Is “man” an offensive word?

I’m shocked, watching the BAFTAs, and they just given Kate Blanchett the award for leading actress. I thought they were all actors now.
 
The vast majority of the population identify as male or female. We use the labels of ‘men’ and ‘women’ because it’s useful to discern between the two.

We’re all human of course. But underneath that the genders are different. We treat people differently in certain settings in line with their gender. Sport being one example, eg men’s football as opposed to women’s football.

With regards to this specific example, we’re asked by some, ‘why do we care?’ as if caring in itself is somehow an admittance of guilt. But I’m happy to make it very clear that yea I do care when I see the male gender being erased in front of our eyes with no justification whatsoever.

There are jobs or sports where male and female all co-work or co-compete. There are some historical deep-seated stereotypes which mean females might not see a profession as one which they can pursue. In these circumstances I welcome dropping job titles etc if they reinforce the stereotypes, though surely they’ve already been dropped. So it’s a police officer for example, not a policeman.

But when it comes to football we clearly have the men’s game and the women’s game. So saying ‘man of the match’ is perfectly sensible and totally uncontroversial. Unless - it’s due to wariness of discrimination against non-binary players.

The problem is we have too many woke weirdos who are hell bent on trying to eradicate anything male.
Anything male, in their eyes, is toxic. There’s the phrase toxic masculinity which instead of being used just for extreme behaviour, is now a term increasingly used to refer to all men.

Men are the rapists. Men cause wars. Men fight each other. Men spit. Men watch too much football. Men are useless. Men are lazy. Men are disgusting. Men prematurely ejaculate. Men need to be eradicated.

Reference to men or man must end as it’s upsetting and it’s a form of verbal violence causing incredible anxiety to university students!!!

It was the same with pregnant people and people who menstruate. We can’t say women because that too is offensive.

There’s a university in America which has banned the word ‘man’ as it’s too toxic. They’re removing it from all signs and literature. Poor students. They must have been so distressed to have to acknowledge that men are men, and they do exist, and they also have rights.

With regards to the ‘fisherthem’, it’s an angler as someone said on here. Or it’s a 4 way choice between fisherman, fisherwoman, fisher non-binary, or fisher prefer to not say.

Them is a pronoun. It’s not a gender. You don’t replace a gender label with a pronoun. If the original word was fisherhe, then yeah I can see why Sam would want Fisherthem instead. But it’s fisherman so in his case it’s gonna instead be fishernon-binary or fisherprefernottosay.

By the way, you can buy the new non-binary Sam Smith doll from Fisher…….Price. 😉

But let’s love Sam for his music and his dress sense. I can’t wait for his new album of covers from the 80s and 90s. Tracks included are :-

Madonna’s living in material world and I’m am a material them
Sania Twain’s Them I feel like a them
John Lennon’s Them
Michael Jackson’s Them in the Mirror
And Billy Joel’s Piano Them, and Uptown Them.
(There was gonna be a track by Brother Beyond but they objected to having to be called Them Beyond. Their agent said ‘why Sam insisted on the name change is Beyond Them’.

I’m gonna get it from the store as it’s not available by ‘mail’ order for some reason.
 
Alf said:
Which also seems to not really matter, it’s just language
Click to expand...

So your point is that it matters so much that people want to change the language. But it’s only language. So why does it matter? Oh I see it matters one way and not the other. That makes absolute sense.

Maybe it doesn’t matter if you’re spineless and have zero passion about your own identity.
 
Malced said:
So your point is that it matters so much that people want to change the language. But it’s only language. So why does it matter? Oh I see it matters one way and not the other. That makes absolute sense.

Maybe it doesn’t matter if you’re spineless and have zero passion about your own identity.
Click to expand...
No, that’s not my point, and you know that. And I won’t get into trading insults with you. All the best.
 
If the right of men and women in this country to call a Jerry a Kraut is taken away then there will be riots in the streets of Trumpton!🇬🇧😜
 
There’s no room for trading insults. In my opinion, any male who doesn’t care about the words man or male being eradicated is spineless end of. Nothing to trade back other than shooting the messenger for home truths.
 
I was en eye witness to a horrific assault on a woman by a man.
The police quickly arrived at the scene and I explained that the assailant had headed off on foot down the high street in a westerly direction.

The assailant was 6foot 5inch or so. About 60 years old. He was white. Male. He had grey hair. He was overweight.

The police officer asked me a a description so he could put out an urgent BOLO call (be on look out).

I was only too happy to help.

He asked me if they were male or female. To which I said it was irrelevant. And I wouldn’t know without asking the assailant myself.

He asked his ethnicity but again declined to say as I’ve no idea what they identify as, and I don’t want to inadvertently stereotype with unconscious bias.

He asked their height to which I said the height was indeterminate. I didn’t want to discriminate on height as too often tall people are referred to as bean poles or stared at. (See the ‘Stare’ thread for more on this, including the Goldilocks syndrome).

He asked me to describe their build. I was dying to say morbidly obese Mayo eater, but I didn’t want to be a fattist so I said ‘no comment’.

He asked me their age but I didn’t want to be ageist.

He asked me to describe their hair but I didn’t want to discriminate against the silver generation. So I said they could have been bald or ginger or curly haired or anything in fact.

Eventually the officer thanked me for my help. I heard him get on the radio and say ‘be on the look out for a suspect of any appearance whatsoever’. The suspect was never found but at least no one was discriminated against and no pronouns were incorrectly used.

If they had have been found they’d have ended up serving time in a ssssshhhhh prison. A prison for persons.
 
Malced said:
I was en eye witness to a horrific assault on a woman by a man.
The police quickly arrived at the scene and I explained that the assailant had headed off on foot down the high street in a westerly direction.

The assailant was 6foot 5inch or so. About 60 years old. He was white. Male. He had grey hair. He was overweight.

The police officer asked me a a description so he could put out an urgent BOLO call (be on look out).

I was only too happy to help.

He asked me if they were male or female. To which I said it was irrelevant. And I wouldn’t know without asking the assailant myself.

He asked his ethnicity but again declined to say as I’ve no idea what they identify as, and I don’t want to inadvertently stereotype with unconscious bias.

He asked their height to which I said the height was indeterminate. I didn’t want to discriminate on height as too often tall people are referred to as bean poles or stared at. (See the ‘Stare’ thread for more on this, including the Goldilocks syndrome).

He asked me to describe their build. I was dying to say morbidly obese Mayo eater, but I didn’t want to be a fattist so I said ‘no comment’.

He asked me their age but I didn’t want to be ageist.

He asked me to describe their hair but I didn’t want to discriminate against the silver generation. So I said they could have been bald or ginger or curly haired or anything in fact.

Eventually the officer thanked me for my help. I heard him get on the radio and say ‘be on the look out for a suspect of any appearance whatsoever’. The suspect was never found but at least no one was discriminated against and no pronouns were incorrectly used.

If they had have been found they’d have ended up serving time in a ssssshhhhh prison. A prison for persons.
Click to expand...
As you say, the main thing is you didn't cause any offence by misgendering or offending the assailant.
 
Malced said:
There’s no room for trading insults. In my opinion, any male who doesn’t care about the words man or male being eradicated is spineless end of. Nothing to trade back other than shooting the messenger for home truths.
Click to expand...
Nice touch repeating the insult. As I say, all the best.
 
I'm sure you've been called much much worse, as have we all. I've been called all sorts on here by all and sundry. You need a thicker skin if you want to engage in debate. Perhaps you're right to check out if that's all too much for you.
But instead of being so apparently upset by my vicious cruel personal attack (what was it again - oh yeah it was so terrible - spineless - I should be banned for life) why don't you tell me what you meant by your 'point'? You said it didn't matter cos it's only language. Yet you therefore are ok to accept it matters so much to the small minority of woke people that they had to change what we've used for countless generations. Man isn't a dirty word, nor should we let it become so. To idly sit back and say it doesn't matter is for me lame, weak and yeah very spineless. I can't think of any other way to dress it up. Prove me wrong. I'm happy to hear why it doesn't matter.
Despite what you may feel, it's nothing personal. I say the same to any male who holds the opinion that it's ok to have our identify watered down in case the mere reference to us causes some sort of upset or 'offence'.
Well isn't the bar for so called offence so very low nowadays. Let's pander to the intolerant hypersensitive. Men's football is no longer a man's game and you're ok with that cos it's 'only language'. Language is only how we communicate, and part of our culture and part of what defines us.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JJpool said:
Any mistreatment is wrong.

It IS the men's game, if you can't accept that then there's something wrong.

It's the men's game because it's men who play. Not because it's only men who can attend. Women know it's the men's game as they see the men playing. Everyone knows this.

Please don't try and make out you aren't intelligent enough to understand the difference.

No I'm not. You and the other poster on here are, as you fail to accept facts.

What is the problem exactly? Calling a man a player isn't going to make flocks of women suddenly attend.

There's nothing wrong with pushing the game etc women, promoting it etc, trying to make it more welcoming.

That fine, but let's not get silly and try and paint a picture that doesn't exist.

There's no need to change this particular language.
Click to expand...
It's the men's game mainly because women were literally banned from playing for 60 years, up to and including our lifetimes.
 
It is my choice to be called a man, a male, a mister. (Middle English, from Old English man, mon human being, male human; akin to Old High German man human being, Sanskrit manu). OK I'm also an old so and so, choose your own word. But in these times of Wokism, I still demand to be referred to as a man, a male, a him and a mister, and not a them, they, it, or any other deviation or pseudo word generated by the few for the many. It's my prerogative.
 
Malced said:
I was en eye witness to a horrific assault on a woman by a man.
The police quickly arrived at the scene and I explained that the assailant had headed off on foot down the high street in a westerly direction.

The assailant was 6foot 5inch or so. About 60 years old. He was white. Male. He had grey hair. He was overweight.

The police officer asked me a a description so he could put out an urgent BOLO call (be on look out).

I was only too happy to help.

He asked me if they were male or female. To which I said it was irrelevant. And I wouldn’t know without asking the assailant myself.

He asked his ethnicity but again declined to say as I’ve no idea what they identify as, and I don’t want to inadvertently stereotype with unconscious bias.

He asked their height to which I said the height was indeterminate. I didn’t want to discriminate on height as too often tall people are referred to as bean poles or stared at. (See the ‘Stare’ thread for more on this, including the Goldilocks syndrome).

He asked me to describe their build. I was dying to say morbidly obese Mayo eater, but I didn’t want to be a fattist so I said ‘no comment’.

He asked me their age but I didn’t want to be ageist.

He asked me to describe their hair but I didn’t want to discriminate against the silver generation. So I said they could have been bald or ginger or curly haired or anything in fact.

Eventually the officer thanked me for my help. I heard him get on the radio and say ‘be on the look out for a suspect of any appearance whatsoever’. The suspect was never found but at least no one was discriminated against and no pronouns were incorrectly used.

If they had have been found they’d have ended up serving time in a ssssshhhhh prison. A prison for persons.
Click to expand...
Did they arrest you for obstruction and wasting police time? 😉🤣
 
Curryman said:
It is my choice to be called a man, a male, a mister. (Middle English, from Old English man, mon human being, male human; akin to Old High German man human being, Sanskrit manu). OK I'm also an old so and so, choose your own word. But in these times of Wokism, I still demand to be referred to as a man, a male, a him and a mister, and not a them, they, it, or any other deviation or pseudo word generated by the few for the many. It's my prerogative.
Click to expand...
And I think the point is, no one is trying to stop you being called any of those things, if that's what you prefer.

It's only the Daily Mail and Express who think that you can't be called a man. That's not the case in the real world, just as Baa Baa Black Sheep is still OK everywhere despite similar claims.
 
Wizaard said:
And I think the point is, no one is trying to stop you being called any of those things, if that's what you prefer.

It's only the Daily Mail and Express who think that you can't be called a man. That's not the case in the real world, just as Baa Baa Black Sheep is still OK everywhere despite similar claims.
Click to expand...
That might be the case for now. But these things tend to gather momentum. As with the whole men can get pregnant thing. Men can't get pregnant by the way. The NHS changed its language and materials to remove women and female from medical issues which are purely and absolutely for females only. So we had pregnant 'person' etc.
This did indeed matter as it some of their guidance/literature/advice became unclear, diluted and obfuscated, to the medical detriment of women. So we ended up with women being disadvantaged medically because someone somewhere wanted our language changing because they found it offensive; and no one dared object; many were complacent cos 'it's only language'; yet we ended up realising we'd caused a problem, and the NHS were told to chnage their literature etc., back to how it was.
Now, here we go again.
 
I don’t necessarily have an opinion either way at the minute, but I will make a few points..

1. The language we use is important because it sits behind and reinforces what we stand for as a society.

2. The fact that it is so important means that it is important enough to change (if it’s important enough to change)

3. Much of our language is heavily rested in a ‘Male First’ (Adam > Eve) philosophy, which is potentially problematic (not if you are male of course). To that extent our language reinforces male privilege and prejudice.

4. Our language has continually changed and evolved over time to reflect changes in our society and the way we think and feel.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely agree with all that BFCx3.
A very good post imo.
I'm far from made unfortunately.
Language always evolves. No problem with that. But I don't agree with how it's evolving with regards to the specifics discussed on this thread.
I'm all for changing language to ensure we achieve equality. But we can surely do that with some common sense and proportionality. As I've said, men, males exist. Man. men, male etc are not dirty words or words that should cause anyone offence when used in the correct context.
We can still acknowledge and celebrate differences across our genders. Football is a great example. The women's game has come on leaps and bounds. Football is no longer seen or portrayed as a 'man's game', But at the same time, we can't' deny or shy away from the fact there's men's football and women's football. If we had mixed teams then of course I'd object to anyone asking who the 'man of the match' was. But in the context of the men's game, there nothing at all wrong with that.
 
I think it’s not so much as to whether words like man and male cause people to be offended, but rather that the use of these terms serves to reinforce existing prejudices.

As I said at the very foundation of the words..

Man is essentially Primary with ‘Wo’ man thereby being secondary. ‘Male’ primary ‘Fe’ male secondary… So there’s an inbuilt prejudice before we even begin…

If we wanted to use ‘man’ as a generic word for person, then maybe we need to use a precursor for us blokes… Ho man & He male (perhaps)..

Of course it may be the case that things are fine as they are and this is all just a bit daft…
 
Good post x3
One thing for sure is people definitely take things out of context to suit their own agenda when there is no offence/slur/slander/sexism/ageism/homophobia or whatever intended whatsoever.
The woke brigade and snowflakes are totally to blame for all this.
I watched a programme the other night where the presenter (a female) interviewed another female who ran a hostel (all by herself) in the back and beyond of the Lake District
In summarising the presenter said how proud she was of the other woman for her courage in taking the job on, particularly as she was a woman!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just imagine the uproar if a male had said that. It would make the papers, there would be a suspension from work, a forced apology, etc etc. People cannot have it both ways, yet stupid laws and legislation allow them to.
 
Malced said:
That might be the case for now. But these things tend to gather momentum. As with the whole men can get pregnant thing. Men can't get pregnant by the way. The NHS changed its language and materials to remove women and female from medical issues which are purely and absolutely for females only. So we had pregnant 'person' etc.
This did indeed matter as it some of their guidance/literature/advice became unclear, diluted and obfuscated, to the medical detriment of women. So we ended up with women being disadvantaged medically because someone somewhere wanted our language changing because they found it offensive; and no one dared object; many were complacent cos 'it's only language'; yet we ended up realising we'd caused a problem, and the NHS were told to chnage their literature etc., back to how it was.
Now, here we go again.
Click to expand...
This momentum bollox. Its the same as the claims we'll have Sharia law before you know it.

Rivers of blood etc etc.

Misplaced fears over absolutely nothing.
 
Wizaard said:
This momentum bollox. Its the same as the claims we'll have Sharia law before you know it.

Rivers of blood etc etc.

Misplaced fears over absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...
It's not the same at all. Sharia Law is an extreme example which with respect is totally irrelevant to a discussion about how language evolves. You're using some far right extremist conspiracy theory to shut down a suggestion that language evolves and becomes the norm. I've given a specific example of how language relating to women was changed in the NHS. That is undeniable. It's recent. Its not a conspiracy theory. It's a very similar example as it's to do with language regarding gender. So we can look to that, I'd suggest, rather than cite far right extremists.
 
I don’t know why you’re laughing Malced.

When I were a lad there were only four types of dinosaurs.

T Rex
Brontosaurus
The one that looked like a rhinoceros with a face shield and horns and
The terr……erm…..pterrer…..errr….the flying one with the pointy head.

Then along comes Jurassic Park and it all changed.

Why can’t they just leave things alone?
 
Mexboroseasider said:
I don’t know why you’re laughing Malced.

When I were a lad there were only four types of dinosaurs.

T Rex
Brontosaurus
The one that looked like a rhinoceros with a face shield and horns and
The terr……erm…..pterrer…..errr….the flying one with the pointy head.

Then along comes Jurassic Park and it all changed.

Why can’t they just leave things alone?
Click to expand...
The one that looks like a rhinoceros with a face shield has always been Triceratops 😂

And what about diplodocus and stegosaurus (the spiny back one)😂
 
Mexboroseasider said:
I don’t know why you’re laughing Malced.

When I were a lad there were only four types of dinosaurs.

T Rex
Brontosaurus
The one that looked like a rhinoceros with a face shield and horns and
The terr……erm…..pterrer…..errr….the flying one with the pointy head.

Then along comes Jurassic Park and it all changed.

Why can’t they just leave things alone?
Click to expand...
Did you know the real reason dinosaurs went extinct was because they never saurus coming?
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Now you see this is why language, like a sense of humour, has to evolve.
Click to expand...
language always has to evolve, but in the right way, for the right reasons, and not to the detriment of an entire gender for no good reason.
Going back to the o/p's question, is man an offensive word? No it isn't, nor should it evolve to be seen as offensive. Do you agree?
 
Malced said:
language always has to evolve, but in the right way, for the right reasons, and not to the detriment of an entire gender for no good reason.
Going back to the o/p's question, is man an offensive word? No it isn't, nor should it evolve to be seen as offensive. Do you agree?
Click to expand...
I’ve got more important things to worry about.

You still haven’t answered my question about the brontosaurus.
 
Malced said:
language always has to evolve, but in the right way, for the right reasons, and not to the detriment of an entire gender for no good reason.
Going back to the o/p's question, is man an offensive word? No it isn't, nor should it evolve to be seen as offensive. Do you agree?
Click to expand...
Perhaps he’s asking the wrong question though Malced…

Is it offensive? - No

Is it serving to reinforce male-centric society ? - Possibly
 
Mexboroseasider said:
I’ve got more important things to worry about.

You still haven’t answered my question about the brontosaurus.
Click to expand...
In fairness brontosaurus and brachiosaurus are two different types of dinosaur. Although brontosaurus has actually been reclassified as an Apatosaurus…

Credit to Google 👍
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Perhaps he’s asking the wrong question though Malced…

Is it offensive? - No

Is it serving to reinforce male-centric society ? - Possibly
Click to expand...

It's complex to try and answer if the word 'man' is serving to reinforce male-centric society at a theoretical level. It could well be in some circumstances. So let's keep it simple otherwise we'll get nowhere.
Let's stick to the example of men's football. Is the use of the word man in the men's football game a problem or not? As I've said previously, it's context that matters. You can't consider whether a word in isolation is offensive unless its a swear word maybe. I don't encourage anything which is sexist etc., but I also object to sensible non-offensive words being banned/replaced by corporations such as the BBC. Man is not a dirty word. Yet here we are with various men on AVFTT strangely welcoming the idea that we can't say man when talking about men's football. How very odd.
We can't say women menstruate, not because the word has 'men' in it, but because it might offend. We have organisations trying to outlaw the terms mother and father, and we now have 'man' viewed as something unsavoury.
I find it incredulous that so many so called men, no longer want to be known as men, and are happy to see their rights, and women's rights, gradually taken away.
Somehow we have men who are seemingly ashamed at their identity to the extent they're happy for it to be obfuscated. We're not talking about a bunch of sexist blokes at a male only dinner sexually, harassing the waitresses. We're talking about the word man being frowned upon and replaced. Well, not on my watch. Thankfully some of us still have some gumption and some male parts. ;-)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mexboroseasider said:
Talking of language evolving, when was the word “brontosaurus” replaced by the word “brachiosaurus”?

I blame the film “Jurassic Park”.
Click to expand...

It was due to the Neanderthal becoming an extremely woke society.

In neanderthal "bronto" (meaning man) was replaced by "brachio" (meaning them). This caused a lot of infighting until one night a giant comet landed.
 
Malced said:
It's complex to try and answer if the word 'man' is serving to reinforce male-centric society at a theoretical level. It could well be in some circumstances. So let's keep it simple otherwise we'll get nowhere.
Let's stick to the example of the men's football. Is the use of the word man in the men's football game a problem or not? As I've said previously, it's context that matters. You can't consider whether a word in isolation is offensive unless its a swear word maybe. I don't encourage anything which is sexist etc., but I also object to sensible non-offensive words being banned/replaced by corporations such as the BBC. Man is not a dirty word. Yet here we are with various men on AVFTT strangely welcoming the idea that we can't say man when talking about men's football. How very odd.
We can't say women menstruate, not because the word has 'men' in it, but because it might offend. We have organisations trying to outlaw the terms mother and father, and we now have 'man' viewed as something unsavoury.
I find it incredulous that so many so called men, no longer want to be known as men, and are happy to see their rights, and women's rights, gradually taken away.
Somehow we have men who are seemingly ashamed at their identity to the extent they're happy for it to be obfuscated. We're not talking about a bunch of sexist blokes at a male only dinner sexually harassing the waitresses. We're talking about the word man being frowned upon and replaced. Well, not on my watch. Thankfully some of us still have some gumption and some male parts. ;-)
Click to expand...
As I’ve said already the basic fact that men, man is a primary to the women woman secondary already reinforces the issue though…( I’m talking about the basic word construction here)

So simply saying ‘mens’ football and ‘womens’ football instead of just football serves to reinforce differences as does using different gender based terminology depending on who is playing.

I also don’t think it has anything to do with being ashamed of your identity, so much as evolving to appreciate that the nature and basis of our language poses genuine issues. So it doesn’t mean that the concept of men or male and female needs to be eradicated, but moreso how language can evolve to support equality and inclusivity rather than inequality and exclusivity.

I’m not sure how we should solve those issues of course, but it’s important to be able to acknowledge they exist and not be totally dismissive.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
As I’ve said already the basic fact that men, man is a primary to the women woman secondary already reinforces the issue though…( I’m talking about the basic word construction here)

So simply saying ‘mens’ football and ‘womens’ football instead of just football serves to reinforce differences as does using different gender based terminology depending on who is playing.

I also don’t think it has anything to do with being ashamed of your identity, so much as evolving to appreciate that the nature and basis of our language poses genuine issues. So it doesn’t mean that the concept of men or male and female needs to be eradicated, but moreso how language can evolve to support equality and inclusivity rather than inequality and exclusivity.

I’m not sure how we should solve those issues of course, but it’s important to be able to acknowledge they exist and not be totally dismissive.
Click to expand...
I can see your point. But you’re applying your reasoning in a way I totally disagree with. In my view you can’t apply your reasoning across the board.
We should address unfairness and bias wherever it exists.
But when it comes to football, and other sports, we have a separation of the genders for good reason. Everyone is happy with that and wouldn’t want want to try and blend the two.
So there’s no discrimination and no disservice to women when talking about men’s football. We can’t deny it’s a thing. There’s the men’s game and there’s the women’s game. We can address inequality such as women’s football earnings and tv coverage etc. But the answer to gender inequality in football isn’t to somehow pretend that men aren’t men.

When I watch athletics we have the men’s and women’s separate 100m races. Other distances and events too.
They don’t yet have an issue with announcing that the next race is the men’s 100m. There may be an issue that it’s seen as the gold ribbon event and it’s the main event of the evening at say a Diamond League meeting. Historically the men’s 100m has attracted more kudos than the women’s equivalent. But the solution to that inequality isn’t to stop using the word man. That’s ridiculous. And totally ineffective. And discriminatory.
You don’t solve deep rooted societal discrimination by discriminating against the discriminators. 🤣
You solve it by bringing all up to the same level. Not by diluting the gender identity of men.
 
I genuinely can’t understand why this is so triggering.

As a 35 year old man who has been living in wokey London I have never felt like my gender identity is under threat, or that I can’t call myself a man or associate with being a male.

What the media decides to call footballers really doesn’t bother me, it’s a bit silly sometimes perhaps but it’s not worth getting angry about in my opinion. Some might call that spineless, I’d just say I’m comfortable enough not to feel threatened by it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top