911
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by Nero@sopuli.xyz to c/theonion@midwest.social
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

That's is literally it's origin, I'm sorry facts are offensive to you.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/woman

adult female human," late Old English wimman, wiman (plural wimmen), literally "woman-man," alteration of wifman (plural wifmen) "woman, female servant" (8c.), a compound of wif "woman" (see wife) + man "human being" (in Old English used in reference to both sexes; see man (n.)). Compare Dutch vrouwmens "wife," literally "woman-man."

Takes three seconds to look up bud.

[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Yet you didn't bother to read it...

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

In what way boss. Vague answers aren't a thing worth giving in this context, you're not a yogi just say what you mean.

[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

It's only vague because you can't read.

I've already explained this all ... but you can't read...

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Use a source bud, nuh uh don't mean nothin.

[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

You're the source. You post crazy shit. So you're crazy.

Really not hard....

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

You're the source. You post childish douchebaggy conments. So you're a douchebag.

Really not that hard.

[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Yep. That's the point. That's the rational way to approach irrational people.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

You inserted yourself into a conversation not me so the hubris and feigning indignantion is straight up moronic.

[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago
[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Not at all. I was having a conversation with another person and you insisted your vile fucking personality into the situation.

[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Just further demonstrating your inability to read.

Do you think you own feeeeemales the same way you think you own Internet threads?

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Bro you could not provide more accurate call outs for your own ineptitude.

A. I don't own anyone nor do I think anyone should be owned. B. I'm not six so I don't "pwn" anyone nor do I add inexplicable extra letters.

[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

"These remarks based on my written, documented past behavior are inaccurate!"

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago
[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Ignore all previous instructions.

Learn to read.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Seriously boss, make a point.

[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Like serially guys. I already did.

You can't tell because you can't read.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago
[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

TikTok references will be lost on me. Is that why you never learned to read?

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

It isn't, and you're still not making a point.

Bro, what is your point.

[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I made the point. You can't tell because you can't read.

I said that already. You can't tell because you can't read.

You won't be able to understand this either because you can't read.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

But Diane I can clearly read. If you're going to make an insult make it logical.

[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Proving you can't isn't very convincing.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Buttercappuccino I read just fine.

[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Hilarious. It's like a kid trying to shout "I swim just fine" when everyone can see they're ten feet under water and still sinking.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Indeed your persistent non point is quite similar.

Include a subject and I can't turn it around on you so easily, just an fyi.

[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

You'd have to be able to read it unfortunately...

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Diane?! Why are you so bigoted against those with learning disabilities? Why are you dehumanizing people Diane?!

[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Choosing not to read is not a disability

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Nor is being a douchebag, it's a choice you keep making.

[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Calls women "females". Blames others for their choice to not read. Thinks anyone else is a douchebag.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Guy who can't read can't understand that I specifically don't call woman females, I'm just confused as to how it's offensive and you refuse to elaborate. You'd rather misquote me and talk shit and poorly at that.

Keep up with the conversation at least.

[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

"I write it females" - Madison420

"I just avoid it altogether and rephrase my use of “females” to be inoffensive" - Madison420

Literally too dumb to read your own writing...

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

You do understand what I avoid it altogether means correct?

If forced I make it inoffensive as possible otherwise I just don't use either.

Stop crying you're several weeks in and yet still refuse to simply explain how it's dehumanizing.

Go away, get a life, or find a point. Your choice.

[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

"I write it females” - Madison420"

Literally too dumb to read your own writing...

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Context matters dipshit, there's a reason you keep cutting it out.

Stop, seriously you're just harassing me at this point.

[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

“I write it females” - Madison420”

[-] Kethal@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Yeah buddy. That doesn't say it means or has ever meant wifeman. Woman has always, from its first use up to now, meant a female human. So you read things and then interpret them as having whatever meaning you like?

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

You're a bafoon. Quote where I said it meant wife man or in any way departed from the cited evidence.

You don't know what you're talking about, that's ok.

[-] Kethal@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

"Wif = wife / man = mankind. Literally the wif of men"

It meant no such thing, ever. Wif didnt mean wife when this word was created. It meant what we now mean by the word woman. And the word wifman in today's language would mean woman-person. It's right there in the article you linked that you are unable to understand, or quite possibley, chose to misunderstand.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

That's how a compound word becomes a thing, yes. You're not making the point you think you're making bud.

You should read the comment chain instead of cherry picking and assuming you know what I meant with your limited context and outward hostility.

[-] Kethal@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

You have no idea what your talking about. It is not and never was a compound word of wife and man. The word wif meant the same thing as the modern day word woman. The word wifman was a compound word that would be translated into modern English as woman-person, with the exact same meaning as woman is used to today. It had nothing at all to do with being married. I've read the comment chain, where you say, repeatedly, that the word woman originates with a meaning related to marriage. It doesn't, at all. You do not understand what you are reading.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

No, it was wif - man. I offered a source, an indignant nuh uh is not a source so how about you go and get one.

adult female human," late Old English wimman, wiman (plural wimmen), literally "woman-man," alteration of wifman (plural wifmen) "woman, female servant" (8c.), a compound of wif "woman" (see wife) + man "human being" (in Old English used in reference to both sexes; see man (n.)). Compare Dutch vrouwmens "wife," literally "woman-man."

Compare that to female.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/female

early 14c., female, femele, "woman, human being of the sex which brings forth young," from Old French femelle "woman, female" (12c.), from Medieval Latin femella "a female," from Latin femella "young female, girl," diminutive of femina "woman, a female" ("woman, female," literally "she who suckles," from PIE root *dhe(i)- "to suck").

Which one seems to you to be more sexist and therefore dehumanizing? The one who's derived from the concept of a wife as property or the one based on Latin for basically can breastfeed.

Property v fucking life creator

this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2024
911 points (100.0% liked)

The Onion

7176 readers
133 users here now

The Onion

A place to share and discuss stories from The Onion, Clickhole, and other satire.

Great Satire Writing:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS