Brilliant. The Washington Monthly does a big ol’ serious thinky article on Y No Wimmin at policy events, forums, and conferences around DC, and before people can even get to the serious thinky words they get an eyefull of a pouty babe with big tits in a tank top.
The comments below the article are mostly pretty annoyed.
H/t Katha Pollitt
40 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Eric MacDonald
July 11, 2012 at 5:41 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
You know what the guy doing the layout was thinking with! Can’t people ever learn? It shouldn’t need saying by this time, in a place where feminism was, if not born, at least such a powerful influence on society — at least I thought it was, but what do I know? The feminist movement in the US was huge, noisy, and made changes. What hasn’t it reached to the level of the people who do “thinky” articles for glossy mags?
Pierce R. Butler
July 11, 2012 at 5:54 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Oh but she’s wearing glasses with thick black rims!
She must be a Very Serious Person, like Washington Monthly readers.
Brian
July 11, 2012 at 6:21 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
You’re just anti-sex.
KarenX
July 11, 2012 at 6:30 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Just another sad consequence of living in the United States.
leni
July 11, 2012 at 6:39 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Maybe they just mean think about boobs? You know, like really ponder them in a serious way.
For instance, I was just at Dispatches telling everyone how I wish mine had built in lasers. I thought about that for quite some time, actually.
smhll
July 11, 2012 at 6:44 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Tits or GTFO of our conference! (Sigh)
Stacy
July 11, 2012 at 7:06 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
That would be really cool. Cyberboobs! The transhumanist people need to get right on this.
Stacy
July 11, 2012 at 7:07 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Aside from the stoopid graphic, did the article have anything useful to say?
karmakin
July 11, 2012 at 7:07 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
This is the stuff that I think is basically the worst. Absolutely zero context…actually negative context. It’s in pursuit of exactly the opposite ends, it’s cheesecake for the sake of cheesecake.
I don’t particularly like classic pin-ups for the same reason, (even relatively tame ones) as I think it’s the essence of objectification. It’s also why I have more tolerance for similar imagery in movies, comics and video games. If it’s something that more or less fits the character, I’m fine with it. It’s when it doesn’t fit the character (or the character has no character) that it really bothers me.
Tigger_the_Wing
July 11, 2012 at 7:11 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Of course the layout people thought it was appropriate! After all, they did go to the trouble of ‘shopping serious spectacles onto her face! She totally looks like a scientist, now! Oh, oh… and the word ‘think’ on her chest! They even lovingly made it curve – and wasn’t it just awesome to put the word just there? The first place that everyone would look, amirite?
… barf.
And some people still claim that there isn’t a backlash against equality?
karmakin
July 11, 2012 at 7:12 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
There’s actually an anime where the main character (who is a cyborg) has machine gun boobs.
It’s actually not as bad as it sounds. It’s more James Bond (to be specific it’s actually a gender-reversed sci-fi Golgo 13) than shock faire.
F
July 11, 2012 at 7:57 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Nice work. Now that’s journalism. The kind of serious journalism that bloggers are incapable oif producing, and which needs to be protected by insane IP laws, frivolous lawsuits, and wacky takedown notices.
Brad
July 11, 2012 at 8:45 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Those glasses are ridiculous.
Markita Lynda—damn climate change!
July 11, 2012 at 8:54 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Those glasses have no glass in them!
Martha
July 11, 2012 at 8:59 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Amanda Marcotte has a short article on Slate about this: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/07/11/female_policy_experts_why_are_there_so_few_women_working_at_think_tanks_.html
leni
July 11, 2012 at 10:22 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I know right? It’s the first augment I’m getting after the cure death one.
*Sigh*
mandrellian
July 11, 2012 at 10:34 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Why are there no women at conferences?
Only dumbfuck editors who approve layouts like that don’t know.
Svlad Cjelli
July 12, 2012 at 1:07 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Boob-engineering is already underway. Baby steps.
Ysanne
July 12, 2012 at 1:53 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Maybe she thinks with her boobs? (Just like the layouter who apparently thinks with his dick.)
&drew
July 12, 2012 at 5:40 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I dunno. I kinda like the tousled bed-raggled hair….
jamessweet
July 12, 2012 at 7:24 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Here’s the link, since I don’t see it in Ophelia’s post or any of the other comments.
McC2lhu iz not nu.
July 12, 2012 at 8:16 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Gurls are allowed at the conferences, as long as they are composed of nothing but boobs and pouty lips. It’s in the bible, people!
Sunny
July 12, 2012 at 8:25 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
A discourse on gravity.
Ophelia Benson
July 12, 2012 at 8:59 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Oops, sorry about forgetting link.
Lou Doench
July 12, 2012 at 9:32 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Photographer here… Fashion shoots often use prop glasses because real glasses are a pain in the ass. You’ve got 3 different strobes going, its almost impossible to angle the glasses to avoid glare and reflections.
PS. If you are getting a reflection off of glasses in you’re home photography, have your subject angle them towards the ground just a little. Most people won’t notice, but the reflection from your flash will bounce down instead of into the lens.
Precambrian Cat
July 12, 2012 at 10:18 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Good to see the many fellow men acknowledging how bad the picture choice is. What must means the editorial staff is actually at odds with their readers, isn’t it?
Ophelia Benson
July 12, 2012 at 10:42 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Cat, yes, it looks that way. I wonder if the editorial staff is feeling silly now!
SC (Salty Current), OM
July 12, 2012 at 11:15 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Am I the only one who read it as a bad visual pun – she’s in a “think tank”?
Yeah, probably.
Ophelia Benson
July 12, 2012 at 11:19 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Salty, nope, Katha made a (very annoyed) joke along the same lines in the tweet that alerted me to this – “discuss men and think tanks, discuss women and tank tops. sad.”
Ant Allan
July 12, 2012 at 12:01 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
So, the photo is an answer of sorts to the “y no wimmin” question, ne?
/@
kagerato
July 12, 2012 at 12:16 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Has someone come out to declare this yet another instance of satire, irony, or a joke and therefore immune to criticism?
SC (Salty Current), OM
July 12, 2012 at 1:29 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Hmm…are we miscommunicating? I meant it’s a tank that says “think,” so a “think tank.”
Ophelia Benson
July 12, 2012 at 1:44 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Yes, and Katha was making a play on “think tank” – but clearly I’m wrong, I withdraw my comment, forget I ever said anything.
SC (Salty Current), OM
July 12, 2012 at 4:22 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Yes, I know. I was talking about the image itself.
You sound angry [?]. I was just suggesting that I might have pun pareidolia.
Ophelia Benson
July 12, 2012 at 4:52 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Oh, I see – the image. Not angry, just irritable for a moment. Nemmine.
SC (Salty Current), OM
July 12, 2012 at 5:05 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
OK.
Godless Heathen
July 12, 2012 at 5:29 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
@SC,
I totally saw the pun, but not until after you pointed it out.
If that makes you feel better. So you’re (sort of) not the only one.
SC (Salty Current), OM
July 12, 2012 at 5:40 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Winterwind
July 12, 2012 at 6:19 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
The scary thing is I’m so desensitised to images like this that there’s a good chance I wouldn’t have noticed the problem if I had simply seen the article. Thanks for the reminder to try and stay aware and critical.
bad Jim
July 12, 2012 at 8:18 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
The Washington Monthly’s blog has comments from the author about the photo illustrating her article. They’re worth reading, if a bit equivocal. A snippet: