[ExI] star trek

[Dan]

If you go back far enough, the word "man" and its cognates didn't refer to males, but to both males and females, sure. But it wasn't feminism that changed this. Over time, "man" started to refer to males exclusively and was still use to refer generically to humanity. But if you said "there were two men on the boat" a few decades ago, almost everyone would have translated that as "two male adult humans" and not "two humans of undeterminate gender."

Feminists didn't change this and didn't destroy anything. Times change. Some people are more attuned now that "man" seems to connote a male adult human and can be unclear in many case or give exactly the wrong meaning. And, sure, some might be swayed by PC, but every age has its views on what's appropriate and inappropriate. Sometimes a change in this is for the better, sometimes not. But out time is not unique in this respect.

"Gentleman" and "lady" went through similar changes. A few centuries ago, "gentleman" didn't mean someone necessarily who had good manners or paid deference to the opposite sex. It meant a male adult of the gentry, specifically one who had some source of income that meant he would not have to work -- usually by owning land others managed and worked. The word only changed over time to have a meaning confined to manners and having nothing to do with being a member of the gentry or whether one worked. And now it's mainly used either to refer to manners or to politely/formerly refer to male adults.

These social roles, too, are malleable and alter over time. It seems a bit priggish to cling to old meanings (or meanings that are new compared to even older meanings) as if these are correct when the underlying social relations -- the very reason for the older meanings -- have changed.


Regards,

Dan
  Sample my Kindle books via:
http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/________________________________
From: William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2017 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] star trek

adrian wrote:

updated it from "no man" to "no one".  (Ladies can go too.)


I​t used to be that 'man' referred to humanity, male and female.  I suppose the feminists have destroyed that usage, though I have not seen 'manhole' turned to 'personhole'.  It also used to be that 'ladies', except in announcements in large groups  "Ladies and gentlemen....", referred only to women who met certain criteria and not every woman did.  I assume a woman is a lady until she proves that she is not.  Ditto gentleman.

Spike, it is extremely unlikely that Freud's discarded developmental theories will ever see the light of day again, except metaphorically, as in 'anal personality'.  Also, his therapy, Psychoanalysis, is just about dead, along with any other (like Jung) relying on uncovering the unconscious.  

We will gradually uncover the unconscious but not by those means.

  bill w​


On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 3:57 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

 
> 
>From:extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces@ lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace
>
>
>​
>​>…Freud was right about so many things, and wrong about more than that.  When he was right, it was amazing…- people are hung up on his wrong ideas, such as oral, anal, Oedipal stages, etc.)…
> 
> 
>Owwww damn, are those wrong now?  I really liked those theories.  How long does it take for these to cycle back around?
> 
> 
> 
>>…There is evidence that one of Freud's hangups was sex, and that he was something of a prude, all of which did not seem to influence his theories.  bill w​
> 
>Prude, that’s a term specific to people who are squicky about sex.  We should have specific terms for those who are squicky about other human behaviors, such as recreational drugs (you know I am a prude on that.)  I propose “drude.”  It even has rhyming potential.  Guy makes like Mrs. Reagan, just says no.  His buds: Dude!  You’re such a drude!
> 
>spike