Driving down the hills of Lake Encino in the San Fernando Valley a few days ago, I was in shock to see a city roadside construction sign that said "Men Working Ahead" and another that said "Men Working."
These signs were among three others which included "Utility Work Ahead" and two other signs portraying gender-neutral figures. If alternative and all-inclusive signs exist, the need for sex/gender-specific signs and discriminatory language in the city of Los Angeles can stop being used right now.
Come to find out, I'm not the only person angered by sexist roadside signage. In Atlanta , these signs were covered or replaced after a woman was nearly arrested for spray painting "wo " in front of "men," starting a grassroots campaign.
I know there are some anti-equality mongers who violently hiss that "man" somewhere, somehow includes "woman." This same logic was in heavy circulation prior to 1920; women do not need to vote or hold office because men vote and hold office--and these men represent the interests of women.
No thank you. I would like to represent myself.
According to the Los Angeles Department of Transportation, there are no city or state laws regarding this issue. If you live in the Los Angeles area and would like to voice your opinion, here are some things you can do:
1) Call your LA City Council Member to report the problem. You can also call the office of Councilmember Paul Koretz (310-289-0353) , who represents my area, including where the signs were posted on White Oak Ave. for three days.
2) You can also call the only 2 female councilmembers : Jan Perry's office (213-473-7009) and Janice Hahn's office (213-473-7015)
3) Call the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (213-580-1177) . You can press "0" to speak with an operator and have the opportunity to leave a voice mail.
4) Send an email to the Bureau of Street Services within the Los Angeles Department of Public Works. The email address is bss.boss@lacity.org
You can check in for more updates at my blog, The Colonic
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Take action to eliminate sexist roadside construction signs.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15039
I live in North Carolina, and I see a lot of men working signs. I recently contacted my congressman about it, but I haven't gotten a response yet. I know it seems like a really small issue in comparison to other things like violence, choice, etc., but its little things like assuming all work crews are men that add up to big sexist ideas. Thanks for making it easy for people in your area to take a stand!
OK, I am confused by this one. Why is this a worthwhile use of time and resources when there are so many other more important causes out there? If you switched every "Men Working" sign to "People Working" signs it would not equalize the compensation of genders, allow greater reproductive choice or do anything of (what I perceive to be) substance to promote equality. So why worry about this when there are so many more meaningful battles?
Tom, don't be confused any longer, read this: http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/04/12/faq-why-are-you-concentrating-on-x-when-y-is-so-much-more-important/
Happy to help :-)
Really digging that the Feminism 101 Blog, thanks for the link.
Perhaps the signs do not need to be replaced, depending on what percentage the signs in question are of all sorts of construction signs in stock (example: utility work ahead), and approximately what percentage of the total available signs are needed at any one time.
I realize that there issues which are more direct in physical, financial, and emotional impact--but I am not asking for a monetary compensation or burdensome volunteer hours.
If this is something that bothers you, I think it is perfectly reasonable to spend 2 minutes calling your city councilmember.
Additionally, if there are no guidelines as to what is appropriate sign content, your tax dollars can likely finance exclusive, sex-specific and discriminatory signs in the future.
More important than changing the sinage would be getting more women in the industry - construction is only 2% female! And most women in highway construction are laborers, the lowest paid and most dangerous job - and most of them are flaggers (the people with the red flags and stop signs that direct traffic), the most unskilled type of highway laborer work.
Write your public officials demanding more women in road construction - and not just as flaggers and laborers, but as carpenters, operating engineers, teamsters, ironworkers and electricians too!
I really like your point but I have a tiny bit of a problem with your last sentence:
"Write your public officials demanding more women in road construction - and not just as flaggers and laborers, but as carpenters, operating engineers, teamsters, ironworkers and electricians too!"
This reminds me of a conversation I had when I was taking a women's studies class my senior year. The class was really upset because there weren't any female sheriffs in Georgia. Let me suggest that we support women who want to go into minority fields instead of demanding that more women be in construction. If women want these jobs and aren't being given them because of sexism that is one thing but If women aren't going in to the field that is another.
I guess what really burned me in the women's studies class was that all of these Women's Studies and PoliSci majors were super concerned about women not being in Science and Engineering but they themselves had chosen not to be in Science and Engineering. Although there is sexism in engineering most programs and businesses want women there aren't more women in engineering because there are so many women in PoliSci and Women's Studies.
I am a woman and i agree with you. I am not offended by the road signs "Men Working Ahead". I actually haven't seen any women working in construction zones. Probably the woman that was so offended by this roadside sign should actually apply for the job...
There are more women nurses than male nurses - are the men offended? We should ask them!
Mira - Teeth Bleaching Specialist
I'm offended by the roadsigns.
Additionally, I am the woman that applies for those jobs and constantly gets turned down (despite experience building houses, using power tools, framing, drywalling, the list really goes on) Let's talk about that pile of BS. Because the two issues are really inseperable in my eyes.
In regard to your last paragraph. I'm with you, you can't demand to have more women in profession X. What you can do though, is demand an environment in profession X and a perception of women in profession X that allows the numbers to be equalised 'naturally.'
Occasionally, to get things started that's going to mean things like scholarships. Targeted scholarships are one way of saying 'we value the contributions of women in this field and they are welcome.' The scholarships let society know that the women are wanted. That's a starter to changing perceptions. The road signs fall into the same changing perceptions category.
Excuse me, but why can't you demand that more women be in a particular occupation?
Hell the only reason people like me (African American males) are in unionized construction is because - people demanded that there be more African Americans in construction
Otherwise it would not have happened!
And in our business, "scholarships" are irrelevant - because laborer is an unskilled job, and the rest of the construction jobs (carpenter, electrician, operating engineer, ironworker ect) are jobs where you are hired as an apprentice (on the union side) or a helper (on the non union side) and get on the job training plus trade school.
Look, the only reason there are ANY women in construction is because folks demanded that the industry be gender integrated back in the 1970's - so if demanding worked then, it will work now!
Because it is no good demanding that something be supplied if there is no supply to fill the demand.
The number of women who want to go into construction and roadwork is small. Demanding that government take steps to change the numbers now is likely to have little effect.
There is some ddep-rooted socialisation involved in the idea that women shouldn't be into hard-labor occupations. The way to achieve the goal of equalising numbers is to tackle the socialisation, fix the environment (make it more welcoming), this will encourage more women to pursue these positions which will create a positive feedback loop through which numbers will eventually be equalised.
If government decided that 20% of roadworkers should be women by next year, you would create a situation where many of those women wouldn't be as well suited as their male commrades, this in turn re-inforces the idea that women aren't as suited to this type of work as men and creates resentment from the better qualified male workforce.
Basically what I'm saying is you have to make sure you have sufficient suitable candidates. The only way to ensure that is to build up to it by tackling the socialisation. In other words, fix the damn roadsigns!
I really don't get your logic here - it seems like you're implying that discrimination doesn't keep women out of the industry, but "women don't want to do that kind of work".
Speaking as a union activist, I would definitely have to disagree with you.
Institutional sexism has kept women out of the trade, the way institutional racism used to keep African American and Latino men out of the trade - and we need institutional affirmative action to change that.
I am an Ironworker and I can say pretty honestly that my union would accept any female applicant who has a High School Diploma and a car who can do the work, but only one in a hundred applicants are women (if that many) and those that do agree to the apprenticeship program generally consists of carrying 20-lbs of rusty steel bars for 8 hours a day in the sun, at which point they usually take a ride down to the laborers or electricians.
oops, meant to say 20-100 lbs of Steel...
sorry :-x
Tom - I'm a union carpenter.
I've been in the business for 17 years, and I've been a shop steward for 11 of those years.
I know for a fact that my industry has a HUGE sexual harassment problem on the jobs - it's not as bad as it was back in the early 1990's (people actually get fired for taping porno up in the shanties now - but that was perfectly acceptable back in 1992).
I'm quite sure your trade has the same sexual harassment issues that my trade does.
Women workers aren't stupid - if they know that they really aren't welcome in a trade, they won't even waste their time and apply, or they will quickly leave
I wonder how many of your female ironworker apprentices left your craft because of harassment?
Does your union do exit surveys on people who leave the apprenticeship program?
If they don't - they should.
You are absolutely right about huge problems with sexual harassment, but I was approaching one problem at a time. As for Female applicants leaving, most leave when they find out they cannot get a job directing traffic with our union (that's the preview of the local laborers). I do maintain that a woman who meets the qualifications can get a job, I'm also reasonably sure the sexual harassment she would be subject to would be extreme, there are channels that a member can go through to resolve such issues. But one thing at a time, First a Woman has to decide to become a reinforcing Ironworker, then she has to meet the qualifications, then we can worry about sexism in the workplace. The first step, allowing people of either gender into the hall without preconditions has been met, but In order to actually get Ironworkers more interested in gender Equality in the workplace you actually have to have women in the workplace.
Oh one other thing, The traditional title of a fellow union member is "Brother". What would be the appropriate non-gendered equivalent term be?
Just wanted to share this one:
In my (very feminist) hometown in western MA, there was scaffolding above the sidewalk and a sign that had initially said "Men Working Above."
I don't think it was up for a week before someone used spray paint to cross off "Men" and write "People."
Then some godly person crossed that off and wrote "God." And then some (presumably) nondenominational spiritual person crossed that off to write "Higher Power."
(The sign was pretty crowded at the end.)
Awesome.
Heh. ;)
I think this whole "action to eliminate sexist roadside construction signs" is a big waste of time!
"I know there are some anti-equality mongers who violently hiss that 'man' somewhere, somehow includes 'woman.' This same logic was in heavy circulation prior to 1920; women do not need to vote or hold office because men vote and hold office--and these men represent the interests of women."
Meanwhile, the word "man" did once upon a time somehow include the meaning of the word "woman" in a way that male voters definitely don't include disenfranchised women in the same jurisdiction, and the overlap's been trampled on in more recent centuries.
Check out the etymology if you're interested:
http://www.english.upenn.edu/~cjacobso/gender.html
"...'Man'
"Man once was a truly generic word referring to all humans, but has gradually narrowed in meaning to become a word that refers to adult male human beings. Anglo-Saxons used the word to refer to all people. One example of this occurs when an Anglo-Saxon writer refers to a seventh-century English princess as 'a wonderful man.' Man paralleled the Latin word homo, 'a member of the human species,' not vir, 'an adult male of the species.' The Old English word for adult male was waepman and the old English word for adult woman was wifman. In the course of time, wifman evolved into the word 'woman.' 'Man' eventually ceased to be used to refer to individual women and replaced wer and waepman as a specific term distinguishing an adult male from an adult female. But man continued to be used in generalizations about both sexes.
"By the 18th century, the modern, narrow sense of man was firmly established as the predominant one. When Edmund Burke, writing of the French Revolution, used men in the old, inclusive way, he took pains to spell out his meaning: 'Such a deplorable havoc is made in the minds of men (both sexes) in France. . . .' Thomas Jefferson did not make the same distinction in declaring that 'all men are created equal' and 'governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.' In a time when women, having no vote, could neither give nor withhold consent, Jefferson had to be using the word men in its principal sense of 'males,' and it probably never occurred to him that anyone would think otherwise. Looking at modern dictionaries indicate that the definition that links 'man' with males is the predominant one. Studies of college students and school children indicate that even when the broad definitions of 'man' and 'men' are taught, they tend to conjure up images of male people only. We would never use the sentence 'A girl grows up to be a man,' because we assume the narrower definition of the word man. The examples below seem disconcerting precisely for this reason:
"*'Development of the Uterus in Rats, Guinea Pigs, and Men' (title of a research report)
"*'The Pap test, which has greatly reduced mortality from uterine cancer, is a boon to mankind.'
"Even when authors insist that 'man' is a general term of all humans, they can lapse into meaning it as a term for only males:
"*'As for man, he is no different from the rest. His back aches, he ruptures easily, his women have difficulties in childbirth . . . '
"*In James Baldwin's essay 'Stranger in the Village' Baldwin refers to 'white men' and 'black men' (seemingly generic terms), but then he eventually refers to 'that peculiar, intent, paranoiac malevolence which one sometimes surprises in the eyes of American white men when, out walking with their Sunday girl, they see a Negro male approach.'
"Once you've started to recognize the problems that can arise with using 'man' as a generic pronoun, how can you prevent confusion? One way is by substituting 'human,' 'humankind,' 'people,' or another word that does not involve any specific gender..."
Thank you for the "I'm an English major" answer.
Actually I thought this was useful. Perhaps we should reclaim waepman to mean male humans?
When I was a child I used to think of Man in the sense of Human or Mankind as being spelt with an apostrophe 'man. To me it seemed clear from the context which was being referred to, many words having two meanings. When the situations you mentioned above arose where there was mixing in the same passage, the grammarian in me would double up in pain. Now I'm an adult I still examine the context to derive meaning but try to exclude 'Man' meaning human from my vocabulary.
I'm reading a book at the moment called Last and First Men that was written in 1930. The author Olaf Stappelton has clearly used Men to refer to both males and females the majority of the time, sometimes doing similar things to that you've mentioned Burke doing. I'm not sure how this sits with your timeline, perhaps you would care to comment?
"Perhaps we should reclaim waepman to mean male humans?"
Or,why not stick to modern American English, and call men Men, and women Women and use Human, People or Folks as the generic?
I'm not an English major - I'm a trade school grad, and I like language that is easily understood, precise and to the point.
Well the point is that being female shouldn't be seen as some modification of male. The word woman implies that man is the main thing. It's to do with male being seen as the default by society.
I was Joking, my Roommate is an English Major and if you let her she'll go off in similarly long tangents about the entomology of words.
I have to say, this seems like a insanely minor thing. stuff like this kind of adds to the whole 'feminists are irrational' argument
Thank you for posting this.
For those who commented about gender-exclusive language not being significant, please consider the outrage you wo'uld have at a sign displaying a more obvious "ism. For example, would you be just as OK with signs reading "Whites Working"?
Sexism is as real as racism and if females are not respected even in word there is no way we will ever be respected in deed.
That actually helps allot to put things into perspective, thank you.
I think this is incredibly important, when people use words like 'policeman' instead of 'police officer' they are reinforcing a gendered idea of a profession which is entirely unnecessary and excludes half of the population. Using inclusive terms is not over the top or irrational, it's just polite and not even very difficult.
Being a man or having a penis is not a job requirement, it just doesn't need to be mentioned.
I've noticed signs like that too but never thought to complain, next time I will.