am 09.04.2006 6:42 Uhr schrieb Carrol Cox unter [log in to unmask]:
> 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.
for once I feel obliged to take Ken's side. Militant feminism, as your
opinion is based on, is, as any militant movement, simply a boring
aberration and leads to cumbersome terms. What was wrong, e.g., with "The
Family of Man", the title of Edward Steichen famous photo exhibit?
Same thing with race: What's wrong with negro? Is Afro-American any better?
How I detest this whole hypocritical political correctness bullshit, an
American wave spreading all over the world, from a country presently
behaving politically far from correct. It will not make things any better,
it just obfuscates.
And, yes, you may call me vulgar and illiterate.