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

In another thread Crashfrog objected to my use of the term "man", when refering to all humans collectively. He appeared to imply it has never actually been used that way, and that its usage was confusing. I wasn't quite sure, but it appeared that Schrafinator might have agreed. In any case, the issue was raised and I'd love to see it settled once and for all by the brilliant people here at EvC.Mangy Tiger weighed in with an entry from dictionary.com: I have gone to another dictionary ( merriam-webster ) and found essentially the same thing. There I found something else of interest... If the etymology is from "human being", I'm sort of left wondering why I should consider it not capable of meaning humanity or human beings?In fact, I ambled over to Wiki and found a page on the etymology. Its short and an interesting read. Here's a highlight explaining how man as "human" shifted to man as both "human or male": And I'll be danged but that sure does seem sexist to me! So females have a cool identifier for who they are, but males are just treated like anybody? They can be lumped in whatever you please?Okay, take notice, from now on the real problem is not using man to mean human beings in general, but NOT referring to males specifically as wer or were-men. Frankly I even like the sound of that... were-man. Yeah. And not doing so is treating me as some indistinguishable piece of genderless meat and so sexist.Huzzah!P.S.- Do people with hangups regarding "man" have equal confusion when they see were-wolf movies where females change into animal form? Being as they would have to be wyf-wolves, unless they are changing gender too?Oh what tangled webs we weave
when first we practice feminist semantic deconstruction.Edited by holmes, : corrected some html error

---

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

You seem to have missed the point. Your claim regarding its roots and how it was used has been refuted. Man really does mean person or human being, that is BOTH males AND females. Historically that is where it came from. And it was commonly used that way, even after people commonly stopped referring to males by the longer term to identify them by gender.There is no inherent meaning to that shift at all, and I was riffing on the feminist point of view, by showing that it can equally be viewed that other way. Females are Man and Woman, while males are relegated to man alone. We have lost any distinctive classification. One could even say we have been semantically emasculated! Yeah, why don't you clarify it. That's an amazing bit of feminist demogoguery. Do you mind showing the evidence for what people were thinking when they dropped wer- or wep-. In addition I'd like you to give evidence for what people were more recently thinking when they used it.Heck, for that matter why don't you show how you know what I was thinking when I used it, since your original complaint surfaced against me. I will tell you this, I learned in school when I was growing up that (as you saw in the dictionary) the word "man" can be used to refer to all human beings of both genders. I never learned that men were primary historic actors nor that women were adjuncts of men, nor that that is why we use "man" for a collective term. I was taught that "man" had TWO SEPARATE MEANINGS which an intelligent person could identify based on context.You know kind of like any other word that has two separate meanings?But I guess you know better, so please set out your evidence. I have more than enough experience with feminist theories (there is more than flavor) and major authors. Some of feminism is fantastic. Much of it is the worthless semantic deconstruction such as you have provided with no respect for actual history, sociology, or evidence regarding language or the people that used it. I can see how a person could view it that way. It simply has no connection to reality. Its the same bizarre wordplay as people that ask me to notice that god is dog spelled backward, or live is evil spelled backward, and that I should recognize what THAT means.If YOU grew up being told that the word man has two separate meanings, and that there was no implication involved in that, that is exactly how you would use it... with no implication.Apparently in the space of 25 years a person's language can go from being modern to "archaic". That ain't my problem. Neither is it my problem that feminists have decided to create their version of newspeak, and a lot of people have decided to buy into their argument.But now that you bring it up, if we are going to have to change language, I want my Were-man!Aside to Modulous: From what I understand there was both wep and wer, wep was weapon but wer was specifically male gender. Wyf may be thought of as "wife", but that too has its own etymology which is simply the word for female genitals. I think even your own source mentioned that the "weapon" had sexual overtones. Thus they all boil down to genital refs in some way or another, and not really social roles. But I've always liked etymology and am open to more info.

---

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

Uh, all I said was that I was going to use CC because I felt it was more accurate. I didn't say anyone else had to use anything else.Then schraf upbraided me. That's when I responded with a defense of why I was using it. And if you didn't follow that subthread I went on to show I am not the only person who thinks so. Within the scientific community, and well before Luntz was advising George Jr, scientists and members of the international community had been using it.Yes, I do not like that some environmentalists prefer to use GW because of its scary overtones, and I criticize them for that... but it was not me who started that argument. In fact you accepted my change to CC with no problem before shraf entered her complaint.The irony here is that the choice to use GW by them is FOR a reason which has political and other value overtones. My use of man had none. Schraf started an argument, I explained my position, you tried to extend the argument. Thus your finger of "quibbling" comes right back at you.What I find funny is that you still can't admit you are wrong. You made very specific statements of what it meant, and how it could never have been used properly the way I had used it. The evidence is in, you are wrong.That doesn't make me an intellectual trying to appear superior to anyone. What it makes me is a guy (both regarding CC and Man) put upon by two semantic bullies, trying to explain why the language I use is accurate and appropriate and devoid of some greater political meaning.Edited by holmes, : made a point more clear

---

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

He's lying. I'm not kidding. Whenever he discusses me its usually a good idea to take it with a large dose of skepticism.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. Having come from a paleoclimatology background as well as enviro background, I ran into terms like that rather than GW, which would be a subset of CC and is not a very accurate term at that. I did not tell him he could not use GW if he wanted to. There was no "upbraiding". Indeed his next post included an acceptance of my change to CC.However, at that point schraf challenged my use of CC on political grounds (a republican spin doctor popularized it at Bush Jr's campaign). When I went to defend my position and explain it in greater detail, crash jumped in with some tangential criticism that I used man to refer to humanity. Hilarity ensued.Crash seems put out to try and paint me as some guy with evil motives who went seeking an argument, rather than someone challenged twice by others regarding the language I used (based on political/historical points) which I then successfully debunked.

---

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

Crash said something about the use of the word man, which on its face sounds reasonable... Unfortunately that does not make much sense in practice. That is it is not a principle that should be applied in some wholesale fashion to any person or group that is offended by any particular word or action.I get that people who grew up with the word "nigger" having no negative connotation, might want to keep in mind many do view it with a personal negative connotation, once they learn that fact. It is offensive to those who were hurt specifically by people using that word in a negative and condescending way.In the case of feminists, while they may accurately suggest that women had had their rights trampled on for some time, there really is no evidence to suggest that "man" was used against them in some way. Certain authors made that theory up and created an hysteria regarding its usage to the point "manhole cover" becomes thought of as sexist?To accord that kind of correctness is not reasonable. And I find this an intriguing argument anyway, as doesn't this mean that people (and I am looking at you crash) should not say things about others that make them feel excluded? Like say negative things about Xians?There is currently a campaign where I live (amsterdam) to get people to stop saying Jesus Christ when they swear because it offends Xians. Should I stop saying it so as not to offend them? Would you?In fact, many feminists feel that the use of porn itself makes them feel excluded. Does that mean men should stop using it (do you use it Crash), because of how they feel?In this particular case, we are dealing with a basically innocuous term, with an etymology and people that use it according to its true roots. It does not seem to make sense to "give in" to a group whose gripe stems from a highly speculative, one might say wholly fabricated point of view of what that term means and what people think when they use it.In fact it seems downright Orwellian. I can only think of this as leading to a Newspeak pogrom of language, or perhaps a Farenheit 451 situation where language is removed altogether in order to make everyone feel equal and not excluded.There is a difference between sensibility for the feelings of others, and simple capitulation to the whimsical fantasy of building a better world through perfected language.

---

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

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. 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 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. 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? 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". 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. 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)

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)

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. 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. 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 claim gets leveled at people for several reasons. Sometimes it is wholly true. Sometimes it is a device to escape admitting one has been accurately called on a point, by shifting pesonal attention to the "accused". Sometimes it is not recognizing that one's opponent is looking forward, cutting off potential lines of argument the author or others MIGHT hold based off the stated argument.There have certainly been times I've been in error on your position. However my experience is that you (and crash) have used that excuse way too often, and usually for the latter two reasons.That third reason is particularly troubling. I have explained to both of you that I sometimes address other positions which connect to your arguments, in case you might be heading somewhere or other posters might head there. Yet somehow both of you manage to "forget" that. This is not to mention that you both manage to invent positions and arguments to complain that I am saying you hold, but I have no idea what you are talking about.In the end you and he both hold the double standard that when I make a mistake regarding your position, it is my fault. And when you make a mistake in my position it is my fault.The key to "mistaken positions" is this... if a person makes a mistake in your position, it should be easily handled and dismissed. I am perplexed how anyone can have such venom and emotion invested into a position which is not their own, such that when a person makes an argument against it, a rage ensues. Clarify and move on.When a person blows into a rage, then disappears or refuses to answer, that is usually a sign it was their position all along. I'll give you one right now. You and crash have entered into clearly offtopic discussions in more than one thread. All have been to attack me on a personal matter, when I am engaged in a debate on some topic. And indeed begin to defend each other through those threads. Okay that's not the problem, that's just the set up...You both then rail against me for off topic discussions! Never do you question each other's activities that have both been clearly offtopic, and came well before anything I could have said or done. Thus you gang up on someone else, hurling accusations of activities you yourselves are commiting at that time, while giving free pass to your "friend" because you are on the same "side"... which is apparently being the "defenders of science" (which is itself something that one should find disturbing)?This is to say you don't call each other on the BS (even when making directly conflicting statements of fact) or negative activity you are engaging in, as long as you are on the same "side", while going overboard in denunciating your "enemies" if they engage in the same behavior. Its as if EvC is your "turf" which others invade and must be fought in alliances, rather than looking at each discussion as a chance to work on sometimes quite complex issues, forgiving others of minor errors in communication.If you have something to say to this... OPEN UP YOUR OWN THREAD.If you have a position on the use of "man" as a word representing humanity or people in general, by all means post something.

---

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

I do use people. I use lots of different words that are not "man". Like I said, I was taught that it means the same thing... and it does. So I have no aversion to use them all.In the other thread if I used "man" more than words like "people" it is more than likely I was typing very fast and grabbing the quickest word possible. Kind of like I resort to abbreviations all the time.The question I have, and it remains, is why certain people should have a "hard-on" for not using man? The reason to feel upset about it is a fictional creation. Not only is the historical account speculative at best it requires denying what people they are talking to are explicitly meaning. It also denies the fact that both men and women use it without the feelings that that smaller group claims.Thus it seems an artificial linguistic movement which is not necessary, and only designed to create division, rather than heal division. I agree that what he said sounds like BS, but so does the claims you have made regarding the use of man. Since that is on topic, how about YOU provide your evidence first.Side note: What you said to Jazz sounds almost exactly like what I would say to you. I certainly don't believe you are a bad person, and I don't know what sparked all your anger toward me. When I think you are mistaken I will tell you (just as I do anyone else). That I do not hand out accolades every time you are right does not suggest that I think you are never right. Though maybe that's the impression you get?

---

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

I agree with jazz that I'd like to end this if we can. How about cutting the gordian knot together? I'm going to lay things out as I see them (not blame wise, just position wise) and offer a solution...Jazz explained what behavior of yours he did not like, and so did I. Your counter to both has been that you do not see yourself doing the behavior either of us has objected to.I am making the same point. I am saying to you I do not recognize what you are claiming I have done.If you do not have to admit to or make amends for behavior you don't believe you are doing when Jazz or I mention it, then I am not seeing why I should. For example that post in the GW thread listing your grievances mainly looks like you're completely misreading what I was saying. Obviously we disagree on that read. Okay, that leads us to a more complex issue... Well I don't think Brad would admit he is doing anything objectionable. I wholly admit my posts are not as clearly written as some of the better writers here, and I am striving to improve. For some I have even drawn parallels between Brad's posts and my own stating that it could be my posts are as opaque to them and Brad's are to me.So when people mistake my meaning I don't give them a real hard time about it. I don't really care, unless it is done by wholly rearranging my text, or insisted on after I have made a correction, because miscommunications happen in life. If someone makes an argument as if I am arguing something I am not, I usually just respond with "I agree", or "I agree and that is my point", the latter to stress cases where the poster clearly misread my intention and it is important to understand what they are saying is actually part of my argument.If the point is discussing the evidence regarding a subject, then I just don't see the need to belabor the point of where micommunications occur, and just fix the error. I hope you will agree. People have just expressed that they are unhappy with some of the behaviors they believe you engage in. So far two people have said they are angry with me, but at the same time people have also said they disagree with your charge and/or they are not pissed at me and like what I write.Thus as much as you and schraf claim that I am dishonest and hard to read, others do not seem to hold that opinion, and so you can't talk as if you speak for other people at EvC. The same cuts against me or anyone else talking about you and schraf. Or how about anyone at EvC?So what does that add up to? I dunno. We could say a draw.How about this? Given that we want to discuss evidence and conclusions, why don't we just discuss that and attempt to trim out any verbiage which addresses the other person. And if a point is raised which is not really against our position (thus showing a mistake was made in understanding a position), we just say "I agree with that". In that way we don't have to wrangle over who was responsible for the miscommunication, and at the same time it makes our positions clearer.If you have another viable solution I'm open to it.Edited by holmes, : little fixes

---

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

I wasn't refering to your apology, I was refering to your denial that you had done what he claimed. It was in an earlier post. But we can easily leave him out of it.You made a claim about me, and I am making a claim about you. It appears we are not going to budge on our opinion and so I offered you an "olive branch". This does not mean either of us must apologize nor that we even have to like each other. It is about avoiding destructive behavior toward each other.I assumed you would be interested in this since you claim I distort your arguments. I was looking for a mechanism that would be available to YOU to reduce that ability of mine. Crashfrog, go back to the thread on An Inconvenient Truth. Look at who I posted to. It was RAZD. I didn't even mention your name in my first post. I specifically did so in order to avoid discussing anything with you. I was interested in discussing assertions you had made with RAZD, as well as material he was quoting from.YOU WROTE ME. Only then did I reply to you. The irony being that you claim that I was distorting your position all the time. If I was doing so, why would you have replied to a post to another person, with absolutely no mention of your name, and nothing close to your argument? I didn't deserve that, and its not supposed to be tolerated at EvC anyway. Please keep it civil.

---

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

To Everyone: The topic of this thread is use of language. I don't really mind if threads meander here and there in pockets, but it is starting to get well off course and I'd like to at least try and guide it back to focusing on language.Gays and Blacks are fine of course as part of this, but lets concentrate on use of language and not on legal mattersTo (Admin)NWR: I have to admit I was surprised to find this language levelled at me (to a post where I wasn't even criticizing a poster)... ... Not that I care that much, but I want to know if I get to use that kind of language when I feel like "expressing" myself in that way? Not necessarily toward another poster, but in general.Edited by holmes, : nothin'

---

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

Although I seem to disagree with most of what you say, you do write well and I like your avatar. I thought I should point that out first since I have never replied to you before.I'm only going to deal with a short bit of your post... I think this is a very real and interesting point regarding some quarters of the feminist movement. Especially those which emphasize semantics, it seems based on a jealousy only possible if one embraces "sexist" stereotypes and desires to take the role of the other, rather than reverse any power imbalance by embracing onesself. I don't think I've seen this going on, and to be truthful it isn't fair to label all mothers who work as inherently not raising their children. Even in your most "domestic" situation a mother's chores throughout the day are NOT focused on raising the children, but rather taking care of household work. There is no reason a woman could hand that off to someone else and still have time to take care of kids... especially once they are going to school.But there is a truth to the idea that women who don't pursue careers are somehow lesser or not following the norm of what they should be doing. Birth, school, career, maybe kids, death. And I think that is sort of sad to subject women who choose not to follow a career, to some form of abuse for their choice. Yeah, that doesn't seem to be very wise. But how is that not equally a man's fault? How has it failed miserably? Based on what vantage point? I was definitely a "latchkey kid" as were many of my peers and none have massive psychological problems. I realize this is totally anecdotal but in truth the people I have met with the biggest psych problems (needing meds and all) have come from traditional families.Anything we can do to steer this back toward language usage would be great. Using language to shape norms about roles seems quite appropriate.

---

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

While outrageously stated, especially toward the end, I think there is a grain of truth within jug's post. Some of the feminist movement appears to hold the position suggested. And there is a disdain towards women that choose to have kids and raise a family as if that were somehow not normal, the "normal" role being almost a cardboard cutout of the stereotypical man. Dworkin would be a good example.That of course cannot be used to blacken the eye of the entire feminist movement, and certainly not to draw conclusions about what roles women can fill in addition to being mothers.

---

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