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
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?
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.
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 ~~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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
"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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
