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
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?
Oh but she’s wearing glasses with thick black rims!
She must be a Very Serious Person, like Washington Monthly readers.
You’re just anti-sex.
Just another sad consequence of living in the United States.
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.
Tits or GTFO of our conference! (Sigh)
That would be really cool. Cyberboobs! The transhumanist people need to get right on this.
Aside from the stoopid graphic, did the article have anything useful to say?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Those glasses are ridiculous.
Those glasses have no glass in them!
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
I know right? It’s the first augment I’m getting after the cure death one.
*Sigh*
Why are there no women at conferences?
Only dumbfuck editors who approve layouts like that don’t know.
Boob-engineering is already underway. Baby steps.
Maybe she thinks with her boobs? (Just like the layouter who apparently thinks with his dick.)
I dunno. I kinda like the tousled bed-raggled hair….
Here’s the link, since I don’t see it in Ophelia’s post or any of the other comments.
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!
A discourse on gravity.
Oops, sorry about forgetting link.
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.
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?
Cat, yes, it looks that way. I wonder if the editorial staff is feeling silly now!
Am I the only one who read it as a bad visual pun – she’s in a “think tank”?
Yeah, probably. 🙂
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.”
So, the photo is an answer of sorts to the “y no wimmin” question, ne?
/@
Has someone come out to declare this yet another instance of satire, irony, or a joke and therefore immune to criticism?
Hmm…are we miscommunicating? I meant it’s a tank that says “think,” so a “think tank.”
Yes, and Katha was making a play on “think tank” – but clearly I’m wrong, I withdraw my comment, forget I ever said anything.
Yes, I know. I was talking about the image itself.
You sound angry [?]. I was just suggesting that I might have pun pareidolia.
Oh, I see – the image. Not angry, just irritable for a moment. Nemmine.
OK.
@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.
🙂
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.
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: