The Change of Generic Man to Gender-Specific Man

I wrote about this topic previously but added more content here.

Representative Emanuel Cleaver II opened the 117th Congress session with a controversial end to his prayer: “amen and a woman.” Cleaver meant it as a pun to illustrate the current high number of female members of Congress. His intent seems good, though his timing may seem sacrilegious and inappropriate to some.

Others on social media aired their grievances about Cleaver’s pun. For example, conservative commentator Ben Shapiro tweeted:

“Amen” is a Biblical Hebrew word: אמן. It is a word simply meaning “may it be so.” It has nothing to do with the word “man” or “woman” because it is FROM HEBREW. This is some of the dumbest s*** I have ever seen in my life.

This incident illustrates the tension surrounding words and gender politics. Even if intent may be honorable on both sides of an issue, a war of words may still ensue over the definition narrowing and/or broadening of gendered terms.

What do you think about Cleaver's pun on amen?

The Faux Pas

I experienced similar tension during a college class over the Star Trek introduction. In the first few months of my marriage to a Trekkie, my husband and I watched the original Star Trek where I heard “To boldly go where no man has gone before” with every introduction.

During my Modern American Usage class the next semester, the professor asked for examples of sexist or inclusive language.

“Where no man has gone before,” I said.

Suddenly two or three people in the class objected: “No, it’s ‘where no one has gone before.’”

I cowered, but I knew I was right!

Well, I hadn’t watched Star Trek: Next Generation yet where the creators had changed the introduction to inclusive language. However, my example with theirs showed the evolution of inclusive language from the 60s to the 80s.

Has anyone ever called you out for sexist language? Have you ever called someone out for sexist language? How did the exchange go?

Generic Man

Over thousands of years, our language has narrowed generic human nouns and pronouns into gender-specific nouns and pronouns (or vice versa). Old English used wer to indicate an adult male, but speakers replaced wer with man. The meaning of man meant male or female until AD 1000. But man retained the sense of people for longer. The last original Star Trek introduction (6/23/1969) and Neil Armstrong’s declaration on the moon “One small step for man; one giant leap for mankind” (7/20/1969) illustrate this sense of people until 1969.

Other terms that use man for the sense people include mankind, manslaughter, manhandle, etc. Mankind has declined in usage over the past 200 years. Humankind seems to have replaced mankind in some instances since 1960. Using Google Books Ngram, mankind usage decreased in 1978 as humankind usage increased. Mankind has a slight dip — mostly in the 90s — but it returns to the same percentage in 2019. Interestingly enough, mankind increased in the new Millennium. Humankind doesn’t seem to have replaced mankind as of yet, and the term may never do so.

Screenshot of Ngram

Can you think of other terms with "man" that still retain the sense of people?

The Desire for Gender Neutral Terms Returns

Ironically, as gender-specific terms narrowed, some have a desire for gender-neutral terms again. This desire stems from various legal, diversity, and transgender movements. First, gender-neutral language often simplifies legal language. Second, some desire gender-neutral terms to reflect the gender spectrum. For these dual purposes, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has proposed to change gender-specific terms to gender-neutral terms in the Congress ethic rules. This proposal has again sparked controversy among politicians.

The issue of gender-neutral versus gender-specific terms encounters controversy because of potential discrimination based on sex, religion, or political persuasion.

How do you feel about the changes in the House Ethic Rules?

Look at a Person’s Intentions

The changes in meaning and terms have been an underlying issue in the culture wars for several decades. This tension will most likely continue. But as it continues, we need to look at people’s intentions behind their words. Like Cleaver and Shapiro, most of us have honorable intentions. Thus, we can draw on our honorable intentions, instead of our desires to be right or not offended, to reach compromises or to kindly disagree. Albeit not everyone will do this, but you and I can choose to do this.

How can we approach each other with a "heart at peace" when addressing conflicts over language usage?

Inclusive Language: No One or No Man

I was never really interested in Star Trek until I wanted to impress a boy I liked in high school. As a group of friends, we watched the older movies.

As it happens, I married another Trekkie. In the first few months of our marriage, we watched the original Star Trek where I heard "To boldly go where no man has gone before" with every intro.

The Faux Pas

During my Modern American Usage class the next semester, the professor asked for examples of sexist or inclusive language.

"Where no man has gone before," I said.

Suddenly two or three people in the class objected: "No, it's 'where no one has gone before.'"

I cowered, but I knew I was right!

Well, I hadn't watched Star Trek: Next Generation yet where Gene Roddenberry had changed the introduction to inclusive language. I wish I had defended myself better because what I shared showed the evolution of inclusive language and the feminist movement from the 60s to 80s.

The Generic Man

Over thousands of years, our language has narrowed generic human nouns and pronouns into gender-specific nouns and pronouns. Old English used wer for adult male, but speakers replaced it with man. The meaning of man meant male or female until AD 1000. It retained the sense of people for longer. Mankind and manslaughter still mean male or female or both, though we are switching to humankind.

The feminist movement spearheaded language change where we created gender neutral terms. For example, look at the switches in these job titles:

"Funny Hospital Sign" by Linneae Mallette

• Steward/stewardess--flight attendant
• Waiter/waitress--server
• Congressmen--members of Congress 
• Actor/actress--gender-neutral actor
• Policeman--police officers

Congressman and policeman are examples of male-dominated occupations. Ironically, we distinguish men in traditionally female vocations. Eventually, we may not distinguish gender for these jobs:

• Male nurse
• Male elementary school teacher

Clunky Pronouns

Inclusive language has led to rather clunky pronouns. We have such strange constructions as s/he, he or she, or generic 'one.' He or she, his or her constructions seems more popular. Some publications choose male or female pronouns based on their target audience.

We, humans, prefer simplicity and drop clunky word constructions over time. Other languages have gender-neutral pronouns built in so English speakers are gradually changing to the singular gender-neutral they/their/them (or rather returning to a gender-neutral term). The style manual community is beginning to recognize this grassroots solution too.

Oxford Dictionaries recognizes the change to singular they/their/them here, and Author Annette Lyon discusses it here. So if a teacher or professor complains about your use of the singular they, refer them to those two links. However, it's probably best to follow their style guide for a good grade.

Correlating Male and Female Pairs

"Enjoying the Day" by Bobbi Jones Jones

When using male and female pairs, the roles should match. For example, "man and wife" changes to "husband and wife." Some argue that this doesn't make any difference, and it doesn't always matter. Yet it can mold society.

In some cases of unequal male/female pairs, sexist language promotes sexual conquest.

Occasionally, I here the lyrics to "Only Girl in the World" by Rihanna on the radio, which reflects our broader culture. (Not to pick on Rihanna, just the words. She may or may not mean to promote this idea and she has experienced abuse herself.)

Read the lyrics:

Cause I'm the only one who understands how to make you feel like a man (yeah)
Want you to make me feel like I'm the only girl in the world.

Apparently, sex makes a male a man and a female a girl.

First, an adult male does not have to have sex in order to be a man. He is already a man by definition. Teenage males and men need more encouragement to value lasting intimacy over one night stands (females too).

Second, indicating an adult woman as a girl demeans a woman of her maturity and strength. Women are not beneath men, but equals. The man/girl pair in this song perpetuates violence against women. And the opposite woman/boy pair perpetuates violence against men.

Looking at Someone's Intent

"60s Lips" by Talia Felix

We are sensitive about how we use certain terms in our language, including sexist language. We've made many strides to inclusive language, but their remains "sexist" language. I put it in quotes because not everyone intends to be sexist when using these terms. 

Older generations use terms from their time periods meaning no disrespect. Newer generations--like me--use terms they grew up with and exchange their terms over time. 

So what can you do in these situations? 

First, look at the person's intent beneath the spoken word. That's what really matters. 

Second, you may kindly correct someone in private. No need for public shaming. Publicly or privately shaming someone shows your disrespect toward others (despite your efforts for inclusive language). Most people will respect your position when you show respect for them. They may even follow your example.

If someone uses sexist terms with intent to hurt, call them out in private. Some cases may necessitate a public reprimand but do so respectfully. After all, inclusive language is about respecting everyone.

Sometimes correcting sexist language only wastes our effort. Some people don't care to change their attitude, and correcting them will only exhaust us. Some people won't understand what we're talking about. Others may understand and respect our position, but still use some features of "sexist" language, meaning no disrespect. For example, some "sexist" language--like generic man--isn't meant to be sexist in most situations.

A Change of Heart

Every few decades, we change terms for races, developmental problems, mental illnesses, and so on. For example, the term for special needs has changed within my lifetime from slow, mentally retarded, handicapped, developmentally delayed to special needs. I don't even know the current term because it's constantly changing. After a decade, any term--no matter how politically correct--has a negative connotation.

So how do we stop the negative connotation?

We must change our hearts first toward others different from us. Likewise, inclusive language itself won't change how genders view each other unless we respect our gender and the opposite gender.

As we respect and love one another despite our differences, inclusive language will take hold.

Have you ever corrected someone for sexist language? Have you ever been corrected for sexist language? Do you think you need to work on your own heart?