I take "men" to mean humankind there. It usually does when the rest of the context doesn't single out gender:


Noun.
the human individual as representing the species, without reference to sex; the human race; humankind:
"Man hopes for peace, but prepares for war."

Originally posted by skirlasvoud:

I take "men" to mean humankind there. It usually does when the rest of the context doesn't single out gender:


Noun.
the human individual as representing the species, without reference to sex; the human race; humankind:
"Man hopes for peace, but prepares for war."

I agree, it's a generalization for mankind.

why cant she write just 'humans' instead of 'men' is beyond me, though, would be cool if there was a 'Women' version :p

Originally posted by skulz87:

why cant she write just 'humans' instead of 'men' is beyond me, though, would be cool if there was a 'Women' version :p

Something like:
'Murderers are not monsters; they're men. The monsters are the insane women in mens' lives who drive them to murder.'
-The Deed
?

lol

I think it's in your head. Maybe you're very sexist?

Originally posted by skirlasvoud:

I take "men" to mean humankind there.

Originally posted by skulz87:

'Murderers are not monsters, they're men. And that's the most frightening thing about them.'

- Alice Sebold

:O

Haha,obvious troll.Piss off.Men is referred to humankind,in this context.Why is it sexist?No.Please don't.

Originally posted by skulz87:

why cant she write just 'humans' instead of 'men' is beyond me, though, would be cool if there was a 'Women' version :p

Because that's too logical for poetry.

"It's a fool who looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart." -Ulysses Everett McGill

You only think this is sexist because you have no knowledge of linguistics. If you look up the origins of the word you'll see that "man" was originally what humans were called and "human" wasn't used until much later. "mankind" is still proper when refering to humanity. Your argument is equally as stupid as saying "the word 'human' is sexist. Why isn't it 'huwoman'?"

Did the OP or any of the rest of you look into Alice Sebold's life to understand where she may be coming from? What time period did she live in? What were the events of her life?
Did anyone wonder what might make the OP say such a thing?

Raise your hand if you just fired off some comment based on a hurried opinion driven by emotion.
Oh, nearly everyone, I see. You know, if you do a little research in forming an opinion, you won't look so much like a jackass.

If you pay any attention at all to television ads and sitcoms, you will see a clear trend for men appearing as ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ needing a woman to keep them out of trouble. This theme has been steadily playing since the Woman's Movement began. Maybe the OP just had a "knee jerk" reaction to her statement and posted while the emotion was hot, as did most of you.

I offer no arguement that Man, Mankind and Humankind can all refer to the same group, male and female. But she said men. Now we argue whether "men" is intended as part of the aforementioned group.

Had you done any research, you'd know Alice Sebold was brutally raped as a freshman [freshwoman?] in college. I don't know Alice Sebold or how her life was affected after that. I'm not accusing her of anything. I'm offering an alternate point of view. Did she mean men as mankind or is it possible she subconciously considers all men monsters/murderers? As such, her statement would clearly be sexist.

Only Alice Sebold knows. The rest of us argue with our sphincters as turtlenecks.

In this politically correct-pathetic- world. You no longer use specific gender in any statement, unless you want an argument or start one.
It's a statement, as has been said. She was raped by a man- Hardly in the same context, by a woman. (which in the definition of rape, can't happen) I once read that inside all men is a 'Tarzan'. It is also a feminist point that ( whatever way you look at it) she prejudged 'all' men to be untrustworthy and 'capable', which is of course bollocks!
Men of course get raped too, 1-6 in my local paper last week. They also suffer domestic abuse, they can also get breast cancer.
It's a bold attention grabbing statement, to sell her books. Whether it happened to her or not, it's the stereotypical 'tag' that a woman can get away with but not a man, writing the same thing.

Murderers are not monsters, they're women. And that's the most frightening thing about them.'

I'm sure that's applicable to what some men have experienced.
When I was reading a book about the SAS, they were taught to engage the female terrorists first, as they would stop at nothing and we're considered more dangerous than the male. I wonder where I've read that before......

Originally posted by skulz87:

why cant she write just 'humans' instead of 'men' is beyond me, though, would be cool if there was a 'Women' version :p

nice femmy lmao

I remember when I got yelled at for calling the profession "handyman".

My job said IT'S HANDYPERSON!!

In my head...that sounds like they're retarded...but ok.

:facepalm:

please spend a little less time on reddit