• Z3k3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    142
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 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

    • KombatWombat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 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)

    • anyhow2503@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 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
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      9 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.