The CBE Scroll

Comment by LMcC

October 17, 2007 @ 3:18 pm

That’s just weird. I guess they’ve solved the problems of domestic violence and rape, to have time to quibble over this issue. Oh, they haven’t solved those yet? This is just a distraction, then. Why not just use red and green lights?

Besides, wouldn’t any hierarchs over there look at the sign of a woman telling him to walk or stay still and decide he’s not going to do what any female tells him to do, even if she’s just a stick figure?

Sad to say I’m only being half-snarky there. I forgot what book I read this example in, but a pastor’s wife asked a man in the congregation to do some small thing to help set up before church. He told her not only that he would not do it because a woman asked him, but also that he would refuse if her husband asked him because he’d be asking on her behalf. The guy was proud to diss her like that!

Hate to see what the guy would do if he saw those new signs (shrug).

Comment by Mary

October 17, 2007 @ 4:46 pm

See comment 71166.

Besides, wouldn’t any hierarchs over there look at the sign of a woman telling him to walk or stay still and decide he’s not going to do what any female tells him to do, even if she’s just a stick figure?

LOL - I was thinking the same thing! After all, it might do irreparable damage to somebody’s masculinity to ‘obey’ a ‘female’ traffic signal!

Actually, I think it’s closer to silly than to significant. I concur with you, LMCC, that there are serious social problems inherent in patriarchal systems that ought to be addressed at the root cause. Changing traffic signals isn’t going to effect any real change, except if you’re the contracted signal manufacturer!

Comment by LMcC

October 17, 2007 @ 5:29 pm

See comment 71175.

I rank this traffic sign mess right up there with the misspelled word ‘womyn.’ There’s no point.

We know for sure that the signal manufacturers will be making some serious change if half the signs in the country need to be re-done. Hey wait, know anyone with graphics experience who needs a job and likes to travel? The perfect job awaits!

Comment by Liz

October 18, 2007 @ 12:52 am

Hi LMCC (see comment 71166), the example you quote was in the latest Mutuality and it was one of my stories - sad but true.

My personal opinion on the traffic lights and my first reaction is the stereotype of skirts, etc. I would have thought that a striding figure was just a ‘person’ and therefore included all people. I’ve never thought of it as a male image, that’s for sure. In some places in Australia they have the word ‘walk’ rather than the figure, and that would probably be the best scenario (in their language of course).

Comment by Ruud

October 18, 2007 @ 5:21 am

The idea is great. It tells us that males with skirts and ponytails as well as females with hats and cigars are allowed to cross the street! (LOL!)

Comment by Jester

October 18, 2007 @ 7:41 am

This is, at its heart, a moral compass issue.

Since we can’t really tell people what’s right or wrong anymore, all we can do is address style.

Comment by fjs

October 18, 2007 @ 8:40 am

I think the traffic light issue is a hollow way of addressing the inequality in communities. I would like a more substatial action.

Comment by Chris

October 18, 2007 @ 9:04 am

I’m with Liz on this one. In fact, it feels like a step backwards. The only reason that we think of non-skirted, non-ribboned stick figures as male is because of the culture we have that defines a passive femininity that is primarily valued for her looks. So by gendering the crosswalks in this way…

Comment by Chris

October 18, 2007 @ 9:05 am

…oops, accidently hit submit!

Anyways, gendering the crosswalks in this way simply re-enforces this gender image, which is exactly the image that the feminist movement is fighting against!

Comment by Mary

October 18, 2007 @ 9:14 am

That’s a good point. I’ve actually seen restroom signs used as ‘proof’ that women are ‘designed’ to wear skirts! It’s only the silly egalitarians who are alleged to not ‘get it’ about gender differences. That’s not it at all, of course. The problem is the ignoring of human commonality in favor of rigid gender segregation that concerns many of us. As you say, Chris, ‘gendered’ crossing lights reinforce that problem, rather than doing anything positive about bringing us all to respecting women - and men - as full members of the human race.

Comment by LMcC

October 18, 2007 @ 10:00 am

See comment 71201. Thanks!

Comment by Mary

October 18, 2007 @ 10:06 am

In a slightly funny way, this ‘sexing of the traffic lights’ parallels what some people do with biblical commandments.

When all there is is a general commandment, all well and good: they apply to everybody. But then some folks get terribly confused if there are specific commandments in addition to the general commandments and say wives get singled out and commanded to do something that everyone is already commanded to do (such as submit themselves). Uh, what do we do? Does that mean that the husbands don’t have to submit themselves to everybody, because the Bible doesn’t tell them as husbands to submit to their wives? Does that mean that wives aren’t included in ‘one another’ when it comes to being submitted to? Oh, dear, what a muddle!

So it will be with traffic lights, I fear. Will some men decide that they can never cross at those intersections at which the symbol on the ‘walk’ light is of a pony-tailed woman? Does it mean that only pony-tailed women in skirts can cross there? Will men’s manhood be threatened if they cross at ‘female’ lights, or if they permit women to cross at ‘male’ lights?

Oh, no. We simply can’t have it (big grin)!

Comment by tiro

October 18, 2007 @ 10:37 am

Wondering if the people that made that decision are really young and taken with skirted women with pony-tails, or someone really old (eighty plus) who is remembering their youth, or? It’s the pony-tail and ribbon that get me, though.

All in all, I don’t mind the skirted figure on women’s bathroom doors and the straight figure on men’s bathroom doors.

Comment by tiro

October 18, 2007 @ 10:38 am

But really all that money could be much better used going to other more important equality issues.

Comment by Sue

October 18, 2007 @ 10:47 am

I actually appreciate what their intentions are because I think that generally very often male is presented as normal and females are supposed to figure out how they’re included in that. Just think how often that happens in verbal and written language. They’re trying to make the female image more visible and they’re trying to be gender inclusive. I think they’re trying to make a positive step towards considering the female to be as valid as the male. At the same time, I would be concerned about the expense involved in making this happen. I would hope they would do it in a way that doesn’t incur any more expense than they would already have to spend, such as just doing it from this point forward with new lights.

Another benefit from this would be that we would all be able to immediately identify who the patriarchal Christians are because they would be the ones who would refuse to cross the street at an intersection where a female image would be indicating whether it’s okay to cross or not. The rest of the population seems to get it that it is not emasculating to a man for a woman to be in a leadership position.

Comment by Liz

October 18, 2007 @ 8:06 pm

We have gone from traffic lights to toilets, which is a logical progression, but how could male and female toilets be distinguished without words (which I think is far easier)? As I write this I’m thinking I’ve just left it open for all sorts of humor so please think before you write!

Comment by tiro

October 19, 2007 @ 10:51 am

LOL Liz (see comment 71271)… I cannot think of any other way to depict a simple outline of male versus female than one figure having a skirt. It seems it’s an almost universal idea in ‘civilized’ communities that women wear skirts and men don’t.

Some cultures have men wearing skirts; Samoa for one. I wonder what they do to segregate public bathrooms?

Comment by Theo

October 19, 2007 @ 6:40 pm

It seems that there is a catch-22 here. If the lights remain as they were, with only a striding trousered figure, public officials become vulnerable to charges of sexism for not including obviously female figures. But if they do include such figures, they become prey to complaints that they are only reinforcing gender stereotypes. I’m not sure anyone can win in this situation without perhaps becoming more, shall we say, graphic.

Comment by LMcC

October 19, 2007 @ 6:52 pm

Theo (see comment 71322), nah, no catch-22. There’s a third option, at least with many of the lights and signs. The lights can go back to simple red and green (and consistent position to help color-blind people), and/or ‘walk’ or ‘don’t walk.’ Words on signs aren’t a bad thing. If for some reason a picture representing walking must be shown, just show two feet wearing sneakers - a unisex shoe - instead of a full body. I’d draw out the idea, but I don’t think I’d be allowed to put pics in the comments; so imagine taking a close-up photo of someone walking around in sneakers, from somewhere between mid-calf and ankles down to the floor, and draw that in black on a yellow sign in simplified form. The signs would still get the message across without the whole gender issue cluttering it up.

Comment by fjs

October 19, 2007 @ 8:44 pm

What about using the symbols for male and female, or xx and yy?

Comment by fjs

October 19, 2007 @ 8:44 pm

I mean xy and xx.

Comment by Theo

October 20, 2007 @ 10:21 am

If you think people will understand xy and xx, then why not just go with ‘walk’ and ‘don’t walk’ and forget the gender stuff altogether?

Comment by fjs

October 20, 2007 @ 12:23 pm

Walk is pretty clear for everyone.

Comment by tiro

October 20, 2007 @ 3:01 pm

Except if you don’t read English.

Comment by Liz

October 20, 2007 @ 9:02 pm

What’s Spanish for ‘walk?’

Comment by tiro

October 20, 2007 @ 11:33 pm

I have no idea, Liz. But I like the walking sneakers idea.

Comment by Mary Ann

October 23, 2007 @ 12:01 pm

I agree with LMCC - the walking sneakers idea is quite brilliant! (Hopefully, though, there would never be a debate over heels versus sneakers!)

I haven’t been able to keep up with blogging recently because of the huge fires in San Diego. We live in San Diego and have been standing by in case of evacuation. About 500,000 people have been evacuated from their homes due to the fires in the last two days. (Check nbcsandiego.com for the news.) Please pray that God would contain the fires. Thanks, everyone.

Comment by fjs

November 2, 2007 @ 3:17 pm

I know how we can solve the traffic light thing… how about a picture of a pair of walking feet… men and women both have feet.

It would reveal our common shared humanity as those who walk about on two feet. We could be human first before male and female.

Comment by Mary

November 2, 2007 @ 6:34 pm

Quite so, FJS!

The biblical creation narrative supports the radical(!) notion that human beings are human first and foremost; male and female are both from the Adam (earthly being). And once the woman was presented to the man, he joyfully observed that finally, there was one like him, not some foreign species ‘opposite’ to him, as too many people try to teach in the church (male allegedly opposite of female).

I like the sneakers/feet ideas. But, I never thought that the US-style stick figure was overtly male or female… just a human walking for ‘walk,’ and a hand raised in the ‘halt’ gesture or a slash-circle in red around the walking figure for ‘don’t walk.’

Comment by Mary

November 2, 2007 @ 6:35 pm

Mary Ann, how are you doing? Please update us soon! You’re in my prayers.

Comment by Shep

November 3, 2007 @ 5:39 am

I always thought my female gender was included in the words ‘man,’ ‘mankind,’ most biblical ‘he’ terminology, and stick man crosswalk signals. Only on bathroom doors did a differentiation of stick figures make any sense at all. This ponytail figure introduces an awareness of difference rahter than encouraging inclusion in the species. I expect now to hear about ‘womankind’ as though we are somehow a different race of people. We are not. We together, not alone, are created in the image of God. We give birth to male and female, and we can use a male looking symbol to describe us both. Using a femal symbol makes the distinction. It is not inclusive. The male symbol contains us both, for woman was taken from man in the beginning.

Comment by Mary

November 3, 2007 @ 9:27 am

I think the point is that an overtly masculine symbol is really no more inclusive than an overtly feminine one. Perhaps once it was nearly universally accepted as inclusive, but despite traditionalists’ claims to the contrary, ‘man’ no longer automatically means ‘the human race’ in general American usage. And really, it never has. Though it meant that in some contexts, in others it did not and people had to take sometimes subtle cues as to which was intended. More and more, verbal usage involves ‘humanity’ or ‘humankind’ so that the ambiguity of ‘man’ is not an issue.

I got the impression that the symbol on the lights in Madrid was more overtly masculine than the American-style stick figure. If that’s correct, I think the more proper move toward a generic symbol - more ’stick-figure’ than either masculine or feminine - would be the proper corrective. I agree that adding a ponytail contributes to the problem. I do find it interesting when people get all upset over a female figure ‘representing’ all people, though. If it’s all a symbol, then what’s the big deal about being symbolized by the other gender? Women have for many years had such a situation and the traditionalists now chide long and loud that we should just accept it. Some of them take very loud offense at the tables being turned, so perhaps that should tell them that it is a big deal.

Comment by Mary Ann

November 5, 2007 @ 4:49 pm

Regarding comment 72628, thanks Mary, for asking. We are doing fine! The fires have subsided and evacuees have gone back to their homes. Some of the churches in San Diego have really shown the community something different by getting out there to help those who have lost their homes to clean up and also to give needed supplies. Praise the Lord that less homes were lost this time than in the previous major fire. Praise the Lord that not many lives were lost. Thank you so much for those who prayed for us in San Diego. The real prayer now is that San Diegans who either lost much or had to fear loss would see the temporal nature of this life and come to see what is really worth living for.

Comment by Guen

December 9, 2007 @ 5:07 pm

I couldn’t believe this when I read it! It is the silliest thing I have ever heard! In Sweden (where I am from), they do all kinds of things to make sure everything is equal. For instance, the conservative party will now make sure their representatives to the European Union have an equal number of men and women. They would never even think of trafic symbols as an issue! Why spend money on something so trivial when there are much more imortant things to correct? After all, a stickfigure is gender-neutral.

Comment by Zed

January 12, 2008 @ 4:28 pm

I didn’t check if this was mentioned, but what of the transgendered population? What symbol do they get?