I think "maker"/DIY go hand in hand - and are probably most useful as umbrella terms for people who genuinely enjoy tinkering and enjoy experiencing learning and experimenting with new physical skills.

So, yeah, "DIY dinner" does sound a bit silly. But, as someone who has done amateur shoe modification - I would never call myself a cobbler. A maker? Sure.

I sympathize a bit with your criticism of the term, because I've thought long and hard about whether or not some new terminology is coined or supported by men when they get into a hobby which is traditionally practiced by women.

eg, "crafting" is a well established word, but seems avoided by men, and DIY is an easy substitute, eg "DIY foam halloween costume"

I first noticed this when I got a sewing machine, and started to frequent DIY camping gear/hammock forums. There's an obnoxious habit around those parts to not even call a sewing machine a sewing machine - it's a "thread injector." It drives me up the wall, it seems so blatantly sexist.

Every term is made up. That’s how language works.

When you describe what you do with a term (made up or not),that term should at the very least give your audience some idea of what you do.

Everyone is a maker. The point of a language is to communicate information,not to obscure it. Would it be a proper use of language if a programmer called himself a "writer"? After all he is writing. "programmer" or "software developer" is used to distinguish what type of writing he/she works with for a living.

Sorry if that offended you,but from my perspective,it just does not communicate the nature of their work efficiently.

"Maker" refers to an entire tinkering movement. The projects are often electronics-related, but not always. And in any case, a "maker" generally isn't performing "engineering" in anything but the loosest sense (kind of like the criticism of most "software engineers" not performing "engineering").

> Would it be a proper use of language if a programmer called himself a "writer"?

No, because that would be confusing; no one uses "writer" in that way without extra explanation. In contrast, "maker" is used to describe a tinkerer who builds designs and/or builds projects, often reusing ideas from other makers. It's "proper use of language" not because it makes sense, but because that's how people use it.

One of the things about "maker" is that in many ways it's a social descriptor - it almost means "someone who might read Make magazine". After all, it covers a huge variety of things. Someone who's into amateur electronics but is not a radio ham. Someone who dabbles in programming, does a bit of soldering, stitching, 3D printing, carpentry etc. Not someone who specialises in a particular craft. Also not an "artist" as traditionally construed (artist is itself a social descriptor), even though many of the pieces made could be considered art.

I'm not sure that "writer," or even "fiction writer," the job title shared by James Joyce and Stan Lee and William S. Burroughs and J.K. Rowling and Dr. Seuss and Toni Morrison and The Coen Brothers, is especially descriptive.

I’m not offended, I just thought that was a really silly criticism.

Lack of specificity is a much better one.

Fair enough. This is why I would not ever be able to keep a silicon valley job.

Sure language is made up,but isn't an obstacle to clear communication bad language?

I find it hard to accept unreasonable logic(even the popular and trendy kind).

It doesn’t matter that it’s made up. What matters is that the word refers to a category of entities in the real world that it’s useful for us to be able to distinguish and refer to.