> Why they got to assume their reader is a “man” at the end though? "Man" can in many cases refer to more things than just "men". Like mankind, or the typical

> Why they got to assume their reader is a “man” at the end though? "Man" can in many cases refer to more things than just "men". Like mankind, or the typical surfer/stoner-usage of "man", which refers to any gender/non-gender, which is the case in this article. Just like "dude" can mean more than just "you of male gender". For posterity, the article ends with the following: > Pure thought-stuff, indeed, man.