Human vs Man

[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.

 

[Mythopoet]

I guess my thinking is that you can't address every sociological issue that might be triggered by your work. A lot of this stuff is very regional or niche. There's a certain segment of the population that is super concerned about it and they think it's the most important thing, but much of the world sees things completely differently.

I think it's only a small segment of English speaking people who are really concerned with whether the use of "man" in the sense of "human" is going to hurt people's feelings and make them feel left out even though by definition the usage of the word is not leaving anyone out. And I'll be honest, I'm not really concerned about them. I believe that the whole point of storytelling is sharing your unique perspective and style and that modifying those things to suit your audience is generally a bad idea. If you genuinely prefer the usage of Man as in human then go for it. As long as you don't expect everyone to enjoy it.

The question remains how many people would be genuinely confused by the usage? From my perspective I'm not all that concerned with whether or not my prose choices are hurting people's feelings. If I hurt their feelings they can just never read my work again and that's fair enough. I don't expect my work to appeal to everyone. But I am concerned about creating confusion. I want my prose to be clear and easy to understand and easy to be immersed in. (Sheila's example of the usage in LOTR was interesting, but sounds like more of a translation error in judgement. Using the same word for males and for mankind doesn't make as much sense in other languages.)

Personally, I think "human" tends to sound more modern or more suitable for sci fi and sounds out of place in fantasy. But simply using "man" or "men" can certainly be confusing at times depending on the context. I'd probably opt for sticking with the term "mankind" to eliminate confusion.

But a question that I find much more interesting than this one is how to you refer to males and females of a completely separate fantasy species (assuming it has males and females)? Using man and woman can be confusing, but using male and female sounds so much more clinical and over serious. You could make up terms, but you always have to tread carefully with made up terms which can often be even more confusing or end up just silly.

 

[evolution_rex]

I wouldn't use the word 'man' to mean humanity if the story took place in a modern or near modern setting, and it's not part of my regular vocabulary. But I don't see anything wrong with using it, and I find it much more fitting in a medieval or similar age fantasy than the word 'humanity.' I have no idea about the historical accuracy or anything, but it just sounds much more poetic and older.

 

[Devor]

But simply using "man" or "men" can certainly be confusing at times depending on the context. I'd probably opt for sticking with the term "mankind" to eliminate confusion.

Yeah, I've been meaning to ask, for those who are a little more irked by the word "men" in this context, would "mankind" or, I don't know, "manfolk" be any better?

 

[Gryphos]

Yeah, I've been meaning to ask, for those who are a little more irked by the word "men" in this context, would "mankind" or, I don't know, "manfolk" be any better?

'Mankind' isn't that bad to me, since it can be seen to be referring to the 'man' present in the word 'man' and 'woman'. I still obviously prefer 'humankind' though.

 

[Trick]

While I am linguistically all for the words Man and Mankind being used, as they often are, to encompass the human race, I find that I don't actually use them very often. In my WIP, there are two major races, both of which would be interpreted as human by the reader, IMO. But they are different and are referred to by their unique races. Epyrians for one group, Merks for another group. Men and women are always exactly that, men or women and not both. This of course applies specifically to their physical gender since this work doesn't really delve into how people feel about their gender. If I do that in another work, I'll think on it more deeply before progressing.

Of course, thinking about this, got me all riled up about something similar. I hate the color-based racial terms. The made-up ones I use are culture-based, and come from names that these people gave to themselves. Calling people 'whites' or 'blacks' etc. is far more bothersome to me than Mankind etc. Whenever I fill out a form where ten races are listed by the names they have chosen for themselves and I have to mark WHITE I feel a little... I don't know... grouped together with a bunch of people that I may or may not identify with. I'm Irish by race and American by birth. But to the great machine of society I'm just white (and I'm closer to peach, BTW, not that some Irish people aren't accurately called 'white' hehe). It disregards my culture I guess. And it isn't very accurate. Could you imagine if the next form you had to fill out had these options: White, Black, Brown, Red, Yellow? Wouldn't that be super racist? So why do two huge groups with a ton of diversity between them get lumped into two color categories as if they were all from the same spot in the crayon box of the world? And how exactly did we end up in color categories that aren't even accurate? Idk. Maybe it doesn't bother other people but it has always bugged me.

 

[Ray M.]

In response to OP: in a medieval setting, I would use Man instead of Human because the latter sounds like a term coined in the later centuries (saying this without having looked it up). Man sounds more natural in the common folk speech of medieval times to me. But I get where you're coming from.

 

[valiant12]

In response to OP: in a medieval setting, I would use Man instead of Human because the latter sounds like a term coined in the later centuries (saying this without having looked it up). Man sounds more natural in the common folk speech of medieval times to me. But I get where you're coming from.

If you have nonhuman races in your world this will be very confusing.

 

[glutton]

I prefer humanity over man or mankind just because it sounds grander.

'All of humanity will fall under my sway' vs 'all of mankind will fall under my sway.'

Then, 'Humanity will never bow down to you! I will cut through your illusions and expose your falsehood!" and finally 'False god, you thought you could impose your will on humanity. But you couldn't even impose it on one girl. *Beep*'

Man or mankind in place of humanity would sound less cool there IMO XD.

 

[NerdyCavegirl]

I prefer "human" in my own writing to refer our kind, if only because "man" is used to refer to the adult males of almost any hominid species. But as others seem to agree, the whole "politically correct" thing is much more annoying.

 

[Mythopoet]

Just saw this post on tumblr where a linguist talks about the origin of she/he, woman and man, male/female, human and person. Thought it might be of interest.

Oh-bro-no-blog  chris-the-libertarian: obsessedwithlanguages: ...

 

[Russ]

Another interesting discussion of the evolution of the word "man" which ties in LOTR:

The Word ‘Man’ was Originally Gender Neutral

 

[Vincent Lakes]

However, man in traditional usage refers to the species, to humanity, or "mankind", as a whole. The usage persists in all registers of English although it has an old-fashioned tone.

I picked this line straight out of wikipedia, which is not always the most reliable source, but I think it shows that it's absolutely fine to use the term Men instead of Humans, which sounds a little awkward to me. There are other sources that indicate this as well (Merriam-Webster's one definition being "the human race"). It's old-fashioned, but is it outdated? I don't think so, although just recently I've noticed a slight movement away from it. In the hindsight I seem to have avoided this "problem" altogether with my world as I don't have a species or a race called Human at all (yay me ). I don't have a problem with it; to me it's just a choice of personal preference.