Re: Re: Re: I just don't understand why we.....
 

Sportsmanship ?

Two man, three man, four man (in baseball). Just go with tradition, and customary terms. It's the female officials who insist on deviating from these (to single themselves out) that make it harder for women to "blend in" with the guys as equals. The more attention you draw to these gender inconsistencies, the more you set the women apart. We all know what those terms mean, and they apply to all officials and players. No need to emphasize being a woman while being a sports official. IMO.

2 Person crews?

Marty, I agree to a certain extent, but the point of my earlier post was to ask how you would feel if the "tradition" was to call them 3-woman crews. Would you, being a man, like to be called part of a 3-woman crew? I think I would not. Instead of blindly keeping a tradition that misrepresents the truth of the situation, what's the harm in adopting an inclusive term? As always, just my opinion.

Chuck

Re: Re: I just don't understand why we.....
 

I've often thought of the word "man" in this situation referred to "mankind." Common usage of terms has always favored the male term in the English language. I have no problem using a gender-neutral phrase, but many times such usage is awkward.

Just to make it absolutely clear, though: I mean no disrespect to female officials.

Rich

Re: I just don't understand why we.....
 

Contrived, forced and strange -- which is what "not euphonious" means, Rich. A gender-neutral term would just be less confusing. Maybe YOU mean "2-person" when you say "2-man", but not everyone does. 100 years ago "man" could be used to mean person. 100 years ago, "gay" meant frisky and happy. Do you insist on telling your friends you had a "gay weekend" because "gay" means happy? Of course not, things have changed. And "man" isn't assumed to mean "person" anymore, either. So a gender-neutral phrase would be more exact in its meaning.


Stan -- for defense, I think one-on-one works just as well, don't you?

Person?

Isn't that offensive? Why not perdaughter? ;)

Bob, I saw the smiley, so I realize your comments were in jest. I just want to make it clear that I don't think anybody is being offended when using a term like "2-man" crews. I think you'd have to be reallllllly thin-skinned to be offended. But I just think that it couldn't really hurt to find a term that means what it says and reflects the fact that women are becoming more common in officiating circles.

Chuck

:Confused: It is interessting how placing so much concern on politically correct terminology many times clouds and nearly obscures the objective at hand

3-man 3-women 3-whistle 3-person...3-zebras :rolleyes:

Aren't we all on the floor (or here) for the same reason...JMO

i think that 3 refrees it's better then 2 but if the 2 refrees are woman so in this situation we don't need another ref'...

But how many times have you heard the coaches in a girl's game yell out for everyone to get their MAN? More than one or two times I would bet, ur, surmize.

That's it! Why should people (guys) feel hesitant to speak, fearing using a wrong term and "offending" a woman official. Walking around on eggshells and attempting to use the "politically correct" wording only contributes to division between men and women officials. I guess each person should just use the terminology they prefer, and not try to force others to agree with them. Using "special language" to accomodate for a women is more offensive than just treating her like "one of the guys," as an official, I mean. Of course, IMO.

I hope that I haven't been coming across as trying to force a change in terminology. I personally couldn't care less what the accepted term is, as long as it's not "three blind mice". My point is only that it doesn't seem unreasonable to stop calling women "men".

Chuck

"Three blind mice!" I'm sure we could get the general population to accept THAT terminology without a problem.
Or, is it "three bline mice-ettes," or, "three blind lady mice?"
Just kidding.

Re: Re: I just don't understand why we.....
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rainmaker

Quote:

[i] Stan -- for defense, I think one-on-one works just as well, don't you?

Rainmaker,

Sorry I'm late in this reply, darn job anyway. To answer your question, No, I don't think one-on-one works as well. We would be trying to change the meaning of one term to fit another. Frankly, while attempting to speak as accurately as possible I find myself stymied and that interfers with the communication process. I've never thought mankind, humanity, sportsmanship, man-to-man defense, man the life boats, etc., referred to the male of the species. I also try not to be bogged down with those that do, from either side of the issue.

This is not a big issue with me and if someone starts using new terminoligy to define officiating crews, I'll adopt it quickly. This is issue is difficult to articulate and can be devisive so I'll be quiet before I unintentionally offend someone.