RubySoho
Winston
Is This Photo Sexist?
May 19th 2008 03:42
I came across this photo on a popular left wing American blog. The caption is at it appeared on the original source (Yahoo! News and Reuters)
Democratic presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton departs from the service entrance after a reception on Capitol Hill in Washington May 14, 2008. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters).
This photo has caused a furore on this blog with the blog moderator and many readers calling it sexist.
Here are just a few of the comments the photo attracted:
"it was sexist for the implications of conflating women and service".
"Gross. It's not newsworthy, which means there was absolutely no reason to print it other than to make the obvious sexist/sexual dig".
"I actually uhm... took a different but no less sexist message from this. The way she's rubbing the corner of her mouth combined with the 'service entrance' is uhm... well it looks to be rather blatantly sexual imagery."
"I saw the sexist connotations as soon as I read the plaque."
I've pointed out that the lettering on "service entrance" has been "enhanced". Would someone please explain to me now how this is NOT sexist -- and not only that, but INTENTIONALLY sexist?"
"Here's a rule of thumb: If you "don't see" the sexism, it's probably there, just harder to see from 'way up on the summit of Mt. Privilege."
The consensus seemed to be that Clinton was photographed leaving the 'service' entrance because she is a woman and is alluding to a woman's rightful place (ie in servitude). and also, her gesture wiping her -ahem- mouth indicates a service of a different kind.
Well here's the thing. I am a woman. I am a feminist. I am pretty liberal minded. I certainly don't live anywhere near the summit of "Mt Privilege".
But I don't think this photo is sexist.
What I do see is the irony of photographing an extremely rich, powerful and influential public figure juxtaposed with a sign that announces that 'service people are to enter here'. To be perfectly honest this image says far more to me about class than it does about sex and gender.
I can't help but think some if people are intentionally looking for negative signs and behaviour everywhere they go, they can't help but find them.
So am I a traitor to my sex? Is this photo sexist? Am I just not seeing it? Or are these people just getting into a flap over nothing?
Ruby
Shakesville, Hillary Sexism Watch: Part Ninety Goddamn Three
Yahoo! News Photos
Democratic presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton departs from the service entrance after a reception on Capitol Hill in Washington May 14, 2008. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters).
This photo has caused a furore on this blog with the blog moderator and many readers calling it sexist.
Here are just a few of the comments the photo attracted:
"it was sexist for the implications of conflating women and service".
"Gross. It's not newsworthy, which means there was absolutely no reason to print it other than to make the obvious sexist/sexual dig".
"I actually uhm... took a different but no less sexist message from this. The way she's rubbing the corner of her mouth combined with the 'service entrance' is uhm... well it looks to be rather blatantly sexual imagery."
"I saw the sexist connotations as soon as I read the plaque."
I've pointed out that the lettering on "service entrance" has been "enhanced". Would someone please explain to me now how this is NOT sexist -- and not only that, but INTENTIONALLY sexist?"
"Here's a rule of thumb: If you "don't see" the sexism, it's probably there, just harder to see from 'way up on the summit of Mt. Privilege."
The consensus seemed to be that Clinton was photographed leaving the 'service' entrance because she is a woman and is alluding to a woman's rightful place (ie in servitude). and also, her gesture wiping her -ahem- mouth indicates a service of a different kind.
Well here's the thing. I am a woman. I am a feminist. I am pretty liberal minded. I certainly don't live anywhere near the summit of "Mt Privilege".
But I don't think this photo is sexist.
What I do see is the irony of photographing an extremely rich, powerful and influential public figure juxtaposed with a sign that announces that 'service people are to enter here'. To be perfectly honest this image says far more to me about class than it does about sex and gender.
I can't help but think some if people are intentionally looking for negative signs and behaviour everywhere they go, they can't help but find them.
So am I a traitor to my sex? Is this photo sexist? Am I just not seeing it? Or are these people just getting into a flap over nothing?
Ruby
Shakesville, Hillary Sexism Watch: Part Ninety Goddamn Three
Yahoo! News Photos
| 157 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Morgan Bell
Science News
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
everyone there is insane!
i completely agree with your analysis of the photo . . . and ill add that i think her touching her face makes her look lacking in confidence as though using the service entrance stripped her of all her power
Comment by OnlineWriter
Online Writing Jobs
Comment by Louie
randomthoughts
Phil's Wellness Tips
sometimes i think we all just need to chill out a little bit
cheers
Louie
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
I didn't really pay attention to the lettering on the plaque, or see it as commentary on Hillary either way.
The Shakesville blog does seem prone to overreactions when it comes to the role of women in the media... sigh.
Comment by Johnny Come Lately
Jack's Back
Comment by samaritan
Fringe Faith
Samaritan's Stories
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Hi Rob...apparently the whole thing was enhanced in photoshop-including the sign.
Hi Louie- I agree with you absolutely, chill out. We can see sexism, racism and just about every-ism everywhere we looked if we wanted.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Hi Johnny- well I do think the photo intentionally included the sign but whether the motivation was sexist is debatable.
Samaritan, your comments are always guaranteed to give me a chuckle. Yes, some people do tend to over think things.I did the same as you, looked at the photo and I was surprised that this influential blog included it in their list of sexist offences regarding Hillary Clinton. Personally, I think it appears that they want to see sexism where there just isn't any. In a way I think it makes them sexist. I look at that photo and see a powerful person exiting by the service entrance. They look at it and see a woman exiting by the servicef entrance. What's worse?
Comment by Morgan Bell
Science News
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
c'mon you taunted me into that man
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
I'd like to see the image in the context of the blog post.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
meh indeed. i fully agree.
Comment by Cheryl J
Rhythmatism
Budget Centsability
I think the only people who would see this a sexist photo are women that feel inferior and that it would never cross the mind of a person that doesn't have some sort of victim mentality. It's just another photo of her on the campaign trail and is probably one of a string of photos that was taken. I think you're more correct with thinking it was just a cheap shot at her political position at the moment.
By the same set of silly standards they could say that the following pic that shows Obama in track pants and a baseball cap as being racist because we all know that black men wearing these kinds of clothes are gangstas - except he has his t-shirt tucked in. Damn, he's probably stealing that man's newspaper!
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
meh indeed. i fully agree.[/quote]
oooh! it looked like an advertisement! sorry my eyes just don't pay enough attention.
You should also fix the link, it starts with linkhttp
Comment by dQuarters
Anyway, a politician's job is to be in service to the public.
I can understand, if someone knew the source to be underhanded, finding the POSTing of this as "news" sexist.
But the photo? Ha. Nah... This is the internet. You'll be hard pressed to post anything people ain't got a beef with.
And once the ball gets rolling...
Comment by Jeff Musall
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
thanks for the heads-up about the link Ahmed.
hi dQ- well its the intention and the framing of the photo they find sexist....
Hi Jeff, ah a dissenter...you're the first person who agrees with the "sexist" assessment...but why would Reuters want to appeal to the Rush Limbaugh crowd?
If you want to see the Righties start to get down and dirty read this: Really Long Link
Comment by Jeff Musall
Comment by Mountain Fog
at first, I clicked on the photo to see what was sexist about it, thinking not all of the photo was appearing in the list on the home page, then, reading the comments by the members of that site, of course one can read anything into anything, however, the one thing that did stick in my mind, was the person who claims the photo has been photo shopped, in regards the "service entrance" sign.....
if that is true, and the image does seem a bit strange around the sign, as if it has been enlarged slightly, well that puts a different slant on things...a political prod by some moron, suggesting Clinton is white trash maybe..??
cheers
fog
Comment by Mountain Fog
it is innocent enough, but then, one only has to imagine what the 'red neck' end of the woods would think...and I can see them saying, "Oh look, he's a paper boy!"
cheers
fog
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
About the Hillary photo- there is no doubt that the inclusion of the sign is deliberate, the question is why? My first thought was that it was a statement on class, but now I am inclined to agree with Morgan's and Cheryl's take on it- that it is a visual reference to Hillary's current political situation. She's pretty much out of the race....
Comment by James Rickard
unlucky_ fishermen.com
Angling Fish
Check this out...
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
a chill pill followed by a good lie down i think.
I'm impressed with Freud's quote....but did he really say that?
I mean if I were to put the words "Freud" and "banana" into a sentence...
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Comment by Mountain Fog
James,
unless you are adapting the original phrase for a more humorous purpose, the actual statement by Freud was,
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar!"
Freud was fond of smoking cigars, hence his defensive comment when challenged about the significance of phallic objects, and having one in one's mouth...tee hee!!
Sometimes one wonders about Freud and just how much his foray into the psyche was projection...bu tthen again, he would probably concur, all thought and reason, all objection and denunciation, is a part of the projection of the self, the ego.
cheers
fog
Comment by James Rickard
unlucky_ fishermen.com
Angling Fish
Check this out...