Is the word "man" sexist or are feminists making things up?

Post Reply New Topic

Language changes through time, it's inevitable.

I don't understand what your issue is then.

If you're saying it could be used in a sexist way, sure it could. But so could any word. Human, someone could emphasise man. Gender neutral word could be used in a sarcastic way.

It's really all a matter of perspective and how each person views the world differently.

Definitions are not objective. They are only more or less agreed upon. Words mean different things at different times to different people.

The meaning of "he" differs so much according to context that it sometimes means "she" and sometimes refers to an abstraction or inanimate object. Sometimes "no" means "yes," sometimes "right" means "wrong." Sometimes people say they believe or want something because of how absurd it would be if they really did. Sometimes every star in the night sky is a rotting corpse. Language is flexible like that.

"Man" is sometimes short for "humanity" when it is not pertinent to make a distinction between sexes. It seems more sexist to me to maintain that distinction, in contexts where its only presence is otherwise accidental, by insisting on 'inclusive' language. Inclusifying language reinforces the very divisions it pretends to appease, sometimes with noticeably awkward revisions of ordinary language, and by exaggerating the reality of the distinction to be acknowledged and subdued, as more than a matter of convenience.

It reminds me of how hikers with dogs often pick up their dog's waste, bag it, then throw the bright plastic bag of poop on the side of the trail thereby both preserving and accentuating an otherwise inconspicuous accidentally misplaced turd. The ideal citizen, legend has it, carries the bag with him for the next several miles until he finds a waste bin. I say "he" because only men should have dogs... or is it because I'd rather not insult your intelligence by assuming you can't tell from the context when gender pronouns are interchangeable, accidental, or irrelevant?

"Something does not need to have sexist intent to be sexist," is a good example of how a thing to be a thing to you (object, situation, or event), and how it is to you, depends on its being conceived and designated as such. I would say, "Something does not need to be said or done with 'sexist intent' in order to be considered sexist by someone." I recall how some people, when I say, "Good morning," respond with, "What's so good about it?" as if by wishing them a good morning I'm imposing on their freedom to decide for themselves what kind of a day they should have. If I were to say, "Be as you are, do as you will," it's not hard to imagine the reply, "Don't tell me what to do!"

The issue is that "man" does double duty, and can mean either "both genders", or "just the male gender".

So in theory we could invent a new word for just the male half of the adult population. And do that by finding a suffix equivalent to "womb" to tack onto "man". Call all males "X-men" say. So it would it would be X-men and women. Then "man" would be freed from double duty to mean only "any person of either gender". So that would eliminate the issue of "man" being "sexist".

But whether or not its actually worth it, and feasible to change the language that way just to solve that little alledged "problem" is an open question.

feminism is over with if this is what it comes down to

this is the stuff they get made fun of for

Some feminists use the word 'womyn' to change the word man in woman.


Anyway, some find everything is sexist no matter what, even the air that they breath.

I had more to say, but others already did it. This is an interesting and unexpectedly civil thread. Pleased to see that, but I don't have anything more to add, now.