zlacker

[parent] [thread] 5 comments
1. miah_+(OP)[view] [source] 2014-01-25 19:14:29
The 'man' command is named that because its short for 'manual', it has nothing to do with 'men'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manual_pages

replies(1): >>lowboy+u3
◧
2. lowboy+u3[view] [source] 2014-01-25 20:02:19
>>miah_+(OP)
The etymology is inoffensive, but the term itself is still exclusionary by way of "man" also being a gendered term. We are (and should be) more cognisant of these issues these days.
replies(3): >>dreamf+55 >>noddin+X5 >>Shish2+R7
◧◩
3. dreamf+55[view] [source] [discussion] 2014-01-25 20:22:48
>>lowboy+u3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homonym
◧◩
4. noddin+X5[view] [source] [discussion] 2014-01-25 20:33:06
>>lowboy+u3
No, you're wrong. "man" is the obvious abbreviation for "manual" when trying to reduce the number of characters used. Not once as a teenager learning unix shell commands did gender (or cultural stereotypes) enter my mind when using the 'man' command, but I guarantee it does when looking at the 'bro' command.
◧◩
5. Shish2+R7[view] [source] [discussion] 2014-01-25 20:59:48
>>lowboy+u3
If something is obviously not meant to be offensive, but by some coincidence it is, then we should be offended by it?

One day I hope to live in a world where people judge text by what it means, not which particular squiggly patterns ended up on the screen...

replies(1): >>skybri+ii
◧◩◪
6. skybri+ii[view] [source] [discussion] 2014-01-25 23:37:25
>>Shish2+R7
We should trust that they meant well, but still tell them their fly is down. It's not that big a deal as long as you fix it.
[go to top]