The Argument: We're not "mankind."
In the 11th Century the Lords of patriarchy changed "wer" to 'man,' fem's name as fem was then changed to (wo)+man. In the 13th Century a poet changed feme to fe +male for the sake of rhyme. The names did not have to be changed. But the Lords of patriarchy wanted more support for feudalism & slavery, and control of the masses. The Lords, the rich men of the times, ruled the masses. Rule by force, by wealth and by status was not enough. The Lords would have the masses believe in the names man, (wo)man, (hu)man (14Th C,) and fe(male). Man meant 'slave male.' (Wo)man meant slave wife of slave male.
We've long ago forgotten the slave connection. Today, we embrace the names not knowing it is free propaganda for male superiority, phallic divinity and dominance. Ignorance of this harmed both genders in equal-but-different ways. Today we are slaves to the belief that we're "mankind". We believe man is/are two-men-of-opposite-sexes, man, male, and (wo)man, not-male as fe +male. We unconsciously believe a not-male man exists as (wo)man. Philosophy, sociology and even science broadly use the names.
Looking critically at "mankind consists of man and woman as human" shows blatant disregard for logic, rationality, correct cause-and-effect relationships in reality, and flagrant breaking of the laws of good reasoning. Being man in reality entails ONLY being male. This is an irreducible and irrefutable premise. Why did we so widely come to believe in "mankind"?
1, There's no such entity on planet earth as a not-male 'man'. But, we took (wo)man as fact since the 13th Century. Why?
2, A 'man-that's-not-a-man' is gibberish. (Is there a giraffe that's-not-a-giraffe on the planet?) Yet, a man-that's-not-a-man, aka woman exists!
3, Female is a male-that's-not-male. Q is also a Q-that's-not-a-Q!
4, In repeated gibberish we find that 'man' is both male and not male at once (like an electron is both negative and positive charges at once) Or, Q is both Q and not-Q.
5 Man is also both male and not-male, repeating of Q is-and-is-not Q.
6 Wo, fe, and hu don't change man, male into man, not-male. Sound doesn't and cannot change physicality. Sounds are sounds. (Calling an apple an apfig does not make the apple a fig) Wo does not make fem a man.
7, But in "mankind" sounds do change physicality: Two men exist in mankind: a male man and a not-male man! As facts: man and woman!
8, (Wo)man is a not-male/female man. Gibberish, but a 'fact' in man!
9, Human includes both a man-that's-a-man -and- a man-that's-not-man… because man is both male and not-male. The nonsense fits together… Human is a fact in mankind when being man in reality only entails being male.
10, Unbeknownst to the masses, wo and hu -imposed by Lords of Patriarchy- prove divinity in the male. Abracadabra: female & woman. (History is also involved here)
11. The name "man" has supernatural power: catholic sacred maleness can mysteriously be male and not-male, a FACT in man by male implication
12, Moreover, if 'wo' refers to wife, "wife" is a role, it is not an entity. (Honey-making is a role; honey-makers are bees) But fem as (wo)man is a fact seen in man.
All the while patriarchy does not want fem to know that it has, by abracadabra powers, produced a not-male man! Mankind consists of two-men-of-opposite-sexes.
14, Finally, in the formulaic is-and-is-not law working in "mankind" no statement brings in the factor of mind: It's all about sex, sex, sex. No mind!
In, Sapiens consist of feme's mind-&-body as fem with male's mind-&-body as man, inclusion of both sex and mind are in the definition of the speech-making-&-using species.
Return to Home Page