[brofallon]

In response to your final question: To my ear using "men" as a substitute for "all people" doesn't flow better, I found it rather jarring and antiquated and, yeah, a little insensitive. I'm also not convinced it's a purely stylistic decision, as you claim... There's a rather long history of using men as a substitute for everyone in, say, medicine, politics, finance, and many (most?) disciplines, with outcomes most of us agree were not so great. It can also muddy the interpretation of your arguments, as (asterisks aside) it's not perfectly clear when you say "men" if you're referring to everyone or just actually just males. It's an easy thing to change, and your rhetoric will be clearer, more persuasive, and less likely to be immediately dismissed by a fraction of your audience.

[FabiansMustDie]

I thank you for your take; yet I refuse to yield to your sensibilities.

I think where we differ is in our approach to language. I see it as a medium of art -- like a song or a painting. "Man" is but a certain, evocative hue of brown that I believe fits best into the feelings I'm trying to elicit; and "human" is a lesser, albeit passable substitute.

I think this scientificization, making it more rigorous and "comprehensible," has done the opposite. Words have connotations, denotations, and all sorts of deeper meanings behind them. "Human" is such a sterilized, unnevocative word; and I refuse to use it.

However, certainly you've felt something from its usage -- even if that feeling was not the one I felt (compare it to: human -- which only the most scientifically-obsessed would have their hearts sing from its utterance).

[dTal]

Okay, let's talk about those connotations.

"Human" is a perfectly evocative word that does make people's "hearts sing". You have the "human touch", humanitarianism, treating things humanely. It reflects our highest aspirations for ourselves, and your rejection of it reflects upon you.

"Man" connotes... well, men. It depicts a society where the real movers and shakers are men. No one really hears "man" and thinks "men and women" (or "women and men" - why should men come first?). Notably, they say they do, but this has been shown by experiment to be inaccurate. If you say "man", people can't help but picture one. Indeed I also notice you use gendered language everywhere, not just in the word "man" to mean humanity. You say "men of letters", for instance, and you take care to match the pronouns. Am I really meant to imagine women when you write that? Would "people" not do just as well?

Lastly - far from being a "fad", this debate was active in the 70s, and has been entirely resolved now; nobody uses "man" this way anymore, and it sticks out like a sore thumb when you do. It sounds archaic to the point of comical. Consider if the subtextual message you want to send with your word choices is "I stubbornly refuse to adapt to the times".

Douglas Hofstadter (you may have heard of him!) wrote a lot about this in the 80s and 90s - I challenge anyone to read what he wrote and fail to be convinced: https://leeclarke.com/courses/intro/readings/Hofstadter_Chan...

[FabiansMustDie]

Human as its own word, not as a derivative for others---and in its own, separate, unmodified context---has a specific, insipid connotation, compared to humanitarian, "human touch," etc.

Frankly, my experience has been that men are the real moves and shakers (and women impelling them to move, shake, and writhe around). It takes a certain amount of ego, and internal and emotional drive to "shake" and "move" (which I must assume you consider to be "good" aspects of humanity) the world -- one that most women do not have, and the ones that do require external resources to maintain that "drive" (mostly food).

I don't understand why you would rally around for this point. Being someone of substance is a worthless affair, compared to being someone of culture. The first comes easily to men, and arduously for women. The last comes easily to women, and arduously for men. It's an atrocity to eschew woman's gifts, to pursue men's. That's how you destroy a nation's culture, tradition, its children, and thereby its society. There must be a duality, with a strict boundary, else you get muddied people that don't know a single thing about what it means to be human. (in this context, it fit just right)

I use man in this way. I don't care what anyone---justifying their schooling and existence---has to say about it. Progress without purpose is wasted breath. Conforming for its own sake is death. Anything Western Intellectuals have written in the past 70 years I believe to be without merit.

...

Yet, I'll admit Hofstadter got a chuckle out of me with that riddle: I thought the surgeon was the male spouse of the deceased father! I yield.

I agree with your take, after it's been shoved in my face, and forced me to self-reflect. However, I'll still use "man" as a more archaic synonym of "human," albeit with a more apt note this time.

You got me. Take your upvote, and let me live in my crotchety, curmudgeon fantasy-land.