March 5, 2018
Qantas is facing criticism over a leaked list of “banned words” that have been sent to airline staff in an information package.
The info package was sent out by People and Culture group executive Lesley Grand and contains “gender inapropriate terms.”
News Ltd says that in a note to staff, “Ms Grant says she wants to foster an environment where ‘everyone feels comfortable’
and to uphold Qantas’ history of ‘support of indigenous issues, gender parity in business and marriage equality.’”
Some terms on the list include, wife, husband, mum and dad. Instead it is suggested staff use the terms spouse, partner and
parent. News Ltd reports the info pack says, “Always using the terms ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ can reinforce the idea that people
are always in heterosexual relationships. In the same way, always referring to ‘mum and dad’ can make many families feel
excluded — both same-sex couples and single-parent families.”
Other words staff should avoid include, guys, love, honey and darling. Staff should also “minimise manteruptions” – men
interupting women while they speak.
News Ltd further quotes the info pack as saying, ““Language can make groups of people invisible. For example, the use of the
term chairman can reinforce the idea that leaders are always men.” And, “[r]esearch shows that in many situations, including
the workplace, men interrupt and speak over women, while the reverse rarely happens.”

Lesley Grand ought to stop "feminitiating" silly new words.

"Manteruptions" - give over.

Not sure gay couples would agree with losing husband and wife, common references when a gay man refers to his partner or woman to her partner respectively.
This loss of gender drives me nuts- we cannot even refer to a ship as a she anymore. As for chairman/woman far better than the inanimate "chair"

mdd2 wrote:Not sure gay couples would agree with losing husband and wife, common references when a gay man refers to his partner or woman to her partner respectively.
This loss of gender drives me nuts- we cannot even refer to a ship as a she anymore. As for chairman/woman far better than the inanimate "chair"

Manterupting usually is the only way to get a word in edgeways

They’ve also told staff when explaining Australian history that they have not to say Australia was settled by the British. They’ve to say Australia was invaded.

Rowls wrote:Lesley Grand ought to stop "feminitiating" silly new words.

"Manteruptions" - give over.

Agreed.

But what on earth does “give over” mean? I use it all the time and I fully understand the context in which I’m using it, but it’s only now I have seen it written down that it strikes me the meaning of it has nothing to do with the words used???

Anyone know of its origin when used in the context of “stop what you are doing/saying”?

RammyClaret61 wrote:They’ve also told staff when explaining Australian history that they have not to say Australia was settled by the British. They’ve to say Australia was invaded.

It was.

So men can't interrupt women?

It's about the only way we can get a word in sometimes.

Nothing wrong with that, except "manterupting" is dumb.

You can't say chairman because that suggests only men are leaders but you can say manterupt even though by the same logic it suggests that only men interrupt conversations. The hypocrisy is there for all to see but inconvenient and therefore ignored.

What a load of old nonsense.

I wonder if any of these idiots worry about heterosexual people being offended by having all this shite continually rammed down their throats.

Rowls wrote:Lesley Grand ought to stop "feminitiating" silly new words.

"Manteruptions" - give over.

Without looking it up, possibly derives from a meeting room where once a person has spoken and the others believe his/her/**** point has been made, he/she/**** had to pass (give over) `the gavel` the next speaker.

bobinho wrote:Agreed.

But what on earth does “give over” mean? I use it all the time and I fully understand the context in which I’m using it, but it’s only now I have seen it written down that it strikes me the meaning of it has nothing to do with the words used???

Anyone know of its origin when used in the context of “stop what you are doing/saying”?

Without looking it up, possibly derives from a meeting room where once a person has spoken and the others believe his/her/**** point has been made, he/she/**** had to pass (give over) `the gavel` the next speaker.

Rowls wrote:Lesley Grand ought to stop "feminitiating" silly new words.

"Manteruptions" - give over.

Sorry, Rowls...didn`t mean to reply to your post.

Well intentioned but a destruction of accurate language.
Ludicrous.

I am flying Qantas in a couple of weeks. I will prime Mrs NFC to refer to me as husband and daughter to use mum and dad. Will listen out to their language to see if it is used in practice. Load of wombats do's if you ask me.

Why are people even bothered about this?

Just something completely pointless to whinge about so we can continue to ignore the really shitty things that go on.

I cannot fathom why anyone would choose to work for a huge company nowadays.

Too much nonsense like this, people always on their guard what to say, HR departments ruling the roost, pensions being relaxed, no use of internet at lunch (indeed, lucky to get a break for lunch), less social networking than there once was, relocations commonplace. People are blessed with one life, why spend 40 hours a week for 40 years in such an environment? It’s getting worse, not better.

Far better to set up for oneself or if need be get a job as an employee in a family firm where the atmosphere suits the individual. I appreciate some don’t feel they have a choice, and that’s a shame.

Oh, just spotted the “why do people care” comments - because it makes life less enjoyable. To them. Maybe not to others. We shouldn’t judge why life may or may not be as enjoyable. Maybe people don’t like being on their guard all the time, maybe others talk in such bland ways they never offend anyone so aren’t bothered? I do though believe that only 20% of the population want all this stuff coming in, the rest get fed up with it - and thus little things like this become big problems for governments when they accumulate. As we are starting to see.

Firthy wrote:I wonder if any of these idiots worry about heterosexual people being offended by having all this shite continually rammed down their throats.

Please explain to me how this is being forced down your throat.

I agree with this Australian man.

https://youtu.be/R3HvI5dJuzo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RingoMcCartney wrote:I agree with this Australian man.

https://youtu.be/R3HvI5dJuzo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

that led me to this gem...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmeTnVywvwU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rick_Muller wrote:that led me to this gem...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmeTnVywvwU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

absolute quality!

RingoMcCartney wrote:absolute quality!

have you watched it all the way through... She is an absolute genius at work

Suggest you see who the CEO from Qantas is.

I gave up manterupting my wife years ago. Nowadays I just buy her a box of maltesers.

ebby wrote:Suggest you see who the CEO from Qantas is.

It's a bloke. Your point is.......

Rick_Muller wrote:have you watched it all the way through... She is an absolute genius at work

Genius!?

Stretching it a bit!

Chobulous wrote:I gave up manterupting my wife years ago. Nowadays I just buy her a box of maltesers.

Hungry Hippos anyone...???

I agree with Lesley that minimising manteruptions is a good idea, but can they be used to combat womandroning?

And can Mrs G womanterupt me when I'm banging on endlessly about poor referees, while still maintaining an environment where we both feel comfortable?

I do hope so

Rick_Muller wrote:Hungry Hippos anyone...???

Wanna play hungry hippos for real ?

Go to a weightwatchers class and spill a box of maltesers on the floor......

Rick_Muller wrote:that led me to this gem...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmeTnVywvwU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It'd be nice if we didn't have links to fake material created by white-supremacists aiming to raise money through clicks.

UpTheBeehole wrote:It'd be nice if we didn't have links to fake material created by white-supremacists aiming to raise money through clicks.

What are you on about?

Rick_Muller wrote:What are you on about?

It's not a genuine video created and posted by a feminist. It was created by the alt-right to make feminists appear bad. You can clearly see she's (badly) acting.

The person hosting the video on youtube is a white supremacist littering his videos with links for donations.

Here's the actress's IMDB page

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5390667/

RingoMcCartney wrote:It's a bloke. Your point is.......

If you do some research on his views etc you will see where I am coming from.

UpTheBeehole wrote:It's not a genuine video created and posted by a feminist. It was created by the alt-right to make feminists appear bad. You can clearly see she's (badly) acting.

The person hosting the video on youtube is a white supremacist littering his videos with links for donations.

you might as well stop BBC and ITV creating content then, they use actors to create content that provides entertainment about various subject matters, just as that video did for me

This stuff is fun for a giggle but there is a serious point.

We ought to be wary of those who try and police our language. Our language is the basis for a lot of our complex thinking. We create words to differentiate and the accompanying differentials help us understand the world better.

Limit or censor our language and ultimately you limit and censor our thinking.

Mic.com are 'alt-right' now...

UpTheBeehole wrote:Here's the actress's IMDB page

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5390667/

How did you verify that?

God almighty how on earth did this thread get turned into a feckin “ white supremacist” staging/whipping post .?
Can’t lefties just have a giggle at a thread and take it at face value once in a while and leave politics out of it ?

ebby wrote:If you do some research on his views etc you will see where I am coming from.

just tried to research Qantas' Alan Joyce about vague opinions and came up with vague opinions. If you have anything to help me understand please link it.

Oh, and for the record - I have no issues with Qantas limiting the use of some words such as husband; wife etc and replacing them with spouse or partner, in fact I agree that it avoids potential for confrontation with some customers who may be offended by such terms. For example, whilst I don't take personal offence when someone I don't know makes the assumption that my partner is my wife and refers to her as such I can understand why others might.

Rick_Muller wrote:that led me to this gem...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmeTnVywvwU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This idiot is actually analysing a comedy video, isn't he? By a comedian.

Some sections that give it away:
"It made me wonder, what was this man thing inside their heads? I wanted to crack one open, like an egg, but my producer WHO IS A MAN, told me - no."

Woman: "...i've never really felt that men interrupt women. I actually feel women interrupt men."
Allie: "Had he given her his man thing?"

Allie, talking about a guys toddler daughter: "OK, he wouldn't let her speak, but i felt that the tiny woman was trying to communicate with me. So i followed her wordless directions and started talking to women."

I mean c'mon. How can anyone be so stupid as to make a video... oh yeah. I forgot. Some people actually like misrepresenting **** if it gets their gullible Ringos excited.

Here's the video - https://www.facebook.com/MicMedia/video ... 788183107/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We'll have people taking Philomena Cunk videos at face value next

AlargeClaret wrote:God almighty how on earth did this thread get turned into a feckin “ white supremacist” staging/whipping post .?
Can’t lefties just have a giggle at a thread and take it at face value once in a while and leave politics out of it ?

I think if you pay attention you'll find that post #22 is the first time politics is brought into it was when Ringo linked to a video of a Liberal politician from Australia tear apart some bullshit from a rival politician. That was followed by Rick linking to a white supremacists' video analysing a comedy video about feminism as if it's a real, serious video about feminism.

So if you want to point fingers towards the leftists who brought politics into this, you're looking for RingoMcCartney.

AlargeClaret wrote:God almighty how on earth did this thread get turned into a feckin “ white supremacist” staging/whipping post .?
Can’t lefties just have a giggle at a thread and take it at face value once in a while and leave politics out of it ?

Spot on!

I'm Fembaressed for them!

See? lol. Facts don't matter.

4:20 wrote: Mic.com are 'alt-right' now...

UpTheBeehole wrote:It was created by the alt-right to make feminists appear bad.

They're doing a great job without the "help" of the "alt-right"