Glossary entry (derived from question below)
English term or phrase:
man/manning
English answer:
generally best avoided
Added to glossary by
Charles Davis
Dec 24, 2018 10:58
5 yrs ago
7 viewers *
English term
man/manning
English
Bus/Financial
Business/Commerce (general)
Disaster Prevention Strategy
This is more of an opinion query. I'd like to know if it is still possible to use the verb "man/manning" without it being frowned upon as "sexist" by a considerable section of the English native speaking population.
For example in sentences like this "All machines are in working order and are manned by competent people".
NB: Please note that I am not looking for synonyms or alternatives, but opinions on whether it is still okay to use this particular verb or not.
For example in sentences like this "All machines are in working order and are manned by competent people".
NB: Please note that I am not looking for synonyms or alternatives, but opinions on whether it is still okay to use this particular verb or not.
Responses
| 4 +4 | generally best avoided |
Charles Davis
|
Change log
Dec 26, 2018 15:29: Charles Davis Created KOG entry
Responses
+4
1 hr
Selected
generally best avoided
Obviously opinions are likely to differ on this one, and it will depend on who the text is aimed at, but I would say that "to man" is now likely to be frowned on by quite a lot of people: a significant if not considerable proportion of English speakers. Of course we all know that gender-related "political correctness" is a red rag to a bull for some people and is a factor in the rise of the populist right. Personally that makes me more inclined to avoid sexist language rather than less.
One problem is that there is no single substitute; machines can be operated, aircraft and spacecraft can be crewed, and so on. The Cambridge Dictionary offers "staff", "be at", "attend to":
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/peo...
NASA, for what it's worth, now refers to crewed and uncrewed flights/missions:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/crewed_vs_uncrewed_...
One problem is that there is no single substitute; machines can be operated, aircraft and spacecraft can be crewed, and so on. The Cambridge Dictionary offers "staff", "be at", "attend to":
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/peo...
NASA, for what it's worth, now refers to crewed and uncrewed flights/missions:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/crewed_vs_uncrewed_...
Note from asker:
| Thanks for your insightful and balanced response on this one. Actually, as "staff" is the verb in the sentence and the rest of the 27,000+ document is peppered with "operate/operators" I'm going to go ahead and use "manned"… and damn the torpedoes. I doubt any of the target audience will bat an eyelid anyway, but the notion that some people might find it inappropriate occurred to me in mid-translation and I have no-one around today to bounce ideas off of. Cheers to everyone for the comments too! |
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Samuel Sebastian Holden Bramah
: I have to agree, even though in the very marrow I really don't. Same is happening in Spain now with the use of the masculin for groups of people and it is driving me up the wall
6 mins
|
|
Thanks, Samuel :-) To me they're different cases. I don't agree with the "niños y niñas" thing, and I find "personhole" ridiculous (it's meant to be; it's a joke), but in a case like "to man" there's usually an acceptable alternative.
|
|
| agree |
AllegroTrans
: It's still in common use and like you say there isn't really a single substitute; the whole problem is that makind (I use the word to embrace everyone) has gone barmy with this pc nonsense and we need to fight back
55 mins
|
|
Thanks, Chris. I sympathise with that view to some extent, but I wouldn't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater: there is a certain amount of easily avoidable sexism in language, and I think sensitivity to it has generally been a step forward.
|
|
| agree |
Jack Doughty
: with AllegroTrans
1 hr
|
|
Thanks, Jack. I prefer not to get into arguments on this! But without subscribing to the dogmatic excesses, there's certainly been a significant shift during my lifetime and I'm not altogether opposed to that.
|
|
| neutral |
Daryo
: as you said, opinions differ - good intentions are one thing, results differ ... like in some other areas, where euphemisms are no longer euphemistic enough, and suddenly need their own euphemisms.
3 hrs
|
|
The question, however, was not about whether we are in favour of using this verb; it asked for our opinion on whether it would be " frowned upon as 'sexist' by a considerable section of the English native speaking population". I say it would.
|
|
| agree |
jccantrell
: Yep, in today's USA, it is best to avoid this sort of phrase. Why go looking for trouble when there are so many other paths?
5 hrs
|
|
Thanks, JC :-) I agree.
|
|
| neutral |
Yvonne Gallagher
: This one wouldn't bother me (and I'm a long-time feminist) I think some of this PC stuff is ludicrous, e.g the latest: take "man/men" out of "woman/women" >> "womxn". Are we supposed to rewrite all of literature?! Gender equality will come with laws.
9 hrs
|
|
Many thanks, Yvonne :-) I think the "womxn" kind of thing, however well-intentioned, is very unfortunate, because it alienates even those sympathetic to the principle. Language won't produce equality, but it may help to promote the necessary mentality.
|
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Thanks Charles, and to everyone for their thoughts on this :) "
Discussion