Quote:
Originally Posted by ekbell
As a woman, back when 'inclusive' language started gaining traction, I greatly disliked the idea that I should deem myself excluded from the generic man/men. Among other things, I felt that it would lead to a greater misreading of older texts, than the assumption that man/men was normally being used in a generic sense would have. Which seems to be true, as I've encountered people who seem to be completely unaware that man/men were ever generic terms for any human being.
|
Whereas "man" has never meant "human" in many other languages, but always and exclucively a
male human. So it may be pretty natural for people for whom English is not a first language to not know "man" once meant "human in general".
For example, I only know this because I've read older English classics. In Estonian, there have always been three separate words for "man", "woman" and "human". No one has ever addressed a mixed group in Estonian as "men", unless they deliberately wanted to address only males.
Quote:
|
...if I refuse to consider the probable intent of the author (death to authorial intent!) or accept someone else's assertation that I should feel excluded, that's my business.
|
How do you know the poster who used "Men" didn't mean to exclude women? They never said they meant "Men" to include any gender. They never explained what they meant at all.