• @Z3k3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2168 months ago

    I always read this type of statement as man = species.

    I know this particular thinking is falling out of fashion but it’s not totally dead yet

    • AggressivelyPassive
      link
      fedilink
      1528 months ago

      Thing is, statements like the one in the post are just as ignorant as the claimed “enemy”.

      You know what else takes 28 days? A moon cycle. We have absolutely no context, what this means. A period tracker bone is a perfectly valid hypothesis, but without any proof or context nothing more than this. It could have been used for moon phases, sheep counting, trade, or simply for testing stone knives.

      • TigrisMorte
        link
        fedilink
        208 months ago

        look how much deeper blade three cut with a single stroke! Are you sure you want to go with brand 4?

      • @bouh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        -218 months ago

        Seeing the reactions in this thread, it does seem that a lot of men are indeed enemies of women. Why would it be so hot otherwise to discuss this?

        • AggressivelyPassive
          link
          fedilink
          148 months ago

          And this reaction of yours is a prime example of jumping to conclusions based on political views.

          You can argue, that this bone was used for 400 different things. Without context, arguing that it’s definitely something about menstruation is just pseudo-feminist circle jerking. They just choose this interpretation because it fits their views and goals. That’s unscientific.

          What you’re doing here is also not much better. Instead of actually engaging with the argument I brought, you just assume, that everyone who disagrees with a pseudo-feminist interpretation of a bone, must be the enemy. That is not exactly scientific.

          • @bouh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            -108 months ago

            you talked about enemity first, remember? you have this view of a fight, and that anyone who dare say that a woman did something and not a man, is fighting men.

            You have a very defensive position. Which means you feal attacked. You say it directly when you talk about “enemy”.

            You are the problem my friend. Your first comment is aa problem. And the support it receives is concerning and scary.

            • AggressivelyPassive
              link
              fedilink
              88 months ago

              Nope, I just pointed out, that an absolute statement like the one above is not valid. And the “enemy” I brought up, was used as a description of the position shown by the proponents of the menstruation bone absolutism.

              And labeling me as a “problem”, without even an attempt at telling me where I might be wrong is pretty, well, bold?

              Think about it, I write, that absolutism is not good, and your first response is “you are evil because you dare question whatever I happen to believe in”.

              You don’t help feminism like that. And that’s pretty sad.

              • @WldFyre@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                -98 months ago

                Professor: Maybe it was a woman? Just consider it with an open mind.

                You: This gender absolutism is the enemy™!

    • @MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      348 months ago

      Agreed, when speaking of the distant past, I always assume that by “man” they mean “mankind” aka human… Not males.

      In the grand scheme, I don’t think it matters whether the thing was done by a male or female, the fact that it happened is the interesting thing about it.

      I’m 100% positive that both men (males) and women contributed to these things, and it is impossible to know how much influence each sex had on any given thing, so I’m not sure why the sex of the ancient person who did it, matters.

      • @krashmo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        12
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        I’m not sure why the sex of the ancient person who did it, matters.

        Make that a common sentiment and a good chunk of the division surrounding modern discourse goes away. People care way too much about genitals both in the past and present.

        • @MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          68 months ago

          Not only what your genitalia is, but what you do with it, seems to be a top priority for far too many people. They’re not your genitals, so maybe don’t worry about it?

          But “God” or something. I don’t know.

          • @MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            38 months ago

            I didn’t take it as a correction. More of a clarification. I omitted some extraneous detail that they added. I felt it was implied well enough by context that it didn’t need to be said, obviously they wanted to add more clarity to the statement.

            In my mind the two statements are identical, except that mine relies on context and theirs is a bit more explicit in what is said.

            • @JungleJim@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              0
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              “clearly wasn’t”

              I see now, you just phrase things abruptly in a way that SEEMS rude but clearly isn’t. My mistake. Have a nice day.

              • @krashmo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                -18 months ago

                You figured out what it meant. That’s clear enough for communication purposes imo. You’re welcome to your own interpretation though

      • @bouh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        -18 months ago

        You are ignorant of recent history then.

        Men did do their best to segregate women in the 18th and 19th century. And they succeeded. Even in the language.

        Women fighting for women to be recognized in history is an important fight for women to be respected and recognized for their doing, because even now they aren’t.

        And I’m not saying it’s an all men problem. It’s a society problem.

        • @MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          38 months ago

          Oh, wow. Um…

          We’re talking about bone carvings. And you’re well into or after the bronze age.

          What I’m referring to is significantly prior to anything you’re talking about. The events you’re referring to are a few hundred years ago, part of recorded history, while I’m talking about the early days of mankind, well before the printing press, paper, or even writing instruments like the fountain pen or quill.

          When you go back, well over 1000 years ago, more like 3000+ years ago, why does it matter if a thing was done by a human person with male genitalia or female genitalia?

          That was my statement. Either you vastly misunderstood, or you’re so occupied by making a point, you didn’t care.

          • @bouh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            28 months ago

            We’re talking about history where mysoginy left a big footprint because it was made by men that incapable of thinking that women could be more than what they were in their time.

            Exactly like today. You’re asking why it matters whether it was a man or a woman, yet this whole conversation sparked because someone said that it could be a woman.

            That’s conservatism for you.

            • @MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              18 months ago

              I’m not disputing the fact that misogyny was (and is) and big problem, that women’s contributions were either disregarded or coopted by some guy and credit taken away from the actual contributor.

              That happened. A lot.

              But in the times before the written history books, we should be less concerned about the gender of an individual who we think used a thing in a new/innovative way for the time. I don’t think that studies of bone carvings or other ancient artifacts, being referred to as an “achievement of man” should imply, or was ever meant to imply, that it was done by someone with a penis. In that context, in all cases, for all intents and purposes “man” should, and as far as I know, is, thought of as “human” or “mankind”.

              This isn’t a debate about the sociopolitical unfairness towards women, it’s a semantic argument about using the term “man” to refer to a human individual or someone who is a part of mankind. Bluntly, I took the statement in the OP as a tongue in cheek joke by the professor. They know that’s not what it meant, and used the assumption that “man” = “mankind” as the juxtaposition to subvert expectations, to crack wise about it. The same way someone would say “you know what sucks about twenty six year olds? There’s twenty of them” where the premise directs you to think of someone who is 26, and the punchline indicates that your assumption of it being a statement about people who are 26 years old, was wrong. That’s what makes it funny. Granted, that’s not very funny, but it’s the structure of a very common type of joke.

              That’s what’s in the OP.

              Instead, here we are talking about women’s suffrage for a field where they probably only remark about the gender of someone as a footnote.

    • @KombatWombat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      268 months ago

      That’s the correct interpretation of that use of the word, and the quote in the post is meaning to use it in that way before pretending it’s a gotcha.

      The term man (from Proto-Germanic *mann- “person”) and words derived from it can designate any or even all of the human race regardless of their sex or age. In traditional usage, man (without an article) itself refers to the species or to humanity (mankind) as a whole.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_(word)

    • Mwalimu
      link
      208 months ago

      Same here. My native langauge is not gendered and I rarely associate “man” in academic spaces with “gender” category. I usually need more info to tilt to gender in discussions.

      • @multifariace@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        -138 months ago

        Which is your native language? I keep looking for ways to ungender my english if possible. Removing gender from language feels more honest.

        • robotica
          link
          fedilink
          118 months ago

          English is not a grammatically gendered language. Otherwise, all languages have gender.

          • @Gabu@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            38 months ago

            False, English is a gendered language that lost most of its gender usage. Some words still retain gender, such as blond/blonde.

            • robotica
              link
              fedilink
              18 months ago

              🤦‍♂️Yes, in that sense, English could be gendered. But what it actually means is that English used to be gendered and retains some gendered words from that time.

              Another example, Russian has noun cases, but not the vocative case. However, it does have two words that have a vocative case from when the language as a whole did use to have the vocative case - Бог (Боже) and Господь (Господи) - but that doesn’t mean that Russian has it now.

              Also, blond/blonde are pronounced the same so the distinction is lost in speech and probably soon in writing as well, and words like fiancé/fiancée (which are also pronounced the same), widow/widower, actor/actress do not signify grammatical gender by itself.

          • @multifariace@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            18 months ago

            Why do I have to know the gender of a person in order to talk about them in third person singular? On more days than not, there is conversation about someone I never met where there is an irrelevant sidebar to clarify gender before communication can continue. I find this relic of the language to be inefficient, pointless and annoying. Daily life would be a lot easier with a non-gendered word for referring to a single person in third person. Languages like Spanish, with gendered nouns, is confusing for even native speakers. I am fascinated by how different languages have different ways of being complicated as well as by their phonology and syntax. I asked my question because I was looking into how other languages use gender and came to the conclusion that none were free from that complication. So I agree with you so far. All languages have gender.

        • Mwalimu
          link
          78 months ago

          Swahili. If you want to translate “she/he went to the river”, you say “Alienda mtoni” which collapses she/he into the subject A- (Alienda) to mean “the person”. You always need context to use a gendered word (like mwanamke for woman) otherwise general conversation does not foreground it. There is literally no word for he/she in Swahili, as far as I know.

        • @Gabu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          58 months ago

          That shows you have no idea what grammatical gender is. It has no relation to your social behavior or what you have between your legs.

    • @anyhow2503@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      68 months ago

      I’m pretty sure that was the intent behind the original wording. The interpretation of this being the remnant of a female human makes sense to me, but as this is an anecdotal account of Sandi Toksvig’s time in university, we really have no idea if this is a good example of the lack of a female perspective in anthropology or just a convenient strawman to make a point.

      In any case, cool meme.

    • @bouh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      -28 months ago

      I don’t know about English, but in French in the 19th century men did enforce the use of homme (men) instead of humain (human) in the déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen, and in the language, because they did want to segregate women. It was a purposeful and deliberate decision.

      I am convinced it’s exactly the same in English.

  • @prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    1138 months ago

    I mean the lunar cycle is roughly 29 days with the argument that it’s 28 if you don’t count the new moon.

    I realize this is a neat thought idea but it I think best demonstrates how easy it is to jump to conclusions.

    • @merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      38 months ago

      In English common law, a “lunar month” traditionally meant exactly 28 days or four weeks, thus a contract for 12 months ran for exactly 48 weeks

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_month

      So, depending on the legal framework, a 28 day marker could be very useful. If they were actually tracking the moon, you’d think it would be 29 units even though a lunar month can vary between about 29.1 and 29.9 days. Then again, 28 notches on a stick means 29 sections, so…?

      It’s interesting that a woman’s menstrual cycles is approx 28.1 days on average, with a standard deviation of 3.95 days. That means 28 days is a lot closer to the average menstrual cycle than the average lunar month. But, the standard deviation is a lot greater.

    • @ChexMax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      08 months ago

      Other than tides, why do you need to know when the next full moon is? And can’t you just look at the moon and see how close it is waning to the full moon?

      Not saying the calendar is definitely a woman’s, but wanting to know when you’re going to start leaking blood onto everything near you seems like a good reason to track a period.

      • @prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        38 months ago

        I mean you can look at the moon to get a general sense, but if you want to be more precise then I’d use the new moon as the start and count the days until the next new moon.

        As far as why, I mean the seasons generally follow the lunar cycle so it would be a way to count the seasons and time and plan and do literally anything you’d need to do that you’d track time for.

        I bet you’d even want to track your menstrual cycle, I just wouldn’t limit it to that.

        I think the real “issue” with the OP statement and what my response is meant to say is that it doesn’t have to be either or.

      • @Rinox@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        18 months ago

        So, since Islam uses the lunar calendar, you’re telling me that the reason why they use it is to track menstruations?

        Good to know they are attentive to their women’s needs

  • @rekabis@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    93
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    A woman’s cycle varies between 15 and 45 days, averaging 28.1 days, but with a standard deviation of 3.95 days. That’s a hell of a lot of variability from one woman to the next. And the same variability can be experienced by a large minority of women from one period to the next, and among nearly all women across the course of their fertile years.

    On the other hand, the moon’s cycle (as seen from Earth) takes 27 days, 7 hours, and 43 minutes to pass through all of its phases. And it does so like clockwork, century after century.

    Of the two, I am finding the second to have a much stronger likelihood of being the reasoning behind the notches.

    Strange how gender-bigotry style historical revisionism and gender exceptionalism seems to get a wholly uncritical and credulous pass when it’s not done by a man.

    • @Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      17
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      While I agree with you that the teacher in this post is wrong about what this is, I don’t think labeling “gender bigotry” indiscriminately as something both sexes do under one umbrella is accomplishing anything but minimizing the struggle women have endured for basically all of human existence up until the last few decades.

      Personally, I wouldn’t fault this woman for thinking what she does if she’s willing to accept a broader explanation later, given that women have literally been sold as property up until a couple hundred years ago.

      Women have the right to at least posit the ways they as a group have been held down, and that includes accepting their indignation and allowing them grace for when they’re wrong, because without those things they won’t actually learn the truth.

      Further than that, I think it’s necessary for women learning now to have the same realization this one did that women throughout all of history save for this recent tiny sliver have been oppressed. Even if it’s built on an incidentally faulty premise, that doesn’t mean the realization itself is wrong.

      Covering up the discourse by labeling the process of realization as “gender bigotry” is itself an attempt at erasure, and very much puts you on the side of the oppressors, just because you think it’s distasteful to have this realization yourself.

      I’m sure gender bigotry exists in the direction of women towards men. This ain’t it.

      • reric88🧩
        link
        fedilink
        28 months ago

        The gender-bigotry comes from the “what man needs to mark 28 days?” There’s snark behind the comment, and it’s unnecessary. That said, a woman could be just as likely as a man to mark moon phases. But saying “man” doesn’t mean “male” when talking about us as a species from my understanding. Seems like a broader term to use which includes the entirety of the homo-whatevers.

        I’m just some guy here and am not educated in this stuff, though!

    • @ChexMax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      118 months ago

      Other than tides, why do you need to know when the next full moon is? And can’t you just look at the moon and see how close it is waning to the full moon?

      Not saying the calendar is definitely a woman’s, but wanting to know when you’re going to start leaking blood onto everything near you seems like a good reason to track a period. Plenty of women are regular like clockwork, I was at 26 days almost exactly for years.

      • @KredeSeraf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        148 months ago

        If you start to notice one thing happens pretty regularly and another thing happens regularly but on a larger scale… Say the monthly moon phases and the seasons, you can use the more frequent one to roughly track the less frequent one.

      • @takeheart@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        18 months ago

        There’s both practical and more spiritual/philosophical reasons for this.

        Before artificial light sources, especially electrical ones, moon light let people stay productive longer whilst outside. This was especially important for comunal activities like hunting, harvests or celebrations too. Keeping track of moon cycles is thus valuable for preparation in scheduling. And once you do that it can also be used to organize other social events around that. Similar to how our modern calendars and schedules are built around important fixed events.

        The moon and sun as celestial bodies also gained prominent religious and mystical significance in ancient cultures. Remember that people didn’t actually know what the moon or sun were in the modern scientific sense. But for some strange reason these mystical glowing disks on which people were so reliant kept rising with unerring synchronicity. The inquiry into the movements on the firmament lead many a civilization down the paths of observation, record keeping and math too.

    • @bouh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      -198 months ago

      So you’re arguing that people would have more use to write moon cycles than women cycles? And you talk about bigotry?!

  • @jackpot@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    638 months ago

    i think they mean ‘man’ as in ‘mankind’. also any ideas why would they carve it into bone and not bark or something more flat?

  • Patapon Enjoyer
    link
    fedilink
    52
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    For some reason I thought they meant they carved the calendar on their own bone and thought “damn that’s metal af”.

    Anyway, don’t farmers also need to tell the date? Was this bone from before we started doing that?

      • Fishbone
        link
        fedilink
        48 months ago

        First off: Everyone who played the historical documentary Brutal Legend knows that metal was a gift from the gods.

        Second: Miocene epoch heavy metal is my favorite genre!

  • @Aqarius@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    508 months ago

    IIRC “Calendar” was one of the proposed solutions, but the bone actually had a lot more than 28 holes. It’s one of the reasons it’s purpose is considered unknown.

    I always find this particular strain of antiintellectualism deeply ironic, because it claims to oppose women being forgotten, but the premise assumes the “scientists” are all male.

    • @idiomaddict@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      328 months ago

      I don’t see it assuming scientists are all men. Women are just as capable of internalized misogyny and just as capable of being dense as men.

      With the willendorf Venus, it wasn’t until a woman who had already had children worked with it, that they suspected it might be a pregnancy self portrait. There had been women already there, but none who knew what a pregnant person looks like from that perspective.

        • @idiomaddict@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          38 months ago

          I’ve never been 7+ months pregnant (not a sad thing in my case, no worries), but I can 100% imagine that it feels like being the willendorf Venus. I love the idea of some woman however long ago half annoyed and half teasing making it and giving it to the father, saying “this is what I am now,” though.

          • @bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            18 months ago

            “never more than 2 weeks pregnant” would be much less alarming, but it does have the implication of yeeting blastocysts at the grim reaper, however many or few…

      • @feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        28 months ago

        I really like that idea, in principle, of a sculptor with no reflection to work from doing a self-portrait. But seriously, even somebody having triplets doesn’t look like that unless they’re like… super morbidly obese already. Even accounting for foreshortening, I mean damn. That kind of figure is a strictly modern invention. But maybe, it’s still an interesting idea. But seriously.

        • @idiomaddict@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          48 months ago

          I’ve got a bmi of 19 and it doesn’t look so significantly different looking down when I’m not pregnant, lol. I even asked my husband to confirm it wasn’t hella body dysmorphia. I, uh, am not going to post a picture, but you can plug various values into this visualizer and change the angle of view. It has always been pretty accurate for me.

  • Demonen
    link
    fedilink
    418 months ago

    It occurs to me that the solution might be to start referring to men as “wermen” again, and revert “men” to it’s gender neutral roots. That also means we can have a bunch of other prefixes for other genders.

    Languages are fun.

  • @Kyrgizion@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    288 months ago

    Why wouldn’t a male have figured out a lunar cycle and tried to track the moon? Not that the female explanation is lesser in any regard, but why exclude all possibilities?

  • Norgur
    link
    fedilink
    218 months ago

    The crux with all of those “first calendars” (idk which one is meant here, but there are multiple who claim this) is that we don’t even know if it’s a calendar at all. I mean, if this professor’s approach serves as an eve-opeher for some, we should retell it whenever possible, yet it doesn’t reflect any of the questions we should ask ourselves when seeing 28 carvings in a bone. Assuming that htis can only be a calendar is just the hidden assumption that numbers 25 and up could not have played a role anywhere else, because ppl were to primitive for those numbers somehow.

    Perhaps they tracked how many calves in herd they had, or how many horses they had or how many bows they needed to make or how many children there were in the village. Perhaps they wanted to go higher and track something completely different and only got to 28 before they abandoned their approach to whatever they were doing.

  • @GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    148 months ago

    I am sure the comments on this meme community post in a niche social media site will not be filled with butthurt men’s rights activists.

    • @Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      108 months ago

      You could have at least used the term “misogynist” so as to not imply that men’s rights are a bad thing.

      • TurtleJoe
        link
        fedilink
        -128 months ago

        Hey, we found one!

        Not seriously, “men’s rights activists” are a specific group of people that only exist to complain about and hate women. They don’t care about men’s rights, they are anti-feminists.

        If you genuinely didn’t know this, then I’d love to know what Internet rock You’ve been hiding under. If you’re trying to concern troll, fuck off, MRAs are fucking scum.

        -signed, a man.

        • @Quastamaza@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          58 months ago

          Feels good to go with the flow, doesn’t it? And going for the audience’s applause? And while we’re at it, what are “women’s rights activists”, then? The undisputed incarnation of everything that is right and good in the world, I suppose?

          -signed, a man, like you.

        • @Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          28 months ago

          I’ve definitely heard of misogynists, and of misogynists disguising themselves as legitimate men’s advocates, but I’d never heard of “men’s rights activists” as a specific group of misogynists before this.

          Without this explanation, had someone said “men’s rights activists are misogynists,” I would have thought they were a misandrist, because it sounds like a general descriptor and not a specific group.

          So what do you call it when someone who’s not a misogynist advocates for equal treatment in the areas where men get the short end of the stick?

          • @candybrie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            18 months ago

            Generally, they’re described as part of the men’s liberation movement. The men’s movement split decades ago into men’s rights movement, which often comes at the issue from a more conservative premise that views feminism as going to far and eroding men’s rights, and the men’s liberation movement which generally is more liberal and wants to critically look at traditional masculinity and how those expectations may harm men.

            • @Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              18 months ago

              Hmm, intuition implies the inverse. I would have guessed men’s liberation means “liberation from women” and thus misogyny. I guess unintuitive terminology is just the way things go.

  • @LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    14
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    I’m a woman and I have never needed to chart 28 days.

    that screenshot up there reads like some academic person with too much time on their hands trying too hard to congratulate themselves for solving some anthropological mystery.

    • @workerONE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      30
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      But since before you were born people knew how long a woman’s menstrual cycle lasts. Most likely the Internet existed when you became an adult and thought about measuring things. The society you lived in had existing calendars that you were aware of if/when you had a menstrual cycle. You’ve never needed to “chart 28 days” but someone who lived long long ago may have wondered and they would have had no frame of reference so they decided to count.

    • @astreus@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      178 months ago

      Yeah, I don’t get it either. Weren’t most, if not all, ancient calendars lunar based? Far easier to work out a 28 day cycle than a 365.25 day cycle.

    • @Gabu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      68 months ago

      Sandi is a comedian and presenter of UK show QI, not a researcher. She’s literally just talking about an epiphany.

    • @merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      68 months ago

      I’m a woman and I have never needed to chart 28 days.

      Is this because you don’t care when your next period is? Or because you don’t need to record it to remember it?

      I can imagine a modern woman might not care if she always has menstrual products on hand or nearby. But, it might have been more meaningful in ancient times when there might have been more taboos associated with menstruation, plus it might have been more important to know as part of family planning. And, it might have been much less convenient to carry around whatever was needed to handle menstruation.

      Also, in a modern world where calendars are everywhere, I can imagine someone might say “ok, so my next period will be in early July”. But, there was a time when days and months were not tracked, or were only tracked by priests, etc. In that kind of situation, I could imagine it might be useful to count the days until the next period was expected. On the other hand, a primitive society probably spends a lot more time outdoors and sees the moon a lot more often, so it might be just as easy to go “ok, so my next period will be when the moon’s 3/4 full”.

      28 notches means that the bone had 29 sections, which more closely matches a lunar month than a typical menstrual period. But, I could see it being used either way.

  • @HollowNaught@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    138 months ago

    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@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      28 months ago

      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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        28 months ago

        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@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          18 months ago

          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?

  • @uSpetzWon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    118 months ago

    a man with a wife.

    it’s good to know when it’s time to spend couple of days hunting the sabre tooth tiger.