[ExI] star trek

[Dan TheBookMan]

Sorry if this appears multiple times. Used the wrong account.

If you look back far enough, the word "man" 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 century ago, almost everyone would have interpreted that as "two male adult humans" and not "two humans of indeterminate 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 wee priggish to cling to old meanings (or meanings that are new compared to even older meanings) as if these are eternal when the underlying social relations -- the very reason for the older meanings -- have changed.

Regarding science fiction, there's certainly something you've said that earlier times most science fiction was pretty much very heteronormative and extremely male-centered. So it's no surprise that "Star Trek" typified this then started to make changes. (And women in the first series are dealt with pretty much as one dimensional servants, sex objects, or victims to be imperiled by male villains and rescued by male heroes -- not full people. Whether that bothers you or should bother is another discussion, but I don't see how anyone would seriously deny it.)

Regards,

Dan
  Sample my Kindle books via:
http://author.to/DanUst

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​
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20170208/a456b4b7/attachment.html>