How to suppress women's ... well, existing

[rivkat]

Newspaper prints Situation Room photo with women photoshopped out because pictures of women may encourage attention to their physical attributes rather than to their accomplishments, which we all know can't happen to men.  Ultimately I don't think the line between "women shouldn't participate in public life" and "we should erase the evidence that women actually do participate in public life" is sustainable, as this incident demonstrates.  I've seen this described as a clash of values.  But it's not, at least in any sense anyone is bound to respect.  The paper could have declined to print the picture at all, instead of distorting the truth, without violating its commitment to avoiding pictures of women.  It's only the desire to show men being active that necessitates the distortion.

Comments

[giandujakiss]

Hee, you want to edit your URL there, probably.

[rivkat]

Thanks!

[the_shoshanna]

I agree entirely.

[phoenix_run]

I didn't exactly realize the whole bru-ha-ha about this whole photo thing as the only one I did see was the edited one, now that the original is there along with the edited one I'm wondering, "what the f*** is wrong with that paper?!" The two women are sitting/standing just like the men, it's not like their tops are off and they're sitting there spread eagle so that the attention is drawn away from them!
There are times I think there is no way for people to be any more ignorant then they already are, and sadly some people just go out of their way to outdo themselves.

[tahariel]

...Wow. So they're removing the perception that women can take on active, strong and valuable roles in important situations for our own good. Well, I know I feel valued and less likely to be sexualised because of this brave stance that people like me (female people) don't exist in newspapers.

[rheanna]

"It issued a statement saying its photo editor had not read the "fine print" accompanying the White House photograph that forbade any changes."

I boggled at this -- as if, had the White House not specifically said that the photo should not be changed, it would have been okay. Guys, that's not actually what you got wrong, there.

[rivkat]

I know, right? The license is unenforceable (at least for news uses), and it's so infuriating that they're talking about that instead of the real wrong.

[ingridmatthews]

instead of the real wrong.

But to do that would cause a whole bunch of beliefs/actions to crumble quite inconveniently. To admit that the erasure was wrong for the true reason would be, literally, impossible.

The fine print saves as well as damns it seems. (As a lawyer you must see this a lot, ;)

[this_caia]

I have so, so many problems with their policy of not showing women. But what they did here was not just erase women's bodies, but their existences.

As I said elsewhere, if they were going to show the photo without the women, they should have blobbed them out with blue or black formless blobs. Then they could cater to their "culture" (of fear of women) without erasing the accomplishments and existences of women.

[ingridmatthews]

This is a very interesting question. Why weren't they "fuzzed" out? Terrified of uncovered hair or that their daughters might one day aspire to be Secretary of State via the sheer fact that it's possible and here's the photographic proof?

[this_caia]

They could have entirely covered Clinton and Tomason's forms so they looked like the Vermicious Knids (from Dahl's Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator). The fact that they didn't, that they went the more time-consuming route of photoshopping them out as if they were never there, gives lie to their claim that this is just about women's images.

"women should be appreciated for who they are and what they do"? Sounds to me like that applies only to women in their roles as wives, mothers, and homemakers. Identities that are defined in relation to men, home, and family. Nothing else. Nothing they might want to achieve by themselves, or for the world.

This is about women being in the room. Because they had expertise. Because they had authority. Because they'd earned it.

This was an act of symbolic violence. It was a lie.

[tehomet]

They could have entirely covered Clinton and Tomason's forms

Like with a burqa, come to think of it.

I realise it's an Orthodox Jewish publication. I'm just saying.

[this_caia]

Heh. Quite.

My mother said the same when I mentioned it.

[tehomet]

The paper could have declined to print the picture at all, instead of distorting the truth, without violating its commitment to avoiding pictures of women.

But that would be non-sexist. And we can't have that. Apparently. *spits on ground, metaphorically*

[meri_oddities]

The paper could have declined to print the picture at all, instead of distorting the truth, without violating its commitment to avoiding pictures of women.

Exactly. In the response, one of the men says his wife works at the paper. As if that makes what was done legitimate.

Their sexism is so inbred and common that they don't even recognize it. And you'll never be able to convince them of it.