Human vs Man

[Gryphos]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

"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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Devouring Wolf]

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.

 

[Ireth]

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.

 

[Devouring Wolf]

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.

Its been drilled into me that its an incorrect and confusing way of saying things. I can't bring myself to use it, not even in everyday speech and especially not in writing. Its so ingrained in me, that I want to cringe when other people use it. It really it would be great if he had something better that had distinct singular and plural forms.

 

[Gryphos]

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[Devouring Wolf]

I don't think there's anything wrong with using humanity rather than man or mankind. If that's what you want to do, go ahead with it. I just don't see using man or men to refer to the human race as a problem. I think Tom Nimenai is right in that humanity and man evoke different feelings. Humanity feels more modern to me and since I'm writing medievalesque fantasy, it doesn't suite my story. I would probably use humanity rather than men if my story was grounded in a setting not meant to evoke things from our world's past. The "Age of Men" evokes, at least in my mind images of castles and knights, where as the "Age of Humankind" feels broader to me and doesn't set an expectation in my mind.

I for one, actually don't use either that often, I invent terms for humanity like "the Frail Race" or "Children of Earth" (as opposed to the children of the sea)

But like I said, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with using man. I think we all understand that the human race has at least two genders (some societies count more)

 

[Devor]

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]

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. ¬.¬

 

[TheKillerBs]

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]

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.