Is X-men name outdated?

[CosmiComic]

The same reason you assumed i was anit woke rather than looking for clarification?

I didn't say you were anti-woke specifically, did I? I just honestly didn't know what you were talking about. And I did ask for clarification but you didn't give any

[jwatson]

[QUOTE=Alpha;5752442]What do you mean by "we arr worried". We're just talking about something, nobody is going out there and protesting Marvel for using the name " X-men"


And there really are a lot of people that equate this conversation with everything they think is wrong with the world, which I find absolutely ridiculous. I'm not saying you in particular (I wouldn't know) but some people here think that the 4th wave feminist movement is clamoring for X-men to be changed.


I'm up and down and pretty realistic about feminism. Feminist doesn't necessarily mean diversity. There is some feminism that only white women benefit from.

[CosmiComic]

And there really are a lot of people that equate this conversation with everything they think is wrong with the world, which I find absolutely ridiculous. I'm not saying you in particular (I wouldn't know) but some people here think that the 4th wave feminist movement is clamoring for X-men to be changed.


I'm up and down and pretty realistic about feminism. Feminist doesn't necessarily mean diversity. There is some feminism that only white women benefit from.

That's just White feminism, then. Complaining about feminism only helping White women is the opposite of complaining it's changing everything, because White feminism is slow and still preserves part of the status quo, vs. some more radical versions. So I'm still not sure what you're getting at, or whether you're actually realistic about feminism

And the world's always been wrong. It's not something new

[TheRay]

I think you win. This is a great observation lol.

Hey thanks, positive vibes ftw.

[Wolverine12]

To be clear, I recognize the fact that "Men" often refers to men and women. But one must also recognize that the reason for that is that throughout history males were the ones that represented evolution. Notice that whenever we see a drawing of the evolution of humanity what we see is a cave man becoming a gentleman. Is this a big deal? Meh. I'm not too bothered. But then again, I'm a man.

I do think it's a conversation worth having.

But when you call a character Super"man" or super"woman" there's nothing debateable about it. If they are male than they will be Superman. If they are female then they will call themselves superwoman. If they are transgender than they will just change their name. If they consider themselves non-binary then they won't use either of those names. No confusion there.

I can agree with a lot of what you’re saying. For me I see the name X-Men the same way you describe Superman and Superwoman, (also why did you capitalize Superman but not Superwoman. I’m teasing). It’s already all inclusive so it’s a non issue from the start.

[Alpha]

I can agree with a lot of what you’re saying. For me I see the name X-Men the same way you describe Superman and Superwoman, (also why did you capitalize Superman but not Superwoman. I’m teasing). It’s already all inclusive so it’s a non issue from the start.

But the first part of my argument was specifically that the reason why "men" is "inclusive" of women is because of a historically patriarchal view in which males are the figureheads of humanity. Which isn't something I love.

And your question about why a group name isn't inclusive but something like Iron Man is, well it's because when I say Iron Man I'm never referring to a woman. Whereas X-men is referring to both men and women, though using a patriarchal term. As a man, I can't really be too bothered about this, but there are so many other names with the same appeal and that don't have that patriachal background so I don't see why a name change would be invalid.

X-Factor is a beloved team, as is Generation X, as is X-Force, and I personally love the name X-Nation. I think any of these names could work and none of them have that dubious background.

[Wolverine12]

But the first part of my argument was specifically that the reason why "men" is "inclusive" of women is because of a historically patriarchal view in which males are the figureheads of humanity. Which isn't something I love.

And your question about why a group name isn't inclusive but something like Iron Man is, well it's because when I say Iron Man I'm never referring to a woman. Whereas X-men is referring to both men and women, though using a patriarchal term. As a man, I can't really be too bothered about this, but there are so many other names with the same appeal and that don't have that patriachal background so I don't see why a name change would be invalid.

X-Factor is a beloved team, as is Generation X, as is X-Force, and I personally love the name X-Nation. I think any of these names could work and none of them have that dubious background.

I understand your argument, I simply disagree with your stance. X-Men as I first stated replaces human when I read it, or humankind if you want to use that language. There isn’t a different word to describe the whole of people on the planet other than humans/humankind, we’d be unlikely to change humankind to E-Nation when addressing humanity as a whole so I don’t see the need to change the title X-Men either as it already includes everyone. If I’m being blunt I think X-Nation is a terrible alternative, but that’s simply a personal opinion. I also think to say the X-Men name has a dubious background is a bit of a stretch. You’re assigning a patriarchal background to the term X-Men and I don’t see it that way.

[Alpha]

I'm describing the patriachal nature of the word Men, which is in the X-men name. It's the equivalent of using the term "women" to describe both sexes.

And again, since you don't like the X-Nation name you still have plenty of alternatives, like X-Factor, X-Force, Generation X, etc

[Wolverine12]

I'm describing the patriachal nature of the word Men, which is in the X-men name. It's the equivalent of using the term "women" to describe both sexes.

And again, since you don't like the X-Nation name you still have plenty of alternatives, like X-Factor, X-Force, Generation X, etc

I understand, but the word “man” is in human and humankind which is why I think the argument doesn’t rate. I also completely disagree saying it’s the same as using women to describe both sexes since the pre fix “X” is genderless and as pointed out previously is the universal sign for a variable.

As for the other names I’m willing to admit that it’s a bias since I read the comics but those names are for those teams, if we are going to replace an arguably iconic branding I think something original is warranted, not replacing with a off shoot of the original ip.

[Alpha]

I also completely disagree saying it’s the same as using women to describe both sexes since the pre fix “X” is genderless and as pointed out previously is the universal sign for a variable.

That has nothing to do with why they are called "X-men"

[Wolverine12]

That has nothing to do with why they are called "X-men"

The X also has nothing to do with the gender of the team…

[TheRay]

Not really. That’s an alternate universe, possibly one that has appeared all of one time.

Not really the point. Both names exist. Each side should be happy. This is how the real world works, through compromise. Not through whining and complaining until you get your way.

[Hizashi]

Apparently you missed my post suggesting that the new name be The Uncannyons

Well played.

[Hizashi]

These days we say humankind.

I doubt it's said more often than mankind

I understand, but the word “man” is in human and humankind which is why I think the argument doesn’t rate. I also completely disagree saying it’s the same as using women to describe both sexes since the pre fix “X” is genderless and as pointed out previously is the universal sign for a variable.

As for the other names I’m willing to admit that it’s a bias since I read the comics but those names are for those teams, if we are going to replace an arguably iconic branding I think something original is warranted, not replacing with a off shoot of the original ip.

I think you're pretty much on point.

[Hizashi]

It seems to me that there are two prevalent sides; those who think the name isn't inclusive and those that do. So we've reached an impasse?