Xref: utzoo comp.text.tex:7094 soc.men:29024 soc.women:33727
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!umich!sharkey!fmsrl7!art-sy!news
From: chap@art-sy.detroit.mi.us (j chapman flack)
Newsgroups: comp.text.tex,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Gender-neutral terms (was Re: boxed table with vtops)
Message-ID: <9104291754.aa09805@art-sy.detroit.mi.us>
Date: 29 Apr 91 21:54:14 GMT
References: <9104250752.aa14765@vaccine.worlds.COM>
Sender: chap@art-sy.detroit.mi.us (j chapman flack)
Reply-To: chap@art-sy.detroit.mi.us (j chapman flack)
Followup-To: soc.men,soc.women
Organization: Appropriate Roles for Technology
Lines: 18

>P.S.  Anyone have a nonsexist way to say "man-months" which sounds
>better than "person-months"?  (e.g. "manpower" can be replaced with
>"personnel" without sounding clumsy).

My favorite so far is effort-months.  In general, whenever I see something
changed to /.*person.*/ I think it would make more sense to use a word that
describes what the person *does*, e.g, instead of mailperson, how about
letter carrier, or server instead of waitperson.  (Or why not waiter?
Painters paint, builders build, drivers drive, so waiters wait.  And
actors act.  Just ditch waitress and actress & co.)

Sorry if this is a frequent topic (I've been off the net for five years).
I'm interested in other people's ideas...
-- 
Chap Flack                         Their tanks will rust.  Our songs will last.
chap@art-sy.detroit.mi.us                                   -Mikos Theodorakis

Nothing I say represents Appropriate Roles for Technology unless I say it does.