Now, the taboo thing is to say any word with “man” in it. Cathy Areu is now telling the public how feminists and women alike in America are sick and tired of words with the inclusion of “man” or “men“. For example; Mankind, businessman, mail man, Manhattan, Manchester. Sounds so preposterous like it couldn’t possibly be true right? I certainly wish it wasn’t. [After the “Lady Dorito” story I can’t say I’m surprised.]
But of course, feminists seem to always be looking for something or someone to attack, usually men. Canadian PM Justin Trudeau isn’t helping the situation by correcting a young lady quite recently that had said “mankind“. Trudeau interrupted her, in order to correct her that “we” like to use the term “people-kind”. What a fruit loop. Thankfully, with Trudeau’s recent idiotic and very clownish acts in India may have finally shown that he is as fake as Elizabeth Warren’s “Native American” heritage.
I will dive into that more in at a later time. But back to the cancerous-feminist agenda which is nothing more than man-hating. They now defend the stoppage of using any words that include the word man or men within it. FYI, mankind comes from human kind. How is that sexist again?
It is not disrespectful, nor is it a sign of a “male patriarchy”. It is the English language. At the same time, the typical hypocrisy at no surprise. You feminists coined the phrase “mansplaining” and “man-spreading” as part of your “hate on men movement”. Yet when it becomes convenient. Oh! We’ve found something else to bitch about. I expect all of you feminists to stop saying “mansplaining” and “man-spreading” from here on out. I won’t hold my breath. Just know the next time you do you’re a damn hypocrite.
This is more ridiculous than when Areu tried to argue for equality of Doritos for women. Waxing poetic about how woman really want to eat sloppily. How women want to lick their fingers and act like complete and utter slobs. Something tells me she’s either lying or certainly in the minority. Even the majority of men don’t eat like that.
This whole discussion came about from a study done by Purdue University. ‘Words with ‘MAN’ should be avoided.’ “Stereotypes and biased language“. It states ” avoid using language that is stereotypical or biased in any way”. Adding the bias typically is occurring based on gender. Adding it can “also offend groups of people based on their sexual orientation, ethnicity, race, or political preference“.
So apparently I or anyone will lose their audience if we are to speak properly by saying mankind if that is the topic. Apparently, we’re supposed to be politically correct and say “people-kind“. And apparently your writing or speaking would be “much less effective“. Thank you Purdue University for making social justice warriors and modern-day feminists alike even more preposterous. Giving them something else to waste their time on trying to continually [ like the left ] change gender and social norms.
The insane arguments this woman tries to engage make me want to bang my head against the wall repeatedly. Oh, she doesn’t think any woman should be called “woman” because man is in the word. So say “lady” or “madam” I guess? For me, I will continue to utilize the English language.
If people want to sound like complete space cadets, than go ahead and try to change the names of cities, job titles, people’s’ names, and oh just the entire human race. Terms that make no sense what so ever. Man-kind again is derived from Human-kind. It is not sexist, it’s not toxic masculinity, it’s not offensive. And you know something? If you do get offended, it is because you choose to.