Interesting Wiki article: "Mankind" isn't a sexist word

[Odin2005]

"Man" was a gender-neutral word in Old English and only in the 11th century did "man" come to mean "male." "Mankind" is a retention of an archaic term from BEFORE "man" ment "male."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannaz

:popcorn:

[Zynx]

1. It is almost as ridiculous as calling "History" a sexist word.

Just the example of how in Spanish "history" is "historia" when their is no such word as "his" in Spanish disproves that one.

I hate it when people take on a political agenda with our language. It's bastardized enough as it is.

[Dogmudgeon]

2. Kate Millett made that point in 1977

Considered one of the Founding Parents of "Pee Cee", much-derided Kate Millett made that point almost 30 years ago in Words and Women. I recall it clearly, because it was the first time I took one of those wacky Kollege Konservatives up on a dare -- and pounded him into the ground with it.

--p!

[texastoast]

3. "Man" is not a gender-neutral word now

So I do think it is sexist, being how we are in the 21st century and all. By the 11th century, most all things pagan and matriarchial had been destroyed or shoved completely underground by the church, so I'm not surprised that the change of meaning of "man" coincided. Nowadays, man means man. Humankind is more inclusive and it is just one extra syllable.

[Igel]

8. 'Humankind' is more inclusive for some speakers because

that's how they interpret it. Apart from interpretation, 'humankind'--like 'mankind'--is otherwise a set of meaningless sounds.

'Mankind' is no more or less inclusive, if people interpret it that way. Feel free to use 'humankind', if you believe you must; but don't impose your interpretation on what I'm saying without evidence to back it up. I've stopped accepting when people insist on making their ill-will obvious for all to see, and reject when it's imputed to me with no more basis than a person's beliefs.

(And yes, it's gotten to the point in many sectors of American 'civil' discourse that what Grice termed 'cooperativeness' and others 'the assumption of good will' and which both posit as a necessary precondition for communication must now not only be assumed to not hold, but one must actively defend against the default charge of 'ill-will' and 'wilful non-cooperativeness'. Fortunately that's not true in all of American society.)

[texastoast]

17. I don't care what word is used

However, I wouldn't be surprised if down the road our descendents look upon our use of the word "mankind" with the same amount of cringe many people feel today when we hear the word "pickaninny." "Pickaninny" was a very acceptable word in 1920. You are right--it's just the meaning that people attach to a word, "reality"-based or not. I have no ill will and I meant to impute nothing to you. I just don't see a problem with inclusiveness.

[Igel]

53. They may.

But that's them.

For me, 'pickaninny' just isn't a word that I would ever use outside of a historical context, any more than I'd use 'poke' for 'sack' or 'case cheese' or 'quark' for tvarog (aka 'farmer's cheese', I knew it in Russian before I knew it in English). Some other racially charged words I use not because I have any real derogatory meaning associated with them--I've heard them infrequently enough that they're just words like 'pickaninny'--but because I was told when forming my language habits that others find them offensive enough.

'Humankind' strikes me as something produced by self-appointed language planners, when no language planning is needed.

[BlooInBloo]

10. But "man" is in "human" as well.

And it's just as spurious there.

:shrug:

Once people have decided to be offended, the truth of the matter becomes the most irrelevant thing in the world.

[Odin2005]

20. What does the Church have to do with the evolution of English?

The change in meaning as just another random change in the evolution of the language, religion had nothing to do with it.

[texastoast]

21. The evolution of English

reflects culture and society. The church was very strong and oppressive going from the Dark Ages into the Middle Ages. And the church was/is VERY patriarchal.

[Bridget Burke]

27. Aside from Latin & German....

No European languages were written down until Christianity appeared. Irish was the first.

We are not talking about isolated island-dwellers having their oral cultures destroyed by missionaries. The "barbarians" of that time had plenty of contact with "civilized" nations. Many empty wine amphorae were found in the middens of the Gauls.

Julius Caesar repeated one Druidic excuse for staying non-literate. I think that they--& the scholarly castes of other peoples--just wanted to preserve their monopoly on learning. The Ogham & Runic writing systems were used for utilitarian purposes, but NOT for literature, law or history.

The ONLY "pagan" writings we still have were written down by clerics ("clerks"). Some editing occurred, of course. The pagan educated classes had their chance to apply the alphabet to their languages. But they opted out.

[alcibiades_mystery]

35. They likely had the same disdain for writing as Socrates did

People forget that writing is itself a technology, and a technology that many found dangerous (Socrates among them, at least according to Plato...Socrates himself wrote nothing).

[Fierce]

4. Well, sez Wiki. Big deal.

Why use "mankind" when "humankind" will do?

[BlooInBloo]

5. Reverse the question, if you care at all about the truth.

[Fierce]

7. Um, what?

I've got a reason to avoid "mankind." I don't have a reason to avoid "humankind." Help me out.

[Bridget Burke]

14. Why do you avoid "Mankind"?

Are you opposed to kindness?

[Fierce]

19. Because

...of this exact conversation. If we stop using it altogether, then there isn't a problem. I hate it when people refuse to evolve just so they can stick it to somebody.

[texastoast]

22. I'm with you

You said it well, and welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Fierce]

32. Thank you,

on both counts.

[Bridget Burke]

28. "Mankind" is not a problem for me.

I don't have a problem with "Humankind" either.

Why are you accusing me of "sticking it to somebody"? I'm not properly equipped for such a phallic attack.

[Fierce]

31. That's great that you don't have a problem with it.

I find it's a good idea, though, to listen to those who do have a problem with things, and taking their suggestions seriously.

[Bridget Burke]

36. I listen to everything....

And choose what I wish to take seriously.

[novalib]

39. And Why Use Humankind?

Why use "humankind" when "people" will do?

[Odin2005]

43. "mankind" sounds better in many situations IMO because...

..."people" is dirived from Latin, mankind is of Germanic origin, English is a Germanic language.

[Beelzebud]

6. Oh no, the word police are out.

Limiting free speech, and free expression under the guise of "political correctness".

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. And the word renegades are here

Attacking good sense and general decency under the guise of "free speech."

[texastoast]

11. I'm not advocating limiting free expression

I just refuse to be walked on without a fight. We can always change everything to "womankind," "chairwoman," etc., no matter what gender, right? Shouldn't make any difference. How does that shoe fit?



:evilgrin:

[SmokingJacket]

12. When I was in college, some women decided they wanted to be

known as "womyn" so as to avoid the word "man." Well, I'm a feminist to the the nth degree, but I think that changing an "e" to a "y" will do **nothing** to help women or battle sexism. In fact... it's downright silly.

Why has everyone forgotten about the Equal Rights Amendment? That would be a good place to start...

[Solo_in_MD]

26. All it does is show their ignorance and cloud the real issues

But some do persist in just foolishness

[On the Road]

37. Oh Is THAT What "Womyn" Was About?

I never understood that spelling. Thought it was Wiccan or something.

[QC]

13. Yep, "man" means person in Anglo-Saxon.

"Wifman" is a female person, and "wæpman" is a male person.

See, I knew those three semesters of Anglo-Saxon in graduate school would come in handy someday! ;-)

Still, though, I avoid using the word mankind, along with anyman, man in the street, etc., because people can't really be expected to know this.

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. I don't avoid them.

I refuse to be held responsible for other peoples' ignorance of their own language.

[Bridget Burke]

18. I remember my amazement....

When I realized that I actually live in Middle Earth!

[Bridget Burke]

16. Of course it isn't sexist.

And this was true before Wiki took notice. I don't see going back to re-write the whole English language. However, some words are still evolving.

For example: Using "Actor" instead of "Actress"? Of course! Makes sense when Meryl Streep is discussing her Career as an Actor. (Perhaps not in all contexts--unless you're trying to make a spicy gossip item even more spicy: "What married producer & father of 3 was seen snogging a hot young Actor?")

Long due for evolution: Waiter versus Waitress. "Waiter" is NOT gender specific. So why not use it for both male & female "waitpersons"? (Especially for Waiters & Waitresses who may also be Actors.)

[ronnykmarshall]

24. Here in L.A.

You have to have head shots down to get a job at iHop.

[davidthegnome]

23. Ah yes...

Political correctness is ridiculous. I have no problem referring to it as "humankind", but I have no intention of avoiding the use of "mankind", either. I think I can understand why some people don't like the term, but taking swings at the English language isn't going to move feminism forward any faster.

[Cerridwen]

25. And "liberal" means

1.

1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
4. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

2.

1. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
2. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
5.
1. Archaic. Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
2. Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious.

n.

1. A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
2. Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberal

Yet the term has become so villified, many liberals run screaming from the word.


And in the U.S. where we teach/preach that "all men are created equal" it took us decades of protest and organizing and three constitutional amendments and a massive civil rights movement to acquire the vote for all "men" (perhaps this should be "mankind"?) over the age of 18; during which time the definition of "all men" had to be broadened to include non-white men and all women (for the sake of brevity I won't go into the exceptions which I still see exist); because, as the opponents to universal sufferage were quick to point out during the day, "it says all men and so does not include women or slaves or (feel free to insert your favorite racial epithet here. gak!)."

And finally,

"Mankind" isn't (present tense) a sexist word

"Man" was (past tense) a gender-neutral word in Old English and only in the 11th century did (past tense) "man" come to mean "male." "Mankind" is a retention of an archaic*** term from BEFORE "man" ment "male." (emphasis, notes and *** mine) You might want to check your "tenses."

***archaic (see definition 2)

1. also Archaic Of, relating to, or characteristic of a much earlier, often more primitive period, especially one that develops into a classical stage of civilization: an archaic bronze statuette; Archaic Greece.
2. No longer current or applicable; antiquated: archaic laws. See Synonyms at old.
3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of words and language that were once in regular use but are now relatively rare and suggestive of an earlier style or period.

It may not have begun its journey through history as a sexist word, but as English is a living language it evolves and changes. And if you don't think words have power or you think that meaning is universal, try attending a local gathering of republicans and loudly and proudly declaring you are a liberal and see what sort of reception you get.

edit: part of post didn't post - goofy.

[StatGirl]

29. Man, like all mammals, gestates his young in his uterus . . .

delivers them through his vagina, and suckles them at his breasts.

If that sentence makes you snicker, you don't *really* believe that "man" is a gender-neutral word. :)

[entanglement]

30. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Fierce]

33. Excellent.

I love that.

[alcibiades_mystery]

34. I ended up in bed with a man

The man bent over and begged me to stick it in.

The man's name was Veronica.

(Gender neutral my ass...point is, of course, that language evolves. Because something meant X in Anglo-Saxon says nothing about the way its meaning has worked since then, as anyone with a stitch of sense realizes. Of course, some people just HAVE to use "Mankind," they just HAVE to!!!! :eyes:)

[ieoeja]

38. Man, like all mammals, gestates its young in its uterus...

delivers them by live birth, and suckles them at its breasts.


YOUR sentence made me chuckle. MY sentence does not.

[Book Lover]

41. I want to nominate your post!

Or you should put it on a bumper sticker.

[texastoast]

47. LOL!

Bingo!

[Book Lover]

40. Ah, yes. Wiki. Where the truth is decided by popular vote. (nm)

[Odin2005]

42. And shown to be as accurate as the Encyclopaedea Britannica.

Your point?

[Book Lover]

46. Sorry, that's incorrect

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/britannica_wikipedia_nature_study/

<snip>

In one case, for example. Nature's peer reviewer was sent only the 350 word introduction to a 6,000 word Britannica article on lipids - which was criticized for containing omissions.

<snip>

"Dozens of the so-called inaccuracies they attributed to us were nothing of the kind; they were the result of reviewers expressing opinions that differed from ours about what should be included in an encyclopedia article. In these cases Britannica's coverage was actually sound."

Nature only published a summary of the errors its experts found some time after the initial story, and has yet to disclose all the reviewer's notes.


My point is perfectly clear - Wiki is a useful quick tool that should not be counted on to be correct, as anyone with an agenda, or not as the case may be, can edit articles to contain truth or untruth.

[Odin2005]

44. BTW, what is the etymology of "human"?

[Squatch]

45. "To boldly go where no one has gone before..."

Jean Luc Picard is a little more inclusive than James T. Kirk, it seems.

[aikoaiko]

48. Reminds me of my favorite non-racist racist word -- niggardly

I love when people use that word in public and all the hand wringing that follows.

:popcorn:

[nemo137]

52. And, like most germanic words, it's great to use when angry

It's the hard consonant sounds. "Miserly" doesn't pack the same punch when bitching about your school's financial aid or maintenance expenditures, it has that z sound in the middle. Niggardly, though, has those nice angry g's to bite on.

[BlooInBloo]

56. Only if you have an effete british accent, and preface it with...

"I say ol chap - isn't that a bit...."

LOL

[aikoaiko]

49. Next thing we'll hear is the that hominid needs to be changed too.

:rofl:

[Jersey Devil]

50. The significance of this is Earth shattering

Not really. This kind of silly debate reminds me of when my daughter was in college and she told me I couldn't call her classmates "girls" but had to call them "women", the significance of which was, well, I forget.

[Book Lover]

51. edited out

because there's no point.

[SidDithers]

54. Maybe in order to understand mankind...

we have to look at the word itself: "Mankind". Basically, it's made up of two separate words - "mank" and "ind". What do these words mean ? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind. - Jack Handey

Sid

[smirkymonkey]

55. "It Takes A Big Man To Cry..."

"But it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man."