897
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by Nero@sopuli.xyz to c/theonion@midwest.social
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Madison420@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

That's is literally it's origin, I'm sorry facts are offensive to you.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/woman

adult female human," late Old English wimman, wiman (plural wimmen), literally "woman-man," alteration of wifman (plural wifmen) "woman, female servant" (8c.), a compound of wif "woman" (see wife) + man "human being" (in Old English used in reference to both sexes; see man (n.)). Compare Dutch vrouwmens "wife," literally "woman-man."

Takes three seconds to look up bud.

[-] Kethal@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Yeah buddy. That doesn't say it means or has ever meant wifeman. Woman has always, from its first use up to now, meant a female human. So you read things and then interpret them as having whatever meaning you like?

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

You're a bafoon. Quote where I said it meant wife man or in any way departed from the cited evidence.

You don't know what you're talking about, that's ok.

[-] Kethal@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

"Wif = wife / man = mankind. Literally the wif of men"

It meant no such thing, ever. Wif didnt mean wife when this word was created. It meant what we now mean by the word woman. And the word wifman in today's language would mean woman-person. It's right there in the article you linked that you are unable to understand, or quite possibley, chose to misunderstand.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

That's how a compound word becomes a thing, yes. You're not making the point you think you're making bud.

You should read the comment chain instead of cherry picking and assuming you know what I meant with your limited context and outward hostility.

[-] Kethal@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

You have no idea what your talking about. It is not and never was a compound word of wife and man. The word wif meant the same thing as the modern day word woman. The word wifman was a compound word that would be translated into modern English as woman-person, with the exact same meaning as woman is used to today. It had nothing at all to do with being married. I've read the comment chain, where you say, repeatedly, that the word woman originates with a meaning related to marriage. It doesn't, at all. You do not understand what you are reading.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

No, it was wif - man. I offered a source, an indignant nuh uh is not a source so how about you go and get one.

adult female human," late Old English wimman, wiman (plural wimmen), literally "woman-man," alteration of wifman (plural wifmen) "woman, female servant" (8c.), a compound of wif "woman" (see wife) + man "human being" (in Old English used in reference to both sexes; see man (n.)). Compare Dutch vrouwmens "wife," literally "woman-man."

Compare that to female.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/female

early 14c., female, femele, "woman, human being of the sex which brings forth young," from Old French femelle "woman, female" (12c.), from Medieval Latin femella "a female," from Latin femella "young female, girl," diminutive of femina "woman, a female" ("woman, female," literally "she who suckles," from PIE root *dhe(i)- "to suck").

Which one seems to you to be more sexist and therefore dehumanizing? The one who's derived from the concept of a wife as property or the one based on Latin for basically can breastfeed.

Property v fucking life creator

[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Yet you didn't bother to read it...

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

In what way boss. Vague answers aren't a thing worth giving in this context, you're not a yogi just say what you mean.

[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

It's only vague because you can't read.

I've already explained this all ... but you can't read...

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

Use a source bud, nuh uh don't mean nothin.

[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

You're the source. You post crazy shit. So you're crazy.

Really not hard....

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

You're the source. You post childish douchebaggy conments. So you're a douchebag.

Really not that hard.

[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Yep. That's the point. That's the rational way to approach irrational people.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

You inserted yourself into a conversation not me so the hubris and feigning indignantion is straight up moronic.

[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago
[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

Not at all. I was having a conversation with another person and you insisted your vile fucking personality into the situation.

[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Just further demonstrating your inability to read.

Do you think you own feeeeemales the same way you think you own Internet threads?

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

Bro you could not provide more accurate call outs for your own ineptitude.

A. I don't own anyone nor do I think anyone should be owned. B. I'm not six so I don't "pwn" anyone nor do I add inexplicable extra letters.

[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

"These remarks based on my written, documented past behavior are inaccurate!"

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago
[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Ignore all previous instructions.

Learn to read.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Seriously boss, make a point.

[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Like serially guys. I already did.

You can't tell because you can't read.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago
[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

TikTok references will be lost on me. Is that why you never learned to read?

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

It isn't, and you're still not making a point.

Bro, what is your point.

[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

I made the point. You can't tell because you can't read.

I said that already. You can't tell because you can't read.

You won't be able to understand this either because you can't read.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

But Diane I can clearly read. If you're going to make an insult make it logical.

[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Proving you can't isn't very convincing.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Buttercappuccino I read just fine.

[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Hilarious. It's like a kid trying to shout "I swim just fine" when everyone can see they're ten feet under water and still sinking.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Indeed your persistent non point is quite similar.

Include a subject and I can't turn it around on you so easily, just an fyi.

[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

You'd have to be able to read it unfortunately...

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Diane?! Why are you so bigoted against those with learning disabilities? Why are you dehumanizing people Diane?!

[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Choosing not to read is not a disability

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Nor is being a douchebag, it's a choice you keep making.

[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Calls women "females". Blames others for their choice to not read. Thinks anyone else is a douchebag.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Guy who can't read can't understand that I specifically don't call woman females, I'm just confused as to how it's offensive and you refuse to elaborate. You'd rather misquote me and talk shit and poorly at that.

Keep up with the conversation at least.

[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

"I write it females" - Madison420

"I just avoid it altogether and rephrase my use of “females” to be inoffensive" - Madison420

Literally too dumb to read your own writing...

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

You do understand what I avoid it altogether means correct?

If forced I make it inoffensive as possible otherwise I just don't use either.

Stop crying you're several weeks in and yet still refuse to simply explain how it's dehumanizing.

Go away, get a life, or find a point. Your choice.

[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

"I write it females” - Madison420"

Literally too dumb to read your own writing...

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Context matters dipshit, there's a reason you keep cutting it out.

Stop, seriously you're just harassing me at this point.

[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

“I write it females” - Madison420”

this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2024
897 points (96.2% liked)

The Onion

4279 readers
927 users here now

The Onion

A place to share and discuss stories from The Onion, Clickhole, and other satire.

Great Satire Writing:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS