Re: Gender in language

From: AC <spam@nospam.com.invalid>

Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 19:36:24 +0000

In article <vohn0ogdlko.fsf@blue3.math.berkeley.edu>, David desJardins wrote:
> It seems to me that changing that which I can control is
> better than saying it's all someone else's responsibility.

I think changing a language to fit some current trend of thinking is pretty
questionable at the best of times.  "Mankind" as a term for humanity has
been in use for a long time, and was never seen as being a gender-specific
noun until the last thirty years.  Then it was redefined for purely
political purposes by various feminist activists, who claimed that it
propogated a paternalistic mindset.  If you actually read the context of the
word "Mankind" as it has been used historically in literature, you would
quickly find that the view that these activists have with some success
foisted upon modern media and education is simply false.  "Mankind" does not
denote a specific gender.  While it may be construed as a sensitive word by
some, I hardly see a reason to pretend that these people are right.  I'm not
interested in making the ignorant and overly-sensitive feel better, and I
won't censor such an old and often-used word for their benefit.

--
AC

References

Re: Gender in language
David desJardins <desj@math.berkeley.edu>
Mon, 11 Nov 2002 07:07:58 +0000
Re: Gender in language
madcentral@aol.com (MadCentral)
Mon, 11 Nov 2002 10:48:57 +0000
Re: Gender in language
David desJardins <desj@math.berkeley.edu>
Mon, 11 Nov 2002 18:10:15 +0000

Referenced By

Re: Gender in language
David desJardins <desj@math.berkeley.edu>
Mon, 11 Nov 2002 07:07:58 +0000
Re: Gender in language
madcentral@aol.com (MadCentral)
Mon, 11 Nov 2002 10:48:57 +0000
Re: Gender in language
David desJardins <desj@math.berkeley.edu>
Mon, 11 Nov 2002 18:10:15 +0000