Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Feminism Eating Itself—Rob Long
This, from the Guardian, must represent the hilarious nadir of modern feminism. Two women, both feminists, are photographed for a magazine. They are depicted with their hands on their hips.
Chaos ensues.
First, the Guardian tries to put this kind of patriarchal photo-aggression into art historical context:
What we know well is that there are hidden ideologies in visual images; every picture counts whether mundane or iconic. That has to be at the heart of Baxter and Cosslett’s thesis because it’s where the power of the women’s media lies, in the Look. As [English author] John Berger argued so eloquently in Ways of Seeing, deciphering the look is a political act with huge potential clout.
“The unequal relationship is so deeply embedded in our culture that it still structures the consciousness of many women,” Berger wrote in the 1970s. “They do to themselves what men do to them. They survey, like men, their own femininity.”
Fascinating. But, of course, it bears noting that it took a man to utter those words. Or does the Guardian only quote male authority? I demand an investigation! But it’ll have to wait until these questions are answered:
It’s ironic then, if every picture tells a story, that Baxter and Cosslett are pictured in The Guardian, each with her hand on her hip. Is this the direction of the photographer? Their instinctive choice? Or does it also reveal how deeply embedded is that unequal relationship of the active male viewer and the passive object of his attention?
Given the strength of their feminist beliefs, it’s unlikely the two campaigners realised, that what they are semaphoring is the classic pose of the “look-at-me” beauty queen; the unnatural strut of every woman on display for the pleasure of the male eye. The question is, does it matter?
Of course it matters! Everything matters! Two women were photographed with their hands on their hips! How can anyone look at this and not be outraged! I demand an outraged hashtag!
Published in General
As one of those silly STEM students, I never really understood what one does with a degree in “Gender Studies”. The question is no more.. Forward!
perhaps, but when you pointed it out I nearly spit out my coffee… good thing I wasn’t drinking any!
Apparently, I missed that the man was “obviously” a dominant figure and that she was his submissive “little woman”.
You foolishly tried to explain what the creators intended.
And I read your comment about reading the comic article written about the first article. That puts me pretty dang far down the totem pole…
It’s wonderful to read the beginning of the article with “what we know well is…”.
No. You don’t know well. “We” don’t know well the lunacy that you’re spiraling down a drain. What I know is that if you’re spending time deconstructing magazine imagery, I won’t count on you to help me or anyone else if there’s a fire in my home. You’ll be too busy flouncing and waving your hankie to be of any use, to anybody.
Which is, basically, the sum-total of value the article has: No use to anybody.
If we really want to deconstruct something, let’s deconstruct the education regime that puts into place people who find this kind of abject navel-and-genital-gazing fascinating, useful, and something worth talking about. I might pay more attention to that deconstruction than any other.
What a great post, with entertaining comments!
IMHO, That feature photo is missing quite a few other models to fully communicate a decent message about women:
Keep the two hip-handed candidates front and center, then add a red head and a woman with an African updo. (to join the blonde and brunette)
include assorted women of different heights, and skin shades.
and WHAT ABOUT those of us with curly unruly hair? I feel completely ignored, and therefore unrepresented by these candidates.
A tangle of Cirque du Soleil performers would have been the pièce de résistance.
That photographer was simply in a hurry, doing shabby work.
This reminds me of a short conversation I had with a liberal feminist friend. She explained to me that when a clothing manufacturer or retailer shows a picture of a black woman wearing a leopard- or zebra-skin print, they are subconsciously trying to drive home the point that black people are animals. Why, yes, she was (and probably still is) employed by a university. How did you know?
Sure. It’s a statement about the loss of individual privacy in the public sphere. The party that owns the surveillance technology (the photographer) has power over the party that doesn’t (the nose-picker). It shows that the world is divided into the surveillors and the surveilled.
Boom! Nailed it!
OK. Let’s assume that it’s true that “deciphering the look is a political act with huge potential clout.” Let’s decipher this feminine look …
Phallocentrism strikes again.
It’s a racist imperialist appropriation of Afro-American dance culture.
Boom! Nailed it!
That’s differen, KC. That’s empowering. Surely you can see that.
No, it doesn’t. Now that I’m married, I know what phallocentric photos look like, and that ain’t one of them.
And all this time I thought it was a problem caused by a booger in my nose.
Way ahead of you.
The idea that posture has meaning is pretty clearly true. I tend to think of hands on hips communicating power and confidence, like Superman, Wonder Woman, or Darth Vader.
Parents should teach their children to have good posture. However, an adult giving uninvited criticism to another adult regarding their posture is very presumptuous.
You know what’s amazing about that utterly disgusting picture? After that whole thing, I went back and looked at some pictures of the girl as Hannah Montana. You know, she was actually kind of cute. I think she’s the perfect example of what feminism does. Nobody would look at the before/after and think “oh, what an improvement!”
umm… this sort of confession seems like it belongs on one of docjays borderline controversial threads.
Isn’t one woman wearing .. a .. gasp .. a dress? Sorry ladies, micro regressions everywhere.
Now, I’m sorry if I go here, but what are the odds that one or both have, dare I say, a bra on.
No adult would, but I venture that a lot of teenage buys would disagree. It’s a shame, though. Taylor Swift has shown that even in show business in the 21st century, a girl can transition to womanhood without going through a . . . let’s just say “unladylike” phase.
Not only that, but they both appear to be wearing makeup. And one appears to have dyed her hair. Why no outrage about that?
If those two are what the Guardian thinks beauty queens look like I’m going to celebrate the Fourth extra-hard this year.
What’s funny is that based on that picture I would never guess they were feminists. Their modest dress and style, longish hair and conventional feminine look makes them seem more like Ricocheti to me. The hands on hips in that case would suggest confidence, not bossiness.
Remember to bring a towel.
Clearly your nose represents society as a whole. The booger represents the unwanted intrusion of minorities, homosexuals, and women into the white man’s private space. Your (white) finger represents the subconscious desire to assert your white male privilege and remove the interlopers.
Also your finger is taller than it is wide and upright; clearly a phallic symbol.
(I feel ashamed for having come up with that.)
One can’t be confused sans coherent thoughts.
Rob Long: “Of course it matters! Everything matters! Two women were photographed with their hands on their hips! How can anyone look at this and not be outraged! I demand an outraged hashtag!”
Is anyone outraged that anyone reads the Guardian?