Where updated picture?
this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2024
18 points (95.0% liked)
News
23301 readers
4198 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I don't know if I'm really on board with the idea that a pre-genus homo hominid who existed before the concept of clothing existed teaches something about modern human clothing and shame.
There is a discussion to be had about shame and nudity, but it's silly to go to Lucy as an example when there are living human beings in that part of the world right now who don't seem to have much shame when it comes to nudity. I would think they would be better to use as a lesson.
The whole point is that we still don't know what Lucy actually looked like, and therefore whenever we depict her we are "filling in the blanks" with our own interpretations. In the past, we didn't know whether she was likely to be covered in hair or not, but almost every depiction showed her covered.
The author of the article, who has a PhD and is the chair of a college's interdisciplinary humanities department, makes the point that when we exclusively depicted her covered in hair when we didn't know whether or not she was covered in hair, we were projecting our standards of modesty onto her. We also idealized her as a mother, as exemplifed by her depiction with protective and warm body language toward fictional children and male partners. These are aspects that various artists, researchers, and journalists projected onto a skeleton, not truths about Lucy as an individual.
When it was revealed that Lucy, in fact, was likely not covered in hair, and instead likely walked around naked and uncovered, we did not immediately revise these depictions. They disrupt the previously held projections and interfere with the narrative of Lucy as a "perfect mother" by modern standards-- not because she can't be both naked and a good mother in an absolute sense, but because these are disparate and conflicting signifiers in our modern society. In essence, it's harder to solidifiy her illustration as "the mother of all humans" to an audience of modern Westerners if she can't be depicted with "chastity and modesty", because we strongly associate those characteristics with good motherhood.
It is, therefore, a media analysis of the depictions of Lucy, it's not about Lucy herself. It's about how we project onto Lucy, and what that says about the people doing the projecting.
Of course, humans societies that are alive today are also valuable examples in the process of self reflection. But ignoring the observations made by the author and other researchers is like saying we don't need to analyze media (books, movies, TV shows) that depict society, because real society is right there!
Well, I think it's more about examining cultural biases in our scientific literature.
If that was what I was supposed to take from the story, they seriously buried the lede by putting that at the very end of the article.
Lucy is a good choice. How scientific renderings of a famous subject show off social shame bleeding into research is more approachable than doing the same thing with relatively obscure modern research subjects.
For the shame aspect you need look no further than religion. Shame is just another in a long line of social constructs designed to allow people who don’t produce anything of value to survive off the labor of those who do.
We started wearing clothes as we evolved to have less hair and expanded across the planet into more varied climates. It’s that simple.
As a philosopher, I’m interested in how modern culture influences representations of the past. And the way Lucy has been depicted in newspapers, textbooks and museums may reveal more about us than it says about her.
Those living people I was talking about have been depicted the same ways. They mostly show such people clothed because showing what they actually look like is too much. Even the link I gave, there is one photo where you can see a penis. Every other photo is taken in ways where penises are hidden.
We don't need to go to a non-human to show examples of this when it's done to humans who eschew clothing already.
So you’d rather for them to have written a different article, with similar substance, but not [as thoroughly] related to their area of study?
No, I'm just not really on board with this one. As I said.
I don't care what articles Ms. Magazine decides to publish. It's not my magazine.
Weirdest fap ever.
she cute
Dude, that's your great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandma! Gross.
Akschully, there are 160,000 "great"s missing from your list. Keep going please
I find it weird that nobody speculates that humans had rudimentary clothes when they lost their fur.
The article addresses exactly that
Not quite? It cites a 2010 paper about genetic evidence in clothing lice suggesting that clothes originated ~100,000 years ago, but said paper was before recent discoveries suggesting multiple dispersals and so might need to be reevaluated