Ken Armstrong wrote:
> --On Saturday, April 08, 2006 2:36 PM -0500 Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]>
> > No you may not because it is no longer the generic term. In (morally and
> > politically decent) English of the present "man" refers only to the male
> > gender. Its use as a generic term is anachronistic and vulgar.
> Just observing actual usage, this seems not to be true, though there is
> certainly a movement afoot to make it so, as your finger wagging
> exemplifies. However, I think such usages are more deeply rooted and
> resonant than political criticisms such as yours credit them for, which is
> why they continue, even among decent and moral people.
Movement afoot. Have you been sleeping for 40 years. "Man" as generic is
simply vulgar and illiterate.
> Ken A.