Human vs Man

[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.

 

[Banten]

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.

 

[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.