Political correctness

This is a topic that has been in the news a lot lately. I usually take a neutral stance on the topic. On the issues of indian logos, I usually have no opinion. I read an article that I have posted below on changeing the term for “firefighters”. They say is sexist and too agressive. WTF? This is taking PC just a little too far. When is this going to stop? Please post your opinions on this article.

’Firemaster’ Term Offensive to Women

**"The Scottish Executive are considering a proposal to stop using the term “firemaster” or “firefighter” to refer to people who professionally fight fires because the former is offensive to women and the latter is “too aggressive.”

The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities supports the proposal, according to the Ayshire Post, but fire officers have branded the suggestion “political correctness gone mad.”

Conservative Member of the Scottish Parliament Phil Gallie agreed with the latter.

“I think it is the Scottish Executive that need to find some aggression in weeding out those who come up with such ludicrous suggestions,” he said. “And instead, spend more time on the issues which really affect the lives of the men and women alike who live in their constituencies.”**

I go this article from the the tongue tied section of Fox News.

Gee, I think “firemaster” is pretty damn cool! Whoo-hoo…“I AM THE FIREMASTER! BOW BEFORE ME, PUNY HUMANS!”

Wonder what they’d make of “fireman” if “firefighter” bothers them so much. If my apartment were burning down, I’d much rather have an “aggresive” firefighter come in to get me out than be left to die by some wimp.

That said, I greatly admire people in that line of work. But political correctness gone waaaaay too far…yeah, definitely.

I agree with The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and would go one or two steps further. First, I suggest the term “fire-tender.”

In addition, to counteract the violent image of those who were formerly called firefighters, I suggest that they be required to go out and start fires to make up for all the unfortunate fires they fought in the past.

One feels compells to ask, are they offended by the term for defiling onself? Not that we gals ever do that anyway…

Geesh. What’d they propose instead? Fire Putter-Out-er?

Isn’t the word “fire” a bit too harsh, too aggressive?

Let’s call it “combustihappy”.

Doesn’t that sound nice??

how about “squelcher of flames”…thatsa good non-gender term…not agressive. here is an example of how it could be used.

"look! Our house is on fire!..call the “Squelcher of Flames Dept” oh boy

Combustion Control Technician.

(I’m Mister Heat Miser, I’m Mister Sun…)

OH OH OH how about the amazing throw water on fire people because we are not gender biased. Hmmm yeah that’ll work.


No, he’s not a Firefighter he’s a
Specialized Combustion Extinguisher.

No, he’s not short he’s
Vertically Challenged.

No, he’s not a Carwasher he’s an
Automotive Appearence Specialist.

Yeah, it’s lame.

Surely you mean “ambulatoralily challenged.”

You prejudiced bastard, the correct term is ‘One who is endowed with a low center of Gravity’:slight_smile:

Hell, they can call 'em “The Happy-Smiley Pink Poodle Club for Joy” for all I care, as long as they put out the fucking fires.

No, no, anything but pink poodles, please! Joking apart, it seems to been suggested by a unit especially set up to look at possible issues of sexism, so whether one agress or not, it is not so surprising that it is what they would do.


I don’t quite see what would be wrong with “Fire Chief” for instance, but I think I’d really like them to fight fires aggressively. Oh, actually poodles are aggressive little horrors, so perhaps SPOOFE does have a point.

In all seriousness, I do think that gender-neutral terms when referring to professions. I would refer to a non-specific person who delivers the mail as a “mail carrier.” But I do call my mailman “the mailman.” It is tough to switch in everyday speech, but officially, gender-neutral terms should be used. A reasonable degree of gender-neutrality is a good thing.

That said, the word “master” has acquired a less gender-specific connotation in recent years. A master chef, a webmaster, A master of one’s domain…these terms all are used for women. (The female equivalent of master definitely has a very different connotation, so the words are not interchangeable. Firemistress? Zowie!)

I don’t see any problem with the term “firemaster.” We should just be glad that they are now officially called “firefighters” instead of “firemen.”

So, anybody want to go to the Bronx Animal Conservation Park with me?? :slight_smile:

I remember reading about an overzealous (and ignorant) copyeditor working on a manuscript about the Titanic who changed all instances of “fireman” to “firefighter.” Trouble is, on the Titanic, (1) the firemen were all indeed men, and (2) they were not firefighters; their job was to make fire (in the boilers).

I can understand gender-neutral terms. But changing it because it’s “too aggressive” is just ridiculous. They do actually FIGHT the fire. It doesn’t just go out by spraying water on it.

“Pink Poodle”?
That should be light red poodle!

Aside: Tonight on Politically Incorrect: Ralph Nader.
(shameless plug)

one must not forget that the canine dalmations are also present at the location of the combustion. If one were to refer to one who puts out flames as a person, one would cause undue stress and anguish upon said canine.
Therefore, the person who is me feels (and by using the word feel, said person implies neither positive nor negative feelings, gestures, or emotions) that “firemasters” should hereafter (and by using the word hereafter, the writer of said piece does not wish to, nor mean to, discriminate against Merlin, The Shrike, and other beings who travel backwards through time) be refered to as a “person, place, thing, animal, vegetable, or mineral (PPTAVM) that is present at a localized source of increased temperature on any or all of the Fahrenheit, Celcius, or Kelvin thermometers that does cause undo stress upon an individual or group of PPTAVMs and at which the first PPTAVM does attempt to lower said temperature increase regardless of the success of the action.”