Does it bother anyone else when people say "man" evolved when they mean "humans" evolved?

Question

I'm an athropologist (and a female), and it really bothers me. It's clear that when people said "man" historically, they weren't including women as equals. Today, people say that "man" includes both males and females. But "human" is an equally simple term, and it's not sexist ...

Studies have shown that when people think of a "caveman," they don't think of a woman. Women aren't depicted in artistic renderings of hominids, unless they're following behind dangling a boobie and a baby. The stereotype is "man the hunter," not "woman the gatherer." When it's said that "man invented fire," does anyone really visualize a female form??? "Man" is a tool user and a hunter; no one thinks of a female "man" on those terms.

Answer 1

nope.

Answer 2

When asked to think of a singular caveman, I do most quickly think of a male. But I also get the stereotypical idea that he's retarded. Would you rather I think of a retarded woman? When I hear the term "cavemen," I think of an equal number of men and women. I imagine the women carrying out their traditonal roles with a certain number of rare Amelia Earheart types thrown in. Are you saying that women didn't nurse babies in those days? And when it comes to fire, since I think women might have done the cooking, I suppose that a woman invented fire, but of course no one invented it. It was likely found first and then harnessed when some woman hit a stone on stone trying to kill an icky bug. lol

We all think of women as tool users if we picture them, as I do, with a papoose, which is a wonderful tool.

I never liked the skewed term "mankind" anyway but it was explained to me and I didn't obsess about it. Why don't you just work on textbooks and terminology committees if this is your calling in life? Otherwise I'm just going to think of women as bitching all the time and not doing anything about their strongly held beliefs and you'll be responsible for that. ;

Answer 3

You're right, but getting upset or angry won't solve the problem. It's such an old stereotype. I guess the only way to change it is to continue to let our voices be heard.

Choose who you battle with wisely, however. Some people don't want to hear it and will only get defensive. The best people to discuss and try to make a difference with are the like-minded. So many are closed to it if it's approached out of the blue, and I'm afraid you'll probably get some hurtful responses. This will only serve to increase your discontent and make it more difficult to come up with ideas on how to change it. The only way to get true equality for women is to fight for it by doing something, volunteering, politics, etc. We'll get there.

"Following behind dangling a boobie and a baby". LOL. It's still cracking me up. Best to you.

Answer 4

"Man" mean person

The original words for male and female were, woman and wereman in German.

but English speakers sometimes had trouble telling the two apart, so they cut the "were" out of Wereman, and came up with "man".

If you have a problem with it you should complain to the people who cut that part of the word out centuries ago.

don't make it a sexist issue because its not, it is a matter of history, something that was written long ago, if you want to be mad, then be mad at the fact that English speakers are too lazy and ready to change words for their own convenience (Ebonics is a great example of that)

you should also maybe think of it as The males were too weak and lazy to hold on to the first half of their original names.

If you spend all your lifebothered by the sexism of the past then your never going to enjoy anthropology. History is writen, accept it, don't try to alter it.

Answer 5

When the say things like "Man is evil and untrustworthy by nature" in books like Leviathan, the image of a man is conjured also. So in this case, you're completely wrong. I don't think its that big of a deal at all. I'm very much for equality, but I think saying things like "Post Carrier" instead of Mail Man is a waste of time, especially because it doesn't really change anything- except for what their called in government pamphlets or laws or whatever. Its de jure...what a waste.

Answer 6

It doesn't bother me, only because language is so fluid and it sometimes takes a while for language to catch up to culture.
Make your mark in your field, and I can guarantee that you will contribute to the changing of the language.

I just had major spinal sugery 2 months ago and my neurosurgeon was female. She was probably the best doctor I've ever had-- all the other docs, in a very male dominated field, go to her for advice. She has shown them with her incredible skills and excellent bedside manner that her brain is what counts, not her gender.

Answer 7

In my personal opinion no.Because I feel that we are smart enough to know they don't mean that males evolved and the females stayed the same .This complaining about simple terms just makes us look like we victimize our self's because we are stupid and need to be coddled and tip toed around so as not to offend our delicate psyche's. But those are my thoughts and I embrace differing ones.

Answer 8

The part that bothers me is that your an anthropologist. You social science types waste too much time on this ideological nonsense and, consequently, contribute nothing to theory.

Answer 9

No, it doesn't bother me because the word "man" means all mankind and I'm aware that means women too. I have more important things to worry about. Don't you?

Answer 10

yess omgod bothered me all the time in anthroplogy class gosh things like this make men feel superior ..even though the word means human kind

Answer 11

It doesn`t bother me as much as todays use of "you guys" in referring to a group of women.