Guest post: In the world we actually live in
Originally a comment by iknklast on No, please, Geoff, tell us more.
I’m not sure what the problem is understanding this. (1) It is a stock photo. (2) It has the standard set up of a photo with both men and women, where the man dominates the photo and women are subordinate. (3) There are different possible ways of reading the photo. These seem to be agreed on.
The problem isn’t whether the photographer intended a sexist message. It isn’t with whether everyone in the world sees this particular photo with a sexist message. It isn’t even with the fact that in many ways, this is probably a reasonably realistic portrayal of one small moment in time.
The problem is the fact that pictures, movies, stage plays, works of art, literature, textbooks, news articles, etc, are overwhelmingly (1) dominated by males, with (2) females in subordinate positions. It is a build up of message after message after message, and it normalizes that view of things to the extent that people can argue (perhaps in good faith) like Skeletor and Nullius above that there is no overt sexism seen in the picture. For most people, this one single image looks like a small hill to die on, even if they accept the picture as being a dominant male and subordinate female. Well, things like that can happen at least sometimes in a perfect world, right? The male talking? Him sitting in comfort? The women backgrounded and in listening mode? It doesn’t have to be a problem.
But…it is merely one point in a wash of similar images that surround us nearly non-stop, messages that our brain takes in without recognizing them, normalizing conditions that privilege men over women and give our brain instructions that this is how the world works. In a world where women and men enjoyed true equality, and gained equal respect for hard won skills, this picture would not be a problem, and Skeletor and Nullius would be right.
In the world we actually live in, however, this stuff needs to be pointed out, dealt with, and discussed honestly, not by treating the picture as a stand alone, non-threatening object. Because it doesn’t exist alone, it exists in context with millions of other pictures that we want to deal with individually because it is easier than trying to deal with the problem at the root.
“Perhaps in good faith”? You have cut me to the quick!
I 100% agree with your points about the world we actually live in overall sending bad messages. The initial discussion around the Bechdel test years ago was a big eye opener for me. Just seeing how seldom allegedly liberal Hollywood could make a movie that had two substantial female characters discussing something other than a man was shocking. And of course it’s not just limited to movies. As you and Ophelia point out, this is everywhere.
I take your point that even though in the grand scheme of things this is mild, that enough mild offenses add up to a seriously skewed culture.
But what do we do with that? Eliminate any photo that depicts a scene where males seem even a little more prominent than females? To me there are much bigger targets everywhere (just look at magazine covers, album covers, etc.). A man and woman both seated, looking at each other and laughing, with another woman standing by them…just seems like not the best target if the goal is to move the average photo to something equitable.
Let’s flip all the genders, just for fun: A woman is seated, looking at a man and seemingly emoting surprise. The man, also seated, is looking back at her and laughing. Another man stands and looks down on the seated woman. I’ll bet this could easily also be interpreted as also anti-women. And to me that says this is an ambiguous edge case at best.
What do we do with that? We point it out, and talk about it, in the hope that people will some day, if global warming allows enough time, learn to do better.