Human vs Man

[Mindfire]

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]

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]

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:

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Tom]

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]

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]

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

 

[Gryphos]

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:

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]

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

 

[Gryphos]

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]

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]

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

 

[WooHooMan]

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.

the entire post

Why did you make this thread?

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[WooHooMan]

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

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