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
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
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.
No meme, only bait.
- jackpot ( @jackpot@lemmy.ml ) 59•1 year 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?
They probably did but only the bone survived time
- jackpot ( @jackpot@lemmy.ml ) 23•1 year ago
ahh survivorship bias thats it thanks
Always remember to check for survivorship bias. It’s the most fundamental way to lie with statistics.
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.
- jackpot ( @jackpot@lemmy.ml ) 4•1 year ago
this is it tjank you
Cave
humanshupeopleNo
Cave humans
Thank you <3
- Juno ( @Juno@beehaw.org ) 2•1 year ago
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
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.
It seems pretty clear that they mean “male” as they follow the mention of “man” up with “woman”.
- jackpot ( @jackpot@lemmy.ml ) 17•1 year ago
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.
- jackpot ( @jackpot@lemmy.ml ) 6•1 year ago
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
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.
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.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.
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?
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.
So they nailed it with the 28 day calendar and we are stuck with this one
He died before he could carve 29.
Maybe they were narrating it
This is neat, but how is it a meme?
Yeah, no way to know what gender someone had so we just pick one based on our twisted worldview where some gender must be better than other because reasons.
Derek, halt! Unga unga, no cave cuddles now. Me check bone-calendar, unga bunga, big chance for baby bump. We wait, sky spirits nod-nod. Timing everything, unga!
Sure, that was the way for woman to use a calender…
Lol, mansplain harder! I’m sure it had nothing to do with wanting to know when their next period was due, to, you know, know when their next period was due, and be prepared for that, without it having anything to do with a man… 🙄🤦♀️😂
Cool thought, but why is this in meme /C/ ?
Good trip-up one. Good old periods. Good old not getting your girlfriend pregnant.