• skye@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I think itçs very important to bring up how we currently think and perceive words, after you said language shapes how we think.

    The word “mankind” isn’t male-centric because no one perceives it that way. It cannot possibly be “male-centric” when it was never meant that way and when no one perceives it that way.

    However, I’d like to argue that by making this new “Humankind” distinction, you’re adding the male-centric view to the term “Mankind”, when there wasn’t one associated to it in the first place.

    I cannot be more clear than this, and I think you are the one arguing in bad faith here perhaps

    • set_secret@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      To assert that ‘mankind’ isn’t male-centric because ‘no one perceives it that way’ is to ignore the very evidence that proves otherwise—many people do perceive it as male centric, (spend three seconds googling it ffs) this claim rests on a deeply unfounded generalisation. Furthermore, the suggestion that the introduction of ‘humankind’ retroactively imposes a male-centric view on ‘mankind’ is a form of historical revisionism. It assumes that our understanding and language cannot evolve without distorting past usage, which is plainly absurd. Language, much like our society, is in constant flux, and to deny this is to remain willfully ignorant of the dynamics that shape our communication and thought.

      ill say good day to you now, as you are clearly either a misogynist or an idiot (likely a combination of the two).

      • skye@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        One simple google of the definition shows it includes all humans. The archaic (‘old meaning’, if you don’t know) meaning did refer to only men, but that’s nor the case anymore.

        It’s not the case anymore because through time and usage lsnguage evolved ( Like you said! ) and it evolved to encompass all humans! Crazy how language does that.

        However, for you to selfishly tout about all of this in a post Xompletely unrelated to any of this, and for you to call me an idiot and/or mysoginist because i simply didn’t agree with you on this, shoecases just how bad faith you were in the first place.

        Oh and what’s this? No one giving this much a fuck about this? https://old.reddit.com/r/AskWomen/comments/1wdzcq/how_do_you_feel_about_the_word_mankind_or_the_use/

        Clearly you want to be feminist and do something and that’s great! Please tackle some actual problems instead of getting fired up over a word that has nothing to do with anything, hasn’t bothered anyone, and shouldn’t have been an issue to discuss about in a post on disrespecting Holocaust victims.

        Have a good day, and I hope you learn from your mistakes and develop some “Think twice before posting”

      • 1ostA5tro6yne@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        you’re not wrong BUT

        cramming nuanced and counterintuitive sociological topics down peoples’ throats and then calling them bigots and idiots when it doesn’t click right away makes you look like a crazy person. if i didn’t already agree with you i’d be far less inclined adopt your viewpoint after having an interaction like this, because every time it came up again i would remember your smug ass on a high horse wielding it like a cudgel and mentally disengage.

        you need to ease up and give people time to explore and integrate new ideas and perspectives, especially things like this that involve subtleties of linguistics and human psychology - not insult them and storm off when it doesn’t take right away. acting this way just makes people double down on their position.