Trinity College to drop ‘freshman’ term over inclusivity concerns

AllForIt

Is it being changed to freshflake. Has a ring to it.

professore

jojofizzio wrote: »

Ah yeah forgot that... Michaelmas,Hilary and Trinity....getting all nostalgic now....really does sound sooo out of place today....but lends a bit of olde worlde charm

Should it not be Hilary and The Donald?

gormdubhgorm

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I am really starting to belive that there is a fantasy land out there. Not sure what to call it.

Say a dozen delusioned people go on twitter and complain about something that is not an issue. Then it becomes a thing as others who hear it don't want to appear as racist / sexist / whatever so they accept it as an issue.. Suddenly it's now a thing.

But it's balls. Because at no point do you hear from the people who original had an issue with it. Vast majority just get upset on behalf of others and go with it.

It's fantasy. It's like a Chinese whisper. It gains traction.

I pity the fools

andekwarhola

jojofizzio wrote: »

In my day in Trinners..
JF=Junior Freshman=1st year
SF=Senior Freshman=2nd year
JS=Junior Sophister=3rd year
SS=Senior Sophister=4th year....archaic yes,but so it went....

Same. I liked it.

Also liked the way they used to call the terms, Hilary, Michaelmas and Trinity. Do they still do that?

retro:electro

I really couldn't give a shlte about this

andekwarhola

anna080 wrote: »

I really couldn't give a shlte about this

You've just bumped it up the page, nonetheless.

Presumably as an ironic gesture?

retro:electro

andekwarhola wrote: »

You've just bumped it up the page, nonetheless.

Presumably as an ironic gesture?

Hardly bumped it when your comment above was made one minute before me

languagenerd

nice_guy80 wrote: »

always freshers week

they've been watching too many american college movies

This isn't about freshers week - that hasn't changed. In Trinity, each year has a name. 1st and 2nd years were Junior Freshman and Senior Freshman, now they're apparently just Junior & Senior Fresh.

Why did they not go for "Fresher" rather than just "Fresh" though ? It would tie in better with Sophister (3rd and 4th year) and sounds marginally less silly. I never knew anyone to have a problem with it though. We always just shortened then to JF and SF anyway.

languagenerd

andekwarhola wrote: »

Same. I liked it.

Also liked the way they used to call the terms, Hilary, Michaelmas and Trinity. Do they still do that?

They did when I left 4 years ago anyway. Though since semesterisation, they only teach in Michaelmas and Hilary. Trinity Term only had exams and the ball...

andekwarhola

anna080 wrote: »

Hardly bumped it when your comment above was made one minute before me

You bumped it more, alri!

Hector Savage

riffmongous wrote: »

Never heard anyone say freshman before, it was always fresher in my time (not at trinners)

Yeah for me too, DCU (1997-2001) ...

But its a good point, who is actually taking offence over this ?

With stuff like this most times its people unrelated taking offence on behalf of others - the worst kind of little upstarts.

valoren

There is this need in us to order, name and categorise everything. While this drive can be used to create such achievements as the periodic table of the elements for example, this gender zoo nonsense and openly catering and pandering to those who want to disrupt the most innocuous of terminology is bizarre and Trinity to engage with the nonsense merely enables it more.

challengemaster

Hector Savage wrote: »

But its a good point, who is actually taking offence over this ?

More to the point, why is being offended suddenly unacceptable? You don't get leprosy and die from being offended, you're just offended. Fúcking deal with it or fúck off if you don't like it.

goose2005

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

When will they be getting rid of Michaelmas as the name of the autumn term ?

I mean come on, it's both male and has Christian origins, it should be number one enemy of the SJWs.

They already tried to remove the Bible from the college logo

FutureGuy

I'm generally left leaning but this type of sh!t does nothing but move me closer to the right in many ways.

Hector Savage

challengemaster wrote: »

More to the point, why is being offended suddenly unacceptable? You don't get leprosy and die from being offended, you're just offended. Fúcking deal with it or fúck off if you don't like it.

This.

Insect Overlord

Can't beat a bit of Newspeak to jazz up the Tuesday evening news bulletin. Double plus un-good, so it is.

Foxhound38

FutureGuy wrote: »

I'm generally left leaning but this type of sh!t does nothing but move me closer to the right in many ways.

This kind of shyte has nothing to do with the real left, in fairness. I imagine many of them are sick of their movement being popularly associated with this crap too.

lawred2

Was Freshers when I was in College but then we were very forward thinking and inclusive in my day

wes

The term Freshers was used, when I was in college as well.

Either way, not sure why anyone would be bothered one way or the other.

Hector Bellend

Why don't we give them a more accurate name.

Like

"Trinner Trash"

Grayson

Hector Savage wrote: »

Yeah for me too, DCU (1997-2001) ...

But its a good point, who is actually taking offence over this ?

With stuff like this most times its people unrelated taking offence on behalf of others - the worst kind of little upstarts.

It's a silly little word that's getting changed. It doesn't matter in the big scheme of things. And I'd imagine feck all people are getting offended at the original term. However if they remove gender from all group/collective terms, that's not a bad thing but it is very minor.

I do find it amusing how many people get outraged at this though. When you see stuff like this there's always far more people getting angry at the change than the number of people who agitated for the change.

Grayson

one other thing though. I'm not even sure why this is news.

challengemaster

challengemaster wrote: »

More to the point, why is being offended suddenly unacceptable? You don't get leprosy and die from being offended, you're just offended. Fúcking deal with it or fúck off if you don't like it.

Believe its the creeping in of (over time), everyone gets a medal/everyone matters - is special/hypersensitive, apparently if you don't like something you must get rid of it

heres an idea, don't watch it if you don't like it, mostly its gender studies type courses, students looking for twitter points and something to do as most cant get a job with those degrees with kicking up fuss like this

Bet its the type like LON (Former student) or the wan who whinged about Ryanair/costa about this "offense" and they caved

I wonder what, if the word was originally Freshwoman, the position of some posters who think it's silly to change it would be. They'd probably think it was about time they were acknowledged. It's not like men don't exist, after all!

Not that it particularly matters, I doubt many people were offended and/or traumatized by it's very occasional use. It smacks of a strategy of aiming to be seen to be inclusive and current, but without having to actually do anything of note to that end.

seamus

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

I look forward to seeing the snowflake brigade marching through the streets demanding that Binmen be referred to as Binpeople

Actually they're called "Waste Service Operatives". Nobody calls them binmen anymore.

I have no issue in principle with a college choosing to drop archaic labels that don't really serve any purpose anyway.

I have an issue with the word "Fresh". It doesn't even make any sense. "He's a Junior Fresh". It's not a noun, it's an adjective!

Why not "Fresher"? Why not "First year"?

Academics...

Grayson

Candie wrote: »

I wonder what, if the word was originally Freshwoman, the position of some posters who think it's silly to change it would be. They'd probably think it was about time they were acknowledged. It's not like men don't exist, after all!

Yes, people would be just as annoyed.

Have you got an example though. I can't think of any collective terms used to refer to groups of people that are feminine.

Mickeroo

The msot suprising thing about this is that Trinity use the word "Freshmen" and not "Freshers" like every other college in the country. "Freshmen" is something I would only associate with american colleges.

Triceratops Ballet

Grayson wrote: »

I can't think of any collective terms used to refer to groups of people that are feminine.

That might be the point

Grayson

Grayson wrote: »

Yes, people would be just as annoyed.

Have you got an example though. I can't think of any collective terms used to refer to groups of people that are feminine.

Good question. I can't think of any offhand either. I guess the 'default' gender is, or used to be, male.

I don't think many people are actually annoyed though.

Mickeroo

Grayson wrote: »

I can't think of any collective terms used to refer to groups of people that are feminine.

Midwives maybe?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

riffmongous

Air hostess? :P

Triceratops Ballet

Mickeroo wrote: »

Midwives maybe?

Nannies (childcare workers not female grandparents!!)

Grayson

Candie wrote: »

Good question. I can't think of any offhand either. I guess the 'default' gender is, or used to be, male.

I don't think many people are actually annoyed though.

I remember hearing this history before so I googled it.

The spelling of "woman" in English has progressed over the past millennium from wīfmann[2] to wīmmann to wumman, and finally, the modern spelling woman.[3] In Old English, wīfmann meant "female human", whereas wēr meant "male human". Mann or monn had a gender-neutral meaning of "human", corresponding to Modern English "person" or "someone"; however, subsequent to the Norman Conquest, man began to be used more in reference to "male human", and by the late 13th century had begun to eclipse usage of the older term wēr.[4] The medial labial consonants f and m in wīfmann coalesced into the modern form "woman", while the initial element, which meant "female", underwent semantic narrowing to the sense of a married woman ("wife").

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman


So a thousand years ago, Man meant human

Grayson

Mickeroo wrote: »

Midwives maybe?

Good one. I hadn't thought of it.

Strangely though, after googling, it turns out that the wife in Midwife refers to the patient and not the person attending them. So it's actually gender neutral. I was not expecting that at all.

The word derives from Old English mid, "with" and wif, "woman", and thus originally meant "with-woman", that is, the person who is with the mother (woman) at childbirth.[10][11][12] The word is used to refer to both male and female midwives.

Mickeroo

Grayson wrote: »

Good one. I hadn't thought of it.

Strangely though, after googling, it turns out that the wife in Midwife refers to the patient and not the person attending them. So it's actually gender neutral. I was not expecting that at all.

That's a new on on me too.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Any courses on management are considering their options as agement could be seen as age discrimination

Triceratops Ballet

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

My current postie is a postman so that's not a misnomer, if it was a woman I wouldn't call her a postman tho!

Just like I don't want to be a fireman when I grow up!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

pilly

Grayson wrote: »

Yes, people would be just as annoyed.

Have you got an example though. I can't think of any collective terms used to refer to groups of people that are feminine.

Bitches. :D

Sums up student politics...What do we need? Better facilities, lecturers? More work opportunities? Nah gender neutral words that might offend some windbag - your future politicians ladies and gentlemen

pilly

Past Trinity Alumni only delighted to come in here to make sure we all know they went to Trinity.:D

riffmongous

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Only since 1971 it seems :P I just looked it up, it's a pretty interesting story of discrimination http://articles.latimes.com/2007/sep/27/opinion/oe-johnson27

Blanching at the very notion that a man might elect to do a job they'd made synonymous with femininity, airline managers unequivocally stated that men need not apply.


Nonetheless, Diaz, a married father of two from Miami, tried to get a job as a flight attendant with Pan American World Airways. Title VII, part of 1964's landmark Civil Rights Act that forbade employment discrimination on the basis of gender (as well as race, religion and national origin), bolstered Diaz's confidence that Pan Am would at least consider his second job application in 1967. When they again refused, Diaz brought the airline to court.

Through four years of legal proceedings, Pan Am, supported by its fellow airlines, steadfastly asserted that being female was a "bona fide occupational qualification" for the job. A barrage of newspaper articles likewise expressed incredulity at the idea of "male stewardesses." Of course, the airline had a tough time proving that men could not actually do the job.

With little else at its disposal, Pan Am relied on prejudices against gay and effeminate men to justify its discrimination. The airline's lawyers laid out a doozy of a Catch-22. They argued that, on the one hand, real men would prove too masculine to provide the nurturing, maternal essence of flight attending. On the other hand, the men who could excel at the job would be effeminate and therefore unacceptable.

Pan Am's expert witness, psychiatrist and bestselling author Eric Berne, testified that effeminate male flight attendants would make a male passenger "uneasy" because they "might arouse feelings in him he would rather not have aroused." Berne went on to opine that the airlines should cater to "standard American prejudices" against men who were associated with femininity -- in short, who might seem gay.

The district court in southern Florida actually perpetuated these prejudices. Ruling that being female indeed constituted a requirement for being a flight attendant, the judge's decision reiterated Berne's argument that "male passengers would generally feel more masculine and thus more at ease in the presence of a young female attendant."

It took the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to put an end to Pan Am's discriminatory policy. Eschewing the airline's preoccupations with gender and sexuality, the justices concluded that a flight attendant's job was to transport passengers safely, not reassure passengers' masculinity. For the court, whether a job candidate was male or female, masculine or effeminate, was not a "bona fide occupational qualification."

super_furry

Has anyone in any Irish college ever been called a freshman? It's only ever been fresher when I've heard the term actually used.

Malayalam

I am braced from when the right on inclusives discover that HUMAN has a man in it.

(Cue manifold manifestations of mandatory manouevrings to manage and manipulate the relevant mandarins in a mannerly way. Oi, the manifestos, the mania, the manure, the manuscripts, how shall we manage! There will be maniacal manglings of mandibles!)

Solomon Pleasant

Pretty annoyed by this charade if I’m being honest.

Instead of confronting real issues like the provision of affordable accommodation for their students or increasing access to Trinity or even some bloody microwaves, the college has instead decided to rename Freshmen as “Fresh”.

Great work lads, I’m sure they’re delighted with themselves.

Grayson

Solomon Pleasant wrote: »

Pretty annoyed by this charade if I’m being honest.

Instead of trying confronting real issues like the provision of affordable accommodation for their students or increasing access to Trinity or even some bloody microwaves, the college has instead decided to rename Freshmen as “Fresh”.

Great work lads, I’m sure they’re delighted with themselves.

It takes a few minutes to issue guidelines. It's not like work stopped on everything else for a year.

Like I mentioned already it's a minor issue and I'm honestly surprised it made the news.
It literally hurts no-one and although it might benefit a few the numbers are small. It's not a bad thing to do but it's a very minor change.

valoren

Malayalam wrote: »

I am braced from when the right on inclusives discover that HUMAN has a man in it.

(Cue manifold manifestations of mandatory manouevrings to manage and manipulate the relevant mandarins in a mannerly way. Oi, the manifestos, the mania, the manure, the manuscripts, how shall we manage! There will be maniacal manglings of mandibles!)

And the pending, bubbling simmer of rage waiting to be released when the discriminatory latin version of HUMAN is made known! :eek: