"Mankind" is not acceptable, is it?

Is this a serious question?

I don’t find it worth nit picking at.

of course, I am very disappointed at Obama, he should know better.

I still remember his “sweetie” comment to the reporter back in the primary, and giving the middle finger to Hillary Clinton.

Do i think he is a sexist? NO.

But he is not exactly a feminist either, deep inside, if he can’t get the terms correct and let out these “innocent” slips.

I know people will call me PC, but when men are being referred as a she or part of the womankind, I am sure the men would feel the same way I do.

Not to mention what he said about Hillary back in the primary

“You challenge the status quo and suddenly the claws come out,” Obama said.

and

“I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal,” Obama told reporters.

I remember my high school english teacher telling us that the masculine term used to be used for both sexes. Like, instead of ‘s/he’, people used to just right ‘he’.

Also, you are nitpicking. How about changing your definition of ‘mankind’?

No. The concept of PC modification to language is ludicrous. It is mankind. Women are a part of mankind – always have been.

Man can mean a man, or human beings in general.

@airowDee maybe you prefer trollkind?

if he said ‘man and womankind’ or something like that, i’d just think he’s being a smartass.

what if he said “trannykind”, just to cover all the bases?

Meh. It’s the accepted word. No biggie. I agree with @tiffyandthewall that it would stick out if he used different wording. Maybe “humankind might have been a little better, but I don’t see the point of nit picking this issue.

@Likeradar _ it would stick out if he used different wording._

According to the implication in that news photo a few months back, it only sticks out when a good looking young French girl bends over in front of him.

has tiffany heard of the term “humankind”?

@airowDee nobody’s heard of that term. that would only apply if other species were involved. i mean, you’re obviously from another planet, but don’t drag in exceptions.

A debate over semantics. How incredibly stimulating.

I didn’t realize “humankind” was foreign to some people. That’s pretty much all I say, but not because I think “mankind” is sexist. “Mankind” refers to all humans and has nothing to do with excluding women. The word “man” doesn’t just mean a male human, it can refer to humans in general.

It’s perfectly acceptable. No problem with it unless you’re an extreme feminist. If you want just change it in your head to ‘humanity’.

Humankind is a standard word around where i live. If you have trouble adapting to inclusive languages, that means you are not really serious about women’s rights as much as you should be, if you consider yourself to be a human rights champion.

Blacks people do not want to be called the n word, language evolve, people who are too stubborn and continue sticking to non inclusive traditional languages are just not ready to give up on their privileges or “traditonal” way of thinking that marginalizes other people’s existence. This is done consciously or unconsciously.

You can say it however many time you want, mankind, he, salesman, businessman, they are NOT terms that are inclusive to women.

@eponymoushipster

no one has heard of humankind?

thats strange, when i type the word “humankind” into google’s search engine, 4,800,000 pages for humankind shows up.

People have heard of “humankind.” The word probably just doesn’t come to mind. If you want to nit pick, “human” has the word “man” in it as well.

‘He’ is a gender-neutral term and it’s always been so. What would you rather us use to replace it? ‘It’? ‘Heshe’?

@airowDee how many times does “mankind” come up?

“Man” is a general term. Ever notice how it’s even in the word “Human”, Dee?
Yes, it can mean those who have penises. It also is used to describe the collective humankind.

I think you seriously need to quit reading into this shit so much.

Wiktionary :
1. An adult male human.
2. A mensch; a person of integrity and honor.
3. An abstract person; any man or woman.
4. (collective) All humans collectively; mankind. Also Man.
5. A piece or token used in board games such as chess.

Dictionary.com:
1. an adult male person, as distinguished from a boy or a woman.
2. a member of the species Homo sapiens or all the members of this species collectively, without regard to sex: prehistoric man.
3. the human individual as representing the species, without reference to sex; the human race; humankind: Man hopes for peace, but prepares for war.
4. a human being; person: to give a man a chance; When the audience smelled the smoke, it was every man for himself.

Merriam-Webster:
1 a (1) : an individual human; especially : an adult male human

Mick Foley?

And don’t get me wrong. I like President Obama, he is 100 times better than Bush or McCain. However, his poor do nothing record on GLBT rights plus his pattern of using sexist languages show that he is not an agent of change when it comes to women’s right or gay rights, mostly, he is following the pattern of 90s democrats. Not a progressive.

Hell, he might even be especially nice to women, in psychology, we call it benevolent sexism. And most people don’t have problem with Obama not doing much of anything for gays or women, because they think the equality business is not really a big deal ,for them, for “most mankind”.

His “do nothing record” has what to do with the word “mankind” being unacceptable, Dee?

@airowDee whatever

I wonder if sheeple is a sexist term….

@airowDee I agree with you about Obama on the gay rights issues, but that’s no reason to over-examine everything.

@cheebdragon It is! Female “Sheeple” should be “Eweple”! HOW DARE THOSE SEXIST SWINE FORCE EVERYONE TO BE UNDER THE CATEGORY OF SHEEP! JEEZ

i think everyone should be like a ken doll, smooth and no genitals.

then everyone could refer to everyone else as “it’.

Yeah, Obama could have already include gays in the military, and scrap don’t ask don’t tell, and ban discrimination on gays, lesbians , bi, and trans people in the workplace. I can’t believe how the democratically controlled congress and the white house fail to do anything to progress the rights of minorities. I mean, i actually do believe it.

Feminists and gays are second thoughts to the Obama administration. Studies show that one’s attitude about women(equality rights) is very much related to one’s attitude towards issues like gay rights.

Obama is NOT bad on those issues, but definately not a big supporter. Anyway, whatever, I am done with this. If you don’t know how terms like mankind is exclusive and marginalizing to women’s experience, than there’s nothing i can say to change your mind about it. I dont think there is a big conspiracy on Obama ‘s part to suppress women., btw.

@airowDee why don’t you move to sweden or something then? some country where you can go rut a horse and buy a dime bag freely?

@airowDee I agree with you that Obama isn’t doing as much as he could for human, especially gay, rights. However, I just don’t see his use of the term “mankind” as a reflection of this.

I still don’t see what this has to do with the topic you initially posted about.

@airowDee I think your focused on a red herring…

@Sarcasm duh, he needed a “question” in order to soapbox.

I do, as a lawyer, and someone who went to Havard, and is known as a great speech giver, how can it not come across his mind when he uses “mankind” lol

Maybe he was not careful enough, but thats an indication that he is not sensitive enough. Using gender inclusive language should come as a second nature for someone like the president of the United states and a Harvard Lawyer, a Constitutional professor for god’s sake. This is the climate change speech to the United Nation. Not a bed time conversation with his daughters.

I can see why some people are complaining (I don’t agree however) but why are Christians complaining? God couldn’t get it right after two thousand years of trying. Why pick on Obama after just a few months?

As we are totally off track here I thought that I would throw that in.

Using gender inclusive language
Check my first post in this thread @airowDee, I posted definitions from 3 different dictionaries. “man” is gender inclusive.

yes, and you can go find a dictionary that states marriage is between a man and a woman, not in Canada. Using a dictionary is not like presenting a trump card.

This is the first time in my life I’ve ever heard people contesting the use of the word ‘makind’, in case that adds anything to this discussion.

“He” vs “He/She”, sure… But.. Mankind…? My gosh…

It doesn’t particularly bother me, though I agree that ‘humankind’ would be better.

Henceforth, let us with firm resolve to use Homo-sapiens/ Homo-sexuals as the PC way of referring to anyone. In this way nobody will be left out. :-)

@majorrich _Henceforth, let us with firm resolve to use Homo-sapiens/ Homo-sexuals as the PC way of referring to anyone. _

So you think that we are all bunch of homos? (It wouldn’t take long to shorten it to that.)

Homo-erectus? heh heh heh I mean Hillary is a man, I think. or perhaps she thinks.

@Darkside So you think that we are all bunch of homos? (It wouldn’t take long to shorten it to that.)

Perhaps for you. I am a eunuch. Spawned already. Cancer took all that away from me anyway.

I am waiting monsieur

The language we use does shape the way we think, and human kind, or all people (or something along those lines) would have been more appropriate, but even human has the word man in it. I’m not that bothered. Though I think you’re right about his lack of thought. In the past I would have said I expected more from him, but not any longer.

@majorrich I am a eunuch. Spawned already. Cancer took all that away from me anyway.

Ouch!

I came close (with the cancer) but managed to scrape through in the end.

I’m thinking we could break it all down to micro differences.
Caucasus-Republicanis-californium-urbanis
Negris Africanis urbanis
Asius,Midwesticus-suburbis
Coyotis-supergenius.
that should jump start this discussion.

I think this is all being blown WAY out of proportion. As if President Obama doesn’t have enough to think about (health care reform, trying to repair the economy, Iraq, Afganistan, and geez what else??). Give the guy a break already!

@majorrich I’m thinking we could break it all down to micro differences.
Caucasus-Republicanis-californium-urbanis
Negris Africanis urbanis
Asius,Midwesticus-suburbis
Coyotis-supergenius.
that should jump start this discussion.

Just stick with “people”.

i say we break it down this way:

Bangable

Everyone else.

wow…..really? i mean really?!
stop complaining about trivial matters.

This discussion just makes me want to crawl under a humanhole cover. Maybe I’ll write my Congresshuman about this pressing issue and keep an eye out for the mailhuman to bring me the response.

Yes, because Obama used the word mankind instead of humankind it just goes to prove that he’s no friend to gays, being that after all he hasn’t somehow managed while juggling two wars, the worst economy since the Great Depression and reforming our entire for profit health care system to have overcome centuries of prejudicial treatment against gays in his first 8 months in office.

I think bringing it up on Fluther is perfect.
But bringing it up in a political setting would be a wasteful distraction from more solid issues.

All your reasons for not liking the word in the context the President used it, are logical and accurate. But, still, it’s abstract, and nobody’s getting hurt really. So it’s not a huge deal compared to our government killing innocent people (real, grown people), and covering up war crimes, and engaging in violent social wars such as the drug war, and things like that.
It would be a shame if someone made a big deal out of an anachronistic word that’s still used, and then suddenly Fox News is twisting that around 24/7 for 3 weeks, using it to pull people away from big important truths. Then the progressive good people (is it okay to say good guys?) would be pulled into the meaningless time-wasting argument eventually, distracting them from achieving true reforms. Plus, most people justify that word now because its meaning is actually Humankind and everyone knows that, despite the misnomer.

@eponymoushipster Bangable Everyone else.

The trouble with “bangable, is that some of them are “pop-able, and when they pop – you are a pop.

I think that you might consider not testing you theory as to who is bangable and who isn’t unless you want to go into the Guinness Book of Records as the guy with the highest child welfare payment liability in history.

@DarkScribe Let’s ask Wilt Chamberlin

Jeez, a couple bleeding hearts who believe everything being put down their neck til they become human foie gras. As to the war in the middle east. For every bad onerous and sensational thing the mainstream shoves down the collectives throats, A hundred good things happen. I held one of my mens hand as he lay dying for trying to give a child some pogie bait. He had a bomb and blew him nearly in half. Would we have that happen here on our streets? I think I would rather fight and perforate somewhere else than here on my street.

OK Soapbox off. I thought Bangable referred to a potential target.. I guess pop works there too.

@eponymoushipster Let’s ask Wilt Chamberlin

No, let’s ask someone who can actually count.

Priorities:

1) Preventing the apocalypse (aka climate change)
2) Social issues
3) Grammar

The Apocalypse would be if some yahoo detonates a nuke because he hates Jews. We would have our hand forced to put down that nation and the global warming problem will come to a climax in a matter of minutes.
Social Issues is too vague to bang you on.
Grammar is a matter of public dumbing down and social promotion so we graduate morons who think they know everything.

I like people. I dont like morons.

@Sarcasm: this thread is really jumbled with topics, many introduced by the original poster, who is slightly mad, but it seems like you’re actually trying to make a helpful point, so:

To those whom it bothers, the term “mankind” is bothersome precisely because it is meant to include both men and women. That’s because it makes it seem like “man,” which as a general term can stand for all humans of both sexes, is the norm, the big over-arching human category, and “woman,” which can’t stand for both sexes, is more of a subcategory. (A woman can be included in the category “man” but a man can’t be included in the category “woman” – that’s how it’s a subcategory.) It’s an important point, but I think it was more of a big deal in the late seventies and early eighties, during second-wave feminism. People don’t seem to get too bent out of shape over pronouns anymore.

just replace it with homo sapiens.
though that would upset the fundies

@majorrich – I was being clever, not literal.

Sorry if a little surly tonight. I got a bad phone call and am trying to deal with it while my family sleeps. Hard as I want to portray myself, I am devastated at the news. I have seen too much, and am weary.

@majorrich I’m sorry to hear that… I hope the situation improves.

@majorrich – I’m sorry. hope things turn out okay.

I just love it when someone disagrees with Obama on Fluther and they are considered a troll.~

Females will continue to be marginalized until we get the “man” out of “woman” and the “men” out of “women.” As for men in women—well, that’s a different story.

@ratboy Females will continue to be marginalized until we get the “man” out of “woman” and the “men” out of “women.”

Are you smoking some of those funny smelling cigarettes?

What about languages other than English where they don’t have that situation?

Think about it. The English language doe not define Mankind’s responses.

Actually, I was thinking about it and truth be told, this topic would make for a very interesting Fluther discussion. It’s just a pity that it had to be phrased in this way and placed in this context.

@Saturated_Brain

Good point, there will always be republicans and fox news though. To progressive, any democrat will always be “better” or “less worse” than a republican, i think it is important to make sure all kind of people on the left do not let the other side to control the frame of the debate by restricting any cricitisms or comments against the president, even if it seems trivial to most people.

@Saturated_Brain

Typical rant about putting the gays and trans at the back of the bus. No one is asking Obama to erase all prejudices against gays and lesbians. If Obama have time to call Kanya west a jackass and introduce a beer summit, he can use his executive power to get rid of don’t ask dont tell, which a majority of americans already support.

There will always be more pressing issues than glbt issues, for many people, because they just dont think its that important to THEM because they dont care that much about rights for those kind of people.

In fact, the left is so good at making excuses for Obama that not only would universal single payer health care be off the table, there would be barely any public option left at all to health care reform.

Obama fold easily, when it comes to rights for minorities. All it takes is a Sarah Palin death panel type of person, and some leftist apologists who continue to make excuses for Obama’s newly shifted position on everything from continuing Bushs military tribunals, surge in Afghanistian, Iraq part 2, and the continual finanical greed that causes the depression/recession we are not out from yet.

Just to add a bit of historical perspective, I recently came across this statement, written in the 1920s:
“Give the world and his wife the funds with which to satisfy every need, desire, and whim, educate the world and his wife to want, and the production capacity of the country will actually groan under the burden of enormous demand.”

Mankind is acceptable to many and to Obama…many find it to be a gender neutral term but they’ve never analyzed it from a feminist perspective…in that everything that usually has the word man in it is expected to be just what it is, without question…I understand your concern but I hardly think Obama concerns himself with this issues, which to him, are probably trivial – just chuck it up to our society, he’s part of it.

Humankind is better, but avoiding mankind was more important 30 years ago. Overly macho men are facing extinction.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir

I just thought Obama was more lingustically evolved. He is one of the youngest presidents after all. It shouldn`t take too much analysis or knowledge of feminismm to see that mankind is an outdated term that puts male as the default gender, and margiinalize female gender.

When men created the word mankind, they did not intend to really include women, this is proven just by looking at the history, women were , and continue to be in many parts of the world, largely silenced or marginalized.

I am suprised at the strong negative reactions received from this topic, i wonder what the reaction was like when black people demanded that they do not want to be called a negro anymore.

Has everything already been said here? Contrary to my normal practice, I have not read many of the comments.

Language is important. The words we use affect how we think. Using “humankind” instead of “mankind” changes our ways of thinking subtly, and probably in a way that will make society more egalitarian.

Language is also a touchy matter. People have strong feelings about it. Many people value tradition and “correct” usage. Others see language as a living thing, changing rapidly before our very eyes. Some see dictionaries as being prescriptive—telling us how we ought to use our language. Others believe dictionaries should be descriptive, telling us how language is actually used at the current time.

I doubt if many people here are anti-woman, or male supremacists. I think the resistance is more based on tradition. We have adequate words, now.

There may also be some resistance due to feelings about political correctness, which many people see as going “too far.” Some people feel like being pc is just silly. Others, of course, see language use as an important political or propaganda tool. Perception is reality, is it not?

I don’t think it is helpful to be on the defensive here. Not for anyone. I think there is likely to be a general consensus about policy and egalitarianism and many other issues. I think this is a matter of education, and differences in understanding the role of words in creating mindsets about various issues. Are we “pro-choice” or “pro-abortion?” Are we “pro-life” or “anti-abortion?”

Advocates seek to frame the discussion using the words that express their concerns the most clearly. “Mankind” is technically a gender-neutral term, but it is obvious to anyone who looks that it is also a political point of view about the general importance of men as compared with women.

The language is changing. More than ever, we need gender-neutral terms. “Man” is no longer working. Male pronouns used to refer to all people—not working any more. That’s why we see the use of the third person plural (is that the right term for “their” or “theirs”) becoming ever more common. The language is changing before our eyes. There are only rear-guard actions to be fought. Prescriptions for proper usage will inevitably fall before the onslaught of of in-vivo usage.

“Mankind” will fall. “Humankind” will rise. Arguing about it will get us nowhere. Just wait. You’ll see.

This human unit agrees. Coneheads was on yesterday afternoon. I wish I could listen faster, but there were some hysterical idioms referring to humans in that movie!

Large bags of mostly water – let’s use that.

course, that doesn’t apply to the people who are full of shit

@DarkScribe: If I could think, I wouldn’t be wasting time here.

The Carbon based units infesting the planet earth. Ste-Ri-Lize…Ste-Ri-Lize.

The Wife Unit is Rolling on the floor!

Does Obama even write his own speeches? What if his speech writer is a hermaphrodite, is it still sexist? I don’t even like Obama and your entire argument still seems rediculous to me.

If by some freak chance, a hermaphrodite impregnates itself; is that cloning?

@majorrich well considering the fact that its not possible…

I was just musing.. and if by freak chance.. Just wondering :-D

@majorrich right, there is no freak chance. Hermaphrodites only have one fully functioning sex organ. Humans are never true hermaphrodites, instead they’re pseudohermaphrodites

@uberbatman ooh,,,you are no fun at all. do monkeys or any other critter have a chance?

@uberbatman

whoa nelly, hermadphrodites and freaks, talk about the lack of respect, i mean, um PCness (for those who want to hide behind their own prejudices)

Hell, maybe there is a connection between people who insist on using mankind and hermadadphrodites = freaks=pesudohermadadphoriites omg lmao mentality. What a suprise!

phew.

And alot of intersex people do not have ANY fully functioning sex organ.

And @cheebdragon , the difference is I like Obama as a person. I want to support him. I am proud for the accomplishments he has done and the inspirations he gave to those without or lacking hope.

@airowDee You completely misread what @uberbatman wrote. I suggest a reread starting at this.

You are totally right. what was I thnking. Thanks.

@majorrich we don’t refer to any people as ‘it’

@Simone_De_Beauvoir we don’t refer to any people as ‘it’

Until you have a problem with your computer… ;)

@DarkScribe I don’t get it

@Simone_De_Beauvoir

The “IT” people are those who manage and repair computer systems. Sorry if I was too obtuse. (Information Technology.)

@DarkScribe oh. lol. thanks.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I anticipated answers that might apply to species other than human. For Example, I live in an area that is infested with white tail deer. Over 125 per square mile. Under these conditions and having no predation nor hunting, hermaphroditic deer invariably occur in small numbers. How else could should I have phrased the question? Further in the off chance I meant a human population would you have phrased the question? I suspect you have no answers, only criticism for me who asked in the most sensitive way I knew. In that case, your oral orifice should remain in the unengaged and closed position.

@majorrich maybe you should stop suspecting so much..in the off chance that you meant a human population (as if you didn’t, give me a break) then you would say ‘an intersex person’ instead of ‘hermaphrodite’ and you’d say ‘themselves’ instead of ‘itself’...and yes I do clearly see that you’re quite the senstive type what with your ‘witty’ remark towards the end.

@majorrich so you mean to tell me that intersex, trans and all those terms are invented but hermaphrodite is a term that we inherently have from, who, god? I am aware of hermaphroditic species out there as I’ve, myself, done quite a bit of research on c.elegans ancestry…the rest of your comment is funny in that kind of sad way but sure go with it…and so long as you continue to throw insults, you won’t be any kind of worthy person for me to speak to…have a good one…

@majorrich what are you, like a cartoon character or something, in your own mind? lol…thanks for the laugh

Watched Conheads twice in two days. I love that movie. And actually curious about the question I asked. Really. In the case of identical twins, I think there are still subtle differences in the genetic makeup. There are two pairs I know personally and as they age, they have begun to look different. Now if both genomes originate from the original donor, there are no ambiguities. So I don’t know. so I asked.

@majorrich well. good for you.

I am beginning to think it’s a philosophical question. and you are all hostile. ;-P

If you have extra food, I’ll take it. He’s not worth it.

Y’know, I Like you tinyfaery. Actually haven’t had conversations (actually interchange of views, and come out not liking the person by the end. Some folks are all thin skinned and hostile. And I love to work ‘em over. But I am quick to back off when they cry ‘uncle’ or make a concession on a point. Take Judi for example, we had a wonderful interchange after the thread where we butted heads. I consider her a friend, and told her so.

I can’t say the same.

@tinyfaery got it

@Simone_De_Beauvoir have you ever watched Coneheads? I don’t listen as fast as I used to , but tried to capture the gender/species neutral way Dan Akroid (sp) did. One of my favorite movies and it was on back to back on I think the comedy channel.

@majorrich no. I’ve never seen Coneheads.

Dang! thats one to rent! It’s goofy and as some say ‘campy’(although I don’t really know what it means”. But through the whole movie, they talk like the entry you seemed to enjoy. At least I hope you enjoyed it , I was laughing the whole time!.

@majorrich well glad everyone had fun then.

Glad you all came to an agreement on the pressing Coneheads movie issue. That’s one small step for man human, one giant leap for mankind humankind.

@dalepetrie lol

So wait, does this mean that the word “manhandle” is sexist because it implies men handle things roughly? :\

@DominicX For one moment I thought that manhandle was a dirty noun.
Then I remembered that it was a verb

Just blame it on the bible and move on with your life….

I accept it, so thus it is acceptable. It seems rather trivial in the larger scheme of things, really.