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

[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, ;)