It’ll take care of itself, no agonizing over it will make any difference at all. The culture changes, or it doesn’t. Look at how quickly “Ms.” came to be accepted, lightning fast. Maybe twenty years ago, I remember talking to some co-workers how one of our directors insisted upon being addressed as “Mrs So-and-so” and how we all thought it rather quaint and vaguely cute.
It caught on because it was so useful, for people who are embarrassed to mistake a young woman’s marital status, or worse, assume because of her age that a woman was married who never had been. “Ms.” wasn’t so much an advance in feminism as an advance in protocol.
I’m not sure there really is a problem. The only time I’ve felt it is in the Star Trek opening narration, where the modified “To boldly go where no one has gone before” was factually inaccurate. Not even “Man cannot live on bread alone” suffers too much with saying “No one can live on bread alone.”
When I see my friends (boys and girls en masse), it’s always, “Hey, guys!” And they do the same, if they’re male or female.
Same thing on Facebook posts. One recently posted by “FemaleFriendofLocrian” said, “Ladies, girls night out is tonight!!! So where are we going, GUYS??”, spouted a melee of male responses saying we did not know us GUYS were allowed to participate in such an event.
I think “men” has more of a brutal, historic quality with the masses.
It fails the Keanu Test. It would be impossible to tell an inquisitive student from a stoner.
“The universe unfolded from a very small point about 14 billion years old.”
“Whoa.”
“What do you mean, ‘whoah’? It just did. We don’t know whoah.”
“We don’t know? Whoa.”
“That’s a nonsense question. What are you even saying?” Storm away angry.
Frederik Pohl addressed this in at least one short story, which was the last story in the Years of the City anthology. Humans were ans, singular an. Women were called female ans, men were called male ans, when it was necessary to refer to someone’s sex at all. E was used instead of he or she, um instead of him or her, uz was his or hers. Although it took a couple of minutes to get used to, I found that the story flowed pretty well.
And no, “men” is really not inclusive. Nor is “he”. If someone says “all men”, then one can be sure that this person means “all male persons”, but one can’t be sure that e means “all people, whether male or female”. And sometimes that difference is quite a big difference indeed.
Men, men, men, it’s a ship all filled with men
You’ll never have to lift the seat
There’s no one here but men
We’re men and friends until the end
And none of us are missus
At night we’ll sleep in separate beds
And blow each other kisses
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]
I’d love to see the language changed like Pohl, but I disagree on the last point. I do not think that having words with two meanings really creates actual confusion commonly, because generally it is easy to figure out which is meant in context. “I’m wearing my fancy duds to the artillery range”.
No, the real problem with “men” having a double meaning is one of association - it has the tendency to make the male seem the default, the normal and usual, because of the obvious association of the two words (and in historical usage).
How about keeping the suffix but spelling it MUN ?
That way its non sexist, but short and to the point.
Or if we’re going to go the pc route and have long, silly sounding words, why not say, a member of the HU-Person race, and she is a Wo Person.
In a world full of war, poverty and disease, the fact that Feminists chose this subject as an object lesson in Mans “opression” suggests that the individuals involved have either got too much time on their hands, or are blind to real human suffering.
Gender neutral versus gender specific terms is definitively an issue in Nordic languages. For instance, some words used to be gender specific and have been changed to a neutral term (like “ombudsmann” -> “ombud”), and some words used to be gender specfic but the meaning of the word has changed (we used to have “lærer” = male teacher, “lærerinne” = female teacher, but now “lærer” means teacher of any gender). In other cases, the language is still skewed – for instance, the Norwegian word for scientist is “vitenskapsmann”, ie. “science man”. Some people work towards making the language more gender neutral, some people complain about proposed changes and think that the staus quo is fine.
Language shapes how we see the world, shapes reality. The word “man” is strongly associated with, you know, men. Males. If you use “man” = “people”, you can’t avoid giving, at least in part, the impression that you’re talking mainly about male people.
I remember playing a warrior in a fantasy live roleplaying game. One night we were attacked by trolls. As I grabbed my shield, drew my sword and ran towards the sound of fighting, I heard someone yell “Alle mann til våpen!” (“Get your weapons, men!”) I don’t know if the man yelling ment “man as gender neutral synonym for people” or “man as male person because I think women should play tavern wenches, not warriors” or “man as male person because I’ve forgotten that female warriors exist in this game world”. I was annoyed, torn out of the egalitarian fantasy world into the reality of today’s skewed socitey. Fortunately, I had some trolls to take out my annoyance on
That’s completely correct, of course. I’ll choose A (too much time on my hands). What’s your reason for spending time posting about this issue on a message board instead of fighting war, poverty, and disease: Do you have too much time on your hands, or are you blind to real human suffering?
(Oh well, I’d better leave this thread and go off to fight war, poverty, and disease. Facebook, here I come!)
This is one reference to a Norwegian and two (one in Danish) references to Sweden, the general accepted opinion being that Swedish feminist have been drinking from the chamber pot - so to speak, and in particular that the kindergarten in question being completely off the wall crazy. I also recall a Norwegian school that demanded that the boys sit down to pee, so perhaps the Norwegian feminists are boinkers too, we just hear less of them.
Regarding gender specific words such as actor/actress &etc. This is a different issue, perhaps the complete opposite. Why should you strive for an alternative to “man” (covering the male and female), and at the same time insist that actor – the male form – also includes the female? I seem to recall reading 19th century feminists arguing for more such gender specific words. Although I don’t remember the cause for their demand, I should imagine it being the same, they don’t want to be included in the male version.
You can work to change the language for all I care, my only entreat being that you don’t sacrifice poetics for political or utilitarian goals. That would be an awful tradeoff. Stripping such words as actress, etc. from the vocabulary has not enriched our language or made it more expressive. In addition I especially like having a language whose evolution can be traced back thousand of years, and as such have an especial dislike and distrust of words invented for political or ideological purposes.
Sometimes the word “men” or “he” is used as a reason for excluding women. There’s a famous story about how FBI agents were described, using the word “he”, and someone pointed to this to show that agents couldn’t be female.
I completely agree with the point that using men or he does make being male the default. I STILL tend to assume that just about everyone online is a white American male, although I make different assumptions about the age, depending on what sort of forum I encounter other users in. I don’t know how many times I’ve been surprised to learn that someone is female, or is black, or some other category. I should know better, and I always get annoyed with myself when I do this.
