Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The word Man is inherently confusing/sexist? Oh the huMANity!
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 16 of 90 (343750)
08-26-2006 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Silent H
08-26-2006 12:28 PM


Re: words and music
All I did was explain to him that instead of GW I was going to use CC, because I felt it was more accurate and less hyperbolic.
Ten posts into the exchange? That's an unusual time to insist on a change in terminology.
I stand by my representation of the debate. I've abundantly catalogued your posting habits in other threads, and you've never adequately provided an explanation for your behavior.
Feel free to deny it, but the simple fact that you don't participate in the very debate the board is for, but rather hover around the fringes taking potshots at science's defenders, is more abundant evidence that you're not here to do anything but count intellectual coup, no matter what ridiculous logical handstands that requires you to do. (There's a lot of clauses there and I apologize.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Silent H, posted 08-26-2006 12:28 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Silent H, posted 08-27-2006 5:40 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 21 by Jazzns, posted 08-27-2006 11:31 AM crashfrog has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 17 of 90 (343818)
08-27-2006 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by crashfrog
08-26-2006 7:34 PM


I was making a claim about how using "man" to refer to "collective humanity" cannot be anything but sexist in a context where the predominant view of "collective humanity" was that it was something men did, while women came along for the ride.
You wouldn't happen to be one of those nuts who object to the term "history" because it is derived from "his story," would you?

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 08-26-2006 7:34 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2006 7:58 PM subbie has replied

  
xXGEARXx
Member (Idle past 5121 days)
Posts: 41
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 18 of 90 (343887)
08-27-2006 3:31 AM


?
Forgive me for intruding...
All of this is really worth debating?? Please, don't slam me too hard for asking...lol...
Seems apparent word usage is deciphered in context. Why all the fuss?

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Silent H, posted 08-27-2006 5:46 AM xXGEARXx has not replied
 Message 22 by ReverendDG, posted 08-27-2006 5:17 PM xXGEARXx has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 19 of 90 (343897)
08-27-2006 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by crashfrog
08-26-2006 7:41 PM


I was making a claim about how using "man" to refer to "collective humanity" cannot be anything but sexist in a context where the predominant view of "collective humanity" was that it was something men did, while women came along for the ride.
I just told you I didn't grow up in a community that taught that, or believed that. If you can substantiate that claim about the community in which I grew up, or the community where wer- or wep- was dropped, I'd be more than glad to deal with that evidence. Until that time it is mere assertion on your part.
Your dictionary game doesn't even begin to speak to that.
I was not the first person to give you a dictionary definition. I might note that explains others "misunderstood" your position as well. The dictionary showed how the word man can be and was used. To this I included a discussion of etymology, which does discuss how man came to be. Its roots are clearly just "person" with male and female being identified by prefix choices. And that usage CONTINUED, while the prefix for male designation was later dropped from THAT WORD... thus creating a situation where we had a single word with two totally different meanings.
As I said I was taught it that way, and people used it that way (both men and women) with no problem. Specific members of the feminist movement decided to create a fictional account of how our words were derived, including context, and so decided to feel bad about something that had no basis in reality.
I'm glad that sexism didn't exist in your alternate universe, but can we stick with discussing this one?
I am discussing reality. Sexism exists, it just doesn't have anything to do with people using "man" to discuss humans in general. If you care to present some evidence, rather than assertions, that's what this thread would be more than open to handle.
Did you ask any women, at the time, if they felt that language was inclusive?
Sure. Especially during readings of feminist theory. I can even ask one now.... Just did, and she says she sees how people who want to take that as an offense can take it that way, but if it is not meant that way then taking it that way is silly. So what does that prove? Some feminists feel that means they are self-hating or in denial or just plain brainwashed so they don't see the truth. Is that something you'd agree with?
Ten posts into the exchange? That's an unusual time to insist on a change in terminology.
Uhhh... First of all I didn't insist on a change, I said that I was going to refer to it as CC just so there would be no confusion when I used that instead of GW. You could continue using whatever you wanted. Second, I have changed terminology before, well into a discussion. I felt sort of silly using the term because it is NOT what I am used to. Thus I decided to make the change and let you know.
What you fail to mention in your diatribe against me is that in fact it would have gone no farther as an issue, except that schraf picked on me regarding that word choice. I was the one being upbraided. And when I defended myself, you brought up my usage of "man".
you've never adequately provided an explanation for your behavior.
Its because I think most of your claims were false, my guess is no one cares (or if they did they had already made up their minds from following the thread), I have been "punished" for dealing with such content by mods and so don't care to start something that cannot be finished, and on top of it all... IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC.
I said at the outset, and I maintain, that my prime interest in that subject is discussion of data, and conclusions coming from proper analysis of the data.
the simple fact that you don't participate in the very debate the board is for, but rather hover around the fringes taking potshots at science's defenders
What are you talking about? I do engage in threads outside the Coffee House. I may not be lately because I am breezing in every once in a while due to my schedule, and find most topics are already well covered (I have nothing to add), or aren't moving at all. My main interest when coming to this site was specifically Intelligent Design. Since the trial, there really hasn't been much productive in the way of topics there.
And I find it ironic that you describe yourself, or apparently all who I disagree with, as science's defenders. I have a firm science education, and have worked in science, and the main issue I was addressing was an improper use (nonscientific) use of scientific data with regard to climate change. Paleoclimatology is a field I have specific experience in and I was trying to relate errors within the debate. I might add that I have successfully defended that position.
The other issues I have addressed, are this one which stems from your attack on me, and deals with historical evidence regarding the usage of a word, and my questioning schraf regarding her assessment of studies making conclusions regarding longterm harm. While the latter might not deal with science, it does deal with evidence, and the latter has firmly to do with proper scientific technique.
If you don't like the discussions, why do you post in the Coffee House, or read anything here? If my claims were not based in science, the threads are open for you to make your point using evidence from science. I certainly have done so.
For the remainder of this thread, can you please stick to making your point regarding the usage of the term man, especially the environment of its formation, or even stats on how women feel regarding its usage, rather than attacking me personally?

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by crashfrog, posted 08-26-2006 7:41 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 20 of 90 (343898)
08-27-2006 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by xXGEARXx
08-27-2006 3:31 AM


Re: ?
Seems apparent word usage is deciphered in context. Why all the fuss?
I agree with you.
The counterargument has been that women feel excluded by such language, because they believe there is a history to that usage or meaning to that usage beyond what some might intend. There is an underlying statement that males did everything, or are the only real people, while women were a class that went along for the ride or are not real people.
IF this is really going to be treated as a serious issue that we must address, I am for the much easier... and cooler sounding... solution of reapplying the suffix wer- or wep- to identify males. And if its not going to be treated seriously, I'll make that same suggestion with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by xXGEARXx, posted 08-27-2006 3:31 AM xXGEARXx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-28-2006 9:20 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 21 of 90 (343928)
08-27-2006 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by crashfrog
08-26-2006 7:41 PM


Re: words and music
but the simple fact that you don't participate in the very debate the board is for, but rather hover around the fringes taking potshots at science's defenders
I really think holmes does a great job of keeping the "science's defenders" honest. There is a lot of bullcrap that gets spread around and just because someone is historically on the "evo" side of things does not make them inherently right about everything.
I think holmes is spot on about you and schraf. There are few on this board that are immune from thinking they are always right about something and resorting to what are commonly creationists tactics to avoid having to admit it.
There are some issues I don't even feel like getting in with you because of how you previously admitted that you don't read the entirety of your opponents posts. Ever since the discussion about Christian representation, it has made it clear to me that you are as perfectly capable of being as dogmatic as a creationist. At least they have an excuse, they are handicapped by holding and unmaintainable fantasy as a worldview.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by crashfrog, posted 08-26-2006 7:41 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2006 7:41 PM Jazzns has replied
 Message 25 by nator, posted 08-27-2006 9:06 PM Jazzns has replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 22 of 90 (344011)
08-27-2006 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by xXGEARXx
08-27-2006 3:31 AM


Re: ?
Forgive me for intruding...
no problems, after all this is a dabate forum
All of this is really worth debating?? Please, don't slam me too hard for asking...lol...
I agree with you it isn't really worth debating, coming up with new terms for things that to me work, it seems like muddling the water and making commuication worse than it is already
Seems apparent word usage is deciphered in context. Why all the fuss?
because some people take on an extreme that verges on the insane.
for example i remember this from english comp lit 1, the tracher (who happened to be female) considered it stupid that from the 60's on people promoted the idea of changing the useage of "his" if the person wasn't identified to thier. Not only is the idea of using thier for the gender neutral is confusing, it is also awkward since thier is more than one person in normal human useage
(i maybe misremembering about this, but i hope not)
i also feel the idea of such things as chairman to chairperson,etc are rather silly, but i guess man is becoming more of a gender label than it used to be
Edited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by xXGEARXx, posted 08-27-2006 3:31 AM xXGEARXx has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 23 of 90 (344043)
08-27-2006 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Jazzns
08-27-2006 11:31 AM


Re: words and music
There are few on this board that are immune from thinking they are always right about something and resorting to what are commonly creationists tactics to avoid having to admit it.
But this is nonsense. There's been a hundred times that I've openly and gladly admitted to being in error. Can you think of a single instance where Holmes has done so? I'm sure his defense is that he's never wrong.
But the fact is, he's usually wrong about what his opponents are saying. I've documented that in several different threads, but he never responds to the correction, that I can tell.
I'm sorry that you think his "points" have any merit whatsoever. Unlike Holmes I'll admit my part in that, and do better to comport myself better. But I doubt you'll ever see Holmes turn away from his single-minded vendettas, his disingenuous distortions, and his overwhelming need to appear superior in every encounter. I mean this whole thread is a vendetta against me! Simply because he didn't like the way I pointed out the inconsistency in his language.
You don't see the pattern? The long periods of lurking punctuated by nit-picking megaposts? The feigned expertise in every field? I mean, you name it and Holmes has claimed experience in it - psychology, climatology, criminology, law enforcement, sexual issues, everything. Don't you find that just a little bit convienient?
I'm completely open to admitting that I'm wrong, and I do it a lot. Holmes has never done it, in my experience. I'm certainly not going to concede anything when, like in the case of the global warming thread, his "rebuttal" is nothing more than "you're not really seeing the trend you think you're seeing. Take it from me. Who are you gonna believe, me or your lyin' eyes?"
There are some issues I don't even feel like getting in with you because of how you previously admitted that you don't read the entirety of your opponents posts.
Just Holmes'. It's not that I don't care, it's that his posts are too long, too filled with irrelevancies, too filled with distortions of other people's words, and frankly too poorly written to muddle through. If Holmes could debate honestly, and not succumb to his tendancy to post enormous missives in every post, they'd be much easier to read.
Everybody elses? I read. It's not like I'm retarded or have a learning disabilty - Holmes can't write a clear post. It's that simple. It's all but impossible to understand what he truly means.
Ever since the discussion about Christian representation, it has made it clear to me that you are as perfectly capable of being as dogmatic as a creationist.
But I can turn that around, and say it's absolutely clear to me that, like a creationist, you have the same problem with the truth when it conflicts with your religion.
You're talking about the Pat Robertson threads, right? I don't recall anybody refuting my evidence in that thread. Only a bunch of people asserting "well, I didn't vote for him," which is about as ridiculous as asserting that Bush isn't my president, simply because I voted for Kerry. But, you know, whatever. Pretend like Robertson isn't one of the nation's most prominent Christians if it makes you happy. Pretend like everybody who doesn't go along with your fantasy is just being "dogmatic."
It's cool, really it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Jazzns, posted 08-27-2006 11:31 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Silent H, posted 08-28-2006 5:04 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 29 by Jazzns, posted 08-28-2006 12:09 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 24 of 90 (344049)
08-27-2006 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by subbie
08-27-2006 12:01 AM


You wouldn't happen to be one of those nuts who object to the term "history" because it is derived from "his story," would you?
I don't believe that it is derived from that, but no, I'm just one of those "nuts" who, apparently, believes that sexism is actually something that exists, and that existed in the past.
You don't, I guess. That's fine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by subbie, posted 08-27-2006 12:01 AM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by subbie, posted 08-28-2006 10:53 AM crashfrog has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 25 of 90 (344064)
08-27-2006 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Jazzns
08-27-2006 11:31 AM


Re: words and music
quote:
I think holmes is spot on about you and schraf. There are few on this board that are immune from thinking they are always right about something and resorting to what are commonly creationists tactics to avoid having to admit it.
I absolutely do not think I'm right about everything, and have accepted correction from many people.
If you think I've made a logical error or resorted to "creationist tactics" in any thread I've participated in, then why haven't you brought it up then, or now?
Please do not hesitate to do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Jazzns, posted 08-27-2006 11:31 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Jazzns, posted 08-28-2006 12:07 PM nator has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 26 of 90 (344205)
08-28-2006 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by crashfrog
08-27-2006 7:41 PM


me and you and a dog named boo-hoo
Can you think of a single instance where Holmes has done so?
I have acknowledged my errors several times, some were quite embarassing, and have on occassion either started threads or entered threads openly admitting my ignorance on subjects.
The likely difference in why you notice it or not is that it doesn't take dragging me through countless posts for me to do so, nor do I make a big production out of it. I usually just admit the point, or if it is embarassing turn it into a joke about myself, end then move on.
I mean this whole thread is a vendetta against me! Simply because he didn't like the way I pointed out the inconsistency in his language.
Vendetta? I was totally leaving your offtopic criticism of me (as spinoff of another offtopic criticism of me) alone, while others challenged your claims. One of the last posts suggested a new thread should be opened if it was going to be continued.
When I had some spare moments, curiosity got the best of me and I checked up on the etymology (I love etymology) of man. I had not been aware that males were originally wer- or wep-men. I thought it would be humorous to create a thread that not only offered a venue for you and mangy to continue your debate, but for me to turn the feminist argument on its head.
The feigned expertise in every field? I mean, you name it and Holmes has claimed experience in it - psychology, climatology, criminology, law enforcement, sexual issues, everything. Don't you find that just a little bit convienient?
I believe that with the educational resources available today, anyone can be a renaissance man if they want. From an early age I wanted to have a large body of knowledge and experience and pursued that end. I'm not about to apologize for the extensive number of years I went to college in a number of subjects, as well as working in a number of different fields.
Contrary to your claim I have not feigned expertise in every field and have admitted outright ignorance in computers (sadly despite having worked with them a bit), economics, and a great deal of biology (especially the finer points of dna). One thing I tend to do is stay out of arguments where I don't know anything unless I am simply looking for info from others.
Here is a list of my background: (note edited down...) BA in phil and sociology, BA equivalence background coursework in Chem and Earth Science as well as master's coursework/research in both. Various jobs including work for gov't sci agency, and more recently I have shifted into film.
Once again, I am not about to apologize for my background. You can cling to some faith that it is not real. What do I care, because I am living with it. In any case I can tell you my experience was anything but convenient and paid quite a price for it.
I might add that despite my experience I could STILL be wrong about something in those fields. As you pointed out once, it should be about evidence. Yet here I find myself still fighting the man, rather than the evidence.
PLEASE... and this goes out to everyone... lets shift this back to a discussion of language instead of personal foibles. I guess I could put it this way, let's shift it from the foibles of individuals to the foibles of linguistic movements.
Edited by holmes, : Decided to vastly shorten my cv

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2006 7:41 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 27 of 90 (344253)
08-28-2006 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by crashfrog
08-27-2006 7:58 PM


I'm just one of those "nuts" who, apparently, believes that sexism is actually something that exists, and that existed in the past.
You don't, I guess. That's fine.
And apparently someone who gets her exercise by jumping to conclusions.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2006 7:58 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 08-28-2006 5:37 PM subbie has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 28 of 90 (344271)
08-28-2006 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by nator
08-27-2006 9:06 PM


Re: words and music
Hopefully to clear something up. I didn't mean to make as drastic a connection between you and "creationist tactics" as I did crash. When reading yours and holmes I do tend to feel that holmes puts forth the better foot but that is just my subjective opinion. Sorry to group you to heavily. Crash and I have a history that I am basing my opinion off of.
I actually regret the previous post. Not only was it off topic it was dragging out old grudges I have with crash in the old thread. While I don't think I was incorrect, I don't think this was the time or place if ever to bring it up.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by nator, posted 08-27-2006 9:06 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by nator, posted 08-28-2006 1:14 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 29 of 90 (344272)
08-28-2006 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by crashfrog
08-27-2006 7:41 PM


Re: words and music
Forget I brought it up. I stand by my opinion but it was innappropriate of me to bring it up here. If you want to hash it out somewhere else I would be willing to try to see eye-to-eye.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2006 7:41 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 30 of 90 (344288)
08-28-2006 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Jazzns
08-28-2006 12:07 PM


Re: words and music
quote:
When reading yours and holmes I do tend to feel that holmes puts forth the better foot but that is just my subjective opinion.
He also puts forth many misrepresentations of my arguments that he then proceeds to easily demolish.
That he may argue effectively against some of my actual points is acknowledged, but the constant, protracted, yet futlie, chore of correcting his distortions and strawmen soured me against debating with him a long, long time ago.
I can understand, though, that someone reading along might get the impression that he is demolishing arguments left and right. He is doing this, of course, but sometimes the arguments are those of an opponent he has invented for himself.
quote:
Sorry to group you to heavily.
I thank you for that, and my invitation to point out to me any time I am engaging in logical errors or creationist tactics still stands.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Jazzns, posted 08-28-2006 12:07 PM Jazzns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Silent H, posted 08-28-2006 2:57 PM nator has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024