http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/man-3
Alt text
All I’m saying is show me one – just ONE – woman who ever dug a 200,000 gallon boner-lake. I’ll wait.
Bonus panel
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/man-3
All I’m saying is show me one – just ONE – woman who ever dug a 200,000 gallon boner-lake. I’ll wait.
Language evolves.
Also, do we really want a gendered language? Where does that leave people who aren’t wermen or wifmen?
It did evolve already so that in some contexts “man” can refer to male gendered individuals. However, that doesn’t mean that the gender neutral and inclusive term “man” is suddenly gone. E.g. man-made, mankind, man-eater, etc.
And why can’t it keep evolving? Human-made, humanity, human-eater, etc.
Nothing I said implies that’s wrong, can’t happen, or is not happening. Choosing to use those forms for yourself is fine. I do so often. The problem is when a person claims that the term “man-made” is gendered, which pushes an already neutral term into being needlessly gendered. It creates a new exclusion that is contrary to the ideal. It others people by pushing a new definition onto someone who very likely is not being exclusive.
If we had a gendered romantic language, with wifman and werman, then “man” would be a neutral term. We don’t have that language, though, and so “man” is not a neutral term and implies gender. This is just how the language evolved under patriarchy. Now that patriarchy is in decline the language is evolving again, to remove “man” and replace it with a neutral term.
It’s probably too late to go back and re-romanticize the language, but if you want to try you’re welcome to it I guess.
You’re referencing a specific context, though. In the context of referring to gender, “man” does indeed mean the male gender. However, “man” in other contexts still does mean humans as a whole, as shown in the examples I’ve already provided. There is no need to force that context into all uses, especially when an individual is clearly not being exclusive.
“Human” based forms of the terms that include the original neutral “man” are not prevalent enough to make that distinction. The best we can do is to change our own choice of words until those are the new default, and at that point the “man” based forms would be a specific choice to imply gender. The language has not evolved to that point yet.
Well languages don’t just evolve spontaneously either. They’re a human project that we’re always tinkering with.
You’re just living through a period of evolution. We change our own choice of words until those are the default, and we encourage other people to do the same, and before you know it “man” has become archaic.
Encouraging language to evolve should not involve othering people by telling them their neutral language is gendered. It should come from making a personal choice of which words you want to use. That’s the core of everything I’ve been saying. I have not said anything about not wanting change or that it’s bad. I am simply stating that the term “man”, currently and historically, is not always gendered in all contexts, and implying that it is creates an issue of excluding people which is contrary to the core idea of inclusivity.
You keep essentially repeating the same thing, which I’m not exactly refuting or disagreeing with. You also have not approached my main point about pushing a different meaning onto other people. So, I’m not sure what your point is. Do you think it’s okay for people to force their own, objectively incorrect, interpretation of someone’s speech? Do you think it’s okay to try to force the language to change by using emotionally manipulative tactics? Should language be changed at the expense of other’s feelings by deciding to interpret their words in a context that is clearly not implied? Because that’s what I’m disagreeing with. Otherwise, choosing to use language you prefer, based on good intentions, is a great thing.
What you fail to recognize is that there are two forces evolving language. While many of us try to remove “man” because it is gendered, there are misogynists that use “man” because it is gendered.
You’re caught in the cross fire and now you have to pick a side. I see nothing wrong with forcing you to pick my side by pointing out the fact that, if you don’t, you are actively choosing to side with the misogynists.
It’s sus that you’re resisting this so hard. 🤔
Yea but when I say ’ nobody uses the “r” word to talk about people with actual intellectual disabilities and the word has changed to just mean very dumb’, nobody can grasp the concept.
That’s not the case though. While it’s no longer formally preferred, many people still use the term with no pejorative intent to describe a range of intellectual disabilities and neurodivergence. (Generally I’ve heard it from family and professional caregivers.) The word itself is not the problem; its use as an ableist slur is.
The thing about insulting someone for being very dumb is that it’s inherently ableist no matter what language you use. Do you think this person chose to be less intelligent than you? It’s better to criticize flaws in their reasoning or to point out falsehoods.
Ok cool, I get your points.
Do you think its alright to use dumb and stupid? Because those words pretty much have the same root as the r slur.
I imagine Idiot is ok because it comes from the greek for common man.
I kind of think you’re overthinking the whole “root of the reason” for using words like “dumbass”, its just a mental stress reliever.
Somebody cuts you off in traffic you say motherfucker and you feel kinda better for just instantly getting it out of your system instead of keeping it bottled up, you don’t sit there and go through a Buddhist podcast about forgiveness and suffering and think about how difficult life must be for that motherfucker that cut you off, and how she probably was distracted by her kids or stressed about something.
Also I don’t think its necessarily ableist, people can do a dumb thing and be called a dumbass for it, doesn’t make them irredeemably dumb. A thought can be dumb, you can say it and sound dumb, doesn’t make you dumb forever.
Except it didn’t change, it’s still used as a slur to talk about people with actual intellectual disabilities. You can’t avoid that.
The evolution of language isn’t a personal choice, it’s done on a societal level.
That’s fair, I guess its just changed in my social circle, but I disagree with your second point.
Society is made up of people and the way we use words changes their meaning over time. There isn’t a dictionary committee that decides what words mean, words change based on how individuals use them on a daily basis.
That’s an example of a different scenario, where a single term changes in meaning. In the case for “man”, a separate term evolved. “Man” never stopped having the meaning of “humans as a whole”. Instead, it evolved a different meaning in certain contexts. “Man” also isn’t used as a slur, which makes using the word you chose as an example not equivalent.
There’s just no need to push “man” in these kinds of context into being gendered when it’s not. Choosing to use another term is great, but it’s not great to impose onto others.
So words evolve unless they become slurs.
Edit: Yea just terminate thought and downvote, very productive discussion. “Words change meaning unless we decide to ignore the new meaning of the word.”
Im honestly just trying to have a conversation about this, because me and all my friends are progressive people, and none of us see the ‘r’ word as badly as it is perceived online. But whatever its cool, the slur treadmill continues, see you in 50 years when idiot becomes the “i” slur.