Manhole cover in Japan ~
- Thread starter buddy
- Start date
And this brings us to the ?manhole.?
In crafting gender-neutral language in Washington state, the person in charge of revising the code to rid it of gender biased language was stumped. ?There was no clear alternative to manhole? Revisers considered utility hole, but that doesn?t connote size like manhole does. One might only be able to stick a wire through a ?utility hole?? but a manhole?that?s for humans? (here). Aside from the fact that there are probably a lot of not-so-complicated linguistic solutions to this issue (a response on Ms. Magazine?s post on this topic suggests ?sewer access cover? or ?_____ access cover? depending upon where the ?manhole? leads), it?s an interesting issue. Does it really matter that we find a new name for ?manholes??
Manhole presumes that it?s a hole for men. And in fact, jobs that require using manholes (AKA ?human access tunnels?) are jobs that are disproportionately occupied by men (I?ve posted on similar issues before: here and here). So, things associated with this kind of work acquire a sort of masculine cultural patina. This is why we think of hard hats as masculine (or ?macho? depending on who you ask), or tools and tool belts.
This is why ?Men Working? signs exist as well?though like ?manhole,? these signs too are sometime protested (here and here). It?s not that these objects are somehow naturally ?masculine.? Rather, they acquire gendered meaning through segregation, use, and display.
So, the use of ?manhole? and ?Men Working? signs are more than a matter of symbolism. They are a small part of the process through which occupational spaces are gendered. They reinforce the notion that it is really only men who can do the work required beneath ?manholes? or the physical labor required on sites that display ?Men Working? signs. So, challenging the naming of ?manholes? is important because it is one small piece of a larger project of opening them up (pun intended) to women?not just legally, but culturally as well.
In crafting gender-neutral language in Washington state, the person in charge of revising the code to rid it of gender biased language was stumped. ?There was no clear alternative to manhole? Revisers considered utility hole, but that doesn?t connote size like manhole does. One might only be able to stick a wire through a ?utility hole?? but a manhole?that?s for humans? (here). Aside from the fact that there are probably a lot of not-so-complicated linguistic solutions to this issue (a response on Ms. Magazine?s post on this topic suggests ?sewer access cover? or ?_____ access cover? depending upon where the ?manhole? leads), it?s an interesting issue. Does it really matter that we find a new name for ?manholes??
Manhole presumes that it?s a hole for men. And in fact, jobs that require using manholes (AKA ?human access tunnels?) are jobs that are disproportionately occupied by men (I?ve posted on similar issues before: here and here). So, things associated with this kind of work acquire a sort of masculine cultural patina. This is why we think of hard hats as masculine (or ?macho? depending on who you ask), or tools and tool belts.
This is why ?Men Working? signs exist as well?though like ?manhole,? these signs too are sometime protested (here and here). It?s not that these objects are somehow naturally ?masculine.? Rather, they acquire gendered meaning through segregation, use, and display.So, the use of ?manhole? and ?Men Working? signs are more than a matter of symbolism. They are a small part of the process through which occupational spaces are gendered. They reinforce the notion that it is really only men who can do the work required beneath ?manholes? or the physical labor required on sites that display ?Men Working? signs. So, challenging the naming of ?manholes? is important because it is one small piece of a larger project of opening them up (pun intended) to women?not just legally, but culturally as well.
And this brings us to the ?manhole.?
In crafting gender-neutral language in Washington state, the person in charge of revising the code to rid it of gender biased language was stumped. ?There was no clear alternative to manhole? Revisers considered utility hole, but that doesn?t connote size like manhole does. One might only be able to stick a wire through a ?utility hole?? but a manhole?that?s for humans? (here). Aside from the fact that there are probably a lot of not-so-complicated linguistic solutions to this issue (a response on Ms. Magazine?s post on this topic suggests ?sewer access cover? or ?_____ access cover? depending upon where the ?manhole? leads), it?s an interesting issue. Does it really matter that we find a new name for ?manholes??
Manhole presumes that it?s a hole for men. And in fact, jobs that require using manholes (AKA ?human access tunnels?) are jobs that are disproportionately occupied by men (I?ve posted on similar issues before: here and here). So, things associated with this kind of work acquire a sort of masculine cultural patina. This is why we think of hard hats as masculine (or ?macho? depending on who you ask), or tools and tool belts.
So, the use of ?manhole? and ?Men Working? signs are more than a matter of symbolism. They are a small part of the process through which occupational spaces are gendered. They reinforce the notion that it is really only men who can do the work required beneath ?manholes? or the physical labor required on sites that display ?Men Working? signs. So, challenging the naming of ?manholes? is important because it is one small piece of a larger project of opening them up (pun intended) to women?not just legally, but culturally as well.
whoever wrote this should stick to making sandwiches in the fukin kitchen.
