• SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    I’d say that’s not what “abnormous” means, but I like your implied definition better.

    • MrFunnyMoustache@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      49
      ·
      7 months ago

      I didn’t know it was a real word and assumed OP made it as a combination of abnormal and enormous. Just looked it up though and you’re right.

      • ouRKaoS@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        7 months ago

        I feel like with enough usage, we could force the definition to shift.

        I’m going to try and make fetch happen!

        • Monument@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          7 months ago

          That’s it. I’m invoking the clause.
          Prepare yourselves, millennials, we’re not done making quirky headlines yet.

          Article IV § 2 of the generational edict asserts that every generation holds the unilateral right whimsically adopt cultural relics and insist without proof that they’ve always done things that way to other generations.

          From now on: everything cool is fetch; it’s not a glow-up, someone has ‘become fetch’; ✘ you got that drip, ✔ you’re so fetch.

        • Soulg@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          I mean that’s literally how it works yeah, the dictionary just observes how people use the words, they don’t define them themselves

  • kibiz0r@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    Catherine McCoid and LeRoy McDermott hypothesize that the figurines may have been created as self-portraits by women.[12]This theory stems from the correlation of the proportions of the statues to how the proportions of women’s bodies would seem if they were looking down at themselves, which would have been the only way to view their bodies during this period. They speculate that the complete lack of facial features could be accounted for by the fact that sculptors did not own mirrors.

      • kibiz0r@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        7 months ago

        Yeah, I saw that rebuttal and it seemed pretty strange to me.

        They couldn’t have been sculpting from their own perspective, because they technically had access to viewing themselves from a third-person perspective?

        We technically had access to drawing with linear perspective all along, but somehow until only a few hundred years ago, this is the best we could do:

        It just seems like a very modern-biased way of thinking about depiction. Mapping objective reality (rather than subjective perception) into art is a relatively new concept.

        • chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          It’s missing some of the argument. Part of the idea is pre writing humans passing down successful pregnancy and reproductive information. Women obviously died from childbirth back then as they do now. One theory is that these women were trying to pass down some information of perhaps considered successful childbirth.

          There have been times in relatively recent history where incorrect information about pregnancy was being passed down, plus a larger woman would be getting more nutrients in that time than malnourished women. An easy conclusion to make may uave just been to eat alot and be larger.

    • Liz@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I mean, that lady’s crotch is bigger than her tits, she’s not exactly proportional from any perspective. I’m gonna go ahead and say that maybe we have no idea who made it and any argument concerning authorship is pure speculation.

        • Liz@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Speculation and a hypothesis are two very different levels of certainty in a claim. I suppose, though, that this area of research is somewhat forced to use more certain language than other areas would be comfortable with, given the same quality of evidence. Recognize that “we’re just guessing here” also applies to the claim in the meme.

  • Stalinwolf@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    I’ve always liked me a big woman, but those ancient boys may have liked too big of a woman. Who am I to judge, though? Probably sign of a real good harvest, and I bet that made everyone horny back then.

    • Harbinger01173430@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Maybe women used to be more gigantic back them and we’re nerfed across time or something. I unno. I am no xenobiologist

    • Evrala@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      They were most likely made by women, the proportions make sense when you think of a woman looking down at herself. It is just that when the first men to uncover the artifacts looked at them they said “wow, these were obviously made by men and are ancient porn!”

      There are ones that have been found at various stages of pregnancy so were likely an educational tool.