Re: Why are ManHole Covers Round?
- From: Don Stockbauer <donstockbauer@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 00:59:32 -0800 (PST)
On 2008-01-31, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In this politically correct gender-neutral age one must not say
"manhole cover". The correct term is "person-hole cover". Thank you.
That term was replaced by "perchildhole cover", avoiding the male
dominance implicit in the use of "son".
However further refinement was clearly necessary to remove linguistic
degradation of more than half the population, particularly given the
use of the word "cover" which has obvious ties to breeding of
livestock, and even more so when combined with the blatant symbolism
of the hole. Applying it to children was utterly disgusting.
No consensus has been reached on a suitable replacement. It is
currently recommended not to employ or refer to the concept at all.
- Tim
I think that's a very good way to proceed. not to employ or refer to
the concept at all. And that should be extended globally. not to
employ or refer to any concept at all, no how, no way. We sit around
contemplating our navals and become like Stephen Hawking.
.
- References:
- Re: Why are ManHole Covers Round?
- From: ostap_bender_1900
- Re: Why are ManHole Covers Round?
- Prev by Date: Re: Simple analysis question.
- Next by Date: Covering designs
- Previous by thread: Re: Why are ManHole Covers Round?
- Next by thread: Re: Why are ManHole Covers Round?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
