posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
[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.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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".
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Twice. After I'd already explained that I could. Not that I want to nitpick, but that to me sounds like insisting.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
