Hey, dispute resolution field. Yeah, you. Listen up, y'all: We really, really, REALLY need to stop using the term 'Ombudsman.'
#ombudsperson #ombudsman #Ombuds #disputeresolution #ADR #conflict #alternativedisputeresolution
#ombudsperson #ombudsman #Ombuds #disputeresolution #ADR #conflict #alternativedisputeresolution
We need to stop talking about how we maybe need to stop using it, or how we might use other names alongside it, and we need to just STOP USING IT.
Wondering why I’m tweeting such an atypically, a-professionally unneutral position on this? Then you’re perfectly primed for the next tweet. The unneutral medium really is the unneutral message.
When speaking in English, the suffix -man is experienced as gendered. If your answer is "But I don't experience it that way," here's why: You're male.
Even if you're not, respectfully, you're an anecdote. Get over yourself.
Even if you're not, respectfully, you're an anecdote. Get over yourself.
Terminology, is never, ever, neutral. We teach and practice that only ALL THE TIME.
When words are heard as gendered, they are experienced as gendered, with all the bias, perceived bias, and effects that involves, no matter what their users’ intent is.
For that reason, please, PLEASE, don’t explain Swedish etymology to me. It Just. Doesn’t. Matter.
Seriously, if you're still trying to explain the word's source to me, you've got to stop. This is one of those strange arguments in which the better one defends their position with sound yet archaic knowledge, the sillier they sound.
And, the sillier they are. Seriously, is our Swedish heritage the hill our field needs to die on?
Kudos to the practitioners, teachers, and organizations who have already shucked the term Ombudsman, shifting to Ombuds, Ombudsperson, etc. I have absolutely no preference regarding the new term to be used, only that the traditional dingle is surgically removed.
I'm often told that 'many people' want to preserve the traditional term, and we need to acknowledge and accommodate them. Isn't that what we're about?
Listen, I know: change is always hard. We deal with the notion of change and resistance to it in every aspect of our work, all the time. Our work as change facilitators is crucial for resolving conflicts and for addressing deeply-rooted problems.
Many people often have plausible reasons for preserving traditional terms/words/values, despite the harm they cause. One very common theme is denying they cause harm at all. Another is explaining how the term/word/value actually protects those they supposedly harm.
Yawn.
Yawn.
I’m not saying we fully ignore all these voices in our field. However, in assessing their number, and the weight of the aggregated opinion of those ‘many people’, before considering their reasoning, I suggest the following procedural rule: Male voices don’t matter.
Men have never, ever experienced this kind of gendered-language bias in the English language. I mean, experienced it being biased against US. In our defense, we're largely oblivious to the detriment we cause others when we use it. Privilege is comfy. We'll do better, I hope.
I’m male. I’m not speaking out to take voice away from women or otherly-gendered people on this issue, and I'm sorry if I've unintentionally stepped on any toes in that sense.
I’m male, and I'm also a teacher. In speaking out, I’m giving voice to the countless women and men in my courses who have more or less successfully bit back their instinctive ‘WTF?’ when first encountering the term in the books we write, sell, and assign them to read.
These students will eventually change the name of this process/field/role. Guess how they will talk about us ignoring this issue, when they mention it to THEIR students?
Waiting for them to change the name simply leaves us on the wrong side of history. Or, at best, the principled-and-dumb side of history, going down swinging, having fought valiantly for our Swedish heritage, to the end.
I’m male. And, incidentally, human. So, I am harmed by the exclusion of others that use of the term ombudsman causes, even if we never mean to exclude anyone when we use it.
Finally, it’s 2020, and I mean that in an unusually positive sense.
It's 2020; why is this still a topic?
It's 2020; why is this still a topic?
2020: the year we ditched 'Ombudsman'
