Social being

The human can be envisioned as having three sheaths of being. The physical body, the mind or soul, and the spirit. As an infant we react out the physical and as we grow we become more mentally focused ultimately as we mature we crave less for physical and mental gratification and direct ourselves to the higher spiritual self. Our highest attainment is our spiritual body ascending to eternal spiritual life. While body and mind are temporal the spiritual body has eternal potential. For the human to be healthy he/she needs a balance between their body, mind and spirit. The priority should be given the spirit where higher purpose reside as well as permanence. Spirit is first then the mind and the body must follow. We are tripartite beings by design.

Humans are social being as single person can not perform every task i.e. hair cutting

Every one cannot be specialist of everything I.e. cardiovascular surgery specialists

So every one is dependent upon others

Both but in different proportions..

Human is a social being with full of humanity.

Man is a social being .

The health of men and women is very much improved when living in caring communities. The isolation of modern industrialized urban society has led to increases in problems which dealt with better in family and community. The lack of one parent in the family is a good indicator of increased issues such as becoming involved in criminal activities. Man is social being. As Solomon said one man cannot even keep warm. Two can keep warm and defend themselves. When there is three stranded cord it is difficult to break.

Man is human.

I'm not sure about "man," but humans are embodied and in community. I don't understand the purpose of the question, as the answer appears self-evident.

Well we can be politically correct and eliminate all mention of man and men.

Everybody can be called and seen has hues without any mention of man.

Would that be a pigment of imagination though? It would be politically correct!!

If we see ourselves as hues are we not being racists??

But certainly in biological sense there is no woman without man there is no female without male.

This is a mutual dependency which seems unpopular but undoubted but real and powerful.

Should we just ignore that fact?

Sounds pretty self evident and self defeating and sexist to me to suggest that political correctness reflects any objective truth.

If one feels a question is irrelevant they would not need to opt in.

In my male mind man is probably a reality whether I personally am in favor or not.

I imagine if everything is self evident there is little need for conversation but considering the lengths of discussion not everything is self evident for everyone and we certainly do not agree on most if not all issues.

But I am just a mature white male not a classification of much favor now a days.

In a biological sense there is no man without woman and no male without female.

Using "human" rather than "man" could imply mutual dependency but is a more specific term.

Trivializing precision as sexism/political correctness is an interesting position to take.

If one believes an answer is irrelevant one need not opt in.

I am in no way trivializing precision related to terminology as suggested. I am sure you indeed understood that man can be used to refer to either male and female and both depending on the context. In that regard the cry for precision is somewhat disingenuous in my viewpoint. What I will call out is the targeting men as is done widely in media and the politically correct police as if the evils of society are all about white mature men. For many years now the false expectation is ventilated if we just had women executives all would resolve itself. Well for a generation we have had a significant number of women executives and are all the issues resolved? I do not think so. Rather the experience show they have pretty much the problems and lack of perfected performance as their male counterparts. It now appears that for United Stated Democrats it is alluded that the candidate preference needs to be a woman and preferably one of color. Wow talk about political correctness gone wild sexist and racism a double winner. What ever happened to selecting the best person based on character and experience? Is that out moded in a politically correct society with political correct police? Maybe experience is not necessary now either. Regardless the media agenda for a long time has been attempting to morph traditional values in favor of non traditional identification. The male is no longer father knows best and nuclear family units appear to be in complete disfavor. I am against the identification of women as bimbos and sex objects and in an equal sense I reject the political correct agenda of demeaning mature white men. It is both incorrect to depict this class as the sole source of society evils and insensitive unintelligent buffoons. The single most indicator of ability of individuals to avoid prison and be well adjusted is the presence of a father and mother who are able to stay together and raise children this is traditional values exemplified in the nuclear family which seems to be under attack in media culture focusing on political correctness and eschewing tried and true institutions and values. I would suggest so called political correctness is resulting in society paying a huge price which is not necessary or favorable for society as a whole.

I see that you have a long list of grievances. I can't help with those. We do have evidence, however, that using "human" when "human" is meant, rather than "man," has positive consequences for female scholars, particularly very young ones. Calling it political correctness is trivializing the real world consequences of our choices.

Actually demeaning or eliminating male and men does not resolve gender issues but it certainly demeans about half of the human population.

Is it precise and correct to not care for the other half? Is this a cost of some sort of affirmative action?

As long as something is reflecting a female friendly view I guess everything is hunky dory.

Is there overall advantage that female scholars as a protected class with special treatment?

Indeed a very difficult societal issue is a growing lack of appropriate male models for the male population especially in the educational arena.

Only emphasizing one half in a gender sense is sexist which supposedly is the thing you suggest you are against.

It is pretty clear that our current education is very female oriented based on participation and success.

I will stick with Martin Luther King there is a dream where people will be judged not by color nor gender but rather by the quality of their character.

Indeed many of the current social issues are grounded in lack of appropriate male models, the loss of values and male models being provided by females in the female dominated families and educational system.

Female chauvinism is just as sexist as male chauvinism. We have information that this alternative arrangements are necessarily able to bring about optimized societal results. You may want to check success of children from single mother families for instance compared to traditional nuclear families.

In many ways the separation of genders rather than coeducation might be healthful.

I do not think that the so called politically correct model has a very good track record for men.

A healthy man will probably best learn from a healthy man.

When a system is designed to favor female scholars, this is an example of systematic discrimination exactly the thing that political correctness is purported to be against.

There is real evidence of many angry young men and most of these have a lack of positive male models. So addressing this by giving more emphasis to female scholars might not be the best societal solution.

Could women play some part in this as they are bringing up our children often without male influence in their development process in single mother households?

How effective is politic correctness resolving these issues?

Considering the conclusive role of early socialization the attached chart shows the overwhelming dominance of female teachers in the class rooms of our society this dominance continues unabated to University when gender identity is formed in the early formative years.

There are many gender issues and it is doubtful that political correctness is resolving any of them. The advantages you suggest I believe are dubious especially when overall effects on the unfavored classes are totaled in.

Using "human" when human is meant does not, in my view, eliminate or demean men, as men are human. If you believe, and surely this is not your argument, that including women eliminates and demeans men, then I disagree.

Human is a social being, even human need to be lonely sometimes :)

Man is a social human being with great responsibilities!

Both

The two together

Yes man is both a physical and social being a mental being and spiritual being. To be whole as in Holy all three aspects would need to balanced and fully functionally. The higher values should be represented in the spiritual connection to Higher Power in a hierarchy the Spirit first the Mind will follow and the body has no choice. In dichotomy of Spirit and Flesh is a battle field. The flesh will lead one away from Higher Power and to ways of temporary indulgence which separates the being from the Source. Theologically the battle field is won as the warrior selects spirit over flesh and is lost when flesh is the route of temporary satisfaction but long term decay. The daily struggle would be selected the Higher Power or indulging in pleasures of the fleshly existence.