# Human vs Man



## Gryphos (Mar 20, 2016)

It can't be just me who gets really annoyed when fantasy novels often refer to all of Humanity as simply 'Men' ('the age of Men', etc). I mean, way to completely disregard the existence of half the human race...

Obviously, this is to be expected (if still not appreciated) in older works like Tolkien's. But even nowadays, there seems to be a pervading sense of male-as-default in fantasy literature.

Discuss.


----------



## FifthView (Mar 20, 2016)

Well, yes and no.  I do have an instinctual negative reaction to it; but sometimes such a use is part and parcel for the world in which it is used.  I mean, a patriarchal society.

The reverse might even be true some of the time:  "Human" has a clinical feel to it, or a scholarly feel to it.  Apparently, the word came to be used in its present sense only in the 16th C.    and comes from idea "of the earth" — that link compares the Hebrew _adam_, which is formed from _adamah_, "ground."

I think that fantasy worlds that include multiple intelligent races have an easy out for using "human" rather than "man."


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Mar 20, 2016)

Not annoyed at all. I'm more annoyed by people who are annoyed than I am by the things that annoy them, in general, and this case specifically.


----------



## Laurence (Mar 20, 2016)

I'm most annoyed by people who are more annoyed by people who are annoyed than they are by the things that annoy the people who are annoyed in general and in this case specifically in general and in this case specifically.

I think humankind sounds pretty cool anyway, so imagine the Pallet Town of my novel will utilise that, but I imagine at least one of my races will have an old fashioned mindset in that regard.


----------



## X Equestris (Mar 20, 2016)

Gryphos said:


> It can't be just me who gets really annoyed when fantasy novels often refer to all of Humanity as simply 'Men' ('the age of Men', etc). I mean, way to completely disregard the existence of half the human race...
> 
> Obviously, this is to be expected (if still not appreciated) in older works like Tolkien's. But even nowadays, there seems to be a pervading sense of male-as-default in fantasy literature.
> 
> Discuss.



As I recall, it's a linguistic relic from Anglo-Saxon times, when man was a generic term for adult humans in general, and males and females had different words.

Edit: from the etymology section of the Wikipedia article on Woman

The spelling of woman in English has progressed over the past millennium from wīfmann[2] to wīmmann to wumman, and finally, the modern spelling woman.[3] In Old English, wīfmann meant "female human", whereas wēr meant "male human". Mann or monn had a gender-neutral meaning of "human", corresponding to Modern English "person" or "someone"; however, subsequent to the Norman Conquest, man began to be used more in reference to "male human", and by the late 13th century had begun to eclipse usage of the older term wēr.[4] The medial labial consonants f and m in wīfmann coalesced into the modern form "woman", while the initial element, which meant "female", underwent semantic narrowing to the sense of a married woman ("wife"). It is a popular misconception that the term "woman" is etymologically connected with "womb", which is from a separate Old English word, wambe meaning "stomach" (of male or female; modern German retains the colloquial term "Wampe" from Middle High German for "potbelly").[5][6] Nevertheless, such a false derivation of "woman" has appeared in print.[7]


----------



## Devor (Mar 20, 2016)

"Humanity," as a word, just doesn't ring as strong.  I don't know why.

I get the thing about "men," though.  But context matters.  Thinking of the LOTR films, for instance, the "Realm of Men" I think is a little much.  But "Men of the West" and "there will come a day when the shields of men.....", on the other hand, can be seen as referring directly to the soldiers, who were men.  So it's all in how you use it.


----------



## valiant12 (Mar 20, 2016)

I use the word humanity



> Obviously, this is to be expected (if still not appreciated) in older works like Tolkien's. But even nowadays, there seems to be a pervading sense of male-as-default in fantasy literature.



I think the reason for that is that men buy more  fantasy books/video games. Either that or they copy Tolkien.


----------



## Gryphos (Mar 20, 2016)

Devor said:
			
		

> "Humanity," as a word, just doesn't ring as strong. I don't know why.



I guess it doesn't have the advantage of only being one syllable, but I find the complexity of meaning (i.e. humans themselves, and also a more abstract concept of 'human-ness') can make it a very interesting word to work with.



> I get the thing about "men," though. But context matters. Thinking of the LOTR films, for instance, the "Realm of Men" I think is a little much. But "Men of the West" and "there will come a day when the shields of men.....", on the other hand, can be seen as referring directly to the soldiers, who were men. So it's all in how you use it.



Yeah, in contexts where you are addressing, well, a bunch of men, like Aragorn giving a speech to an army, I can totally understand referring to them as 'men' instead of 'humans' or 'people'. But, as you say, reducing a whole species or nation down to only men is where the trouble is.


----------



## ascanius (Mar 20, 2016)

Gryphos said:


> It can't be just me who gets really annoyed when fantasy novels often refer to all of Humanity as simply 'Men' ('the age of Men', etc). I mean, way to completely disregard the existence of half the human race...
> 
> Obviously, this is to be expected (if still not appreciated) in older works like Tolkien's. But even nowadays, there seems to be a pervading sense of male-as-default in fantasy literature.
> 
> Discuss.



It's not male as default, it's understood to be encompassing all mankind, aka people.



FifthView said:


> Well, yes and no.  I do have an instinctual negative reaction to it; but sometimes such a use is part and parcel for the world in which it is used.  I mean, a patriarchal society.



And there it is.



FifthView said:


> I think that fantasy worlds that include multiple intelligent races have an easy out for using "human" rather than "man."



maybe, but in the end it doesn't change anything, its simply a pronoun used to refer to a group of individual/persons.



valiant12 said:


> I use the word humanity
> 
> I think the reason for that is that men buy more  fantasy books/video games. Either that or they copy Tolkien.



Really??  What about other languages that use the plural masculine gender to refer to mixed groups?  Some languages use the female gender others use masculine and others use neuter.  Other languages have completely different systems. Lets not forget textbooks, does that mean more males study than females?

Seriously if people are going to get nitpicky and upset because of the usage of the word men to refer to a group of people then lets just get rid of mankind, humanity, human, women, men, female, male.  There problem solved now we have 'age of person.'  Wops cant use persons because it has son, which is male and bad.  so 'the age people.'  there now no one can get upset and we can stick it to the patriarchy.  I did it again, patriarchy implies a group of people/society in relation to men so can't use that, someone is going to have to invent a new word.  However this is predicated on our ability to purposefully change a language spoken by about a billion people if not more.

Common, using men to refer to a group of people isn't some grand conspiracy developed by the patriarchy to enforce anything.  Its how the English language developed through common use, as the etymology of the word shows.  If anything using men to refer to a group of people is more in-line with what the OP is getting at than how we use it now.  Lets not forget that the English language is a mix of a bunch of other languages that happened slowly.   There are many other languages that use a similar system, so I really don't get what the big deal is.  

On a side note, werwolf makes much more sense now.....  And we so need to like start using old English again.  Werman is so much cooler than man.


----------



## Ireth (Mar 20, 2016)

Devouring Wolf said:


> Honestly, it doesn't bother me. As a woman, I don't feel excluded from the human race by the use of the word men or mankind to refer to humans. If anything, I prefer that to it being somehow changed to be more inclusive. Maybe I'm just odd but I was actually a little upset that when you're referring to a hypothetical person you now have to say 'his or her' rather than just using 'his', it makes sentences clunky and it makes me feel pandered to, and if there's one thing I dislike its pandering.
> 
> That being said, it would solve a lot of problems in writing if we had gender-neutral pronouns and a words less clunky than person/people to refer to them.



We do have a gender-neutral pronoun. "Their" is perfectly acceptable to use in the singular, especially for someone of non-binary gender. Or bi-gender, genderfluid, etc.


----------



## Gryphos (Mar 20, 2016)

ascanius said:
			
		

> Seriously if people are going to get nitpicky and upset because of the usage of the word men to refer to a group of people then lets just get rid of mankind, humanity, human, women, men, female, male. There problem solved now we have 'age of person.' Wops cant use persons because it has son, which is male and bad. so 'the age people.' there now no one can get upset and we can stick it to the patriarchy. I did it again, patriarchy implies a group of people/society in relation to men so can't use that, someone is going to have to invent a new word. However this is predicated on our ability to purposefully change a language spoken by about a billion people if not more.
> 
> Common, using men to refer to a group of people isn't some grand conspiracy developed by the patriarchy to enforce anything. Its how the English language developed through common use, as the etymology of the word shows. If anything using men to refer to a group of people is more in-line with what the OP is getting at than how we use it now. Lets not forget that the English language is a mix of a bunch of other languages that happened slowly. There are many other languages that use a similar system, so I really don't get what the big deal is.



That is a top-notch strawman you got there, but can we please stay on topic? My observation is that, even if 'Man' has developed over time as a word to refer to humankind, that still doesn't necessarily make it a gender neutral term, it merely indicates a historical tendency to disregard the female population. My question is, do we really want to continue this trend?

At the moment our language has the capabilities of being able to refer to gender neutral concepts in gender neutral terms (humanity, humankind, people). I embrace these possibilities, because I find it nonsensical to do otherwise.




			
				Devouring Wolf said:
			
		

> That being said, it would solve a lot of problems in writing if we had gender-neutral pronouns and a words less clunky than person/people to refer to them.



You heard of this neat little word called 'them', and its derivatives 'they', 'their', etc? It's gender neutral and one syllable, and grammatically correct. It's already been used in official documents for decades. Yeah, in prose there might be some confusion about plurals and stuff, but in my experience that confusion is something that can easily be avoided by constructing your sentences clearly.


----------



## Tom (Mar 20, 2016)

I've always used humanity rather than man. It just always made more sense to me. As the English language has evolved, some words simply don't have the same meaning that they used to and should be replaced with a more appropriate substitute. I also think humanity has a ring to it that man doesn't. As Gryphos said, the word better describes the complexity of "human-ness". In a fantasy sense, "Man" is a race; humanity is a collective that shares common thoughts, emotions, and beliefs.


----------



## AndrewLowe (Mar 20, 2016)

I personally am not bothered by it.  I think that the two can be used interchangeably.


----------



## Devor (Mar 20, 2016)

Gryphos said:


> My observation is that, even if 'Man' has developed over time as a word to refer to humankind, that still doesn't necessarily make it a gender neutral term, it merely indicates a historical tendency to disregard the female population. My question is, do we really want to continue this trend?



According to the etymology that X Equestris posted, _men_ always meant humankind, back when _wēr_ meant a male person.  It's the male person that absorbed the big word man, not the other way around.

I don't really think that means anything if we're talking about modern usage.  But if the facts have already been covered, let's not replace them with propaganda arguments from the seventies.


----------



## vaiyt (Mar 20, 2016)

If I put my writing down, I'm pretty much used to using human because why not. "Men" feels weird, like trying to rip off Tolkien's purposefully archaic style and falling flat. Not using it also has the benefit of freeing the word for males of every similar-enough-to-human species, avoiding clunky constructs like "male (insert species here)". Mind you, LOTR is a few decades _younger_ than the suffrage movement and contemporaneous to many works that treated the gender issue with a lot more tact, so I'm not letting Tolkien off easy at all. He tried to evoke a Medieval-esque feel but ended up bringing all the prejudices of 19th century interpretations of the era in as well.

Still looking for an elegant substitute for "race", though. "Species" is way too broad. Â¬.Â¬


----------



## TheKillerBs (Mar 20, 2016)

Gryphos said:


> My observation is that, even if 'Man' has developed over time as a word to refer to humankind



It is the other way around. The word "man" _started_ as a gender neutral term to refer to all of humanity and only later did its meaning become male humans. The original word for male human was "wer" and it disappeared as "man" absorbed its meaning (interestingly, a similar thing happened in Latin with "homo" and "vir").


----------



## WooHooMan (Mar 20, 2016)

Gryphos said:


> That is a top-notch strawman you got there, but can we please stay on topic? My observation is that, even if 'Man' has developed over time as a word to refer to humankind, that still doesn't necessarily make it a gender neutral term, it merely indicates a historical tendency to disregard the female population. My question is, do we really want to continue this trend?



We sort of do.  Language is not something decided by a comity based on what makes people comfortable or even what's most practical (for example, English lacks a plural second-person pronoun unlike the Romantic languages).  We're stuck using the words that are given to us.  And we can all use them the way we like.

By which I mean; if you have an issue with the term "Man", you're free to use whatever alternatives you like.
However, other people are free to use the term Man, if they choose to.

Personally, I like using Man because it sounds more dramatic than the alternatives.  The great philosophers and orators of the past used the term Man so I think using the term gives the text a bit of grandeur.  
Sometimes I use the term "humanity" for the same reason but it has a different feel.
"Persons, people, humankind" and gender-neutral pronouns don't really have the same feel, in my opinion.

I don't care about gender politics and I _especially_ don't care about people's feelings.  I only care about my art and how well it works as art.  I generally encourage other writers to think that way about their writings.


----------



## Gryphos (Mar 20, 2016)

Devor said:


> According to the etymology that X Equestris posted, _men_ always meant humankind, back when _wēr_ meant a male person.  It's the male person that absorbed the big word man, not the other way around.
> 
> I don't really think that means anything if we're talking about modern usage.  But if the facts have already been covered, let's not replace them with propaganda arguments from the seventies.



Yes, that is the case. However, doesn't that also raise the question of why the synonymous link was specifically established between 'males' and 'humans'? Either way, the end result is that there's a linguistic disregard for women, a disconcerting sense of otherness.


----------



## FifthView (Mar 20, 2016)

I would just like to point out that it's possible to recognize patriarchal and matriarchal societies, whether in our own world or fantasy worlds, without simultaneously making political statements or using the subject for present-day political agendas.  The words have come into existence to describe actual social realities.

I agree with others who say that "man" to describe all of humankind pre-existed the use of that term to refer to only males.  But I do think that, as certain patriarchal social structures developed, the term gained a new force--even if, as Gryphos has said, patriarchy wasn't some sort of grand conspiracy nor even, necessarily, a concerted devaluing of women so much as that women were generally ignored within some contexts.

But maybe all of this is neither here nor there.  I don't particularly want to be caught up in any sort of political argument.

I will say that my instinctual negative reaction to terms such as "age of man" is at least in part a result of overuse of that kind of phrase.  It's almost as if the phrases are plugged into a work merely as a veneer, or an over-easy way to say, "Hey, this is a fantasy novel that takes place long ago!"  But, yes, there's that Vulcan type of logical rejection of the term, also, since man=male is a very strong association.


----------



## Devor (Mar 20, 2016)

Gryphos said:


> Yes, that is the case. However, doesn't that also raise the question of why the synonymous link was specifically established between 'males' and 'humans'? Either way, the end result is that there's a linguistic disregard for women, a disconcerting sense of otherness.



That sounds very made up to me.  There are any number of reasons that the words could have changed the way they did.  Let's not make up hostile meanings out of our own ignorance.


----------



## Gryphos (Mar 20, 2016)

Devor said:


> That sounds very made up to me.  There are any number of reasons that the words could have changed the way they did.  Let's not make up hostile meanings out of our own ignorance.



I won't make judgements on why words have developed the way they have; at least, if I do, it's based only on my own knowledge and, as has happened here, I am open to being proven wrong. All I will do is judge the effect that these linguistic tendencies have sociologically. In this case, the synonymous link between the concepts of male and human leads to the implicit othering of women.


----------



## Devor (Mar 20, 2016)

Gryphos said:


> I won't make judgements on why words have developed the way they have; at least, if I do, it's based only on my own knowledge and, as has happened here, I am open to being proven wrong. All I will do is judge the effect that these linguistic tendencies have sociologically. In this case, the synonymous link between the concepts of male and human leads to the implicit othering of women.



I do think, as I mentioned earlier, that it makes sense to be a little more careful about using "men" if we're writing for modern readers.  I don't really agree that "othering" is necessarily implied (although it might be implied sometimes), but I do think it's - I guess the word I would use is "considerate" - to use the more inclusive term most of the time.

I'm just put off by by the big philo-socio-historical arguments that often aren't based on anything.


----------



## Tom (Mar 20, 2016)

I agree that the term is implicitly othering, especially when used in modern works. Our society has come to see men and women as equal, so our language should reflect that. Using an outdated term for humanity that also happens to refer to male humans can be seen as exclusionary to literally half the planet's human population. Literature reflects and impacts real life, so I think considering whether language we use is exclusionary, othering, etc., or not is important.


----------



## WooHooMan (Mar 20, 2016)

I'm going to continue defending the use of Man to mean all of humanity strictly on the grounds that a writer is free to use whatever language they want.

A writer does not have any kind of inherent responsibility to avoid "othering" women or use modern language if they choose not to.
If a writer doesn't want to "other" women, then they are free to use language that prevents "othering".

However, I believe that trying to coerce a writer into using terminology that they do not want to use is...well, I'm generally not in favor of it, personally.


----------



## HellionHeloise (Mar 20, 2016)

Gryphos, thank you for posting this thread. 

Utilizing "mankind" or "men" to signify all of humanity is exclusive. If I said "womenkind" or "women" no one would assume I'm including all of humanity, because historically that's not how people use those words. When we say women, we mean just women, at least in English. The fact that both women and men can be signified by the word "men" implies that women are less important and are more of a second thought. Women can be absorbed into men. 

Just because that is how the English language and many other languages developed doesn't actually make it less exclusive. It just shows that language is reflective and influential of societal expectations. If anything, it makes that exclusivity even more powerful because it has been going on for so long. As writers, we are particularly aware of language's power over people, so I encourage all of you to keep this in mind. I'm a woman and more than likely half of your readers are women, so don't exclude us from your thought process when considering diction choices! We cannot just ignore problematic pronouns because it's easier. 

With all of that being said, it does make sense to use "mankind" or "men" to signify all of humanity in certain texts. As Fifthview pointed out, it makes sense to use language like this if the society in the story is patriarchal because it reinforces the narrative.


----------



## WooHooMan (Mar 20, 2016)

HellionHeloise said:


> As writers, we are particularly aware of language's power over people, so I encourage all of you to keep this in mind. I'm a woman and more than likely half of your readers are women, so don't exclude us from your thought process when considering diction choices! We cannot just ignore problematic pronouns because it's easier.



I'll exclude anyone I want and I'll work with whatever level of difficulty I'm comfortable with tackling.

If you do not like it, you are free to not read whatever I write.  All readers are free to not read something if they don't want to.
But all writers should be free to write whatever they choose to write.  Which means they have the freedom to choose between convenient gendered words or inclusive gender-neutral words.

Artists shouldn't be denied their freedom to create with whatever tools (as in, words) they have access to.
If the reader has a problem with your writing, it's their problem.  A writer's only inherent responsibility is to their story.

EDIT: I wrote that response under the assumption you were _telling_ me to write a certain way.  After re-reading it, I think you might have just been giving a suggestion.  I didn't mean to sound like I was trying to argue with you specifically or anything.  I'm kind of just being a devil's advocate.


----------



## Devor (Mar 20, 2016)

Devor said:


> I do think, as I mentioned earlier, that it makes sense to be a little more careful about using "men" if we're writing for modern readers.  I don't really agree that "othering" is necessarily implied (although it might be implied sometimes), but I do think it's - I guess the word I would use is "considerate" - to use the more inclusive term most of the time.



I feel like I should rephrase this ^ because I started meaning one thing and then hedged on it because I didn't want to take the time to explain it.

I don't think that othering is _necessarily_ implied.  But I mean that in the "formal logic" sort of way.  Othering is not necessarily implied; it's one connotation of the word among several that are also valid, if not more so. I think that when people use the word "men" that way they probably aren't trying offend or exclude anyone.  When someone hears the word "men" and doesn't particularly mind it, it's because they're hearing other connotations instead of that of "othering."

That is, at least on some level, if you hear it as "othering," there's a choice, or an experience, or a cultural persuasion, that's influencing that interpretation of the word.  It's not _necessary_ to interpret it that way.

I think that's an important distinction to understand in conversations like this because it helps to reduce animosity and open up the possibility of other perspectives.


----------



## Tom (Mar 20, 2016)

Devouring Wolf said:


> I honestly have to wonder what all of you who think the use of 'mankind' is problematic would do if you had to write in one of the romance languages like Italian or French where all nouns are gendered...



That's not the point we're trying to make, though. The language most of us write in is English, and English _does_ have gender-neutral terms which can be used in place of gendered terms. We're not talking about the rigorous gendering within the Romantic languages (which is a problem all its own, and one I am concerned about, as it directly effects my fellow genderfluid/non-binary people who speak those languages). We're talking about English, which is a fairly gender-neutral language if it's wielded right--and why it should be wielded right.

Speaking of non-binary and genderfluid people, that's another group excluded by the term "Man".


----------



## Chessie (Mar 20, 2016)

Gryphos said:


> It can't be just me who gets really annoyed when fantasy novels often refer to all of Humanity as simply 'Men' ('the age of Men', etc). I mean, way to completely disregard the existence of half the human race...
> 
> Obviously, this is to be expected (if still not appreciated) in older works like Tolkien's. But even nowadays, *there seems to be a pervading sense of male-as-default in fantasy literature.
> *
> Discuss.


Being referred to as mankind doesn't bother me, but the part I placed in bold is something I keep in mind. A lot of fantasy books have the default male protagonist probably just like romance novels have the default female protagonist. Just a thing, but not one to worry about when we have the liberty to create our own worlds and stories. I'll read whatever so long as it's good, although I mainly write from the female perspective because it's my preference. I still do write from the male perspective but my protagonists tend to be female.


----------



## Tom (Mar 20, 2016)

My protagonists tend to be male, just because that's the perspective I identify the most with, but most of my supporting characters are female. Even though I try to be as gender-neutral with my language as possible, I still catch myself writing things such as a general referring to her soldiers as "men", or placing mostly men in positions of prominence or power (chieftain, town elder, priest, etc), or even just needlessly gendering clothing. I also had to unlearn a lot of things about writing female characters. 

It's been a chore, reprogramming my writer's perspective to be more inclusive and diverse, but I feel it's worth it if someone reads my stories some day and feels included because I took time to write a character like them. I also kind of do it for myself, since I never had that kind of representation when I was younger. It makes me happy to think that someone might see themselves in something I wrote and feel good about themselves because of that.


----------



## WooHooMan (Mar 20, 2016)

Tom Nimenai said:


> We're talking about English, which is a fairly gender-neutral language if it's wielded right--and why it should be wielded right.



Language is amoral.  There is no morally right way to use language*, in my opinion.
Even assuming there is, I cannot imagine any entity who I would describe as "the absolute moral authority on the English language".



Tom Nimenai said:


> My protagonists tend to be male,* just because* that's the perspective I identify the most with, *but* most of my supporting characters are female. *Even though I try* to be as gender-neutral with my language as possible



It almost sounds like you're admitting to a wrong-doing and you're trying to make excuses for yourself.
I don't believe that any wrong-doing was committed.  You don't need to justify yourself.



Tom Nimenai said:


> I also kind of do it for myself



That should be the primary reason.  Not an "also kind of".

*I mean, clearly there is righteous things you can do with language: creating art, spreading information and so forth.  But the language itself is amoral.  One word isn't more morally "right" than another word.  You know what I mean.


----------



## Vaporo (Mar 21, 2016)

Personally, I towards the side that the word "men" has been used to refer to all humans for centuries and, while it can easily be used to "other" women when used untactfully, it can be used to make writing less awkward or more dramatic when used tactfully. I'm also simply tired of people getting angry over insignificant things like the use of the word man when there are so many other problems in the world that are actually worth getting angry over, so I tend to side against those people. (Not accusing anyone in this thread. I've just seen similar arguments other places on the internet that go much less civilly).

Currently, I use the word "men" in my story to refer to all humans, but the choice wasn't arbitrary. I have four races, one of which is humanity. The other three races are called the Smet, the Grat, and the Fel, all snappy, monosyllabic names. "Humans" and "humanity" just don't fit with the other three, and "Man" does, so I have "Man, Smet, Grat, and Fel." I've considered coming up with another name for humans, but I think that it would just add a layer of unneeded nomenclature. For the purpose of my story, a woman could be referred to as a man by one of the other three races, because that is their name for humanity. A human would not do this, as our language differentiates between women and men. And not I'm entering into the complicated subject of using English to represent a language that is not actually English. Does the syllable "man" just happen to mean the same thing in my fictional language? Maybe I should think up a new name for humanity, just to avoid the argument that I'm probably going to have with myself over this subject.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Mar 21, 2016)

This brings to my memory the first time that I read _Fellowship of the Ring_ twelve years ago, because there was a very funny moment associated with the issue that is being discussed in this thread.

You see, I was reading a Castilian edition of the classic Fellowship novel. It's a wonderful translation most of the time, but at certain point a scene is described in which the Fellowship characters need to lift and move something heavy... I think it was a boat, but the damn thing was too large and one of them said:

_"No podrÃ­amos hacerlo, aunque todos fuÃ©ramos hombres"_ which means _We could not do it, even if all of us were men._

That was so funny to read, and I was thinking: _"So... which of these dudes is actually a lady?"_ even though I knew what the real meaning was. The character who said that (Boromir, I think?) meant that even if the little Hobbits were Men it would still have been impossible to accomplish what they were trying to do.

I see three alternatives for this Men vs Human thing:

The first option is to create a new name for the entire human species, like Jonathan Swift did. The super intelligent horses from _Gulliver's Travels_ refer to all humans as Yahoos, and that's all. If you do not quite like the term _Yahoo_, then you can come up with an equivalent of your own.

The second option is (in case that you do not have multiple sentient species in your world) to simply avoid using the terms mankind and humanity. They are not really necessary in a story, and you can find other expressions to use instead of those terms.

Third: Write stories about other species, and let humanity fly out through the window.


----------



## Devor (Mar 21, 2016)

Devouring Wolf said:


> I think it does apply in a way, you're trying to 'fix' a language and it makes the linguist in me cringe. Language is many things, but broken isn't one of them. Men is widely understood to mean all people. If you don't want to use it, I can respect that, but I've yet to see any compelling evidence that its use is doing harm. As I've said, I prefer it, because this obsession with castrating language frankly worries me. To me worrying that the use of men is hurtful to women, honestly feels even worse that the possible inherent sexism in the word itself. It feels like being treated as the fairer sex who's too fragile to handle little words.



When you brought up the romance languages, my initial reaction was to think, "That would be so much better, if everything were gendered we could all drop out hangups over these things."  I say that because, as I understand it, the gendered nouns touch upon all sorts of things so that, for instance, a guy couldn't really disconnect from everything that's feminine, or visa versa.  You'd have no choice but to just get over it, and that would be easy to do because everyone would.

But I barely speak a touch of Spanish from High School.  So that's just my impression, I could have it all wrong.


----------



## Russ (Mar 21, 2016)

Tom Nimenai said:


> Speaking of non-binary and genderfluid people, that's another group excluded by the term "Man".



I respectfully disagree with you.

In this context the word "man" refers to all humans, and that certainly includes the groups you are concerned about.

The "otherness" argument comes from a misunderstanding of the use of the word.  I don't see the wisdom or progress in abandoning a perfectly good word because it is misunderstood or misused by a group of people, or at worse it is intentionally being deformed not by linguistic drift or development, but for political purposes.


----------



## Nimue (Mar 21, 2016)

It's slightly baffling to me that folks would insist that Man shouldn't be perceived in relation to men.  It has those connotations. You can't expect all of your readers to nod knowingly and say, "Ah of course, we are not talking about men but Man, from the Anglo-Saxon root _wer_, which is gender-neutral."

I agree that it absolutely has a place in a patriarchal and/or historically based society, and that "humans" feels more (early) modern.  (There are of course alternatives--people, kin, folk, or naming subgroups like citizens of a certain area). But if you're writing within a completely foreign and fantastical world, why drag along this particular bit of archaic language?

I think it's a valid question to ask, and that you can't banish gendered issues because you don't want to examine them.


----------



## X Equestris (Mar 21, 2016)

Nimue said:


> But if you're writing within a completely foreign and fantastical world, why drag along this particular bit of archaic language?



Why do anything like our real world in completely foreign and fantastic worlds?  The only real reasons are 1) that's what the author wanted to do, and 2) the reader needs something at least a little familiar so they can relate.


----------



## Russ (Mar 21, 2016)

Nimue said:


> It's slightly baffling to me that folks would insist that Man shouldn't be perceived in relation to men.  It has those connotations. You can't expect all of your readers to nod knowingly and say, "Ah of course, we are not talking about men but Man, from the Anglo-Saxon root _wer_, which is gender-neutral."
> 
> I agree that it absolutely has a place in a patriarchal and/or historically based society, and that "humans" feels more (early) modern.  (There are of course alternatives--people, kin, folk, or naming subgroups like citizens of a certain area). But if you're writing within a completely foreign and fantastical world, why drag along this particular bit of archaic language?
> 
> I think it's a valid question to ask, and that you can't banish gendered issues because you don't want to examine them.



I am happy to consider any word or discourse from a gendered or feminist perspective.  It is not by avoiding this subject that I come to the conclusion that the word "man" can be used as a gender neutral term.

You may well be right that "humans" feels more "modern" than does the term "Man".  But that assumes, often inaccurately, that the writer wants a modern "feel" to his work.  If the word is slightly archaic and the author wants that "feel" why then should the author not use it?

The OP's complaint is the use of the word in phrases like "The Age of Men."  In the fantasy context this surely  must be understood as "the age of humans" vs say "the age of Elvenkind.", not "the age of males" as contrasted to "the age of females."  There is no need to understand the Anglo Saxon roots to read the phrase properly.

It strikes me that in this context the normal use of  the word does not have a gender implication, but rather a race implication.  It seems to be that the people who are concerned about the use of the word are carrying too it their own political philosophy and not looking at what is written.

If I wrote "The Age of the Kin/Folk/People" it simply would not convey the message accurately.  One could substitute perhaps the word "Human" but that may well sound too modern or even too scientific for the work in question.

For what its worth, I think people who grow up with gendered languages don't find these kind of issues as pressing as those of us raised in English.  For instance both the German word for Dwarf and Elf, are both masculine, but I don't think anyone would argue that the Age of the Dwarves, or Age of the Elves, is doing harm in any language.


----------



## Ban (Mar 21, 2016)

No offence, but in my opinion this is frustratingly PC. It is so PC that I can't help but hear a furious faux feminist screaming into my ear about "the patriarchy".  

To me Men or man just sound nice, human doesn't.  Done.


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 21, 2016)

Nimue said:


> But if you're writing within a completely foreign and fantastical world, why drag along this particular bit of archaic language?



Personally, for two reasons. 

First, because I hold in contempt the notion that I should have to edit my language in order to appease someone else's political sensibilities. Now let's be clear. I am *not* championing the idea that any person at any time ought to be able to say whatever comes into their head with no consequences, regardless of how offensive it is or whether it incites others to despicable actions. In fact I have no intent to offend anyone, though neither will I take great pains to earn cookies for being progressive. But this usage of "Man" in the sense of "mankind" is not even truly offensive, or at least no one seems to be arguing it is. Instead there seems to be some bizarre concern that using the language this way might hurt someone's feelings, and I don't find that to be a particularly pressing concern*. And further, I agree with DW in that it seems silly to me to go about not merely refraining from using offensive words but artificially restructuring an entire language- and asking others to participate- simply because it has a flavor that may not agree with our politics. And further, writing, like all art, is an expression of the person who makes it. If that person has values and political concerns (or lack thereof) that differ from yours, you cannot very well expect them to shackle themselves to usage of language that you feel to be more enlightened even if they believe it is not the best thing for the work they are making. It is like asking a painter not to use the color yellow because it gives you headaches.

And second, "human" has two syllables. "Man" has one. That alone makes it superior for most uses. And "human" does feel very clinical, something an alien or other outsider might call our race to belittle or condescend to us. Or else it might be used to deliberately evoke a comparison or contrast between our race, or some specific member of it, and the lower animals. "Humanity" is a word I like, but not for this purpose. I like it better to describe either what might be defined as "the quality of being humane" or that which might be defined as "that which imparts personhood". But even these ideas have better, more impactful words. "Mercy", "kindness", "love", and "justice" are all better for the one (and impart various shades of meaning which "humanity" elides); "soul" serves best for the other, beautiful in its simplicity and carrying in with it all the majesty and reverence of its religious connotations. And what's wrong with "archaic" anyway? Suppose I like the feel of it?

Now it is true that in my ordinary talk I will use "human", "humanity", "mankind", and "man" interchangeably and probably in that order of frequency. But writing is not ordinary talk, writing fantasy least of all. Writing gives you a greater degree of control than speech does (e.g., written words can be redacted, speech cannot) and I use that power to the best of my ability to set a certain tone and impart certain images and moods. When I am about that task I may find "man" to be the best tool at hand and I will use it without reservation. Some might say this is a shallow attempt to ape the fantasy writers of the old school, particularly the Grandmaster, Tolkien. I disagree. Obviously some people actually do make shallow attempts to ape Tolkien because "that's how fantasy ought to be done" and generally they grow out of it. But that need not be the reason for the similarity. It could just as easily be born from having a set of values similar to those of Tolkien and Lewis, having a vision similar to and yet distinct from theirs. Seeing what they saw but from a different angle, so to speak. In any case, I see no reason to begrudge someone a certain turn of language simply because it irritates you.


*Some will think this an obfuscation and that the two things are synonymous, but a simple example will clarify. From my point of view, to call someone by a slur or insult them is offensive. But for me to say that Christianity is the sole true religion, or for a Muslim to say the same of Islam, or for an atheist to say we are both wrong, is not offensive, even though they and I may be unspeakably irritated by each other and a great many people may be irritated by any or all of us for saying so. Now I may _think_ I am being offended by the hypothetical Muslim or atheist in this scenario, but that is simply a failure of reasoning on my part. In my better moments, putting my pious emotions in their proper place, I will realize the truth: they are doing the same as I am, from their own angle, and I ought not be angry with them for doing so. Perhaps some dialogue may even come of it. But if they call me stupid for disagreeing with them, or vice versa, then we're back into the territory of being really offensive.


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 21, 2016)

Incidentally, I haven't really introduced any non-human races into my book yet (though I'm spinning some ideas for some) so I'm not sure off the top of my head what kind of words I actually use for our race. The issue may not have even come up. But if it does I'll choose my words based on what feels right rather than based on political concerns.


----------



## Chessie (Mar 21, 2016)

Devor said:


> When you brought up the romance languages, my initial reaction was to think, "That would be so much better, if everything were gendered we could all drop out hangups over these things."  I say that because, as I understand it, the gendered nouns touch upon all sorts of things so that, for instance, a guy couldn't really disconnect from everything that's feminine, or visa versa.  You'd have no choice but to just get over it, and that would be easy to do because everyone would.
> 
> But I barely speak a touch of Spanish from High School.  So that's just my impression, I could have it all wrong.


Spanish is my native tongue, and let me tell you that gender is not something we even think about when we speak. Also took many years of French from jr high to college and lived in Montreal. Same thing. It's not something you notice at ALL. Languages are tied to culture and I can only speak for the Hispanic culture that although gender roles are carved out, there's also a strong respect for women as caregivers. They are a vital role to our families and culture. Yes, men make the decisions in the home, but they do so along with their wives. I think it's because the language is so gender-ized that it makes both genders equal in the language and culture. It's a beautiful thing and honestly, English is a pretty neutral language.


----------



## FifthView (Mar 21, 2016)

Mindfire said:


> First, because I hold in contempt the notion that I should have to edit my language in order to appease someone else's political sensibilities.



Let's not forget that Nimue also wrote this:



Nimue said:


> I agree that it absolutely has a place in a patriarchal and/or historically based society, and that "humans" feels more (early) modern.



I think the next observation (or rhetorical question) is fair:



> But if you're writing within a completely foreign and fantastical world, why drag along this particular bit of archaic language?



I would say that one answer to that question is this:  To evoke a patriarchal and/or historical Earth-based society even if your world is quite foreign and fantastical.  Or at least to evoke that one tiny aspect of such a society.

I think that we should be clear about use of terms like "The Age of Men."  The arguments that _everyone_ knows "Men" is meant to refer to all humanity, and that heavy historical use of that meaning is not a hidden feature of our history and language, are cogent arguments.   But this also means that use of such phrases tap into that common experience and understanding.  Maybe this will work for some fantastical worlds; but then again, maybe evoking that historical reality would be out of place in a substantially foreign and fantastical world—i.e., when you want a truly novel or fantastical setting.

Incidentally, like Nimue I'm slightly baffled that the association of "man" and "male" is being so quickly dismissed as a factor.  The argument that everyone knows "man" was meant to refer to all of humanity...well, yes, everyone knows that, so I don't understand why it needs to keep being pointed out in this thread.  We all know, already.

This is not to say that I don't see the other issue.  I 100% agree that we need no committee setting inviolable rules for all other writers to follow on the off-chance that some readers will be offended by the use of a given word.  I disagree with arguments for linguistic purity, no matter who makes those arguments—this has come from both directions here, I believe—because linguistic malleability is one of the magical features of our language.  But I do not believe that any one writer or group of writers, or readers for that matter, should have control over how the language is manipulated by other writers.

BTW, I also think this implication is very odd:  That readers should not be presented with writing that is in any way uncomfortable, disconcerting, offensive, troubling, ... and so forth.  I remember the first time I encountered the phrase "the First Men" in ASOIAF.  Yes, I did have that instinctual negative reaction I've already mentioned in this thread.  I also continued to have that slight discomfort every time the phrase was used—even if, as someone who is not a total idiot, I am quite familiar with historical use of man/men.  But it was a minor thing within a series of novels that had much more troubling sequences, and it fits within the narrative.  It's okay to trouble your readers, if the story is served by whatever you do.


----------



## Nimue (Mar 21, 2016)

Catching up on this thread, I'm not sure why I bothered to reply.  We're all contempt, screaming feminist harpies, and "castrating language" here, apparently.  I give up on trying to have a conversation on this forum.  There's a great many other things I'd rather do.


----------



## ascanius (Mar 21, 2016)

Nimue said:


> It's slightly baffling to me that folks would insist that Man shouldn't be perceived in relation to men.  It has those connotations. You can't expect all of your readers to nod knowingly and say, "Ah of course, we are not talking about men but Man, from the Anglo-Saxon root _wer_, which is gender-neutral."
> 
> I agree that it absolutely has a place in a patriarchal and/or historically based society, and that "humans" feels more (early) modern.  (There are of course alternatives--people, kin, folk, or naming subgroups like citizens of a certain area). But if you're writing within a completely foreign and fantastical world, why drag along this particular bit of archaic language?
> 
> I think it's a valid question to ask, and that you can't banish gendered issues because you don't want to examine them.



See, I have the same question in reverse.  If you know that the word men on the context implies all of humanity and not just males, I don't see what the hangup is.


----------



## WooHooMan (Mar 21, 2016)

Nimue said:


> Catching up on this thread, I'm not sure why I bothered to reply.  We're all contempt, screaming feminist harpies, and "castrating language" here, apparently.  I give up on trying to have a conversation on this forum.  There's a great many other things I'd rather do.



I suggest re-reading this thread.  About half of the posts (including my own) speak against this language "castration" or using art to promote feminist political agendas.


----------



## ascanius (Mar 21, 2016)

Sarcasim dude.  It was sarcasim, see the "we" part.


----------



## Tom (Mar 21, 2016)

Devouring Wolf said:


> I think it does apply in a way, you're trying to 'fix' a language and it makes the linguist in me cringe. Language is many things, but broken isn't one of them. Men is widely understood to mean all people. If you don't want to use it, I can respect that, but I've yet to see any compelling evidence that its use is doing harm. As I've said, I prefer it, because this obsession with castrating language frankly worries me. To me worrying that the use of men is hurtful to women, honestly feels even worse that the possible inherent sexism in the word itself. It feels like being treated as the fairer sex who's too fragile to handle little words.



I'm a linguist too, albeit an amateur one. I don't see how advocating against using an outdated word is trying to "fix" a language. I'm a descriptivist. I believe language should be allowed to evolve as society evolves. By the way, I do believe the English language is broken, but I'm not looking to fix it. All human language is inherently flawed; after all, most have existed for thousands of years, accruing mistakes, contradictions, and anomalies. The English language itself is an untidy amalgam of Germanic and Romantic languages, with numerous words borrowed from still more languages. I'm just trying to make the most of what I've been given.

To wrap up my participation in this thread (as I think the argument has started to go in circles), I will continue using humanity rather than man for my writing. What's important to me is that I stress inclusive and diverse language. Other things may be more important to other people--being historically accurate, for instance. I have my convictions and I'm going to stick to them.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Mar 21, 2016)

I still vote for the terms _Yahoo_ and _Yahookind_ to take over, and not because of feminist reasons.

The problem with using Men and _Mankind_ to refer to the entire species is that, even though it was ordinary a long time ago, it sounds somehow wrong, funny and even silly in our days. Also, using a Fantasy name like Yahoos would contribute to the fantastical and other-wordly atmosphere of a setting.

I agree with Tom regarding the fact that languages evolve. Advocating against the use of outdated terms is not an attempt to fix a language, but a natural part of the language's evolution.

So, who votes for the Yahoo option too?


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 21, 2016)

Yahoo is unacceptable on the grounds that it has too many syllables.


----------



## Gryphos (Mar 21, 2016)

A side note: on the subject of 'human' being seen as somehow clinical or out of place in an old fashioned setting, I might draw people's attention to the game Dark Souls, which frequently refers to humans as humans and does so without sacrificing any of its grandeur.

On the subject of fixing/'castrating' language, I don't know if some people are aware, but the English language is f*cking dumb. Hilariously so sometimes! If we spoke a perfect language, there'd be no such thing as homonyms (tear/tear always has a knack of tripping me up) and there would already be a specific singular gender neutral pronoun. Newsflash: language _is_ broken. But that's to be expected when it evolves over millennia (it's kinda like us in that respect). Does that mean we shouldn't try to fix it? F*ck no, but that's not even what we're talking about. The English language, however dumb it is, does have a gender neutral term for our species: human. I like the word 'human'; I'll admit it has some sentimental value for me. Whether you agree with me is your decision.

Which leads me smoothly (master of segues that I am) into my next point: the PC conspiracy that totally exists and is threatening to turn our society into something out of a George Orwell novel *sarcasm*. Newsflash (again) (and I'll make it bold because it's important: *no one is being forced to change their language or do anything at all; that's just paranoia*. When I or anyone else criticise the use of 'Man' to refer to 'Humanity', we're not putting a gun to your head and demanding you change your every habit to conform to our political agenda (newsflash: everyone believes in freedom of speech and expression). When I or anyone else criticise something like that, we're merely, well, criticising it. You know, criticism, that vital aspect of freedom of speech. If you _are_ in a situation where someone is _demanding_ you change your art to accommodate them, you have every right to ask them: "who has two thumbs and doesn't give a crap?" The problem comes when you fail to see the distinction between that and simple criticism and polite request. Even if you are criticised, you can criticise their criticism and– oh, would you look at that! you've got yourself a constructive discussion. Ain't it great when people actually talk about things instead of knee-jerkingly reverting to a defensive state?

Now, more on topic. I think Nimue raised a good point here:



			
				Nimue said:
			
		

> It's slightly baffling to me that folks would insist that Man shouldn't be perceived in relation to men. It has those connotations. You can't expect all of your readers to nod knowingly and say, "Ah of course, we are not talking about men but Man, from the Anglo-Saxon root wer, which is gender-neutral."



Newsflash (it appears I've said this a lot): your readers probably don't know the root Anglo-Saxon word of 'Man'. Hell, I didn't before this thread, and now I do, which is pretty neat. Even more hell, I'm guessing more than 90% of the English speaking population doesn't know it, either. What you do with that information is up to you. If you would prefer to still use archaic terms so as to create an archaic tone for your book, go ahead — as I've already stated, no one's gonna stop you. But me? I think I summed up my opinion best in the OP: I find it annoying ... end of. It's not some kind of great catastrophe, it just irks me a little bit whenever I come across it, pulls me out of the story, innit.

Finally, as for 'human' having too many syllables, *shrug* just personal opinion I guess. While a single syllable word like 'Man' arguably is stronger and more primal in that sense, I like the added, I dunno, _wobbliness_ that 'human' has precisely because it's two syllables. This perhaps relates to the tone of my stories, themes and worldbuilding; I like to get really philosophical, with characters exploring things like, well ... humanity, in an intellectual and, yes, clinical manner, even in my old fashioned settings. So the wobbliness of 'Human' works for me. Maybe it doesn't work for some because they want that more simple, primal sense that 'Man' gives. That's fine, so long as they're _thinking_ about it.

Because that's the only thing that matters. It doesn't matter if people choose to disregard all sociological implications of their art, that's their right of choice as an artist. All that matters is that they were confronted by those sociological implications and they thought about them before making their decision to disregard them.


----------



## Tom (Mar 21, 2016)

I'm out of Thanks, but if I could I'd give you a HUGE reputation boost, Gryphos. *claps*


----------



## Gryphos (Mar 21, 2016)

Tom Nimenai said:


> I'm out of Thanks, but if I could I'd give you a HUGE reputation boost, Gryphos. *claps*



*bows* *waves* I'm here all week!


----------



## FifthView (Mar 21, 2016)

As a totally irrelevant aside...Wouldn't it be cool if every time a major television network had a newsflash, what followed the splash was a report on language, creative writing, and so forth?


----------



## Tom (Mar 21, 2016)

That would be cool. It would also help generate more interest in the humanities, something our science-centric culture has unfortunately neglected.


----------



## WooHooMan (Mar 21, 2016)

WooHooMan said:


> I suggest re-reading this thread.  About half of the posts (including my own) speak against this language "castration" or using art to promote feminist political agendas.



Sorry, Nimue, I think I misread your post.
But still, about half of us argue in favor of using the word Man while half of us vote against it.
Just because there's some nasty implications and even name-calling doesn't mean you should give-up having a discussion.



Gryphos said:


> _the entire post_



Why did you make this thread?



Gryphos said:


> I mean, way to completely disregard the existence of half the human race...
> 
> ...But even nowadays, there seems to be a pervading sense of male-as-default in fantasy literature.
> 
> Discuss.



You wanted to discuss whether using Man to refer to all of humanity was okay or not?  If it reinforced a male-centered way of making/experiencing fiction?
My answer (and the answers of others in this thread) is that it's okay, while others say it is not okay.  And we all explain our reasoning.
You asked us to discuss and now it seems like you're upset at how we interpret the use or lack of use of the term Man.



Gryphos said:


> the PC conspiracy that totally exists and is threatening to turn our society into something out of a George Orwell novel *sarcasm*. Newsflash (again) (and I'll make it bold because it's important: *no one is being forced to change their language or do anything at all; that's just paranoia*. When I or anyone else criticise the use of 'Man' to refer to 'Humanity', we're not putting a gun to your head and demanding you change your every habit to conform to our political agenda (newsflash: everyone believes in freedom of speech and expression). When I or anyone else criticise something like that, we're merely, well, criticising it. You know, criticism, that vital aspect of freedom of speech. If you _are_ in a situation where someone is _demanding_ you change your art to accommodate them, you have every right to ask them: "who has two thumbs and doesn't give a crap?" The problem comes when you fail to see the distinction between that and simple criticism and polite request. Even if you are criticised, you can criticise their criticism and— oh, would you look at that! you've got yourself a constructive discussion. Ain't it great when people actually talk about things instead of knee-jerkingly reverting to a defensive state?



Your newsflashes doesn't align with what I've been exposed to.  
A colleague of mine (a college professor) got into trouble for using gendered words (specifically, the word "man") during a lecture.  It's conceivable that people's jobs could be on the line if they do not use the right speech in the right context and in that case, they can't just say "who has two thumbs and doesn't give a crap".

Gender politics is an often talked about issue in the field of social sciences and the use of language in either fighting against or in favor of perceived social injustices is being brought-up and discussed often.
There may not be people pointing guns at people's heads demanding they use the proper words but there are people discussing whether the current social climate is a danger to free speech.
You brought-up a video game.  Wasn't that whole Gamergate fiasco related to the danger of censorship (in the name of political correctness), journalistic ethics and the rights of creators and consumers?

It's easy to say "there's nothing going on, quit being so knee-jerky" but even if the world isn't turning into an Orwellian dystopia, there is something going on in culture and I'd say it's useful to discuss it someplace safe (which I assumed MS was).

Also, I really don't think anyone in this thread is getting too knee-jerky (except for ascanius back on page 1).  Honestly, I think you're being a little knee-jerky right now.  When you made this thread you should have expected to have people disagree with you, argue a counterpoint or delve into the subject deeper.  
And rule of thumb: if you make a thread in _anyway_ related to politics (gender, racial or governmental), things are going to get heated.



FifthView said:


> As a totally irrelevant aside...Wouldn't it be cool if every time a major television network had a newsflash, what followed the splash was a report on language, creative writing, and so forth?



Cool stuff like that doesn't sell unfortunately.
I would love it if you're watching TV and suddenly you hear "we interrupt this program for an important bulletin: the word 'hashtag' is now in the dictionary.  We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming".


----------



## Gryphos (Mar 21, 2016)

WooHooMan said:
			
		

> Your newsflashes don't align with what I've been exposed to.
> A colleague of mine (a college professor) got into trouble for using gendered words (specifically, the word "man") during a lecture. It's conceivable that people's jobs could be on the line if they do not use the right speech in the right context and in that case, they can't just say "who has two thumbs and doesn't give a crap".



Well no, such a display would probably get anyone fired. But I suppose what they could do is intellectually challenge the people confronting them. In a private institution like a college, the authorities have the right to dismiss people based on their code of conduct. If, after due discussion, the college authorities are unconvinced by the professor''s defence, then I would say it's well within their right to dismiss them. The way I see it, it's not much different from someone employed in customer service getting into trouble for bad conduct around customers. Whether or not it was right on a moral grounds for your colleague to get in trouble, I can't judge without knowing exactly what they said.



> Gender politics is an often talked about issue in the field of social sciences and the use of language in either fighting against or in favor of perceived social injustices is being brought-up and discussed often.
> There may not be people pointing guns at people's heads demanding they use the proper words but there are people discussing whether the current social climate is a danger to free speech.



Until physical laws and legal regulations are put in place that restrict what a person can say (in a public sense, excluding a setting of private employment), then I wouldn't say there is any danger to free speech. So long as you control your mouth (or your fingers) and whatever ideas you communicate will not lead to you being arrested, you have free speech. If people hate you for what you say and decide not to associate with you, that's their right.



> You brought-up a video game. Wasn't that whole Gamergate fiasco related to the danger of censorship (in the name of political correctness), journalistic ethics and the rights of creators and consumers?



At this point, I don't even know what Gamergate is. Tbh I never did, but from what I saw I decided not to affiliate myself with that movement due to it including what I saw as a mentality of paranoia and conservatism.

And a note: 'censorship' is a word that very often gets misused. It only applies to when an external body takes an artist's work and modifies it, not for when an artist edits their work after receiving criticism from their audience. I'm not suggesting you don't know thins, but since you mentioned it I just wanted to make sure.



> It's easy to say "there's nothing going on, quit being so knee-jerky" but even if the world isn't turning into an Orwellian dystopia, there is something going on in culture and I'd say it's useful to discuss it someplace safe (which I assumed MS was).



Oh abso-diddly-lutely! If there's one thing I want people to take away from this about me it's that I _want_ these things to be discussed. If you feel as though there is a dangerous shift in society, discuss it. Personally, I think that yes, there is a shift, towards an atmosphere of open criticism where before there was a lot more blind acceptance of 'how things just are'. But I see this as a good shift (even if, like always, there are some people who do take things too far; don't assume that I'm all on board with every single tenet of the so-called social justice movement, because I'm not).



> Also, I really don't think anyone in this thread is getting too knee-jerky (except for ascanius back on page 1). Honestly, I think you're being a little knee-jerky right now. When you made this thread you should have expected to have people disagree with you, argue a counterpoint or delve into the subject deeper.
> And rule of thumb: if you make a thread in anyway related to politics (gender, racial or governmental), things are going to get heated.



I counted on it. I wanted a discussion to take place, and it has, and now I feel a little bit more enlightened about how other people think. And I would hope you and everyone else who took part feels the same.


----------



## Devor (Mar 21, 2016)

I just want to take a moment to say:  Please, let's try not go down the gamergate pithole here.  Just, just skip past it.  There's such a difference between asking whether we should say "Man" or "Humanity" and the whole gamergate garbage.  It's just not worth bringing it up.


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 21, 2016)

Oh crap, someone brought up Gamergate. It's all downhill from here.


----------



## WooHooMan (Mar 21, 2016)

Ok, well, to get back on track...

Wait, what's this thread about?  I lost track somewhere around page 4.


----------



## Mythopoet (Mar 21, 2016)

I guess my thinking is that you can't address every sociological issue that might be triggered by your work. A lot of this stuff is very regional or niche. There's a certain segment of the population that is super concerned about it and they think it's the most important thing, but much of the world sees things completely differently. 

I think it's only a small segment of English speaking people who are really concerned with whether the use of "man" in the sense of "human" is going to hurt people's feelings and make them feel left out even though by definition the usage of the word is not leaving anyone out. And I'll be honest, I'm not really concerned about them. I believe that the whole point of storytelling is sharing your unique perspective and style and that modifying those things to suit your audience is generally a bad idea. If you genuinely prefer the usage of Man as in human then go for it. As long as you don't expect everyone to enjoy it.

The question remains how many people would be genuinely confused by the usage? From my perspective I'm not all that concerned with whether or not my prose choices are hurting people's feelings. If I hurt their feelings they can just never read my work again and that's fair enough. I don't expect my work to appeal to everyone. But I am concerned about creating confusion. I want my prose to be clear and easy to understand and easy to be immersed in. (Sheila's example of the usage in LOTR was interesting, but sounds like more of a translation error in judgement. Using the same word for males and for mankind doesn't make as much sense in other languages.)

Personally, I think "human" tends to sound more modern or more suitable for sci fi and sounds out of place in fantasy. But simply using "man" or "men" can certainly be confusing at times depending on the context. I'd probably opt for sticking with the term "mankind" to eliminate confusion. 

But a question that I find much more interesting than this one is how to you refer to males and females of a completely separate fantasy species (assuming it has males and females)? Using man and woman can be confusing, but using male and female sounds so much more clinical and over serious. You could make up terms, but you always have to tread carefully with made up terms which can often be even more confusing or end up just silly.


----------



## evolution_rex (Mar 21, 2016)

I wouldn't use the word 'man' to mean humanity if the story took place in a modern or near modern setting, and it's not part of my regular vocabulary. But I don't see anything wrong with using it, and I find it much more fitting in a medieval or similar age fantasy than the word 'humanity.' I have no idea about the historical accuracy or anything, but it just sounds much more poetic and older.


----------



## Devor (Mar 21, 2016)

Mythopoet said:


> But simply using "man" or "men" can certainly be confusing at times depending on the context. I'd probably opt for sticking with the term "mankind" to eliminate confusion.



Yeah, I've been meaning to ask, for those who are a little more irked by the word "men" in this context, would "mankind" or, I don't know, "manfolk" be any better?


----------



## Gryphos (Mar 21, 2016)

Devor said:


> Yeah, I've been meaning to ask, for those who are a little more irked by the word "men" in this context, would "mankind" or, I don't know, "manfolk" be any better?



'Mankind' isn't that bad to me, since it can be seen to be referring to the 'man' present in the word 'man' and 'woman'. I still obviously prefer 'humankind' though.


----------



## Trick (Mar 21, 2016)

While I am linguistically all for the words Man and Mankind being used, as they often are, to encompass the human race, I find that I don't actually use them very often. In my WIP, there are two major races, both of which would be interpreted as human by the reader, IMO. But they are different and are referred to by their unique races. Epyrians for one group, Merks for another group. Men and women are always exactly that, men or women and not both. This of course applies specifically to their physical gender since this work doesn't really delve into how people feel about their gender. If I do that in another work, I'll think on it more deeply before progressing. 

Of course, thinking about this, got me all riled up about something similar. I hate the color-based racial terms. The made-up ones I use are culture-based, and come from names that these people gave to themselves. Calling people 'whites' or 'blacks' etc. is far more bothersome to me than Mankind etc. Whenever I fill out a form where ten races are listed by the names they have chosen for themselves and I have to mark WHITE I feel a little... I don't know... grouped together with a bunch of people that I may or may not identify with. I'm Irish by race and American by birth. But to the great machine of society I'm just white (and I'm closer to peach, BTW, not that some Irish people aren't accurately called 'white' hehe). It disregards my culture I guess. And it isn't very accurate. Could you imagine if the next form you had to fill out had these options: White, Black, Brown, Red, Yellow? Wouldn't that be super racist? So why do two huge groups with a ton of diversity between them get lumped into two color categories as if they were all from the same spot in the crayon box of the world? And how exactly did we end up in color categories that aren't even accurate? Idk. Maybe it doesn't bother other people but it has always bugged me.


----------



## Ray M. (Mar 22, 2016)

In response to OP: in a medieval setting, I would use _Man_ instead of _Human_ because the latter sounds like a term coined in the later centuries (saying this without having looked it up). _Man_ sounds more natural in the common folk speech of medieval times to me. But I get where you're coming from.


----------



## valiant12 (Mar 22, 2016)

> In response to OP: in a medieval setting, I would use Man instead of Human because the latter sounds like a term coined in the later centuries (saying this without having looked it up). Man sounds more natural in the common folk speech of medieval times to me. But I get where you're coming from.



If you have nonhuman races in your world this will  be very confusing.


----------



## glutton (Mar 23, 2016)

I prefer humanity over man or mankind just because it sounds grander.

'All of humanity will fall under my sway' vs 'all of mankind will fall under my sway.'

Then, 'Humanity will never bow down to you! I will cut through your illusions and expose your falsehood!" and finally 'False god, you thought you could impose your will on humanity. But you couldn't even impose it on one girl. *Beep*'

Man or mankind in place of humanity would sound less cool there IMO XD.


----------



## NerdyCavegirl (Mar 30, 2016)

I prefer "human" in my own writing to refer our kind, if only because "man" is used to refer to the adult males of almost any hominid species. But as others seem to agree, the whole "politically correct" thing is much more annoying.


----------



## Mythopoet (Mar 31, 2016)

Just saw this post on tumblr where a linguist talks about the origin of she/he, woman and man, male/female, human and person. Thought it might be of interest. 

Oh-bro-no-blog Ã¢â‚¬” chris-the-libertarian: obsessedwithlanguages: ...


----------



## Russ (Mar 31, 2016)

Another interesting discussion of the evolution of the word "man" which ties in LOTR:

The Word Ã¢â‚¬ËœManÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ was Originally Gender Neutral


----------



## Vincent Lakes (Apr 2, 2016)

> However, man in traditional usage refers to the species, to humanity, or "mankind", as a whole. The usage persists in all registers of English although it has an old-fashioned tone.



I picked this line straight out of wikipedia, which is not always the most reliable source, but I think it shows that it's absolutely fine to use the term Men instead of Humans, which sounds a little awkward to me. There are other sources that indicate this as well (Merriam-Webster's one definition being "the human race"). It's old-fashioned, but is it outdated? I don't think so, although just recently I've noticed a slight movement away from it. In the hindsight I seem to have avoided this "problem" altogether with my world as I don't have a species or a race called Human at all (yay me  ). I don't have a problem with it; to me it's just a choice of personal preference.


----------

