Is man a common name for both man and woman?

[blazeofglory]

In point of fact men have supremacy over women historically and legendarily; of course one of reasons why men subdue women is men are bodily fitter, more muscular and burlier. There are historical proofs that women were feebler, heritably men are more aggressive and compelled women to be subservient. And of course even today after so many revolutions women barring some developed European countries are suppressed, tamed or domesticated. Women did not fight in the war the way men did, and as such they withdrew when it came to aggressing.

Women in so many countries exist in fact do not coexist with their counterparts, males but as entertainers. Now through education their family, social, economic statuses have grown multifold. Earlier, and still in major countries, they are homing birds, incarcerated by walls and coming out of the walls of their houses was tabooed. They were never independent, and more often than not they had no decision at all.

And even now there is gender biasedness in many countries. In most countries women’s grade is subhuman. Parents choose male children and even mothers beget girl children they get strangulated. If given choice, most parents choose males as their favors.

Does not this substantiate the fact that man is an ideal for the world of women? But this may dismay women, but this fact needs to be taken objectively. All I am doing is simply delineating the truth. By keeping the fact secreted we may still allow for this gender biasedness.

All that necessitate of women is raise their voice or rebel or be more aggressive.

[FanofdeBeauvoir]

Does not this substantiate the fact that man is an ideal for the world of women?

Only the status of "human" the men have may be an ideal to women, not "to be a man".


All I am doing is simply delineating the truth.

You're simply delineating your opinion, your thoughts on what the truth is, you cannot claim to know the ultimate truth. It's an hypothesis.


By keeping the fact secreted we may still allow for this gender biasedness.

One strong bias is that the woman in herself, intrinsecately, is a complete different being than man, and that when they act in this or that way outside what is the social concept of women she's trying to be a man.


All that necessitate of women is raise their voice or rebel or be more aggressive.

If it were so easy...

[PeterL]

One of the common terms in the English language for humanity is "man".

[andave_ya]

One strong bias is that the woman in herself, intrinsecately, is a complete different being than man, and that when they act in this or that way outside what is the social concept of women she's trying to be a man.


that is it in a nutshell.

[FanofdeBeauvoir]

that is it in a nutshell.

I'm sorry, but what do you mean?

[andave_ya]

I'm sorry, but what do you mean?

:) I meant that I think the point I quoted from your post is very valid.

[FanofdeBeauvoir]

:) I meant that I think the point I quoted from your post is very valid.

Thank you! :D

[Maximilianus]

In point of fact men have supremacy over women historically and legendarily;
Probably because most women have allowed men (mayhap unwittingly) to have such supremacy.


men are bodily fitter, more muscular and burlier. There are historical proofs that women were feebler, heritably men are more aggressive and compelled women to be subservient. And of course even today after so many revolutions women barring some developed European countries are suppressed, tamed or domesticated.
I believe that if you don't suffer any impediment to your health, whatever you are, be it strong, be it feeble, is purely your choice. There are also historical proofs of feeble men and burly women.


Women did not fight in the war the way men did, and as such they withdrew when it came to aggressing.
Going back to historical proofs, it's very properly documented that Norse, Gaulish and Briton women went to war and fought as bravely as men did, or even more in some episodes of History. There's a Roman historian whose name I can't recall, though I recall him to be a man, who documented the Roman campaign to conquest Gaul and he described Gaulish women as being fiercer than men in battle. He said they used to fight half or fully naked (something a Roman legionary was only used to see in a brothel, being in such way a very convenient strategy to distract the enemy), with a supreme mastery of the sword and spear, and even, of their bare hands and feet when they had no weapon. Of course the Norse and the Celts were, in many aspects, highly advanced societies considering the ancient times when their participation in History took place.
Again, if you're feeble is because you chose to be so, unless you suffer a health condition you can't handle.


And even now there is gender biasedness in many countries. In most countries women’s grade is subhuman. Parents choose male children and even mothers beget girl children they get strangulated. If given choice, most parents choose males as their favors.This can only happen in retrograde cultures, if we can call them cultures at all.


One strong bias is that the woman in herself, intrinsecately, is a complete different being than man, and that when they act in this or that way outside what is the social concept of women she's trying to be a man.
People have the right to choose to be whatever they want to be, regardless of gender. Any culture incapable of accepting this suffers a retrograde view of the human nature, I believe.

[JBI]

It depends - for instance, many people today can't conceptualize gender outside of a binary opposition - the gender roles are automatically taken as sexist, whereas in reality they are merely gender roles - for instance, the Mosuo tribe living in Yunnan and Sichuan practice a form of matriarchy - but, in terms of reality, the gender roles merely perpetuate an inequality amongst the classes, by dictating birth based on association with mother - such a structure doesn't fit within the discourse of opposition, as it suggests a contrary argument.

In truth, the concept of gender and society is not necessarily rooted in patriarchy, but can function as a form of cultural pride and expression within a cultural frame of reference - the 2nd wave feminist obsession with ridiculing the traditional "female role" didn't take into account the nuance of the situation, and the respectability and important role these women preform in society - the movement, as it ended, failed to reconcile the working woman with the mother figure, at it wasn't until later that the two sort of reconciled each other - perhaps brought about by a change, to an extent, in male attitude.

By this point though, I think it is safe to say that all truly civilized people support a doctrine of equality between the sexes - I personally cannot see myself befriending anyone who doesn't - but still, as a cultural bit, the old divisions still exist - children are essentially brought up thinking feminist means man hating lesbian who doesn't shave her armpits.


As for the differences between the sexes - I wouldn't stress them too far - anatomically speaking, there are differences - outside of that, they are minimal at best - people like to pretend that men can't exactly get along with women as friends or whatever, but that clearly isn't the case - the whole male chauvinist comradeship bit is kind of silly - quite simply, the real difference is that generally women are less physically capable, but when it comes to personality, lack many of the bad qualities of men, and have all the good qualities and then some - of course, that is a cultural thing, and a bias on my part, but lets be honest - I'm unable to understand what it is women see in men.

[Gladys]

One of the common terms in the English language for humanity is "man".

That 'man' has long been used as a common name for both man and woman is indisputable. It is equally true that this usage of 'man', along with many other nouns, has long been hijacked by many for a host of reasons.

I like to think that each noun has meaning according to the context in which it is used, and that no noun is taboo.

[PeterL]

I like to think that each noun has meaning according to the context in which it is used, and that no noun is taboo.

I would also like that to be true, but people keep changing the meanings of words for personal reasons, and that makes it difficult to know what someone means.

[NikolaiI]

I think it's much better to use words like humankind instead of "man" when you are referring, actually, to humankind. For humankind is not just men, but also women, children, and so on. The reason for my suggested change is two-fold; first, because some are offended by the use of "Man" instead of a more descriptive term such as "Humankind," and secondly because it is rather strange to use such a term in the first place. I myself am not really offended by it but I do not use such a term and I think it's better to use a more accurate word.

[Gladys]

...people keep changing the meanings of words for personal reasons, and that makes it difficult to know what someone means.

Isn't such change inherent in the nature of words: meaning varies with context?


I think it's much better to use words like humankind instead of "man"...

What someone means by a word is never clear unless context makes it so. A term such as humankind can be used to give offence as easily as man, although I would agree that man is often singled out to demean women. If we were to ban every word that can be or has been misused, welcome to the Newspeak of Orwell’s 1984.

[NikolaiI]

What someone means by a word is never clear unless context makes it so. A term such as humankind can be used to give offence as easily as man, although I would agree that man is often singled out to demean women. If we were to ban every word that can be or has been misused, welcome to the Newspeak of Orwell’s 1984.

Could you explain how the term humankind can be used to give offence?

I think, in general, mankind gives offence to some because humanity is not just men, but also women and children, etc., but women and children are also humans, so humankind is a perfectly accurate description, and therefore the proper term. I don't understand how it can be offensive.

[Gladys]

Could you explain how the term humankind can be used to give offence?

Offence is a matter of intention. As a Thai proverb warns: A word as a word is it much important?

[NikolaiI]

Offence is a matter of intention. As a Thai proverb warns: A word as a word is it much important?

Well, no, not always, Gladys. Many times when I was much younger I have offended completely without intention of doing so. This happens all the time. People say something not intending anything offensive but offense is taken.

One time, when I was 14 or so, I said to my great-aunt she was an old hag. It was completely absurd and I didn't mean anything by it... it was meant as a tease sort of but it was an incredibly stupid thing to say of course. She was very upset and I was very sorry at such a mistaken attempt. But no intention to hurt was there, but who would not be offended by that?

[Gladys]

Many times when I was much younger I have offended completely without intention of doing so.

Sadly it is so. We are all too quick to take offence.

I heard recently that Australians living in France routinely offend the French. "Did you have a good weekend?" is understood by Aussies as "Greetings. Hello to you," whereas the French see the question as an invitation to share the intimate joys and trials of their past weekend. Australian are perceived by the French to lack empathy and integrity.

Is communication that offends no one, inadvertently or otherwise, possible or even desirable? Is there room for tolerance?

[NikolaiI]

Sadly it is so. We are all too quick to take offence.

I heard recently that Australians living in France routinely offend the French. "Did you have a good weekend?" is understood by Aussies as "Greetings. Hello to you," whereas the French see the question as an invitation to share the intimate joys and trials of their past weekend. Australian are perceived by the French to lack empathy and integrity.

Is communication that offends no one, inadvertently or otherwise, possible or even desirable? Is there room for tolerance?

You may be right.

Well, it's not the most important thing. However I can understand how people could be offended by the use of the term "Man" in reference to humankind. I'm not directly affected by it... but there are some things involved such as different pay for men and women in the same job and same quality of work, etc. Now that is a very serious issue. In my mind that is a serious problem. It's been very gradually getting better for decades, but there's still a significant deficiency there. I don't know how much it is related to the current topic.