Man/Woman

[prometheus 0]

Im not American so I would never be caught saying "hey you guys" ever.

I would say "right you lot" or "how ye's all doin there". If it was a big group of women I would say "right ladies" and if it was a group of man I would say "right you lot".

It depends on where you are from, I would imagine. Here in Ireland no-one gives two hoots what you call them as long as you're not being an @ss hole or trying to be. We're a fairly laid back bunch and gender related prefixes, as you may call them, aren't really high on our list of concerns. Oh, and round Belfast we often call people "love" or "son" and that is totally fine.

[Gotabite 0]

CJLP, when you join the real world of the workplace I think you will be in for a shock.  Women are more likely to not be hired because they are a woman as compared to the other way round.  Same with visible minorities.  Affirmative action is meant to open doors that have been slammed shut and locked to people in the past.  You can count on one hand the number of women and minorities who are on the Board of Directors of major companies and it has more to do with the "old boys network" than merit.  Even when a woman or minority is hired they will likely get paid less than their white male counterpart who is less qualified. 

"Affirmative action is meant to open doors that have been slammed shut and locked to people in the past."

 

I find Affirmative Action to be extremely irritating. Someone should be hired based on their skills, not becuase they are a minority.

:angry: I agree with you Captain, people SHOULD be hired on the basis of their skills, abilities, experiences, degrees, etc. HOWEVER, in reality what should happen is often what does not happen..........that is the main reason for affirmative action. :P

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard 1]

CJLP, when you join the real world of the workplace I think you will be in for a shock.  Women are more likely to not be hired because they are a woman as compared to the other way round.  Same with visible minorities.  Affirmative action is meant to open doors that have been slammed shut and locked to people in the past.  You can count on one hand the number of women and minorities who are on the Board of Directors of major companies and it has more to do with the "old boys network" than merit.  Even when a woman or minority is hired they will likely get paid less than their white male counterpart who is less qualified. 

"Affirmative action is meant to open doors that have been slammed shut and locked to people in the past."

 

I find Affirmative Action to be extremely irritating. Someone should be hired based on their skills, not becuase they are a minority.

:P I agree with you Captain, people SHOULD be hired on the basis of their skills, abilities, experiences, degrees, etc. HOWEVER, in reality what should happen is often what does not happen..........that is the main reason for affirmative action. :angry:

"HOWEVER, in reality what should happen is often what does not happen..........that is the main reason for affirmative action."

 

Sorry, but that's not convincing.

[Gotabite 0]

Sorry, but that's not convincing.[/glow]

:angry: Captain, I like debating with you....so let's debate the issue, because I'm not trying to convince you.

[jdigs 0]

Gals , are insulted far too easily, when you go through our mersey tunnel to liverpool, the sign on the pay both, used to say manned, now it says staffed, men = manned, women = womanned, what do you want!!!

 

They are just getting annoyin now, women are getting more rights than men these days, equality my @$$ :angry:

THAT'S NOT NICE :P 'gals' aren't insulted too easily. Most women probably don't care about political correctness, and its not like we get in a huff about it.

As for 'women getting more rights than men

I don't think that women get more annoyed by non politicaly correctness (sp) then they used to but that they are just plainly tired of having to put up a fight. Us men ( yes yes yes..not ALL of us men) have been in control for so long that sometimes we think we can coast..whereas womean have only just started and still feel they have a long way to go..sometimes the old boy club just dosent want to die.

[trekkergirl220 0]

Gals , are insulted far too easily, when you go through our mersey tunnel to liverpool, the sign on the pay both, used to say manned, now it says staffed, men = manned, women = womanned, what do you want!!!

 

They are just getting annoyin now, women are getting more rights than men these days, equality my @$$ :angry:

THAT'S NOT NICE :P 'gals' aren't insulted too easily. Most women probably don't care about political correctness, and its not like we get in a huff about it.

As for 'women getting more rights than men

Then how come nearly every female who's screen name doesn't convey gender, gets upset when I call her a him?

I don't get upset when someone assumes i'm male becasue my screen name is definatley not obvious, its my fault I made a bad sn, although I guess i can see why it might be offensive to some people. I agree with you cassidy, that isn't not very nice, its like almost like saying women are weak.

i don't find "gal" particulary insulting, although I don't think i ever use it, i always say "hey guys" just out of habit.

 

PC sucks, its gotten so bad you cant do or say anything anymore, i also am guilty of the gender nuetral, HEY GUYS, or some such thing. when not being used to insult someone i just dont understand the reaction from some people about such things. there is no REAL gender neutral word, like HEY GUYRLS. lol   so whats the problem.

 

yeah, they should have some word like guyrls, except better, which can be neuter, so it refers to everyone, then maybe both male and female wouldn't feel insulted.

[A l t e r E g o 9]

"NEUTER"?

[trekkergirl220 0]

ok, I just finished study for my big latin exam, and so now I'm stuck on all these genders, masculine feminine, and nueter. I didn't mean nueter, just like a word that can be used for both, for example, some peoples names can be either girl or boy, such as dillon, or devon.

[ddillard 2]

ok, I just finished study for my big latin exam, and so now I'm stuck on all these genders, masculine feminine, and nueter.  I didn't mean nueter, just like a word that can be used for both, for example, some peoples names can be either girl or boy, such as dillon, or devon.

I think you mean neutral. Kind of worries me when I hear neuter, makes me a little nervous.

[cptwright 1]

CJLP, when you join the real world of the workplace I think you will be in for a shock.  Women are more likely to not be hired because they are a woman as compared to the other way round.  Same with visible minorities.  Affirmative action is meant to open doors that have been slammed shut and locked to people in the past.  You can count on one hand the number of women and minorities who are on the Board of Directors of major companies and it has more to do with the "old boys network" than merit.  Even when a woman or minority is hired they will likely get paid less than their white male counterpart who is less qualified.  :P

"Affirmative action is meant to open doors that have been slammed shut and locked to people in the past."

 

I find Affirmative Action to be extremely irritating. Someone should be hired based on their skills, not becuase they are a minority.

:angry: I agree with you Captain, people SHOULD be hired on the basis of their skills, abilities, experiences, degrees, etc. HOWEVER, in reality what should happen is often what does not happen..........that is the main reason for affirmative action.

i have to disagree with you, the reason people that should get hired and arent, IS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, says hire only certain groups, not ANYONE, THAT IS MOST QUALIFIED. so how can anyone say that affirmative action is opening doors, when its really shutting doors, and making more of a problem by causing more animocity to others.

[trekkergirl220 0]

ok, I just finished study for my big latin exam, and so now I'm stuck on all these genders, masculine feminine, and nueter.  I didn't mean nueter, just like a word that can be used for both, for example, some peoples names can be either girl or boy, such as dillon, or devon.

I think you mean neutral. Kind of worries me when I hear neuter, makes me a little nervous.

thats the word I was loking for!

[Theunicornhunter 2]

As Troi would say - I sense some anger here. But even more I sense people dodging my question. No one has made a serious attempt to answer it. A simple statement that hiring should be based on qualifications is a dodge. The issue is how do you enforce that? Claiming discrimination is illegal is a dodge. It may be illegal but unless you have absolute proof and money to hire an attorney being in the right is of little consequence.

 

So, again I ask - what is a workable solution? Can anyone say they honestly believe that if affirmative action was abolished that hiring would be based solely on qualifications? If you do, boy do I have some land to sell you.

[cptwright 1]

As Troi would say - I sense some anger here.  But even more I sense people dodging my question.  No one has made a serious attempt to answer it.  A simple statement that hiring should be based on qualifications is a dodge.  The issue is how do you enforce that?  Claiming discrimination is illegal is a dodge. It may be illegal but unless you have absolute proof and money to hire an attorney being in the right is of little consequence.

 

So, again I ask - what is a workable solution?  Can anyone say they honestly believe that if affirmative action was abolished that hiring would be based solely on qualifications?  If you do, boy do I have some land to sell you.

yes i do beleive that, at least a lot more so than now. the local fire dept a few years back, i not sure how long now, had a female applicant, before she took the test, before anything, the press, the cheif, the everybody, had her hired right off the bat. low and behold, she didnt pass. yeah she may not of got the job, but the FACT is she would've even if she was on the bottom of the list, NOW THATS WRONG, AND A BOATLOAD OF CRAP. i want to hear how you think its a fair system now, i dont hear that from you. thats a simple question.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

As Troi would say - I sense some anger here.  But even more I sense people dodging my question.  No one has made a serious attempt to answer it.  A simple statement that hiring should be based on qualifications is a dodge.  The issue is how do you enforce that?  Claiming discrimination is illegal is a dodge. It may be illegal but unless you have absolute proof and money to hire an attorney being in the right is of little consequence.

 

So, again I ask - what is a workable solution?  Can anyone say they honestly believe that if affirmative action was abolished that hiring would be based solely on qualifications?  If you do, boy do I have some land to sell you.

yes i do beleive that, at least a lot more so than now. the local fire dept a few years back, i not sure how long now, had a female applicant, before she took the test, before anything, the press, the cheif, the everybody, had her hired right off the bat. low and behold, she didnt pass. yeah she may not of got the job, but the FACT is she would've even if she was on the bottom of the list, NOW THATS WRONG, AND A BOATLOAD OF CRAP. i want to hear how you think its a fair system now, i dont hear that from you. thats a simple question.

I never said I thought that was fair. I clearly stated that affirmative action does create problems. My point was that no one has a better idea. Affirmative action is an imperfect solution to a serious problem. If you eliminate the imperfect solution the serious problem still remains.

 

So again I ask, if you eliminate affirmative action - how do you plan to prevent discrimination in hiring & promotions? If affirmative action is eliminated without addressing this issue we're going to have a real mess.

[cptwright 1]

As Troi would say - I sense some anger here.  But even more I sense people dodging my question.  No one has made a serious attempt to answer it.  A simple statement that hiring should be based on qualifications is a dodge.  The issue is how do you enforce that?  Claiming discrimination is illegal is a dodge. It may be illegal but unless you have absolute proof and money to hire an attorney being in the right is of little consequence.

 

So, again I ask - what is a workable solution?  Can anyone say they honestly believe that if affirmative action was abolished that hiring would be based solely on qualifications?  If you do, boy do I have some land to sell you.

yes i do beleive that, at least a lot more so than now. the local fire dept a few years back, i not sure how long now, had a female applicant, before she took the test, before anything, the press, the cheif, the everybody, had her hired right off the bat. low and behold, she didnt pass. yeah she may not of got the job, but the FACT is she would've even if she was on the bottom of the list, NOW THATS WRONG, AND A BOATLOAD OF CRAP. i want to hear how you think its a fair system now, i dont hear that from you. thats a simple question.

I never said I thought that was fair. I clearly stated that affirmative action does create problems. My point was that no one has a better idea. Affirmative action is an imperfect solution to a serious problem. If you eliminate the imperfect solution the serious problem still remains.

 

So again I ask, if you eliminate affirmative action - how do you plan to prevent discrimination in hiring & promotions? If affirmative action is eliminated without addressing this issue we're going to have a real mess.

affirmative action is a serious problem. there are women, and minoritys, in the workplace all over, just as it should be. i fail to see how AA is a solution to a problem, i dont see the prolem, the only problem i see is people that arent deserving of a job getting it anyway.

 

if theres a hundred people for one job, ninety nine men, and one woman, if shes qualified great, but the PROBLEM is if shes one hundred out of one hundred, she'll get picked over the ninety nine other MORE QUALIFIED persons, THIS IS A PROBLEM. i think too many people, make too much, of a problem, that really isnt that much of a problem. yes in the past there has been problems but with the legal system the way it is now, i dont feel that thats anything to worry about anymore. hell thanks to the legal system theres so many more reasons to worry about things.

 

a simple comment to a buddy overheard by a passerby in the office"boom" sexual harrasment suit. a friendly comment to a female coworker"you look great today""boom" another sexual harrasment suit.

ask someone out"boom"sexual harrasment suit.

go out on a date, have a little boom boom,(consentual) next day shes unhappy with her decision

"boom" rape, and or sexual harrasment

things went from agreeably BAD before, to WORSE now, when lawsuits like that can be filed with the drop of a hat. granted that doesnt happen everyday, but its a crappy way to do things.

just as the discrimination doesnt happen everyday, if theres no feesible solution to a problem, dont make a bigger problem out of it, keep an eye on it, and come up with the right solution. one form of discrimination over another is no better, and thats all AA is, is discrimination against sex, or race, in both ways, it makes the "minorities" stick out, and the rest get the shaft. im not trying to be argumentative with you, this is just a debate on a subject that im sure we both can agree on SUCKS. but something different has to be done than what has been done.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

the only problem i see is people that arent deserving of a job getting it anyway.

And that will be the same problem after you eliminate affirmative action. It will just be different people being unfairly hired. I don't want to be argumentative either because I do believe that affirmative action has some serious flaws. However, I am surprised that you are not aware of how big a problem existed before and still exists (because some companies ride under the radar). If companies were not required to hire women and minorities -they wouldn't - it's that simple.

 

Your example of the 100 applicants misstates affirmative action. Part of the formula is who else is already on the team. If a representative number of women are already employed preference doesn't need to be given to the female employee. If however, the company has a long history of hiring only men - qualified or not - then the lesser qualified woman may get hired. If the company had hired qualified women in the past when they had applied they wouldn't be in a situation of needing to hire a female now. Is the discrimination against male co-applicants any more her fault than it is that of the twenty or so lesser-qualified men already employed?

 

Sexual harassment and date rape are separate issues.

[prometheus 0]

The Police Service in Northern Ireland has been traditionally Protestant Dominated for decades. With the new peace process the Police Service now has to recruit half Catholics and an equal no of Protestants at each intake. This means that if they are taking in 100 new recruits and 30 poorly qualified Catholics apply and 70 better qualified Protestants apply, the 30 Catholics will all get in but only 30 of the higher qualified Protestants will get in. Here, public policy over-rides the requirements of employment on merits, in this unique situation.

[cptwright 1]

the only problem i see is people that arent deserving of a job getting it anyway.

And that will be the same problem after you eliminate affirmative action. It will just be different people being unfairly hired. I don't want to be argumentative either because I do believe that affirmative action has some serious flaws. However, I am surprised that you are not aware of how big a problem existed before and still exists (because some companies ride under the radar). If companies were not required to hire women and minorities -they wouldn't - it's that simple.

 

Your example of the 100 applicants misstates affirmative action. Part of the formula is who else is already on the team. If a representative number of women are already employed preference doesn't need to be given to the female employee. If however, the company has a long history of hiring only men - qualified or not - then the lesser qualified woman may get hired. If the company had hired qualified women in the past when they had applied they wouldn't be in a situation of needing to hire a female now. Is the discrimination against male co-applicants any more her fault than it is that of the twenty or so lesser-qualified men already employed?

 

Sexual harassment and date rape are separate issues.

heres the whole thing, you cant solve a problem with another problem. there are laws on the books banning descrimination in anyway. age, sex, race, religion, etc. what needs to be done is to find a way to enforce the laws already around, not keep trying to make more and more and more, that just can never be enforced. so enforcement is the key, not affirmative action or any other such thing, just use whats already there. enforecment not legislation. government is way too intrusive in business, and everything. so i didnt mean to sound like i thought there was no problem, there was, is, to a point, but you cant solve it with another unfair, problem. too many equality minded white men are being treated just as badly as the minorities were. so im sorry, this issue just really bothers me when brought up, but ive said enough about it. at least you agree it is a bad solution, i think. :)

[prometheus 0]

:) yawn

[MeeMaw 0]

I think the original ? was...

Does anyone else get annoyed by pollitical correctness in this aspect?

Yes, being PC has made me angry! It was okay at first, because most of the complaints were valid. Then they went to far. Now you're afraid to say anything to anyone for fear of a lawsuit. I'm surprised the PC'ers haven't tried to pull Blazing Saddles off the shelves of stores. The one movie that I want to see and will NEVER EVER see again, is The Song of the South by Disney. I saw it in 6th grade for our crossing guard party at the theater and I liked it. I would love to see it again but the PC'ers got to it before anyone was able to object. It's really sad. Will they be going after Trek next because there are 'too many men and not enough women' in it? It's just so sad when you think about it. MHO. No offense meant to anyone.

Katy

[ddillard 2]

ok, I just finished study for my big latin exam, and so now I'm stuck on all these genders, masculine feminine, and nueter.  I didn't mean nueter, just like a word that can be used for both, for example, some peoples names can be either girl or boy, such as dillon, or devon.

I think you mean neutral. Kind of worries me when I hear neuter, makes me a little nervous. :)

thats the word I was loking for!

I was hoping. The word neuter just makes me a little nervous.

[shinzonfan 0]

Human

He - Hers

Man - Woman

Male - Female

 

See?  Man is usually the base word for the woman gender.  So, when not knowing the person's gender, it is common to use the male gender as a referrence.

 

However, what gets highly annoying is when you say "he", and then some female comes up and is all like "she" is a woman, not a man, and gives ya the eye roll and all that.  Really, why does it matter?

Spoken like a real man CJLP.

 

At first it bothered me when Star Trek would call a female captain sir. I just thought the captain should be addressed proper. Sir or Mam or Mr. or Ms. or what have you. Ever notice how Picard will say Mr. LaForge or Mr. Data. He never says Ms. Troi or Ms. Crusher.

 

I think whatever you choose you should try to be consistent. That way one gender does not feel put down or less important.

[joeybear 0]

I would just like to say a few things from my perspective:

1) -I really liked seeing Saavik referred to as "Mister" and "Sir" - it propelled my young mind forward...

2) -anyone notice how thee's 'sir' for guys, and 'miss' and 'ma'am' for gals? hmmm....

3) -I think women do have more legislated rights than men (only 'cause they've been fighting for them for a hundred years, and rightly so), but men have the upper hand in society (still), and don't ANY of you deny it...

4) -as for affirmative action, I live in Canada, and although it doesn't go under the same name, here's one scary result: I saw an ad in our local paper that read "Burger King - hiring full time at Pape and Danforth - phillipino speaking preferrred" - what the hell?!?...

5) -discrimination is alive and well - I'm a gay white male, and I eat (I'm trying to say a bad word but can't) from EVERYBODY...

6) -my last and most important thought: we live in a new western society, where the world has come together under the umbrella of equality for all; there may be rough spots and sore points, but will everyone please remember that this brave new world is less than 100 years old (50, if you count voting rights...); we may think of individual cases where rights have been transgressed (!) but, unlike anywhere else in the world, we as a people are trying to live in progressive harmony WITHOUT KILLING EACH OTHER - give us a century (or so) of space between now and then, and we'll be where no man has gone before - we're as young society, so everyone take a deep breath and KEEP ON TRYING!!!

[jdigs 0]

<span style='font-family:Comic Sans MS'><span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>I would just like to say a few things from my perspective:

1) -I really liked seeing Saavik referred to as "Mister" and "Sir" - it propelled my young mind forward...

2) -anyone notice how thee's 'sir' for guys, and 'miss' and 'ma'am' for gals? hmmm....

3) -I think women do have more legislated rights than men (only 'cause they've been fighting for them for a hundred years, and rightly so), but men have the upper hand in society (still), and don't ANY of you deny it...

4) -as for affirmative action, I live in Canada, and although it doesn't go under the same name, here's one scary result: I saw an ad in our local paper that read "Burger King - hiring full time at Pape and Danforth - phillipino speaking preferrred" - what the hell?!?...

5) -discrimination is alive and well - I'm a gay white male, and I eat (I'm trying to say a bad word but can't) from EVERYBODY...

6) -my last and most important thought: we live in a new western society, where the world has come together under the umbrella of equality for all; there may be rough spots and sore points, but will everyone please remember that this brave new world is less than 100 years old (50, if you count voting rights...); we may think of individual cases where rights have been transgressed (!) but, unlike anywhere else in the world, we as a people are trying to live in progressive harmony WITHOUT KILLING EACH OTHER - give us a century (or so) of space between now and then, and we'll be where no man has gone before - we're as young society, so everyone take a deep breath and KEEP ON TRYING!!!

</span></span>

I can't say I agree with or disagree with the posting going on here..I'm going to have to think about this one..Joeybear...I too live in Canada and if I may..your point number 4 isn't really discrimination but that because we have so many different cultures and languages in Canada, sometimes it is better to hire someone who speaks phillipino when there is large phillipino crowd at that Burger King..makes things easier no? It dosen't mean they won't hire someone who dosen't speak the language..I suspect you already knew that..and I like your line "we're a young society, so everyone take a deep breath and KEEP ON TRYING!!! " Cheers.

[mrskirk 0]

I think there are situations where PC has gone too far. Take, for example, my personal situation. I am tall and very thin. Almost every person I meet says something like: "Oh my GOD!!! You're so SKINNY!! Don't you ever EAT???" Now, what if the situation were reversed? What if I were introduced to someone who was overweight and said: "Oh my GOD!! You're so FAT!! Don't you ever stop EATING??" What do you think people would think of me?

[Theunicornhunter 2]

I think there are situations where PC has gone too far.  Take, for example, my personal situation.  I am tall and very thin.  Almost every person I meet says something like:  "Oh my GOD!!!  You're so SKINNY!! Don't you ever EAT???"  Now, what if the situation were reversed?  What if I were introduced to someone who was overweight and said:  "Oh my GOD!!  You're so FAT!!  Don't you ever stop EATING??"  What do you think people would think of me?

I knew someone who had developed a food allergy - she lost lots of weight and was terribly sick. She said guys would say to her "gee you look great". I read of another similar situation - this woman almost died and people were complimenting her. I try to remember that when I see really thin people. Now, I do get really ticked when thin people complain about their weight in front of me.

[RikerChick 5]

Now, I do get really ticked when thin people complain about their weight in front of me.

Why? Whether you think they have a reason to or not, they have the same right to complain about their body as everyone else. Thin people suffer from insecurities too, trust me. The same way my overwieght friend sometimes wants a "shoulder to cry on" when she's feeling bad about herself I'd like the same. But thin people just get "Oh please" or "Gee, I wish i had your problem".

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard 1]

Human

He - Hers

Man - Woman

Male - Female

 

See?  Man is usually the base word for the woman gender.  So, when not knowing the person's gender, it is common to use the male gender as a referrence.

 

However, what gets highly annoying is when you say "he", and then some female comes up and is all like "she" is a woman, not a man, and gives ya the eye roll and all that.  Really, why does it matter?

Spoken like a real man CJLP.

What's this suppose to mean?

 

<span style='font-family:Comic Sans MS'><span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>

5) -discrimination is alive and well - I'm a gay white male, and I eat (I'm trying to say a bad word but can't) from EVERYBODY...

</span></span>

 

I noticed no one mentioned this poster being gay. I commend you people as it's about time people stopped making a big deal, and I commend you Joeybear for not "announcing" you're gay as sooo many do.

 

mrskirk,

I totally agree with you. In the public eye, you're either too fat, too skinny, sickly looking, or muscle man. It get's sooo annoying! To be honest, I'd rather be skinny than fat. If you're fat, you gotta work hard and exercise. If you're skinny... well... you just gotta eat yummy food! :)