Poll: What should Man mean?

[Professor James]

My question is that terms like man mean anything more then just a human male over the age of 18? By the same token, should terms like adult or child mean anything more then what someone's age is. Should being a man mean something more than just a biological trait? Should the term adult show maturity or should it just show what someone's age is?

 

[CulixCupric]

I think the word man should be used as it was in the far ages back, as the entirety of all men, as in the species, all humans are men. man is simply short for human, and should be used to include males, females, adult and children. that's why we have the terms male and female. actually, if I'm correct, man is the species, while human was used as male, and woman as female. i might be wrong about that.

 

[demoman_chaos]

Nope. Man means a male human. Manliness is a different story. There are manly men, manly women, and manly hamsters.

 

[Batou667]

What is a "man"? Simply an adult male, or does it also imply social responsibility?

Back in the day (either the Good Old Days or The Outdated Patriarchal Regime, depending on your Feminist leanings), being a "man" implied a degree of independence, strength and responsibilty - as the (presumed) head of the family unit the man would be breadwinner, decision-maker, moral guardian and ultimately responsible for his children's religious and academic education. He'd also be the one expected to enlist in times of war.

But now? Just as changes to the workplace means that people are no longer defined by their profession, social changes mean that men and women's social roles aren't necessarily defined by their gender. A lot of expectation of gender roles remain. Some of these, I feel are a natural reflection of indisputable gender differences - men should make up more of the armed forces and frontline emergency services than women, and women should be expected to care for their own children. When the Feminist revolution comes I expect I'll be first up against the wall for those comments, but the irony is that many modern women with ostensibly Feminist leanings still expect men to be strong, financially stable, chivalrous, and so on.

 

[Freaky Lou]

What's wrong with it having multiple meanings, like it does now? I don't see why we need to take away its layers.

 

[iFail69]

What is a "man"? Simply an adult male, or does it also imply social responsibility?

Back in the day (either the Good Old Days or The Outdated Patriarchal Regime, depending on your Feminist leanings), being a "man" implied a degree of independence, strength and responsibilty - as the (presumed) head of the family unit the man would be breadwinner, decision-maker, moral guardian and ultimately responsible for his children's religious and academic education. He'd also be the one expected to enlist in times of war.

But now? Just as changes to the workplace means that people are no longer defined by their profession, social changes mean that men and women's social roles aren't necessarily defined by their gender. A lot of expectation of gender roles remain. Some of these, I feel are a natural reflection of indisputable gender differences - men should make up more of the armed forces and frontline emergency services than women, and women should be expected to care for their own children. When the Feminist revolution comes I expect I'll be first up against the wall for those comments, but the irony is that modern women with ostensibly Feminist leanings still expect men to be strong, financially stable, chivalrous, and so on.

I'm a feminist (not extreme though, they're scary people), but I can see your point, and where the thinking behind it comes from.

I, however, do disagree in general and think that gender doesn't matter when it comes to social roles. Hormones and instincts do make things easier for one gender (such as child care is inherently easier for a woman, due to the matriarchal instinct), but in the end, it can only influence so far. Both genders are able to do any task that the other can to a good standard (biology willing), some may just seem easier due to the person's biological make up.

 

[JesterRaiin]

Anyone remember this ?

 

[Professor James]

Anyone remember this ?

I'm sorry, I don't get how this is related?

 

[iLikeHippos]

What is a man?

You should ask Count Dracula. I hear he has a strong opinion on the subject.

OT; I can see what you're asking, and I find the case is purely subjective, at the exception of some guidelines (such as strength in one way or another); therefore, the worthiness of anyones answer is however much you choose to value them, but in the end are worthless if they are not up to par with your own views.

 

[Nudu]

Well, I kinda like the poem, so I guess I'll have to go with "yes"

 

[Ghengis John]

My question is that terms like man mean anything more then just a human male over the age of 18? By the same token, should terms like adult or child mean anything more then what someone's age is. Should being a man mean something more than just a biological trait? Should the term adult show maturity or should it just show what someone's age is?

Whether you want it to or not (not saying you don't) it already has more meaning than the literal term for an adult male. From the encompassing of humanity as a species to the definition of a "true man" and the maturity and emotional depth that falls forthwith. Since I think of it in broader terms than a base descriptor I'll have to side with "yes".

I was reading up on Macbeth the other day. Interesting to note that the definitions of a "true man" are still held by people today. On the one hand a compassionate representative and on the other, a detached one. Both will find their proponents even now, though it seems clear whom Shakespeare favored.

 

[OmniscientOstrich]

Yes, I do have to be that guy. Anyway, to be a man means nothing more to me than reaching the age of physical maturity; whatever arbitrary societal pretentions to what encompasses a successful and respectable person don't really hold any biological weight, so it's probably best to ignore such idyllic fallacies. I think it's worth mentioning by this point that I don't care for gender roles and feel that we have evolved beyond the need for them, though given many Escpaist's pretty shaky at best reactions to Feminism and gender politics I'm sure they'll be at least one user here that will express concern over what will become of modern man and why it's important to reinstill past heteronormative values and blah, blah, blah.....

....anyway, to summarise man is a term that is very hollow and meaningless much like the creature itself and so it shouldn't carry any connotations of whatever subjective array of qualities certain people like to project upon it.

 

[dvd_72]

Its hard to say what a word should mean as language depends quite a bit on context. man could mean human, as in simply the species, or human as in the concept. man could mean the macho immage of a strong male who never cries, or as a complete mature male human being. These are just the ones I got off the top of my head.

What it should mean doesn't really have an answer. And what it does mean in any context ... well it depends on the context obviously. The world is complex, and so is the language we use to describe it. Trying to simplify terms just doesn't work.