During my university days, i remember a lot of discussion of ‘gendered’ language and saw the gradual transition of formerly male-specific titles like “Fireman” and “Mailman” to the more PC “Firefighter” and “Postal Delivery person/ Postie.”
How did something like “Ironman” manage to survive the PC times intact? was it by virture of it being a trademark, or whatever? Seems like a prime example of the “sexist” language that that period did its best to clean up, but somehow it remains.
I’m pretty neutral on the matter, but it also surprises me that i’ve never heard a woman (sorry … womyn) raise this … particularly on this board, where it seems like every possible nuance of all-things-trivial get hashed out.
During my university days, i remember a lot of discussion of ‘gendered’ language and saw the gradual transition of formerly male-specific titles like “Fireman” and “Mailman” to the more PC “Firefighter” and “Postal Delivery person/ Postie.”
How did something like “Ironman” manage to survive the PC times intact? was it by virture of it being a trademark, or whatever? Seems like a prime example of the “sexist” language that that period did its best to clean up, but somehow it remains.
I’m pretty neutral on the matter, but it also surprises me that i’ve never heard a woman (sorry … womyn) raise this … particularly on this board, where it seems like every possible nuance of all-things-trivial get hashed out.
For the love of all things sacred leave the name alone soon some crazy chick is gonna bring that shit up and nex t your gonna hear when you cross the finish line is " you are an Iron person of the opposite sex. please dont start pc crap…
Why? Because Ironman has always been about being exclusive, not inclusive. Using non-gendered language is an attempt to include those who have formerly been excluded.
Why? Because Ironman has always been about being exclusive, not inclusive. Using non-gendered language is an attempt to include those who have formerly been excluded. Using “gender neutral” language generally demonstrates either your own ignorance of English grammar or that you are a proponent of Newspeak and all that that meant.
Why? Because Ironman has always been about being exclusive, not inclusive. Using non-gendered language is an attempt to include those who have formerly been excluded. Using “gender neutral” language generally demonstrates either your own ignorance of English grammar or that you are a proponent of Newspeak and all that that meant.
I might be indicating my own ignorance here, but isn’t English grammar (or language, for that matter) fluid and constantly evolving? For example, the plural possessive (and inclusive) “their” is, in at least a few Style Guides, now an acceptable replacement of “his” or “her.”
I think it’s just plain wrong to call a gender sensitive man a “pussie”. As for man in anything, I thought it was from Latin or whatever as in mankind, not gender specific. You got to love americans, half the world struggling for there next meal and they piss and moan if they are offended by the way a word echoes in their empty head chambers. God save this country if the lights go out and they have a real world struggle.