And that’s coming from someone who’s considering posing for the Skepticon 4 pinup calendar (though much more covered than my April Fool’s Day post suggested – don’t get too excited, people).
Perhaps it is really a pernicious piece of satirical art designed purposefully to elicit the exact conversation that is now taking place? Viewed in that light, it is nothing sort of pure genius! Everyone complaining is being drawn into the exact trap that was so cleverly set!Well played Mr Dunning, well played indeed!
It might be sexist in the unintentional way… but did you see the lyrics?”Sisters: Streamlined Chevrolets and coffee pots,Nothing says America like havin’ lots,Automated kitchens and a washing machineBing: They help my little lady get it done on the spot….Bing: Cuz the latest thing will see us through.Sisters: Unless you’re black.”(This is from The History of Knowledge, but not the Energy single)Are these lyrics sexist and racist too? It seems pretty clear to me that it’s meant to be a critical of less enlightened times. I think the cover is meant to be in the same spirit, though it is perhaps more poorly executed.
Anniesays
I don’t know who Dunning is… but I just went to his link from Amy’s article (Energy). Under the photo of the single’s cover art, the caption reads, “A nickel for anyone who can identify the inspiration for the design”. http://skepticblog.org/2011/04…The sexism in the cover art did not go unnoticed in the comments to his entry.
Asieytosays
So that album cover is quite alright, then? When a naked John Lennon embraced a fully-clothed Yoko Ono on the cover of Rolling Stone, that was quite alright because it inverted the typical exploitation of female nudity. But Dunning’s art seems to take us a step backwards. Why is there a naked woman in that picture? In what real-life situation will we find men dressed in suits around naked women?
Eric_RoMsays
Dude seems like a prick. His response is basically “whaaatt, can’t take a joke?” Fuck ‘im.
Wait. That guy posted someone else’s picture in the place of VALENTINA TERESHKOVA because she wasn’t “easy on the eyes”?How do you even… I…Oh. So it was a “joke.” Haha. Very funny. No. Get the fuck out, guy.
Tonysays
Brian Dunning being kind of a dick surprises anyone? Seriously?
Right? This time last year, I wasn’t really *into* the skeptic scene. I had friends and a spouse who were really involved, but I had no clue who any of these people they were constantly talking about were aside from Penn, Teller and Adam Savage. My husband had me listen to some podcasts on a roadtrip to Florida and I thought that SGU was okay-to-good, but something about the minimalistic nature of Skeptoid appealed to me. I really liked listening to it. So I went out of my way at TAM8 to approach Dunning and let him know that I really enjoyed his show. His response was basically, “Uh huh,yeah, that’s nice” while he stared over my shoulder at Richard Dawkins who had just entered the bar, like some forlorn, overeager puppy who just wants a pat on the head.
breadboxsays
I understand Surly Amy’s point, but I feel that she undermined her own argument a bit by not even acknowledging the fact that it’s a spoof. That doesn’t make her wrong, but it ought to be addressed at least. If you think the cover participates in the sexism of the original rather than pointing it out by making it explicit, then you should say so; it’s not something that you get to take for granted.
Melodysays
I vote FAIL as well. I also hope you don’t appear in the Skepticon calendar. Aren’t we sexualized and marginalized enough in this movement?
While I admit this is purely second-hand, a friend of mine has claimed Brian Dunning was rather cavalier with regards to her personal space while drunk. I respect the man as a skeptical investigator and still follow his podcast – but with little bits like this trickling in, I wonder very darkly about his feminist attitudes.
I did mention that it is supposed to be a parody of the Rumors album in the comments. At least we guessed at that since it has been some big secret. If indeed it is a parody of that Fleetwood Mac album it is a poor one, as Stevie Nicks wasn’t nude or on her knees. The Rumors album cover isn’t offensive at all as far as I can tell. So if it was mimicking that, he failed there too.
A-Msays
It bugs me that we assume everything is sexist just because there happens to be a woman in a certain position. If this woman had been black, would it have been racist too? The guy might be a sexist douche, but from this picture I can’t tell for sure. To me, it looks as though he’s taking the piss out of overtly sexist attitudes.Oh and Jen, I would never pose in a nudey calendar because I view my nudity as a special gift to my husband. But it’s your body, you do whatever the hell you like. That’s the true meaning of feminism.
If this woman had been black, would it have been racist too?
Um, let me think — yes.
Tonysays
Are you accusing skepchick of marginalizing women in skepticism?
Tonysays
I think that’s the wrong attitude to take. Dunning isn’t particularly sensitive to feminism. So what? When he starts doing a podcast about feminism that will matter. As is he puts out quality work, for the most part, and his apathy towards feminism, while unfortunate, is completely fucking irrelevant to that work.
I agreed with you when I first saw that image – it is mocking rather than endorsing the level of sexism shown in that image. I thought, “No one would actually endorse that kind of sexism in this day and age right?”But now I reconsider. There is a large precedent for sexism in album art. I could just projecting my feminist sensibilities on Brian Dunning.I don’t think Amy has enough evidence to make the case that Brian was delivering a sexist message, but also Brian failed to make it clear why he was using the images that he is using. People are getting upset when they look at it and that is an artistic failure that Brian is responsible for independent of what he actually meant.
From “This Is Spinal Tap” (the groups new album called “Smell The Glove” was supposed to have a picture of a scantily clad woman on all fours wearing a dog collar with a mans hand shoving a glove in her face):David St. Hubbins: have you seen Duke Fames’ current album?Ian Faith: umm…yes…yesDavid: Have you seen the cover?Ian: No, I don’t think I have.David: It’s a rather lurid cover, I mean, it’s like naked woman and uh..Nigel Tufnel: he’s tied down to this table, and they’ve got these whips, and they’re all semi nude..David: and they’re knockin’ on him and… Ian: What’s the pointDavid: Well it’s much worse than Smell The Glove, I mean, he releases that and he’s number threeIan: Because he’s the victim, their objection with your album is that _she_ was the victim…you see…that’s all right, I mean if the singers’ the victim it’s different. It’s not sexist.Nigel: Oh, I see, he did a twist on it, he turned it around…David: yeah, we should have thought about thatIan: yeah see if we would have had all you guys tied up, it would have been fine. It’s still a stupid cover though.David: yeah..it’s such a fine line between clever and stupid.(
, starts @ 1:30 in)
Lynetsays
Yep, definitely made of fail. As soon as you look at it in that light, it’s painfully sexist. I’m guessing Dunning didn’t look at it in that light. Hopefully next time he will.Unfortunately, it’s difficult to believe that he’s “taking the piss out of overtly sexist attitudes”, given that the picture he’s parodying lacked the sexist attitudes of the parody. Equating women with woo just adds to the fail of the naked supplicant woman.
Rollingforestsays
Okay, simple solution here (Surly Amy actually mentions this in her post). Ask Brian Dunning to put in a picture with the gender roles reversed, the man naked and on his knees and the woman standing and clothed (it doesn’t need to be the exact same picture, but it should have the same “feel”). If Brian refuses, then he’s likely sexist. If he does it and people still complain, then they are hypocrites and should be ignored.
Rollingforestsays
And if it were a white male naked on his knees and a black female standing clothed, would it be sexist and racist then? Is one race or gender more important when it comes to value? Should races or genders be treated differently?I can understand people being sensitive about portrayals of women and minorities, but we shouldn’t have a double standard depending on the gender and race of the person. THAT in and of itself is sexist and racist. People should be able to pose as they see fit without regard to their sex or race. So yes, being extra cautious about women and minorities is okay, but just assuming discrimination based only on race or gender of the model is just blind faith in a particular world view and not something a good skeptic should do. We need more proof before making serious accusations of sexism or racism.
Eric_RoMsays
“Poor” parody is a vast understatement: it’s crap, lame, weak, ca-ca, and a host of other synonyms. It is, fundamentally, shite, with a capital “shit”.
There were comments elsewhere that the picture in place of Valentina was a technical glitch and the comment about someone easier on the eyes was a joke about the glitch. Rather than actually doing that on purpose.
No one is assuming discrimination based “only on the sex* of the model.” If you can’t understand why people find the photograph offensive, I really have to question your critical thinking skills. One of the essential elements of critical thinking is to consider seriously points of view other than your own.* I’m a bit of a language purist; “gender” is a grammatical term, which has only come to be synonymous with “sex” because most people aren’t comfortable with saying the word “sex.”
Rollingforestsays
I’m going to skip the argument about definitions to focus on the other issues you raise. I’ll just use your definitions to make things clear for the both of us. I actually do seriously consider other people’s point of view. Disagreeing with you is not the same thing as disregarding your view. If you could seriously consider my point of view before becoming judgmental, that would be greatly appreciated. I understand perfectly why most people would think the photographer was sexist. But to determine if he actually is sexist, we need to consider whether he, consciously or unconsciously, was making a values judgment about the sexes. However obvious the values judgment in the picture might seem to you, it could conceivably be that he did not mean to suggest it and was just showing different humans in different contexts without meaning to suggest different value. This might all be a misunderstanding and it would be wrong to make a final judgment about him without further evidence. However, even if the photographer isn’t sexist, some images such as this one can understandably be mistaken for sexist. The photographer should strive to give context which makes it clear to people that this was not his intention. As far as I know, the photographer has failed to do this in this case. So while in that type of case the photographer would technically be falsely accused, he could still be criticized for not making his intentions more clear. For example, in the picture we are talking about, if he had shown earlier pictures of the man and woman walking together in equal stature and the man is shown resting his foot on the speakers and looking away and the woman is shown temporarily kneeling to look at the ball while ignoring the man and the man simply turns to look at the ball, ignoring the woman, hopefully everyone would pick up on the fact that equality between the sexes is possible in that scenario. Granted, all of that would take many pictures, but it could be done. It is not pictures, but ideas that are sexist or not. Saying that “pictures of the sexes in certain configuration, regardless of context, is always discriminatory but if you were to switch the sexes it would be okay” is fundamentally a sexist and bigoted idea. We shouldn’t be making rules about what one sex is allowed or not allowed to do regardless of context. While it is okay to be more sensitive to those who you feel might face the most sexism today, it is not okay to disregard context or to suggest that sexism is only bad if it is aimed at a particular sex.
Rollingforestsays
Whether this picture is sexist or not depends on context. Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be any in this case, so it is reasonable for people to think that it might be sexist. If the photographer didn’t mean to be sexist, he should have provided more context to make that clear.
Yeah, I saw that comment. And even then, it’s still a shitty comment. “Oh, slide’s not working. Tereshkova’s looks broke the machine!” is -still- stupid to make off-hand.I mean, really. A hundred things he probably could’ve reached for. “Tereshkova ain’t pretty.” is probably one that shouldn’t have been in the box.
From Brian Dunning:”When I made my original gaffe in my Solving the Missing Cosmonauts talk, I didn’t “later apologize.” I immediately apologized. Nobody was more thunderstruck than I was, and since I was no longer onstage, I tapped out an apology on my phone and sent it to both Twitter and Facebook. I did not then, and do not now, condone what I said; it was the unfortunate result of getting offtrack, flustered, and staring at the wrong slide under stress. But saying something stupid and regrettable is part of being a public speaker. You apologize if necessary, you learn from it, and you move on.”I think that his position is understandable. I know that when flustered I’ve made some very stupid, embarrassing remarks. It happens. You apologise and move on.
I think that it’d be helpful if he were a little more sensitive to it; I think that everyone should be! And, let’s face it, Brian can be a bit of a dick at times, and that does seem unhelpful.But we’re all dicks from time to time, right? We can only try to learn from it and move on. I think that all in all, he does a lot of good work.
“As soon as you look at it in that light, it’s painfully sexist. I’m guessing Dunning didn’t look at it in that light. Hopefully next time he will.”I completely agree. It was probably something that he didn’t really think about. Hopefully he’ll learn from the experience. I’m just disappointed that everyone’s response has been so emotional (I almost used “hysterical”, but the etymology of that particular word would probably prove counterproductive…), rather than discussing the implications of the image a little more calmly.
I have made no statement about whether the photographer is sexist. I have made no judgment about whether Brian Dunning or anyone connected with the design and execution of the photo is sexist. Whether or not anyone connected with this image meant to make a statement about relations and social worth of men and women, the fact is that many people, both men and women, found this image offensive because it depicts certain sexist stereotypes.
even if the photographer isn’t sexist, some images such as this one can understandably be mistaken for sexist
How’s that again? You have just said that on the one hand that we don’t know what these people were thinking, and on the other that anyone who finds this image offensive is mistaken. You don’t see the logic fail? That clause puts the lie to your statement
I actually do seriously consider other people’s point of view.
You steadfastly refuse to accept that there is any legitimate reason for someone to take offense at that image. Look at what you wrote:
“we need to consider whether he, consciously or unconsciously, was making a values judgment about the sexes””it could conceivably be that he did not mean to suggest it””This might all be a misunderstanding”
I call bullshit.
For example, in the picture we are talking about, if he had shown earlier pictures of the man and woman walking together in equal stature and the man is shown resting his foot on the speakers and looking away and the woman is shown temporarily kneeling to look at the ball while ignoring the man and the man simply turns to look at the ball, ignoring the woman, hopefully everyone would pick up on the fact that equality between the sexes is possible in that scenario. Granted, all of that would take many pictures, but it could be done.
Jesus Christ on toast points, you’re obtuse. We are not discussing what could have been done, we are discussing what was done. The only evidence we have is the image that was produced and distributed. That image was offensive to many people. You have condescendingly explained to them why they are wrong to be offended. You have bent over backward to excuse the producers of the image by indulging in wild speculation about what they might have had in mind or how they might have done things differently. The proper response when you offend someone is not “I’m sorry if I offended you, but I really didn’t intend to,” it’s “I offended you, and I’m sorry. I’ll try to be more aware in the future.”
Rollingforestsays
Quote “the fact is that many people, both men and women, found this image offensive because it depicts certain sexist stereotypes”But by saying “it depicts” you are making an absolute assumption that the woman was kneeling to the man and the man was victoriously promoting himself to the woman. By others, the picture could be interpreted as the man victorious at the creation of the energy represented by the orb and the woman being fascinated by it. The meaning of the picture changes completely if you change the context. Saying “it SEEMS TO THE NORMAL PERSON to depict certain sexist stereotypes” is fine, but saying “this particular order of bodies is never okay under any circumstances (which is what you seem to be saying)” is NOT fine. Quote “You have just said that on the one hand that we don’t know what these people were thinking, and on the other that anyone who finds this image offensive is mistaken.”No that’s not what I said. I said that those who say that this image, in and of itself, would always be sexist regardless of context are mistaken. I’m saying that there are contexts where it wouldn’t be sexist. It is reasonable for people to ask whether the photographer is sexist. It is reasonable for people to say that the photo, as is, makes them uncomfortable and that it should be removed as a favor to those who are made uncomfortable. It is NOT reasonable to say that the photo is sexist in every context, which is what people are saying when they say the PHOTO “is sexist”. I know this seems like splitting hairs, but it is important. We need to pay attention to meaning, not images. It is the message that is important and that message changes with context. It is true that the photographer made an idiotic political mistake by publishing this picture because it is not surprising that people would be caused to think of sexism by its set up. And it would be totally within reason to pull the picture to clear up any confusion on the topic. But in my book, the true meaning of a picture is whatever the photographer, consciously or subconsciously, meant it to be. (I always hated when English teachers said that a story meant “whatever you want it to mean”. That makes no sense to me). If the photographer was to add the context I suggested in the last post, then this picture would completely change its meaning and be gender neutral. A similar thing happened when I was in college. The environmental group dressed up as ghosts to promote the idea that pollution was scary, but they got accused of dressing up like members of the KKK. You’d think an intelligent person could be able to tell the difference between a ghost costume (no pointy hat) and a KKK costume (pointy hat), but they didn’t do that protest any more. Some people thought the club was wimping out, but the club figured it was better to keep its popularity than to challenge misconceptions. Quote “The proper response when you offend someone is not “I’m sorry if I offended you, but I really didn’t intend to,” it’s “I offended you, and I’m sorry. I’ll try to be more aware in the future.” “I agree with this (for all we know, he may have done this). He should apologize for putting out an image that most would reasonably assume to be sexist. That’s fine. The argument should not be over what the photo is, but rather what the message is. He has an obligation to be clear. People don’t have a right to be offended at a particular order of gendered bodies, but they DO have the right to be offended if a person sends a sexist message or sends a message that people could reasonably mistake for sexist which is what happened in this situation. If I was the editor, I would take out this picture, not because it was necessarily sexist (changing context changes the meaning of the picture) and not because the photographer was sexist (unless I found out that he was from some other source) but because too many people would reasonably assume that it was promoting sexism. Again, you might consider this splitting hairs, but the idea that context should be ignored when deciding meaning is a dangerous habit to get into when we are talking about the free marketplace of ideas.
Please stop putting words in my mouth. I have not said that the photo “is sexist.” I have said that it is offensive. That is demonstrated by by the number of reasonable, critically-thinking people who were offended. A person who is not sexist can say something, do something or create something that offends others because of sexist content that for one reason or another was not intended. The best thing to do in that circumstance is to sincerely apologize and try to be more aware in the future.
by saying “it depicts” you are making an absolute assumption that the woman was kneeling to the man and the man was victoriously promoting himself to the woman
I am making no such assumption. I do not need to make any assumptions about the intent of the image, all I need to do is note that the image offended many people. The only context in which it needs to be considered is the one in which it exists. Res ipsa loquitur.
The argument should not be over what the photo is, but rather what the message is.
I’ve had enough of your unbridled wankery. Have a nice day.
Rollingforestsays
You say “I have not said that the photo “is sexist.” I have said that it is offensive.” But when I say THE EXACT SAME THING you call it “unbridled wankery”. If you would stop with the petty insults and treat this as a discussion rather than a battle, you might realize that we pretty much agree. From my understanding, you have said that the photographer might not have meant to suggest a sexist message but that a reasonable person would look at this picture in the given context and interpret it as promoting a sexist message, thus meaning that the photographer should apologize for the confusion and remove or change the picture to fix this problem. That is, in a nutshell, what I was arguing. I was merely pointing out that people who were offended were understandably “interpreting it as promoting a sexist message” but not “seeing that the picture itself is sexist” something that apparently, given what I quoted at the beginning of this paragraph, you agree with me on. I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear enough for you, but I would appreciate if you didn’t jump to rudeness so quickly.
I’ll get too excited if I want to.And I agree with you. by the way.
I’ll get a little excited :D
Perhaps it is really a pernicious piece of satirical art designed purposefully to elicit the exact conversation that is now taking place? Viewed in that light, it is nothing sort of pure genius! Everyone complaining is being drawn into the exact trap that was so cleverly set!Well played Mr Dunning, well played indeed!
Either that, or Mr. Dunning has some issues dealing with women. I want to like him again, but its things like this that push me away.
It might be sexist in the unintentional way… but did you see the lyrics?”Sisters: Streamlined Chevrolets and coffee pots,Nothing says America like havin’ lots,Automated kitchens and a washing machineBing: They help my little lady get it done on the spot….Bing: Cuz the latest thing will see us through.Sisters: Unless you’re black.”(This is from The History of Knowledge, but not the Energy single)Are these lyrics sexist and racist too? It seems pretty clear to me that it’s meant to be a critical of less enlightened times. I think the cover is meant to be in the same spirit, though it is perhaps more poorly executed.
I don’t know who Dunning is… but I just went to his link from Amy’s article (Energy). Under the photo of the single’s cover art, the caption reads, “A nickel for anyone who can identify the inspiration for the design”. http://skepticblog.org/2011/04…The sexism in the cover art did not go unnoticed in the comments to his entry.
So that album cover is quite alright, then? When a naked John Lennon embraced a fully-clothed Yoko Ono on the cover of Rolling Stone, that was quite alright because it inverted the typical exploitation of female nudity. But Dunning’s art seems to take us a step backwards. Why is there a naked woman in that picture? In what real-life situation will we find men dressed in suits around naked women?
Dude seems like a prick. His response is basically “whaaatt, can’t take a joke?” Fuck ‘im.
Wait. That guy posted someone else’s picture in the place of VALENTINA TERESHKOVA because she wasn’t “easy on the eyes”?How do you even… I…Oh. So it was a “joke.” Haha. Very funny. No. Get the fuck out, guy.
Brian Dunning being kind of a dick surprises anyone? Seriously?
My first exposure. Hopefully, my last.
Right? This time last year, I wasn’t really *into* the skeptic scene. I had friends and a spouse who were really involved, but I had no clue who any of these people they were constantly talking about were aside from Penn, Teller and Adam Savage. My husband had me listen to some podcasts on a roadtrip to Florida and I thought that SGU was okay-to-good, but something about the minimalistic nature of Skeptoid appealed to me. I really liked listening to it. So I went out of my way at TAM8 to approach Dunning and let him know that I really enjoyed his show. His response was basically, “Uh huh,yeah, that’s nice” while he stared over my shoulder at Richard Dawkins who had just entered the bar, like some forlorn, overeager puppy who just wants a pat on the head.
I understand Surly Amy’s point, but I feel that she undermined her own argument a bit by not even acknowledging the fact that it’s a spoof. That doesn’t make her wrong, but it ought to be addressed at least. If you think the cover participates in the sexism of the original rather than pointing it out by making it explicit, then you should say so; it’s not something that you get to take for granted.
I vote FAIL as well. I also hope you don’t appear in the Skepticon calendar. Aren’t we sexualized and marginalized enough in this movement?
Yeah, this was pretty much my position on it too.
Jen, why are you considering posing for the Skepticon 4 pinup calendar?
While I admit this is purely second-hand, a friend of mine has claimed Brian Dunning was rather cavalier with regards to her personal space while drunk. I respect the man as a skeptical investigator and still follow his podcast – but with little bits like this trickling in, I wonder very darkly about his feminist attitudes.
I did mention that it is supposed to be a parody of the Rumors album in the comments. At least we guessed at that since it has been some big secret. If indeed it is a parody of that Fleetwood Mac album it is a poor one, as Stevie Nicks wasn’t nude or on her knees. The Rumors album cover isn’t offensive at all as far as I can tell. So if it was mimicking that, he failed there too.
It bugs me that we assume everything is sexist just because there happens to be a woman in a certain position. If this woman had been black, would it have been racist too? The guy might be a sexist douche, but from this picture I can’t tell for sure. To me, it looks as though he’s taking the piss out of overtly sexist attitudes.Oh and Jen, I would never pose in a nudey calendar because I view my nudity as a special gift to my husband. But it’s your body, you do whatever the hell you like. That’s the true meaning of feminism.
Um, let me think — yes.
Are you accusing skepchick of marginalizing women in skepticism?
I think that’s the wrong attitude to take. Dunning isn’t particularly sensitive to feminism. So what? When he starts doing a podcast about feminism that will matter. As is he puts out quality work, for the most part, and his apathy towards feminism, while unfortunate, is completely fucking irrelevant to that work.
I agreed with you when I first saw that image – it is mocking rather than endorsing the level of sexism shown in that image. I thought, “No one would actually endorse that kind of sexism in this day and age right?”But now I reconsider. There is a large precedent for sexism in album art. I could just projecting my feminist sensibilities on Brian Dunning.I don’t think Amy has enough evidence to make the case that Brian was delivering a sexist message, but also Brian failed to make it clear why he was using the images that he is using. People are getting upset when they look at it and that is an artistic failure that Brian is responsible for independent of what he actually meant.
From “This Is Spinal Tap” (the groups new album called “Smell The Glove” was supposed to have a picture of a scantily clad woman on all fours wearing a dog collar with a mans hand shoving a glove in her face):David St. Hubbins: have you seen Duke Fames’ current album?Ian Faith: umm…yes…yesDavid: Have you seen the cover?Ian: No, I don’t think I have.David: It’s a rather lurid cover, I mean, it’s like naked woman and uh..Nigel Tufnel: he’s tied down to this table, and they’ve got these whips, and they’re all semi nude..David: and they’re knockin’ on him and… Ian: What’s the pointDavid: Well it’s much worse than Smell The Glove, I mean, he releases that and he’s number threeIan: Because he’s the victim, their objection with your album is that _she_ was the victim…you see…that’s all right, I mean if the singers’ the victim it’s different. It’s not sexist.Nigel: Oh, I see, he did a twist on it, he turned it around…David: yeah, we should have thought about thatIan: yeah see if we would have had all you guys tied up, it would have been fine. It’s still a stupid cover though.David: yeah..it’s such a fine line between clever and stupid.(
, starts @ 1:30 in)
Yep, definitely made of fail. As soon as you look at it in that light, it’s painfully sexist. I’m guessing Dunning didn’t look at it in that light. Hopefully next time he will.Unfortunately, it’s difficult to believe that he’s “taking the piss out of overtly sexist attitudes”, given that the picture he’s parodying lacked the sexist attitudes of the parody. Equating women with woo just adds to the fail of the naked supplicant woman.
Okay, simple solution here (Surly Amy actually mentions this in her post). Ask Brian Dunning to put in a picture with the gender roles reversed, the man naked and on his knees and the woman standing and clothed (it doesn’t need to be the exact same picture, but it should have the same “feel”). If Brian refuses, then he’s likely sexist. If he does it and people still complain, then they are hypocrites and should be ignored.
And if it were a white male naked on his knees and a black female standing clothed, would it be sexist and racist then? Is one race or gender more important when it comes to value? Should races or genders be treated differently?I can understand people being sensitive about portrayals of women and minorities, but we shouldn’t have a double standard depending on the gender and race of the person. THAT in and of itself is sexist and racist. People should be able to pose as they see fit without regard to their sex or race. So yes, being extra cautious about women and minorities is okay, but just assuming discrimination based only on race or gender of the model is just blind faith in a particular world view and not something a good skeptic should do. We need more proof before making serious accusations of sexism or racism.
“Poor” parody is a vast understatement: it’s crap, lame, weak, ca-ca, and a host of other synonyms. It is, fundamentally, shite, with a capital “shit”.
There were comments elsewhere that the picture in place of Valentina was a technical glitch and the comment about someone easier on the eyes was a joke about the glitch. Rather than actually doing that on purpose.
No one is assuming discrimination based “only on the sex* of the model.” If you can’t understand why people find the photograph offensive, I really have to question your critical thinking skills. One of the essential elements of critical thinking is to consider seriously points of view other than your own.* I’m a bit of a language purist; “gender” is a grammatical term, which has only come to be synonymous with “sex” because most people aren’t comfortable with saying the word “sex.”
I’m going to skip the argument about definitions to focus on the other issues you raise. I’ll just use your definitions to make things clear for the both of us. I actually do seriously consider other people’s point of view. Disagreeing with you is not the same thing as disregarding your view. If you could seriously consider my point of view before becoming judgmental, that would be greatly appreciated. I understand perfectly why most people would think the photographer was sexist. But to determine if he actually is sexist, we need to consider whether he, consciously or unconsciously, was making a values judgment about the sexes. However obvious the values judgment in the picture might seem to you, it could conceivably be that he did not mean to suggest it and was just showing different humans in different contexts without meaning to suggest different value. This might all be a misunderstanding and it would be wrong to make a final judgment about him without further evidence. However, even if the photographer isn’t sexist, some images such as this one can understandably be mistaken for sexist. The photographer should strive to give context which makes it clear to people that this was not his intention. As far as I know, the photographer has failed to do this in this case. So while in that type of case the photographer would technically be falsely accused, he could still be criticized for not making his intentions more clear. For example, in the picture we are talking about, if he had shown earlier pictures of the man and woman walking together in equal stature and the man is shown resting his foot on the speakers and looking away and the woman is shown temporarily kneeling to look at the ball while ignoring the man and the man simply turns to look at the ball, ignoring the woman, hopefully everyone would pick up on the fact that equality between the sexes is possible in that scenario. Granted, all of that would take many pictures, but it could be done. It is not pictures, but ideas that are sexist or not. Saying that “pictures of the sexes in certain configuration, regardless of context, is always discriminatory but if you were to switch the sexes it would be okay” is fundamentally a sexist and bigoted idea. We shouldn’t be making rules about what one sex is allowed or not allowed to do regardless of context. While it is okay to be more sensitive to those who you feel might face the most sexism today, it is not okay to disregard context or to suggest that sexism is only bad if it is aimed at a particular sex.
Whether this picture is sexist or not depends on context. Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be any in this case, so it is reasonable for people to think that it might be sexist. If the photographer didn’t mean to be sexist, he should have provided more context to make that clear.
Yeah, I saw that comment. And even then, it’s still a shitty comment. “Oh, slide’s not working. Tereshkova’s looks broke the machine!” is -still- stupid to make off-hand.I mean, really. A hundred things he probably could’ve reached for. “Tereshkova ain’t pretty.” is probably one that shouldn’t have been in the box.
From Brian Dunning:”When I made my original gaffe in my Solving the Missing Cosmonauts talk, I didn’t “later apologize.” I immediately apologized. Nobody was more thunderstruck than I was, and since I was no longer onstage, I tapped out an apology on my phone and sent it to both Twitter and Facebook. I did not then, and do not now, condone what I said; it was the unfortunate result of getting offtrack, flustered, and staring at the wrong slide under stress. But saying something stupid and regrettable is part of being a public speaker. You apologize if necessary, you learn from it, and you move on.”I think that his position is understandable. I know that when flustered I’ve made some very stupid, embarrassing remarks. It happens. You apologise and move on.
I think that it’d be helpful if he were a little more sensitive to it; I think that everyone should be! And, let’s face it, Brian can be a bit of a dick at times, and that does seem unhelpful.But we’re all dicks from time to time, right? We can only try to learn from it and move on. I think that all in all, he does a lot of good work.
“As soon as you look at it in that light, it’s painfully sexist. I’m guessing Dunning didn’t look at it in that light. Hopefully next time he will.”I completely agree. It was probably something that he didn’t really think about. Hopefully he’ll learn from the experience. I’m just disappointed that everyone’s response has been so emotional (I almost used “hysterical”, but the etymology of that particular word would probably prove counterproductive…), rather than discussing the implications of the image a little more calmly.
I have made no statement about whether the photographer is sexist. I have made no judgment about whether Brian Dunning or anyone connected with the design and execution of the photo is sexist. Whether or not anyone connected with this image meant to make a statement about relations and social worth of men and women, the fact is that many people, both men and women, found this image offensive because it depicts certain sexist stereotypes.
How’s that again? You have just said that on the one hand that we don’t know what these people were thinking, and on the other that anyone who finds this image offensive is mistaken. You don’t see the logic fail? That clause puts the lie to your statement
You steadfastly refuse to accept that there is any legitimate reason for someone to take offense at that image. Look at what you wrote:
I call bullshit.
Jesus Christ on toast points, you’re obtuse. We are not discussing what could have been done, we are discussing what was done. The only evidence we have is the image that was produced and distributed. That image was offensive to many people. You have condescendingly explained to them why they are wrong to be offended. You have bent over backward to excuse the producers of the image by indulging in wild speculation about what they might have had in mind or how they might have done things differently. The proper response when you offend someone is not “I’m sorry if I offended you, but I really didn’t intend to,” it’s “I offended you, and I’m sorry. I’ll try to be more aware in the future.”
Quote “the fact is that many people, both men and women, found this image offensive because it depicts certain sexist stereotypes”But by saying “it depicts” you are making an absolute assumption that the woman was kneeling to the man and the man was victoriously promoting himself to the woman. By others, the picture could be interpreted as the man victorious at the creation of the energy represented by the orb and the woman being fascinated by it. The meaning of the picture changes completely if you change the context. Saying “it SEEMS TO THE NORMAL PERSON to depict certain sexist stereotypes” is fine, but saying “this particular order of bodies is never okay under any circumstances (which is what you seem to be saying)” is NOT fine. Quote “You have just said that on the one hand that we don’t know what these people were thinking, and on the other that anyone who finds this image offensive is mistaken.”No that’s not what I said. I said that those who say that this image, in and of itself, would always be sexist regardless of context are mistaken. I’m saying that there are contexts where it wouldn’t be sexist. It is reasonable for people to ask whether the photographer is sexist. It is reasonable for people to say that the photo, as is, makes them uncomfortable and that it should be removed as a favor to those who are made uncomfortable. It is NOT reasonable to say that the photo is sexist in every context, which is what people are saying when they say the PHOTO “is sexist”. I know this seems like splitting hairs, but it is important. We need to pay attention to meaning, not images. It is the message that is important and that message changes with context. It is true that the photographer made an idiotic political mistake by publishing this picture because it is not surprising that people would be caused to think of sexism by its set up. And it would be totally within reason to pull the picture to clear up any confusion on the topic. But in my book, the true meaning of a picture is whatever the photographer, consciously or subconsciously, meant it to be. (I always hated when English teachers said that a story meant “whatever you want it to mean”. That makes no sense to me). If the photographer was to add the context I suggested in the last post, then this picture would completely change its meaning and be gender neutral. A similar thing happened when I was in college. The environmental group dressed up as ghosts to promote the idea that pollution was scary, but they got accused of dressing up like members of the KKK. You’d think an intelligent person could be able to tell the difference between a ghost costume (no pointy hat) and a KKK costume (pointy hat), but they didn’t do that protest any more. Some people thought the club was wimping out, but the club figured it was better to keep its popularity than to challenge misconceptions. Quote “The proper response when you offend someone is not “I’m sorry if I offended you, but I really didn’t intend to,” it’s “I offended you, and I’m sorry. I’ll try to be more aware in the future.” “I agree with this (for all we know, he may have done this). He should apologize for putting out an image that most would reasonably assume to be sexist. That’s fine. The argument should not be over what the photo is, but rather what the message is. He has an obligation to be clear. People don’t have a right to be offended at a particular order of gendered bodies, but they DO have the right to be offended if a person sends a sexist message or sends a message that people could reasonably mistake for sexist which is what happened in this situation. If I was the editor, I would take out this picture, not because it was necessarily sexist (changing context changes the meaning of the picture) and not because the photographer was sexist (unless I found out that he was from some other source) but because too many people would reasonably assume that it was promoting sexism. Again, you might consider this splitting hairs, but the idea that context should be ignored when deciding meaning is a dangerous habit to get into when we are talking about the free marketplace of ideas.
Please stop putting words in my mouth. I have not said that the photo “is sexist.” I have said that it is offensive. That is demonstrated by by the number of reasonable, critically-thinking people who were offended. A person who is not sexist can say something, do something or create something that offends others because of sexist content that for one reason or another was not intended. The best thing to do in that circumstance is to sincerely apologize and try to be more aware in the future.
I am making no such assumption. I do not need to make any assumptions about the intent of the image, all I need to do is note that the image offended many people. The only context in which it needs to be considered is the one in which it exists. Res ipsa loquitur.
I’ve had enough of your unbridled wankery. Have a nice day.
You say “I have not said that the photo “is sexist.” I have said that it is offensive.” But when I say THE EXACT SAME THING you call it “unbridled wankery”. If you would stop with the petty insults and treat this as a discussion rather than a battle, you might realize that we pretty much agree. From my understanding, you have said that the photographer might not have meant to suggest a sexist message but that a reasonable person would look at this picture in the given context and interpret it as promoting a sexist message, thus meaning that the photographer should apologize for the confusion and remove or change the picture to fix this problem. That is, in a nutshell, what I was arguing. I was merely pointing out that people who were offended were understandably “interpreting it as promoting a sexist message” but not “seeing that the picture itself is sexist” something that apparently, given what I quoted at the beginning of this paragraph, you agree with me on. I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear enough for you, but I would appreciate if you didn’t jump to rudeness so quickly.