So I’m currently debating with my partner the sexist topic, she says that her mother is a firefighter and defiantly not a firewoman, I’m like but she can be both a firefighter and a firewoman in exactly the same way a man could be a firefighter and a fireman. She says there is no such thing as a fireman or a firewoman as these terms are both sexist whereas I don’t think either is, it is purely descriptive and does not imply 1 is better than the other.
Who’s right?
Thank you.
It’s a fun argument, no murder charges are likely.
I think anyone in a relationship should each respect each others opinions, if she doesn’t like the term fireman then just stick to firefighter. And if you use the term fireman she knows you mean firefighter.
So the context of this started by me saying to my daughter that she could be a firewoman when she gets older and then all of a sudden I was wrong and my partner said no she can’t, she can only be a firefighter when she is older and I was like yes she can be both a firefighter and a firewoman, if my son was only in the conversation I would have said he could be a fireman and if both kids we’re in the conversation I would have said they could be firefighters when they get older.
I guess using the terms fireman/firewoman could breed the habit of using the plural of one or either when referring to all. This could then be considered exclusionary. I think firefighter is the better option to go for, there’s not really any need for a distinction to be made between the sexes in the job title imo.
This objection in this line of argument is never “Is [word] technically accurate?” Rather, it is “Are gendered job titles necessary in this day and age?”
In that respect, firefighter is exactly the right answer.
8 Likes
Cerberus
(There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.)
17
The view that the union has always had is that the gendered term of fireman has always had a detrimental impact on recruitment.
Personally I’m not a fan of there being no gender specific terms. If people who don’t identify as their gender or don’t have a gender don’t want to be called gender specific terms then fair enough for them. Personally, I don’t mind.
Even if a firewoman specific role was specifically launched I doubt it’d have a really drastic impact as for whatever reason there’s just some jobs you don’t see great deal of men doing. It’s like men and Nursing - whilst there is a fair number it’s nothing compared to the amount of women but I haven’t seen anyone wanting to change the names of nursing staff to make them gender neutral for everyone.
1 Like
Cerberus
(There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.)
19
Your right it wouldn’t have a big impact because for one it would be patronising and secondly it still wouldn’t change people’s old fashioned perception that “some jobs are just for men” which is the biggest barrier.
You are also talking to a former aux nurse, I can tell you why you don’t see a lot of male nurse staff because generally small minded men think the work would be beneath them and it was a womens job as many men told me when I told them I was/used to be one.
So are the women just as small minded for thinking some jobs are just for men?
Seems men are always evil when it comes to sexist rows.
Cerberus
(There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.)
21
Yes they are.
I’ve never been bullied out of a job for being a man in a female dominated industry, I was always encouraged and supported when I was an aux nurse by female staff because the turn over for male aux staff was so high.
You wonder why? Can’t keep count the everyday sexism I see happen to my wife anymore. Or the amount of sexists bullshit I see in the film industry daily.
