[ September 12, 2005, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Oh, my.
How can they do that with a straight face? I don't know whether to laugh at that, or cry.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I do understand the irony of it, but the message that we all need to be prepared needs to get out. I wouldn't even mind if the press picks this up and runs with it. At least the message of getting prepared would be getting out there.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote: At least the message of getting prepared would be getting out there.
I've been watching a lot of news. Believe me, that particular message is already getting out there.
The more comprehensive analyses make it clear no one was prepared - on the local, state or national level.
I wonder if the "Daily Show" has an email address to to send the link to...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Actually, the link isn't all THAT ironic. It links to a site that explains how to make your own disaster-preparedness kits, which is especially important when you realize that the government certainly isn't going to prepare for disaster FOR you.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I parsed that sentence as "the government certainly isn't going to prepare disaster FOR you," and thought "well, I should hope not!"
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
Not ironic, just a little too late perhaps...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ah...but see the hurricane hit in August which must have been National "Don't Bother Us, We're on Vacation" Month.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Is the message "you better be prepared" really out there? What I see is "The government is supposed to be in there rescuing you hours after the hurricane hits, and if they don't there's a sinister reason why they didn't (be it racism, Bush hates poor people, local govt. incompetence, the horse show directors fault, take your pick.)"
I would personally love to see someone stand up and say "Hey, everybody living in hurricane prone areas better always have a supply of clean water and non-perishable food on hand, because in the event of a major disaster it might be days before we can get to you." But I'm not seeing that in the media. I think that would actually be a much more helpful message than the blame game that is going on.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
(at kmbboots' post)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If they could also have a car, full tank of gas, healthy credit card and family out of town that they can stay with, that would also be good.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:I would personally love to see someone stand up and say "Hey, everybody living in hurricane prone areas better always have a supply of clean water and non-perishable food on hand, because in the event of a major disaster it might be days before we can get to you." But I'm not seeing that in the media. I think that would actually be a much more helpful message than the blame game that is going on.
No - the concentration is on how you should be prepared to help people who aren't economically or physically able to get away from the flood do so.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
So exactly how are you going to accomplish that? Everytime a hurricane is in the gulf everyone in the gulf state region gets free gas cards?
I'm not talking about people like hospital or nursing home patients who have no way to evacuate themselves - every facility with helpless patients and people needs to have its own disaster evacuation plan. Heck, I'd be surprised if they didn't. When my kids were in preschool we were given a copy of the evacuation plan for the preschool - told where they would take the kids, and how to get in touch with them in the event some sort of disaster made evacuation necessary. Every facility like a school, hospital, nursing home, should do that too.
But it's a fact that we can't predict exactly where these things will land. It's a fact that it's virtually impossible to evacuate everyone in the path of a hurricane, no matter where it hits. It's a fact that some people won't evacuate even if they are ordered to do so.
All those facts being on the table, maybe we should be telling people "here is what you need to be doing, what you personally need to be responsible for doing in the event of an emergency."
I think that is an extremely useful message to be getting out and I don't see it anywhere.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
In adition, the way the woman and girl are staring adoringly up at the man makes me want to hurl.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Well, don' worry yer perty lil head, wimmen are delicate that way.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Amen, romany.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
aspectre, come clean the tea off my screen.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
romany, me too! I was wary of saying it though in case I was shot down as overly sensitive. It's a really disgustingly stupid picture and were I American I'd write to them to get it changed.
Imagine having such a thing on a Government website!
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
Yeah! I mean, just imagine, a man's wife and daughter actually looking as though they love and admire him rather than despise him as the blundering, insensitive, stupid oaf that he is. How dare they!
Seriously, it's comments like that that make me want to hurl.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Barrack Obama made a good point about preparedness for the poor. If they can't prepare for it, someone has to help them, or someone has to answer the questions about all the bodies being picked up after events like Katrina.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
digging_holes,
The thing is, they could have achieved the same effect without the male being the "center of adoration."
All it would have taken is for there to be a man and woman looking at each other (more or less at eye level), holding each other. Kid or kids could be looking up at both of them.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I believe it's the implication that the wife and daughter are helpless without the husband that's the problem. But that's largely a perceptual thing that would probably come as a huge surprise to the person who took the picture.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
Sure, they could have. And? I still see nothing wrong with the way they did do it. I see families behaving like that all the time. In fact, it's perfectly normal for them to do behave like that, and in many other ways that show that they love each other as well. Just because some feminists are enraged that things could be so does not make it wrong to portray it. Quite the contrary.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
What do you want, a composite of every sort of different family type all rolled into one? What a hoot that would be. Seriously, you people are so infected by the politically correct virus that you are nearly beyond recovery.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Seriously, it's comments like that that make me want to hurl.
Come on, d_h, that cloying picture clearly portrays the man as the pillar of strength; the America, as the caption says.
And besides, for all you can try to empathize with how it is to see pictures like that you don't have to put up with that sort of thing (which is never intentional) on a regular basis. Example:
When I came through customs into Canada with my mother and two sisters without my father we were greeted very condescendingly by the male officer: "Hello ladies!" You had to be there to know how irritating it was. It was humiliating. It was like having an uncle patting you on the head. And my mother is fifty! But if we had complained what would have said? That the officer greeted us in a friendly manner? You can't define these things or describe them.
I understand what you are saying, d_h. I've noticed it too, how men in some television are portrayed as weak or stupid or sloppy. I don't watch those shows as much as you don't.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Obviously, we know different families. I don't currently know any in which the father/husband is the "center" or even "protector."
The other kind exists as well. I know that. I just don't happen to know any right now, although I have in the past.
It's also my experience that it's not just women who identify themselves as feminists who have a problem with this kind of stuff.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
"Oh honey! Thank goodness you went to the Homeland Security website and got us ready for that nasty ole hurricane! Otherwise how would we have known to pack up all our priceless belongings, buy some water and a first aid kit, hop into our Mercedes SUV and hightail it out of the state long before the rain ever started? Thank goodness we have look to take care of us! *sigh*"
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
This is a minor thing, I think, and not necessarily something to make a big deal. But comments like "just because some feminists are enraged that things could be so" aggravate me.
Can you accept that some feminists might not be bothered at all that this is so for many people, but are still upset that the image of Father as King Over Helpless Subjects reinforces a stereotype they believe is harmful?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I'm not a feminist.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
Teshi, might I suggest you are letting yourself be offended rather too easily?
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
I live in a family that looks similar to that (me, the hubby, and one kid) but I can guarantee we would NOT look like that in the face of any disaster. It would be me taking care of our daughter, packing the car, calling the relatives, getting the dog in the car, and me yelling directions to my husband. There is the picture we really need.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote: All it would have taken is for there to be a man and woman looking at each other (more or less at eye level), holding each other. Kid or kids could be looking up at both of them.
Exactly , steven.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Unfortunately, many men do view women as not only physically weaker, but also intellectually inferior and incapable of standing on their own without male help. Some seem to do it unconsciously, but the view is not only out there, it's out there in a whole lot of men. I'm sure it's out there in some men here, whether or not they realize it.
d_h, that is what people are reacting to. And it isn't just "some feminists." It's normal, strong, intelligent women, the type of which you see quite a bit of on Hatrack.
So, stow your condescending references to "some feminists" and realize that ordinary women see misogyny way more frequently than you seem to want to admit.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
quote: Can you accept that some feminists might not be bothered at all that this is so for many people, but are still upset that the image of Father as King Over Helpless Subjects reinforces a stereotype they believe is harmful?
I can. And I also maintain that you are reading that into the picture with an extremely condescending attitude.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Heck, even if the woman didn't have her arm curled up on her chest like a Romance novel heroine...
Were she still under her husband's arm but was looking down at their daughter with him instead of gazing into his manfully competent eyes, it would help.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Me:
quote:I was wary of saying it though in case I was shot down as overly sensitive
You:
quote:Teshi, might I suggest you are letting yourself be offended rather too easily?
See?
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
If it makes it any better, you can read that as "helpfully-intended suggestion" rather than "shot down".
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
When I followed the link the banner ad at the bottom of the page read:
September is
Ad/council
And nothing else. The banner wouldn't finish loading, although netscape said "done."
I thought that was the joke.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
"Helpfully-intended suggestion" along with heapin' helpin' of condescension. You know, in case you were short on that today.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Well, yes, I realise that. But you catch my drift. It's hard to say anything when the objection isn't obvious.
I didn't say anything about Mr. Customs Man, of course. He was just doing his job, or so he thought. I just gave that as an example of what doesn't happen to you so it doesn't build up so much.
This picture, however, is clearly agreed-upon to be rather deriding.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Try this - reverse the image. Have the husband be a foot shorter than the wife, hanging on her adoringly as she benevolently gazes down on him and their daughter. Look a little one-sided?
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
You find being addressed as "ladies" condescending? I confess I don't understand. Sure, I find it awkward when I'm with other guys and someone addresses us as "gentlemen", but it's hardly offensive.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
*sigh*
No, Chis, it doesn't. Men cuddle up to their wives all the time. And if they don't, I would suggest that their relationship is slightly unhealthy.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I told you. You wouldn't get it unless you were 1) female 2) there.
If you can't accept it, don't worry about it. It's not exactly the end of the world.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
Okay then.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
On the other hand, d_h, instead of immediately consigning the reaction of so many people on this board to "overreaction" and "ultra-feminism," maybe you could spend a few seconds and try to see the other side of things--such as, perhaps, why not just Teshi, but also romany, and Eljay, and Chris, and Mandy, and sndrake, and me ALL felt that way about that picture.
As I said above, ordinary women deal with misogyny in varying degrees every day. Try, just for a second, to see that.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
I do see that. But that picture was in no way misogynist, and reactions to it were hyper-sensitive. There seems to be a politically correct paranoia about such things that prompts many people to read misogyny into everything that does not expressly oppose it, and everyone else to follow along with it for fear of being seen as an insensitive cad.
Like you just did right now. Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
There's a difference between every possible point on a coastline which might be affected by a hurricane and the mandatory evacuation zone, Belle.
eg The mayor of NewOrleans decided to park ~2000 city-owned/controlled buses. So insteada ferrying out 60thousand or so people -- which coulda been accomplished while adding very little expense to the cost of getting those buses out of harms way, probably less than the cost incurred during normal operations -- the buses are?were sitting underwater. And they'll hafta be replaced with new buses at GREAT EXPENSE. Or at least extensively repaired&refurbished, at merely great expense.
[ September 12, 2005, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Ah, "politically correct"--the favorite bugbear of Republicans everywhere. So, all of us--the entire list of people in my last post--are ALL ascribing to politically correct paranoia? Whilst you are the lone voice of sanity?
Are you telling me that you can't even conceive, even the tiniest bit, of how we might see what we see in that picture?
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
My posts were intented to be funny, by the way (they weren't; no one laughed). I am not offended by the picture (actually I am much more offended byt he stupid ad!) but I certainly think it is unrealistic. That said, I didn't even notice it until someone pointed it out. Now lets all just take a deep breath...
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I don't find the picture as offensive to women as much as I just find it stupid. I just think the imagery is terrible, they would have done better with a picutre, of say, firefighters or volunteers helping out or something.
Myself, I know for a fact I look to my husband in times of emergency or stress, heck emergency is what he does for a living. So you darn right I rely on him and apprecite him protecting and caring for me. But, at the same time, I'm also capable of doing a few things for myself and for my kids, so I'm not helpless if he isn't around.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Didn't say it was misogynist. I do think it's condescending. I saw it, shook my head and moved on. I doubt I would have brought it up, I would have just gone on with the newly-reinforced belief that women, in some degree, will always be seen as helpless by people, men and women, who don't understand why that can be insulting.
So you're right. I didn't comment on it until you dismissed it. Not because of any need to be on a PC bandwagon, but because your casual defense of it was more annoying to me than the actual picture.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Now lets all just take a deep breath...
This is probably not a bad idea.
Still, I think, and have been of the opinion for some time, that quite a number of men, whether consciously or unconsciously, deem women to be inferior. I guess I'm primarily reacting to that, to the smug condescension that so often goes along with that attitude. It just gets under my skin a whole bunch.
I just wish that people like d_h would give serious thought to concerns like this before writing it off as some p.c. overreaction.
Ok. I'm leaving. I promise to come back in a better frame of mind.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
[amused] First of all, I'm not Republican. I'm not even American.
Second, I don't know that heartily disagreeing with others makes me the lone voice of sanity, but you are sounding increasingly shrill and hysterical.
Thirdly and finally, yes I can conceive of how you see that picture, and more than just the tiniest bit. I simply happen to think you're quite mistaken, and I was generous enough to share the reasons why you and others had arrived at such a wrong conclusion.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Ah, good to see we're not being condescending anymore.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
Really? Where?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Since you don't see it that way obviously no one else should, and anyone that thinks they do, no matter how subjective such a declaration might be, is just wrong. End of argument.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
I didn't say that. I said I see how you could see it differently. I just happen to heartily disagree. If I disagree with you, that automatically means I think you're wrong and I'm right. If that were not the case, I would be agreeing with you.
There's really no way around it. I don't see how that's more condescending than Megan insisting that I just "don't understand" and "can't see it even the tiniest bit".
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
A position of "I can see what you mean but I don't think it's that big a deal" or "Maybe so, but I don't think it makes that much difference" would be just as accurate and far less dismissive of the complaints registered here.
And she did explain her problem at Customs and even said she knew that written out it would sound harmless, but you made a point of questioning it anyway. Have you never been in a situation with someone - a boss, a bully at school, a lover - where they were making you feel utterly insignificant and threatened but in such a way that trying to explain it to anyone later would make you look stupid and oversensitive? That's what she was getting at, I think. When she said you didn't get it, she was accurate, and she'd even said ahead of time that if you (meaning anyone besides herself) weren't there you probably wouldn't.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Unfortunately, many men do view women as not only physically weaker, but also intellectually inferior and incapable of standing on their own without male help. Some seem to do it unconsciously, but the view is not only out there, it's out there in a whole lot of men. I'm sure it's out there in some men here, whether or not they realize it.
And unfortunately, many people do view pictures of a family where the man is taller than the woman (as most men are taller than most women) and the child (as most adults are taller than the child) as a cloying statement about some males' view of women rather than a fairly simple aesthetic choice.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
I thought we were still talking about the picture here.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Factual corrections:
Megan did not insist that you can't see it even the tiniest bit. She asked if you couldn't.
Megan did not insist that you didn't understand. Teshi stated that she didn't think you would/did.
It was Teshi that had the issue at Customs.
I do not care to be involved with the argument itself at this time, as I don't trust myself to be polite about it, but wanted those things clarified. Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
quote:She asked if you couldn't.
Twice. After I'd already explained that I could. Not that I want to nitpick, but that to me sounds like insisting.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
It's a tough call. I think that if they had rearranged the photo in any other way it would have still offended someone.
However, photos with this kind of exposure are very carefully planned. A lot of time and effort is spent in making the photo "just right," and making sure that the correct message is being sent and so forth. Obviously people are offended/disappointed/frustrated with the message they receive from this picture. The government, or whoever was responsible, should have noticed the problem.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I've been involved with several government web sites of a similar nature. There was almost "no" thought or planning with respect to the photos. (Edit: the photos on the sites I was involved with - I'm extrapolating to this site with no personal knowledge.)
"They want a picture of a family here."
"I think we've got one from the Command picnic" or "Let's go to the stock photo service."
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Hmmm, I must have missed one.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Dagonee, dagonee, dagonee, you've got it all wrong, here's how it goes:
"Oh look, the intern put a pic of a family up. Isn't that cute."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Hehe, fugu.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I don't want to continue this discussion (it has long since been abandoned) but I want to show the corresponding picture in Canada, one I consider totally and utterly acceptable. Again there is a mother a father and a little girl, but instead of being silly, it is practical. Note how the man is still taller and closer to the camera. Note how the woman is closer to the child. I could interpret that in a feminist way if I was searching to be stupid about the whole thing, but because there is no dominating presence of sickly sweet protection I wouldn't give it a second thought.
EDIT: And this has nothing to do with it being a Canadian picture.
EDIT 2: Neither the UK nor the Australian government has any pictures at all so I couldn't give another example. NZ had no site I could find at all that specifically dealt with disaster (although I'm sure there is one).
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
(at kmbboots' post)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)