Pages in topic:   < [1 2 3 4 5] >
"mankind" determined a gender-specific word
Thread poster: finnword1
MK2010
MK2010  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 04:00
French to English
+ ...
My guess is... Mar 23, 2018

...they had to tape over him, because what he really said was, "Holy crap!!!! This is totally awesome!!!"

It just didn't have the gravitas and historic quotability they were looking for.

Mervyn Henderson wrote:

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]


[Edited at 2018-03-24 00:49 GMT]


 
Michael Wetzel
Michael Wetzel  Identity Verified
Germany
Local time: 09:00
German to English
Man oh man. Mar 26, 2018

... you do your best to write the most transparently sarcastic and outrageously ignorant, illogical and infantile comment you can in order to try to inject a little humor into a discussion, and then you go away for the weekend and come back to see your post has been deleted for being offensive.

I'll try again.
(1) I think the professor was right to mark "mankind" as incorrect: It is her job to teach here students to write correctly and that is how people are supposed to write.
... See more
... you do your best to write the most transparently sarcastic and outrageously ignorant, illogical and infantile comment you can in order to try to inject a little humor into a discussion, and then you go away for the weekend and come back to see your post has been deleted for being offensive.

I'll try again.
(1) I think the professor was right to mark "mankind" as incorrect: It is her job to teach here students to write correctly and that is how people are supposed to write.
(2) I think the professor was wrong to get all in a huff about the issue. She should have simply written: "gratuitous use of gender-specific language (-1)".
(3) There are certainly situations when it is necessary or better to write "man" or "mankind" when what we really mean is people, but those situations are the exception and not the rule. (And it would be a shame if all the CP-warriors out there insisted that James Brown's classic be rewritten to make it clear that he is using "man" in a non-inclusive manner: "This is a male person's world ...".)
(4) I agree that PC language gets carried to absurd lengths sometimes, but the comments here make it clear that CP language loves to go to equally absurd lengths. Given the choice between virtue-signalling and vice-signalling, I prefer the latter. And spending centuries insisting that someone invented this issue last year is not really a particularly convincing argument for anyone who doesn't already agree with you.
(5) Luckily, we're translators so we don't need to worry about this culture-wars nonsense: If you mean "people" write "people" and if you mean "men" write "men".

And here are two anecdotes related even more directly to translation (in the hopes this whole post doesn't get deleted on account of the James Brown reference):
I have actually had a client ask me to change "humanity" to "mankind" before, because they thought the former seemed confusing and would be misunderstood in the sense of "humane" instead of "human". Guess what: I explained why I used "humanity" and then they said "OK, please change it" and I said OK, and I changed it. It's not a big deal ...

I also translated a short essay for an exhibition called "Der Menscheit Würde ...", which is a complicated bit of German grammar from a poem by Schiller. The line has been translated into English as "The dignity of man ...", which may or may not be a perfectly valid solution in the context of the poem. However, writing "THE DIGNITY OF MAN ..." in really big letters on a book cover featuring a video still with a hairy-armed human pulling the hair of a female human doesn't seem like a very intelligent solution.
Collapse


 
Christopher Schröder
Christopher Schröder
United Kingdom
Member (2011)
Swedish to English
+ ...
Moderation and censorship Mar 26, 2018

Michael Wetzel wrote:
Man oh man

Lol

Michael Wetzel wrote:
... you do your best to write the most transparently sarcastic and outrageously ignorant, illogical and infantile comment you can in order to try to inject a little humor into a discussion, and then you go away for the weekend and come back to see your post has been deleted for being offensive.

Welcome to the club.

ProZ could usefully ensure that its moderators have a sufficient grasp of English to understand irony and sarcasm.

And have a sense of humour.

And a sense of proportion.

Now watch this get deleted for being in the wrong forum.


 
Jennifer Forbes
Jennifer Forbes  Identity Verified
Local time: 08:00
French to English
+ ...
In memoriam
Alas, Chris, Mar 26, 2018

Chris S wrote:

Michael Wetzel wrote:
Man oh man

Lol

Michael Wetzel wrote:
... you do your best to write the most transparently sarcastic and outrageously ignorant, illogical and infantile comment you can in order to try to inject a little humor into a discussion, and then you go away for the weekend and come back to see your post has been deleted for being offensive.

Welcome to the club.

ProZ could usefully ensure that its moderators have a sufficient grasp of English to understand irony and sarcasm.

And have a sense of humour.

And a sense of proportion.

Now watch this get deleted for being in the wrong forum.


To have our entries deemed admissible in these forums, it seems that we would-be humorists/ironists must append an emoticon to indicate "joke coming up". Woe, woe and thrice woe. Sigh, sigh, deep sigh. Exit, left.


 
Maxi Schwarz
Maxi Schwarz  Identity Verified
Local time: 03:00
German to English
+ ...
food for tought Mar 26, 2018

On the question itself, as a translator I don't pay much attention to some writer's opinion. I have to go by usage. I don't think I've used the word "mankind" for decades.

As a human being on planet earth I remember a creative writing class in the late 1960's. We had a discussion. We discovered that both female and male students made their main characters male if they were having ordinary generic adventures or experiences, and only made them female if they were doing stereotypic
... See more
On the question itself, as a translator I don't pay much attention to some writer's opinion. I have to go by usage. I don't think I've used the word "mankind" for decades.

As a human being on planet earth I remember a creative writing class in the late 1960's. We had a discussion. We discovered that both female and male students made their main characters male if they were having ordinary generic adventures or experiences, and only made them female if they were doing stereotypically female things. Our internal concept of "personhood" was male, and the female stereotype was an artificial thing to be adopted - the writers in that classroom did not relate to it. The sense of "mankind" is sort of embedded in that. Young as I was, this shocked me.

I don't use the word "mankind". It does not sit well, and I just wouldn't think of using it.
Collapse


 
The Misha
The Misha
Local time: 04:00
Russian to English
+ ...
As long as we agree that "I" is the operative word here... Mar 26, 2018

Maxi Schwarz wrote:

I don't use the word "mankind". It does not sit well, and I just wouldn't think of using it.


... you are golden. It's when you decide you want to push this on me that we may start having a bit of a problem. Let's not.


 
Thomas T. Frost
Thomas T. Frost  Identity Verified
Portugal
Local time: 08:00
Danish to English
+ ...
Food for thought Mar 26, 2018

Without getting political and going into detail, we can take a look around the world and consider all the sorts of abuse and serious and systemic discrimination women are subjected to in many countries.

In the West, part of the equal rights debate is focused on nothing more than semantics.

While I welcomed the accepted use of "they" as a gender-neutral way of saying "she or he", I wonder how saying "humankind" instead of "mankind" can help the millions of seriously opp
... See more
Without getting political and going into detail, we can take a look around the world and consider all the sorts of abuse and serious and systemic discrimination women are subjected to in many countries.

In the West, part of the equal rights debate is focused on nothing more than semantics.

While I welcomed the accepted use of "they" as a gender-neutral way of saying "she or he", I wonder how saying "humankind" instead of "mankind" can help the millions of seriously oppressed women around the world. I naturally go for accepted gender-neutral expressions, but I feel uncomfortable with the somewhat aggressive attitude expressed, for example in marking down work for reasons like using "mankind", which has been an accepted term for all of humanity for many years. That sort of method could create resistance instead of acceptance.

If some people are so offended by "mankind", a fact I wasn't even aware of, then clearly "humankind" is the way ahead to avoid attacks. This has not changed any sexist attitude of mine, as I already favoured equal treatment, so the only thing achieved is virtue signalling, whereas “mankind” was not signalling any “vice”, but was simply traditional vocabulary. In the future there will be more innocent words that are suddenly considered offensive, and then again we will have to adapt our vocabulary to avoid being accused of something we’re not. None of this, of course, will result in any actual improvement on the front of equal rights.

But it is unpleasant that we have reached a stage where we have to be so extremely careful what we say to any woman lest we say something intended as completely innocent that is interpreted as offensive or suggestive by someone who is analysing every written and unwritten letter to see if they can uncover something to be offended about. I guess even a smiley could be interpreted as suggestive, so I am never the first to use one when communicating with a female PM; only if they start using it as a sign of friendliness will I use it, while being careful not to overuse it. Communication with women has become a minefield, and although most women are perfectly reasonable, it's impossible to know in advance which ones are ready to explode by accident. But better safe than sorry.

None of this means that I defend genuine sexist behaviour; I don't. Too many men still go way beyond what is reasonable.

Results from the 1960s seem irrelevant today, as there has been a major shift of attitudes in the West since.

"Mankind" or not, girls are increasingly obtaining better school results than boys (ref. e.g. https://www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-news/gcse-results-gender-gap-widens-girls-pull-further-ahead ), so any casual use of "mankind" does not appear to have discouraged girls.
Collapse


 
TonyTK
TonyTK
German to English
+ ...
Maxi, ... Mar 26, 2018

Maxi Schwarz wrote:

On the question itself, as a translator I don't pay much attention to some writer's opinion. I have to go by usage. I don't think I've used the word "mankind" for decades.

As a human being on planet earth I remember a creative writing class in the late 1960's. We had a discussion. We discovered that both female and male students made their main characters male if they were having ordinary generic adventures or experiences, and only made them female if they were doing stereotypically female things. Our internal concept of "personhood" was male, and the female stereotype was an artificial thing to be adopted - the writers in that classroom did not relate to it. The sense of "mankind" is sort of embedded in that. Young as I was, this shocked me.

I don't use the word "mankind". It does not sit well, and I just wouldn't think of using it.


... if you're not already aware of the Bechdel Test, it makes for interesting reading in this (general) context.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test


 
TonyTK
TonyTK
German to English
+ ...
Thomas, Mar 26, 2018

Thomas T. Frost wrote:

... I feel uncomfortable with the somewhat aggressive attitude expressed, for example in marking down work for reasons like using "mankind", which has been an accepted term for all of humanity for many years. That sort of method could create resistance instead of acceptance.


I agree - respectful discourse is the only way to go.

[/quote]
In the future there will be more innocent words that are suddenly considered offensive, and then again we will have to adapt our vocabulary to avoid being accused of something we’re not. [/quote]

Quite possibly, but I'm sure we'll be able to handle it without any great suffering - and I'm always suspicious when anything is "suddenly" considered offensive, but I don't think that's the case here.

Neither will using "humankind" improve the lot of oppressed women overnight, but language is nevertheless a powerful thing in the longer term. There's a reason very few people still use the n-word. That in itself evidently didn't solve the problem of racism, but I'd still maintain it's part of the bigger picture, *provided* it's accompanied by an appropriate amount of self-reflection.


 
Andy Watkinson
Andy Watkinson
Spain
Local time: 09:00
Member
Catalan to English
+ ...
Been there.... Mar 27, 2018

Thomas T. Frost wrote:

In the 1970s, Danish feminists ditched the use of feminine occupation forms such as "lærerinde" (female teacher) in the name of equality. They all became just "lærer", which was the male form, but which became gender neutral. All the occupations became common for both genders.

Today French feminists are in a rage to feminise all occupations in the name of equality.

The two tendencies are totally contradictory. How can they both be right?


I clearly remember the first time I read in a UK paper some news about a famous actress who was described in the title as an "actor". Thought..."eh up! someone's getting fired"....

The rest of the article continued in the same vein. So then it became apparent that the "correct" outlook in the UK was to revert to the masculine for everyone. OK.

But here in Spain, there's an ongoing effort to come up with a female version of job titles as Thomas notes has occurred in France.

So we get clienta, presidenta, jueza, instead of cliente, presidente or juez.

So the UK option is to take the "it looks masculine but it's really neutral when you think about it" route while Spanish language changers (manglers?), take the opposite one.
Confusing.

PD. And I agree with Chris, Michael et al. in that moderators should be equipped to realise what it is they're moderating.


 
MK2010
MK2010  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 04:00
French to English
+ ...
Actor / actress Mar 27, 2018

Andy Watkinson wrote:

I clearly remember the first time I read in a UK paper some news about a famous actress who was described in the title as an "actor". Thought..."eh up! someone's getting fired"....

The rest of the article continued in the same vein. So then it became apparent that the "correct" outlook in the UK was to revert to the masculine for everyone. OK.


It makes more sense to want to stick with the neutral version (I say neutral, because I'm not sure it's necessarily masculine) of the word in English because English is a language that doesn't assign gender to most nouns, including professions. Doctor, president, lawyer, teacher, director etc. (three of those would be feminine gender words in French if concerning a woman). The main exception would be those ending in "man", like fireman, policeman and such, but there are also neutral versions of those, firefighter + police officer. So to single out the profession of acting and making it a female gender word seems discriminatory (actresses being associated with prostitution back in the day) and I understand the trend to switch back to the neutral gender, though truth be said, I prefer "actress."


 
IrinaN
IrinaN
United States
Local time: 03:00
English to Russian
+ ...
I wonder what the future holds... Mar 27, 2018

I am a free and proud woman who does not mind to be a part of the mankind.

I hope my friends and family will not be forced by law to write "It will be deeply missed" on my tombstone. I guess I need to provide for an option of ashes scattering in my will, just in case.


Poor, poor our kind...

[Edited at 2018-03-27 22:28 GMT]

[Edited at 2018-03-27 23:33 GMT]

[Edited at 2018-03-28 01:31 GMT]


 
Susan Welsh
Susan Welsh  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 04:00
Russian to English
+ ...
Poor Shakespeare! Mar 27, 2018

Hamlet:
...What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form, in moving, how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? man delights not me; no, nor woman neither, though, by your smiling, you seem to say so.
Rosencrantz:
My lord, there was no such stuff in my thoughts.
Hamlet:
Why did you
... See more
Hamlet:
...What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form, in moving, how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? man delights not me; no, nor woman neither, though, by your smiling, you seem to say so.
Rosencrantz:
My lord, there was no such stuff in my thoughts.
Hamlet:
Why did you laugh then, when I said, ‘man delights not me?’
Rosencrantz
To think, my lord, if you delight not in man, what lenten entertainment the players shall receive from you: we coted them on the way; and hither are they coming, to offer you service.
---
How does this sound in a so-called modern version? This one (http://nfs.sparknotes.com/hamlet/page_110.html) not only strips away the beauty of this passage, but renders its humor incomprehensible:

HAMLET
...What a perfect invention a human is, how noble in his capacity to reason, how unlimited in thinking, how admirable in his shape and movement, how angelic in action, how godlike in understanding! There’s nothing more beautiful. We surpass all other animals. And yet to me, what are we but dust? Men don’t interest me. No—women neither, but you’re smiling, so you must think they do.
ROSENCRANTZ
My lord, I wasn’t thinking anything like that.
HAMLET
So why did you laugh when I said that men don’t interest me?
ROSENCRANTZ
I was just thinking that if people don’t interest you, you’ll be pretty bored by the actors on their way here. We crossed paths with a drama company just a while ago, and they’re coming to entertain you.


--
Never mind. I think I'm going to be sick, better get off the computer.
Collapse


 
Maxi Schwarz
Maxi Schwarz  Identity Verified
Local time: 03:00
German to English
+ ...
The Misha Mar 28, 2018

The Misha wrote:

Maxi Schwarz wrote:

I don't use the word "mankind". It does not sit well, and I just wouldn't think of using it.


... you are golden. It's when you decide you want to push this on me that we may start having a bit of a problem. Let's not.

If I were your client, and if the word "mankind" were a problem in the context of the translation, then I would ask you to change it. But that scenario is quite unlikely. I wrote what I did as a translator, in the context of our profession. I have not run into any occasion for using "mankind" in any translation in the last few decades.

I haven't really paid much attention to the article about a professor marking down a student's work, since that is not my field. In translation I have to pay attention to standards other people set, since I am only a mouthpiece for someone else's words in a new language, which will be presented or read in a particular context.


 
Natasha Ziada (X)
Natasha Ziada (X)  Identity Verified
Australia
Local time: 18:00
English to Dutch
+ ...
Language does change Mar 28, 2018

I'm quite surprised by the level of vehemence and ridicule displayed in this thread regarding what is essentially an effort to make language more inclusive. No, changing the words we use will not suddenly create full equality and world peace, and to expect it to do is disingenuous and naive. I would think that language professionals would be the first ones, however, to acknowledge the power and importance of the words we use. Switching from 'mankind' to 'humanity' may not directly lead to tangib... See more
I'm quite surprised by the level of vehemence and ridicule displayed in this thread regarding what is essentially an effort to make language more inclusive. No, changing the words we use will not suddenly create full equality and world peace, and to expect it to do is disingenuous and naive. I would think that language professionals would be the first ones, however, to acknowledge the power and importance of the words we use. Switching from 'mankind' to 'humanity' may not directly lead to tangible results in terms of equality, but by challenging our preconceptions it might just create the tiniest ripple in our collective view on gender and gender inequality (still a very real issue worldwide).

Plus the push for new terminology isn't a goal in itself, but part of a (fascinating) process. Changes to our vocabulary both contribute to and reflect changes in our society, and we may reel at some of the proposed changes at first, but a few years down the track we will either have gotten used to them, or there will be new push the other way.

[Edited at 2018-03-28 02:54 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







Trados Studio 2022 Freelance
The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.

Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.

More info »
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! »