One of the comments reads : Actually, we will probably never figure out, was it man or woman. but I thought this comment of the professor was an interesting eye opener. https://mastodonapp.uk/@MarkHoltom/112070436760917344
You must log in or register to comment.
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
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.
look how much deeper blade three cut with a single stroke! Are you sure you want to go with brand 4?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Professor: Maybe it was a woman? Just consider it with an open mind.
You: This gender absolutism is the enemy™!
This specific instance probably.
But the point is soo much of history ignores the female perspective (or the non-european perspective). Sometimes intentionally like all the female scientists that contribute to foundational studies and don’t get their name on the published paper.
And this is really damaging; I have a family member that legitimately believes that european-descent men are the smartest throughout history (when I brought up the Islamic Golden Age as a counter example he accused it of being propaganda).
American schools are so bad at teaching diverse history. So many still struggle with the basic truths about Columbus and the Natives.
So I what you are saying that we should ban all DEI activity, ban a bunch of books, and regulate Women’s bodily autonomy? /s
Everyone loves traditions!
Look at the ancient structures found throughout the world. The only one I know of in non-Mediterranian Europe is Stonehenge which, while impressive, is some stones hauled over a great distance and placed is an astronomically significant manner. Then you have pyramids and ziggurats in just about every other region except Northern Europe, North America, Australia, and Antarctica, ancient cities on every continent except Northern Europe, Australia, and Antarctica, Polynesians developing a means of marine navigation that is effective across the southern hemisphere (the Norse had a system that was effective in the North Atlantic), Australia having an oral history that has evidence of recording events that go back at least 10000 years (while surviving in some of the most inhospitable terrain on the planet). When you look at it, significant achievements in ancient Northern Europe were pretty sparse. We do seem to have caught up in the modern era, though.
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.
I’m not sure why the sex of the
ancientperson 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Which is your native language? I keep looking for ways to ungender my english if possible. Removing gender from language feels more honest.
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.
I love you how specified “as far as I know” even though it’s literally your native language lmao
Thank you for explaining. I will look into this more.
English is not a grammatically gendered language. Otherwise, all languages have gender.
False, English is a gendered language that lost most of its gender usage. Some words still retain gender, such as blond/blonde.
I though yhe blonde spelling was just used for beer
Male or female beer?
You know I never thought to ask
🤦♂️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.
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.
Removed by mod
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.
I’m not sure if you were responding to my question or if you are presumptuous and angry. I hope you have a nice day.
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.
This and “hey guys”
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.
But its taken to mean both, so at least lightly attributes it to a man rather than a woman.
In the context of prehistory it’s to my knowledge taken to be short for mankind and feck all else. I agree its ambiguous in the modern age which is likely why it’s dieing out. Science doesn’t like ambiguous wordage
In history where we have names and context I absolutely agree and it is good to see the important women in history finally getting brought to the forefront
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.
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.
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!
I doubt the teacher really believed this, and they were likely striving to just open their students’ minds to the idea that most innovations are probably assumed to be made by men
The point would be a lot more impactful if they didn’t make up a story to support their position.
This is a class on anthropology, the point was to challenge the assumptions made when interpreting artifacts/history with little context. No one made anything up lol
Why not use a real and confirmed example, then? Because they do exist.
Making a story up - such that it can be actively undermined - certainly does the job poorly at best, and actively hurts the objective at worst.
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.
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.
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.
So you’re arguing that people would have more use to write moon cycles than women cycles? And you talk about bigotry?!
It’s under the sauce.
No meme, only bait.
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?
They probably did but only the bone survived time
ahh survivorship bias thats it thanks
Always remember to check for survivorship bias. It’s the most fundamental way to lie with statistics.
Likely durability. A bone and a stick can both be thrown into a bag and carried with you, but a bone is much more durable than a stick. It’ll be less likely to break or wear down as it rubs against everything else in your bag.
What about blackthorn wood versus chicken bone? What’s it like being wrong on the internet, champ. Adding this one to my scoreboard (dry-wipe, wall-mounted, magnetic).
Do you mean dry erase?
🎤 💧
Yes I do, the terms are interchangeable here.
Likely durability and portability. Think of it as something they use month over month and just mark the day with something like a string band. Bone would be light enough to keep with you, strong enough to not break, and common enough to be available for household use.
That’s exactly what is meant, but they have to find something to complain about
Sure, you can say “man” means “mankind”, but when you use gendered language like that, most people picture a couple of caveMEN sitting around a fire carving bones rather than caveHUMANS (edited – I think it would benefit us to picture all genders around this hypothetical fire). Even though we try to use gendered language in a neutral way, listeners will often perceive the language in a gendered way.
“Man” also means “humankind”. In fact, it was originally a gender-neutral word.
Yes, I know. I explained that. That doesn’t change perception.
this is it tjank you
Cave
humanshupeopleNo
Cave humans
Thank you <3
Just FYI the origin of “woman” is “wife-man” which (forgive if I do these slightly out of order) was “wyfe-man” to “wife-man” to “wieman” to woman 👩
The misogyny is built into the language. Or the common word used originates from “wife of man”
Paraphrased source Websters word origins
Do they, or is it just men that think that? While women might think of their own gender around a fire, and assume either gender/ non-gendered
Whoosh.
It seems pretty clear that they mean “male” as they follow the mention of “man” up with “woman”.
no i mean, by the people ‘who consider it’. i think the speaksr didnt understand that theyre saying it’s mankind others are talkint abkut
Oh but the word mankind in itself overlooks women. We’re all supposed to be saying humankind now.
etymologically speaking im not even sure if thats right. i heard somethibg like this and they either said woman doesnt derive from man or that man used to mean woman and man but woman became its own thing, cant recall
“man” in the contexts not directly related to being a male, means human. “Man” used to have a prefix vaguely pronounced “were” and “woman” used to be “wifman”. Female werewolf would be a “wifwolf” then. So anyways, “Man” never changed it’s meaning, it really just gained an additional one, and yet again, whiners need to read a book.
nah. it’s a double entendre.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ok, now that example I like very much!
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.
“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…
I just meant showing, I’ve never been past seven weeks, thankfully.
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?
this proves metal has existed since the dawn of man! enter Miocene epoch heavy metal
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!
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.
That’s also where the “were” prefix in werewolf comes from.
Does that mean female werewolves should be called wowolves? (Or even better, woowolves)
Wifwolves, unfortunately.
just lean all the way in and call us vermin
Scholars seem to agree it stems from Proto-Indo-European, so Latin is not the source.
“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.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.
Removed by mod
Hunter, werehunter, wifhunter. fun!
the real question is how are we going to refer to male wolves?
It would be interesting to see what in an alternate timeline, English would have looked like today if the Norman invasion never happened.
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.
I’m not seeing a comment pointing out why 28 days isn’t a moon thing,
Hm, that’s odd! it’s right there
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
I keep track of my girlfriend’s ovulation because she can’t be bothered to do it. I don’t want her to get pregnant either. Just pointing that out.
I hear you but it’s far more likely for a woman to track her own period than for a nearby man to track it. You’re the reason this professor felt the need to give this example. Because men assume all progress and intellectual pursuits were obviously sought by men. You guys think it’s the automatic default, and even the suggestion that a woman might have accomplished something is met with, “hey! It could have been a man!”
There’s some faulty reasoning here.
Parent comment challenges the assumption that the marks were made by a female, and you say “you’re the reason the professor felt the need to give this example”, although the example was given in order to challenge assumptions of gender.
OP is actually learning from the example if anything, since they are challenging gender assumptions.
On top of that, your use of “you guys”, and your generalisations about men are evidence of the exact type of biased thinking this example is trying to challenge.
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?
As a man living with three menstruating women I learned very quickly how to count to 28 on three different cycles.
As a woman I’m offended but also feel seen
Menstruation sucks and anything I can do to make their lives easier makes my life easier.
But that’s because I’m the man: The man with a good attitude towards menstruation
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
The man with a good attitude towards menstruation
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Offended? Start the clock…
It could be both.
A few weeks ago I blew my wife’s mind after she commented that both her and her best friend had started their period and I responded with ‘well, it is a full moon.’
She thought I was being ’boomer humor’ sexist until I brought up the studies about it. (Which are not 100% conclusive, mind you, but there are trends.)
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.
Who is responsible though? The historian, or the man who inscribed the bone?
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
Sandi is a comedian and presenter of UK show QI, not a researcher. She’s literally just talking about an epiphany.
“When I was a student at Cambridge…”
Believe it or not, in civilized countries it’s common for people to get higher education for the sake of education.
Her predecessor on QI, mr. Stephen Fry, was also an OxBridge fellow – known as one of Britain’s greatest comedians.
deleted by creator
This is a refreshing comment, if any. Especially coming from a woman. Thank you.
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.
eve-opeher
LOL. I guess if it reads, it reads
Some guy tracking the moon.
a man with a wife.
it’s good to know when it’s time to spend couple of days hunting the sabre tooth tiger.
Wife bad amirite
PMS deniers 🤣
Oh no my loved one is about to experience terrible pain that comes every few weeks, better complain about how this affects me and go do my own thing for awhile
More like he needs to know when to take a break when she’s most fertile so they can procreate. He’s already gone by the time she’s having “her time of the month”
