1

"Man" can definitely refer to a male or female person. Can "Men" refer as well to males and females, or is it only the plural of a male person?

I'm asking this because the United States Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal". I'm wondering whether it refers literally to "male men", and if not, whether it is a correct form to refer to women too.

I'm interested in the dictionary meaning, not in the politically correct side. So my question boils down to this:

“In 1776, when one said 'men', could that mean also 'women and men'”?

Mari-Lou A
  • 91,183
Gil Moses
  • 39
  • 5
    Man and men has traditionally been used to refer to humankind in general, but in recent times this has come to be considered unacceptable, in the interests of gender equality. – Kate Bunting Mar 18 '21 at 08:46
  • I don't think there's a difference between singular and plural: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/44991/can-man-always-be-used-to-mean-both-men-and-women – Stuart F Mar 18 '21 at 10:22
  • I've updated the question. – Gil Moses Mar 18 '21 at 12:01
  • 1
    So you're asking about usage in the late 18th century? This is an important distinction and likely to be significantly different from today. – Stuart F Mar 18 '21 at 13:08
  • Note that it's also not clear if the Founding Fathers included black men in "all men are created equal". – Stuart F Mar 18 '21 at 13:10
  • 1
    @Stuart F — It was a hot button issue even then. The Founders had different opinions, as did the States they represented. Compromises were made deliberately in the interest of saving the Union. That “All Men” means all human beings was abundantly clarified for the ages when the nation was ready. –  Mar 18 '21 at 13:41
  • It was valid, yes, but not necessarily easy to distinguish. – TaliesinMerlin Mar 18 '21 at 16:31

3 Answers3

2

Julia Ward Howe, the (female) writer for the 1861 lyrics of the Battle Hymn of the Republic used the word "men". Surely she meant to include herself among them.

He has sounded forth the trumpet
That shall never call retreat;
He is sifting out the hearts of men
Before His judgement seat;

...

With a glory in His bosom
That transfigures you and me;
As He died to make men holy,
Let us die to make men free;

GEdgar
  • 25,177
1

At the time, the word "men" could refer to both men and women in the abstract. So "all men are created equal" includes both men and women.

On the other hand, "men" used to refer to an specific group of individuals refers to male persons only. If you read, "the men rose to their feet and applauded," then the implication is that each person applauding is male because you're referring to a specific group of people. If the audience were mixed-gender, then you would have to write "the people" or "the audience" instead of "the men."

The same holds for the singular: if you read "no man could object to this idea," then it's referring to people in the abstract and this includes both men and women. However, if you read, "A man knocked on my door this morning," then that's referring to a specific man and we know that it was not a woman.

Canadian Yankee
  • 620
  • Do you have any actual evidence for this answer, or is it just your personal opinion? – Peter Shor Mar 18 '21 at 16:22
  • @PeterShor - Good question! This would be my personal opinion as a native AmE speaker, not something that I've researched. I'm a bit more used to the conventions of ELL. – Canadian Yankee Mar 18 '21 at 16:55
0

In strictly modern usage men are adult male humans. “Man”, on the other hand, has been used in scientific and philosophical works to denote the whole species. (Darwin, in The Descent of Man). The Newsweek used “Man” as recently as 2018, and that publication would rather burn itself than be accused of gender discrimination.

What the Founding Fathers meant exactly cannot be proven in their absence. It can and will be interpreted from here to eternity. The Founders had a lot on their hands and did not split every hair at the time — which is now a favorite hobby for some.

  • 1
    All I'm asking is whether at the time, it was valid (linguistically) to refer to men and women as "men". Not referring to gender equality correctness. – Gil Moses Mar 18 '21 at 13:50
  • @Gil Moses 'All I'm asking is whether at the time, it was valid (linguistically) to refer to men and women as "men" ' and 'Can "Men" refer as well to males and females, or is it only the plural of a male person?' conflict. If your comment gives the intended time reference, you need to amend your question to specify was it valid / acceptable at the time[?]. – Edwin Ashworth Mar 18 '21 at 14:39
  • @gil Moses. No, it was not valid to refer to women as “men”. Not by Shakespeare. –  Mar 18 '21 at 14:44
  • 2
    In this context, our class aged 14 was told by a teacher that in the 18th century 'the male embraced the female'. One boy put up his hand and said he hoped that it was still the case. – Michael Harvey Mar 18 '21 at 15:16
  • @EdwinAshworth amended, please see EDIT2. – Gil Moses Mar 18 '21 at 15:41