Morality and Sexism

[heyrabbit]

If you had followed any of my links you would know that the correct replacement is to restructure your sentence and use 'humanity', or 'humankind'

 

"A person's life..."

 

 

"Humankind is the only..."

 

 

 

I would argue that this is inherently correct, as most god's are projected as being mail. However, "Humanity create gods in their own..."

 

 

"Human kind is by nature..."

 

 

 

I seriously hope you are not in academia, as your citation is insufficient to allow a reader to quickly verify the quotation in context. The website I believe you are citing is http://www.ucc.ie/equalcom/language.html, which doesn't contain any of those quotes. In fact, to the contrary:

 

Instead of

Man is a species who suckles his young

The man we want for the job

The man on the street     

Manning the office

 

Try

Humans are a species who suckle their young

The person we want for the job

The average person; The ordinary person; or People in general

Staffing the office

 

This is a lost argument. I challenge you to find any writing guide from a credible academic source, written in the last 10 years, which says the use of 'man' as a generic is good style. You won't. It's bad style, it's sexist, and as Cork puts it: renders women invisible.

;) You're correcting Aristotle now?

 

 

I'll provide a source for you when you find a writing guide indicating the correct use of the word "dog". Of course, you won't find one. Why not? Because the main "writing guide" indicating the correct usage of a word is called the dictionary.

 

If, by "incorrect", you mean "I don't like it", then the word isn't correct. If, by "incorrect", you mean "politically incorrect", you're probably right

[ToadMan]

Well clearly this is stale.

 

I'm going to state this once, you can agree or disagree as you like. In modern academic writing the word 'man' is not permissible as a generic since it is sexist. This might go against the dictionary definition but it is the way things are.

 

I cited MLA and APA, if you where in academia you would know that they are by large considered the authority on writing.

 

You can chose to use 'man' as a generic, but I will with near certainty guaranty that if you did in a scholarly paper you would be told it is incorrect.

 

And as one last question, which dictionary? (Oxfords?, Websters?)

[supercanuk]

Well clearly this is stale.

 

I'm going to state this once, you can agree or disagree as you like. In modern academic writing the word 'man' is not permissible as a generic since it is sexist. This might go against the dictionary definition but it is the way things are.

 

I cited MLA and APA, if you where in academia you would know that they are by large considered the authority on writing.

 

You can chose to use 'man' as a generic, but I will with near certainty guaranty that if you did in a scholarly paper you would be told it is incorrect.

 

And as one last question, which dictionary? (Oxfords?, Websters?)

 

[heyrabbit]

Well clearly this is stale.

 

I'm going to state this once, you can agree or disagree as you like.  In modern academic writing the word 'man' is not permissible as a generic since it is sexist.  This might go against the dictionary definition but it is the way things are.

 

I cited MLA and APA, if you where in academia you would know that they are by large considered the authority on writing.

 

You can chose to use 'man' as a generic, but I will with near certainty guaranty that if you did in a scholarly paper you would be told it is incorrect.

 

And as one last question, which dictionary? (Oxfords?, Websters?)

 

Edited December 13, 2007 by heyrabbit

[supercanuk]

Citing the MLA and APA doesn't really do anything for me because I'm not arguing with them. But I suppose if you get your opinion from an authority, that's where you'd have to turn when asked to expand on it.

 

 

Of course the vast majority of UNI professors would not accept the non-gender specific use of the word "man". It's politically incorrect ―according to whose politics? Theirs!

 

 

Check any dictionary you want. I tend to use dictionary.com. sometimes Websters.

 

Using the universal criteria for arguments is something good to see on NF, one such invalid form of argumentation you cite is an appeal to authority.

From my ethics book it quotes:

"any appeal to authority is always secondary to premisses based purely on sound reasoning"

 

It adds that if one is going to appeal to authority there must be a few things kept in mind:

"We would hope the authority in question has the education or experience or both to be recognized as an authority. This person should not simply be recognized as an authority by the public but also by other peers in their profession.

 

It goes on to name unbiased sources, etc, again, there are people in a position of trust usually professionals who it is okay to cite to support ones argument. In other words, its not always completely invalid to do this, and one cannot be a professional in every field, so one does have to trust certain sources. Unless you all want to become English professors any time soon i'd suggest stop arguing over something you are both (appeal to authority) practicing.

Using the dictionary, is not necessarily an appeal to an authority, however, it is also not always correct in certain circumstances, i.e. in academia.

 

Just because it is technically correct, does not mean it is acceptable or correct in academia, and this is not just the politics of professors, its the institution itself. Name me on legitimate University that would condone at a Graduate level (that means Master's) the use of the word "man" to describe both women and men? In the arts field this is just unacceptable not because it's politically correct, because its wrong to do so. It's also not accurate, or epistemically responsible.

 

I'm a 4th year Law student going into my Master's and its considered completely irresponsible of me to use the term "mankind" when speaking in broad generality because its both archaic and insulting to people who are not men. Not to mention the reinforced patriarchy that term thinly veils.

 

The dictionary has to be understood in different contexts if you want to continue in academia.

[heyrabbit]

Using the universal criteria for arguments is something good to see on NF, one such invalid form of argumentation you cite is an appeal to authority.

From my ethics book it quotes:

"any appeal to authority is always secondary to premisses based purely on sound reasoning"

 

It adds that if one is going to appeal to authority there must be a few things kept in mind:

"We would hope the authority in question has the education or experience or both to be recognized as an authority. This person should not simply be recognized as an authority by the public but also by other peers in their profession.

 

It goes on to name unbiased sources, etc, again, there are people in a position of trust usually professionals who it is okay to cite to support ones argument. In other words, its not always completely invalid to do this, and one cannot be a professional in every field, so one does have to trust certain sources. Unless you all want to become English professors any time soon i'd suggest stop arguing over something you are both (appeal to authority) practicing.

Using the dictionary, is not necessarily an appeal to an authority, however, it is also not always correct in certain circumstances, i.e. in academia.

 

Just because it is technically correct, does not mean it is acceptable or correct in academia, and this is not just the politics of professors, its the institution itself. Name me on legitimate University that would condone at a Graduate level (that means Master's) the use of the word "man" to describe both women and men? In the arts field this is just unacceptable not because it's politically correct, because its wrong to do so. It's also not accurate, or epistemically responsible.

 

I'm a 4th year Law student going into my Master's and its considered completely irresponsible of me to use the term "mankind" when speaking in broad generality because its both archaic and insulting to people who are not men. Not to mention the reinforced patriarchy that term thinly veils.

 

The dictionary has to be understood in different contexts if you want to continue in academia.

I don't care so much if people throw in an appeal to authority here or there, but I have no choice but to point it out if it's the extent of someone's argument. I don't want to have to cite the dictionary, but what else am I supposed to do if someone doesn't know what the word "man" means, or if they claim to not understand, which is what a couple people have done in this thread? Though the word "man" causes controversy, it's anything but complicated, and I assume that everyone in this thread understands that it's a polysemous with a variety of meanings. Anyone who claims otherwise is either lying or illiterate, and none of you are either of those things.

 

Now, I want you to clarify what you mean when you say that the word isn't "correct". For the most part, the word is not accepted in academia, and I never claimed otherwise. I know that. However, that does not mean for a second that the generic use of it is false. As I said before, there is a difference between you not liking a word and whether or not it's correct. Your success as a student depends on your ability to recognize and agree with the bias of the institution. That's fine. I get that. I do, however, disagree with the insinuation that anyone with an educated or experience agrees with your position.

 

Please tell me what's epistemically responsible about removing the meaning "human" from the symbol "man"? Also, if it is inaccurate, what's wrong about the quote in your signature? What's wrong with the quote in my signature? Also, what's wrong with saying "herd of cows". Have I been offending cows for years? What's wrong with saying " flock of sheep"? Should I say "person of snow" instead of "snowman", or "snow human" ?

 

 

The dictionary defines concepts. Some definitions are more objective than others, but the dictionary really only has one purpose.That's pretty much it. What are these contexts that I've missed?

[Bizud]

It's not incorrect, just sexist, and that's why it's unacceptable in academia. If you don't care that it's considered sexist then just say that, and know that it makes you come off as an ass.

 

What's wrong with suicide is the act of giving up life. That's what makes it sad. That's what makes it wrong. If you want to live life, what's wrong with destroying your life? Destroying your life is the greatest act of immorality, since morality is what is required to live, and abstaining from thinking is the best way to achieve it.

 

Why is morality required to live? Is it not possible to live immorally, or to behave immorally in such a way that doesn't impede you from living?

 

You don't stop being a human being when you're diagnosed with cancer, so I don't understand your question. Your life still requires ethics, because you could choose to crawl into a hole for two days, or to do something productive.

 

So, it's unethical for a person who is dying a painful death to kill themselves?

 

Why is doing something productive inherently good? What's so good about producing?

 

This is why I don't accept that "morality is what is required to live." Since everybody dies, does that mean death is immoral?

 

Maybe it's because they've never met a real man.

 

What does that mean anyway.

Edited December 15, 2007 by Bizud

[supercanuk]

I don't care so much if people throw in an appeal to authority here or there, but I have no choice but to point it out if it's the extent of someone's argument. I don't want to have to cite the dictionary, but what else am I supposed to do if someone doesn't know what the word "man" means, or if they claim to not understand, which is what a couple people have done in this thread? Though the word "man" causes controversy, it's anything but complicated, and I assume that everyone in this thread understands that it's a polysemous with a variety of meanings. Anyone who claims otherwise is either lying or illiterate, and none of you are either of those things.

 

Now, I want you to clarify what you mean when you say that the word isn't "correct". For the most part, the word is not accepted in academia, and I never claimed otherwise. I know that. However, that does not mean for a second that the generic use of it is false. As I said before, there is a difference between you not liking a word and whether or not it's correct. Your success as a student depends on your ability to recognize and agree with the bias of the institution. That's fine. I get that. I do, however, disagree with the insinuation that anyone with an educated or experience agrees with your position.

 

Please tell me what's epistemically responsible about removing the meaning "human" from the symbol "man"? Also, if it is inaccurate, what's wrong about the quote in your signature? What's wrong with the quote in my signature? Also, what's wrong with saying "herd of cows". Have I been offending cows for years? What's wrong with saying " flock of sheep"? Should I say "person of snow" instead of "snowman", or "snow human"

 

 

The dictionary defines concepts. Some definitions are more objective than others, but the dictionary really only has one purpose.That's pretty much it. What are these contexts that I've missed?

Now, I want you to clarify what you mean when you say that the word isn't "correct". For the most part, the word is  not accepted in academia, and I never claimed otherwise. I know that. However, that does not mean for a second that the generic use of it is false.

 

I certainly don't disagree. I mean incorrect as in, incorrect in context. Obviously i am speaking from the view of someone fairly (although not enough to call myself an authority by any means) experienced in academia so for my contexts its wrong. I'm not going to go out of my way and point out that the word in the context of "mankind" is sexist to every single person who uses it, but it is considered sexist.

 

 

Your success as a student depends on your ability to recognize and agree with the bias of the institution.

This is extremely true (haha i dont know why but that sounds weird) but it is quite correct, your success as a student depends on your ability to recognize and agree with the bias of the institution - they will make you conform - because its your grades on the line and its your success on the line. Obviously coercive institution, like many institutions - i don't think its always wrong either. I prefer the "liberal" values of the university, although i accept many probably don't.

 

 

I do, however, disagree with the insinuation that anyone with an educated or experience agrees with your position.

I certainly cannot speak for everyone in the institution no.

 

 

 

Please tell me what's epistemically responsible about removing the meaning "human" from the symbol "man"? Also, if it is inaccurate, what's wrong about the quote in your signature?

 

I said that it would be epistemically irresponsible of me to use "mankind" in my academic papers. I didn't say it was wrong for me to use it in a quote of someone who lived in the late nineteenth century where "mankind" had common usage among all. I realize it's normal, and in fact, correct to use that term in say, the sciences. Anthropology for example, one would explain "mankind" and other "man-like" species who came before us. Again, my argument is one of context, that it would be incorrect and wrong for me to use it in my professional work.

 

Again, the dictionary in context.

[heyrabbit]

It's not incorrect, just sexist, and that's why it's unacceptable in academia. If you don't care that it's considered sexist then just say that, and know that it makes you come off as an ass.

 

 

 

Why is morality required to live? Is it not possible to live immorally, or to behave immorally in such a way that doesn't impede you from living?

 

 

 

So, it's unethical for a person who is dying a painful death to kill themselves?

 

Why is doing something productive inherently good? What's so good about producing?

 

This is why I don't accept that "morality is what is required to live." Since everybody dies, does that mean death is immoral?

 

 

 

What does that mean anyway.

I'm sorry if I midled you into thinking that I might care what people think of me. Maybe people should make a list of words they don't understand so I can tailor my vocabulary to support their

 

 

Morality only pertains to choices. Getting hit by a bus isn't immoral, but walking onto a busy street is. etc. What is good is what is conducive to life. therefore, to live is to act morally. Living requires values, which requires choices. Not every choice helps you acquire your value.

 

 

It's not unethical to commit suicide under those circumstances, but that is a very rare situation. It's unethical to extent to which a person gives up life, to whatever degree that may be.

 

What's good about being productive? Engaging in self-generating action is required for you to live. (you need a home, food, clothes etc).

 

Death in and of itself isn't immoral. If you're 110 year old grandma dies in her sleep, was she acting immorally? No. why not? Because there were no choices. If uncle Joe shoots himself in the mouth, is he acting immorally? yes.

 

 

What does what mean? Ask Howard Roark.

 

 

 

 

I certainly don't disagree. I mean incorrect as in, incorrect in context. Obviously i am speaking from the view of someone fairly (although not enough to call myself an authority by any means) experienced in academia so for my contexts its wrong. I'm not going to go out of my way and point out that the word in the context of "mankind" is sexist to every single person who uses it, but it is considered sexist.

 

You know, before any mentioned any of this, I hadn't even thought that it might be considered sexist. When I think of "man", when the term is used generically, I only think of human-kind, men and women. Does anyone actually think I'm sexist? For Christ's sake, my idol is a women. Most of the people I look up to in my life are women.

To be honest, I still don't even believe that many people are actually offended. What you've got is a lot of people who think they should be offended becuase someone told them they should be, and a lot of people who are afraid to offend others, also because someone told them they should be. I'm not interested in playing those types of games. Those who "care" enough to complain are only those in certain sects of academia, who've been told that it's politically incorrect. Why would I worry about being politically incorrect in the face of people who I feel don't have a clue about politics?

 

I know you like the word too. It was valid when the quote in your signature was written and it's equally valid today. Philosophy is a science too and perhaps more than any other science, there is a constant need to have a name which can be used to speak of humans generally. There is currently no better word than the word "man". It's caloric, economical, and more powerful a word than "humans".

 

I don't like context hopping. Not that I'm saying that you do it, but sometimes people often protest that others view things "out of context", when in argument. In the context of wanting to know what a word means, the dictionary isn't the worst thing in the world.