Monday, March 16, 2009

European Parliament bans speaking to women

A secret source ;-) has just brought my attention to an article in the Telegraph:
Euro chiefs ban 'Miss' and 'Mrs'
See similar guidelines for UNESCO from 1999.

The following terms can no longer be used by our 785 representatives in the European Parliament:
  • Miss, Mrs
  • Frau, Fraulein
  • Madame, Mademoiselle
  • Señora, Señorita
  • paní, slečna (I assume that the rule holds for the Czechs, too)
Female colleagues must be addressed by their full name only. ;-) The following terms for the professions are banned, too:
  • sportsmen
  • firemen
  • air hostesses
  • headmasters
  • policemen
  • salesmen
  • manageresses
  • cinema usherette
  • male nurse
"Athletes" are allowed instead of "sportsmen" but I am not sure what the replacements should be for the remaining words. Restaurants were allowed an exception: waiters and waitresses are still legal because the lawmakers were not able to invent a new word, such as waitpersons. ;-)

A relatively good news is that the word "man-made" is banned, too. The words "synthetic" and "artificial" are recommended as replacements. That will make it harder to talk about man-made global warming, too.

Unless the people defend their right to say "anthropogenic", they will have to talk about "artificial global warming" or "synthetic global warming" which doesn't sound too catchy because it really suggests that it is the hysteria that was artificially synthesized, not a change of the climate. :-)

Of course, the sane representatives will ignore the booklet and they are trying to attack Harold Romer, a person of an undetermined sex who is sadly employed as the Parliament's secretary general. They ask her or him how much this sexually neutral bullshit costs, too. See the first newspaper criticism of the absurd policy.

Now I must think whether I could write some serious stuff about this event that leaves me somewhat speechless. ;-)


  1. I seriously doubt the veracity of this report.

  2. Combating climate change may not be a question of who will carry the burden but could instead be a rush for the benefits, according to new economic modeling presented at “Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges & Decisions” hosted by the University of Copenhagen.

    Contrary to current cost models for lowering greenhouse gas emissions and fighting climate change, a group of researchers from the University of Cambridge conclude that even very stringent reductions of can create a macroeconomic benefit, if governments go about it the right way.

    “Where many current calculations get it wrong is in the assumption that more stringent measures will necessarily raise the overall cost, especially when there is substantial unemployment and underuse of capacity as there is today”, explains Terry Barker, Director of Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research (4CMR), Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge and a member of the Scientific Steering Committee of the Congress.