Frideswide
Fortea Morgana :) PeteByrdie certificated Princess
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2014
- Messages
- 16,317
- Location
- An Eochair
the original plate depiction is shameful.
Last edited by a moderator:
Why is it shameful ?
Why is it shameful ?
Because the male figure is shown as dominant and the female passive, and her genitals are drawn inaccurately, presumably through coyness.
And no pubic hair! What's that all about?
I think the lack of an overt genital cleft is, arguably, more a matter for argument than whichever the two of them has their hand raised in greeting.Because the male figure is shown as dominant and the female passive, and her genitals are drawn inaccurately, presumably through coyness
Why is it shameful ?
Because the male figure is shown as dominant and the female passive, and her genitals are drawn inaccurately, presumably through coyness.
It probably just reflected what NASA scientists (overwhelmingly male then and probably still are) knew about women, ie. nothing. :shifty:Haven't you noticed that her genitals are inaccurate and censored?
And no pubic hair! What's that all about?
It probably just reflected what NASA scientists (overwhelmingly male then and probably still are) knew about women, ie. nothing. :shifty:
I had another look at the Pioneer plaque. Two things...Because the male figure is shown as dominant and the female passive, and her genitals are drawn inaccurately, presumably through coyness.
It probably just reflected what NASA scientists (overwhelmingly male then and probably still are) knew about women, ie. nothing. :shifty:
A redrawing of the initial message for engraving was made by Owen Finstad; the message was engraved by Carl Ray.
But male genitalia was okay?It's probably also worth pointing out that the first plaque went into space at the beginning of March 1972 - circa 2 months after the first tentative full frontal nude Playboy centerfold (showing only pubic hair) and a time when any depiction of female genitalia was still legally considered obscene in the USA.
But male genitalia was okay?
I can't detect any 'dominance' or 'passivity' going on.
What you may be doing is projecting your thoughts and feelings on the illustration.
you'll see that graphic portrayal of humans wasn't their primary concern in the first place. The amount of consideration given the human figures is cursory compared to that given the coded representations of our location and our solar system configuration
They do have independent minds. They can choose to wave or not. This pic illustrates both.Well, the man has his arm raised (active) the woman simply stands (passive)
And? Most men are taller than most women.There is also the height difference.
They do have independent minds. They can choose to wave or not. This pic illustrates both
No. I'm sure it was a simple visual depiction with no political agenda or any subtle nuances behind it.Is that why the image was placed for possible E.T.s to see? For them to realise humans have free will?
Well, the man has his arm raised (active) the woman simply stands (passive) There is also the height difference.
Isn't that what we all do when we look at a picture, our viewing and consequent understanding of an image is always through the prism of our own bias/intellect/fears/etc.
With that in mind we must hope that the aliens who do find it don't interpret a raised hand as a threat!
So, I wonder why they added them.
Take it at face value.
... There is also the height difference. ...
... And? Most men are taller than most women.
Have you any specific objection to the figures on the disc ?
Details such as every little curve of the genitalia do not need to be depicted in such an illustration.
2) Body language. You're reading far too much into that simple little picture. I can't detect any 'dominance' or 'passivity' going on. The 2 figures are standing apart. Far enough apart that there's pretty much no interaction between them. What you may be doing is projecting your thoughts and feelings on the illustration.
As for 'projecting thoughts and feelings', I remember seeing this drawing when it was quite new, and reading about it in the Reader's Digest. It looked wrong to me even then, in my mid-teens. The woman looked subservient and she had no genitals.