2

Is it "thousands of postmen and women" or "thousands of postmen and -women"? Is the use of a hyphen correct in the latter case?

RegDwigнt
  • 97,231
jonathan
  • 101

3 Answers3

10

Using the hyphen would traditionally be appropriate there, though it strikes me as old-fashioned. The BBC's website, for example, regularly uses "postmen and women" without a hyphen. Of course, this is somewhat ambiguous, as it could be taken to mean the same as "thousands of women and postmen". Context usually shows what is meant, but the hyphen certainly removes all doubt.

If you wanted an alternative that avoids the hyphen problem, you could replace -women with the full word ("thousands of postmen and postwomen") or use a term that includes both categories ("thousands of postal workers", or in U.S. English "thousands of mail carriers").

Berthilde
  • 911
  • 5
  • 9
  • Thank you, Berthilde, for the explanation! Incidentally I did think about your last solution but it's quite a long sentence I'm writing and to write postwomen in full detracted from the flow a bit. – jonathan Nov 19 '12 at 10:57
  • 4
    Or, you could simply say, "thousands of postmen", since "postman" can mean "a mail carrier" without necessarily implying "a male mail carrier." – J.R. Nov 19 '12 at 10:57
  • 1
    Aren't we supposed to say postpersons these days? – Barrie England Nov 19 '12 at 11:11
  • 3
    Yeah, postpersons or mailcarriers are both gender-free. Postmen is not gender-neutral in this feminist era, even though it pretended to be 50 years ago and earlier. I always took the masculine pronoun as male-specific and never neutral until I was told to maintain that double-standard fiction, by which time it was too late. [NB: I'm not a feminist and dislike PC language, but I am sympathetic in this case because the feminists are right about this one -- maybe only this one, though, IMHO]. –  Nov 19 '12 at 11:36
  • @Bill - I once heard it said like this: "Remember, there are two kinds of man; there's male man, and female man." I don't consider that anti-feminist, because it's easily confirmed by any dictionary. That said, it's also ambiguous at best, so I wouldn't argue over the point, or call the opposing view "wrong." – J.R. Nov 19 '12 at 11:57
  • @J.R.: Don't wanna argue the point. I'm just explaining my personal experience & reason for advocating certain kinds of what some think PC language. Personally, I see nothing wrong with the actor/actress, waiter/waitress, steward/stewardess, etc. divides. Fact is, everyone's a sexual being & the gender of everyone else is usually something significant to most people. Everyone wants to know whether it was "a boy or a girl"; nobody wants to have an androgynous it, although some want to be or at least appear to be androgynous. Not my bag, but so what? "Female man"? What's that? Oxymoron? –  Nov 19 '12 at 12:22
  • @J.R.: The Female Man is a feminist scifi novel. "The character Joanna calls herself the “female man” because she believes that she must forget her identity as a woman in order to be respected." Yawn. The other three worlds the novel describes are even worse. –  Nov 19 '12 at 13:17
  • Consider using "thousands of postal workers" or "postal carriers". In the U.S. Postal Service, the person in charge of a post branch office is still the "postmaster" or "postmistress". We've never had a female "Postmaster General", so it hasn't been a concern. @BillFranke Re Yawn ;o) lol – Ellie Kesselman Nov 19 '12 at 14:54
  • 2
    Sorry, I just re-read this. As @BillFranke said quite a bit earlier mail carrier is better than postal carrier. In the U.S., I have never heard "postpersons". There is nothing pejorative or political e.g. Comrade! about "postal worker" but "mail carrier" is an easier term in many ways. – Ellie Kesselman Nov 19 '12 at 15:01
  • 1
    @FeralOink: "mailcarriers" doesn't work in British English, where "postal workers" would be the commonest gender-neutral term, so it just depends on the OP's audience. But I take your point - a "postal worker" could also refer to someone who works in the office, not just to someone who carries the post, so "mailcarrier" feels less ambiguous. – Berthilde Nov 19 '12 at 16:02
  • 1
    It's all so fiddly and idiosyncratic and - messy. Imagine 'milkpersons'; 'personholes'. 'Person the guns!'! (Thought I'd throw in a bit of double punctuation, being British.) – Edwin Ashworth Nov 19 '12 at 16:08
  • 1
    If I wanted to make clear that I was referring to both men and women, i.e. if the gender was important in context, I'd say "mailmen and mailwomen". If I was referring to both but gender was not relevant, I'd probably just say "mailmen", unless I was afraid that that might be thought to mean just men in context, in which case I'd say "mail carriers". As someone noted, the post office has more jobs than just mail carrier, so "postal worker" is a more general term, which may or may not be want you want in context. – Jay Nov 19 '12 at 16:51
0

Perhaps I'm being hypersensitive, but it seems to me there's something inherently sexist in constructions explicitly stating that "postal delivery workers" includes both men and women.

I know that in the UK they actually call themselves posties, but I must admit I'm intrigued by Google's definition in that link...

A mail carrier, mailman (US) or postman/postwoman (UK)

...which seems to imply either that mailman is considered "unisex", or that all American delivery staff are men.

FumbleFingers
  • 140,184
  • 45
  • 294
  • 517
0

Both versions (with and without the hyphen) are fine, meaning they both conform to common usage.

Incidentally, I assume “thousands of postmen and -women” is intended to avoid offending female postal employees. It may be well worth your time to discover whether it might have the reverse effect. This is a complex issue. See the question titled “Gender-neutral Forms”.

Community
  • 1
MetaEd
  • 28,488