Human vs Man

[Gryphos]

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]

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]

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 Using an outdated term for humanity that also happens to refer to male humans can be seen as exclusionary to literally half the planet's human population.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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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".

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.

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]

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]

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 podríamos hacerlo, aunque todos fuéramos 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.