I remember, back in the good old PC '80s..
how we used to refer to one of the local pubs as the 'Fentiperson Arms'...
Chichester District Council has provoked the wrath of Middle England by suggesting to staff and members that the phrase "man on the street" would better be expressed by "general public", since the former is "based on the assumption that the world is male and makes the views or work of women invisible". The West Sussex …
Why are only 'persons' allowed 'spokes'?
What about furries, vampires and zombies? They can hardly be descibed as 'person'. Further, use of the word 'spoke' implies that only beings capable of audible communication can participate and when our gaseous bodied thought-communicating alien overlords finally arrive* they will not be pleased at this attempt to exclude them from mainstream life and cultural activity.
I would suggest we need a radical overhaul of the language in which we replace all species specific references with the word 'dooh-dah'.
Colonel RC Matheringham-Smythe
IHIOGA** that this is scheduled for a week next Monday.
** I have it on good authority
"Rather more plausibly, council operatives are advised to avoid dismissing old timers as "old woman", "old fool" and "old codger" in favour of "old person"."
Surely that's *less* plausible? I can readily imagine people referring to "the man on the street" but how plausible is it really that on issuing that statement, hundreds of council staff will be hastily reviewing their annual reports and Tipp-Exing out the phrases "old codger" and "old fool"? It seems the sort of advice that should be superfluous, like suggesting that staff don't refer to pensioners in council documentation by using the phrases "blue-rinsed wrinkly" or "senile old twat".
Actually, if one wants to be pedantic about this whole PC nonsense, then we should stop calling them 'women' and refer them as 'men' from now on - after all, female actors are no longer referred to as actresses, etc., and calling them 'women' really marks them out as different.
"This includes the sensitivity of various individuals and groups, and current thinking in society in general."
So for the troubled few they decide to enlighten everyone. I sure as hell don't have a problem with "man on the street" and most defiantly don't assume it means a man!
Could we stop this guessing that someone somewhere will be offended PC nonsense please?. FFS people these phrases have been used for countless years if anyone was offended don't you PC nutters think you'd have heard about it by now?
Wait until someone complains then, like the ASA, uphold that one complaint. Just don't let trivial things like one complaint out of 60-odd million citizens stop you.
'... operatives are advised to avoid dismissing old timers as "old woman", "old fool" and "old codger" in favour of "old person".'
It is good to know that there are politically correct terms for dismissing old people. What are the politically correct terms for dismissing children, and the middle aged? Do we need some quotas to ensure that people of all ages are dismissed equally?
"This kind of thing really _gets my goat_ - it's not as though anybody _in their right mind_ would believe that the 'man in the street' referred solely to the _male sex_. It's just _stupid_, I've never heard anything like it."
His quote is offensive to goats, homosexuals, mental patients and stupid people. He should have said:
"This kind of thing really _annoys me_ - it's not as though anybody _who is not mentally challenged_ would believe that the 'man in the street' referred solely to _males_. It's just _obtuse_, I've never heard anything like it."
Well with all the problems facing society today; education, environmental problems, crime and violence in the streets, unemployment and the credit crunch.
I'm glad to see that so much time, resource and money is being spent making sure that totally inoffencive and harmless expressions no longer repress and discriminate the common person.
No doubt millions of affected people will now sleep soundly in their beds tonight, under the safe and unassuming blanket of political correctness that are local governments provide.
"This includes the sensitivity of various individuals and groups, and current thinking in society in general."
I thought it was fairly well acknowledged that society currently thinks this is a load of bollocks, a waste of taxpayers money and is usually traced back to some hal-wit councillor who thought he/she/it could win more votes with the shirt-lifters/darkies/baby-droppers by patronising them and treating them like kids.
I was considering brainstorming some new PC terms but I thought it would be a load of nanny-state labourised bollocks.
There is nothing wrong with suffusing the word 'man' into posts. Should we relabel our species as Hupersons?
Get a grip you overpaid council idiots - get the bums off the streets, help out the broken homes, stop treating fat people like they are diseased and pour money into education instead.
I get really wound up by people nit-picking at what are now considered to be non-pc terms.
Britain is officially* the most PC state in the world and I want to leave.
*I made that up but it feels that way.
Mine's the man-sized one in a manly dark colour.
Gareth: "My dad, for example, he's not as cosmopolitan or as educated as me and it can be embarrasing you know. He doesn't understand all the new trendy words - like he'll say "poofs" instead of "gays", "birds" instead of "women", "darkies" instead of "coloureds"."
Gareth: "I'm not homophobic, all right? Come around, look at my C.D collection. You'll find Queen, George Michael, Pet Shop Boys. They're all bummers."
...and it also promotes the view that everyone is "on the street".
What percentage of people are in their houses or offices at any given time? Are their views to be ignored, beholden to the point of view of people whom have nothing better to do than stand in the middle of the street?
On what basis does the Council Spokething presume to claim that "they" are "Community Leaders"? The civil servant is getting its role out of perspective. If there are any "Community Leaders" then it is the politicians - and there are precious few who can claim either title honestly - who are voted into office. If the politicians have asked the Civil Servants to waste taxes preparing this nonsense the voters should so enquire and then hold the politicians to account. The Politicians determine policy, the civil servants advise and implement - or have I missed something? - I guess I have in this "new" world.
First of all, I suggest you find out what your local council dose, how much choice it has on spending and how much people there a paid. You will probably feel a little better and live a little longer.
Just as a starting point, a front line customer service officer, who has to work face to face with people day in day out, dealing with the finances and problems of alcoholics, drug addicts and so on (the type of people you really don't want to spend to much time with and can be violent) earns around £17-£19k in most places. Would you like to sit and explaine to people like that why they owe you money they don't have?
Perhaps they should have a council meeting of the 100,000 inhabitants of Chichester and ask them, the 'man on the street', what they think about the amount of taxpayers money has gone into producing the seven page load of bollocks..
Let's see what sort of response they get from that.
The only problem here is that it's exactly right.
"it's not as though anybody in their right mind would believe that the 'man in the street' referred solely to the male sex," fumes some (male) Tory twat. Except that it is. The phrase is sufficiently old enough that it was used to mean exactly what it said. When a newspaper discussed what "the man in the street" thought it really did mean the man in the street, because the woman in the street was supposed to be thinking about knitting.
Call it political correctness all you like, but that doesn't make it wrong.
Knee-jerk reactions to anything at all which attempts to address sexism, racism, or any other form of prejudice as "political correctness" are far more damaging in the long run.
== misguided thoughts derived from believing Guardian op-ed pieces. Whereas we all know that current thinking in society in general is mostly: "how little can I pay for 24 cans of Stella? what's on 'Stenders tonight?"
OBTW WTF is the IT content in this ridiculous piece? Did Chichester BC use Google translate to render these guidelines into the 21 requisite languages?
We recently got canvassed by our local council about a residents' parking scheme. 1 page of questionnaire about the scheme, consisting of four questions. 3 pages of 'community & personal information' consisting of 21 questions including seemingly needing to understand if I originate from one of twenty seven possible ethnic backgrounds including "Irish (traveller)"
How in the name of all that is sane can anybody imagine that someone who is "Irish (traveller)" would
a) have become a settled resident?
b) want to park a vehicle?
c) at least by paying for the privilege??????
"manning the switchboard"
They use an actual switchboard?? like a board of switches?? Surely they should be using something with buttons and integrated circuits?
Now, what about one of my school teachers... Mrs Manning... should she now be referred to as "married-person personning" to avoid gender-specificity?
I was told by a local council PC manager last year that you cannot use the term "OLD" as it;
1. Refers to age of a human
2. "OLD" is refers to decrepid or unreliable as you often throw things out simply because they are "OLD"
So unfortunately this particular council has dropped a major PC clanger here!
Anyway I must go as we have a "very unreliable" human wearing a skirt waiting for me in the welcome suite!
Paris! because she will still be horny when she is "unreliable"!
Greg quoting some council flunky: "what we are seeking to do is to be more sensitive and responsive to the needs of others in our society."
These are strictly imaginary needs. The thought process is closely akin to the insane health & safety regulations that forbid all interesting activities on the grounds that someone *might* get hurt, instead of accepting that, yes, people do get hurt on occasion and H&S regulations should be limited to the relatively few activities that have a proven track record for causing serious injury. A skinned knee or a wounded ego is not a serious injury. Likewise, calling someone a spokesman does not deny anyone any needed ego stroking -- except for a few insane feminists with no sense of perspective.
Chris: "The manual runs to seven pages because it has been printed in 21 different languages inlcuding braille and esperanto."
Reminds me of when I was working in a public body that annually issued property assessment notices to all property owners in British Columbia and prided itself on having had the information leaflet translated into a large number of languages, including some indigenous tongues with under a dozen speakers left. I laughed myself silly when a gentleman whose name implied he was a Sikh wrote an indignant letter about the paternalistic attitude implied in the translation. To paraphrase, he bitched "you are telling me that someone capable of buying real property is incapable of reading English."
Good point. The PR types and spin doctors were puzzled and could not formulate a coherent response.
Let me guess, you either forgot the humour tag or you work in HR.
If the former, sorry mush.
If the latter; you fucking parasite!
General question to HR twats: How do you sleep at night knowing that you have never, ever, ever made a positive contribution to the bottom line at ANY company.
Those of us that bring in revenue should rise up. Rise up I tell you!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019