# 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:** 2
**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, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/21 "2012-01-04T20:16:27Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 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? In Danish/Norwegian/Swedish (man/mand), it is the same as in German (man/mann) and English (man/man). And han/ham (he/him) is the default common gender. I’ve never heard anyone making an issue out of it. Danish and English are already comparatively gender-neutral languages. ---
**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, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/22 "2012-01-04T20:17:58Z")
> [@czarcasm](#): > > 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”. **We have a winner!!!** 🙂 ---
**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, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/23 "2012-01-04T20:36:40Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > 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_. Would the overall task change from paragraph to paragraph? Say you were explaining how to fix a stuck photocopier, and you use “she” to explain how to open the machine, and then you have a new paragraph about extracting the stuck paper, could you use “he”, or would that be too close for comfort? > [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > 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_. I had in mind only doing this in contexts where it is clear that we just want to refer gender neutrally. In these cases, or at least some of them, it seems like one is just bumping up against a feature of the language; no one will be confused by the gender neutral usage, but they will find the usage odd, as it just doesn’t fit the language as it stands. The idea is that one would still be able to use he and she gendered, but one would open up the possibility of using them neutrally (in the right contexts). I should say I don’t propose this way of reforming language as a practical one, I just think the idea of going ahead and changing the usage in this way is kind of cool. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2012, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/24 "2012-01-04T20:38:47Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > I understand your position, but while you have poetry on your side, the feminists have logic. It would be just as logical to demand that everybody stop using “you guys” when referring to both sexes. As an aside, I grew up with “y’all,” and for most of my adult life, if I heard someone say “you guys,” my brain parsed that as “you male people.” It always sounded ridiculous to hear someone say “you guys” when addressing a mixed audience, even more so with an all female audience. ---
**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, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/25 "2012-01-04T20:41:55Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That’s another thing, can we please abolish the word “may” and merge it into “can” already?! And on that note, how’s about we **split** a word? The basic one-syllable AS word “why” really should be two words, because it can be used to ask two different and **logically unrelated** questions – “From what cause?” and “For what purpose?” – and using just the one word for both makes that word sound like a much, much more profound word than it really is. Flashing on an ep from _The Prisoner,_ where Number Six (played by a different actor this ep, the story includes a mind-transference, IIRC) crashes his agency’s (or **some** agency’s) near-omniscient computer just by asking it “Why?” (This was back in the 1960s, when computers understood English as English.) Anyway, henceforth, the word “why” is purged from the language. To ask, “From what cause?” say “whee.” To ask “For what purpose?” say “whoah.” **That** should make conversation sound livelier! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Scarlett67](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scarlett67/32/7387_2.png) [@Scarlett67](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scarlett67)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2012, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/26 "2012-01-04T20:50:41Z")
My favorite take on the subject: > [@Casey Miller and Kate Swift in The Handbook of Nonsexist Writing](#): > > The limitation of the “generic” pronoun was nicely illustrated by C. Badendyck, who wrote to the _New York Times Magazine_ in response to William Safire’s assertion that it is “O.K. to say ‘Everyone should watch his pronoun agreement.’” Said Badendyck: > > Knowing that _he_ and _his_ can be gender neutral, I shall no longer feel there is an odd image filtering through something like: “The average American needs the small routines of getting ready for work. As he shaves or blow-dries his hair or pulls on his panty hose, he is easing himself by small stages into the demands of the day.” . . . How liberating common sense can be. If yours were the sex being lopped out of the language, you’d sing a different tune. I think we can afford an extra syllable in order not to deny the existence of more than half the world’s population. ---
**Author:** ![Acid\_Lamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Acid\_Lamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acid_Lamp)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2012, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/27 "2012-01-04T20:52:48Z")
> [@ProbablyProcrastinating](#): > > 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! The only one of those that sounds even remotely as nice is the latter. The rest are poor substitutes for the poetry and grandeur of the former. I advocate taking it back until we come up with a better alternative. ---
**Author:** ![Acid\_Lamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Acid\_Lamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acid_Lamp)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2012, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/28 "2012-01-04T20:56:43Z")
Missed the edit, The other exception being the feminist version which is just as exclusive. ---
**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, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/29 "2012-01-04T21:03:33Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > 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”. > [@ProbablyProcrastinating](#): > > Generic version: Imagination in the hearts of all.. Imagination in the hearts of grunts . . . ---
**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, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/30 "2012-01-04T21:06:56Z")
> [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > Missed the edit, The other exception being the feminist version which is just as exclusive. In my experience, women who do that are making a point aimed at men who think the generic “man” is fine. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2012, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/31 "2012-01-04T21:16:42Z")
I use “he or she” unless it becomes a mouthful (so I use “he or she” maybe 90% of the time). If mentioning both genders becomes inconvenient I say “men” or whatever. I’ve never had a feminist call me on it, and if one were to do it to my face I’d laugh. People can feel free to use “women.” No sweat off my back. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2012, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/32 "2012-01-04T21:31:20Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > Southerners do it with Y’All. But that isn’t really the same thing that the OP is asking for, because it’s a term of address, as a second-person pronoun, and only carries meaning in the context of discourse. The OP wants something like the way “mankind” refers to all humans–a substantive. ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2012, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/33 "2012-01-04T21:50:06Z")
When I was younger (a teenager and an early adult) I argued for the gender neutrality of _man_, _he_, etc, an effect of my Randian phase. I’ve come around to the other side but I still don’t know of any reasonable drop-in replacements. “He or she” is too cumbersome; made-up words sound silly; but I’ve generally found that prose can be rearranged to avoid such constructions without significant impact on readability. When doing so would be awkward I use _woman_, _she_, etc., except where explicitly referring to a male person. I don’t mind being exclusive — I think the goal should be tilting the balance. Maybe the use of either gender will become so commonplace that exclusivity ceases to be an issue. (FWIW I would never refer to an abstract employee as _he_ in one paragraph and _she_ in another, even were I not necessarily referring to the same employee. At least wait until some kind of section break!) If gender inclusivity would butcher the eloquence of your otherwise movingly poetic statement, by all means, use _man_. But that’s no reason to try to move past the assumption of maleness in general. ---
**Author:** ![Cazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cazzle/32/75_2.png) [@Cazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cazzle)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2012, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/34 "2012-01-04T22:12:15Z")
Though I am a woman, I’m content to consider “man” to be gender inclusive. I think of them as two different words: one, man, means the male of my species, the other, man, is short for human and means an individual of either gender. Etymology be hanged, for me it’s a convenient fiction that separates the gender specific use of man from the gender inclusive. ---
**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, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/35 "2012-01-04T22:24:25Z")
> [@Scarlett67](#): > > My favorite take on the subject: > > > [@](#): > > > > As he shaves or blow-dries his hair or pulls on his panty hose . . . Actually, nowadays, that narrative makes for a mental picture that is already half-familiar to all. And which seems to demand the invention of a whole new set of grammatical genders, personal pronouns, etc. :o ---
**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, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/36 "2012-01-04T22:27:00Z")
> [@Paranoid\_Randroid](#): > > When I was younger (a teenager and an early adult) I argued for the gender neutrality of _man_, _he_, etc, an effect of my Randian phase. Did Rand ever make any such arguments? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2012, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/37 "2012-01-04T23:13:12Z")
> [@Scarlett67](#): > > My favorite take on the subject: > > If yours were the sex being lopped out of the language, you’d sing a different tune. I think we can afford an extra syllable in order not to deny the existence of more than half the world’s population. The Badendyck example is not appropos. It relies on the absurdity of assuming that “he” has no gender connotations at all in any context (which is of course untrue), by using it in a context where it is absurd. However, the same word can and sometimes does have different meanings in different contexts. For example, “man” used to (and arguably still does) mean the human animal of whatever sex, as well as a specifically male human. This isn’t all that unusual: “dog” has the same meaning for dogs - it means both the male of the species, and (more commonly) all of 'em of whatever sex. > [@](#): > > dog (dôg, dg) > n. > > 1. A domesticated carnivorous mammal (Canis familiaris) related to the foxes and wolves and raised in a wide variety of breeds. > 2. Any of various carnivorous mammals of the family Canidae, such as the dingo. > 3. A male animal of the family Canidae, especially of the fox or a domesticated breed. Contrast: > [@](#): > > man (mn) > n. pl. men (mn) > > 1. An adult male human. > 2. A human regardless of sex or age; a person. Nobody goes around insisting that everyone say “dogs and bitches” when then mean “A domesticated carnivorous mammal (Canis familiaris) related to the foxes and wolves and raised in a wide variety of breeds, of either or both sexes”. In one context, the meaning of “man” or “men” obviously is intended to be inclusive - to mean the human species (“All men are created equal”); in another context, it is obviously intended to be exclusive, to mean only males of the species (“the men’s room”). There generally isn’t a genuine problem telling the two meanings of the word apart. The “some men wear ties and some men wear pantyhose” type example is simply deliberately mixing the two meanings up. Naturally it sounds absurd. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/38 "2012-01-05T01:50:11Z")
I think you’re all looking at this wrong. Instead of trying to come up with a new gender-neutral pronoun, I say we declare “men” gender-neutral and use “he-man” (and “he-men”) as the male-specific pronoun. This has multiple advantages: [ul][li]Historic documents are immediately updated to be inclusive: _…all men are Created equal…_[/li]What man wouldn’t want to be called a he-man? I can use all the macho help I can get.[/ul] ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/39 "2012-01-05T06:11:39Z")
We’ve already invented a word to replace men. Peeps. There are only two problems standing in its way: 1) Its strong association with a specific subculture, and 2) The existence of the microwavable Easter treat. Just picture it: > [@](#): > > -Imagination in the hearts of peeps > -All peeps are created equal > -One small step for peeps… ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/40 "2012-01-05T06:23:36Z")
[quote=“Deeg, post:38, topic:608394”] I think you’re all looking at this wrong. Instead of trying to come up with a new gender-neutral pronoun, I say we declare “men” gender-neutral and use “he-man” (and “he-men”) as the male-specific pronoun. This has multiple advantages: [ul][li]Historic documents are immediately updated to be inclusive: _…all men are Created equal…_[/li][li]What man wouldn’t want to be called a he-man? I can use all the macho help I can get.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE] Too homoerotic. _By the power of Grayskull_… [Previous 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=1) [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=3)