I agree with most of what you say, but why use the word “man” for humankind? I don’t want that word to come back in the way you use it. And please don’t give me the old saw about “it means man and woman.” It literally says “man.” If you really believe it means all humankind, then “woman” could just as well be substituted. Use “woman” as a term for “all of humankind” in your column. Explain that since men and women are both human you’ve decided “woman” is a
a logical analog and you’ll be using the terms “man” and “woman” interchangeably.
Actually woman couldn't be substituted, It goes back to anglosaxon; "man" comes from Old English "mann," which meant "person" and could refer to anyone, not just males; and still does in German. It's established usage. You could lighten up
Thank you for the wise words. Objective truth. This article creates within me a vision; a vision of what can be, perhaps shaped by what I know came before. We can achieve this. It will require not simply creation, but recission, a cutting-away of those parts of our culture that are cancerous. How this is accomplished in a "free" society that has arrived where ours has is a difficult question. I would hearken back to a time when the airwaves were not filled with cursing and filth, when pharmaceutical and hard liquor ads were not allowed on the airwaves. Were we not living in free times then? If so, then let us consider that perhaps we should subjugate the freedoms of corporations to the freedoms of man and never again conflate the twain. With each freedom and right comes a commensurate responsibility to use that freedom without abuse.
This is sage counsel indeed. That said, I would point out that free markets are part of the natural human condition. They are as amenable to chivalrous behavior as malignant behavior. How they operate in practice is more downstream of culture than upstream. Government policies that inhibit economic liberties, and indeed freedom more broadly, in favor of idealistic objectives such as supporting families and flattening wealth distribution can be effective, and should be considered, but all too often salutary objectives are overwhelmed by rather nasty unintended consequences. Inhibiting freedom, especially economic freedom, is dangerous stuff and must be approached with intentional modesty.
Lovely essay
I agree with most of what you say, but why use the word “man” for humankind? I don’t want that word to come back in the way you use it. And please don’t give me the old saw about “it means man and woman.” It literally says “man.” If you really believe it means all humankind, then “woman” could just as well be substituted. Use “woman” as a term for “all of humankind” in your column. Explain that since men and women are both human you’ve decided “woman” is a
a logical analog and you’ll be using the terms “man” and “woman” interchangeably.
Actually woman couldn't be substituted, It goes back to anglosaxon; "man" comes from Old English "mann," which meant "person" and could refer to anyone, not just males; and still does in German. It's established usage. You could lighten up
Thank you for the wise words. Objective truth. This article creates within me a vision; a vision of what can be, perhaps shaped by what I know came before. We can achieve this. It will require not simply creation, but recission, a cutting-away of those parts of our culture that are cancerous. How this is accomplished in a "free" society that has arrived where ours has is a difficult question. I would hearken back to a time when the airwaves were not filled with cursing and filth, when pharmaceutical and hard liquor ads were not allowed on the airwaves. Were we not living in free times then? If so, then let us consider that perhaps we should subjugate the freedoms of corporations to the freedoms of man and never again conflate the twain. With each freedom and right comes a commensurate responsibility to use that freedom without abuse.
This is sage counsel indeed. That said, I would point out that free markets are part of the natural human condition. They are as amenable to chivalrous behavior as malignant behavior. How they operate in practice is more downstream of culture than upstream. Government policies that inhibit economic liberties, and indeed freedom more broadly, in favor of idealistic objectives such as supporting families and flattening wealth distribution can be effective, and should be considered, but all too often salutary objectives are overwhelmed by rather nasty unintended consequences. Inhibiting freedom, especially economic freedom, is dangerous stuff and must be approached with intentional modesty.