Comments on: Mankind, Humankind, and Gender

By: Damian Stafford

Damian Stafford — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:32:36 +0000

Mankind is correct and indeed signifies neither male nor female but all human beings. “Humankind” is an ignorant solecism – a word invented by politically correct idiots who seem not to appreciate language and its provenance.

By: NorseWinter

NorseWinter — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 21:31:59 +0000

Oh! And on the topic of clever humor you should upgrade your humor to a more intelligent (and refreshing) on. “A Person Paper on Purity in Language” by William Satire (alias Douglas R. Hofstadter) is HILARIOUS!

And at the same time, so complex, it blew my mind and expanded my horizons. So instead of getting a bunch of apes to gather and mindlessly agree with no substance, whilst insulting scholars or feminists who do research, why not do the research yourself?

Years ago, MASSES were comfortable with the security that “everyone” believed the world was flat. Regardless of which comedian you quote, the world isn’t flat. Stick to facts.

Here’s the link to the masterpiece that explains your question:
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html

By: NorseWinter

NorseWinter — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 21:25:28 +0000

That’s because you’re the type of person who probably doesn’t know the difference between someone saying “You’re as smart as a tack.” You’d probably take that as a compliment. “It’s just a word, right? Surely he meant ‘SHARP..’ I use that tactic many a time to cleverly insult people who just don’t get it. Those who aren’t intelligent enough to see the meaning, get laughed at. Those who actually get the hidden intent are clever themselves!

Anyway, why does the bible say “womenkind” if “mankind” means humankind, eh?

Hhmmm… I guess “womenk” and “ind” are not words… So I suppose womenkind are a ton more mysterious than mankind… more words you know.. PLUS womenkind CONTAINS the word “mankind” yet includes the more invisible gender … so it’s not only mysterious.. it’s more functional and versatile!

Thank you Daniel, were it not for the logic you’ve shared, I’d have no discovered this incredible revelation. Truly, you have earned my compliment… You’re as smart as tack, lad!

By: Roderick Ramage

Roderick Ramage — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 19:36:18 +0000

to All, from a late comer to this discussion, I offer two 101 word snippets, one about the”P” word and the other “they”, “their” &c.

politically correct man

It may be too late to save English but I will try. As I pussy footed round the ‘person’ word, my publisher, a married woman with children and a full time job, who wore no wedding ring and used her maiden name, stopped me.
“Roderick, I should be worried if one of my writers did not know enough English to understand the meaning of the word ‘man’.”
She meant, of course, man as opposed to God or beast. Its restriction solely to the adult male is relatively modern. The Anglo-Saxon werman and wifman made that distinction. ‘Madam chairman’ is therefore correct.

Pity about the “Yo Blair!” and the sniggers which will colour your response to this piece. Studies by linguistic experts have shown that, from about 2004, pupils at middle and high schools in Baltimore have been using “yo” instead of “he or she”. Previous attempts to create a neuter third person pronoun have failed. You cannot prescribe language, but an usage which seems to have arisen spontaneously, might just have a chance of success. If it succeeds, please do not rewrite Sir Charles Sedley’s Parting to say:

As freely as we met we’ll part,
Each one possessed of yo’s own heart.

By: John

John — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 20:22:48 +0000

To Pissed off,
You piss me off more than the debate itself.
You are an ignorant “english teacher” lacking the human ability to reason as stated by Zaroff in the short story “The Most Dangerous Game.” If you are an english teacher you should know what story I am talking about. The story was written by Richard Connell. “Was written” I relized I used passive language.
From, a member of mankind.