phrases like "to a man"... "where no man has gone before" have long lost true meaning.
Do most women seriously become offended by things like this? Of course it means everyone... not just the male race of humans!
Doesn't the word "kind" in man-kind refer to everyone who is (wo)MAN?
2006-07-27 08:32:59 · 14 answers · asked by wash_yer_nuts 3 in Social Science ➔ Sociology
Perhaps I should have clarified a little more precisely.
I do not believe that the terms should be separated, I feel that everyone is accounted for in "Man."
Most of you got this, some of you apparently only skimmed what I previously wrote.
I was actually hoping to catch some Feminist viewpoints but so far everyone agrees with me.
2006-07-27 08:49:13 · update #1
It's because women are crazy, and it confuses them. We used to carry the generic name for our species, while they were given another to denote they were special. However, that doesn't fit in with the feminist ideal of the long oppressed gender of victims, and so the language had to be changed so that nobody is special anymore. Thanks ladies.
2006-07-27 08:35:55 · answer #1 · answered by Beardog 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The primary meaning of the word "MAN" is human being or humankind. The secondary meaning of the same word is a male human being. In Old English the word wifman (or something like that) meant female, and werman meant male. But only the female version survived to become woman. The male version of the word became man. So now "man" has two meanings.
Unfortunately, the feminist movement got it into everyone's heads that the word MAN can only mean a male human being, and that it is somehow sexist to use this good old Anglo-Saxon word to refer to human beings. So now we have to use Latin expressions which are not as good. We now use the words "person" or "people" where we used to say "man." But the word person is derived from the Latin "persona," which really means a mask. And the word "people" also doesn't quite convey what you want to say when you want a nice simple word to mean a human being, or humankind.
2006-07-27 15:42:32 · answer #2 · answered by rollo_tomassi423 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Feminists originally objected to this because the implicit idea was that "Man" referred to just the "man", and it created an unconscious bias in the minds of everyone who used the term. It's the same trick as telling someone to picture a doctor -- most people used to picture a man as the doctor. And it was thought that this sort of bias was inherent in the language. We now know better, but there are still some people who are either a) so sensitive to this kind of thing that they won't let it go or b) so afraid that they will be categorized as a neanderthal that they will go to any length to avoid being put into that category.
2006-07-27 15:40:09 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lay off the drugs. You're over analyzing everything. People need to stop being so politically correct. No I am not offended by the word "man". I don't care.
As quoted:
The English term "man" (from Proto-Germanic mannaz "man, person") and words derived therefrom can designate any or even all of the human race regardless of their gender or age. This is indeed the oldest usage of "man". In Old English the words wer and wyf (also wæpman and wifman) were what was used to refer to "a man" and "a woman" respectively, and "man" was gender neutral. In Middle English man displaced wer as term for "male human", whilst wyfman (which eventually evolved into woman) was retained for "female human". "Man" does continue to carry its original sense of "Human" however, resulting in an asymmetry sometimes criticized as sexist.
2006-07-27 15:34:58 · answer #4 · answered by Corn_Flake 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you want to get technical about it, The Supreme Court ruling said that the term "Man" or "Guys" (as in "you guys" when speaking to a mixed group) Is NOT gender neutral. It does only mean those of the XY chromosome. So breaking apart a word into syllables does not make it mean something more or less than what it already is. So "Where no man has gone before" means just that. "Where no ONE has gone before" would be the only gender neutral term you could use.
2006-07-27 15:58:10 · answer #5 · answered by wild_orchid_1988 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't get offended at stuff like that. I know when a phrase says man or man-kind they mean all people. It's a way of differentiating humans from other life forms.
2006-07-27 15:38:47 · answer #6 · answered by Steph 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
as a society in the united states our language is becoming less precise and almost meaningless from what i see in the schools, so you would think that a thing like this would be the way to go, but i guess there are a couple special interests out there who are so pc they arent pc.
2006-07-27 15:35:23 · answer #7 · answered by thale138 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Any woman who gets seriously offended by that has some other, more serious issues. Most women do not care about such trivial things.
2006-07-27 15:38:53 · answer #8 · answered by Goose&Tonic 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
political correctness. in English, "he" and "man" can be used in a non-sex-oriented context, it plays the role of the gender neutral pronoun. any linguist will tell you that. it's just this whole stupid notion that English naturally lacks gender equality. I'm a woman and it doesn't offend me at all if people don't bother to go he/she (in fact, I find that whole thing pretty annoying. haha)
2006-07-27 15:35:16 · answer #9 · answered by Natalia 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
my english teacher made a big deal about this. id on't think it's a big deal at all. when i say 'mankind' or mention a general statement of 'man' i'm nor oing it to be sexist or arrogant. it's simply how i've learned it, and how we've always reered to our kind. i think anyone that honestly is offened by that should find something better to complain about.
2006-07-27 15:35:57 · answer #10 · answered by Johnny Blaze 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋