You forgot “blue skin and forehead antennae” or “piglike noses and unbelievably hirsute.”
Whoa. That is the e-mail I sent to them! Very, very cool!
I figured it was since it was worded exactly the same as your post was.
I agree with what they wrote there. The “apparently” is odd - I assume the comment was not written by the author of the article - but the correction makes sense.
HEY! I consider myself quite human even in spite of my piglike nose!! and forehead antennae
I’ve always thought that it looked so awkward, so I’ve stuck an “or” in there. But that doesn’t do much good. For my last one-third of a century, I think I’m going to simplify things by just going with she and her when the gender is unspecified. Care to join me, MOL?
I’m totally for inclusive language, but when you are using historical quotes, you keep them as said or written. It’s always going to be “Neil Armstrong said 'One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.” It’s okay to say “Walking on the moon was one small step for a man, one giant leap for everyone.”
Good old Coupling. Miss it.
You might use ‘One small step for (a) man’ to indicate that there is some confusion over the first part.
I wonder if the author put the brackets (also, if editor’s notes in this publication are usually in square brackets) to indicate that that specific word had changed in recent seasons and Abrams’ movie. That I’d actually be okay with – but again, the article isn’t particularly well-written.
Bah, all you ugly bags of mostly water look alike, anyway.
Actually, sometimes we do. It’s very easy for people to forget that others are more than their current function. If it weren’t, food servers and hotel housekeepers would probably have much easier lives.
That reflected the reality of the time. It wasn’t until 1975 that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “it is no longer tenable to hold that women as a class may be excluded or given automatic exemptions based solely on sex if the consequence is that criminal jury venires [panels] are almost totally male.” Before that ruling, there was nothing remarkable about an all-male jury in a capital case. Today, it would be extraordinary.
Thankfully the people who actually have the right to do so have taken a more reasonable approach. I’m all for historically accurate dramas and honoring the original intent, but insisting on an all-male 15-person cast would simply make it impractical if not impossible for most schools and community theaters to produce, and including women but calling it “Twelve Angry Men” would be absurd.
[quote]
Why, when there’s a perfectly good - some might say great - one already available?
It’s not Shakespeare. We do change Shakespeare. And as I already pointed pointed out and others have repeated, Rodenberry changed it himself.
Or they would realize that “man” is a (somewhat archaic) synonym for “one” in this context.
Actually, sometimes we do. It’s very easy for people to forget that others are more than their current function. If it weren’t, food servers and hotel housekeepers would probably have much easier lives.
That reflected the reality of the time. It wasn’t until 1975 that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “it is no longer tenable to hold that women as a class may be excluded or given automatic exemptions based solely on sex if the consequence is that criminal jury venires [panels] are almost totally male.” Before that ruling, there was nothing remarkable about an all-male jury in a capital case. Today, it would be extraordinary.Thankfully the people who actually have the right to do so have taken a more reasonable approach. I’m all for historically accurate dramas and honoring the original intent, but insisting on an all-male 15-person cast would simply make it impractical if not impossible for most schools and community theaters to produce, and including women but calling it “Twelve Angry Men” would be absurd.
“good luck, Mr/Mrs Gorsky.” ???