The Passive Female - Page 3

Join 500,000+ artists on ConceptArt.Org.

Its' free and it takes less than 10 seconds!

Join the #1 Art Workshop - LevelUpJoin Premium Art Workshop

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 97
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fallingwater
    Posts
    5,074
    Thanks
    1,516
    Thanked 5,157 Times in 1,705 Posts
    No they shouldn't - they can be doing stuff like the below. Stop being lazy.
    Uhhhh, ok. I thought I was just explaining the realities. It's real easy to say to all the male artists in history, "make your female figures active" it's a whole other thing to pay them to do that, or give them the talent or imagination to do that. Bougereau was a one-in-a-million artist. Most artists are 999,999-in-a-million.

    I just realized I repeated Arenhaus' point with my post. Sorry about that.

    At least Icarus tried!


    My Process: Dead Rider Graphic Novel (Dark Horse Comics) plus oil paintings, pencils and other goodies:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=101106

    My "Smilechild" Music. Plus a medley of Commercial Music Cues and a Folksy Jingle!:
    http://www.myspace.com/kevferrara
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  


  2. Hide this ad by registering as a member
  3. #62
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Sweden Malmö
    Posts
    411
    Thanks
    83
    Thanked 108 Times in 89 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Velocity Kendall
    We are 100% a product of evolution, and the sexual game theory that played out .
    If that is so. How would you explain that how we look at at gender roles has fluctuated so much throughout the history?
    For instance in the 17th century women were generally believed to have a much higher sex drive than men, while 200 years later it was discussed if "normal" women had any sex drive at all.

    Just to take one example.

    People has always used some idea how things has "always been" as an excuse to keep things how they like it to be.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  4. #63
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    Posts
    1,379
    Thanks
    200
    Thanked 470 Times in 257 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Frida Bergholtz View Post
    If that is so. How would you explain that how we look at at gender roles has fluctuated so much throughout the history?
    For instance in the 17th century women were generally believed to have a much higher sex drive than men, while 200 years later it was discussed if "normal" women had any sex drive at all.

    Just to take one example.

    People has always used some idea how things has "always been" as an excuse to keep things how they like it to be.
    The views, notions and moral opinions on "sex drive" may have fluctuated a lot during history, but that doesn't mean that the actual physiological correlate (which is what I think Kendall was refering to) has. In fact, I highly doubt that the way people today love and desire sexual partners is in its essence very different from that of generations long past.

    That, I think, is the quintessential problem with many feminist ideologies; instead of trying to work on things that truly are open to change, e.g. what you wrote about- the way we judge things like sexuality in women etc. and trying to change them, the spirit of making everything "equal" (when everything really isn't) leads to grotesque claims. The idea that women, on average (which means there can be exceptions...) may have a different amount/intesity/ whatever of sex-drive to men isn't "sexist", that's mere observation and biology (hello there Mr Testosterone). The problem isn't that there is a difference, the problem arises when moral assessments like "women who have a lot of sex drive are sluts" come in. That is what we should be working on. Not making the world how we'd like it to be (with both sexes being entirely "equal", whatever that means), disregarding the reality of evolution.

    Last edited by Benedikt; December 17th, 2013 at 06:25 AM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  5. #64
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Haifa, Israel
    Posts
    3,988
    Thanks
    2,326
    Thanked 2,281 Times in 1,393 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Spot View Post
    arenhaus, the images I posted came up on the first page of google - I didn't have to go looking for them like I'd have to do for the pictures you posted.
    I didn't have to hunt for them either, I just went to Wikimedia and Google for "reclined male nude painting" and took some pictures off the first page.

    I tried "reclined female nude painting" too, and it featured very varied poses, not just the "passive" ones, in a ton of approaches from very realistic to completely abstract, with a seasoning of some stray male nudes.


    In any case it reflects Google's search parameters, maybe, but not the artists' preferences or prevalence of a specific pose in art.

    By the way, what you call "porn of the day" is one of Boucher's best works. This girl was his favorite model, and a king's lover. Hardly lowly porn.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  6. #65
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    314
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 295 Times in 90 Posts
    Yeah the 500+ years legacy of eroticism, nudity and androgyny in western art started to shatter because our 21st century bleach-soaked corrective wisdom labeled it "soft porn".
    Talking about pissing into the wind.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  7. #66
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    965
    Thanks
    651
    Thanked 479 Times in 314 Posts
    I would like to respond to the "if not biology, then what else is there" comments.

    You have to be aware, when you do an actual scientific study, that you are making assumptions- all the time. As any historian will tell you, the most common fallacy in historical research is to judge the past based on the structures of the present. This will always happen because we are reference-dependent in our thinking, we can only imagine really large boxes, but not infinity. So when you say "cavemen lived this way, because nature required them to make best use of their bodies", you are making tons of assumptions. First of all there is the causal inference that "way of living" is influenced by "biological pressures" or "external pressures" (such as mortal danger). The second elephant in the room is the (lack of) evidence. We know our ancestors lived in caves, and that perhaps women were more bound to the cave due to childbirth. Even if this is confirmed, we are still making lots of assumptions about the sociological nature of the "family". The political structure of the family cannot clearly be deduced from bones and stomach contents. Every statement you make includes or excludes lots of possible variables.

    Then there is the all-time favourite of comparing humans to animals, pointing out that human structures must resemble those of animals, because we are animals too. In the social sciences there is actually still alot of debate on whether it is practical to equate humans and animals. The primary factor distinguishing humans is the ability to cooperate. We are selfish, but within boundaries- we understand inequality even before we enter kindergardens, even as single children- there are lots of studies comparing great apes to human children (usually aged 2-3) testing their ability to cooperate. Cooperation is very limited in our closest relatives- great apes can hunt and kill competing apes in a group, and they also possess complex social structures, which tends to feature one alpha-male and a leading female (take chimpanzees for example). While the male is physically superior, the leading females often have the highest social status in the group and the alpha male has to stay in her favour. Each alpha male and female have second-in-commands and have to practice social interaction to retain their status. However, they are considerably more selfish than humans and often not able to calculate that cooperation can lead to higher personal gains. This is a huge difference that people often don't take into account when slapping the word "biology" or "evolution" around. While the aforementioned study can be criticized by arguing that human children learn cooperation from birth which cannot be controlled for, it is important to remember that humans have developed more cognitive abilities over time, and that the reason for that is (so far) seen to be some form of the social nature of us.

    I have seen paleo-dieters argue that males cannot go food-shopping because they are "hunters" and need specific targets, and women have the overview as "gatherers" and therefore are more able to go food shopping. Not only is this logic so riddled with errors that it physically hurts me, it also discriminates against the millions of men who are perfectly capable to do food shopping. Recent research has shown that men are better at identifying inanimate objects (cars) whereas women are better in identifying animate objects (owls). Who is the hunter now? This simple example shows how the inferences that people make are not thought through and usually do not hold up to scientific scrutiny. And: the differences between men and women were usually no greater than 63/37- another aspect to consider. The confirmation bias that was mentioned earlier applies all too well for non-scientific discussions: 51/49 doesn't make one gender a hunter and the other one the gatherer (something that LEGO should take into account before marketing pink lego bricks).

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  8. #67
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fallingwater
    Posts
    5,074
    Thanks
    1,516
    Thanked 5,157 Times in 1,705 Posts
    LL,

    Huh? What? You have to be aware of all the bio structures which have stayed constant, and look at them in context of what was different. Out of that, conclusions may be inferred.

    Simple, obvious points; Most human beings probably died from infection quite early in life for most of human pre-history when hygiene was unknown. It was a harsh, short life, and women are simply less physically equipped to deal with harshness and a lack of hygiene. They are physically smaller, less able to defend themselves or kill hand to hand or throw a rock at 90 mph at the head of a bear, have weaker muscles and bones, and more apt to be emotionally affected by what goes on around them, more prone to depression and various anxieties and phobias, are more prone to infection, get more affected by flu, go through PMS symptoms for anywhere between a four days and a half the month, which makes them unsuitable for certain kinds of activities for whole periods at a time. And lets not forget that the odds of there being decent birth control in prehistoric times is pretty low, which means, who knows, maybe a fifth of the adult women in a tribe at any one time were either having morning sickness or already had a growing baby in their bellies. And let's not forget death in childbirth, postpardum depression, and the suckling period. And this is not even considering the fact that most women clearly have a nurturing instinct predicated on hormones, boobs that flap around when they run without a bra (invention of the bra happens way late in our history), and hips that are made for child-rearing rather than running, (which causes tons of knee injuries in female atheletes.)

    Its all so obvious if we just look at the reality without it being filtered by ideology.

    At least Icarus tried!


    My Process: Dead Rider Graphic Novel (Dark Horse Comics) plus oil paintings, pencils and other goodies:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=101106

    My "Smilechild" Music. Plus a medley of Commercial Music Cues and a Folksy Jingle!:
    http://www.myspace.com/kevferrara
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  9. #68
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    4,697
    Thanks
    2,668
    Thanked 5,924 Times in 2,378 Posts
    Yeah I agree with Kev; Sexual Dimorphism isn't up for debate. Muscle to fat ratio and body mass are real physiological traits. Very few women would have a chance to control the situation in that social dynamic. Passivity in females would be a survival trait same for gracile males who couldn't compete on a physical level.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  10. #69
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    4,697
    Thanks
    2,668
    Thanked 5,924 Times in 2,378 Posts
    Big deal, I could tell a hundred stories that had the same consequences with men instead of women. The belief in anyone's inferiority destroys lives, a uterus doesn't make it more tragic. Funny nobody has said anything about inferiority or place for women except you. Biology creates different roles between the sexes.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  11. #70
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    Posts
    1,379
    Thanks
    200
    Thanked 470 Times in 257 Posts
    nomansland

    You're arguing against strawmen here. Kev never claimed that woman should not be educated, neither did anyone else in this thread.
    It's like saying that a statement such as "African Americans and Caucasians have different skin colours" is racist. It isn't. That's just observation.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  12. #71
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fallingwater
    Posts
    5,074
    Thanks
    1,516
    Thanked 5,157 Times in 1,705 Posts
    nomansland,

    My model is Howard Pyle on this. He taught the art of illustration between 1894 and 1910 in a time before Women's rights, when the basic expectation, and usual occurrence, was women would marry and raise a family. Most art teachers did not accept women as students at the time because time and again the teaching would be wasted because the girl student would leave the school and then fall into the common life pattern of courtship, marrying, and then concentrating on raising a family. Pyle's classes, on the other hand, were fifty percent female.

    Pyle understood and agreed that most of his teaching, too, would be wasted on females. And of the loads of female students he taught, he was mostly right. Most, maybe ninety percent, never pursued art after leaving his teaching.

    But, sometimes, Pyle's purely meritocratic, democratic stance, struck gold. And for that Pyle was able to train up and give the world three of the greatest female illustrators to ever live, Jessie Wilcox Smith, Elizabeth Shippen Green and Sarah Stillwell Weber. And a top muralist, Violet Oakley.

    At least Icarus tried!


    My Process: Dead Rider Graphic Novel (Dark Horse Comics) plus oil paintings, pencils and other goodies:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=101106

    My "Smilechild" Music. Plus a medley of Commercial Music Cues and a Folksy Jingle!:
    http://www.myspace.com/kevferrara
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to kev ferrara For This Useful Post:


  14. #72
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Sweden Malmö
    Posts
    411
    Thanks
    83
    Thanked 108 Times in 89 Posts
    Oh noes I was struck by my pms and boobs flabbing around something fierce! My only hope is to lie down and pray that some big manly man will take pity on me and my frail womanly physique enough to feed me grapes and paint my picture.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  15. #73
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Gold Coast, Australia
    Posts
    819
    Thanks
    397
    Thanked 795 Times in 279 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Frida Bergholtz View Post
    Oh noes I was struck by my pms and boobs flabbing around something fierce! My only hope is to lie down and pray that some big manly man will take pity on me and my frail womanly physique enough to feed me grapes and paint my picture.
    I hope you're alright! Here, sounds like you need a lie down. No, put your arm up like this.. that's better. Good. Head down, but look at me. And pay no attention to this dog I'm putting on the couch. He's just there for me to exert my manliness all over.



    Jordan Beeston
    Sketchbook Livestream Infinity Wars
    Blessed are they who see beautiful things in humble places where other people see nothing. - Camille Pissarro

    Quote Originally Posted by kev ferrara View Post
    We do transmutational yoga and eat alchemy sandwiches and ride flying unicorns of esoteric freudian solipsism while googling anthropology. Whee!
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  16. #74
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Haifa, Israel
    Posts
    3,988
    Thanks
    2,326
    Thanked 2,281 Times in 1,393 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by LordLouis View Post
    Then there is the all-time favourite of comparing humans to animals, pointing out that human structures must resemble those of animals, because we are animals too.
    Well, yes, exactly. It's been an unquestioned tradition for centuries to treat man as somehow different from animals in cognition and behavior, possessing of a god-given intangible difference. Nowadays, all the research points to the opposite. Humans have very high capacity for complex language, and a vary high (comparatively) capacity for thinking of multiple related objects. The smartest non-human animals generally can string together a couple of signals in primitive grammar, and track actions involving two objects. Humans can work with very complex hierarchical statements and track actions involving up to six or seven objects. But most of the rest of the behavioral and cognitive mechanisms seem to be the same in humans and other animals.

    In the social sciences there is actually still alot of debate on whether it is practical to equate humans and animals. The primary factor distinguishing humans is the ability to cooperate.
    Not really. Other social animals cooperate and compete within and between groups much like humans do. They have ethics, nonviolent methods of conflict resolution, signaling of intent, and so on. Wolves, elephants, bottlenose dolphins, chimps all do it.

    Cooperation is very limited in our closest relatives- great apes can hunt and kill competing apes in a group, and they also possess complex social structures, which tends to feature one alpha-male and a leading female (take chimpanzees for example).
    Cooperation in humans is improved probably because their communication is much better and more versatile. Other than that, hunting is not the only cooperative activity in primates. For example, "rain dances" in certain chimpanzee tribes are clearly a cooperative social activity.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  17. #75
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    the Netherlands - Rotterdam
    Posts
    1,740
    Thanks
    157
    Thanked 209 Times in 127 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by kev ferrara View Post
    Its all so obvious if we just look at the reality without it being filtered by ideology.
    Ehh ok... and how do you propose we do that? Ideology is a set of conscious and unconscious ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all the people within that society. A fancy way to say that biologists make up what constitutes as biology. Doesn't mean those ideas can't be factual of course. What it does mean is that biology, on the one hand is a natural science concerned with the study of living organisms but also a field of knowledge that is being researched by humans who are being influenced by the politics of the universities, companies and institutions they work at.

    Science isn't something locked up in an ivory tower making objective claims about the world but is actively communicating with the world, influencing it and being influenced by it. Science is constantly changing and with it the way we per sieve science and what constitutes as science.

    Also, consider this, we are currently having a 3-page debate on why females are portrayed as docile. Most, if not all biological things said about women within this thread have absolutely nothing to do with that question. So what is the real purpose of saying that women's boobs flap around while running? It certainly isn't to answer the question that has been posed on page 1. My point is, yes, perhaps the things you say are factual but you are appropriating those facts to make a point within a forum debate. You're not just saying things as they are but you are actively using your knowledge to convince people of a certain agenda. That's not science, that's politics.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  18. #76
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Gold Coast, Australia
    Posts
    819
    Thanks
    397
    Thanked 795 Times in 279 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by D.Labruyere View Post
    Ehh ok... and how do you propose we do that? Ideology is a set of conscious and unconscious ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all the people within that society. etc etc etc....
    I think Kev is simply a victim of Poe's Law.

    Last edited by Beeston; January 17th, 2014 at 01:46 AM.


    Jordan Beeston
    Sketchbook Livestream Infinity Wars
    Blessed are they who see beautiful things in humble places where other people see nothing. - Camille Pissarro

    Quote Originally Posted by kev ferrara View Post
    We do transmutational yoga and eat alchemy sandwiches and ride flying unicorns of esoteric freudian solipsism while googling anthropology. Whee!
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  19. #77
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    2,034
    Thanks
    3,766
    Thanked 1,052 Times in 586 Posts
    Kev's and Armand's points superficially look like something that some internet hobgoblin I disagree with once said. So, I'm not going to think about what they wrote, it's much more fun to argue with this straw dude.

    Btw, D.Labruyere, the biological stuff that Kev mentioned was in response to Lord Louis, not the thread question. Those points are worth mentioning when the idea that everything about gender roles is a social construct is trotted out, because that plainly isn't true. And- since it took about five minutes for someone to completely misunderstand that point- saying that there are biological reasons for the emergence of certain gender roles is NOT the same thing as saying that one sex is superior to another, nor is it an argument for keeping the same rigid roles around in today's society. It's one part of an explanation for the origin of those roles at a time when they were needed to help groups of people stay alive. The argument that there are no physiological differences and no evolutionary basis for gender roles, in the face of all evidence, is ideology.

    Last edited by Sidharth Chaturvedi; January 16th, 2014 at 06:04 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Sidharth Chaturvedi For This Useful Post:


  21. #78
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fallingwater
    Posts
    5,074
    Thanks
    1,516
    Thanked 5,157 Times in 1,705 Posts
    Kev's Law - Those who feel empowerment through self-righteousness will always find a way to get a hit of that drug.

    At least Icarus tried!


    My Process: Dead Rider Graphic Novel (Dark Horse Comics) plus oil paintings, pencils and other goodies:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=101106

    My "Smilechild" Music. Plus a medley of Commercial Music Cues and a Folksy Jingle!:
    http://www.myspace.com/kevferrara
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to kev ferrara For This Useful Post:


  23. #79
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    the Netherlands - Rotterdam
    Posts
    1,740
    Thanks
    157
    Thanked 209 Times in 127 Posts
    Sidtharth, you don't have to accuse me of being ideological. I am ideological. I am calling anyone who thinks he isn't a liar.

    I didn't pose the argument that there are no physiological differences and no evolutionary basis for gender roles. Quite frankly, I'm indifferent towards nature vs nurture within this debate because there doesn't seem to exist a definite answer and I doubt, since this has been an ongoing debate since the 19th century, it ever will.
    Besides that, when dealing with information in general it tends to be scattered, vague, incomplete and not clear at all. Most historians are very aware of that fact because they have to deal with either to little information (we can't really say anything about cavemen) or to much (ever tried to read everything that has been written about WWII?).
    Even if by some miracle we would somehow manage to read up on everything we would have to translate that information into language that has this wonderful capacity to give a subjective quantity to anything. Any text you will ever write or read about anything will be mistranslated, misinterpreted, used out of context, appropriated to fit a certain agenda, etc... Things will be added or removed until it becomes one big mess. Especially with big questions like the ones about gender roles within society.

    Why are women throughout art history portrayed as docile? It is an unanswerable question really because it isn't specific enough. You'd have to look at who commissioned those paintings and with what purpose. Which means you would have to re-frame the question towards a specific painter, a specific time or a specific location. The room biology currently takes in within the question posed within the debate is an unnecessary one once you start asking good historically sound questions. Why did painter X who was commissioned by person X during period X paint the subject he painted the way he did? If there is an answer to that question it will be found within historical evidence. And even that answer would be not definite but subject to debate.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to D.Labruyere For This Useful Post:


  25. #80
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    2,034
    Thanks
    3,766
    Thanked 1,052 Times in 586 Posts
    Nomansland, my post was about a very specific point- the evolutionary origin of gender roles. I haven't said that people in parts of history didn't think women were inferior, nor did I excuse that line of thinking. No, our biology is no different now- however, the environment we inhabit, thanks to the tools that technology has given us, has changed. Thus, the conditions that selected for traditional gender roles, have changed. This is an extremely important point to consider when thinking about where these roles came from, because those conditions changed a very long time ago- around the time that we developed settled agricultural societies, I'd say. But in the context of human evolution, that's a blink of an eye ago, long after such programming had set in. And that's my entire thought about what gender roles mean today- there's no reason for them to be as rigid as they are, but I reject the idea that they are ONLY a cultural force.

    D, I was trying to clarify what Kev was saying in his line about looking at biological facts without the lens of political ideology. Not trying to put words in your mouth.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  26. #81
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fallingwater
    Posts
    5,074
    Thanks
    1,516
    Thanked 5,157 Times in 1,705 Posts
    Ideology is a set of conscious and unconscious ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all the people within that society. A fancy way to say that biologists make up what constitutes as biology.
    There is a reality which we share in, which is not built of words, ideas, or concepts. From this reality, we extract information in order to survive. If the information we extract is true, and we act upon it, our actions should have instrumental effectiveness in the real world. Such information is thereby proven to be non-ideological. If our understandings garnered from reality are spurious, untrue, or only partially-true, our instrumental effectiveness will be compromised, and our lack of success will check our sense of reality. And hopefully we will become wiser. The only realm where this is not so is in the realm of ideas, where instrumental check is often impossible or would require the entire society to be uprooted or revolutionized, at the risk of societal catastrophe, in order to test the given intellectualization. And this is just why ideologies survive and lead certain kinds of logic-oriented minds to believe and advocate nonsense in the public sphere.

    For instance, that "Biologists make up what constitutes as biology..." as anti-intellectual a thing as has ever been said on these boards.

    The question of the thread is, why do passive females appear in so much art.

    Sufficient historical and biological explanation has been given. Providing these explanations to the conversation in no way endorses them as current belief.

    I can't believe I have to say these kinds of things to a thread of adults.

    At least Icarus tried!


    My Process: Dead Rider Graphic Novel (Dark Horse Comics) plus oil paintings, pencils and other goodies:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=101106

    My "Smilechild" Music. Plus a medley of Commercial Music Cues and a Folksy Jingle!:
    http://www.myspace.com/kevferrara
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  27. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to kev ferrara For This Useful Post:


  28. #82
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    3,180
    Thanks
    752
    Thanked 2,354 Times in 1,211 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by kev ferrara View Post
    LL,

    Huh? What? You have to be aware of all the bio structures which have stayed constant, and look at them in context of what was different. Out of that, conclusions may be inferred.

    Simple, obvious points; Most human beings probably died from infection quite early in life for most of human pre-history when hygiene was unknown. It was a harsh, short life, and women are simply less physically equipped to deal with harshness and a lack of hygiene. They are physically smaller, less able to defend themselves or kill hand to hand or throw a rock at 90 mph at the head of a bear, have weaker muscles and bones, and more apt to be emotionally affected by what goes on around them, more prone to depression and various anxieties and phobias, are more prone to infection, get more affected by flu, go through PMS symptoms for anywhere between a four days and a half the month, which makes them unsuitable for certain kinds of activities for whole periods at a time. And lets not forget that the odds of there being decent birth control in prehistoric times is pretty low, which means, who knows, maybe a fifth of the adult women in a tribe at any one time were either having morning sickness or already had a growing baby in their bellies. And let's not forget death in childbirth, postpardum depression, and the suckling period. And this is not even considering the fact that most women clearly have a nurturing instinct predicated on hormones, boobs that flap around when they run without a bra (invention of the bra happens way late in our history), and hips that are made for child-rearing rather than running, (which causes tons of knee injuries in female atheletes.)

    Its all so obvious if we just look at the reality without it being filtered by ideology.
    Very little of that precludes women from working, though. You can see that by looking at third-world societies today, where birth control, hygiene and medical advancement are only now starting to spread. Women do much of the farming, carrying of water, gathering firewood, preserving food and raising children. You don't have to look very hard to see photos of African women with children tied to their backs carrying large jars of water or sacks of grain or bundles of firewood on their heads. I agree that few women would be hunters in a hunter-gatherer society but they did just about everything that wasn't hunting or war.

    *** Sketchbook * Landscapes * Portfolio * Store***

    "There are two kinds of students: the self-taught and the hopeless."
    - Dr. Piotr Rudnicki
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  29. #83
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fallingwater
    Posts
    5,074
    Thanks
    1,516
    Thanked 5,157 Times in 1,705 Posts
    Very little of that precludes women from working, though. You can see that by looking at third-world societies today, where birth control, hygiene and medical advancement are only now starting to spread. Women do much of the farming, carrying of water, gathering firewood, preserving food and raising children. You don't have to look very hard to see photos of African women with children tied to their backs carrying large jars of water or sacks of grain or bundles of firewood on their heads. I agree that few women would be hunters in a hunter-gatherer society but they did just about everything that wasn't hunting or war.
    Well, yes, that's mostly true. But women also generally weren't a big part of building things and mass transport of goods in bulk. Generally, building is back-breaking work and men seem to have done most of that... carrying massive stones, building sailing vessels, chopping down trees, digging trenches, erecting windmills and dams, mining ores, building bridges, lumber mills, barns, and the list goes on and on. And aside from hunting, angling and fishing from boats seems to be mostly a male thing. People also don't seem to realize that traders were mostly men, because not only would they need to be able to carry heavy goods long distances, and be alone for long periods of time, they also would need to be able to defend for themselves physically. Thus most exploration and trading would have been male dominated, and all accounts seem to confirm that.

    All this goes to confirm, really, that in the context of history men did stuff at a much larger scale, over broader terrain, and with greater physical risk and effort than females.

    I guess so much has been done for us already by males of the past, that we don't think about where everything comes from and how it gets built. We don't think about just how active "real" men are and have been. (There has been so much anti-male propaganda too, that it has distorted everything. Its really sad.)

    And we haven't even talked about how testosterone plays into all this. No simpler explanation of why men are not passive could be had than simply examining the, uh, nuts and bolts of the male biology.

    It is interesting to note that so-called third world cultures generally don't produce paintings. Most paintings you see of women farming, carrying water and the like are done by 1st world types looking for "authentic" subjects either in rural parts of their own country (Lepage, Andrew Wyeth, Fechin) or in "third world" countries (The orientalists, Brangwyn).

    An interesting time machine regarding these issues would be Amish communities that rigidly stick to their traditional ways.

    Last edited by kev ferrara; January 17th, 2014 at 08:49 PM.
    At least Icarus tried!


    My Process: Dead Rider Graphic Novel (Dark Horse Comics) plus oil paintings, pencils and other goodies:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=101106

    My "Smilechild" Music. Plus a medley of Commercial Music Cues and a Folksy Jingle!:
    http://www.myspace.com/kevferrara
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  30. #84
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    4,697
    Thanks
    2,668
    Thanked 5,924 Times in 2,378 Posts
    Wait what is that sound I hear in the background? Its Black Spot chuckling to herself, satisfied the seed she planted has grown and born fruit.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  31. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dpaint For This Useful Post:


  32. #85
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    3,180
    Thanks
    752
    Thanked 2,354 Times in 1,211 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by kev ferrara View Post
    Well, yes, that's mostly true. But women also generally weren't a big part of building things and mass transport of goods in bulk. Generally, building is back-breaking work and men seem to have done most of that... carrying massive stones, building sailing vessels, chopping down trees, digging trenches, erecting windmills and dams, mining ores, building bridges, lumber mills, barns, and the list goes on and on. And aside from hunting, angling and fishing from boats seems to be mostly a male thing. People also don't seem to realize that traders were mostly men, because not only would they need to be able to carry heavy goods long distances, and be alone for long periods of time, they also would need to be able to defend for themselves physically. Thus most exploration and trading would have been male dominated, and all accounts seem to confirm that.
    Okay, but nothing that men did changes the fact that women also did things. We are not arguing for the passivity of men but for the activity of women. And the fact that a lot of the activity that women did was transitory and within the confines of a camp or a household or a farm or a business does not invalidate it.

    Also I don't know who these "people" are who don't realize that traders would have been mostly men. Nearly EVERY profession historically has been mostly men, as women were considered property in most societies and were not able to own property or businesses or hold what we would call a job. Although many cottage industries were family-run and everyone contributed to the work because that would obviously get them more money than if the man worked alone.

    Quote Originally Posted by kev ferrara View Post
    I guess so much has been done for us already by males of the past, that we don't think about where everything comes from and how it gets built. We don't think about just how active "real" men are and have been. (There has been so much anti-male propaganda too, that it has distorted everything. Its really sad.)
    I can't say that I am an enormous history nut myself but really, when I look at some Roman aqueducts or whatever I don't imagine gangs of women hauling stones. I don't imagine the Catholic church being all full of women. In fact, I don't think you really need more back-patting than you've already gotten for the last couple thousand years. I think your man egos are doing just fine. If they aren't, quit the drum circle and get a job in construction.

    In fact this whole paragraph is mystifying. Maybe it's because I come from the science and engineering end of campus and we're all rather practical. No one feels that men don't accomplish things because the journals are full of men accomplishing things. The golden age of building shit is not over. Stuff is being built all the time! Now we're just getting around to elbowing out a little more room for the women, who are also accomplishing things.

    If you came from the arts and humanities end of campus, well, the people there are kinda weird.

    Quote Originally Posted by kev ferrara View Post
    It is interesting to note that so-called third world cultures generally don't produce paintings. Most paintings you see of women farming, carrying water and the like are done by 1st world types looking for "authentic" subjects either in rural parts of their own country (Lepage, Andrew Wyeth, Fechin) or in "third world" countries (The orientalists, Brangwyn).
    I don't think people who have to work hard to survive tend to romanticize hard work, and they also tend to not have so much time for decoration.

    Quote Originally Posted by kev ferrara View Post
    An interesting time machine regarding these issues would be Amish communities that rigidly stick to their traditional ways.
    I guess it's getting slightly less rigid. From what I've heard in the past, some technology is permitted but it largely goes towards easing men's labour. Women primarily take care of children and do household work and gardening, but once the children are older or if the women are unmarried they may own businesses to bring in additional money for the family.

    *** Sketchbook * Landscapes * Portfolio * Store***

    "There are two kinds of students: the self-taught and the hopeless."
    - Dr. Piotr Rudnicki
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  33. The Following User Says Thank You to vineris For This Useful Post:


  34. #86
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fallingwater
    Posts
    5,074
    Thanks
    1,516
    Thanked 5,157 Times in 1,705 Posts
    Okay, but nothing that men did changes the fact that women also did things. We are not arguing for the passivity of men but for the activity of women. And the fact that a lot of the activity that women did was transitory and within the confines of a camp or a household or a farm or a business does not invalidate it.
    Agreed, of course. But other factors, already mentioned, play into it (the question of the thread). Namely, that most businesses and trades are male-dominated, therefore men will have disposable income, men like pictures of women, particularly in some erotic scenario (lying languorously in bed, nude, for instance), and pictures of women lying around are easier for most painters to paint than anything else.

    Plus, most painters, (again most are male, historically), tend to think of the nude woman as the most beautiful thing there is, and painting as an enjoyable way to spend one's time and a great way to make money, (if you can get the work). So rarely will there by a protest by the artist against painting a passive female.

    Another related factor, is given the historically observed limited roles for women in business, one of the ways they could make money was lying on a bed in front of painter for 12 hours.

    Given all the above, a host of contributing factors, you will get a lot of art with passive females.

    I don't think you really need more back-patting than you've already gotten for the last couple thousand years. I think your man egos are doing just fine.
    I don't need the back patting. But there is quite a bit of (I think legitimate) discussion in education circles that in the current era young boys are being taught to be more ashamed of maleness and the male legacy than proud of it. But this is a whole other matter, of course.

    Last edited by kev ferrara; January 18th, 2014 at 11:20 AM.
    At least Icarus tried!


    My Process: Dead Rider Graphic Novel (Dark Horse Comics) plus oil paintings, pencils and other goodies:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=101106

    My "Smilechild" Music. Plus a medley of Commercial Music Cues and a Folksy Jingle!:
    http://www.myspace.com/kevferrara
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  35. #87
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    2,034
    Thanks
    3,766
    Thanked 1,052 Times in 586 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by kev ferrara View Post
    It is interesting to note that so-called third world cultures generally don't produce paintings. Most paintings you see of women farming, carrying water and the like are done by 1st world types looking for "authentic" subjects either in rural parts of their own country (Lepage, Andrew Wyeth, Fechin) or in "third world" countries (The orientalists, Brangwyn).

    An interesting time machine regarding these issues would be Amish communities that rigidly stick to their traditional ways.
    Kev, I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at with this bit? We're on the same page with the rest, but if you meant that pictures of women doing the kinds of work you mentioned were probably a little romanticized, that's not the impression I got at all, growing up in India. The women (and children) who live in rural areas, or in crushing poverty, aren't working construction but they're very commonly seen in the fields, carrying water, etc.

    Or did you mean that this isn't a common first world sight, and painters needed to go hunting in areas that don't produce paintings to find such scenes?

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  36. #88
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fallingwater
    Posts
    5,074
    Thanks
    1,516
    Thanked 5,157 Times in 1,705 Posts
    Well, Brangywn and the orientalists were lambasted for romanticizing and/or exploiting the people and customs of countries that were colonized by the west. "Beautiful tales of exotic foreign lands" and all that, except in visual form. It was considered condescending and a method of "othering" non-whites, so that non-whites only existed as exotic fantasies or "uncivilized barbarians" in the minds of western cultural consumers, as opposed to real people. Generally, in highly politicized academic environments, Brangwyn and the orientalists are lumped in with western imperialism as evil. As part of the method of dehumanizing other cultures, so westerners wouldn't give much thought to the human consequences of global business practices that supported subjugation of indigenous peoples for financial gain.

    This "othering" is taken by some as akin to stereotypical images of Jews and Blacks, which paved the way for anti-semitism and racism.

    The way Brangwyn and The Orientalists are tied to Imperialism is akin to how Arno Breker's work is said to exemplify "Fascist Aesthetics" because of how he created heroic male imagery which was favored by the Third Reich.

    And, lastly, until Lepage and Millet and that gang/mindset, very few pictures existed that really show women toiling and sweating.

    Or did you mean that this isn't a common first world sight, and painters needed to go hunting in areas that don't produce paintings to find such scenes?
    Yes, that's the point I was making. Most training in painting took place in "first world" cities. That's where the money and clients were. It was male dominated, industrializing rapidly, etc. Also, travel was not easy and was most certainly more arduous and dangerous than now.

    This is all by way of explaining the long term trends in passive female imagery in Art.

    At least Icarus tried!


    My Process: Dead Rider Graphic Novel (Dark Horse Comics) plus oil paintings, pencils and other goodies:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=101106

    My "Smilechild" Music. Plus a medley of Commercial Music Cues and a Folksy Jingle!:
    http://www.myspace.com/kevferrara
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  37. The Following User Says Thank You to kev ferrara For This Useful Post:


  38. #89
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    2,034
    Thanks
    3,766
    Thanked 1,052 Times in 586 Posts
    Interesting that showing that side of life would be considered dehumanizing at the time. Basically lumping them in with the guys throughout history who would try to dehumanize the opposing army by saying, "Look, they even have women in the front ranks." So this was thought by their critics as a way of saying, look how barbaric these people are, they make their women work in the fields?

    This might be tangential, but all this reminds me of a practice in some parts of India, including some elder parts of my family, where a woman on her period is considered unclean and isn't allowed near the kitchen, can't touch anything, can't sleep on the bed, etc. But the origin of that superstition was probably a way of sparing them from hard labor when they're physically debilitated, which backfired horribly and became a cultural relic. The stupid irony being that, in places that it's still practiced, it's enforced by the matriarch...

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  39. #90
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    4,697
    Thanks
    2,668
    Thanked 5,924 Times in 2,378 Posts
    I think what this ultimately comes down to is power. One of the reasons that the new feminist movement annoys me is they take everything done by men as if its directed against them when in fact people who crave power or advantage over other people will use anything to get that advantage. That means at various times race, gender, religion, weight, height,looks, physical disabilities are all used by people to gain advantage. That is the darker side of human nature and every time someone makes it about just one of those types they are continuing the problem. As a male I see how much bad behavior certain types of people will do to get ahead. But its a psychological problem in humanity not a gender thing.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast