Here's a letter to the editor

[conuly]

claiming that there is nothing sexist with the phrase "manned" tables (spacecraft, vehicles, etc) because in this case "manned" comes from Latin manus, so there.

First of all, that etymology is false. False, false, false. Man (v) comes from man (n) in exactly the path we all imagine. And I know, because unlike this person, I actually bothered to look it up.

Secondly, it doesn't freaking matter. "Manning" a table certainly sounds like it might be sexist, we have an easy substitute in the words "staffing" or "working", and that's good enough reason to switch.

I'm strongly tempted to write my own letter to the editor rebutting this letter to the editor, which of course itself is a rebuttal.

Comments

[hilarita]

Even NASA talks about crewed spaceflight these days. If one's example about space is contradicting NASA's own usage, I feel that one ought to rethink one's life choices.

Obviously this is a letter in green ink from Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells.

[hudebnik]

I've always sorta liked "humanned", but that's not an already-accepted practice, while "crewed" and "staffed" are.

[conuly]

I believe in this case - not having seen the original letter, just this rebuttal - the sense was manning tables, as in waitressing. Waitering? Serving? I don't even... what IS the correct verb here? Is it waiting? It's gotta be, right?

[offcntr]

Yes, waiting tables is the usual restaurant wording.

I also recall seeing waitron used by someone--maybe Bourdain? as a gender-nonspecific term for the wait staff themselves. Though, come to think of it, wait staff seems less jargony.

[conuly]

I've seen waitron too, but it seems so silly. I think most people use "server".

[cynthia1960]

Applause.