We have a terminology problem that needs to be solved. This term "guybrarian" is thrown around a lot by annoying people. I think it's a stupid term loaded with sexist connotations. If there's a guybrarian, that must be because librarian is inherently female. If English were gendered like some other languages, the word itself might be gendered, at least by now. But weren't there any male librarians in the past? What were they called? I think we all know that, and if we don't we should look to one of my commenters.
A commenter on the guybrarian post last week wrote:
"wait a minute - just what makes a guybrarian a guybrarian? i think it's a little more subtle than penis + mls = guybrarian.
for example, take your comment on jackets. don't most guybrarians enter the profession so they can avoid ever having to wear a jacket and tie until they are embalmed in a casket? if they were willing to wear jackets and ties, wouldn't they be 'library directors' instead of 'guybrarians'?"
That was certainly what male librarians used to be called--library director. That hasn't necessarily been the case for a while, but it certainly was for a long time.
But since male librarians are slightly more plentiful than they used to be, at least in the lower echelons of librarianship, we can't just call them library directors anymore. It would look pretty silly calling that scruffy 25-year-old male reference librarian who'll probably never move up or on anywhere a "library director." But apparently we still need a term for a male librarian, so we have "guybrarian." Dropping librarian entirely and calling that person an "information scientist" or something even more ludicrous just won't do.
Let's consider the comment, though. Is a male library director a "guybrarian"? Apparently not. One might even ask if a library director is a librarian at all. Or is a "guybrarian" just a slovenly dressed male non-director librarian, as the commenter implies? In that case, what do we do with male librarians who wear jackets and ties but are not library directors? Do we just assume that they are either a) over 50, or b) gay? Well, we can probably assume that, but we still need something to call them. If the gender stereotypes are right, they can't be called librarians, and if the commenter's right, they can't be called guybrarians, and they certainly can't be called library directors. Apparently, some people are still so mired in their outdated gender ideology that they can't think of librarians as other than women, and that includes the folks who think they're being witty and unstereotypical by using the term "guybrarian."
I don't think there's any solution to this terminology problem for another generation or two. By that time, I expect it's more likely not that gender stereotypes will be gone, but that libraries will be. Either way, the problem will be solved.