# Can we please, please go back to using the word "men" in its gender-inclusive sense? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 4, 2012, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394 "2012-01-04T17:41:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2012, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/1 "2012-01-04T17:41:16Z")
Because, bowing respectfully to feminists everywhere, and in full support of their cause in practically all respects, and then stamping my little feet in shrill demanding, I **want** a good strong one-syllable Anglo-Saxon word for “persons”! Walt Disney, not too long ago, could make a nice phrase like “imagination in the hearts of men” – nothing else **works** there! Not even “folk”! Why should this be lost to us?! ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2012, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/2 "2012-01-04T17:46:38Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Because, bowing respectfully to feminists everywhere, and in full support of their cause in practically all respects, and then stamping my little feet in shrill demanding, I **want** a good strong one-syllable Anglo-Saxon word for “persons”! Walt Disney, not too long ago, could make a nice phrase like “imagination in the hearts of men” – nothing else **works** there! Not even “folk”! Why should this be lost to us?! I wasn’t aware that _everybody_ had stopped. I understand your position, but while you have poetry on your side, the feminists have logic. I suppose we could mount a campaign to use \*weres \*for the male of the species, but I’m not hopeful. ---
**Author:** ![Tastes\_of\_Chocolate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tastes_of_chocolate/32/3232_2.png) [@Tastes\_of\_Chocolate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tastes_of_Chocolate)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2012, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/3 "2012-01-04T18:47:24Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Because, bowing respectfully to feminists everywhere, and in full support of their cause in practically all respects, and then stamping my little feet in shrill demanding, I **want** a good strong one-syllable Anglo-Saxon word for “persons”! Walt Disney, not too long ago, could make a nice phrase like “imagination in the hearts of men” – nothing else **works** there! Not even “folk”! Why should this be lost to us?! How about we don’t, because no matter how badly you want it, “men” isn’t inclusive. When I go back and read old ads where men meant “all y’all”, I get the feeling of "Come on down, all you men (and bring along the little lady and the children too). Unless you want to give up “men” as meaning “multiple males” and only define it as “multiple people of unknown or mixed gender”, then no, although that could make the men’s room interesting. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2012, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/4 "2012-01-04T19:20:59Z")
No, we may not. ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2012, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/5 "2012-01-04T19:30:40Z")
Yes, we may. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2012, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/6 "2012-01-04T19:33:43Z")
Southerners do it with Y’All. Disney’s phrase could work with the inclusive “all” “Imagination in the hearts of all.” I just think it means you need to be more creative when composing your group addresses. All is a good choice, as are we, and us. “Imagination in the hearts of us all” works pretty well. Also your mono-syllabic restriction seems arbitrary. Humanity, people, everyone, there are many group pronouns which work just fine if you’re willing to go multi-syllabic. In short. No. Men has too much baggage and the benefits of going back don’t outweigh the drawbacks. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2012, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/7 "2012-01-04T19:34:48Z")
How about using “she” for both males and females? Seems to be all-inclusive to me. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2012, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/8 "2012-01-04T19:39:28Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > How about using “she” for both males and females? Seems to be all-inclusive to me. When I was in the Training Department and had to write more memos than I do know, I used to alternate “he” and “she.” Annoyed everybody but me, so I stopped. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2012, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/9 "2012-01-04T19:40:14Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Because, bowing respectfully to feminists everywhere, and in full support of their cause in practically all respects, and then stamping my little feet in shrill demanding, I **want** a good strong one-syllable Anglo-Saxon word for “persons”! Walt Disney, not too long ago, could make a nice phrase like “imagination in the hearts of men” – nothing else **works** there! Not even “folk”! Why should this be lost to us?! You can do what you want. It’s your language. > [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > I wasn’t aware that _everybody_ had stopped. > > I understand your position, but while you have poetry on your side, the feminists have logic. I suppose we could mount a campaign to use \*weres \*for the male of the species, but I’m not hopeful. In a conflict between poetry and logic, poetry should always come out on top. Besides as I understand the feminists don’t really have logic on their side, as the word “men” is from the pan-Germanic “man” meaning person, it’s just that in English the same word is used for male. ---
**Author:** ![ProbablyProcrastinating](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/57b2e6/32.png) [@ProbablyProcrastinating](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ProbablyProcrastinating)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2012, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/10 "2012-01-04T19:54:41Z")
It may comfort you to know that the Russian and Persian and French words for “person” are also two-syllables, French having also shifted politically from _hommes_ to _personnes_ or _peuple_, and Persian having been “odam” for millenia. Russian is “lyudi” which is specifically separate from “muzhchini”, men. If “man” includes women, then am I a man? I would venture that “man” only includes women when men are already included. But it does not always include women. Moreover, I would venture that one reason “imagination in the hearts of men” sounds so nice is that it sounds old-fashioned. True, it’s also iambic pentameter. But these are iambic pentameter as well: Generic version: Imagination in the hearts of all… Socialist version: Imagination in the people’s hearts… Feminist version: Imagination in a woman’s heart… Detached version: Imagination in a person’s heart… Anatomically incorrect version: Imagination in the human heart… (Though, doesn’t “Imagination in the human mind” sound nice?) The fact that you have considered this shows that you are a considerate person. But I think you could be more considerate and proactive if you considered less sexist alternatives, rather than insisting on a return to the past. I am in my thirties and take my writing style seriously. At times I have had to really consider how to make something sound elegant and also talk about men and women in equal terms. I have found with a little effort it is always possible, and my children will be able to do it effortlessly because that will be their native tongue. Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2012, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/11 "2012-01-04T20:01:14Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > You can do what you want. It’s your language. > > In a conflict between poetry and logic, poetry should always come out on top. Besides as I understand the feminists don’t really have logic on their side, as the word “men” is from the pan-Germanic “man” meaning person, it’s just that in English the same word is used for male. I detest the PC bullshit, and don’t give a crap. I regularly use man/men as a generic. Though poking fun at people, I use ‘mailhuman’ or ‘posthominid’, ‘chairdude’ and ‘chairdudette’. Our personperson gets a giggle out of being called a posthominid actually. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2012, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/12 "2012-01-04T20:03:03Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > In a conflict between poetry and logic, poetry should always come out on top. Besides as I understand the feminists don’t really have logic on their side, as the word “men” is from the pan-Germanic “man” meaning person, it’s just that in English the same word is used for male. While the etymologies of words are interesting and instructive, the fact that 1500 years ago, people said wer for man, wyf for woman, and man for person is irrelevant to the current case of man meaning male person. ---
**Author:** ![TATG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/50afbb/32.png) [@TATG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TATG)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2012, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/13 "2012-01-04T20:03:48Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > When I was in the Training Department and had to write more memos than I do know, I used to alternate “he” and “she.” Annoyed everybody but me, so I stopped. Do you mean you would refer to the same person, in the same document, as both “he” and “she”? This is something I’ve liked the idea of; just start using “he” and "she gender neutrally. And using them interchangably in this way is a nice way to cement the gender neutrality. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2012, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/14 "2012-01-04T20:05:49Z")
> [@Drunky\_Smurf](#): > > Yes, we may. That’s another thing, can we please abolish the word “may” and merge it into “can” already?! ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2012, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/15 "2012-01-04T20:07:13Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > How about using “she” for both males and females? Seems to be all-inclusive to me. Too ethnic. Sounds like a pre-WWII Italian immigrant, calling even inanimate objects/concepts (that are not even ships) “she”. Besides, I want a **noun,** not a pronoun. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2012, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/16 "2012-01-04T20:09:13Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > You can do what you want. It’s your language. I suppose the whole question is irrelevant in Danish? What word do you use as gender-inclusive term for “persons”? And does any feminist object to it? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2012, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/17 "2012-01-04T20:10:41Z")
> [@aruvqan](#): > > Our personperson . . . Prostitute? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2012, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/18 "2012-01-04T20:11:53Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > I suppose we could mount a campaign to use \*weres \*for the male of the species, but I’m not hopeful. Actually, that sounds like something that **would** catch on, for all the wrong reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2012, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/19 "2012-01-04T20:14:02Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Too ethnic. Sounds like a pre-WWII Italian immigrant, calling even inanimate objects/concepts (that are not even ships) “she”. Besides, I want a **noun,** not a pronoun. I would suggest “Woman” since it includes both the male and the female…but since you seem to want a one syllable word that is powerful, I would suggest “Grunt”. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2012, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/20 "2012-01-04T20:14:05Z")
> [@TATG](#): > > Do you mean you would refer to the same person, in the same document, as both “he” and “she”? No, that would be stupid. But let’s say that I was writing a manual on how to do a given task and was referring to a hypothetical employee. In one paragraph I’d use _he_; in the next, _she_. I eventually moved to the second person. > [@](#): > > This is something I’ve liked the idea of; just start using “he” and "she gender neutrally. And using them interchangably in this way is a nice way to cement the gender neutrality. That seems unwise to me. I don’t wish to pretend that women and men are identical. And there are times when it’s fine to use one gender or the other. If you are actually writing about something which by definition excludes one gender – say, a manual on what a woman should expect in pregnancy – then pronouns referring to the pregnant person should be restricted to _she_ and _her_. And yes, I know all about Thomas Beatie. But Beatie and other transmen are such a tiny, tiny, _tiny_ minority that I feel safe leaving them out. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394.md?page=2)