The word "Man"

[Bozo Erectus]

Poor European women. They have to share bathrooms with men

 

[EdwardTking]

Actually, I find people best.

Some words are clearly insults and should not be
unnecessarily used in polite company, but otherwise
people should use whatever commonly understood
words they like. Not doing that is a surrender.

 

[Blkbird]

Please visit some European countries.

Nowhere did I deny the existence of urinals in *some* W bathrooms.

 

[jonatas]

The word is essentially unusable in political speeches - do you therefore think it too archaic?

In answer to your question, no I do not. In fact it is a word I quite like.

 

[The Last Conformist]

In answer to your question, no I do not. In fact it is a word I quite like.

Then why do you use a parallel argument against "mankind"?

 

[koondrad]

Nowhere did I deny the existence of urinals in *some* W bathrooms.

In that case I agree with your previous point.

 

[Blasphemous]

I agree with jonatas that "man" and "mankind" in reference to humanity are a bit outdated, but I don't think this is an issue that should be decided by debate. The language should develop naturally through the collective undefined decision of the population that uses it.
Sure, English and most other languages are full of stupidities, sexist and otherwise, but they are natural languages and are not subject to synthetic decisions. I speak English the way English is spoken. When I try to invent synthetic languages I can insert my philosophical ideas into them.
Just for comparison, in (Modern Israeli) Hebrew, which is etymologically pretty much unrelated to English, at least with these examples, the word for "male human being" is איש /iʃ/, the female version being אישה /iʃa/ (pretty much standard way to make it female.) "Humanity" is אנושות /enoʃut/ ("-ity" noun version of the name Enos [grandson of Adam, as it turns out]. Not directly related to the previous words I think.) "Humans" is either בני-אנוש /bnei enoʃ/ (sons of Enos) or בני-אדם /bnei adam/ (sons of Adam). The sexism here as I see it is the fact that it is "sons of" and not "children of", however this is more of a standard sexist rule in Hebrew, as "son" and "daughter" are two version of the same word in Hebrew and plurals receive a gender, which is male if any males are in the group. There are some feminists who alter the language in a democratic fashion - they make the plural follow the gender of the majority of the group. The way I see it, the male gender in Hebrew is also the default neutral gender and sometimes it doesn't actually indicate any actual gender. The words "it" and "that" and everything that goes along with them is grammatically male (however nouns are each either male or female or in two or three cases both).
Whew, talk about going on a tangent. =X

 

[jonatas]

Then why do you use a parallel argument against "mankind"?

It's not a question of logic, but usage. I wasn't implying that whether a term is archaic or not is automatically determed by a political context, where language is clearly important, but rather that clearly archaic words will usually not be used in those contexts. Your example of what could defined as an "obscene" word is another matter altogether.

Words are used in contexts. In the particular case of "mankind", it is my opinion that it is a somewhat dated word that is somewhat inappropriate to use in certain contexts. And that is based on my experience of the English language

 

[jonatas]

The language should develop naturally through the collective undefined decision of the population that uses it.

That's my view exactly.

 

[The Last Conformist]

It's not a question of logic, but usage. I wasn't implying that whether a term is archaic or not is automatically determed by a political context, where language is clearly important, but rather that clearly archaic words will usually not be used in those contexts. Your example of what could defined as an "obscene" word is another matter altogether.

Words are used in contexts. In the particular case of "mankind", it is my opinion that it is a somewhat dated word that is somewhat inappropriate to use in certain contexts. And that is based on my experience of the English language

What I'm trying to get across is that there is no necessary connection between the putative datedness of "mankind" and the fact it's not considered proper in political speech.

 

[jonatas]

What I'm trying to get across is that there is no necessary connection between the putative datedness of "mankind" and the fact it's not considered proper in political speech.

Yes. My point is that its passage from usage in political speech is reflective of its datedness.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Yes. My point is that its passage from usage in political speech is reflective of its datedness.

That, I believe, is simply wrong - it's avoided in political speech because it's construed as sexist, not because it is felt as being archaic.

However, we probably better drop this here, because we can't get much further short of starting to interview politicians.

 

[koondrad]

That, I believe, is simply wrong - it's avoided in political speech because it's construed as sexist, not because it is felt as being archaic.

Exactly right. The media and the public need only the smallest of opportunities to attack a politician .

 

[jonatas]

That, I believe, is simply wrong - it's avoided in political speech because it's construed as sexist, not because it is felt as being archaic.

However, we probably better drop this here, because we can't get much further short of starting to interview politicians.

haha ok. However I do believe that it is culturally dated by more than just a couple generations, and not simply avoided for its sexist overtones. A word becomes archaic when it begins to fall out of use, for whatever reason. But I've talked enough today on this.

 

[Swiss Bezerker]

Jesus christ, its just a word, english is meant to be simple, so we can say
"shell shock" istead of "post dramatic stress disorder"

 

[koondrad]

Jesus christ, its just a word, english is meant to be simple, so we can say
"shell shock" istead of "post dramatic stress disorder"

Wise words ^

 

[Pikachu]

If you think the English language is sexist, you are lucky that you don’t need to use a language that assigns gender to all kinds of words. It is quite amazing how sexist the assignment of gender to words can be.

If there are one positive and one negative word for the same thing in Norwegian for example, it is a pretty safe bet that the positive word is masculine and the negative is feminine or genderless.

That is even true for the various words for woman. Most of them are of course feminine, but the most politically correct one is masculine

 

[BCLG100]

This is a continuation of a discussion that began in the Election for Minister of Science thread in the CivIV Demogame forum.
Short summary:
*Koonrad used the word "Man" as a synonyme for "humanity".
*I wrote that doing so was sexist.
*Everyone disagreed with me.
*Some people did however agree that parts of the English language might be sexist.
*There was also some general debate about political correctness.

i didnt disagree, think i was too busy forgetting to vote

 

[Bill3000]

Traditionally, many writers have used man and certain compounds derived from it to designate any or all members of the human race regardless of sex. This practice has the strength of history on its side. In Old English the principal sense of man meant “a human being"; the words wer and wyf (or woepman and wifman) were used to refer to “a male human being” and “a female human being” respectively. But in Middle English man displaced wer as the term for “a male human being,” while wyfman (the word that evolved into present-day woman) was retained for “a female human being.” Despite this change, man continued to carry its original sense of “a human being” as well, and so the result is an asymmetrical arrangement that many criticize as sexist: man can stand for all people, but woman cannot. Because of a growing belief that man and words formed from it are not inclusive of women, more and more writers are showing an unwillingness to use the word man in its sense of “a human being” or men in its sense of “members of the human race.”

http://www.bartleby.com/64/C005/022.html

 

[ainwood]

On mildly interesting point is that chairman does not derive from 'man' at all; but from the latin 'manus' meaning 'hand'.