bob jenkins Originally posted by bigwhistle 2 Person crews? Person? Isn't that offensive? Why not perdaughter? 😉
ChuckElias Originally posted by bob jenkins Isn't that offensive? 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
MN 3 Sport Ref :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 🙄 Aren't we all on the floor (or here) for the same reason...JMO
ROMANO 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'...
bigwhistle 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.
Marty Rogers Originally posted by MN 3 Sport Ref :Confused: It is interessting how placing so much concern on politically correct terminology many times clouds and nearly obscures the objective at hand 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.
ChuckElias 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
Marty Rogers Originally posted by ChuckElias 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.
Stan Originally posted by rainmaker 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.
RookieDude ...and we are all part of "womankind" rather than "mankind"?...oh brother.(whoops...maybe I better say "oh sister") Dude Hmmmmm, what should we do about: <*> policeman <*> fireman <*> journeyman [Edited by RookieDude on Jan 7th, 2003 at 11:56 AM]