🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <67971@bu.edu.bu.edu> pamela@bu-bio.UUCP (Pamela Hall) writes:
>
>
>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.
             
In the original post the use of the word 'human' would not have been
syntactically correct. 'Man' or 'mankind' would be correct. Sorry that's
just the way the language is. It's no slam, it means the same thing. When
one refers to 'man' or 'mankind' in this context it refers to all. Look it
up.


>
>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).

I had not the slightest doubt about what the poster meant and frankly
if you did one must wonder why based on your lecture on word usage.

>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.
>

This paragraph looks like it might be interesting and addressing an
important issue. Can you rephrase it?

Look, there are some men who are otherwise sympathetic with womens'
concerns who get mildly irritated at this kind of ranting. And I'm one
of those men. For 25 years I have been beating your drum without resorting
to this kind of irrelevance and I have seen much progress. As a matter of
fact what you are saying is polarizing and unproductive. If you have an
issue let's talk about it. There are a lot more burning concerns for women
today than whether we should say 'mankind' or 'humankind'.




Mark