[flagged]
It is commonly understood that 'men' in that context and in the context of the time is a reference to 'mankind' or 'the race of men' which means the human race, not males specifically.
Literally (and I mean that) no difference when it was written. Language changed.
>Language changed.
I argue that it hasn't; we say "man" both by itself and as part of another word (eg: manpower) in many contexts where gender is literally irrelevant.
What has changed is the likelihood of certain individuals engaging in sexism in the name of equality.
To copy myself from another sibling comment:
Man as in mankind. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/man
>1a(1): an individual human
>b: the human race : HUMANKIND
>c: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) that is anatomically related to the great apes but distinguished especially by notable development of the brain with a resultant capacity for articulate (see ARTICULATE entry 1 sense 1a) speech and abstract reasoning, and is the sole living representative of the hominid family
Linguistic pedantry with strong sexist overtones said in bad faith. Come on.