WORLD Magazine Library powered by Amazon
Term Life Insurance at Savings up to 75%!
Logos Bible Software for Bible Study
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Free Hardcover ESV Study Bible!
On the 500th anniversary of John Calvin's birth, John Piper writes about the Reformer's impact on America. 
“Men At Work” no more
Atlanta’s orange construction signs are getting a makeover after women’s magazine editor Cynthia Good complained that they discriminated against women construction workers. Good, founding editor of Atlanta-based PINK Magazine, approached city officials earlier this month demanding gender neutral signs to replace the current ”Men At Work” and “Men Working Ahead” placards. Atlanta Public Works Commissioner Joe Basista agreed to the change and now a total of 50 signs are slated for a “makeover”–either a $22 cover or a $144 new replacement.
Atlanta union leader Gina Pagnotta said some women employees of Atlanta Public Works complained about these signs years ago.
“It is a little bit bias to say ‘Men Working,’ ” said Pagnotta, president of the Professional Association of City Employees. “Women are working, too.”
With one victory under her belt, Good said she’s not stopping with Atlanta: “We’re calling on the rest of the nation to follow suit and make a statement that we will not accept these subtle forms of discrimination.”
back to top39 Comments to ““Men At Work” no more”
It’s about time, because when I see a sign that says “Men at Work” then I see a woman working, I get confused and run over her.
Report comment to moderator
What a waste of money.
Report comment to moderator
Amen, #2.
Report comment to moderator
Another thought. Every other language uses the masculine plural for the general plural as well. Why are we too good for that? (Well, okay. I don’t know about every other language. But every other language I’ve studied.)
Report comment to moderator
There are other discriminatory practices concerning the signs that no one seems to have considered yet. For instance, the figure on the signs is black. There should be signs produced that reflect the fact that other races work on the crews. Also, that figure on the sign is rail thin. This seems to discriminate against obese workers.
Report comment to moderator
“It is a little bit bias to say ‘Men Working,’ ” said Pagnotta, president of the Professional Association of City Employees. “Women are working, too.”
What is the problem people have with the word “bias?” I see it misused a lot.
Bias is a noun, referring to a discrimination favoring one side over another. When you use as an adjective, as in the above quote, the form is biased.
Report comment to moderator
While they’re at it, they should change from plural (workers ahead) to singular? Whenever I see these signs, there’s usually (at most) one person working and two or three (or more) standing around watching.
Report comment to moderator
Three things:
-Around here they use the gender neutral picture signs. (I guess they think we rural Missourians can’t read.)
-How often do we see those signs and wonder about whom the sign is referring, when mostly we see people in orange vests standing around leaning on shovels, while one person in a machine is pulling levers. Should not the sign read “Machines at work”? (And you can tell a government crew from a private outfit by the number of people standing around. The government crew has twice as many standers.)
-Which reminds me of a joke I read years ago: A visitor from England was walking along a street in New York when she saw a sign that said “Men Working”. The workers were on a coffee break, sitting around talking. The woman said to them, “At home we don’t need a sign to tell us what you are supposed to be doing, because the men actually work!”
Report comment to moderator
Should we also change the term “hymnal” to “personal”?
Report comment to moderator
When I worked on a television crew and the director would come on the intercom and ask if my camera was manned and I would always answer “no”.
Report comment to moderator
We now have “postpersons”, “paperpersons”, etc.
But in Washington a few years ago, they had a problem with gas building up in some underground system and the manhole covers were exploding and popping out of the ground. It occurred to me than when something bad happened, there was no problem calling them “manhole” covers. When I suggested they be called “personholes”, they thought I was kidding.
BTW, KBells’ camera was “personed”.
Report comment to moderator
While going to school in Ft. Worth, I worked part time in a drafting room. We had several women working there. They had no problem calling themselves “draftsmen”. This was around 1960.
Report comment to moderator
“Men At Work” no more
D’uh! The broke up back in the 90s. Pretty cool that they re-united to perform “Down Under” at the Sydney Olympics though.
What? Oh, sorry…I shoulda kept reading.
Report comment to moderator
This is a slightly different situation but made me laugh. I work in a law firm, and the other day I called myself a secretary in front of one of the partners. He quickly chided me and informed me that I was an assistant, not a secretary. He told me that “secretary” was an out-dated and incorrect term.
Report comment to moderator
Language matters. The signs are factually incorrect. But I’d settle for equal pay for equal work.
Report comment to moderator
15. Women like this nut make it hard for women with a legitimate complaint about equal pay to get taken seriously. Plus the money used to change the signs could have given everyone a bonus.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG (#6), perhaps Gina Pagnotta meant as a noun. You know, the matter is only a little bias. So they complained. Had it been a big bias, they would have sued or struck or neither.
Galadriel, your comment (#2) coming after Kbells’ (#1) struck me thus:
and 
By the way, “Men at Work” should never be confused with “Men Working”!
Living in Oregon, I was pleasantly surprised that Atlanta was “behind” us on this particular matter.
Report comment to moderator
It sounds as if Ms. Good contributed to a bit of “discrimination” of her own, as she decided to deface public property and spray painted “WO” in front of the word “men” on the signs (according to the article.
#15: Do you have an evidence that women do not receive equal pay for equal work on work crews in the state of Georgia?
Report comment to moderator
Argggh, that should be “any” evidence…
Report comment to moderator
Kbells at #1,
Thank you, I needed that! It’s always good to start the day with a good laugh.
Report comment to moderator
Reminds me of the joke about the woman who complained to her husband about using gender inaccurate pronouns, to which he replied, “Fine, I’m going out to the person-box to see if the person-person left us any person.”
Report comment to moderator
I saw the lady on TV that pushed for this change. After her performance I thought we needed a new sign.
Warning
Feminazis
Lurking.
Report comment to moderator
This is silly.
Report comment to moderator
Kbells
Loved your first response, made me LOL.
Outkast,
Only if you spell women, “wymyn” which I suspect you don’t.
Report comment to moderator
#23 GODLUMPS,
This passed silly yesterday going 80 MPH when silly was walking so as not to injure itself.
Report comment to moderator
Who says there are women working on these crews? What if there are no women working on a particular crew? Can they use the old signs? I passed 2 road crews today – not one woman.
I despise having to make everything gender neutral. It used to be that saying “he” or “him” or “mankind” in a general sense was understood to mean “he or she” or “humankind”. Now, we have to say all these extra words, since evidently women can’t figure out the nuances of our language. I am a woman, and if I hear “he” in a general way, I assume to be a part of the group. Life is too short to get offended by dumb things like this. Fight for a cause that actually means something.
Report comment to moderator
Cyot,
I stop spelling it womyn a couple years ago. It tended to sever as an excuse for WMB’s to ignore content in place of attacking a secondary language choice. Let’s not call this woman a hero quite yet, Arcadia is right to point out that this stylistic change does nothing to address serious economic discrepancies between men’s and women’s lives.
However, the androcentric (thanks Firefox, for not believing that this is word) terminology offers us absolutely no societal benefit to weigh against fighting the inborn assumption that those working on out freeways are automatically male. Assumptions that might lie somewhere near the heart of those economic discrepancies.
Oh well, this is getting wordy. Good for her and for Atlanta. WMB however function to treat developments like this with derision; it’s their role to play. Luckily for us, their outmoded ideologies are losing, as evidenced by the fact that Georgia city officials (OK so Atlanta isn’t representative of all of Georgia but still) thought this was important.
Report comment to moderator
Caution Bipedal Featherless Sapient Beings At Work
We’re going to need a bigger sign.
Report comment to moderator
When one junior secretary — now known as judicial assistants — was left “in charge” of chambers, she always told me should would “woman the fort.”
I agree with TL. It doesn’t make sense to purchase a new sign just to accommodate gender when the real message is “be careful and watch out for the workers.” In our progressive society that says it wants to conserve, it has no problem spending money on a new sign rather than wait until the old one’s useful life is over.
Report comment to moderator
My own pet peeve (I edit it out if I think I can get away with it) is “humankind.” We can speak of “man,” “humans,” or “mankind,” all of which refer to human beings–so “humankind” is quite simply redundancy, and quite silly as a coined word.
I love it when I get an author who simply uses “he” for the generic; any other usage ends up putting the language in knots. (The only place where “he” seems awkward to me is if you’re refering to married couples: “Ask your husband or wife is he or she…” reads better than “Ask your spouse if he…” which seems to assume a husband.)
Report comment to moderator
“Folks Doing Stuff”
That would cover it all.
Is this really worth getting worked up into a sweat?
Report comment to moderator
I love the humor on this thread!
Cheryl, I agree about the language getting tied in knots with this stuff–we end up using “they” or “their” for singular references just to cut down on the awkwardness, but that’s bad grammar.
Guess I’m more offended by bad grammar than by male references for mixed groups.
Report comment to moderator
Technically it’s bad grammar to use “they” as an he/she reference, but as an editor myself I’ve found it’s often the bast way to handle it. After all, grammar does evolve (or devolve?).
Report comment to moderator
Feminism — one of Satan’s greatest tools.
Report comment to moderator
#34 Yes Dav Feminism is just as bad as Macho males and Dad ruling with an iron fist. Me? I try to live by Mom’s Rules.
Rule #1 Mom is always right.
Rule #2 If Mom is wrong, see Rule #1.
I get in less trouble that way. By the way, I am 61 and very happily married.
Report comment to moderator
#35 — it’s that kind of masculine feminity that is destroying our culture.
I didn’t say a thing about “Macho males” and “Dad ruling with an iron fist”. You inserted that, probably because you’ve been programmed to go belly up at the first sign of ire from a feminist.
Read Genesis for a better understanding of male and female rules…from God’s perspective.
Created equal before the Lord with differing roles.
Report comment to moderator
Outkast #33. Speaking English correctly is ‘politically incorrect’.
I say, “Whenever someone writes he should strive to use proper grammar with his gender pronouns.”
Report comment to moderator
And for certain editing projects I’m expected to use male pronouns and I gladly do so. But for more and more projects I do the more modern thing because it is less confusing for the “unchurched/younger” readers. It’s almost like continuing to use “thees” and “thous” during prayers?
Report comment to moderator
Maybe they should reprint the Lord of the Rings, too.
“It is in Men that we must place our hope now.” turns into, “It is in Humans/People/Men and Women that we must place our hope now.”
The Lord of the Rings: Now politically correct!
Report comment to moderator