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
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 59 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. user_444739 Inactive
    user_444739
    @OmidMoghadam

    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!

    • #31
  2. Deacon Blues Inactive
    Deacon Blues
    @DeaconBlues

    Percival:

    I’m not telling him.

    You tell him.

    Oh, General, the way you go flouncing about Europe like some tart…

    • #32
  3. Ryan M Inactive
    Ryan M
    @RyanM

    Mike H:

    Seriously, am I the only one who read a little too much into the title of this post?

     perhaps, but when you pointed it out I nearly spit out my coffee… good thing I wasn’t drinking any!

    • #33
  4. kylez Member
    kylez
    @kylez

    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.

    • #34
  5. profdlp Inactive
    profdlp
    @profdlp

    Barkha Herman:

    I am not sure what I am upset about more

    Guardian wrote the article.  You wrote an article on the article (I know you are just looking for some comic material here).  I read your article.

    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…

    • #35
  6. user_199279 Coolidge
    user_199279
    @ChrisCampion

    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.

    • #36
  7. Julia PA Inactive
    Julia PA
    @JulesPA

    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.

    • #37
  8. user_138562 Moderator
    user_138562
    @RandyWeivoda

    Misthiocracy:

    The biggest pet peeve I had about my education was the common practice of a textbook or a professor presenting us with a particular image to deconstruct, and then getting mad at us when we interpreted it “the wrong way”.

    For example, one time it was an advertisement for London Fog, in which an immaculately made-up man and a woman are wearing expensive trenchcoats and posing for the camera.

    I deconstructed the image as “two ambitious, highly-paid professionals wearing high quality outerwear. It’s about wealth and status.”

    Apparently, I missed that the man was “obviously” a dominant figure and that she was his submissive “little woman”.

    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?

    • #38
  9. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    tabula rasa: That’s the first line from the article. Let’s assume, hypothetically, that someone snaps a pic of me picking my nose (not that that has ever happened). Can anyone enlighten me on the “hidden ideology” disclosed in that picture?

    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!

    • #39
  10. user_86050 Inactive
    user_86050
    @KCMulville

    OK. Let’s assume that it’s true that “deciphering the look is a political act with huge potential clout.” Let’smileycyrus decipher this feminine look …

    • #40
  11. Cornelius Julius Sebastian Inactive
    Cornelius Julius Sebastian
    @CorneliusJuliusSebastian

    Phallocentrism strikes again.

    • #41
  12. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    KC Mulville:

    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 …

    It’s a racist imperialist appropriation of Afro-American dance culture.

    Boom! Nailed it!

    • #42
  13. Cornelius Julius Sebastian Inactive
    Cornelius Julius Sebastian
    @CorneliusJuliusSebastian

    That’s differen, KC.  That’s empowering. Surely you can see that.

    • #43
  14. Midget Faded Rattlesnake Member
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake
    @Midge

    Cornelius Julius Sebastian:

    Phallocentrism strikes again.

    No, it doesn’t. Now that I’m married, I know what phallocentric photos look like, and that ain’t one of them.

    • #44
  15. Foxman Inactive
    Foxman
    @Foxman

    KC Mulville:

    This sounds like something from The Hitchhiker’s Guide; surely the Vogons are moments from blasting our absurd little world from the galaxy.

     In that case shouldn’t we be heading to the pub to drink beer?

    • #45
  16. tabula rasa Inactive
    tabula rasa
    @tabularasa

    Misthiocracy:

    tabula rasa: That’s the first line from the article. Let’s assume, hypothetically, that someone snaps a pic of me picking my nose (not that that has ever happened). Can anyone enlighten me on the “hidden ideology” disclosed in that picture?

    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!

     And all this time I thought it was a problem caused by a booger in my nose.

    • #46
  17. user_86050 Inactive
    user_86050
    @KCMulville

    Foxman:

    KC Mulville:

    This sounds like something from The Hitchhiker’s Guide; surely the Vogons are moments from blasting our absurd little world from the galaxy.

    In that case shouldn’t we be heading to the pub to drink beer?

     Way ahead of you.

    • #47
  18. user_1030767 Inactive
    user_1030767
    @TheQuestion

    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.

    • #48
  19. Ryan M Inactive
    Ryan M
    @RyanM

    KC Mulville:

    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 …

     

    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!”

    • #49
  20. Ryan M Inactive
    Ryan M
    @RyanM

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake:

    Cornelius Julius Sebastian:

    Phallocentrism strikes again.

    No, it doesn’t. Now that I’m married, I know what phallocentric photos look like, and that ain’t one of them.

     umm…  this sort of confession seems like it belongs on one of docjays borderline controversial threads.

    • #50
  21. JimGoneWild Coolidge
    JimGoneWild
    @JimGoneWild

    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.

    • #51
  22. user_138562 Moderator
    user_138562
    @RandyWeivoda

    Ryan M:

    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!”

    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.

    • #52
  23. Johnny Dubya Inactive
    Johnny Dubya
    @JohnnyDubya

    JimGoneWild:

    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.

     Not only that, but they both appear to be wearing makeup.  And one appears to have dyed her hair.  Why no outrage about that?

    • #53
  24. user_648569 Member
    user_648569
    @user_648569

    If those two are what the Guardian thinks beauty queens look like I’m going to celebrate the Fourth extra-hard this year.

    • #54
  25. kylez Member
    kylez
    @kylez

    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.

    • #55
  26. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    KC Mulville:

    Foxman:

    KC Mulville:

    This sounds like something from The Hitchhiker’s Guide; surely the Vogons are moments from blasting our absurd little world from the galaxy.

    In that case shouldn’t we be heading to the pub to drink beer?

    Way ahead of you.

     Remember to bring a towel.

    • #56
  27. Umbra Fractus Inactive
    Umbra Fractus
    @UmbraFractus

    tabula rasa: And all this time I thought it was a problem caused by a booger in my nose.

     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.)

    • #57
  28. OkieSailor Member
    OkieSailor
    @OkieSailor

    Benjamin Glaser:

    It must be so confusing to be a liberal from day-to-day.

     One can’t be confused sans coherent thoughts.

    • #58
  29. user_385039 Inactive
    user_385039
    @donaldtodd

    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?

    • #59
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.