1 of 2
1
Man Vs. Marine
Posted: 30 June 2016 05:46 AM   [ Ignore ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5900
Joined  2007-01-03

The US Marine Corps and non-sexist language

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 June 2016 07:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  564
Joined  2013-10-14

I find these changes just a little bit ironic since the word man at one time referred to human beings irrespective of sex. I think it started referring exclusively to males around the 20th Century.

How do we change the word, mankind, does it just become obsolete?

[ Edited: 30 June 2016 09:54 PM by Logophile ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2016 03:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5900
Joined  2007-01-03

While man has always been used to refer to humans regardless of sex, it has also always been used to refer exclusively to males. From Ælfric’s Life of St. Eugenia (one of the cross-dressing saints):

He genam hi þa onsundron and sæde hyre gewislice hwæt heo man ne wæs.

(He then took here aside and said to her assuredly how she was no man.)

And when used to mean human, man has always had the connotation of male. For instance, when Jefferson wrote “all men are created equal” and deserving of political freedom, he certainly was not including women among them. (Mary Wollstonecraft wouldn’t pen A Vindication of the Rights of Women until another, more egalitarian, revolution sixteen years later.)

It’s not that people started to use man to refer only to men in the latter half of the twentieth century, rather that’s when people started to seriously object to the sexist usage that had always been there.

And as for mankind, you can always use humanity.

[ Edited: 01 July 2016 05:55 AM by Dave Wilton ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2016 05:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1535
Joined  2007-01-29

Make mine hupersonity.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2016 08:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2722
Joined  2007-01-30

The USAF has announced that it will not be following suit.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2016 09:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  866
Joined  2007-02-07
aldiboronti - 01 July 2016 08:01 AM

The USAF has announced that it will not be following suit.

Assuming they would like to follow suit, what choice do they have… airperson?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2016 10:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5900
Joined  2007-01-03

And there is, of course, this famous play on the double meaning of man.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2016 01:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4186
Joined  2007-01-29

And here I thought you were going to link to Hamlet: “Man delights not me; no, nor woman neither; though by your smiling you seem to say so.”

Edit: Hey, I broke 4000!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2016 08:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  564
Joined  2013-10-14

And as for mankind, you can always use humanity.

But that would not change the connotation nor would it change the derivation; hu-MAN-ity.

http://etymonline.com/index.php
Human: mid-15c., humain, humaigne, “human,” from Old French humain, umain (adj.) “of or belonging to man” (12c.), from Latin humanus “of man, human,” also “humane, philanthropic, kind, gentle, polite; learned, refined, civilized.” This is in part from PIE *(dh)ghomon-, literally “earthling, earthly being,” as opposed to the gods (see homunculus). Compare Hebrew adam “man,” from adamah “ground.” Cognate with Old Lithuanian zmuo (accusative zmuni) “man, male person.”

My point is that there are too many words that refer or derive from man or male that would have to be eliminated or substituted for gender-neutral purposes; woman being one of them followed by homo sapiens.
.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2016 02:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1429
Joined  2007-02-14
Logophile - 01 July 2016 08:59 PM

And as for mankind, you can always use humanity.

But that would not change the connotation nor would it change the derivation; hu-MAN-ity.

http://etymonline.com/index.php
Human: mid-15c., humain, humaigne, “human,” from Old French humain, umain (adj.) “of or belonging to man” (12c.), from Latin humanus “of man, human,” also “humane, philanthropic, kind, gentle, polite; learned, refined, civilized.” This is in part from PIE *(dh)ghomon-, literally “earthling, earthly being,” as opposed to the gods (see homunculus). Compare Hebrew adam “man,” from adamah “ground.” Cognate with Old Lithuanian zmuo (accusative zmuni) “man, male person.”

My point is that there are too many words that refer or derive from man or male that would have to be eliminated or substituted for gender-neutral purposes; woman being one of them followed by homo sapiens.
.

Just because it uses man in the definition doesn’t mean that man is part of the Latin word.  The hum is from the PIE root dhghem-.  The -an- is an affix that the AHD states is from the PIE -on.  The -us on the end is just a Latin suffix.

There was once, on the campus of Cornell University, an event that involved many people unfamiliar with the building it was held in, and someone thoughtfully put up signs directing people to the restrooms.  The sign directing people to the women’s restroom was labeled Ladies’ Room.  Someone crossed out Ladies’ and wrote Women’s. Someone else skipped a step, crossed out Women’s and wrote in Woperdaughters’.

[ Edited: 02 July 2016 02:34 AM by Faldage ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2016 04:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5900
Joined  2007-01-03

But that would not change the connotation nor would it change the derivation; hu-MAN-ity.

As Faldage points out, that’s a false etymology.

My point is that there are too many words that refer or derive from man or male that would have to be eliminated or substituted for gender-neutral purposes; woman being one of them followed by homo sapiens.

Woman does indeed have -man as its root (derived from the OE wif-man), but Homo sapiens has absolutely nothing to do with it. Even if Latin usage were relevant to a discussion of English, unlike man, Latin use of homo as distinctly male is quite rare.

But the point isn’t to change all words that have man in them somewhere; it’s to change job titles, which make it seem as if women are incapable, or at least less capable, of doing the work of a man.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 July 2016 12:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  564
Joined  2013-10-14

But that would not change the connotation nor would it change the derivation; hu-MAN-ity.

As Faldage points out, that’s a false etymology.

It might be a false etymology, but the connotation refers to human beings collectively. It’s also defined as the human race.

...but Homo sapiens has absolutely nothing to do with it. Even if Latin usage were relevant to a discussion of English, unlike man, Latin use of homo as distinctly male is quite rare.

Homo in Latin translates to man or human being .

Latin Homo has been introduced into the English lexicon for many years now. I wouldn’t think it’s too uncommon of a word; nevertheless, it’s recognized in English dictionaries and has been frequently used in English literature. 

Shakespeare in Henry IV Homo is a common name to al men. 
A. Conan Doyle Land of Mist i. 13 Homo Sapiens! Homo idioticus! Who do they pray to—the ghosts?

And also English newspapers:
N.Y. Rev. Bks. 23 June 47/2 Homo sapiens has become homo telephonans , all that is solid melts into air, the center will not hold.

I understand that homo, mankind, and occasionally man, are generically used for both sexes; nonetheless, using the word man meaning humans is frowned on, by some, for supposedly being sexist, notwithstanding its original meaning. The use of the word man in that manner has been less common in the last 50 years.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 July 2016 01:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5900
Joined  2007-01-03

Homo in Latin translates to man or human being .

As I noted above, that’s man in the general sense. Latin use of homo to mean a male human being is rare, and it’s utterly absent when the word is used in English. The sexist connotation doesn’t exist for homo.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2016 10:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2722
Joined  2007-01-30

You’re batting on a sticky wicket with this one, Logophile.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2016 05:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  481
Joined  2007-02-13

Re: infantryman vs rifleman.

Infantrymen are comprised of a number of different roles.  The smallest of small units is the fireteam, which consists of four to six marines: a grenadier (who is usually the leader), an automatic rifleman, an assistant automatic rifleman, and one to three riflemen.

Why one term is acceptable over another could be because one is more of an official job specialty (infantryman), while another is merely a role within a fireteam.

The Navy is also considering altering some of the titles of their ratings (job specialties) and ranks.  Some will be quite easy to change (Aircrew Survival Equipmentman could become Aircrew Survival Technician, for instance), while others will be more challenging (such as Airman).  What is puzzling is that, unilke the Marine Corps, women have been serving in these Navy ranks and ratings for decades without controversy. 

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2016/01/07/navy-looks-remove-man-all-job-titles/78415190/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2016 11:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1535
Joined  2007-01-29

I can’t understand why anyone is upset by perfectly ordinary words, correctly applied and without malice aforethought.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1
 
‹‹ Great      Yiddish and Criminals' Argot ››