for the word
> “manpower,” and “sorority” or “fraternity” would be changed to “collegiate
> Greek system residence.”

Maintenance hole makes sense, but "Human effort" sounds pretty alien to me.
The use of manpower make sense because of mankind. I guess under this goal
mankind would become humankind. Wouldn't "human effort" make more sense then?

This is a positive thing overall, it seems like they are making an attempt to
keep laws gender neutral. I think this help ease out sexist laws.

