An Essay on the Fallacies of Semantic Feminism

The 1933 Oxford Universal Dictionary defines "man" as "1. A human being, now surviving in general or indefinite applications in the sense 'person.' 2. In generic sense, without article: The human creature regarded abstractly; hence the human race or species, mankind." The Latin origins of the word have been lost to us, the dictionary admits, yet there remains the possibility of tracing them to a crucial foundation of the English language. The modern form of our tongue is still strongly embedded in its Germanic roots. As a result of the Anglo-Saxon conquests in the fifth century of the Christian Era, the word "man" among others had been transferred to the linguistic reservoir of the populace dwelling in the British Isles. The German definition of the word "man" is threefold, the possibilities permitting for the term to be used in the context of "one," "they," or "people". Nowhere in the roots of that word is a reference to the male gender implied. What can the most esteemed reader extrapolate from the above exploration? That the feminist paradigm of present days is unjustified in a vast majority of its concerns.