Recently in Atlanta, Georgia, the feminist magazine PINK expressed dissatisfaction with the area’s road signs, featuring the words “Men Working” or “Men at Work” on the basis that the signs were a sign of our less-liberal past in which the majority of manual laborers were in fact men.
Likely fearing a legal conflict, the Atlanta’s Public Works Commissioner, Joe Basista, was willing to accept the magazine editor’s suggestions and begin a change that will replace the misogynistic signs with more-ambiguous ones that say workers ahead. Under the new plan, the commission will have to spend a minimum one-thousand dollars to replace current signs, and will have to pay $144 a piece if they order any more of the new variety.
The magazine editor, Cynthia Good, referred to the current road signs as a subtle form of discrimination. But is it? Are signs that date back to pre-civil rights truly a form of discrimination? Discrimination might have held women from roadside jobs in the 1950s and 1960s, but that hasn’t lasted. Does Good truly believe that the majority of the public works institutions out there are purposely keeping these signs to show women their place on the workforce? It wouldn’t surprise me.
There are far too many of these activist-types in the world who try to support a cause, even when one doesn’t exist. They range from feminist magazine editors like Good, to those like Jesse Jackson who think that their respective identities are being held back by, generally, Whitey.
Discrimination still exists, people see Don Imus as a legitimate racist, which his actions have supported. There also exist secret organizations, like the Ku Klux Klan, that are for the betterment of true white Protestants, and although lynching is now outlawed, quiet actions oft occur.
But I am sorry, Ms. Cynthia Good, this is not a discriminatory action. The signs have not changed likely because of apathy, or because of a lack of funding to put toward useless motives. Let me go through a couple of things that might have to change if we follow the same logic…
“All Men and Women Are Created Equal”
When this phrase was first crafted, it likely referred only to the male race. Over time, we have gradually and rightfully accepted that this not only applies to both sexes. But, if we follow the same logic Good practices, we need to add in the “women” even though many consider “man” to cover both genders. She might argue that this is historical, so we shouldn’t have to change it. But on the same token, aren’t the road signs?“One Small Step for Man, One Giant Leap for Men and Women”
In this sampler, we have removed “mankind” in favor of “men and women.” But it goes back to the same point I just hearkened on. Mankind, has man it in. Many rational beings accept mankind to include men and women, but not in Good’s case. Like in Spanish, if there are men and women, even at a one to a billion ratio, you call them males. Isn’t it/Shouldn’t it be similar in English?“His and Herstory”
I threw this one in for fun, but it is probably something that the radical left will argue is derogatory toward women.
None of that makes sense, and why should it? Why should we sacrifice public funds in favor of satisfying one angry woman who has a bone to pick with all of humanity. Or hu-manandwoman-ity.
Comments
I think very few things are as ridiculous as political correctness these days. I wrote an article for The Forum about reverse racism a couple years ago that was about how society has been overcompensating so much for past injustices that new injustices have arisen as a result.
sorry the last one was me. I missed the name bar. I’m intelligent.
You (and others) can actually just post comments directly and not worry about filling in the name if you are logged in.
Chris, do you still have a copy of that article? I’d like to see it.
Off-topic: If we’re in the business of fixing #2, might as well make that “one small step for a man”, since the quote as it was pronounced was a slip-up.
Snopes tells all.
It’s just the way language is. Same with spanish, if you’re talking about a group of men and women, you would greet them with “hi guys,” not, “hi guys and girls.” You could use the latter, but that just sounds awkward, regardless of it’s so-called political correctness. If this woman wants to make a difference, she should devote her efforts to more significant issues. There are people without food, a pending water crisis, rapidly expanding international tensions, and this woman is focusing on changing the wording on a sign?
It’s a sign of the times.