Reviewing New Zealand Electoral Roles
If an occupation is written as 'tailor' would I accept 'M' in the sex field?
Best Answers
-
I think tailor is gender neutral.
1 -
Tailor is male and seamstress is female. Does the project allow you to determine gender from the occupation?
0 -
I'm in New Zealand and have been doing this project since March 2020 when it was restricted to New Zealand indexers by FamilySearch. I tried to attached a snip of the pop up instructions last night, but it wasn't accepted. Here is what it says:
Indexing the Sex Field
'In very few cases, the occupation may be used to determine the sex, but do not assume the sex of a person based on the occupation unless the occupation or status is clearly male or female. Do not assume the sex of a person based on given names.
If the sex can not be clearly determined, please mark the Sex field blank.'
These Electoral Rolls cover the period 1865-1957 and come from a British background where both Tailor and Tailoress are listed.
My little niggle - The unfortunate thing with this project is that some indexers are still marking each record as male or female which means when being reviewed there can be a lot of corrections in the Sex field sending the batch back through review a second time which is a total waste of time, I wonder whether that was probably overlooked by the managers of the project, it might have been more productive to record the place the roll was taken listed at the top of the page instead of the Sex.
0
Answers
-
Thanks for your help Dellory. No, the project doesn't allow this although one can determine the gender from some occupations, eg: fireMAN or dairyWOMAN. But I wasn't quite sure of this one.
1 -
Then the researcher gets to figure it out. 😉
0 -
Yes, Tailor is male and Tailoress is female.
1 -
Jenny & Clem
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
Question: WHAT do the "Project Instructions" say to do?
▬ Does the "Project Instructions" shed any light on "Gender"?
As an aside ...
IF, "Gender" is NOT recorded in the Record; THEN, WHY is there provision, for "Gender" in the "Index", in the first place.
IF, "Gender" in NOT recorded in the Record; THEN, there should NOT be provision, for "Gender", in the "Index".
"Indexers", should NOT, make assumptions on "Gender", according to "Occupation".
IF, "Gender" in NOT recorded in the Record; THEN, if there is provision for "Gender" in the "Index", such should be left "Blank".
Just my thoughts.
Brett
0 -
Here are the specific instructions on the pop up.
0 -
This may be one of those rare projects where they are allowing the gender to be determined by occupation. I think the answer to this question also depends on the timing of the census and the individual's name as well. (The New Zealand census project did allow this when everyone could see it. I believe it quickly became restricted to indexing by the citizens when everyone went into Covid lockdowns.)
Tailor is gender netural because women were working in tailor shops by the early 1800s and were referred to as apprentice tailors. This is much like when women assumed traditionally male jobs in the more recent past but were called firemen, postmen, patrolmen, ect. The use of firefighter, postal worker, patrol officer would later come into being. There isn't enough information in this post to use tailor as a solely male noun. Would one say dressmaker is a female noun? No, because we know that many men were dressmakers.
Now, if the census is written John Smith, tailor, I would certainly accept that as a male gender. But, if it said Quinn Smith, I would not as both the name and the occupation are traditionally gender neutral.
Trivia that some of us will remember: "My mother was a tailor, she sewed my new blue jeans". House of the Rising Sun.
2 -
Regarding using Tailor and Tailoress to determine gender is that while it may be true that both terms were used at that time, in indexing we know there are always rebels or clerks that do not follow directions.
0 -
Gail
'Yes', I saw your attempt, last night, to include an "Image", of a 'snippet', from the "Project Instructions", regarding "Gender", that the "Image Moderator" has "Rejected"; and, considers is contrary to the "Code of Conduct" ...
Been there ... done that ... still do ...
[ These days, I am always, submitting a FORMAL "Objection", to my "Images", being "Rejected", on the grounds that they convene the "Code of Conduct"; when, in fact, they "Clearly" DO NOT ... ]
Now ...
That Said ...
'Yes', the "Project Instructions" are quite explicit ...
In very few cases, the occupation may be used to determine the sex, but do not assume the sex of a person based on the occupation unless the occupation or status is clearly male or female. Do not assume the sex of a person based on given names.
If the sex can not be clearly determined, please mark the Sex field blank.
Unfortunately, MANY; Many; many, "Indexers", (being nice here) may NOT read; and, take heed, of those instructions.
It is so great to 'see' the likes of a "Reviewer" (in this case, 'Jenny & Clem'), asking for help/assistance, when in doubt - kudos to them for doing such.
Best advice ...
When in doubt ... leave it "Blank" ...
Unless it is, clear; cut; and, dry ... ie. WITHOUT ambiguation ...
NEVER assume ... peoples assumptions are all different ...
Just, leave it "Blank".
Especially, when the 'Given' Name can refer to that of either "Gender".
Brett
1 -
Or another way to say it Brett "When in doubt.......leave it "Out". But it should clearly come down to what the instructions state "If the sex was not recorded or was written as a variation of the word "unknown," press Ctrl+B to mark this field blank."
0 -
I posted separately on this "Beginner" project a couple of days ago because the first batch I reviewed had the Sex field for every entry indexed with non-<Blank> values when only several out of about 100 should have been. I wanted to alert Indexers and especially Reviewers of that issue. The Project is 99% Indexed but still has 13,000 + batches to review.
Since then I have reviewed six batches, and only two were correct. Four will have gone for a second review - 67% done incorrectly with at least a 33% error rate.
The splash warning below shows when a batch is opened. But perhaps it - or an even more pointed version - should also be placed in the "What To Look For When Reviewing" section. If it can be animated -- all the better. When I review these problematic batches, I use the "copy forward" tool to <Blank> the Sex field on every entry and then undo that for the few correct ones.
0
