Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd like to see the cost associated with making these changes. I think that's the crux of the situation because I don't see any legal ramifications for them to go in and change the wording.
States publish new and revised laws every year. The cost of changing fireman and policeman to firefighter and police officer is zero to negligible.
These changes are updating language, not substantive. There's no sensible reasons to oppose This scrapping 'man' for neutral terms.
There is nothing wrong with "mailman, fireman, policeman" etc.
Yeah, it's pretty crazy how deep the dehumanization of females is built into English language, isn't it? The language is almost ill-suited to even discuss it.
There is nothing wrong with "mailman, fireman, policeman" etc.
Not the same at all.
Fireman clearly indicates a man who fights fires -- so a male firefighter.
Policeman clearly indicates a man who is a police officer and is a man. It just does. Policeman never meant a woman who was an officer -- never has.
The words you have chose as justification for never ever calling someone who is a woman a fire fighter instead of a fireman -- just don't work as a logical, reasonable or intelligent excuse.
I know we are becoming a nation that doesn't care about reading, vocabulary, the intricate differences in the meanings of word......reading comprehension is sliding daily --
Sometime I sympathize with lawmakers who get requests for these outrageous legal changes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.