Don't you think, since the "- men" suffix words are meant to "stand for" both men and women ...

Question

... that we in fact SHOULD use the "- women" suffixes instead? After all, it apparently doesn't matter and isn't a big deal that we use "- men" or not: "- men" means both "men and women." If this is so, then "- women" must also mean "men and women" - or has the capability to refer to the universal - as well. If we cannot just replace "- man" with "- woman," then there's obviously something strange and not-quite-equal going on with the word "woman," isn't there.

So what do you think? Policewoman, firewoman, chairwoman, laywoman's terms. I like it.

Answer 1

First of all, I think you make a good point; societal practices are only trivial if they can be easily reversed without having much of an effect on society.

However, there is something called 'societal inertia'. Social practices are really hard to change once they get started. For example, take really simple practices, like the practice of saying "bless you" when someone sneezes. Or the practice of saying "thank you" when someone gives you something. These phrases seem trivial, and they seem like they would be easy to change, but they aren't. Even if you say something more reasonable like "I hope you get better" (when someone sneezes) they're still going to think you're weird.

Given that social conventions are so hard to change, I would instead argue in favor of adopting gender-neutral pronouns.

For example:
- Police Officer
- Fire Fighter (which makes more sense anyway, since Fire men don't cause fires)
- Chairperson
- Layperson
- Mail carrier (which also makes more sense, since mail men are not made of mail, but instead are carriers of it).

If we can't change the phrases to be more egalitarian then I'm with you; we should change the terms so that they favor the section of the population that has historically been oppressed. This would at least bring us closer to equality than we are now.

Answer 2

Kendrick seems to have said everything I was going to say. I'll just add that the Latin word 'humanus' also contains the word 'man' in it but is used to refer to all mankind. Also I don't see anything wrong with using terms like 'chairwoman' or 'policewoman'. That's just evolution of language at work. But I would also like to point out that words do not innately come with meanings. Instead their meanings are lent to them by humans. I don't see words like 'human' or 'Mann' in German or 'fireman' as being sexist simply because they contain the word 'man'. Words get their meanings from humans, not the other way around. That means that anyone at anytime can see these words as sexist simply because they want to. However, the words come with no baggage other than that which we allow ourselves to grant them. It's all a matter of perception. As a technical side note I do not believe that the word 'men' is a suffix rather it is a lexeme of a compound word. It's sort of like the word 'basket' in the compound word 'basketball'.

"After all, it apparently doesn't matter and isn't a big deal that we use "- men" or not: "- men" means both "men and women." If this is so, then "- women" must also mean "men and women" - or has the capability to refer to the universal - as well.".

I tend not to agree with this (though again this could change with time) because of the way the word is used. Though in English we don't have any English gurus we can go to, like they do in Spanish for example, words still have a common meaning. Women refers to only female humans. Men refers to both just men and 'women and men' (i.e. all of humankind) due in part to it's historical origins. So:

If Man -----> (Male) v (Mankind: including both males and females)
If Woman -------> (Female)

This could change given that languages are constantly evolving even as we speak but for right now this is the way the words are used.

Answer 3

I disagree. Let's just use gender neutral terms instead. Let's take the case of police officer/constable. This is a position title, and must be used consistently. It is illegal to post a position vacancy notice using the term policeman or police woman. What about flight attendants? We used to call them stewardesses and stewards - the term 'flight attendant' is more descriptive AND more neutral. After all, the cabin crew does more than just wait on passengers serving them coffee - their duties are much more encompassing than that. We need to keep job titles consistent, otherwise chaos ensues in the form of a Tower of Babel. We need all to be on the same page - certainly when it comes to job titles. Standardised vocabulary - makes sense, no?

Answer 4

In Old English, the word "Man" meant humans(mankind). Men were Wer(Werewolf means Man Wolf), and Women were Wyf. Wer was later changed to Man, and Wyf was changed to Wyfman(and later Woman).
It's all about linguistics. I say Policewoman anyways, if she's a woman. I'm not sure what the gripe is really about? This has nothing to do with equality(but what really does?).
Homo sapiens means "Wise Man" in Latin... should we change that too?

Answer 5

One is an established rule of English usage. The other is not. English usage, as with any living language, is evolving and will continue to evolve. I have no objection to "-person" or "-man" myself and I use alternating "he" and "she" when using pronouns to indicate hypothetical individuals whose sex is irrelevant (a common case in philosophical writing and much less clumsy than "he or she"), but I also think that whinging about inequalities in language is pretty pathetic.

EDIT

And to make clear that I am consistent, I am equally critical of those who complain about the use of "black" as a negative term, even though I am black. Trying to force language to fit ideology is a futile and stupid endeavor.

Answer 6

Ridiculous

Answer 7

Given that "mankind" includes men and women, I say leave it alone. It ain't broke, so don't try to fix it.

Society today is an example of why you shouldn't try to fix something that isn't broken.

Answer 8

woman is because we came from man, so if you are a woman that call yourself all of the above, but a man is a man, and most women would not be happy without them.

Answer 9

I think you need to learn to prioritize. This whole men/women thing is irrelevant. This is a question that none of the top contributers cared to respond to - save a few. I wonder why...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjT6LajmsmT7Fy.F6lvkSkzty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071019172931AAlS95Y&show=7#profile-info-QbzvWJe0aa

Answer 10

Every hour women fight to change our vocabulary is another hour that I make 31% more than they do.