Posts and discussion about the webcomic Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal by Hugo Award-winning author Zach Weinersmith (and related works)
https://www.patreon.com/ZachWeinersmith
@ZachWeinersmith@mastodon.social
New comics posted whenever they get posted on the site, and old comics posted every day until we catch up in a decade or so
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/man-3
Alt text
All I'm saying is show me one -- just ONE -- woman who ever dug a 200,000 gallon boner-lake. I'll wait.
Bonus panel
"Man" is a gender neutral term, as it was the original use (from proto-germanic "mann"). Previously, wer and wif were used to differentiate between sex. Using "man" to refer to male gendered individuals is based on context.
Inclusive language is important, which means not creating new exclusions for terms that are already neutral.
Language evolves.
Also, do we really want a gendered language? Where does that leave people who aren't wermen or wifmen?
It did evolve already so that in some contexts "man" can refer to male gendered individuals. However, that doesn't mean that the gender neutral and inclusive term "man" is suddenly gone. E.g. man-made, mankind, man-eater, etc.
And why can't it keep evolving? Human-made, humanity, human-eater, etc.
Nothing I said implies that's wrong, can't happen, or is not happening. Choosing to use those forms for yourself is fine. I do so often. The problem is when a person claims that the term "man-made" is gendered, which pushes an already neutral term into being needlessly gendered. It creates a new exclusion that is contrary to the ideal. It others people by pushing a new definition onto someone who very likely is not being exclusive.
If we had a gendered romantic language, with wifman and werman, then "man" would be a neutral term. We don't have that language, though, and so "man" is not a neutral term and implies gender. This is just how the language evolved under patriarchy. Now that patriarchy is in decline the language is evolving again, to remove "man" and replace it with a neutral term.
It's probably too late to go back and re-romanticize the language, but if you want to try you're welcome to it I guess.
You're referencing a specific context, though. In the context of referring to gender, "man" does indeed mean the male gender. However, "man" in other contexts still does mean humans as a whole, as shown in the examples I've already provided. There is no need to force that context into all uses, especially when an individual is clearly not being exclusive.
"Human" based forms of the terms that include the original neutral "man" are not prevalent enough to make that distinction. The best we can do is to change our own choice of words until those are the new default, and at that point the "man" based forms would be a specific choice to imply gender. The language has not evolved to that point yet.
Well languages don't just evolve spontaneously either. They're a human project that we're always tinkering with.
You're just living through a period of evolution. We change our own choice of words until those are the default, and we encourage other people to do the same, and before you know it "man" has become archaic.
Encouraging language to evolve should not involve othering people by telling them their neutral language is gendered. It should come from making a personal choice of which words you want to use. That's the core of everything I've been saying. I have not said anything about not wanting change or that it's bad. I am simply stating that the term "man", currently and historically, is not always gendered in all contexts, and implying that it is creates an issue of excluding people which is contrary to the core idea of inclusivity.
You keep essentially repeating the same thing, which I'm not exactly refuting or disagreeing with. You also have not approached my main point about pushing a different meaning onto other people. So, I'm not sure what your point is. Do you think it's okay for people to force their own, objectively incorrect, interpretation of someone's speech? Do you think it's okay to try to force the language to change by using emotionally manipulative tactics? Should language be changed at the expense of other's feelings by deciding to interpret their words in a context that is clearly not implied? Because that's what I'm disagreeing with. Otherwise, choosing to use language you prefer, based on good intentions, is a great thing.
What you fail to recognize is that there are two forces evolving language. While many of us try to remove "man" because it is gendered, there are misogynists that use "man" because it is gendered.
You're caught in the cross fire and now you have to pick a side. I see nothing wrong with forcing you to pick my side by pointing out the fact that, if you don't, you are actively choosing to side with the misogynists.
It's sus that you're resisting this so hard. 🤔
It's sus that you're resisting this so hard. 🤔
Ah, there it is. There's the proof of manipulation. You've just been trying to say "if you don't use my language, then you're a misogynist" without directly saying it, but you are now. What exactly am I resisting? Is it that I'm resisting pushing an intention into other people's words that clearly is not there? Because I absolutely am. That's a rude and despicable thing to do. You've clearly ignored the fact I've said multiple times that I personally choose to use other terms and instead you try to push a new narrative because I don't think people should force new meanings onto other people.
While many of us try to remove "man" because it is gendered, there are misogynists that use "man" because it is gendered.
Once again, "man" is not gendered outside of contexts of gender. You're conflating two different uses of a term that has diverged. And it appears to be intentional, now. Which explains your behavior.
You're caught in the cross fire and now you have to pick a side. I see nothing wrong with forcing you to pick my side by pointing out the fact that, if you don't, you are actively choosing to side with the misogynists.
This is the same type of manipulation as what the right uses when they say things like "the war against Christmas". They try to create a narrative where if you don't use the word Christmas then you're anti-christian.
My point is that "man" in many contexts is not gendered. This is a fact that you are trying to deny.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/man
See: Noun 1b, 2a, 2b, and the entire use of Man (verb)
Additionally, I have never once even implied that choosing other terms is in any way bad, negative, or somehow less than ideal.
The singular forms of "man" do have a gendered connotation (e.g. fireman, policeman, etc.), in those cases we absolutely should avoid using those terms. However, uncountable/plural forms do not have a gendered connotation. For example, nobody refers to a group of male people as "man", you call them "men".
Consider these sentences:
Finding out intelligent life exists all around us in our galaxy would be a hard truth to tackle for man.
Finding out intelligent life exists all around us in our galaxy would be a hard truth to tackle for men.
You are arguing that these are the same. They are not. And until they are, it is wrong to claim that it's misogynistic to use the former example.
And since I clearly have to spell it out for you: I am not saying that people should not choose other terms. I am not saying there is no benefit to choosing other terms.
Yea but when I say ' nobody uses the "r" word to talk about people with actual intellectual disabilities and the word has changed to just mean very dumb', nobody can grasp the concept.
That's not the case though. While it's no longer formally preferred, many people still use the term with no pejorative intent to describe a range of intellectual disabilities and neurodivergence. (Generally I've heard it from family and professional caregivers.) The word itself is not the problem; its use as an ableist slur is.
The thing about insulting someone for being very dumb is that it's inherently ableist no matter what language you use. Do you think this person chose to be less intelligent than you? It's better to criticize flaws in their reasoning or to point out falsehoods.
Ok cool, I get your points.
Do you think its alright to use dumb and stupid? Because those words pretty much have the same root as the r slur.
I imagine Idiot is ok because it comes from the greek for common man.
I kind of think you're overthinking the whole "root of the reason" for using words like "dumbass", its just a mental stress reliever.
Somebody cuts you off in traffic you say motherfucker and you feel kinda better for just instantly getting it out of your system instead of keeping it bottled up, you don't sit there and go through a Buddhist podcast about forgiveness and suffering and think about how difficult life must be for that motherfucker that cut you off, and how she probably was distracted by her kids or stressed about something.
Also I don't think its necessarily ableist, people can do a dumb thing and be called a dumbass for it, doesn't make them irredeemably dumb. A thought can be dumb, you can say it and sound dumb, doesn't make you dumb forever.
Do you think its alright to use dumb and stupid? [...] I imagine Idiot is ok because it comes from the greek for common man.
It's not so much what words I think are bad, but what usage is hurtful or unconstructive.
For instance, thinking Trump is an idiot is a fine gut reaction to have to the latest dystopian headline, but I think his actions go well beyond simply having a low IQ. There are lots of very nice stupid people in the world who don't deserve to get thrown under the bus with someone who's actively malicious.
Or say you're arguing about something and think to yourself "Wow, this guy is fucking stupid." Maybe they are a stupid person, either by disability or lack of education, but attacking them over it seems purely cruel to me. It also undermines your own argument by creating an emotional distraction.
A thought can be dumb
The difference between calling an idea stupid and a person stupid is a pretty key part of context in my opinion. It's still pretty charged language though, so I hesitate to talk that way with strangers. I'm more free with people I know well who won't feel attacked.
Somebody cuts you off in traffic you say motherfucker and you feel kinda better for just instantly getting it out of your system instead of keeping it bottled up
I think you kind of hit the nail on the head there by using motherfucker instead of an intelligence-based alternative like moron or similar. But even if you do go after their intelligence in the heat of the moment, that doesn't make you a terrible person. Being able to later reflect on internalized ableism and how prevalent that language is in society is a good thing, imo. You don't even need to feel bad about it exactly; I just think it's a good thing to be conscious about your internal thought processes.
you don't sit there and go through a Buddhist podcast about forgiveness and suffering and think about how difficult life must be for that motherfucker that cut you off, and how she probably was distracted by her kids or stressed about something.
I think you should though, sometimes. (You don't have to be perfect all of the time.) This is part of cognitive behavioral therapy and can help alter your thinking patterns in healthy ways. Being empathetic towards others is not only good for them, but also good for you.
(I realize in the course of this that I've been intolerant of people banging their own moms, and I'm okay with that position at this time.)
I have enjoyed this exchange and mostly agree with you👍
That's an example of a different scenario, where a single term changes in meaning. In the case for "man", a separate term evolved. "Man" never stopped having the meaning of "humans as a whole". Instead, it evolved a different meaning in certain contexts. "Man" also isn't used as a slur, which makes using the word you chose as an example not equivalent.
There's just no need to push "man" in these kinds of context into being gendered when it's not. Choosing to use another term is great, but it's not great to impose onto others.
So words evolve unless they become slurs.
Edit: Yea just terminate thought and downvote, very productive discussion. "Words change meaning unless we decide to ignore the new meaning of the word."
Im honestly just trying to have a conversation about this, because me and all my friends are progressive people, and none of us see the 'r' word as badly as it is perceived online. But whatever its cool, the slur treadmill continues, see you in 50 years when idiot becomes the "i" slur.
Except it didn't change, it's still used as a slur to talk about people with actual intellectual disabilities. You can't avoid that.
The evolution of language isn't a personal choice, it's done on a societal level.
That's fair, I guess its just changed in my social circle, but I disagree with your second point.
Society is made up of people and the way we use words changes their meaning over time. There isn't a dictionary committee that decides what words mean, words change based on how individuals use them on a daily basis.
This is an example of the "generic masculine", where masculine words are used as the generic expression for groups of both sexes/mixed groups. This has a long history - e.g. in Latin, a group of 100 women would be referred to by the feminine plural, whereas a group of 99 women and 1 man would be referred to by the masculine plural.
But isn't that a bit strange? Yes, it's a long-standing feature of languages, but still - isn't it strange how the masculine version is the "default"? In other languages this goes even further, where e.g. the male term for a job is used as the generic version, even though the female term is different. And this has a measurable effect on thinking. There are a bunch of studies that show that using the "generic" male version makes people think more often of men than women. It's bias encoded in our language, and it biases our thinking towards men.
You're right that it's currently a gender neutral term, but you're not right that it's actually neutral. Language affects our thinking, and this is a great example of something that has detrimental effects for non-male people. It's not a bad thing to think about these things!
The difference here is that "man" was originally neutral and a secondary form diverged from it while the original form remained gender neutral.
I don't think that this is an example of generic masculine. Not like "fireman", for example. I think that it's starting to become that way because the diverged form causes some people conflate the two by being essentially homonyms, and those people are pushing that as a new reality instead of understanding that it's a different term. Though, I empathize with the initial reaction to think that. More importantly, I do think that it's needed to adopt new terms to avoid the issue of it seeming like a case of generic masculine.
My issue is telling others that it's a gendered term when it's not, for the same reason it's good to change to different terms. By that, I mean we shouldn't be pushing a divide needlessly, and in this case by treating people like they are being sexist or misogynistic when they clearly are not.
It would be fine to say "it feels like a gendered term", "it's too similar", or that "it's reminiscent of the gendered form". But that is different than treating it like it's a fact.
Is generic masculine strange? Infuriatingly, no, considering how women have been treated throughout history. We absolutely should adopt better language to avoid that and grow past that archaic ideology. But that shouldn't come at the cost of pushing down other people.
i dislike using 'man' and instead use terms closer to what it literally is, for this panel it would be artificially made
Nature truly is beautiful
What a nice, long, thick lake. I'd love to run up and down it all evening to get a good workout in
This is based off a real Reddit meme pic isn't it? I swear I have seen a Google maps image of "Dicky Lake".
It's the strongest lake! With the strongest shape!
