bevans@gauss.unm.edu (Mathemagician) (11/03/90)
In article <1990Nov1.233150.31363@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> wp6@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Walter Pohl) writes: > The original article said something like "is man naturally >polygamous?" After reading that sentence, I wasn't sure whether or >not the author was referring to men, or to all people. I mean, it's >possible that men may be naturally polygamous and women aren't, or >vice versa. So the usage was in fact ambiguous. Without having read the original article, I am without the full context. However, there are two possible interpretations: 1) The word "man" was being used as a reference to males only (a rather rare usage, but possible). 2) The word "man" was being used as a reference to all of the species: homo sapiens. Now then, the "common" way of expressing 1) would have been, "Are men naturally polygamous" instead of "is man...," but as I said, that doesn't mean that the first case couldn't be true. > Oh, if only I could reach the level of rationality that you >have already acheived. Does this short lesson help you? -- Brian Evans |"Momma told me to never kiss a girl on the first bevans at gauss.unm.edu | date...But that's OK...I don't kiss girls."
pamela@bu-bio.bu.edu (Pamela Hall) (11/07/90)
In a sci.* news board I would expect to see respect for precise and accurate use of words. This is not a issue of politics, but of accurate communication which is essential for science (and certainly other human endeavors). If one wishes to refer to human male behavior, use men or man. If one wishes to refer to human female behavior, use women or woman If one wishes to refer to human behavior, regardless of gender differences that may arise, use human. It is clearly more accurate to say mankind, womankind or humankind, depending upon what is being referred to. I have seldom found difficulties in substituing humankind for mankind when I really am discussing the behavior of humans, regardless of gender. I am in favor of removing ambiguities whereever possible. In regards to the orginal posting about whether humankind is naturally monogamous (I have gathered humankind was the intended meaning, though I also confess to some initial confusion because of the language used). How would the readers of this net interpret the various types of marriage laws that currently exist? Does anyone think that they reflect a need have clear knowledge of parentage? This is in reference to the biological differences between men and women, in that women have much greater confidence in identifying their offspring then men. Pamela Hall PS If these issues have already been discussed in this thread, forgive me for reintroducing the topic.
oliver@lincoln.cs.unc.edu (Bill Oliver) (11/07/90)
In article <67971@bu.edu.bu.edu> pamela@bu-bio.UUCP (Pamela Hall) writes: >[Guess. Just guess.] > >PS If these issues have already been discussed in this thread, forgive >me for reintroducing the topic. You've got to be kidding. Isn't there an alt.beating.a.dead.horse somewhere? Perhaps we should add a list of "things we have discussed until we are bored to tears, so please keep it the hell off of soc.men for at least another couple of months" to the "welcome to soc.men" posting. What'cha say, Charleen? Bill Oliver