The Washington Post’s Express magazine used the symbol for masculinity to illustrate a report on a women’s march on Washington (Source: Washington Post Express).
No comment. Just the standard head shake.
Via Raw Story.
Perhaps You Should Hire Women…
Affinity
Art, Fun, & Nonsense.
But it’s pink! Pink means female!
One of the people responding to this on twitter said the same, because, yep pink.
Denser than lead…
But also kind of fitting, considering how many white women voted for the orange patriarch and serial sexual assaulter.
I completely concur using
is odd to the point of insulting, and making it pink, or thinking that because it is pink, is, as said above, dense.
May I suggest that had
been used if still would leave something to be desired, albeit nowheres as near ridiculous as the 
which was used. To wit, could the hypothetical use of 
be interpreted, perhaps inadvertently, as excluding or marginalizing the many non-female supporters?
Yeah, that graphic is extraordinary poor, but I suspect the concept behind the graphic also needs attention. As such, what is needed is perhaps a competent graphics designer (who very possibly identifies as female).
Then there is the editorial team, who allowed this mistake in the first place (and perhaps even commissioned it — in which case the graphics designer may be largely innocent). Amongst several things, I wonder if they will offer an apology (which is frequently called a “Correction”, an unfortunate convention which in some cases, like this one, is the wrong term)…?
Well it sure is pretty!
I obviously somewhat mangled my overlong first sentagraph in @4, but don’t seem to have lost any meaning…? Apologies for the poor proofreading and writing. In case you have problems deciphering, the short version is: “That graphic is insulting. Making it pink does not help.”
They seem to have noticed their mistake and tweeted the intended version alongside an apology. Naturally it’s still pink. (Via BBC front page, ouch)
Most ‘graphic design’ these days is trawling stock websites for images. They grabbed A instead of B. This was probably done by the most junior of juniors with 10 minutes to get it ready. Not an excuse, but put it in the context of an industry that is also firing professional photographers.
gobi…@8, Doesn’t that reinforce my point about the graphics designer: They need a competent one.
And if the A rather than B hypothesis due to a junior’s mistake is true-ish, then the editorial team (or at least those responsible for the art / cover) would seem to be exceptionally incompetent: A seemingly-complete lack of checking. You check everyone for mistakes — including yourself! — and certainly juniors. The “team” does not seem to have done a competent job of checking, to the point of wondering if they did any at all…
(And yes, I am aware some publications are cutting down on the use of (sub-)editors. See my comment about the need for competency. This editor-lite trend is perhaps even more damaging…?)
@blf
Yep, all of the above