Re: specific PC alternatives

[Kat Nagel/MasterWork <katnagel -at- EZNET -dot- NET>]

Rose Wilcox posted the first *sensible* PC-related message I've seen in a while.

She
(1) asked for advice on a writer's responsibility to point
    out potential PC problems.
(2) gave examples of two specific items that posed such
    problems.

In response to the policy issue, both the examples she gave involve groups
who are already sensitised to printed slights and stereotypes.  If the
items go out to the public in the current form, there *will* be
repercussions --- perhaps serious ones --- for the government agency
involved.  I believe the writer *does* have a responsibility to offer
reasonable alternatives, when this can be done without butchering the
language.

For the specific examples Rose cited, I offer the following alternatives.
There may be better ones out there, but this is what came to mind first.

>Example 1:
>In a "Programmer's Guide" that is to be used by future maintenance
>programmers documenting the database.  The database field name is
>"indian_tribe" and the field description is "Indian tribe blah-de-dah".

        Drop the ethnic designation and just use
       'TRIBE' and "TRIBE blah-de-dah'.

>Example 2:
>On a "button" in an application used by Field Engineers:
>"Men/Equipment".

        I assume this is a scheduling or budgeting
        application.  Why not use STAFF/Equipment?

Hope this helps.


@Kat
- view sig with monospaced font & 60char screen window -

Kat Nagel        LIFE1 (techwriting)  katnagel -at- eznet -dot- net
MasterWork       LIFE2 (music)         PlaynSong -at- aol -dot- com

     /|          Never retract, never explain,
 \'o.O'          never apologize...
 =(___)=         get the thing done and let them howl.
    U                            ______Nellie McClery