What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Perdue Univ Writing Guide: No more "Men" words (1 Viewer)

The change to gender neutral occupation titles has been going on for years. The other changes make sense too. There’s no reason to fight this evolution in our language.

 
Juxtatarot said:
The change to gender neutral occupation titles has been going on for years. The other changes make sense too. There’s no reason to fight this evolution in our language.
Click to expand...
I agree but will add one thing - don’t go ape#### when someone like myself who has used these words my entire life keeps doing so out of habit*

*that’s a general statement and not directed at you 

 
Stereotyped language is any that assumes a stereotype about a group of people. For example, don't assume a common stereotype about blonde women:

Incorrect: Although she was blonde, Mary was still intelligent.

Revised: Mary was intelligent.
Click to expand...
:lmao:

 
After the Canadian Prime Minister stupidly said he prefers "people-kind" to mankind.....one of the female members of the opposition told him he needed to "people-up" in parliament. 

Love it!  Such BS. 

 
Women who attend Purdue have more hair on their chests and are more manly in general than 99% of the FBG posters so I'm not sure what to think here.

 
Dr. Octopus said:
"Man" has always been used generically to mean "human" (i.e. early-man, mankind, etc.)

And "people-kind" is stupid when there already is a better phrase "humankind"
Click to expand...
Just because something has always been one way doesn't mean it can't nor shouldn't evolve... and language is always doing just that. 

This is not something I get much worked up about, but I don't know why people feel the need to attack those that are merely trying to be more inclusive (in their language, their laws, their behaviors, policies and practices). 

If anything, isnt it more "stupid" (or just uncaring) to hold onto something they amounts to only a word, when there might be an evolution of language that is happening anyway, and perhaps for good reason.

 
Also there was a chick defending this on foxnews. She recommended instead "person". Which still has "son" in it. Sooooo, doh!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Koya said:
Just because something has always been one way doesn't mean it can't nor shouldn't evolve... and language is always doing just that. 

This is not something I get much worked up about, but I don't know why people feel the need to attack those that are merely trying to be more inclusive (in their language, their laws, their behaviors, policies and practices). 

If anything, isnt it more "stupid" (or just uncaring) to hold onto something they amounts to only a word, when there might be an evolution of language that is happening anyway, and perhaps for good reason.
Click to expand...
I do not really care either way - just offering an opinion why he may feel that way. I don't see how "mankind" is offensive and personally I had no idea woman were even offended by the word, but if so, I can see letting the language evolve.

"People-kind" just sounds stupid, when like I said we already have the word "humankind" that's a lesser used synonym for "mankind". 

 
Koya said:
Just because something has always been one way doesn't mean it can't nor shouldn't evolve... and language is always doing just that. 

This is not something I get much worked up about, but I don't know why people feel the need to attack those that are merely trying to be more inclusive (in their language, their laws, their behaviors, policies and practices). 

If anything, isnt it more "stupid" (or just uncaring) to hold onto something they amounts to only a word, when there might be an evolution of language that is happening anyway, and perhaps for good reason.
Click to expand...
Generally, I agree, but this seems like such ridiculous overkill just to try and make things difficult for others. I would absolutely be sure to call the woman who delivers my mail a "mailwoman", just like I'd call the woman who takes my trash cans a garbagewoman. I could even understand if Purdue was going the route of officially calling all first-year students "freshpeople (?)" or just "first years" because I can understand it to be awkward for a female to refer to herself as a freshman. 

But 99.99999999% of the population are saying "mankind" and similar words with zero intent to exclude women. It's just a word that means something we are trying to convey. Switching that to "peoplekind" is devolving language. 

 
Dr. Octopus said:
I do not really care either way - just offering an opinion why he may feel that way. I don't see how "mankind" is offensive and personally I had no idea woman were even offended by the word, but if so, I can see letting the language evolve.

"People-kind" just sounds stupid, when like I said we already have the word "humankind" that's a lesser used synonym for "mankind". 
Click to expand...
We now use the term Council Person, as opposed to councilman, as had been the case as recently as 10-15 years ago.  Things evolve.. and why must someone be "offended" to use language that is more accurate, if nothing else? We shouldn't have to be offended to accept that yesterday's words may no longer be the best representation of what we mean to describe, today. Especially with the vast evolution in the role of women in society as compared to 100, and even 50, years ago.

 
RUSF18 said:
Generally, I agree, but this seems like such ridiculous overkill just to try and make things difficult for others. I would absolutely be sure to call the woman who delivers my mail a "mailwoman", just like I'd call the woman who takes my trash cans a garbagewoman. I could even understand if Purdue was going the route of officially calling all first-year students "freshpeople (?)" or just "first years" because I can understand it to be awkward for a female to refer to herself as a freshman. 

But 99.99999999% of the population are saying "mankind" and similar words with zero intent to exclude women. It's just a word that means something we are trying to convey. Switching that to "peoplekind" is devolving language. 
Click to expand...
Again, I don't much care either way, but I don't see how being both more accurate and more inclusive is a devolution. 

FWIW, we used "first years" way back in 1991 at my college - then again, our name literally started with PC (Pomona College), and boy... errrr.. child of indeterminate gender... were we well beyond our years in terms of political correctness.  

My knee jerk reaction is that of yours... but when I think about it, the one's that need to "get over it" are those that feel some bind to "mankind" when that 100% connotes, by the etymology of the word itself, an emphasis on the male, not female, gender. 

 
Koya said:
We now use the term Council Person, as opposed to councilman, as had been the case as recently as 10-15 years ago.  Things evolve.. and why must someone be "offended" to use language that is more accurate, if nothing else? We shouldn't have to be offended to accept that yesterday's words may no longer be the best representation of what we mean to describe, today. Especially with the vast evolution in the role of women in society as compared to 100, and even 50, years ago.
Click to expand...
But "mankind" isn't a non-inclusive word in anyone's mind. It's always meant men, women and children. So it just seems unnecessary.

It's not a hill I want to die on though. I hope only the best for people-kind.

 
People-kind sure is better than what my college girlfriends mother tried to push.  She was a big time feminist, and tried to say the word "history" was offensive because it meant his story, which was a one sided male story to the exclusion of the female point of view.  So of course she wouldn't say history, but she would say herstory.  Which of course was completely neutral and unbiased in formation.

 
Koya said:
Again, I don't much care either way, but I don't see how being both more accurate and more inclusive is a devolution. 
Click to expand...
Because like I said, and to Doc Oc's point, just because three letters happen to spell out the word "man" it doesn't mean that the word mankind is meant to exclude all non-men. So people will start to try and say "peoplekind" and even the strongest feminists and those most supportive of this movement will undoubtedly first start to say "mankind" when it comes up naturally in conversation, they'll catch themselves, and then they'll say the longer word just for the purposes of saying it...and you turned a normally 0.3 second communication into a clumsy 1.2 second ordeal. I think of that as devolving our language. 

I heard a clip of some woman on Fox News talking about this topic. Someone said "do you think the city of 'Manchester' should change it's name?" and her response was basically "Uhh, well, I mean it has 'man' in there so yeah I guess it should." When those are the people fighting for your cause, you're going to fight a losing battle. 

And why would you call a female "councilman" a "councilperson" instead of a "councilwoman"?

 
RUSF18 said:
Because like I said, and to Doc Oc's point, just because three letters happen to spell out the word "man" it doesn't mean that the word mankind is meant to exclude all non-men. So people will start to try and say "peoplekind" and even the strongest feminists and those most supportive of this movement will undoubtedly first start to say "mankind" when it comes up naturally in conversation, they'll catch themselves, and then they'll say the longer word just for the purposes of saying it...and you turned a normally 0.3 second communication into a clumsy 1.2 second ordeal. I think of that as devolving our language. 

I heard a clip of some woman on Fox News talking about this topic. Someone said "do you think the city of 'Manchester' should change it's name?" and her response was basically "Uhh, well, I mean it has 'man' in there so yeah I guess it should." When those are the people fighting for your cause, you're going to fight a losing battle. 

And why would you call a female "councilman" a "councilperson" instead of a "councilwoman"?
Click to expand...
The name of a place and description of a group of people (which calls out literally by name only 1/2 the population) are far different.

As to councilperson, the idea is that you have 7 people on a board that are councilpersons.  Men, women, heck, transgendered what have you, the name councilman used to represent them all, but we have EVOLVED to a point where calling them a councilperson works for everyone. Again, I don't much mind, but those who seem virulently against a natural evolution of language do seem to feel that we should simply stand put as it's always been. 

Again, OTHER than the fact that "it's always been that way" what is wrong with person-kind? Why does its use upset or offend you when again, at worst, it's more inclusive (and it's simply wrong to say the word "man" is inclusive. It has a meaning, and that meaning is a person of the male gender)

 
RUSF18 said:
Because like I said, and to Doc Oc's point, just because three letters happen to spell out the word "man" it doesn't mean that the word mankind is meant to exclude all non-men. So people will start to try and say "peoplekind" and even the strongest feminists and those most supportive of this movement will undoubtedly first start to say "mankind" when it comes up naturally in conversation, they'll catch themselves, and then they'll say the longer word just for the purposes of saying it...and you turned a normally 0.3 second communication into a clumsy 1.2 second ordeal. I think of that as devolving our language. 

I heard a clip of some woman on Fox News talking about this topic. Someone said "do you think the city of 'Manchester' should change it's name?" and her response was basically "Uhh, well, I mean it has 'man' in there so yeah I guess it should." When those are the people fighting for your cause, you're going to fight a losing battle. 

And why would you call a female "councilman" a "councilperson" instead of a "councilwoman"?
Click to expand...
Save the People-atees. They are an endangered species.

Those People-gos look so fresh and delicious.

Have you ever been to the Museum of Natural History in People-hatten?

My People-ager is a real jerk. She wouldn't give me the day off.

Stop trying to people-ipulate me. I'm not falling for your persuasive ways.

I'm head to the salon for a people-icure.

Where is the people-ual for the vacuum cleaner. I want to see how to change the filter.

 
Pittsburgh did this decades ago when we collectively replaced the backwards phrase "you guys" with the much more progressive "yinz". I'm glad to see the rest of the country is finally beginning to catch up.

 
Koya said:
 Again, OTHER than the fact that "it's always been that way" what is wrong with person-kind? Why does its use upset or offend you when again, at worst, it's more inclusive (and it's simply wrong to say the word "man" is inclusive. It has a meaning, and that meaning is a person of the male gender)
Click to expand...
It upsets me because it's stupid to say when a simpler word conveys the same meaning. Any normal rational hu-person being when they say something like "since the beginning of mankind" or (like below) "this will benefit mankind" they are absolutely, positively talking about men, women, boys, girls and everything in between. 

As for your last sentence, I disagree and the dictionary has an updated definition of mankind and calls the "person of the male gender" definition archaic. So I will posit that YOU are the one who hasn't evolved, good sir. 

man·kind noun

1.

human beings considered collectively; the human race.

"research for the benefit of all mankind"

synonyms:the human race, man, humanity, human beings, humans, Homo sapiens, humankind, people, men and women

"for the good of all mankind"

2.

archaic

men, as distinct from women.
Click to expand...

 
Bull Dozier said:
People-kind sure is better than what my college girlfriends mother tried to push.  She was a big time feminist, and tried to say the word "history" was offensive because it meant his story, which was a one sided male story to the exclusion of the female point of view.  So of course she wouldn't say history, but she would say herstory.  Which of course was completely neutral and unbiased in formation.
Click to expand...
Hold tight buddy. I assume that will be coming down the pipe. 

 
RUSF18 said:
It upsets me because it's stupid to say when a simpler word conveys the same meaning. Any normal rational hu-person being when they say something like "since the beginning of mankind" or (like below) "this will benefit mankind" they are absolutely, positively talking about men, women, boys, girls and everything in between. 

As for your last sentence, I disagree and the dictionary has an updated definition of mankind and calls the "person of the male gender" definition archaic. So I will posit that YOU are the one who hasn't evolved, good sir. 
Click to expand...
Well, I do say...
 

My comment about the definition was to the word "man" (not mankind, not humankind).

But that's not to say I am evolved.  Hardly.

 
Koya said:
Just because something has always been one way doesn't mean it can't nor shouldn't evolve... and language is always doing just that. 

This is not something I get much worked up about, but I don't know why people feel the need to attack those that are merely trying to be more inclusive (in their language, their laws, their behaviors, policies and practices). 

If anything, isnt it more "stupid" (or just uncaring) to hold onto something they amounts to only a word, when there might be an evolution of language that is happening anyway, and perhaps for good reason.
Click to expand...
I am no linguologist, so I honestly don't know. Could you name me or explain to me the most recent equally wide sweeping "evolution" of the English language?

 
ShamrockPride said:
I am no linguologist, so I honestly don't know. Could you name me or explain to me the most recent equally wide sweeping "evolution" of the English language?
Click to expand...
I was speaking more in global terms rather than specifics, since there are numerous examples... but from the website Of the Linguistics Society:

Is English changing?

Yes, and so is every other human language! Language is always changing, evolving, and adapting to the needs of its users. This isn't a bad thing; if English hadn't changed since, say, 1950, we wouldn't have words to refer to modems, fax machines, or cable TV. As long as the needs of language users continue to change, so will the language. The change is so slow that from year to year we hardly notice it, except to grumble every so often about the ‘poor English’ being used by the younger generation! However, reading Shakespeare's writings from the sixteenth century can be difficult. If you go back a couple more centuries, Chaucer's Canterbury Tales are very tough sledding, and if you went back another 500 years to try to read Beowulf, it would be like reading a different language.

 
The answer is not to change all other reference words for people that contain man, the answer is to adopt a new word for the male of the human species. Something easily identifiable, preferably already widely used, such as ####### or ####heel.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Joe Bryant
Joe Looking For Your Thoughts - The Challenges and Opportunities of AI
2
Replies
72
Views
2K
Uruk-Hai
Uruk-Hai
Joe Bryant
A Glimpse of Beauty In an Ugly Place
Replies
0
Views
231
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
5 Practices For A New Year
Replies
0
Views
275
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top