Comments on: Evolution of Women in Anthropology http://anthropology.net/2006/07/22/evolution-of-women-in-anthropology/ Beyond bones & stones Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:03:54 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Alex http://anthropology.net/2006/07/22/evolution-of-women-in-anthropology/#comment-15263 Alex Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:03:54 +0000 http://anthropology.net/2006/01/22/evolution-of-women-in-anthropology/#comment-15263 You are talking about a scientific bias in how the evolution of humans is represented, right? You said this immediately after: "Even though I have studied a great deal of anthropology, including some physical anthropology, and have always been interested in evolution, I find that only the image of males evolving is stuck to my brain. What women looked like through the years? The gradual progression of sexual dimorphism, when things happened and what it looked like?" What is this supposed to imply to the reader? That those two images you just listed were completely irrelevant to the fact that you can't find representations of the evolution of female humans? "Why isn’t depicting men sexist? Are you implying that only women are sexual objects? That portraying the female body is automatically degrading?" Obviously you have trouble reading or else you would have noticed my comment about how sex simply shouldn't be depicted in a generic, simplified representation of human evolution, whereas now it is a man who is depicted. "And what would you accomplish by presenting a sexless, raceless being? How is that accurate, and how would you be able to address biological differences between the sexes? The problem of challenging Eurocentric and malecentric depictions cannot be solved by erasing diversity… on the contrary, the lack of diversity in representation is what I am challenging." What I'm saying is that, of course, there should be <em>scientific</em> depictions of evolution of different "groups" when it makes sense scientifically to do so. However, to argue that it's necessary because not doing so is sexist is stupid. The only argument you have to make is that because the female and male anatomy of a species differ somewhat, there should not only be representations of male evolution in scientific illustrations, but females as well. However, saying that you are personally offended by the fact that your group is not represented despite its contributions to science, specifically anthropology, just makes you look silly despite the fact that you do have a legitimate concern. You are talking about a scientific bias in how the evolution of humans is represented, right? You said this immediately after: “Even though I have studied a great deal of anthropology, including some physical anthropology, and have always been interested in evolution, I find that only the image of males evolving is stuck to my brain. What women looked like through the years? The gradual progression of sexual dimorphism, when things happened and what it looked like?”
What is this supposed to imply to the reader? That those two images you just listed were completely irrelevant to the fact that you can’t find representations of the evolution of female humans?

“Why isn’t depicting men sexist? Are you implying that only women are sexual objects? That portraying the female body is automatically degrading?”
Obviously you have trouble reading or else you would have noticed my comment about how sex simply shouldn’t be depicted in a generic, simplified representation of human evolution, whereas now it is a man who is depicted.

“And what would you accomplish by presenting a sexless, raceless being? How is that accurate, and how would you be able to address biological differences between the sexes? The problem of challenging Eurocentric and malecentric depictions cannot be solved by erasing diversity… on the contrary, the lack of diversity in representation is what I am challenging.”
What I’m saying is that, of course, there should be scientific depictions of evolution of different “groups” when it makes sense scientifically to do so. However, to argue that it’s necessary because not doing so is sexist is stupid. The only argument you have to make is that because the female and male anatomy of a species differ somewhat, there should not only be representations of male evolution in scientific illustrations, but females as well. However, saying that you are personally offended by the fact that your group is not represented despite its contributions to science, specifically anthropology, just makes you look silly despite the fact that you do have a legitimate concern.

]]> By: lexis2praxis http://anthropology.net/2006/07/22/evolution-of-women-in-anthropology/#comment-15262 lexis2praxis Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:17:50 +0000 http://anthropology.net/2006/01/22/evolution-of-women-in-anthropology/#comment-15262 1. The cartoon is not presented as an example of scientific bias. No where in the post does it say that it is an example. It is simply a tongue-in-cheek reference to the fact that it seems to be the only representation that has made it to Google, and indeed, it's plastered all over the web. Again, I suggest you read more closely. 2. I don't see how depicting women is sexist. Why isn't depicting men sexist? Are you implying that only women are sexual objects? That portraying the female body is automatically degrading? And what would you accomplish by presenting a sexless, raceless being? How is that accurate, and how would you be able to address biological differences between the sexes? The problem of challenging Eurocentric and malecentric depictions cannot be solved by erasing diversity... on the contrary, the lack of diversity in representation is what I am challenging. 1. The cartoon is not presented as an example of scientific bias. No where in the post does it say that it is an example. It is simply a tongue-in-cheek reference to the fact that it seems to be the only representation that has made it to Google, and indeed, it’s plastered all over the web. Again, I suggest you read more closely.

2. I don’t see how depicting women is sexist. Why isn’t depicting men sexist? Are you implying that only women are sexual objects? That portraying the female body is automatically degrading?

And what would you accomplish by presenting a sexless, raceless being? How is that accurate, and how would you be able to address biological differences between the sexes? The problem of challenging Eurocentric and malecentric depictions cannot be solved by erasing diversity… on the contrary, the lack of diversity in representation is what I am challenging.

]]> By: Alex http://anthropology.net/2006/07/22/evolution-of-women-in-anthropology/#comment-15261 Alex Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:54:10 +0000 http://anthropology.net/2006/01/22/evolution-of-women-in-anthropology/#comment-15261 "The cartoon image has nothing to do with the central argument, which has to do with how human evolution is represented in scientific literature." Then why would you post it as an example of scientific bias in how evolution is presented? It's a popular representation of evolution, but it's hardly scientific. The thing is, it's hard for me to understand how someone who is so interested in anthropology would care so much about wanting to see how women evolved, unless it's for "Despite all of this, anthropology still seems alarmingly malecentric. For a field so heavily developed and influenced by women, I have to wonder where the women are depicted, and who understands their impact." This is one of the biggest problems I had with your post. Yes, of course, women should be depicted. However, it's hard to do that without being sexist. I think the problem would best be solved by presenting a sexless, raceless human of average height, weight, age, etc. “The cartoon image has nothing to do with the central argument, which has to do with how human evolution is represented in scientific literature.”
Then why would you post it as an example of scientific bias in how evolution is presented? It’s a popular representation of evolution, but it’s hardly scientific.

The thing is, it’s hard for me to understand how someone who is so interested in anthropology would care so much about wanting to see how women evolved, unless it’s for

“Despite all of this, anthropology still seems alarmingly malecentric. For a field so heavily developed and influenced by women, I have to wonder where the women are depicted, and who understands their impact.”
This is one of the biggest problems I had with your post. Yes, of course, women should be depicted. However, it’s hard to do that without being sexist. I think the problem would best be solved by presenting a sexless, raceless human of average height, weight, age, etc.

]]> By: lexis2praxis http://anthropology.net/2006/07/22/evolution-of-women-in-anthropology/#comment-15256 lexis2praxis Sat, 21 Nov 2009 04:54:58 +0000 http://anthropology.net/2006/01/22/evolution-of-women-in-anthropology/#comment-15256 I haven't replied to this post before because, most likely, it is probably fruitless to argue with someone who has your style of "criticism". But I realized I should probably point out to you, for the benefit of other readers, that you misread the post. If you read carefully, you will notice that I wasn't complaining about women not being represented in an unscientific diagram. The cartoon image has nothing to do with the central argument, which has to do with how human evolution is represented in scientific literature. It is also true that scientific representations of evolution tend to portray the subjects as white, and often there is even a "progression" from dark-complected to lighter skin. You should look up some of the literature on this subject if you are interested. There is also fascinating literature on "gendered" language and imagery in scientific texts on biology and other subjects. Your other points aren't worth addressing. I haven’t replied to this post before because, most likely, it is probably fruitless to argue with someone who has your style of “criticism”. But I realized I should probably point out to you, for the benefit of other readers, that you misread the post. If you read carefully, you will notice that I wasn’t complaining about women not being represented in an unscientific diagram. The cartoon image has nothing to do with the central argument, which has to do with how human evolution is represented in scientific literature.

It is also true that scientific representations of evolution tend to portray the subjects as white, and often there is even a “progression” from dark-complected to lighter skin. You should look up some of the literature on this subject if you are interested. There is also fascinating literature on “gendered” language and imagery in scientific texts on biology and other subjects.

Your other points aren’t worth addressing.

]]> By: lexis2praxis http://anthropology.net/2006/07/22/evolution-of-women-in-anthropology/#comment-15255 lexis2praxis Sat, 21 Nov 2009 04:41:10 +0000 http://anthropology.net/2006/01/22/evolution-of-women-in-anthropology/#comment-15255 Hi, I'm the author. Before you post such requests, you should probably read the post. Hi, I’m the author. Before you post such requests, you should probably read the post.

]]> By: Alex http://anthropology.net/2006/07/22/evolution-of-women-in-anthropology/#comment-15254 Alex Sat, 21 Nov 2009 04:34:15 +0000 http://anthropology.net/2006/01/22/evolution-of-women-in-anthropology/#comment-15254 Grow up. Grow up.

]]> By: BLAH http://anthropology.net/2006/07/22/evolution-of-women-in-anthropology/#comment-15247 BLAH Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:26:51 +0000 http://anthropology.net/2006/01/22/evolution-of-women-in-anthropology/#comment-15247 i do not approve of that one picture where it says evolution of man and women. I think that is rather disgraceful of us female. It is basically saying that women are no different from slaves because the lady in the picture is scrubbing the floor like a slave. That is really bothersome. I do not like that picture and want it to be taken off this website and any other because it is saying really bad things about women. It is giving us a bad reputation. I don't like it and want it gone NOW! i do not approve of that one picture where it says evolution of man and women. I think that is rather disgraceful of us female. It is basically saying that women are no different from slaves because the lady in the picture is scrubbing the floor like a slave. That is really bothersome. I do not like that picture and want it to be taken off this website and any other because it is saying really bad things about women. It is giving us a bad reputation. I don’t like it and want it gone NOW!

]]> By: terryt http://anthropology.net/2006/07/22/evolution-of-women-in-anthropology/#comment-15199 terryt Wed, 11 Nov 2009 03:12:18 +0000 http://anthropology.net/2006/01/22/evolution-of-women-in-anthropology/#comment-15199 "because i was taking him a shower when he first got arrested". What was he arrested for at a seemingly young age? “because i was taking him a shower when he first got arrested”.

What was he arrested for at a seemingly young age?

]]> By: onyx http://anthropology.net/2006/07/22/evolution-of-women-in-anthropology/#comment-15196 onyx Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:34:27 +0000 http://anthropology.net/2006/01/22/evolution-of-women-in-anthropology/#comment-15196 rereads, he actually made use of my long hair, to grasp it, but not in the way of carrying, more like when he wanted my attention or sth. rereads, he actually made use of my long hair, to grasp it, but not in the way of carrying, more like when he wanted my attention or sth.

]]> By: onyx http://anthropology.net/2006/07/22/evolution-of-women-in-anthropology/#comment-15195 onyx Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:27:39 +0000 http://anthropology.net/2006/01/22/evolution-of-women-in-anthropology/#comment-15195 it was just strong enough to hold on to my neck with his arms and would cling the legs under my shoulder tight enough i didnt have to support if i needed my hands for a short while. i never tested how long it would take to actually drop ofcourse. i once carried him and 30 kilos of luggage over 24 hours like that, yes i know i am supernatural;) i wasn't allways wearing clothes(that mode of transport being so convenient i used it to take us showers), and i am not aware he made any use of them. however he was, and still is an uncommonly strong human. his brother would (just like me) take untill his puberty before he could make pull ups, he did it so to say the moment he was born. (got to do with him being not completely white for two different reasons, first being that slave society's have preferential development for early independence, the other that people of mixed blood greatly tend to be physically and mentally stronger.) you should have seen the difference in their physical proportions, with the one i mention able to touch his shoulder with his arm over his head before he was 4, you don't see a white child doing that.(its in biology books for mere impossibility). i myself interpreted it thus that a more 'primitive' human that we derive from would also have baby's with comparable physical strength. and also taht it was a natural mode of carrying, because he could do that when he was 3 weeks old or less. (wich i have a specific memory of, because i was taking him a shower when he first got arrested.) it must have been not allways a pleasure, when, long before the books told he could , he made his first turn, he managed to drop himself on the ground, 3 weeks old or less.otoh in the stone age they had no books to mislead you;) it was just strong enough to hold on to my neck with his arms and would cling the legs under my shoulder tight enough i didnt have to support if i needed my hands for a short while. i never tested how long it would take to actually drop ofcourse.

i once carried him and 30 kilos of luggage over 24 hours like that, yes i know i am supernatural;)

i wasn’t allways wearing clothes(that mode of transport being so convenient i used it to take us showers), and i am not aware he made any use of them. however he was, and still is an uncommonly strong human.

his brother would (just like me) take untill his puberty before he could make pull ups, he did it so to say the moment he was born. (got to do with him being not completely white for two different reasons, first being that slave society’s have preferential development for early independence, the other that people of mixed blood greatly tend to be physically and mentally stronger.)

you should have seen the difference in their physical proportions, with the one i mention able to touch his shoulder with his arm over his head before he was 4, you don’t see a white child doing that.(its in biology books for mere impossibility).

i myself interpreted it thus that a more ‘primitive’ human that we derive from would also have baby’s with comparable physical strength. and also taht it was a natural mode of carrying, because he could do that when he was 3 weeks old or less. (wich i have a specific memory of, because i was taking him a shower when he first got arrested.)

it must have been not allways a pleasure, when, long before the books told he could , he made his first turn, he managed to drop himself on the ground, 3 weeks old or less.otoh in the stone age they had no books to mislead you;)

]]>