I’ve been following this issue for a while, (the Alderman name change issue- I made the other one up) because, well, it’s been going on for a while. Since before I was born, according to CBC. The conclusion to this debate yesterday was rather ridiculous- Bronconnier basically admitted he didn’t care, several female Councillors (and I plan on calling them that) put forth that they found the term sexist, as did several influential members of Calgarian politics (if such a term isn’t any oxy-moron). And yet, here we are, back to 1977. What a bizarre choice for Council to make- and interestingly enough those who voted against the title chance certainly aren’t making their names known. Clearly it’s embarrassing to be the only city in Canada that still uses such an outdated term, yet for some reason we can’t let it go.

Well perusing various discussion boards I’ve noticed the most common argument against changing the job title to Councillor is that it simply doesn’t matter. People are starving, getting murdered and really cold in this city and those are the issues that need focusing on. I find this argument confusing and completely invalid for a few reasons.

Firstly, to state the obvious, if it doesn’t matter why did you vote against it? Logically if some members of a group you belong to want to change the name of the group and you don’t care either way, you would just let them change it. Why draw it out 30 years and have proponents collect petitions and throw rallies if you have no opinion about the issue? I call bullshit.

And secondly, it does matter. Language matters in ways that are complex and important. Let’s make an imaginary scenario: For some reason I am decades behind the rest of the world and decide to call all Black people the n-word. When people from that group protest and politely ask I change the term I’m using, I claim to not care but continue using the word anyway.* Continuing to use the word would be highly racist of me, because the word has a oppressive history. I believe the term alderman specifically came from the title of the leader of a tribe, or a patriarch if you will.** It has always been an androcentric word, in that it has applied to men exclusively. In addition, the practice of professional titles ending in “–man” has long been recognized as discouraging women from entering the work force and the public world in general. There’s a reason we don’t refer to stay-at-home parents as housewives or police officers as policemen. Gender roles have changed and the language to accompany those roles has evolved with it.

Nothing feels more discouraging than living in a country where the Prime Minister tells women that they’re equal now and therefore don’t need funding for women’s groups, yet people in governmental positions actively decide that women Councillors should have a sexist term as their job title. Certain individuals have some answering to do.

*I would like to clarify that I’m using the n-word here as an illustrator of the importance of language, not comparing it to the use of “alderman” in degree or kind.

**And if anyone out there has access to the OED I would be really interested in knowing what it says about the etymology of the word.

And, because I promised to find something I was happy about- a great website to do some xmas shopping- Mushy Cat.com It’s feminist, environmentally friendly, and has products with Eddie Izzard jokes and anthropomorphized tofu. Just go look.