Welcome to Incremental Social! Learn more about this project here!
Check out lemmyverse to find more communities to join from here!

FiskFisk33 , (edited )

"man" as in human kind.

I agree the linguistics here are unfortunate, but here we are, and that word, in that context, is normally gender neutral.

Also, 28 day calendar probably means it's the moon.

2pt_perversion ,

It's important to note how we got here. In old English man just meant human. Wereman meant male and wifman meant female. Over time that "were" prefix got dropped and man now means male but the ambiguous meaning of humankind stuck around. In fact "human" comes from old french "of man", again the non-gendered use of the word man.

The point is to fix all these problems we just have to bring back the "were". The progressive werewolves are way ahead of us on this issue.

exocrinous ,

Hunter, huntress, huntsman. Actor, actress, actsman. Waitor, waitress, waitsman.

If we bring back the were then how are we gonna refer to male hunters, actors, and waitors?

FiskFisk33 ,

Hunter, werehunter, wifhunter. fun!

the real question is how are we going to refer to male wolves?

Cottenlai_Zhou ,

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

    •
    ProfessorOwl_PhD ,
    @ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net avatar

    You mean apart from them occuring at set intervals? The length of time between the average women's periods is 28 days, but the moon's 28 day cycle is 100% reliable, and always happens regardless of individual stressors. Having a regular solar event that confirms you're accurately keeping track of days is pretty practical.

    XeroxCool ,

    I'm not seeing a comment pointing out why 28 days isn't a moon thing, so I'll take a shot. If you watch new moon to new moon or full moon to full moon, it's a 29.5 day cycle. It's true, the moon's orbit is only 28 days. However, that's 360° of travel. We don't track the moon against the stars for its cycle though, it's tracked against the sun. A full moon sits opposite the sun, a new moon in line with the sun, etc. So, in that 28 day orbital period, the earth has also orbited about 1/13 of an orbit around the sun, changing the position of the sun against the stars . That means the moon has to travel an extra 28° of orbit to reach the new moon position again - about an extra day an a half.

    FiskFisk33 ,

    I’m not seeing a comment pointing out why 28 days isn’t a moon thing,

    Hm, that's odd! it's right there

    https://discuss.tchncs.de/comment/8329564

    XeroxCool , (edited )

    Odd indeed since the link works fine in my mobile app (connect) but doesn't show on the native comment thread. I kinds figured it was something like that with a different source instance. At least I can feel good knowing I explained where 28 does occur

    Emmy ,

    All the idiots claiming it's the moon and giving more details about women's cycles are missing the point of the quote.

    Which is spelled out, but I'll place it here.

    The idea that it was a woman is just as valid as it being a man, but man is always assumed.

    The accuracy of the claim is not at issue. The assumption is.

    Churbleyimyam ,

    Who is responsible though? The historian, or the man who inscribed the bone?

    Churbleyimyam ,

    Good trip-up one.
    Good old periods.
    Good old not getting your girlfriend pregnant.

    firefly ,
    @firefly@neon.nightbulb.net avatar

    > "... I thought this comment of the professor was an interesting eye opener."

    "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:5)

    Having your eyes opened to believe nonsense is the goal of such so-called 'education'. For all we know the notches were a tally of successful hunts or a scalp tally. Or maybe the notches were to allow a sinew or leather wrapping to adhere to the bone, possibly being used as a handle for a tool. And who trusts a mere picture being held up as scientific evidence of anything?

    Delusional people like to read their preconceived notions into everything. The eugenics supremacists in the education racket tell you that your ancestors were cave-dwelling monkeys so you filter artifacts through that lens and confirm that your ancestors were cave-dwelling monkeys.

    Anyone who believes that man began living in caves and tried to make a calendar on a bone is an neanderthal cave-dweller's son.

    MutilationWave ,

    Savannah dwelling apes, not cave dwelling monkeys.

    HollowNaught ,
    @HollowNaught@lemmy.world avatar

    I'm confused by this quote - no sane person would assume a male did something just because we say man did it. In this instance, man would simply be referencing humanity

    The want to define whether a male or female did it without any evidence is simply sexist

    AstralPath ,

    Isn't it a shame though that the way we refer to humanity as a whole is by using the specific word that represents only half of humanity?

    Its not hard to see how this is exclusionary. Honestly, how many people immediately conjure an image of a woman in their head when someone says "man's first attempt at X"? Male as the default is the root of the issue here. Its not difficult for us to use more suitable language like " humanity" or "humankind".

    Sandi clearly isn't up in arms about the language used here, she's just simply pointing out this exact problem. First thought is of a man's work. Only through thoughtfully examined details do we invoke a woman's presence. Men are the default, but why? Many of these ancient cultures revered their women; attributed vast amounts of the success of their people to them and we set up their historic legacy into the future with poor choice of words. Its sad, really.

    Fortunately things are changing for the better.

    HollowNaught ,
    @HollowNaught@lemmy.world avatar

    I agree that English is a constantly changing language, with many words meaning the same thing or single words meaning multiple different things. It's the case with the male man, derived from werman, as is such with many other words

    But your point ignores what I was trying to say

    Anybody who feels the need to specify gender with such limited information is simply being sexist. Neither male nor female should be assumed in this instance

    This goes for people other than those in the post; scholars and students should be held accountable alike

    Whether these historic individuals were male or female is irrelevant. Only their creations truly matter

    AstralPath ,

    I get you. All I have to say is this in response: Its easy to say that specifying gender is irrelevant when the speaker is a man. Women have been forgotten or purposely obscured in history books since forever. There's nothing wrong with positing that a woman may have done X. If there's an obvious potential for female context, why suppress it?

    Thcdenton ,

    d e e p t h o u g h t s

    Safipok ,

    Cool thought, but why is this in meme /C/ ?

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • memes@lemmy.ml
  • random
  • incremental_games
  • meta
  • All magazines
    •