Why is it 'Manhunt' and not 'Womanhunt'?

"Why is it 'Manhunt' and not 'Womanhunt'?"

Here's why:
Location, Sunset Blvd., Hollywood, CA

.."man" also means "human"? English and German descended from the same language and we call it Menschenjagd, "human hunt".

We have this politically correct speech with the female forms these days.. imagine a text being full of nonsense like "the doctoress/the doctor", "the officeress/the officer". That's how it is here. BUT: in cases like Täter (perpetrator(s)), frequently only the male form is used instead of "Täterin/Täter".
When they installed a watered-down copy of the US domestic violence laws so people could be sent away from their homes, the slogan was something like "the batterer is removed, the battered stays" [at home]. Batterer with the male form, battered with the female. Of course.

..society prevented them from holding many jobs, both men and women. Just like many men are now supporting the old roles.
Anyway, just like in Spanish, Italian or most languages I know, every noun has a gender. The grammatical gender doesn't need to be the same as the natural gender (genus naturalis). Der Arzt, the doctor (male form) can be a woman. The computer is also male although it certainly isn't a man :). The towel is neutral. There's no logic in this and it's different for each language.
One only used to use the female forms if one talked about a specific female person (die Ärztin kam durch die Tür, the "doctoress" came through the door). The male form addressed all people.
Nowadays, this property of our language could disappear through the stupid habit of explicitly using both forms. What I especially hate is that in most cases, the female form is now mentioned first, even though it should come second in an alphabetical order (shorter words come first, and the female form has an additional "in").
At least the "inland I" hasn't really succeeded ("ÄrztIn", especially terrible to read). Except in leftist and feminist circles.

...that there was some great push to eradicate the use of titles which differentiated married and single women (the equivalent of the English "Mrs." and "Ms.")?

After all, marriage is a bad thing for women, right? Since divorce is such a good thing for women, I suppose they'll just have to go on taking the bad with the good for the time being. We haven't yet developed a law whereby women can own men without ever interacting with them. It's coming, but we aren't there yet. ;)

I understand that most languages have gendered nouns to go with their pronouns, but English is a notable exception. Aside from ships and occasionally countries, we don't tend to assign a gender to anything that isn't a person or an animal.

The point is simple: as with most of our society, that which is negative is deemed to be rightly male by the feminists, that which is positive or victim-related is deemed to be female. No attempt is ever made by feminists to ensure that women endure the same negatives men have always enjoyed, from stereotypes to prison sentences and drafts.

I'm interested in real equality. When I hear NOW and the SOWs screaming for equal prison sentences, equal drafts, shared parenting and gender-neutral language for bad things, I'll start believing that the local feminists are too.

Now considering that men prevented women from holding most jobs until fairly recently in world history, I'd have to imagine one of the reasons for the distinction to develop being the desire to ensure women didn't have the same job title as the men.

Your first assertion is true enough, although I'd question the sexist motivation for differing titles based on gender.

But now women are preventing men from holding all sorts of jobs, albeit using means which are a bit more subtle than an outright denial of access to a position on sexist grounds. For instance, nursing. Elementary teaching. Father. Human resources. Daycare worker. A whole host of bureaucratic civil-service positions dominated by women who aggressively defend "their" turf and who only hire other women. Not to mention the many professions which require higher university education that are becoming increasingly closed to men as women dominate education from kindergarten onwards, focusing on the needs of women first and women only at every stage of the game.

I realize that you don't mean to suggest that this is somehow better, ItsDan. Or that young men alive today who have never denied any woman anything somehow owe young women - young women who've never lived under any system but full legal equality and preferential treatment for women in education, law, health care and hiring. It's just that altogether too many people who say things like "men previously denied women jobs" or who otherwise attempt to bring past sexism into the present context mean exactly that - that women already in a position of advantage and privilege today are somehow owed something by young men already at a disadvantage, despite the fact that these young men have, by and large, never engaged in sexism themselves.

As I said, I'm sure you aren't suggesting that. I'm sure because we're in total agreement: both sexes should play by the same rules, live up to the same expectations and as a result, be treated equally. Men alive today are not responsible for the wrongs, real or imaginary, that may have been done to women in the past, just as women aren't liable for the wrongs done to men in the past.

That makes perfect sense to me, ItsDan - thanks.