Do you see anything wrong with this sign?  Of course!  It’s discriminatory because women are commonly found on construction and road repair crews holding these signs and working equally along side men.  At least that’s the argument from Cynthia Good, founding editor of PINK Magazine, as reported in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Good demanded that the signs be removed and the Atlanta Public Works Commissioner, Joe Basista, agreed.  “Public Works officials are replacing 50 ‘Men Working’ with signs that say ‘Workers Ahead.’ It will cost $22 to cover over some of the old signs and $144 to buy new signs, said Public Works spokeswoman Valerie Bell-Smith said.”  To a city like Atlanta, the largest in the South, that amount is like pennies in an ash tray.  But it is Good’s response to the city’s action and her future intentions that indicates a larger discussion - “Score one for gender equality.  (Atlanta) gets it.  (Now) we’re calling on the rest of the nation to follow suit and make a statement that we will not accept these subtle forms of discrimination.”

If you’re like me, part of you may just laugh when you hear of such actions.  In the end, however, it is no laughing matter because it brings up a host of questions.  For example, did the manufacturers of the sign mean mankind in general when they wrote “men working”?  It’s doubtful given the nature of the job where such signs are normally found.  And, yes, I’m being partly playful here.  Nonetheless, such a question probably could be raised when deciding a formal complainant.

More importantly though, at what point does the wrongful “discrimination” and rightful “inclusion” end?  At the end of the day, who will decide what is and is not offensive?  Who sets the standard for what is and is not discriminatory?  The standard, as illustrated in this case, is set by the defended party.  Good brought it to the city’s attention that she had been offended and working women were being discriminated against.  Thus, it was Good’s standard that was set and had to be decided on by the city.  This goes to illustrate just how powerful the individual’s “rights” have become in our culture.  If one person is offended then he or she has the “right” to file whatever form of complaint he or she deems suitable.  (David Wells notes this in The Courage To Be Protestant.)

One of the more obvious questions and particularly important ones to the church is at what point can we use “cultural artifacts” (to use one of Dr. Mohler’s terms) to make gender distinctions?  Can we ever use anything to distinguish our God-given gender roles?  If Good can make a case for “men working” signs then who’s to stop someone from filing suit against the church for saying, “In accordance with 1 Timothy 2:12 and 3:2, women shall not serve as Elders” (Article 3, Section 2, Clause 4 of TABC’s Constitution)?  This is not a question for a later generation.  It is one that is already being taken up now.

Posted in Church Life, Culture, Current Events |