• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Talk about renaming “X-Men” because it’s “Offensive”
0

Started by Clay Johnson,

64 posts in this topic

Readcomix

Readcomix

Posted
Posted
On 9/24/2021 at 8:50 AM, Bosco685 said:

Here is what is considered the problem with this thinking The X-Men (X mankind) is outdated and to vindicate Stan Lee's 1963 thoughts let's change the name.

For 58 years Marvel wisely marketed, branded and extensively succeeded with the X-Men Universe and its characters. This includes merchandising, animated TV shows and movies. To say the term 'X-Men' is outdated is an ignorance of the intent of this universe where women and men teamed up and fought side-by-side for the sake of not only mutantkind but also mankind.

So to go back on all that with the excuse, "This is what Stan Lee would have wanted" when once it was established he thoroughly supported the title and characters is sad. In his own words - "The X-Men...I love them!"

Even he moved on from 'The Mutants' and went with it. A shame others get fixated on this.

No argument here; total agreement. Just musing that it may or may not be the playbook that gets run. Like I said, interesting to see in time. Disney likes a good brand, after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Qalyar

Qalyar

Posted
Posted
On 9/24/2021 at 7:25 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

Let's rename our species. We are no longer human.

Let me go etymology pedant here for a moment.

It's a common misconception that the word human is constructed from a prefix hu- attached to -man, in the same way that we get male profession words like fireman or chairman. However, there is no such prefix, and it's more or less just a coincidence of language that the two English words are so similar. Human, and its predecessors in other languages, has essentially always been a gender-neutral way to refer to the sort of creature that we are. English adopted it from Old French, which adopted it from Latin (this is why the scientific name for our species is sapiens). Latin's also the origin of the related word humane, because the Romans believed that courtesy and civility were qualities uniquely befitting human beings (optimists, the Romans, I suppose). In any case, the word is far older than Latin, and goes all the way to a Proto-Indo-European root believed to mean, basically "earth people" -- as opposed to "sky people" (that is, gods).

Man, on the other hand, comes to us via Old English and then Proto-Germanic, and back to Proto-Indo-European too, but with an entirely different origin than human (the exact sense of the PIE root is a matter of some debate outside the scope of this post). In any case, man has certainly had stretches of time where it was widely used in a gender-neutral capacity. That's where we get words like mankind and, well, manslaughter. But even when man was being used for everyone, it was being used in other contexts that were male-only. If we go back to, say, the 8th century or thereabouts, man covered both genders in Old English... but it was also used for something like modern servant or vassal, but in an explicitly male-only sense. And since around the late 1200s, man has been the go-to word in English for a male human. Prior to that, Old English used wer and wif as the words for male and female people, respectively (and yes, that wer survives in werewolf). For unclear reasons, wer dropped out of popular use and was replaced by gender-restricted use of man and it's been off to the races ever since. As an aside, wif didn't disappear like its male counterpart. Obviously, it survives as wife in the more restricted sense of a married woman, but also in woman itself; when man started to edge out wer as a male-only term, wif got prepended to the more inclusive sense of the man for... reasons, producing wifman, which became woman a couple of pronunciation shifts later. English has always been weird.

All of that aside, I don't think there's anything wrong with talking about ways to make the comics industry (and by extension its giant adaptation empire) more generally inclusive. At this point, we've had films (Dark Phoenix, Men in Black International) lampshading the gendered language of comic and comic-adjacent works. Now, yes, Dark Phoenix was an execrable excuse for a film, with a -script that deserved to star in "Will it Blend?" and performances that couldn't have been more phoned-in if they'd actually been done over the phone. The "X-Women" line -- and to some extent the all-female team-up scene in Avengers: Endgame -- are a bit cringe because they don't seem to evolve naturally from the plot, stories, and characters; that feels like pandering, not inclusion. Acknowledging that comics writ large can do a better job addressing women (which shouldn't really be controversial because a lot of the history has Not Been Good), and pretty much any category other than "straight white males" frankly, doesn't mean we shouldn't also acknowledge that Dark Phoenix's attempt at addressing the issue was as awkward and tone-deaf as the rest of the film.

Does that mean we should rename the X-Men? Personally, I'm of mixed opinions. The name certainly has a lot of brand recognition, but that alone isn't always a good reason to keep a name around (Washington Football Team, that meant you). I think the weight of history makes it tough to change things in comics themselves at this point, but since they've yet to be introduced to the MCU, there's something to be said for starting Professor X and his ilk off differently in adaptation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
theCapraAegagrus

theCapraAegagrus

Posted
Posted
On 9/24/2021 at 10:04 AM, Qalyar said:

Let me go etymology pedant here for a moment.

It's a common misconception that the word human is constructed from a prefix hu- attached to -man, in the same way that we get male profession words like fireman or chairman. However, there is no such prefix, and it's more or less just a coincidence of language that the two English words are so similar. Human, and its predecessors in other languages, has essentially always been a gender-neutral way to refer to the sort of creature that we are. English adopted it from Old French, which adopted it from Latin (this is why the scientific name for our species is sapiens). Latin's also the origin of the related word humane, because the Romans believed that courtesy and civility were qualities uniquely befitting human beings (optimists, the Romans, I suppose). In any case, the word is far older than Latin, and goes all the way to a Proto-Indo-European root believed to mean, basically "earth people" -- as opposed to "sky people" (that is, gods).

Man, on the other hand, comes to us via Old English and then Proto-Germanic, and back to Proto-Indo-European too, but with an entirely different origin than human (the exact sense of the PIE root is a matter of some debate outside the scope of this post). In any case, man has certainly had stretches of time where it was widely used in a gender-neutral capacity. That's where we get words like mankind and, well, manslaughter. But even when man was being used for everyone, it was being used in other contexts that were male-only. If we go back to, say, the 8th century or thereabouts, man covered both genders in Old English... but it was also used for something like modern servant or vassal, but in an explicitly male-only sense. And since around the late 1200s, man has been the go-to word in English for a male human. Prior to that, Old English used wer and wif as the words for male and female people, respectively (and yes, that wer survives in werewolf). For unclear reasons, wer dropped out of popular use and was replaced by gender-restricted use of man and it's been off to the races ever since. As an aside, wif didn't disappear like its male counterpart. Obviously, it survives as wife in the more restricted sense of a married woman, but also in woman itself; when man started to edge out wer as a male-only term, wif got prepended to the more inclusive sense of the man for... reasons, producing wifman, which became woman a couple of pronunciation shifts later. English has always been weird.

All of that aside, I don't think there's anything wrong with talking about ways to make the comics industry (and by extension its giant adaptation empire) more generally inclusive. At this point, we've had films (Dark Phoenix, Men in Black International) lampshading the gendered language of comic and comic-adjacent works. Now, yes, Dark Phoenix was an execrable excuse for a film, with a --script that deserved to star in "Will it Blend?" and performances that couldn't have been more phoned-in if they'd actually been done over the phone. The "X-Women" line -- and to some extent the all-female team-up scene in Avengers: Endgame -- are a bit cringe because they don't seem to evolve naturally from the plot, stories, and characters; that feels like pandering, not inclusion. Acknowledging that comics writ large can do a better job addressing women (which shouldn't really be controversial because a lot of the history has Not Been Good), and pretty much any category other than "straight white males" frankly, doesn't mean we shouldn't also acknowledge that Dark Phoenix's attempt at addressing the issue was as awkward and tone-deaf as the rest of the film.

Does that mean we should rename the X-Men? Personally, I'm of mixed opinions. The name certainly has a lot of brand recognition, but that alone isn't always a good reason to keep a name around (Washington Football Team, that meant you). I think the weight of history makes it tough to change things in comics themselves at this point, but since they've yet to be introduced to the MCU, there's something to be said for starting Professor X and his ilk off differently in adaptation.

TL;DR?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
@therealsilvermane

@therealsilvermane

Posted
Posted
On 9/24/2021 at 8:50 AM, Bosco685 said:

For 58 years Marvel wisely marketed, branded and extensively succeeded with the X-Men Universe and its characters. This includes merchandising, animated TV shows and movies. To say the term 'X-Men' is outdated is an ignorance of the intent of this universe where women and men teamed up and fought side-by-side for the sake of not only mutantkind but also mankind.

So to go back on all that with the excuse, "This is what Stan Lee would have wanted" when once it was established he thoroughly supported the title and characters is sad. In his own words - "The X-Men...I love them!"

Eh, were the X-Men always that successful, though?

I believe the X-Men, from their introduction in 1963, never really quite connected with readers and their sales were always down compared to other titles. By 1970 or so, X-Men went into reprints. I believe Giant Size X-Men #1 was one last shot at trying something new before the title got cancelled. Readership went up, so Marvel went with it. I also don't think these All New All Different X-Men and Wolverine became a phenomenon until around late 1979 or 1980, maybe half-way through the Claremont Byrne run. So maybe they were a hit from like 1980 to present-day. Also, X-Men stuck around in the present because of the Fox movies. Marvel Comics had begun the process of basically burying the X-Men in the comics and replacing them with Inhumans because Marvel Studios couldn't use them in the MCU. It's only after the Fox purchase that we've seen a resurgence in X-Men in the comics particularly with Hickman's latest reformatting of the X-brand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
@therealsilvermane

@therealsilvermane

Posted
Posted
On 9/24/2021 at 10:15 AM, BoogieWoogie said:

If there is anything to this I think it might be along the lines of the eventual X-Men movie being titled "Rise of the Mutants" or something similar but they'll still be the X-Men. I think "Rise of the Mutants" has been the rumored working title for a while hm

I think if X-Men is renamed for the MCU, it will retain the X but be called World of X or House of X (like the Hickman series) or something. "Mutants" is too icky a word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
@therealsilvermane

@therealsilvermane

Posted
Posted
On 9/24/2021 at 10:04 AM, Qalyar said:

Let me go etymology pedant here for a moment.

It's a common misconception that the word human is constructed from a prefix hu- attached to -man, in the same way that we get male profession words like fireman or chairman. However, there is no such prefix, and it's more or less just a coincidence of language that the two English words are so similar. Human, and its predecessors in other languages, has essentially always been a gender-neutral way to refer to the sort of creature that we are. English adopted it from Old French, which adopted it from Latin (this is why the scientific name for our species is sapiens). Latin's also the origin of the related word humane, because the Romans believed that courtesy and civility were qualities uniquely befitting human beings (optimists, the Romans, I suppose). In any case, the word is far older than Latin, and goes all the way to a Proto-Indo-European root believed to mean, basically "earth people" -- as opposed to "sky people" (that is, gods).

Man, on the other hand, comes to us via Old English and then Proto-Germanic, and back to Proto-Indo-European too, but with an entirely different origin than human (the exact sense of the PIE root is a matter of some debate outside the scope of this post). In any case, man has certainly had stretches of time where it was widely used in a gender-neutral capacity. That's where we get words like mankind and, well, manslaughter. But even when man was being used for everyone, it was being used in other contexts that were male-only. If we go back to, say, the 8th century or thereabouts, man covered both genders in Old English... but it was also used for something like modern servant or vassal, but in an explicitly male-only sense. And since around the late 1200s, man has been the go-to word in English for a male human. Prior to that, Old English used wer and wif as the words for male and female people, respectively (and yes, that wer survives in werewolf). For unclear reasons, wer dropped out of popular use and was replaced by gender-restricted use of man and it's been off to the races ever since. As an aside, wif didn't disappear like its male counterpart. Obviously, it survives as wife in the more restricted sense of a married woman, but also in woman itself; when man started to edge out wer as a male-only term, wif got prepended to the more inclusive sense of the man for... reasons, producing wifman, which became woman a couple of pronunciation shifts later. English has always been weird.

All of that aside, I don't think there's anything wrong with talking about ways to make the comics industry (and by extension its giant adaptation empire) more generally inclusive. At this point, we've had films (Dark Phoenix, Men in Black International) lampshading the gendered language of comic and comic-adjacent works. Now, yes, Dark Phoenix was an execrable excuse for a film, with a --script that deserved to star in "Will it Blend?" and performances that couldn't have been more phoned-in if they'd actually been done over the phone. The "X-Women" line -- and to some extent the all-female team-up scene in Avengers: Endgame -- are a bit cringe because they don't seem to evolve naturally from the plot, stories, and characters; that feels like pandering, not inclusion. Acknowledging that comics writ large can do a better job addressing women (which shouldn't really be controversial because a lot of the history has Not Been Good), and pretty much any category other than "straight white males" frankly, doesn't mean we shouldn't also acknowledge that Dark Phoenix's attempt at addressing the issue was as awkward and tone-deaf as the rest of the film.

Does that mean we should rename the X-Men? Personally, I'm of mixed opinions. The name certainly has a lot of brand recognition, but that alone isn't always a good reason to keep a name around (Washington Football Team, that meant you). I think the weight of history makes it tough to change things in comics themselves at this point, but since they've yet to be introduced to the MCU, there's something to be said for starting Professor X and his ilk off differently in adaptation.

I read that "human" comes from the latin "humus" (or something) which means "of the earth". That itself is said to be a translation of the Hebrew word "adamah" which also means "of the earth" which comes from Adam, the first man according to the Hebrew bible. So "human" basically refers to "Adam." I wonder how "Eve" fits into all this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
▫️

▫️

Posted
Posted
On 9/24/2021 at 10:04 AM, Qalyar said:

Let me go etymology pedant here for a moment.

It's a common misconception that the word human is constructed from a prefix hu- attached to -man, in the same way that we get male profession words like fireman or chairman. However, there is no such prefix, and it's more or less just a coincidence of language that the two English words are so similar. Human, and its predecessors in other languages, has essentially always been a gender-neutral way to refer to the sort of creature that we are. English adopted it from Old French, which adopted it from Latin (this is why the scientific name for our species is sapiens). Latin's also the origin of the related word humane, because the Romans believed that courtesy and civility were qualities uniquely befitting human beings (optimists, the Romans, I suppose). In any case, the word is far older than Latin, and goes all the way to a Proto-Indo-European root believed to mean, basically "earth people" -- as opposed to "sky people" (that is, gods).

Man, on the other hand, comes to us via Old English and then Proto-Germanic, and back to Proto-Indo-European too, but with an entirely different origin than human (the exact sense of the PIE root is a matter of some debate outside the scope of this post). In any case, man has certainly had stretches of time where it was widely used in a gender-neutral capacity. That's where we get words like mankind and, well, manslaughter. But even when man was being used for everyone, it was being used in other contexts that were male-only. If we go back to, say, the 8th century or thereabouts, man covered both genders in Old English... but it was also used for something like modern servant or vassal, but in an explicitly male-only sense. And since around the late 1200s, man has been the go-to word in English for a male human. Prior to that, Old English used wer and wif as the words for male and female people, respectively (and yes, that wer survives in werewolf). For unclear reasons, wer dropped out of popular use and was replaced by gender-restricted use of man and it's been off to the races ever since. As an aside, wif didn't disappear like its male counterpart. Obviously, it survives as wife in the more restricted sense of a married woman, but also in woman itself; when man started to edge out wer as a male-only term, wif got prepended to the more inclusive sense of the man for... reasons, producing wifman, which became woman a couple of pronunciation shifts later. English has always been weird.

All of that aside, I don't think there's anything wrong with talking about ways to make the comics industry (and by extension its giant adaptation empire) more generally inclusive. At this point, we've had films (Dark Phoenix, Men in Black International) lampshading the gendered language of comic and comic-adjacent works. Now, yes, Dark Phoenix was an execrable excuse for a film, with a --script that deserved to star in "Will it Blend?" and performances that couldn't have been more phoned-in if they'd actually been done over the phone. The "X-Women" line -- and to some extent the all-female team-up scene in Avengers: Endgame -- are a bit cringe because they don't seem to evolve naturally from the plot, stories, and characters; that feels like pandering, not inclusion. Acknowledging that comics writ large can do a better job addressing women (which shouldn't really be controversial because a lot of the history has Not Been Good), and pretty much any category other than "straight white males" frankly, doesn't mean we shouldn't also acknowledge that Dark Phoenix's attempt at addressing the issue was as awkward and tone-deaf as the rest of the film.

Does that mean we should rename the X-Men? Personally, I'm of mixed opinions. The name certainly has a lot of brand recognition, but that alone isn't always a good reason to keep a name around (Washington Football Team, that meant you). I think the weight of history makes it tough to change things in comics themselves at this point, but since they've yet to be introduced to the MCU, there's something to be said for starting Professor X and his ilk off differently in adaptation.

Wow, you gonna make Mexico pay for that post?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Qalyar

Qalyar

Posted
Posted
On 9/24/2021 at 9:24 AM, @therealsilvermane said:

I read that "human" comes from the latin "humus" (or something) which means "of the earth". That itself is said to be a translation of the Hebrew word "adamah" which also means "of the earth" which comes from Adam, the first man according to the Hebrew bible. So "human" basically refers to "Adam." I wonder how "Eve" fits into all this?

Adam and human aren't quite that directly connected; they're parallel descendants of the Proto-Indo-European root word. So more like word-cousins.

As for Eve, that name is basically just a form of the classical Hebrew verb meaning "to live".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted
On 9/24/2021 at 10:18 AM, @therealsilvermane said:

Eh, were the X-Men always that successful, though?

I believe the X-Men, from their introduction in 1963, never really quite connected with readers and their sales were always down compared to other titles. By 1970 or so, X-Men went into reprints. I believe Giant Size X-Men #1 was one last shot at trying something new before the title got cancelled. Readership went up, so Marvel went with it. I also don't think these All New All Different X-Men and Wolverine became a phenomenon until around late 1979 or 1980, maybe half-way through the Claremont Byrne run. So maybe they were a hit from like 1980 to present-day. Also, X-Men stuck around in the present because of the Fox movies. Marvel Comics had begun the process of basically burying the X-Men in the comics and replacing them with Inhumans because Marvel Studios couldn't use them in the MCU. It's only after the Fox purchase that we've seen a resurgence in X-Men in the comics particularly with Hickman's latest reformatting of the X-brand.

You are off ignore because someone this blatantly revisionist of Marvel history (proven multiple times) needs to be addressed.

Are you kidding about the X-Men being a success? Without even bothering to address the rest of your statements... So many kids walking around with X-Men t-shirts and action figures and watching animated videos and loads of comic books read and collected. Including Stan Lee celebrating this is one of his favorite teams ever.

And you want to theorize it was never really a success until now when the MCU refers to them as 'The Mutants'?

:facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Qalyar

Qalyar

Posted
Posted
On 9/24/2021 at 9:13 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

TL;DR?

 

On 9/24/2021 at 9:32 AM, Oddball said:

Wow, you gonna make Mexico pay for that post?

Really? It's under 750 words. Because sometimes topics like the intersection between linguistics and gender inclusiveness in popular media... deserve a bit more than a tweet worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clay Johnson

Clay Johnson

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Read all the replies. But yeah, the word suffix and word “man” is a generic term for human/people. And even the Bible and God use the term man to describe people. Ex: “Man shall not live in bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God -Matt 4:4”

I just don’t understand the “progressiveness” that Marvel and other companies are confirming to. Wasn’t there talk about removing/changing the Punisher logo because people were butthurt that some people wore that on their shirts? 
 

crazy times we live in, that’s for sure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0
Go to topic listing