Does anyone think the word Ranger is sexist ? 🤔

From now on we are to be known as Paths For Everyone Volunteers?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

No. I don't see that as a gendered word at all.

Ranger seems to insinuate that you have free range of the land and can go wherever you like, PFEV seems to suggest that you should stick to the path, regardless of gender.

It looks like Sustrans have reduced the number of categories of volunteering which might also have contributed to some name changes, along with launching a new volunteering programme. More info here https://www.sustrans.org.uk/get-involved/volunteer/changes-to-our-volunteering-language-at-sustrans
I don’t think ranger is a gendered word, ( aren’t one of the guides sections called rangers?) but that might not be why the change has occurred

Aren't ranger guides the female equivalent of venture scouts?

Edit: beaten to it!

I've always thought of it as a gender neutral term - I've known quite a few Rangers who identified as women and never gave it a thought.

I think in this particular case, a traditional word has been confused with a gender specific word.

 it makes them feel uncomfortable?

How? Genuinely curious here.

Only one option? That does not seem like you were given a range(r) of alternatives.

I'd add that having volunteered for Sustrans, you'd get less shit from idiots with Ranger on your back than as a "Volunteer"

Go go Power Rangers…

Maybe just make sure they don’t have to wear gendered colours.

It looks like Sustrans have reduced the number of categories of volunteering which might also have contributed to some name changes, along with launching a new volunteering programme.

Filing under the same category as when health and safety get a bad rep because of something an insurance policy sitpulates.

lappierrelady that's an interesting read and not how it was explained at the recent meeting 🤔

Is there jumping to conclusions going on here. Is the fact that those 'complaining' are women incidental and it's nothing to do with sexism and just the word ranger they don't like.

I could live with it, but it does have a whiff (to me) of maybe unwarranted or possibly wannabe authority about it. I hear the word and I'm thinking Canadian Mounties, the bloke that chased me and and my mates out of the park for having a football as kids, with a touch of traffic warden too. And...and I'm not saying this is you op....there are a group of the public that get their rocks off on titles that seem to give authority that others don't like to be associated with.

Not sexist. Possibly a bit "high viz heroes".

Paths for All Volunteers sounds a bit milquetoast.

no it doesn’t seem to me like it is a gendered term

Now apparently a few ( indeterminate number ) women have objected to the word as it makes them feel uncomfortable?

Did the explanation (or the original complaints) suggest it was because it was a gendered term or was the concern that ranger might not be the right term for the job (or that they might be in the wrong role?).  I would expect a “Ranger” has some degree of “power” or “authority” (both National Park and Local Authority country parks near here have Rangers who whilst generally helping the public enjoy the space also issue instructions and get involved in event permissions etc.  I’m not sure what a sustrans ranger does but if the name doesn’t help the public understand what they do it might lead to conflict?  If I saw someone wearing high vis with “ranger” written on it clearing the sustrans path behind my house I would probably assume they were employed rather than volunteers.  If I was an idiot (like large parts of the public!) I might think they work for the council and direct my ire at the frequency of brown bin collections or such like…

had I been at a meeting where such a change was announced and unclear on why, rather than exhale my exasperation like a daily express reader I’d have been inclined to ask what the concern was and if anyone had consulted the many volunteers who have been using the “Ranger” badge for years how they feel about being rebranded.  I suspect some will feel devalued.  Some may even feel that PFA Volunteer will carry less authority and lead to conflict with people who were happy for “Rangers” to be cutting back bushes but don’t recognise what a PFA Volunteer is.   Of course since sustrans employ staff - you’d expect someone there thought through how to engage volunteers in any major rebrand, but I wonder (cos I am a cynical sort) if the issue was as much driven by “HQ” who don’t like “ranger” because it implies a degree of autonomy / responsibility.

Unfortunately this is classic projection leading to confected offence.

The word is gender neutral. But a few people, desperate to make a point*, are blaming others for their own interpretation of a word.

This is the kind of nonsense that allows culture warriors to bang on about how wokes want to take over. The protagonists in this instance should be told to grow up.

*And thus best avoided at all costs. If their stupidity alienates enough people then there won't be enough Paths For Everyone Volunteers. Idiots.

moimoi exactly 👍
poly not an Express reader just my gut reaction .

I don't see the difference in calling yourself either a Volunteer or a Ranger, who cares?

who cares?

Evidently enough people with an agenda to make a whole organisation bend to their wishes.

The choosing of the wrong hills on which to die is a major factor working against a culture of respect for differences.

Gender neutral.

My wife says the word 'ranger' is not gendered, and she is doing a PhD about (in part) gendered language.

I don’t see the difference in calling yourself either a Volunteer or a Ranger, who cares?

Connotation. To me the word 'ranger' is full of excitement, and the promise of the outdoors, whereas that other construction is just about the best way of sucking the life out of the role by description and would put me off ever volunteering in the first place.

Not wanting to wander too far off topic, but I do question the psychology of people who volunteer to do stuff then spend their time rucking against the organisation for which they are volunteering.

I think it boils down to a desperate need to make a point, no matter what the circumstances, context or place.

It is exactly this kind of person that puts a lot of other people off from volunteering.

But the argument is not one of gender. The OP just says that it makes some people feel uncomfortable. I mean I get that for some the word Ranger is more attractive than Volunteer, but again,  I'm pretty sure that for the folks who don't like the noun appended to them are more than happy to let others still use it?

I can read all about the work of a ranger on the Sustrans website this morning, so call yourself what you want?

I'm in the 'that's bonkers' camp; it's always been gender neutral AFAIK. Although ranger does seem a possibly incorrect term for the role/s in question.

I see they have a whole plethora of volunteering titles from that link. Seems equally bonkers to have such formal sub-divisions of volunteers, and importantly, where's the volunteering tea maker 😜

Also interesting to see they are now paths for everyone volunteers, presumably to distinguish them from the Paths For All organisation and it's volunteers 🤣

Hang on. When I was in Edinburgh, I was, for a while, a Volunteer Ranger for the Regional Park. I was then, for a while, a Sustrans VR. I don't think Ranger means not a volunteer.

However, this whole Paths for Everyone thing seems like the sort of ****tery that made me give up my Sustrans Volunteer Ranger role a few years ago. I wonder if it's a prelude to a renaming (reimagining) of the whole organisation.

and importantly, where’s the volunteering tea maker

And there would be a good case for offence - if it was generally assumed that the tea maker was female. That really would be something worth challenging.

Choosing the right battles to fight becomes impossible if your sole motivation is to 'make that point' no matter what the context.

I'm just making the same point in slightly different ways now, though. So in the spirit of my point I'm stopping unless someone chooses a new angle that piques my interest. 🙂

There's no ranger without anger. It's not gendered but the sectarian resonances need carefully to be considered...* Either way "high-viz heroes" must be a title everyone can get behind?

*They don't.

Also interesting to see they are now paths for everyone volunteers, presumably to distinguish them from the Paths For All organisation and it’s volunteers

Isn't one the armed wing of the other?

Couldn't resist. 🤭

Ah, reading through the changes, it's apparent that this is the sort of deckchair shuffling that takes place after a "consultation" - likely one that cost a few thousand pounds. Gotta keep all those office folk topped up with gravy from the train. If they could only concentrate on spending money on, you know, actual infrastructure...

Ah, reading through the changes, it’s apparent that this is the sort of deckchair shuffling that takes place after a “consultation” – likely one that cost a few thousand pounds. Gotta keep all those office folk topped up with gravy from the train. If they could only concentrate on spending money on, you know, actual infrastructure…

Yep, similar has gone on at the Scout Association recently

I’m with poly and convert. I don’t think anyone has said that the problem is that the term is gendered.

The only place that I have met Rangers in the USA where they have statutory authority. So I guess I do associate the term with authority

I don't think 'Ranger' is gendered, isn't Rangers the next step up from Girl Guides? Used to be when my daughter went.

edit - yes it still is called Rangers, and sorry lapierrelady, missed that you mentioned this already

No wonder our productivity is on the floor when this sort of nonsense is being discussed! 😂

@lamp - I think you've missed the point. There will be a bunch of folk in the Sustrans offices well pleased at how productive they've been, the targets they'll have met and the extra work they'll have generated, thereby justifying their ongoing employment.

Presumptions made by an anti-woke stance on the Op's part? We should be told!

No wonder our productivity is on the floor when this sort of nonsense is being discussed! 😂

Depends on your definition of productivity.

If generating forms, consultations and meetings about meetings is defined as productive then I would say targets have been met.

I say this only half in jest. My current employer is a university and there are myriad middle managers carving out entire careers on finding a basis for not doing anything different. Ever.

To say it is a sector that is falling over itself to be anti every conceivable ism would be an understatement. As with everything, perfectly reasonable initiatives are whipped up into a cottage industry that doesn't actually achieve anything - and has a ready defined excuse why that is the case. A much easier gig than working in the real world, though - me included. 🤷‍♂️

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Some volunteers said they didn’t like being called rangers

So they changed the name

Now if you’re telling that you’ve seen the bill for the consultant and or know how long it took then I’m with you. But at the moment that doesn’t seem crazy

But at work I’ve known my team of
set up initiatives or change the naming to of things in a few WhatsApp messages and 20 minutes at a meeting

FYI I threw up this morning and now I’m lieing in bed bored, hence not being productive at the moment

Some volunteers said they didn’t like being called rangers

So they changed the name

But yeah certainly not a gendered word, never has been, also pretty ubiquitous over the English-speaking world as to it's meaning (Park Ranger, etc) whereas "Paths For Everyone Volunteers" is not exactly going to win the plain-English award IMO

But OP is/was a volunteer? And presumably wasn’t consulted as this was a surprise? So that seems like an invalid argument.

Fair point. Although I was really discussing the efficiency. Once you’re at that consultation phase then that’s where everything starts to spiral into more time and money

The more you split the all-encompassing Ranger role into specific functions, the more department heads you need and the more inter-departmental meetings you can have. It's an ideal way of generating more admin.

Go go Power Rangers…

Do the power rangers ride e-bikes?

Reading it again it does seem to have to all the signs of circular and expensive

Although it does try and suggest they are talking about reducing the number of rolls

If there aren't as many rolls, does that answer longdog's question about why tea making volunteers aren't needed any more? 😉

Now apparently a few ( indeterminate number ) women have objected to the word as it makes them feel uncomfortable?

Yeah...the "apparently" is doing a lot of heavily lifting here. Shouldn't we just assume that it's more likely someone's got the wrong end of the stick somewhere along the way than this is a PC Gorn Made Woke Mafia decision?

it makes them feel uncomfortable?

How? Genuinely curious here

Over thinking.