Pages in topic:   < [1 2 3 4 5] >
"mankind" determined a gender-specific word
Thread poster: finnword1
Daniel Frisano
Daniel Frisano  Identity Verified
Italy
Local time: 06:17
Member (2008)
English to Italian
+ ...
Sounds reasonable Mar 22, 2018

Since in the US they have long reached full equality, overcome all kinds of discrimination and built a peaceful society, it seems just right that they deal with the subtleties of a language that incidentally is not even their native.

 
finnword1
finnword1
United States
Local time: 01:17
English to Finnish
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Oxford dictionary Mar 22, 2018

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/mankind

• 1 Human beings considered collectively; the human race.
• 2 archaic Men, as distinct from women.

(archaic = Very old or old-fashioned according to Oxford's)


 
Mikhail Kropotov
Mikhail Kropotov  Identity Verified
Germany
Local time: 06:17
English to Russian
+ ...
Oh? Mar 22, 2018

Daniel Frisano wrote:

Since in the US they have long reached full equality, overcome all kinds of discrimination and built a peaceful society, it seems just right that they deal with the subtleties of a language that incidentally is not even their native.


And what is the native language [sic] of the (whole) US, pray tell?


 
TonyTK
TonyTK
German to English
+ ...
I think you'd probably ... Mar 22, 2018

Thomas T. Frost wrote:

What if men complained that unlike women they don’t have a term exclusively to themselves, but have to share “man” with women?


... admit that's pretty disingenuous.

This is one of those instances where I'm more interested in the opinion of women.

While I'll confess that I find some of the PC stuff laughable, my basic rule is: if those offended by specific terms explain why they feel offended, and if I think it makes sense, then I'm with them. I've been using "humankind" for years. I can't think of an intelligent reason not to.

I reckon a bit of sensitivity can sometimes go a long way. And to call "humankind" a form of virtue signalling sounds like an attempt to kill the argument.

Not that I'm on some kind of guilt trip, but let's not forget that it's only fairly recently that rape in marriage became a crime, not that long ago that women in Europe were only allowed to work with the permission of their husbands (who could also unilaterally terminate the employment relationship) and only a few generations ago that women like my grandmother weren't permitted to vote because they were deemed inferior.

When it comes to discrimination of any kind, there are some real-world examples/projects that can be an eye-opener for middle-aged white males like myself:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160608-the-true-impact-of-tiny-microaggressions
for example, or
the work of Jane Elliot ("Blue-Eyed Workshop, among others).

I agree that changing a word here or there doesn't automatically solve the problem of discrimination, but to suggest it makes it even worse is, again, disingenuous. If we can chew gum and walk at the same time, then surely we can treat women as equals (something you evidently do) while also respecting their language preferences (or the preferences of what would appear to be many, many women).



[Bearbeitet am 2018-03-23 08:39 GMT]


 
Sheila Wilson
Sheila Wilson  Identity Verified
Spain
Local time: 05:17
Member (2007)
English
+ ...
That sounds good, Thomas Mar 22, 2018

Referring to the Danish language, Thomas T. Frost wrote:
All the occupations became common for both genders.

That surely should be the aim. To arrive at a state where you're just another person, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, religion, colour, etc. That's equality. Not having to walk on eggshells all the time in case we may - totally unintentionally - be upsetting other people.

"Mankind" means "Human beings considered collectively; the human race," so the term was already inclusive and gender neutral.

Ref.: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/mankind

This is nothing more than a silly play with letters that doesn't help any woman obtaining fair treatment.

Hear, hear!


 
The Misha
The Misha
Local time: 01:17
Russian to English
+ ...
It is Mar 22, 2018

Thomas T. Frost wrote:

It's just virtue signalling.


And it is utterly disgusting.


 
Thomas T. Frost
Thomas T. Frost  Identity Verified
Portugal
Local time: 05:17
Danish to English
+ ...
Equality Mar 22, 2018

TonyTK wrote:

I agree that changing a word here or there doesn't automatically solve the problem of discrimination, but to suggest it makes it even worse is, again, disingenuous. If we can chew gum and walk at the same time



Making or suggestion mandatory word changes or bans that many people consider ridiculous can actually make it worse by making what is a just cause for equality look ridiculous in the eyes of some. It is such empty gestures I don't agree with. I call them virtue signalling because the only thing they do is signal "I'm not sexist". They don't achieve anything real. In fact they risk making what some would could "sexist pigs" affirm their mistaken belief that equality for women is a laughing matter.

By all means people can call mankind humankind if they want, but if they start demonising people who use "mankind", but don't discriminate in any way, then they are going too far in linguistic tyranny. And as I said, there is still "man" in "humankind". It's just "mankind" with "hu" in front. So in five years, we may have to change it again when some feminists take offence that there is still only "man" in it. Of course, Trudeau's "peoplekind", or perhaps "personkind" would solve the problem, but at the price of risking ridicule.

TonyTK wrote:
then surely we can treat women as equals (something you evidently do)


Of course people should be treated equally. I never said anything else. I actually just flagged the use of the female form of "messenger" (piccoline in Danish) in a list of job titles in my comments to a client because it could genuinely be seen as sexist to presume that such a 'dumb' job has to be done by a woman.

Have you seen what some French feminists have proposed as "écriture inclusive" (inclusive writing)? I.e. to include both the masculine and feminine forms in the same words, for example "agriculteur·rice·s" (farmer – a combination of agriculteur and agricultrice)? French would become unreadable that way, and those who already have problems reading and writing would be completely lost. The French could just do as the Danes and use one single form for both sexes instead of wrecking the language. What if transgender people complain that they don’t find themselves represented in the masculine or feminine forms? Do we then have to write "agriculteur·rice·LGBTXQZ·s"? Where does it stop?

It is unfortunate in French that the masculine form is used as common gender when there are both masculine and feminine words involved, but it is so integrated in the structure that it would take the language apart to fix it.

TonyTK wrote:
while also respecting their language preferences (or the preferences of what would appear to be many, many women)


What do we actually know about women's preferences about this – statistically? Isn't it sexist to presume that women think what they are told to think and can't make up their minds themselves and have individual views?
See how easy it is to be accused of sexism if one is looking for it.
[Edited at 2018-03-22 22:15 GMT]

[Edited at 2018-03-22 22:54 GMT]


 
MollyRose
MollyRose  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 00:17
English to Spanish
+ ...
Ludicrous and superficial Mar 22, 2018

I agree with Thomas Frost.

Ludicrous: All this crazy tiptoeing (and worse--criticizing and trying to force other people to do the same) because of people who choose to take offense is ridiculous. Just because we use vocabulary the way it's been for ages doesn't mean we are discriminating. It's just a simple way of communicating. Some people try to read too much into things.

Superficial: Just because someone changes their vocabulary doesn´t mean that they have a
... See more
I agree with Thomas Frost.

Ludicrous: All this crazy tiptoeing (and worse--criticizing and trying to force other people to do the same) because of people who choose to take offense is ridiculous. Just because we use vocabulary the way it's been for ages doesn't mean we are discriminating. It's just a simple way of communicating. Some people try to read too much into things.

Superficial: Just because someone changes their vocabulary doesn´t mean that they have a change of heart or that they agree with those who protest loudly. They may just be doing it to try to make peace or to avoid being criticized by the "language police." They might or might not be discriminators. Either group could use those crazy new terms jokingly or sarcastically, as in the case of some people who say things like, "I'm height challenged" instead of "I'm short," etc. They might be mentioning that about themselves as a reason for something but using that way of speaking to lighten it up with a joke, or they might be saying it sarcastically because of the way people try to make euphemisms about so many things.
Collapse


 
finnword1
finnword1
United States
Local time: 01:17
English to Finnish
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Language takes its own course Mar 23, 2018

Just as some comments have indicated, one cannot and should not legislate or otherwise try to influence common language. It is what it is. One example comes from the Finnish language. A traditional marriage is called avioliitto (marriage union), while an unregistered relationship between a man and a woman living together is unofficially called avoliitto (open union), neither of the two words being gender-specific. By the time the laws were changed in March 2017, to allow same-sex marriages, it w... See more
Just as some comments have indicated, one cannot and should not legislate or otherwise try to influence common language. It is what it is. One example comes from the Finnish language. A traditional marriage is called avioliitto (marriage union), while an unregistered relationship between a man and a woman living together is unofficially called avoliitto (open union), neither of the two words being gender-specific. By the time the laws were changed in March 2017, to allow same-sex marriages, it was too late. The words "homoliitto" and "lesboliitto" were already well established.Collapse


 
Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member because it was not in line with site rule
Jean Dimitriadis
Jean Dimitriadis  Identity Verified
English to French
+ ...
Reactions Mar 23, 2018

The vehement reactions elicited by this topic certainly give food for thought.

Considering language and discourse as yet another field of power struggle does not seem outlandish after all.


 
Mervyn Henderson (X)
Mervyn Henderson (X)  Identity Verified
Spain
Local time: 06:17
Spanish to English
+ ...
Hippies Mar 23, 2018

Isn't it actually the hippies who say "Man" all the time? Man, it sure is hot today - I'll tell ya, man, it freaked me out big time, man - Man, that was really something - Hey man, take a look at my duds, man.

Somebody should man up and do something, man.


 
Vesa Korhonen
Vesa Korhonen  Identity Verified
Finland
Local time: 07:17
English to Finnish
+ ...
Giant leap... Mar 23, 2018

I'm glad Neil Armstrong is no longer with us, so he does not have to see all this...

 
MK2010
MK2010  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 01:17
French to English
+ ...
Fun fact Mar 23, 2018

Vesa Korhonen wrote:

I'm glad Neil Armstrong is no longer with us, so he does not have to see all this...


He actually messed up the quote... He was supposed to say "One small step for A man, one giant leap for mankind." Instead, he said "One small step for MAN, one giant leap for mankind." Man = mankind so the quote actually doesn't mean anything without the A.


 
Mervyn Henderson (X)
Mervyn Henderson (X)  Identity Verified
Spain
Local time: 06:17
Spanish to English
+ ...
Not mankind Mar 23, 2018

Adapted from a spurious document somewhere in 2008. Don't know who writes this skite ...


"Perhaps you didn’t know that a few years ago they interviewed Neil Armstrong on the 30th anniversary of the moon landings. The reporter said, “So Neil, did you rehearse that one-small-step-for-a-man stuff, or was it spontaneous?” And Armstrong said, “Buddy, not only did I not rehearse it, that’s not actually what I said. I didn’t say MANKIND at the end.”

“But
... See more
Adapted from a spurious document somewhere in 2008. Don't know who writes this skite ...


"Perhaps you didn’t know that a few years ago they interviewed Neil Armstrong on the 30th anniversary of the moon landings. The reporter said, “So Neil, did you rehearse that one-small-step-for-a-man stuff, or was it spontaneous?” And Armstrong said, “Buddy, not only did I not rehearse it, that’s not actually what I said. I didn’t say MANKIND at the end.”

“But everyone knows he says MANKIND. What did he say?”

“That’s what the reporter asked. He was pretty surprised as well, as you can imagine. And Armstrong told him, “I said “Manny Klein”. And, if you listen to it on Internet, it could be two syllables or three. It could be Mankind, Manny Klein, Man to Man, Marzipan, Maude Gonne, anything, really.”

“But who was Manny Klein?”

“According to Armstrong, Manny Klein had since died, so he could tell them about this. Manny Klein was a good friend of his. Armstrong was best man at his wedding, and Manny Klein was best man at his. Before the moon landing, this was. He told the reporter that on Manny Klein’s first night on honeymoon, he requested, shall we say, an oral favour of his brand-new wife. And she refused. Said, “There’ll be a man on the moon before I’ll put that in my mouth, honey”.

“Oh”, said the Sergeant.

“So it wasn’t just Armstrong going down in history that day".

[Edited at 2018-03-23 15:43 GMT]
Collapse


 
Pages in topic:   < [1 2 3 4 5] >


To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator:


You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request »

"mankind" determined a gender-specific word







Wordfast Pro
Translation Memory Software for Any Platform

Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users! Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value

Buy now! »
Trados Business Manager Lite
Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio

Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.

More info »