The word Man is inherently confusing/sexist? Oh the huMANity!

Indeed, and that's why the usage is sexist. It's male-normative, clearly implying that a generic person is male, and that a female is nothing more than a special case of being a person. Male is normal, Female is "other." We find the exact same philosophy made explicit in ancient Greece, for instance.Also I think that perhaps my meaning was not entirely clear, and certainly Holmes' distortions of my position don't help.Obviously, men in that time period - the 50's, let's say - thought that they were referring to both men and women when they said "Man." The reason that they thought they were doing so was because of a sexist view of history, where men were views as the primary historic actors and women were viewed as adjunct to men, secondary actors who went along with what the men did because it was their role and purpose to do so.I dunno. Maybe you guys don't have much experience with feminism and feminist criticism, and so the terms and constructs I'm referring to are unfamiliar. When I say "male normative", do you understand what that means? Because it should be impossible to look at the usage of "Man" to refer to all humanity and not see the very sexist assumptions about humanity and the role of women that are loaded into that usage.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Well, yes, of course. What Holmes seems to be ignoring is that the whole discussion arose in a situation where he upbraided the rest of us for using the term "global warming" instead of "climate change", because the former has, apparently, "apocalyptic" overtones or something. He made a big ostentatious deal out of asserting his new language was somehow more correct, in the very post where he used "man" to refer to all humankind.The point is that it became pretty clear that his quibbles about language were not about accuracy, but about his ridiculous need to appear intellectually superior in every encounter. I understand that people used "man" to refer to humanity with no intent of referring to women as second-class persons. Just as I hope others understand that, even at that time, some people percieved exactly that meaning, and were excluded. Not particularly, no.

It's truly amazing how you always manage to completely misinterpret me. Either on purpose or by an amazing lack of perspicacity I simply don't know.I wasn't making claim about roots, or about etymology, or about dictionary definitions. 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.Your dictionary game doesn't even begin to speak to that. Except that it never was. I'm glad that sexism didn't exist in your alternate universe, but can we stick with discussing this one? Thanks. That doesn't make a lick of sense. If I was a man. Did you ask any women, at the time, if they felt that language was inclusive?

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.)

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?" 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. 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.

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.

His, please. Although I understand how it's hard for someone like you to imagine that a man (a straight one, even!) could be interested in promoting the inclusion of women.

I don't remember us not being friends, I guess. To the extent that any of us are "friends".Even among the creationists there's nobody that I really can't stand. A couple of really hard-core conservatives, like the guy who asserted that he would rather have his daughter be viciously raped than have his son be sodomized. People like that I can't stand, and wouldn't even consider speaking to outside this context.On the other side? Holmes and Rrhain are probably the only people I wouldn't talk to at the EvC barbeque; they're the only people I felt have really been dishonest in discussions, been motivated far more by a need to appear superior as opposed to the reaching of a consensus that everybody can agree with. And even then it took months of such behavior to sour my perception of them. Hell, I'd even buy Faith a beer and pass over the peanuts, and she drives people crazy.I don't even remember whatever falling out you think we had. I'm sorry for whatever I did that left you with such hurt feelings, I truly am. But I absolutely have no recollection of any time I felt you stopped being one of the "good guys", somebody that I would probably get along with just fine.I don't know if that makes you feel any better about me.

Mmm, no, I think you're wrong about that. Probably not. But I'm curious why people have such a hard-on about avoid the word "people". Like, it's a perfectly normal word, perfectly inclusive. Completely lacks any kind of gender loading at all."People." Perfectly servicable word that means exactly what you all proclaim "man" to mean, and it doesn't, under any definition or context, mean "males." Is there some reason why you all are so adverse to the use of this word? Ah, right. All feminists are feminazis who don't shave their pits. My guess? You have no idea what is being discussed when people say "feminism." Not what I was talking about, but do you have a link or something? Because this sounds like BS.

You being dishonest, being confronted with it, and refusing to make any kind of amends or even any sort of recognition of the behavior. Constantly having to muddle through your posts to pick out every place where you've completely distorted my meaning is infuriating and frustrating. That you won't even admit you're doing it is the last straw.I mean even Brad McFall knows a lot of us can't read his posts. But you seem to go right on ahead like you're not doing anything objectionable at all. Holmes the saint who can't figure out why people get so pissed at him.

To reiterate what I've just stated in another thread, you can take your "olive branch" and cram it up your ass. You're a real pissant to distort my apology to Jazzns in the way that you have. That's absolutely bullshit. All I told Jazzns was that I had no particular memory of what he was referring to - not that I denied doing it. Why would I apologize for something I don't think I did?Take your so-called "olive branch" - nothing more than one more arrogant attempt to appear superior - and go fuck yourself. How dare you selfishly manipulate a sincere apology in that way. You've gone from dishonest to disgusting in one short post. And I'm taking the responsibility to make amends for that. You, on the other hand, have done nothing but shift the responsibility to everybody but yourself.Absolutely disgraceful. What could have gotten into you that you could possibly think that the way to reconcile after your abominable history of distortion would be to distort me even further?Fuck off, Holmes. I realize there's no possibility that you'll do the right thing and avoid any further interactions with me, so I won't even ask. But understand that there's absolutely nothing you could contribute here that I would bother to notice. I once might have made an exception for a sincere apology for your behavior. If this was your excuse for such an apology, then clearly that exception was unneccessary.

So, like I suspected, you don't know anything about feminism.Can you show me a single prominent feminist writer who has asserted that feminism means women being more like men? Any at all? "Black power" is about making it equal; i.e. rectifying a power disparity by "adding" to black power. Adding to white power, as you promote, makes it even more unequal.Pretend that one of your children has 3 apples, and the other has 4. The one with 3 might argue that's unfair, and you would be right to agree.So what's the fair solution? Give both children an apple? How does that make any sense? No, you give one apple to the child with less and nothing to the child with more. He might complain that's "unfair" but he's just being a brat; in failing to recognize the action as the correction of a disparity he's just using the language of "fairness" to preserve an unfairness that he finds advantageous - having more apples.Just like you'd be doing. Men have more power than women, so it isn't fair to argue for "male power." Males have power; women are the ones who need more of it for equality to be achieved.This is a simplistic calculus, to be sure, but it's just an illustration about why it isn't, in fact, fair for white men to demand more power in the name of "fairness." Nonsense. You're just like the idiot parent who tries to address the inequality between his children by giving them both the same amount of additional apples. But no matter how many times you give each child an additional apple, one child still has more, because you still haven't addressed the underlying inequality. Yeah, BS, just like I thought. You're talking about a one-class-period seminar on not beating up gay students in the locker room, not a concerted effort in the curriculum to convince boys they're all girls and girls they're all boys.I can't see what possible harm you think this stuff is going to cause, unless you're under the ludicrous misapprehension that boys can't grow up to be men unless they beat the shit out of as many fags as possible.

Ah, right. It's not that black people are discriminated against; they're just lazy. You know you might have predicated this discussion on race by informing us all that you're a racist, it would have saved a little time.The answer is, btw, "the child with 3 worked for them; the child with 4 was simply given them for doing no work at all." I don't see the relevance. How much heavy lifting do you think is required to be CEO, for instance, or President of the United States? You call them "interesting", the women who escape from them might call them "abusive." More BS, I see. What special privileges? Not being beat up? Yeah, I guess that would be a privilege. I don't see any punishment of thoughts. I see a campaign to convince people that their thoughts may be wrong or unfair.I don't see what possible problem you would have with that, unless you think your views are so amazing that you have an absolute right not to be presented with information that contradicts them. Being not disagreed with, unfortunately, is not a right granted by the First Amendment, or any other.

No. It seems completely obvious to me that, in order to correct an imbalance that way, you have to push a little bit the opposite way.You have a see-saw. On one side is 10 lbs, on the other side is 20 lbs. Obviously the see-saw teeters to the heavy side. Isn't it obvious that the see-saw will never be balanced if the only thing you do is add the same amount of weight to each side? I have no idea what you're talking about. Eating dogs is not required for being CEO (actually, it's a funny phrase - dogs don't eat dogs in the wild.)I would expect that being a good CEO or being President is about being a good manager, getting people to come around to your way of thinking, getting them to perform their best. Being able to communicate effectively, reach people on a personal level, inspire and nurture.Feminine qualities, in other words. I don't see how physical strength is necessary for being a CEO or the President. You still haven't told me. I don't see how aggression succeeds in a marketplace that rewards cooperation; I don't see how mindless brutality finesses the world of Beltway politics.But I think I do see how the qualities of aggression and competition, which you think are the "male" attributes, come into the equation. While those qualities are the worst possible ones to have in order to lead effectively, they're exactly the qualities a poor leader would need to hang on to the power. In other words, it's not that men are typically better leaders - they're just a lot, lot better at making sure women don't lead anything. Which ways? Which ways? Isn't it kind of funny, though, that whenever sexists like you invoke this construction of unspecified strengths and weaknesses, it turns out that men get all the good strengths:*Physical strength
*Intelligence
*Leadership presenceor whatever and women get all the "strengths" that are actually qualifications for being good servants? Like, "being good at knowing what other people want" or "being good at raising my kids for me" or "being skillful sex partners." In other words, the strengths of men are good for getting what men want, and the strengths of women are good for getting men what they want, too. How do homosexuals fit into that, I wonder?Anyway, the answer is "no." The duality that makes males attractive to females and vice-versa is the fact that reproduction requires a sperm and an ovum.Nothing else is really relevant to that because nothing else is reliable. There are relatively few biological differences between men and women that are immutable, and they're all related to reproduction. The stuff you're talking about? It's just cultural. Gender roles that you seem to think are universal, but that nobody actually completely adheres to. It's not anybody's. It's just something you're making up.I'm sorry, didn't you understand? I'm telling you that I don't believe you. Is that clearer? You think that somehow, kids don't know about sex? What, did you forget what it was like to be at that age? Didn't you understand what kind of relationship your parents had? That they loved each other, or did at one point? That they had a relationship that was much less like your relationship with your brother or sister, and more like the relationship you had with that girl or boy you had a crush on?Like, you really think that's something kids don't understand? Maybe you should leave education to the professionals. It seems pretty obvious you have no idea about children. To what, exactly? You're afraid they're gonna catch you and make you gay? Honestly, NJ, do you really believe that there's any force on Earth that could make you want to have sex with a man?No? Me neither. Why do you think it's different from anybody else? Do you really think the reason that you're not interested in fucking guys is because God told you not to? Don't you suspect that, if God told you he'd changed his mind and that it was totally ok, you still probably wouldn't want to do it?There's always been people like you, NJ, convinced that we're headed down the road to perdition's flames. And you've always been wrong. Always. Humanity moves up and out, not downward. All of the dark spots of human history have been the result of intolerance, not tolerance.

What do you do, exactly, where you're compelled to hire people based on Affirmative Action programs?No, really. You're talking like this is an issue that you're faced with every day; where you want to hire based on performance, but somebody's breathing down your neck to make you hire the gay black jews. It's the correction of inequality. The way that you correct an inequality is by introducing a complimentary inequality. It's simple logic.