[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proofreading of a part of a document about "gender neutrality"

Am Samstag, 21.08.04 um 16:33 Uhr schrieb Ben Burton:

"mankind" has a similar problem, since it can be easily perceived as
"man" + "kind" (whether this be at a conscious or subconscious level).

Man or German Mann have the origin in words for men (indogermanic languages)

"human" (or "humanity") has no such problem, since the breakdown
"hu" + "man" makes no sense whatsoever in the context of modern English.

homo, hominis (lat.) is same like human or in pl. people, but _may_ be a man.
humanitas, humanitatis (lat.) is humanity and _not_related to men only.

Mankind has its origin really in "man". And in patriachalic context it means men and not men and women. So it really is a problematic word.

So from the history of contexts it seems to be better, to talk of humans. But theere is another point: Especially if you talk about behaviour between individuals, as mankind or German "Menschheit" are not individuals but all humans of the world as a group.

If you rescpect every member of a group you will not talk about respect for the group.

Even if you do not care the origin from man of the word mankind. In that discussed sentence "mankind" is just wrong wording. Even in German language you cannot say "der Menschheit Respekt entgegenbringen", you will have to say "allen Menschen Respekt entgegenbringen".



Reply to: