Thanks for this thread. It has made me realize how truly insidious the idea of gender inclusiveness in the words men and mankind, etc. truly is.
A. Not only does it rewrite history by giving people the false impression the women have always stood on an equal footing with men.
B. It removes the value of the word “men”. I mean we need distinct, gender specific words to identify specific genders. Otherwise, what are we to do when we truly intend men of the male gender only? If we are to rely on context to relay the message I think 33,000+ denominations speaks well to the reliability of that approach.
C. If masculine terms such as men and mankind are gender inclusive, where do we draw the line? What about “he” and “his”? What’s to prevent us from, even just on a subconscious level, making Father = Mother?
Below are linked a few articles on the subject of “inclusive language.”
A term like “man” in English has always had a primarily generic meaning to identify any person of the human species, or sometimes the entire human species as a collective. It was really the push for “inclusive” language that actually forced people into using the term in an “exclusive” manner to refer to males only. There are no good generic substitutes, and the use of them in liturgical and biblical translations can lead to problems, as noted in the articles below.
John Donne wrote a poem titled “No Man Is An Island,” (which is also the first line.) No one, at the time of its writing or since, even today, thinks that he intended to mean “no male is an island.” No, it’s apparent that he meant, “no human person is an island.”
But that wouldn’t be good poetry, nor even good English, since a perfectly good generic term was available.
…
And when the lector begins a reading from St. Paul with the words “Brothers and Sisters,” is that really what Paul wrote? And if Paul really began with “brethern,” I take it for granted that he did address his words to the entire congregation of both genders, and was using the term generically.
Gentlemen – I’m not advocating gender neutralization. However, I’m afraid you are missing significant portions of history if you think for a moment that women were always included in the terms men and mankind.
John Donne – English poet: 1572-1631 This corresponds with the Elizabethan Era (1558-1603) and the Jacobian Eras (1603-1625). Both were highly repressive to women.
Education would begin at home, where children were taught the basic etiquette of proper manners and respecting others. It was necessary for boys to attend grammar school, but girls were rarely allowed in any place of education other than petty schools, and then only with a restricted curriculum. Petty schools were for all children aged from 5 to 7 years of age. Only the most wealthy people allowed their daughters to be taught, and only at home. During this time, endowed schooling became available. This meant that even boys of very poor families were able to attend school if they were not needed to work at home, but only in a few localities were funds available to provide support as well as the necessary education scholarship.
Here’s an eye-opener for you: an excerpt on “women” from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britanica.
womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/bl1911_womenf.htm
The subject is most thoroughly addressed at
elizabethi.org/us/women/
Remember, women’s roles in Shakespere plays (and all plays of that era) were played by men of the male gender. Called … just … “men”.
Mr. Donne wrote no “man” is an island simply because women were not even on the radar. I assure you he fully intended the reference to mean men of the male gender. It’s fascinating that we all (now) take it to mean otherwise WITHOUT QUESTION (myself included). Don’t you find that a little … disturbing?
Here’s a little peek in Mr. Donne’s view of women. I think you’ll agree that women definitely are not “men”.
WOMAN’S CONSTANCY.
by John Donne
NOW thou hast loved me one whole day,
To-morrow when thou leavest, what wilt thou say ?
Wilt thou then antedate some new-made vow ?
Or say that now
We are not just those persons which we were ?
Or that oaths made in reverential fear
Of Love, and his wrath, any may forswear ?
Or, as true deaths true marriages untie,
So lovers’ contracts, images of those,
Bind but till sleep, death’s image, them unloose ?
Or, your own end to justify,
For having purposed change and falsehood, you
Can have no way but falsehood to be true ?
Vain lunatic, against these 'scapes I could
Dispute, and conquer, if I would ;
Which I abstain to do,
For by to-morrow I may think so too.
Collier’s encyclopedia has this to say about Mr. Donne and women:
During and after his education, Donne spent much of his considerable inheritance on women, literature, pastimes and travel.
- Donne, John" by Richard W. Langstaff. Article from Collier’s Encyclopedia, Volume 8. Bernard Johnston, general editor. P.F. Colliers Inc., New York: 1988. pp. 346–349.
Women were for most of Western history and still are in many societies of the world, considered very separate and very unique from “men”. A brief reading of the early church Fathers neatly demonstrates this (thank you Mr. Akin). Again, I am not advocating any side of this issue, I am very, very glad it is not up to me to decide these matters and I am … not ecstatic with either solution I see presented.
Definitely agree 100% that "INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE UNDERMINES BEAUTY, MEANING”
All I’m saying is, please people, it can not be said absolutely that the term “men” “always” meant men & women. It couldn’t have, and it shouldn’t have.
-And Peace to You all -
I’m confused. You’re an eeeevil feminist if you think “men” is gender exclusive AND now you are an evil feminist if you think “men” is gender inclusive. Your HC4Men remark seems off. 
)