Beth Coleman Posted about 2 years ago That perhaps Jeremy Rifkin's humankind illustrations should include the other 50% of the human race, i.e. women. You seem to have missed my point, edward long. Correct, gender/sex does not play any part in the talk. In the illustrations? It plays a large part, obvious to me, but perhaps not so obvious if you don't stop and consider these kind of issues. Stope and think about WHY it is normal to portray all humans as men, except when biology/gender stereotypes explicitly demand that the image must be a woman (as I said, this happens 3 times in the illustrations.) Perhaps you are desensitised to this kind of things/regard a picture of a man as the obvious portrayal of a human being. Well, I wonder how you would feel if every human being in this animation was an image of a woman. If a man appeared, say, twice out of 20 times. You might wonder if you had missed something. If you were watching a video that was focusing on the history of womankind. If this video had been made by people who forgot that men actually existed. Why on earth the makers were assuming that all humans are female. You may think I'm making a fuss out of nothing, a 'tempest in a teapot'. Funny, that you are a male. And sad, I think, that you can't see my point, that you are perhaps taking this as an attack on men. I make the point because I think it is important. That men are responding as you are reiterates that: these issues must be highlighted, so that people don't think it is normal and OK to assume that the archetypal human is a man.