3 ms·

“Completely out of line with the culture” firefighter, for a moment, was an exclusively male job. Fireman made sense. As more women took on that job during the

“Completely out of line with the culture” firefighter, for a moment, was an exclusively male job. Fireman made sense. As more women took on that job during the past 50-ish years, calling them “firemen” makes less and less sense. So to say it’s people out of step with culture isn’t quite right. It’s more like entrenched language in conflict with shifting culture. A non-gendered example of this would be something like xerox vs photocopier. There was a time when all photocopiers were xeroxes, but now odds are very low that your xerox machine is a xerox branded photocopier. There are still a few people out there who haven’t bothered to update their language, but largely that shift happened over the past 30 years - and because it’s not very political it was largely a silent shift. “Firemen” is, unfortunately, wrapped up in people’s beliefs about what gender roles SHOULD be - so it’s not going so quietly

frenchyatwork 5y ago
The problem here is not that "fireman" couldn't in theory be used to refer to both men and women; but that in English it doesn't, or at least not anymore. Historically, the masculine noun class has been used in gender-indeterminate places, but about 100 years ago that usage stared to disappear from the language, or at least become argot. The phrase "I am no man" in the Lord or the Rings is a play on this disappearance. In English, this disappearance happened alongside a similar change in gender roles; however, in a lot of European languages the social changes occurred, but the linguistic changes did not (and non-European languages often have quite different kinds of noun classes).
- kennywinker 5y ago
  Interesting. I was aware of the shift... In university I would cringe every time a prof said "man" to refer to human or humanity, which seemed to me to indicate a very recent change. It's a surprising thing to hear it started as far back as Tolkien's time - I remembered that line as a Peter Jackson addition. It would be interesting to hear how women who speak other European languages that didn't make those changes feel about it - they seem so inherently linked to my ear.
arp242 5y ago
This doesn't always happen though; we have /dev/tty and it's used in common parlance, but this refers to Teletype, a company that went out of business in 1990. Hoover is the common name for a vacuum cleaner in the UK, and I'm not seeing that changing any time soon either, in spite of the company still being around. There are quite a few examples of this. It has always seemed to me that a far easier and less painful process would have been to simply accept "men" as gender-neutral, but it seems that ship has sailed *shrug*. I don't think that "Firemen is wrapped up in people’s beliefs about what gender roles SHOULD be" – or at least not necessarily – as many people still just see it as gender neutral.
- kennywinker 5y ago
  The ship has, as you say, sailed. Man is not gender neutral, the -men suffix neither. Every case where it’s used is one where the stereotype is of a male dominated field. I say fireman, you invariably picture a man first. Can you give me an example of a job with the -man/men suffix that the stereotype is female? If that’s not the case how can it be neutral?

frenchyatwork 5y ago

The problem here is not that "fireman" couldn't in theory be used to refer to both men and women; but that in English it doesn't, or at least not anymore. Historically, the masculine noun class has been used in gender-indeterminate places, but about 100 years ago that usage stared to disappear from the language, or at least become argot. The phrase "I am no man" in the Lord or the Rings is a play on this disappearance. In English, this disappearance happened alongside a similar change in gender roles; however, in a lot of European languages the social changes occurred, but the linguistic changes did not (and non-European languages often have quite different kinds of noun classes).

kennywinker 5y ago
Interesting. I was aware of the shift... In university I would cringe every time a prof said "man" to refer to human or humanity, which seemed to me to indicate a very recent change. It's a surprising thing to hear it started as far back as Tolkien's time - I remembered that line as a Peter Jackson addition. It would be interesting to hear how women who speak other European languages that didn't make those changes feel about it - they seem so inherently linked to my ear.

arp242 5y ago

This doesn't always happen though; we have /dev/tty and it's used in common parlance, but this refers to Teletype, a company that went out of business in 1990. Hoover is the common name for a vacuum cleaner in the UK, and I'm not seeing that changing any time soon either, in spite of the company still being around. There are quite a few examples of this. It has always seemed to me that a far easier and less painful process would have been to simply accept "men" as gender-neutral, but it seems that ship has sailed *shrug*. I don't think that "Firemen is wrapped up in people’s beliefs about what gender roles SHOULD be" – or at least not necessarily – as many people still just see it as gender neutral.

kennywinker 5y ago
The ship has, as you say, sailed. Man is not gender neutral, the -men suffix neither. Every case where it’s used is one where the stereotype is of a male dominated field. I say fireman, you invariably picture a man first. Can you give me an example of a job with the -man/men suffix that the stereotype is female? If that’s not the case how can it be neutral?