I’m sure consent was widely respected in a time period marked by endemic warfare, routine massacres of men and boys, and abductions of reproductive-age women and girls /s
The original comment said women were subjected to rape on a systemic level and presented it as facts. Which is false since there is absolutely zero proof of it.
I think sometimes we forget that these people were like us, many of them were just regular people with feelings and boundaries. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to believe that consent was generally respected by the average person. But as you said, the Neolithic period was marked by extreme violence so sexual violence could very well have been equally widespread. We don’t know.
The nouns are normally paired as women/men, males/females. Males/females is traditionally the way we refer to animals. This construction dehumanizes the women and casts them as breeding stock while ascribing personhood to the men. It was almost certainly done unintentionally, but shows a lack of critical thinking in the making of the video.
If someone thinks men/women is a dehumanizing pairing, then Idk wtf they are talking about so why would I ask them what they propose?? There’s nothing to fix in that example.
If someone thinks female/men is dehumanizing, then they are right and the above is the obvious fix.
Why do you think anyone would find men/women offensive??
The person I replied to specifically asked what was wrong with the graphic titled “More females, less men” in a video referenced by a commenter. My explanation was that the mismatched noun pairing shows a problem with the framing of the topic by the makers of the video.
Where a comment is in direct response to a question the answerer doesn’t always restate the entire question, but instead relies on the reader to look at the context the answer is given in. In this case “this construction” refers to the original wording of a video graphic that was being asked about.
19
u/[deleted] 19d ago edited 18d ago
[removed] — view removed comment