[Perhaps a recurring series of posts as I come across such words …]
Humankind
Look. It’s “mankind” or “humanity.” Humankind? Never heard of the word until two or three years ago. Now I see it all the time. Just noticed it in Mailer’s book, which was published in 1995, so just how long has this ugly morpheme been about? (I know, I know, since the rise of feminism sometime in the sixties …)
I prefer “mankind.” It’s poetic. It conveys power, strength, and has the full force of tradition behind it. Smart women know that when they read the word “mankind” their gender is inherently included, because English has no neuter pronouns and nouns. It’s also subversive, nowadays, to use “mankind” – college professors go apoplectic over sighting the word “mankind”; most fear loss of tenure should it mistakenly slip into their writing.
“Humanity” is good for certain contexts. It has a scientific beauty to it, I will admit. There is also a transcendental element: our “humanity”, which makes us special, gives us that indefinable essence that separates us from all else of creation. (When referring to that lesser, base aspect of ourselves, we usually use the term “human nature” instead of “humanity”.)
So, it’s mankind or humanity. Humankind is just stupid and reeks of ideology and agenda.
...
My favorite is "history" vs. "herstory". I have always said, that if the PC crowd continues to wallow and worry about semantics, they're going to miss the important stuff which is true equality of opportunity (not necessarily results).
ReplyDeleteUncle
Next time you talk to someone who uses "herstory" or "humankind", tell him he's a great huperson being.
ReplyDeleteproblem is, they would love it and adopt it into their vernacular
ReplyDeleteUncle