> > ...I don't at all understand how someone can think changing "mailman" to "postal worker" solves anything.
>
> It's just a "tool" used to change the public's perception of the job. "Mailman" used to mean, literally, a male delivering the mail, not the all-encompasing "person/human of either gender" delivering the mail. Same with milkman, policeman, fireman, and so on. When oportunities for women opened up, alternate labels were the "PR" used so people would stop automatically associating the jobs exclusively with males. It was to get little girls thinking "hey, I could do that job (and earn 40% more than I could by being a secretary)" rather than automatically disqualify themselves on basis of their gender. On that level, I don't think it's a terrible idea. But either way, it's not worth getting offended about.

People who've been around longer always have more perspective. I've grown up with gender-inclusive language and use it unthinkingly. It's often necessary now, anyhow. It would be awkward to use "mailmen" to describe the workers at the local post office, for example, who are mostly women. "Mailwomen" is fine for describing those who are such, but then we'd get into a dreadful habit of saying "mailman or mailwoman," like the omnipresent "he or she." I think that "postal worker" simply sounds and looks much better, besides being more convenient. The same situation makes other occupational titles become dairy farmers, police officers, fire fighters, and so on. Compound subjects can be as clumsy as subjects of the wrong gender.

In elementary school, the teachers taught me to use plural forms when gender is unimportant. All my teachers since then have tried to break me of the habit. What do RinkWorks' own grammarians have to say about that? Has anyone ever run across "shim"?

gab"Knows milkman/dairy farmer comparison is wrong"by