Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« Drag | Re: Deducting Tips »

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Sex I Used to Be, But I’m Not Anymore…

Posted by JOSH FEIT on September 13 at 14:44 PM

the politically correct type.

But god damn, there’s an item in this week’s news section (which I edit) that you don’t have to be a college sophomore to get a little exercised about.

I don’t know how this got by me…maybe it’s cuz I’m a white male corporation, but check this shit out from the latest installment of In Other News:

Less Ethics

On Thursday, September 7, city council committee voted 3 —0 to pass Mayor Nickels’s proposal to weaken the city’s ethics code. The issue at hand concerns ethics guidelines for members of citizens advisory committees: How should they deal with real and apparent conflicts of interest? The ethics code, as it stands now, states if an advisory committee member has either a real or apparent conflict of interest, and he doesn’t recuse himself, he could be fined up to $5,000.

The Mayor’s proposal lowers the standards. If the member has an apparent conflict of interest, he simply has to disclose the conflict (rather than recuse himself). And if he doesn’t disclose the apparent conflict, there is no fine. If an advisory committee member has a real conflict, he still has to recuse himself, but if he doesn’t, the fine has been lowered to $1,000.

The issue will go before the full council for their vote on September 18. BOBBY RIGGS


Permalink

CommentsRSS icon

1

Bobby Riggs!

Posted by matthew fisher wilder | September 13, 2006 2:46 PM

2

haha

Posted by lar | September 13, 2006 2:53 PM

3

How what got by you? That is correct, last time I looked at the Chicago Manual.

Are you really gonna he/she him/her all of those? You think that looks better?

Posted by Levislade | September 13, 2006 2:55 PM

4

Wow. Wiki-ing Bobby Riggs brought out more detail about the famous Battle Of The Sexes tennis match than I cared to know. You PC types should cover your eyes right now:

"Suddenly in the national limelight, Riggs taunted all female tennis players, prompting Billie Jean King to accept a lucrative financial offer to play Riggs in a nationally televised match that the promoters dubbed as the 'Battle of the Sexes.' On September 20th, at the Astrodome in Houston, Texas, King entered the arena in Cleopatra style, carried aloft in a chair held by four bare-chested muscle men dressed in the garb of ancient slaves. Riggs followed in a rickshaw drawn by a bevy of gorgeous scantily-clad models."

If only HUMP existed in 1973. Sigh.

Posted by matthew fisher wilder | September 13, 2006 2:56 PM

5

he/him/his is all over our state's legislative code. But there's another statute that says "he" refers to she and it as well. This really isn't different, I'd think.

Posted by him | September 13, 2006 3:17 PM

6

Chicago says to avoid using "he" in these situations, but also to avoid using "he/she," "he or she," or "they" as substitutes. Stranger style, however, says that "they" can be used, but only as a last resort. Ideally, these types of sentences should be reworked to allow for correct gender-neutral terms.

Posted by A Stranger Copy Editor | September 13, 2006 3:53 PM

7

No, really, this wording is correct. Women never violate ethics codes or have conflicts of interest.

Posted by d | September 13, 2006 4:05 PM

8

To be fair, the definitions of City Municipal Code of Ethics for Personnel clearly addresses both genders in every instance:


"E. 'City officer or employee' means every individual elected or appointed to an office or position of employment in any City agency, whether such individual is paid or unpaid. For purposes of Sections 4.16.090 and 4.16.100*LINK* B only, 'City employee' also includes every individual who was a City employee at the time of the act or omission that is alleged to have violated this chapter, even though he or she is not a City employee at the time of the hearing or appeal provided"


and


"2. Any dependent parent, parent-in-law, child or son-in-law or daughter-in-law; or


"3. Any parent, parent-in-law, child, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, sibling, uncle, aunt, cousin, niece or nephew residing in the household of the City officer or employee. "

Posted by Maassive | September 13, 2006 4:05 PM

9

All they had to do was preface the first he, like: (non-secular 3rd person) he... and it would've been essentially okay.

Or maybe female city officials have just been outlawed. Either way....

Posted by Gomez | September 13, 2006 7:25 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).