Volume > Issue > Note List > Ms. Goodie Two-Shoes Rhetoric

Ms. Goodie Two-Shoes Rhetoric

Speaking in the first person again: I seldom watch TV, but I do listen to the radio. If you pay close attention, you have noticed that it’s no longer firemen; instead, it’s “firefighters.” (No doubt on TV too.) Since I also do a good deal of walking, I see “firefighters” on the street doing their job from time to time, but rarely do I see them actually “fighting” a fire. Usually they’re just dealing with some smoky substance that is easily extinguished, while a bunch more “firefighters” stand around with their hands in their pockets. Recently, the local library called out the “firefighters” so that they could, using their ladders, hang pictures on a two-story wall. No doubt they’re picturefighters too.

Likewise, policemen are now “police,” a mailman is now a “letter-carrier,” a chairman is a “chairperson,” a spokesman is a “spokesperson,” a Congressman is a “Congressperson” or a “Congress member.”

Also, jury foreman is now “foreperson.” An amusing sidelight: On CBS radio there was a reporter covering the Scott Peterson double-murder trial when the guilty verdict was read. Live from the trial, the reporter said, “The foreman of the jury announced….” The poor reporter, he was caught up in the frenzy of the moment. He was quickly corrected by the announcer, “The foreperson of the jury announced….” We do hope that poor goon of a reporter wasn’t fired. Please, it was just a momentary lapse.

So always follow this rule: Remove “man” from the word. If you remember this rule, you can’t go wrong, and you’ll probably get ahead.

Nonetheless, there are some instructive inconsistencies. When the “police” are closing in on someone brandishing a gun, or someone who has used a gun, the individual is always referred to as the gunman. Why not the “gunperson”? And if we cannot say policemen, why do we get to say gunman? Because a gunman is bad, bad, bad.

Likewise, you never hear about a “confidence person”; it’s always a confidence man or con man.

Enjoyed reading this?

READ MORE! REGISTER TODAY

SUBSCRIBE

You May Also Enjoy

"Inclusive Language": Is It Necessary?

The title of my article asks if so-called inclusive language is necessary. A typical reply…

Faith Journey or Road to Hell?

Can someone who has ignored every proscription of the Catholic faith be described as being on a "faith journey"?

Berkeley's Linguistic Outlaws

Phony language is reprehensible, but language has a way of exacting its own revenge.