Is this picture sexist or not?

[JimmyJazz]

http://www.paintinghere.com/UploadPic/Unknown%20Artist/big/Pink%20Floyd%20Back%20Catalogue.jpg

It's so freakin' cool, but I've always been a little uneasy about it for some reason. Now I'm thinking seriously about putting it up in my apartment (I already have posters of The Beatles, The Who, The Clash, Bob Dylan, Radiohead, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Charles Mingus, John Lennon, Joe Strummer, Allen Ginsberg, Bob Marley and a few others).

I need to know if it is some remnant of my religious upbringing that objects to it, or my current political radicalism. I mean, bear in mind Pink Floyd is a group of all men, and rock is a largely male-dominated genre, so it seems nearly inescapable that whoever created this image, and PF when they approved it, considered these women to be sex objects to some degree (probably a high degree). On the other hand, I had an ex-girlfriend who loved this image, and she was an enormous freak, so if hanging this on my bedroom wall helps me out with girls like her then that's a good thing. But just because a female likes the image doesn't make it not sexist.

Aargh so torn. >_>

[Junius]

How could it possibly be conceived as sexist? :confused:

[JimmyJazz]

^That's a great answer and just what I wanted to hear, did you vote? (No you didn't because the only vote so far is from a male).

I suppose that not much is, in itself, sexist. But I could imagine a few misogynistic douchebags I have met putting it up on their wall. That's what gives me pause.

BTW, for those who vote yes or not sure, I am also taking suggestions of (cool) images I could put up that in your opinion might balance it out. I actually already have this one up:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg/300px-Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg

[Module]

No, it's not sexist.
Who voted 'yes', and why? Out of curiosity.

[Junius]

I suppose that not much is, in itself, sexist. But I could imagine a few misogynistic douchebags I have met putting it up on their wall. That's what gives me pause.

I don't think its sexist for men to put up pictures of naked women up on their walls either. Is it sexually objectifying? Yes...that's the point of being physically attracted to someone - you disregard their personality and focus on their looks. So what? How does objectifying one woman objectify women as a whole? Do I objectify men when I put posters of a man up on my wall?

[Revy]

what's so sexist about women being free together?

This is sexist:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/A_fair_Puritan.jpg

[#FF0000]

I don't see anything sexist about it.

[Organic Revolution]

How is it not sexist? It is turning women into a billboard for Pink Floyd, making two very specific beings for women.

1. Billboards are property, and by making these women into billboards, this poster is turning them into property, and property does not feel and does not have cognition.

2. Turning women into sex objects. These women are placed in a position in which it accentuates these women's figures, creating a dominant narrative within males minds that women are only operational as objects built for their pleasure.

Who voted no and why? Are you males with to much privilege? D you protect your position in society with tacit approval of sexism, so you don't have to work on your shit?

[Sankofa]

Not sexist...I tried to stretch it so I could find any complaint about it, but I couldn't find anything. Just a nifty picture is all.

[Junius]

what's so sexist about women being free together?

This is sexist:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/A_fair_Puritan.jpg

Well no. Its a (beautiful) painting of a woman probably from the 19th century. Does it represent an era where woman were very socially and economically restricted? Yes. Does hanging it on your wall endorse it? No more than the picture JimmyJazz posted above accepts that it is a woman's role to look after children.

[DesertShark]

How is it not sexist? It is turning women into a billboard for Pink Floyd, making two very specific beings for women.

1. Billboards are property, and by making these women into billboards, this poster is turning them into property, and property does not feel and does not have cognition.

2. Turning women into sex objects. These women are placed in a position in which it accentuates these women's figures, creating a dominant narrative within males minds that women are only operational as objects built for their pleasure.

Who voted no and why? Are you males with to much privilege? D you protect your position in society with tacit approval of sexism, so you don't have to work on your shit?
I voted no and I'm not a male.

I didn't think of the women as billboards or sex objects. Their position doesn't accentuate their figures in a sexual way. I think the human body is beautiful and you can see that here. I saw it as an artistic expression of Pink Floyd's album covers.

There is something sexist about the following: "less than 3% of the artists in the Met. Museum are women, but 83% of the nudes are female" (from the Guerrilla Girls).

[Glenn Beck]

I think Organic Revolution's post raises some interesting points. There can be no doubt that she is correct that the artwork objectifies the women in it. They're just models, they are arranging their bodies physically to produce an image that when photographed or interpreted by an artist's brush or whatever is aesthetically pleasing, the image has nothing to do with who they are and conveys no information whatsoever besides their surface appearance. Their status as models addresses both of Organic Revolution's points. Is being a model being oppressed? Why? What about male models? Is there anything inherently oppressive about being portrayed in a photograph or a painting for the simple visual appeal of the image you happen to be representing, rather than anything to do with you as a person? I have opinions but it's a pretty complicated question if you ask me.

For the record I voted no and I'm male. I think the picture was probably produced in a sexist context (being promotional material for a high powered rock band) and is often consumed in a sexist context. But I don't think that makes it a sexist picture. More generally I don't think that objectification always and in all circumstances equals oppression, I think in the circumstances of consensually modeling for a piece of art it's a non-issue and any sexism involved exists in the thoughts and attitudes of the artists and the viewers. When a woman is disrespected or abused as a model I'd say that is sexism. And of course I think taking someones image without their consent is oppressive because you are using their image to convey your message in a way they may or may not approve of.

Also, sorry, but I quite strongly disagree with this:
creating a dominant narrative within males minds that women are only operational as objects built for their pleasure.

So a meaningful relationship between a man and a woman is mutually exclusive with them having a sexual relationship? Finding someone sexually attractive automatically means you view them ONLY in a sexual capacity? The fact that a man who finds a woman sexually attractive in an image only has any sort of relation to her insofar as he has viewed her image and finds it appealing is absolutely trivial, because he has no basis to view her in any other way, he has not even met her. It does not imply that he views her as some kind of base "fucking machine" or whatever horrible thing. Men are trained to react that way by social custom and by social relations, it doesn't have anything to do with the inherent qualities of sexual attraction or the way the female body is portrayed or the indirect relationship between the viewer of a representation and the person represented. The dominant narrative isn't created by the image, the narrative is already there and it colors the way the male viewer interprets the image.

[Political_Chucky]

How is it not sexist? It is turning women into a billboard for Pink Floyd, making two very specific beings for women.


2. Turning women into sex objects. These women are placed in a position in which it accentuates these women's figures, creating a dominant narrative within males minds that women are only operational as objects built for their pleasure.

And who's to say that these women don't want that kind of attention? I think women, just as men, who pose in pictures and have the purpose to distribute the photos would want people to put them in their room.. If its ok with them why not? Its idolizes them in one sense, but only for their bodies or their attractiveness...doesn't necessarily mean that now your gonna to treat women like shit...

I think people who can't look at pictures of the body may have some low self-esteem but thats just me. :crying:

[Revy]

How is it not sexist? It is turning women into a billboard for Pink Floyd, making two very specific beings for women.

1. Billboards are property, and by making these women into billboards, this poster is turning them into property, and property does not feel and does not have cognition.

2. Turning women into sex objects. These women are placed in a position in which it accentuates these women's figures, creating a dominant narrative within males minds that women are only operational as objects built for their pleasure.

Who voted no and why? Are you males with to much privilege? D you protect your position in society with tacit approval of sexism, so you don't have to work on your shit?

You make no sense to a rational human being. It's not "sexist" for women to be free with their body - quite the opposite. It's medieval to force women into this mindset.

This is what we're doing here, making the female body into something that's bad because of some MIM-esque logic.

The female body provides a beautiful figure for art of all kinds. I am a gay man and I can appreciate the artistic aspect of the female nude. If I were an artist I would surely paint it.

[JimmyJazz]

And who's to say that these women don't want that kind of attention?

Not going to go into detail, but this is basically a simplistic non-argument that ignores all context.

[Revy]

So a meaningful relationship between a man and a woman is mutually exclusive with them having a sexual relationship? Finding someone sexually attractive automatically means you view them ONLY in a sexual capacity? The fact that a man who finds a woman sexually attractive in an image only has any sort of relation to her insofar as he has viewed her image and finds it appealing is absolutely trivial, because he has no basis to view her in any other way, he has not even met her. It does not imply that he views her as some kind of base "fucking machine" or whatever horrible thing. Men are trained to react that way by social custom and by social relations, it doesn't have anything to do with the inherent qualities of sexual attraction or the way the female body is portrayed or the indirect relationship between the viewer of a representation and the person represented. The dominant narrative isn't created by the image, the narrative is already there and it colors the way the male viewer interprets the image.

Wasn't it the MIM that famously declared "all sex is rape"? The first thing the religious fundamentalists aim at when oppressing Woman is her sexuality. It's surprising that "revolutionaries" would aim to do the same.

[JimmyJazz]

The female body provides a beautiful figure for art of all kinds. I am a gay man and I can appreciate the artistic aspect of the female nude. If I were an artist I would surely paint it.

Well yeah, obviously the commodification-of-sex aspect has much to do with it. In commercial art (which this is), in case you hadn't noticed, there are a hell of a lot more naked women than men. Often nude/semi-nude women and fully clothed men occupy the same ad:

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/resources/2008/02/tomford1.jpeg

Not exactly comparable in intent or execution to this:

http://www.braidwood.net/urbino.jpg

Or take this:

http://www.dvdfever.co.uk/reviews/gtstroke.jpg

...I have never seen the actual members of the Strokes themselves pose in anything less than 4-5 layers of hipster clothing.

[apathy maybe]

How is it not sexist? It is turning women into a billboard for Pink Floyd, making two very specific beings for women.
I didn't even know it was related to Pink Floyd, and I still can't see anything that says that it is.

1. Billboards are property, and by making these women into billboards, this poster is turning them into property, and property does not feel and does not have cognition.
I disagree that this picture turns the women depicted into "property" (and would disagree no matter the subject of the picture).

2. Turning women into sex objects. These women are placed in a position in which it accentuates these women's figures, creating a dominant narrative within males minds that women are only operational as objects built for their pleasure.
I didn't realise that this picture was supposed to depict sex objects. I can't see anything sexual about the picture.

Anyway, do you also object to pornography depicting a woman posing for men? Do you also object to pornography depicting women posing for women?


Who voted no and why? Are you males with to much privilege? D you protect your position in society with tacit approval of sexism, so you don't have to work on your shit?
I don't vote in these polls, but I would vote no if were going to.



Organic Revolution, I'm assuming that this post is meant to be some sort of "Devil's advocate" post, as it doesn't fit with my understanding of your politics. Please inform us if these are your actual views, especially considering the points raised by female members above your post, and by myself.

[Revy]

It's not sexist because sexism denotes the inferiority of women and the promotion of an inferior social status. The picture is simply a picture of six women sitting nude, with closeness and probably at least friendship. The intent may be sexist, but the picture by itself isn't.

If it's sexist, it isn't sexist because it may be sexual. Sexuality isn't sexist, people! Liberate yourselves....;)

[Sasha]

the stupid sexist arguments some people put forward left aside, i also dont think this picture is not realy sexist, like people ^^^ said; there is a difrence in sommething sexual and sommething sexist.
Now if this picture was on a huge billboard used as an advertisement to sell the collected works of pinkfloyd, then yes it would be sexist, in your apartment because you think its a nice picture and like to look at it, its not

(i think its a boring & tacky picture by the way, but this thread is not about taste)

[Jazzratt]

Who voted no and why? Are you males with to much privilege? D you protect your position in society with tacit approval of sexism, so you don't have to work on your shit?

Your moral grandstanding would carry a hell of a lot more weight if the femal members that have voted agreed with you. As it is you're tilting at sexist windmills.

[Plagueround]

I didn't even know it was related to Pink Floyd, and I still can't see anything that says that it is.


The artwork painted on the models is their album covers. I've always thought this was a beautiful picture.

[butterfly]

The human body is a beautiful thing, and so is Pink Floyd. It's not sexist in the least.

[Tower of Bebel]

Only if it was meant to show that women are inferior to men (that is what sexism is all about).

But the bigger picture is also important: capitalism is sexist and so can be this picture because it is actually part of it. But when ignoring the bigger picture I can say that it not sexist.

[Pirate Utopian]

The only bad thing about it is Pink Floyd. :)

[JimmyJazz]

Now if this picture was on a huge billboard used as an advertisement to sell the collected works of pinkfloyd, then yes it would be sexist, in your apartment because you think its a nice picture and like to look at it, its not

I tend to agree with this.


capitalism is sexist and so can be this picture because it is actually part of it. But when ignoring the bigger picture I can say that it not sexist.

And this.

And to capitalism, I would add that rock is definitely sexist. e.g.-


Turn around ***** I got a use for you

-with not much on the other side to balance it.

Anyway, whatever, 4/4 females have voted that it's not sexist, and they're the kind of females I'm worried about impressing (cool radical ones who share my politics).

[JimmyJazz]

Only if it was meant to show that women are inferior to men (that is what sexism is all about).

OK I just saw this and have to comment on it as well.

Doesn't the picture imply, to anyone but me, a sexual division of labor? Men get to become super-rich doing creative work, like making music; women, here you go: you get to model our awesome products on your naked back.

[Pogue]

Its not sexist. It's stupid to say otherwise, it compeltely ignores women having free choice and people's attraction to the body. The context is nto sexist, its just an artistic picture.

[Pogue]

Who voted no and why? Are you males with to much privilege? D you protect your position in society with tacit approval of sexism, so you don't have to work on your shit?


This is sexist.

[Poison]

Personally, as a woman I find it not exactly sexist per say but certainly an objectification of women.

[Jazzratt]

This is sexist.

No it isn't. It's presumptuous but the reasoning is sound; he believes the picture is sexist (which he is wrong about) and is concluding that the men who do not think it is so do so because of male privilege (which would be extremely likely were the picture actually sexist - because this is the main reason men do not recognise sexism).

[Sankofa]

What would be the view if this picture featured men instead of women?

Do we view, say, Michaelangelo's David as objectifying men?

[Tower of Bebel]

What would be the view if this picture featured men instead of women?

Do we view, say, Michaelangelo's David as objectifying men?

Voila. Good point. That's why we cannot simply say that the picture is sexist. It only is if we look at the context: is it about selling this thing (profit, capitalism)? Or is it meant to be artistic only (beauty, "humanist" society)?

If it is not meant to make profit out of objectifying them, the women in the picture should be happy for having had the chance to participate in this artistic project. If it is meant to make profit then the women in the picture are another victim of capitalist sexism. It doesn't matter if they feel victims because it doesn't matter whether or not a worker feels exploited: labour that creates profit for the privileged few is per definition exploitation.

[AutomaticMan]

I agree with organic revolution. In a communist society, a picture like that would be acceptable however, and it is pretty cool. The problem is that we're not living in an equal society, and this image, like many others, is subtly loaded with sexism. It's not because it shows women's bodies, it's because of how it shows women's bodies. They're not celebrated in their own right along with each woman's self, but they're being used as canvasses. In a Patriarchal society using a person like a tool is usually problematic, especially if said person is lower down the rung in the hierarchy. So, perhaps the correct thing to say is not that the picture is sexist in itself, but that in our society it perpetuates sexual stereotypes- mainly, that women are property; objects; things with only extrinsic value.


What would be the view if this picture featured men instead of women?

Do we view, say, Michaelangelo's David as objectifying men?

This is too simplistic for something that commands a pretty complex analysis. You have to take it into context, which in this instance is our Patriarchal society that perpetuates women's oppression. You can't just say "what if it were men", because males are privileged above females and so the ramifications are vastly different.

[Sankofa]

This is too simplistic for something that commands a pretty complex analysis. You have to take it into context, which in this instance is our Patriarchal society that perpetuates women's oppression. You can't just say "what if it were men", because males are privileged above females and so the ramifications are vastly different.

I don't disagree; it's true, we live in a male dominated society that consistently objectifies women.

However, the point I was attempting to make by using David in contrast to the original picture was that there's nothing inherently sexist about either of them.

They both deal with nudity in a mature, artistic fashion. Attempting hastily label them as objectifying is slightly obtuse.

[AutomaticMan]

I don't disagree; it's true, we live in a male dominated society that consistently objectifies women.

However, the point I was attempting to make by using David in contrast to the original picture was that there's nothing inherently sexist about either of them.

They both deal with nudity in a mature, artistic fashion. Attempting hastily label them as objectifying is slightly obtuse.

But you have to analyse them in this context though. I mean, yeah, in some kind of egalitarian vacuum, they're not inherently sexist, but there are some serious ramifications of turning women's bodies into canvasses in a society that has dished out 10000 years of female subjugation.

In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that it's obtuse to overlook this point by attempting to analogise the issue with regards to nude depictions of men. But I do understand your point, and agree, sexuality and the human body is definitely something that should be celebrated. It's just there's a fine line between celebrating sexuality and reinforcing sexual subjugation/commodifying human beings because of the unequal society we live in.

[Sankofa]

But you have to analyse them in this context though. I mean, yeah, in some kind of egalitarian vacuum, they're not inherently sexist, but there are some serious ramifications of turning women's bodies into canvasses in a society that has dished out 10000 years of female subjugation.

In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that it's obtuse to overlook this point by attempting to analogise the issue with regards to nude depictions of men. But I do understand your point, and agree, sexuality and the human body is definitely something that should be celebrated. It's just there's a fine line between celebrating sexuality and reinforcing sexual subjugation/commodifying human beings because of the unequal society we live in.

There's nothing I see in the picture that has sexist connotations. No one's denying that women have been, can be, and often are objectified today, but that doesn't change the fact that this photo is harmless.

Just because the women have paint on them, you're trying to say the artist was trying to convey that women are objects and not people? What are you views about women and tattoos? Do you view women with tattoos as objectifying their own kind, by using their body as a "canvas" in an artistic way?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I want to participate in this discussion but dammit, I can't see the picture. Could someone host it on Flickr or something, as I can't see images hosted on imageshack or Photobucket.

[Vanguard1917]

I had it on my wall for a whole year at uni. I don't even like Pink Floyd.


I want to participate in this discussion but dammit, I can't see the picture. Could someone host it on Flickr or something, as I can't see images hosted on imageshack or Photobucket.

link (http://mmchale.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/04/06/pink_floyd.jpg)

[apathy maybe]

The artwork painted on the models is their album covers. I've always thought this was a beautiful picture.
Thank you, I didn't know that. I haven't actually even seen a Pink Floyd cover in real life, so I didn't pick up on it.

Personally, as a woman I find it not exactly sexist per say but certainly an objectification of women.
I can see why you would say it was "objectifying", but I disagree with you. Could you explain in more depth how it objectifies the women in the picture? (Any more than any picture objectifies men or women. I just did a Google search for "naked men", looking to find some art. It turned up a lot of porn sights. Not exactly what I was looking for. "nude men art" turned up http://manstouch.com/nudephotography.html which is more what I was looking for. Is this picture http://manstouch.com/pics/ph1447.jpg (NSFW) objectifying the men involved?)

I agree with organic revolution. In a communist society, a picture like that would be acceptable however, and it is pretty cool. The problem is that we're not living in an equal society, and this image, like many others, is subtly loaded with sexism. It's not because it shows women's bodies, it's because of how it shows women's bodies. They're not celebrated in their own right along with each woman's self, but they're being used as canvasses. In a Patriarchal society using a person like a tool is usually problematic, especially if said person is lower down the rung in the hierarchy. So, perhaps the correct thing to say is not that the picture is sexist in itself, but that in our society it perpetuates sexual stereotypes- mainly, that women are property; objects; things with only extrinsic value.
Imagine a picture, similar to this one, a row of naked women with scenes painted on their backs. The scenes were painted by a women, and depicting things that were also done by women. The intended audience is women. The photographer was a women. Imagine that picture in place of the picture present in the OP.
Is it still perpetuating sexual stereotypes?

Anyway, I'm glad you accept that the picture itself is not sexist.

As to today, and a "future perfect society", I would suggest that a picture today that was sexist, would probably continue to be sexist into the future.

[bcbm]

Your moral grandstanding would carry a hell of a lot more weight if the femal members that have voted agreed with you.

Oh come on, this sort of half-assed logic is below you.


Do we view, say, Michaelangelo's David as objectifying men?

Is this picture http://manstouch.com/pics/ph1447.jpg (NSFW) objectifying the men involved?

Did I miss when society finally reached a point of equality between the sexes and eliminated patriarchy?

Either way, I am not going to bother with those examples but men can be objectified, though it typically happens in ways different than with women.

[Bilan]

It's not sexist.
The fact that its women does not imply, or necessitate misogyny, or degradation of women.
Does the fact that its predominantly white make it racist?

Arguments that this is sexist are really clutching at thin air imo.

[Bilan]

Also, what is NSFW?

[bcbm]

not safe for work

[RedSabine]

I think that there is alot of exploitation of sex that is passed off as our more suxually "liberated" society.

I personally hold that the enemy is not sexual repression (although that is still an issue), but sexualy exploitation. And that is Prostitution (imo, the most blatant and brutal frorm of exploitation, taking something sacred [or at least precious and personal] and taking that for a wage), pornography (legalized prostituion), and advertisements that appeal to my penis (at the expense of the poor woman on the billboard, poster, etc.). And the most difficult form of sexual exploitation to deal with is consensual relationships that are based on pure sex, because the man (when we are dealing with a disimpowered female population) has the upper and i these relatonships, he is then the supporter.
I think that we on the Left tend to mistake sexual promiscuity as sexual liberation, when I think that this may be the opposite.

Salaam

[bcbm]

I think that we on the Left tend to mistake sexual promiscuity as sexual liberation, when I think that this may be the opposite.


Sexual liberation is about having the ability to make free choices regarding your sexuality, not valuing one specific choice over others.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think that there is alot of exploitation of sex that is passed off as our more suxually "liberated" society.

I personally hold that the enemy is not sexual repression (although that is still an issue), but sexualy exploitation. And that is Prostitution (imo, the most blatant and brutal frorm of exploitation, taking something sacred [or at least precious and personal] and taking that for a wage),

It's the fact that prostitution is illegal and unregulated in most places that makes it more degrading and dangerous than other service professions, rather than the fact that sex is involved.


pornography (legalized prostituion),I suggest you look up the definition of prostitution before making such silly remarks.


and advertisements that appeal to my penis (at the expense of the poor woman on the billboard, poster, etc.).How is that any worse than adverts that appeal to your sense of self-worth, social acceptance, or any of the dozens of other levers advertisers use to convince you to buy their product?

Is your sex drive that high that advertisements with a sexual enticement are causing you to have financial difficulties? You should probably see your doctor about getting an anaphrodisiac prescription.


And the most difficult form of sexual exploitation to deal with is consensual relationships that are based on pure sex, because the man (when we are dealing with a disimpowered female population) has the upper and i these relatonships, he is then the supporter. Contradiction; if a relationship is truely consensual, then it can't be exploitative.


I think that we on the Left tend to mistake sexual promiscuity as sexual liberation, when I think that this may be the opposite.

SalaamPeople can be as promiscuous as they wish - that is what sexual liberation is about.

[timbaly]

I voted for the "not sexist" option even though the "is sexist" argument is very convincing as well. I tend to see the picture as non-pornographic art and its not really suggestive of female sexual submission. It also has no men in the picture and does nott show any power relations. I feel it could go either way.

[JimmyJazz]

Did I miss when society finally reached a point of equality between the sexes and eliminated patriarchy?

Right. Thanks for this.

I am kind of shocked at how many people on this site are buying into the whole "equivalency" thing--as though we can simply imagine men in the womens' place, and ignore all societal context, including a long history of female oppression by males.

It's a bit similar to the stupid conservative argument that affirmative action is actually "reverse racism", or that such a thing as reverse racism is possible. Even cookie cutter Democratic liberals can see through that crap, usually.

[Arreola]

Oh come on, this sort of half-assed logic is below you.




Did I miss when society finally reached a point of equality between the sexes and eliminated patriarchy?

Either way, I am not going to bother with those examples but men can be objectified, though it typically happens in ways different than with women.

Yes, we live in a patriarchy.
But now, let's see that we live in a matriarchy and we have the same picture.
It's still sexist?
If it was sexist in a patriarchy it should still be sexist in matriarchy right?

I wonder if you don't look at pictures of naked women because you are so scared to promote sexism.

[bcbm]

Yes, we live in a patriarchy.
But now, let's see that we live in a matriarchy and we have the same picture.
It's still sexist?
If it was sexist in a patriarchy it should still be sexist in matriarchy right?

That doesn't even make sense. Furthermore I didn't argue the picture was or was not sexist, just that the idea of saying "Well what if it was a man" is stupid.

[counterblast]

No, but it is clearly racist!!!

There is only one person of color!

[JimmyJazz]

I am actually glad to hear from you on this counterblast...want to give a more serious post, though?

[Drace]

1. Billboards are property, and by making these women into billboards, this poster is turning them into property, and property does not feel and does not have cognition.

So is any picture. What is sexist is having women be objects, not their pictures...


2. Turning women into sex objects. These women are placed in a position in which it accentuates these women's figures, creating a dominant narrative within males minds that women are only operational as objects built for their pleasure.

I didn't get such feelings from the picture and I believe it would take the most perverted out of all to do so. It is simply art.

There is nothing sexual about it.

[Revy]

No, but it is clearly racist!!!

There is only one person of color!

Is this sarcasm?

[Arreola]

That doesn't even make sense. Furthermore I didn't argue the picture was or was not sexist, just that the idea of saying "Well what if it was a man" is stupid.
Well it doesn't make sense to you because you define sexism as something against women.
Sexism is sexism, if a picture is sexist in a male controlled society it is also sexist in a female controlled society or an egalitarian society.
If it was a man is not an stupid question unless you believe sexism only applies to males, who controls who doesn't matters when defining sexism

[RedSabine]

This is for "NoXion" (I'm not etirely sure how to use the quote function properly, oh well.)

So, let me start this off by saying that we most likely have radically different beleifes about the ethics of sex. My view is that sex is at least an extraordinarily powerful emotional and psychological thing, and that it shouldn't be used for pure recreation, flippantly. To you, it may just be a biological function that can be used fully for recreation as one sees fit.



It's the fact that prostitution is illegal and unregulated in most places that makes it more degrading and dangerous than other service professions, rather than the fact that sex is involved.


Well, I think that being forced by economic conditions to sell your very body, at immense psychological/emotional damage makes it a more (or at least more blatant and crass) form of exploitation than, say, a streetsweeper. Sex is a tender and beautiful thing, something very personal, and the fact that money can exploit this beautiful tender thing, to make it a cold cruel trasaction is immensly wrong. I mean, look at the average prostitute vs. the average waitress. The prostitute will undoubtedly be more depressed and feel more used.



I suggest you look up the definition of prostitution before making such silly remarks.


A bit vitriolic, don't you think comrade? Okay, definition of prostitution: the act or practice of engaging in sexual intercourse for money.

Well, what is pornography? Enaging in sexual intercourse for money! The only difference is that you videotape it! Imagine this: If you pay someone to have sex ith you, its illegal prostitution. If you pay them to have sex with you and then videotape it, its legal pornography.

I suggest you look up the definition of prostitution before making such silly remarks. :lol:


How is that any worse than adverts that appeal to your sense of self-worth, social acceptance, or any of the dozens of other levers advertisers use to convince you to buy their product?

Well, the sexdrive is a very hard-wired thing in humans, and its very ompelling. In most cases moreso than the more subtle forms of manipulation you just described. (Though thy do exist and are compelling, just not to the ame extent..)


Is your sex drive that high that advertisements with a sexual enticement are causing you to have financial difficulties? You should probably see your doctor about getting an anaphrodisiac prescription.

No, but thanks for the concern,comrade. :rolleyes:


Contradiction; if a relationship is truely consensual, then it can't be exploitative.

Untrue! Hypothetical: There is a teenage girl who has a boyfriend. He is very mean to her, and only uses her for sex but she is emotionally unstable and has tendencies towards codependancy, and so she wont break up with him. He has sex with her, and although she concents (meaning that it's not rape) she IS being used, expoited.


People can be as promiscuous as they wish - that is what sexual liberation is about.


I think that sexual liberation is the liberation from being exploited in sex or by sex

[counterblast]

I voted no, mostly because there was no "in between" answer.

Obviously this picture could be construed as sexist... it depicts six women all of sizes (thin), figures (hourglass), complexions (smooth skinned, shaven), and hairstyles (long, groomed hair) that fit Western "beauty" stereotypes.

And whoever it was that brought up the Guerilla Girls' statistic about women being vastly disporportionate subjects when it comes to (nude or sexualized) art, made an excellent point.

HOWEVER; I think those are problems that raise issue with Western society at large, not with the intent of this particular photograph or the author of this photograph. As I see it, a major aspect of art is that it is predominantly interpretive, and therefore it cannot assume a solid role.

Anyone might be inspired to commit a murder by looking at the Mona Lisa, but to direct your anger at the Mona Lisa -- even assuming Leonardo DaVinci's intention in creating it was to inspire murder-- instead of directing it to those who carry out murder, is silly.

I actually accused the portrait of racism, because when I read this, I was immediately reminded of an incident two years ago, when someone objected to "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" being featured as "Book of the Month" at the library where I work because they claimed it could be interpreted racistly.


And on a side note;
Commie_god; your anti-sex worker rhetoric is a perfect example of why Islam can never be radicalized or used as a tool to fight the oppression of women.



Is this sarcasm?

Yes.

[RedSabine]

And on a side note;
Commie_god; your anti-sex worker rhetoric is a perfect example of why Islam can never be radicalized or used as a tool to fight the oppression of women.



Wait, waht? why is that? I'm open, but somewhat confused.:(

[counterblast]

Well it doesn't make sense to you because you define sexism as something against women.
Sexism is sexism, if a picture is sexist in a male controlled society it is also sexist in a female controlled society or an egalitarian society.
If it was a man is not an stupid question unless you believe sexism only applies to males, who controls who doesn't matters when defining sexism

That question doesn't make sense, though. Because in order to be answered accurately, sexism would have to affect men and women in the exact same ways. (And of course it doesn't... that, after all, is the whole basis of the gender binary system...)

[JimmyJazz]

Thanks for the longer reply cb.


HOWEVER; I think those are problems that raise issue with Western society at large, not with the intent of this particular photograph or the author of this photograph.

This is a false dichotomy. The picture is a part of Western culture, and conversely, Western culture is merely the sum of its parts. Anything that speaks to stereotypes, but doesn't consciously challenge them, entrenches them further. (I guess it's theoretically possible to do neither, but extremely difficult).

I certainly never meant that this picture is especially sexist, just that it might go comfortably with the flow in a sexist culture.

[counterblast]

Anything that speaks to stereotypes, but doesn't consciously challenge them, probably entrenches them further.

I guess this is where I would disagree. I believe art speaks different languages than the author/painter/sculptor/composer necessarily intends. Art truly has a life of its own, beyond literal interpretation.

While this photo may perpetuate sexist fantasies among some, it clearly brings others into a discourse about sexism and sexuality. Whether the latter was intended by the photographer or not (and I am assuming it probably wasn't), it is inevitably doing so; and I, for one, think this is a good thing.

[counterblast]

Wait, waht? why is that? I'm open, but somewhat confused.:(

Well first, many women make a conscious choice to do sex work, not out of desparation, but because they enjoy it. Portraying these women merely as victims of male immorality is extremely patronizing.

Also, I found that you blamed a billboard for your sexual arousal from acts you deemed "legalized prostitution", void of any accountability. It reminded me of the excuses rapists often use in court to attempt to excuse themselves of blame, such as; "Her dress was too revealing, I couldn't help myself".

This sort of rationale is something that is all too familiar in the Muslim community.

[RedSabine]

Well first, many women make a conscious choice to do sex work, not out of desparation, but because they enjoy it. Portraying these women merely as victims of male immorality is extremely patronizing.

Also, I found that you blamed a billboard for your sexual arousal from acts you deemed "legalized prostitution", void of any accountability. It reminded me of the excuses rapists often use in court to attempt to excuse themselves of blame, such as; "Her dress was too revealing, I couldn't help myself".

This sort of rationale is something that is all too familiar in the Muslim community.

1. women choosing to do sex work: Okay, I'm sure it happens, but if you go down to skid row and talk to girls there, most of them are doing it to feed addictions, pay their parents who force them to do it, or are just compelled due to poverty. I mean, I know that prostitutes "make the choice", but that choice is loaded. I mean, she could flip burgers or something, but being a woman she has the marketable skill of sex, and so that is very compelling. It's not necessary, just compelling.
By no means was I trying to amke a blanket statement. Sorry.

And it's not that they are victims of male immorality (although that is where the whole market comes in) but of a system that does not care in the slightest about what is good for people or society, but what is good for the wallet.

2. The whole billboard thing was semi-hypothetical, and the legalized prostitution was pornography. Those were different points. But, really, what accountability do I have in being aroused? None. But I have absolute accountability in what I do with that arousal. That's where personal ethics comes in.

[Severi]

I don't think it's sexist, but I do think its taking the advertising to the maximum by making human bodies living advertisements. Nothing wrong with that though.

[Wanted Man]

I don't think it's inherently sexist. I also don't think it's inherently wrong to use a body as an artwork, even when it purely shows them physically, without showing their personality, i.e. "objectifying" them. A personality is not some kind of religious conception like having a "soul" or something, it's just there because it's in our bodies. So it would be very idealistic and dangerously conservative to suggest that artistic depictions of people are "bad" if they "only show bodies", you'd be opening a very big can of worms there.

However, I also don't agree with the "equivalence" argument which says: "Men are equal to women, so it's never sexist to depict women like this." Because in this society, things are not balanced that way, sexism does exist. But that doesn't automatically make any depiction like this sexist. It would be sexist if one could prove that the image is somehow sexually degrading, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence of this.

[Junius]

Originally posted by Wanted Man
However, I also don't agree with the "equivalence" argument which says: "Men are equal to women, so it's never sexist to depict women like this." Because in this society, things are not balanced that way, sexism does exist.

I'm not sure if this was directed at me, but this was not the point I was making.

The point I was making was one an attack on the extrapolation used by leftists and others, the perceived idea that something that offends one woman must inherently offend all others. In this case it was the idea that hanging a picture of a naked woman on your wall must somehow offend other women or denigrate them in some way. Yet, men are actually viewed as individuals - so when someone does hang a picture of a naked man on their wall, it is not men whom are denigrated but, presumably, only the individual man. Sexism does exist and you would be a fool to argue that just because we are equal in rights (sometimes) that we are therefore equal in reality. The point is not to ignore social conditions; but to recognize that this extrapolation is also something formed from social conditions; denying the individuality of women and lumping us all into some homogeneous class.

[DesertShark]

Thought it would be interesting if everyone knew the albums. The albums are, from left to right: Atom Heart Mother, Relics, The Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here, The Wall, and Animals. This is just a small portion of their albums and deal with some cool things. For example, Animals is based on the book Animal Farm by George Orwell and attacks capitalism (you all should like that). Most of the albums depicted in the photo were concept albums and have philosophical lyrics.

Plus, they're British, so that might give a different spin to things.


No, but it is clearly racist!!!

There is only one person of color!
Glad to find out you were completely serious with this. But I think it's interesting that you claim one person of color. I don't think we know for sure at all the color of the person covered in black paint.


Obviously this picture could be construed as sexist... it depicts six women all of sizes (thin), figures (hourglass), complexions (smooth skinned, shaven), and hairstyles (long, groomed hair) that fit Western "beauty" stereotypes.
Agreed that they used thin women. I don't think all of them have hourglass figures and I think that's harder to tell from the back then the front. They need to have smooth skin because they're displaying artwork, but your claim that they are shaven is a bit much. We have no idea that they are or are not shaven on any part of their body. The hairstyles are meant to fit the album as an extension of the album cover, not all are long and I'm confused by the word groomed. Their hair is styled, but like I said it's meant to be an extension of the album cover. Going from right to left the hair represents (roughly, I'm sure someone else has a better description): smoke/smog/pollution, uniformity, fire, the unknown, high society, and something plain.


And whoever it was that brought up the Guerilla Girls' statistic about women being vastly disporportionate subjects when it comes to (nude or sexualized) art, made an excellent point.
The point wasn't just that they were disproportionate in the nudes aspect; it was pointing out that the museum rarely features artwork by women, but has no problems with displaying artwork featuring naked women. I think they were trying to get more women artists featured in the museum.


I actually accused the portrait of racism, because when I read this, I was immediately reminded of an incident two years ago, when someone objected to "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" being featured as "Book of the Month" at the library where I work because they claimed it could be interpreted racistly.I've never read The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, that's interesting. I know Mark Twain's book Adventures of Huckleberry Finn deals with racism (among other deeply rooted attitudes of the time, but he denounces and cuts all of them down) and has faced some backlash because it uses the n-word a lot and can be perceived to use racial stereotypes.

-DesertShark

[JimmyJazz]

I'm not sure if this was directed at me, but this was not the point I was making.

The point I was making was one an attack on the extrapolation used by leftists and others, the perceived idea that something that offends one woman must inherently offend all others. In this case it was the idea that hanging a picture of a naked woman on your wall must somehow offend other women or denigrate them in some way. Yet, men are actually viewed as individuals - so when someone does hang a picture of a naked man on their wall, it is not men whom are denigrated but, presumably, only the individual man. Sexism does exist and you would be a fool to argue that just because we are equal in rights (sometimes) that we are therefore equal in reality. The point is not to ignore social conditions; but to recognize that this extrapolation is also something formed from social conditions; denying the individuality of women and lumping us all into some homogeneous class.

Right, so using the word "n*gger" against one African-American is OK, in fact, to object to it would be to lump all African-Americans in "some homogeneous class"? This is just silly.

Women perhaps are seen as less individual than men. But this stereotype has nothing to do with my question about this picture, and it's pretty ridiculous for you to say so.

If some work of art or some statement tries to portray, even subtly, all women as having a certain predetermined role (such as sex object, or housekeeper, or whatever), then only an idiotic woman would not object to it. In fact, to object to such stereotyping would be a direct expression of her individuality.

Seriously, you're arguing in circles.

[Junius]

Right, so using the word "n*gger" against one African-American is OK, in fact, to object to it would be to lump all African-Americans in "some homogeneous class"? This is just silly.

Uh no; what matters is if it actually attacks African-Americans or women as a whole.

Someone above made the point about prostitution; that it denigrates women as a whole.

Well...no. That seeks to lump women into one basket and ignore (prominent) exceptions.

By referring to someone as a 'nigger' you are by definition making a racist attack on all African-Americans. Conversely, someone referring to a woman as a ***** doesn't necessarily mean that it is making a statement on all women!


Women perhaps are seen as less individual than men. But this stereotype has nothing to do with my question about this picture, and it's pretty ridiculous for you to say so.

Eh, I didn't attribute anything to you.


If some work of art or some statement tries to portray, even subtly, all women as having a certain predetermined role (such as sex object, or housekeeper, or whatever),

So tell me how one woman in a pornography film denigrates all others...:confused:

1. They are displayed as a sex object.

2. They are a woman.

3. Therefore it is endorsing that all women are sex objects.

But why does something that someone does, of their will, include me?! Is it the fact that we share a bodily organ?


then only an idiotic woman would not object to it.

Well thanks. :rolleyes:


Seriously, you're arguing in circles.

I think it is a delicate line to tread between identifying something which is actually sexist and attacks women as a whole, and seeing some individual act as sexist. It is a distinction, but an important one.

[black magick hustla]

the idea that this is sexist because it "objectifies woman" is abysmally dumb because it starts of from the idea that sexualizing an individual is inherently demeaning. it is a very conservative attitude stemming from "sex is bad" from jesusfreaks.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This is for "NoXion" (I'm not etirely sure how to use the quote function properly, oh well.)

So, let me start this off by saying that we most likely have radically different beleifes about the ethics of sex. My view is that sex is at least an extraordinarily powerful emotional and psychological thing, and that it shouldn't be used for pure recreation, flippantly.

Why not?


Well, I think that being forced by economic conditions to sell your very body, at immense psychological/emotional damage makes it a more (or at least more blatant and crass) form of exploitation than, say, a streetsweeper. Sex is a tender and beautiful thing, something very personal, and the fact that money can exploit this beautiful tender thing, to make it a cold cruel trasaction is immensly wrong. I mean, look at the average prostitute vs. the average waitress. The prostitute will undoubtedly be more depressed and feel more used.You're dodging the issue. Regardless of the motivations for becoming a prostitute, exploitation is a major issue in an unregulated market, since in most places prostitution is illegal or semi-legal. If any other in-demand service had such a murky legal status, then you would see much more exploitation in comparison to legal services.

Of course, this is ignoring the fact that some prostitutes are self-employed. This means they chose to become prostitutes rather than simply getting a McJob with shitty pay. There are other economic factors aside from desperation that make women become prostitutes.

In short, it's nothing to do with sex and everything to do with an unregulated market.


A bit vitriolic, don't you think comrade? Okay, definition of prostitution: the act or practice of engaging in sexual intercourse for money.

Well, what is pornography? Enaging in sexual intercourse for money! The only difference is that you videotape it! Imagine this: If you pay someone to have sex ith you, its illegal prostitution. If you pay them to have sex with you and then videotape it, its legal pornography.No. Porn actors are paid to have sex with each other in order to produce a product, pronography.

Prostitutes provide a service to the general public.

Moreover, there's a wealth of free porn out there. I have nearly ten gigabytes of it on my computer, and I didn't pay a penny for any of it. On the other hand, "free prostitution" is a contradiction in terms.

That is why saying that pornography is "legalised prostitution" is ridiculous. Because pornography and prostitution are different things.


I suggest you look up the definition of prostitution before making such silly remarks. :lol:Says the person who can't tell the difference between a product and a service.


Well, the sexdrive is a very hard-wired thing in humans, and its very ompelling. In most cases moreso than the more subtle forms of manipulation you just described. (Though thy do exist and are compelling, just not to the ame extent..)Got any evidence for this assertion that sexual pressures are stronger then social pressures? Remember that humans are social animals.


Untrue! Hypothetical: There is a teenage girl who has a boyfriend. He is very mean to her, and only uses her for sex but she is emotionally unstable and has tendencies towards codependancy, and so she wont break up with him. He has sex with her, and although she concents (meaning that it's not rape) she IS being used, expoited.Thanks for the concession. She's "consenting" only in the sense that a child can "consent". Meaning that she isn't really consenting at all, because her mental and emotional problems are clouding her judgement.


I think that sexual liberation is the liberation from being exploited in sex or by sexOverly moralistic. People are exploited in lots of ways, sexual exploitation is just one way. I'm against exploitation in general, without focusing on sexual exploitation over any other because, quite frankly, to focus on one kind of exploitation is missing the point.

[bcbm]

Well it doesn't make sense to you because you define sexism as something against women.

Actually, I don't but hey keep making assumptions that make you look like an overbearing ass, its funny.


Sexism is sexism, if a picture is sexist in a male controlled society it is also sexist in a female controlled society or an egalitarian society.

Sexism is not some platonic ideal form, it is socialized and manifests itself in different ways based on the society it occurs within. In societies where gender hierarchy is radically different, sexism will obviously present itself in different ways.


If it was a man is not an stupid question unless you believe sexism only applies to males, who controls who doesn't matters when defining sexism

I don't even know what the fuck you're trying to say here, but I've already stated it is possible for men to be objectified as well but that it occurs in different ways than with women typically and the male form has not been treated as the female form historically.


the idea that this is sexist because it "objectifies woman" is abysmally dumb because it starts of from the idea that sexualizing an individual is inherently demeaning. it is a very conservative attitude stemming from "sex is bad" from jesusfreaks.

From jesusfreaks? Learn about some feminist history, fuck. Jean Kilbourne has done a lot of work critiquing the portrayal of women in advertising and I would hardly call her an anti-sex jesusfreak.

[black magick hustla]

:shrugs:, I think it depends on the advertisement. I dont think this particular example is sexist or demeaning, or "sexual objectification" is demeaning in itself.

[bcbm]

I agree, just pointing out that a lot of serious feminists have weighed in on the topic as well.

[Plagueround]

An except from "Mind over Matter: The Images of Pink Floyd" which gives the history of the poster according to Storm Thorgerson, the artist who designed the covers and collaborator on the picture's concept:

Come '96 and the UK record company wanted to publicise and promote the Floyd back catalogue en masse by means of television advertising. We wrote five alternative scripts for this promotion, one of which consisted of no music at all, and no English dialogue. It was called The Art Gallery and showed foreign art lovers commenting on Floyd covers, just like you see in this book, but hung instead like paintings in a gallery. The dialogue was incomprehensible, unless you were fluent in Icelandic, Japanese, Hindi and Italian. More given to slagging off record companies than complimenting them, I must point out how adventurous EMI were to run with this obscure idea.

A second script involved a slow side track across a group of naked boys and girls sitting chatting on the edge of a swimming pool. Upon their backs were painted facsimile copies of selected Floyd covers from the catalogue, the "back" catalogue (now that's what I call humour!). The designs were not projected nor computer manipulated, but were directly painted so as to follow body curves and reflect the lighting, as if really there - which they were, courtesy of the brilliant Phyllis Cohen. Body painting has a long tradition from Aborigines to Red Indians, and has its own fetish-like surreal properties. Tony Harlow at the record company preferred this idea and suggested its use as a poster. But why containing only women? Not Tony's decision, but mine. That old misogyny appearing again? Men and women were in the rough drawings (page 158), but I felt that this was wrong. The backs represented album covers and should therefore be the same generically. All men or all women. After much deliberation I chose women. Their shape is more elegant and more sensitive, I feel, but is this the whole story?

Finlay Cowan, designer and "gate" keeper, executed the storyboards for Art Gallery and other scripts for the Back Catalogue commercial. He was largely responsible for this particular idea. Tony May enhanced the design with some very good "pre-Raphaelite" location lighting, and the women were just wonderful to work with, creating a very charming, friendly, and gentle atmosphere.

[Rascolnikova]

I think this is beautiful.

Some things about it do objectify women. This becomes sexist when situated in a discourse where the message of objectification holds too large a proportion against messages of subjectivity or humanity.

So, it depends on who is going to be looking at it, and what the general discourses they are exposed to look like.

[counterblast]

Glad to find out you were completely serious with this. But I think it's interesting that you claim one person of color. I don't think we know for sure at all the color of the person covered in black paint.

Oh I definately agree. We don't really know whether any of them are people of color (or perhaps even all of them are P.O.C.). The statement I made wasn't intended to be remotely accurate as to the races of the women depicted; I was just trying to point out the absurdity in assuming any depiction of nude women is sexist.



They need to have smooth skin because they're displaying artwork

Most of your points have some merit, but I'm not sure if I agree with this one at all. Says who?



The point wasn't just that they were disproportionate in the nudes aspect; it was pointing out that the museum rarely features artwork by women, but has no problems with displaying artwork featuring naked women. I think they were trying to get more women artists featured in the museum.

From my understanding, the quote was meant to imply the two circumstances are mutually linked (at least this would seem to be the general theme in their book *****es, Bimbos, & Bombshells*). I think it is a challenge to the traditional western notion that all (or most) great artists are male and that the female body is somehow more attractive or better suited for modelling.

*A great example of this is when they critique several famous movies which portray male nudity and compare the occurance of full-frontal male nudity with full-frontal female nudity. They compare the cost of production, average actor/actress income per movie, and total gross profit of the movie. They pointed out that the only time male nudity was acceptable, at least by box office standards, was when it depicted men in a locker room. becoming "one with nature", or a similar setting. Besides one Richard Gere movie, no movie that they could find no major motion picture that was profitable when male nudity was sexualized. (This was then compared with thousands of profitable movies featuring sexualized nude women)

[JimmyJazz]

LeftCommunist:

First of all, not sure why you say "well thanks :rolleyes:" to me saying that all intelligent women would object to stereotypes. Are you telling me that you don't object to stereotypes about women?? I certainly would have assumed that you do.

Second of all, it was a figure of speech, naturally. In America in the 1950's, before women started seriously talking to each other about their prescribed roles in society and the objections they shared to these prescribed roles, many women were probably oblivious to the fact that they even were constrained at all. I'm not actually saying, therefore, that all women in the 50's were idiots.

However, I am saying that someone who is aware of stereotypes about a group to which they belong, and yet doesn't object to these stereotypes, is quite strange and perhaps not too intelligent or independent. But does that really describe you? Are you aware of stereotypes that you do not object to? I doubt it!

OK, that was all dealing with the "well thanks :rolleyes:" thing where you seemed to take what I said personally (through misunderstanding it). Now onto another issue:

You realize I'm not arguing that the picture is sexist, right? I already ordered the fucking thing online for my apartment. I'm only arguing that if a picture, any picture, portrays narrow stereotypes for some group, then it is objectionable--especially to members of that group, but hopefully to all progressive-minded people. Stereotypes are bad. So are prescribed roles.

I can see some ways that the picture in the OP might be seen as perpetuating stereotypes/prescribed roles about women. But I'm certainly not going to waste my time arguing that it actually does, when 5/6 female voters have said it doesn't bother them. The only point I'm standing by is one about stereotypes/prescribed roles in general, namely that they suck. With post #67, you seemed to be implying that they aren't so bad after all!

[gorillafuck]

I don't see this as sexist, I see it as beautiful.

[Drace]

definition of prostitution: the act or practice of engaging in sexual intercourse for money.

Well, what is pornography? Enaging in sexual intercourse for money! The only difference is that you videotape it! Imagine this: If you pay someone to have sex ith you, its illegal prostitution. If you pay them to have sex with you and then videotape it, its legal pornography.

Wow I just thought of that. So all the law does it screw over whores who cant afford to get into pornography.

[Operator]

It's art. It's clearly portraying the beauty of the female form, not sexist at all in my opinion.

[Dean]

Wow I just thought of that. So all the law does it screw over whores who cant afford to get into pornography.

I hope "whore" wasn't pejorative...?

[Alla-mar-i-can]

And who's to say that these women don't want that kind of attention? I think women, just as men, who pose in pictures and have the purpose to distribute the photos would want people to put them in their room.. If its ok with them why not? Its idolizes them in one sense, but only for their bodies or their attractiveness...doesn't necessarily mean that now your gonna to treat women like shit...

I think people who can't look at pictures of the body may have some low self-esteem but thats just me. :crying:




THIS IS A COP OUT FOR MEN. THIS WHOLE STATEMENT IS BULLSHIT. It's totally objectifing and that's like saying watching rape porn doesn't affect men on a daily basis and how they treat woman.

[Alla-mar-i-can]

of course all the goddamn men would say it's not sexist.

[#FF0000]

THIS IS A COP OUT FOR MEN. THIS WHOLE STATEMENT IS BULLSHIT. It's totally objectifing and that's like saying watching rape porn doesn't affect men on a daily basis and how they treat woman.

Rape porn depicts violence against women.

This picture doesn't.

[Rascolnikova]

I don't see this as sexist, I see it as beautiful.

those are not exclusive, in a visual sense.

[Junius]

Originally posted by Rorschach
Rape porn depicts fictional violence against women.

Fixed.

[black magick hustla]

of course all the goddamn men would say it's not sexist.


I am sorry, but you are a fucking idiot. Most women here said it was not sexist. Someone give me a verbal warning for that. In fact Ill give it myself.

[Rascolnikova]

Rape porn depicts violence against women.

This picture doesn't.

So this picture isn't going to have the same influence as rape porn, but that doesn't mean it's not going to have any influence. I think it's worth examining what sort of influence it would have.


A work I highly, highly, highly recommend on this subject is the media critique/documentary Dreamworlds 3.

http://www.mediaed.org/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=223

It's hard to get a hold of because basically all the footage is mainstream music videos, and as such it's only legally reproduced (because it's a cultural critique) for educational purposes; costs hundreds of dollars to buy a copy, and technically you have to be a school or a nonprofit to do so. It's also a little hard to find bootleg because, besides not being mainstream content it's self, it makes an extremely damning case against MTV and they don't want it laying around.

It makes the case that images which don't depict violence against women can contribute to a mindset where such violence is normalized, and that this happens through their denial, which is clear when they are taken contextually, of women's subjectivity.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It makes the case that images which don't depict violence against women can contribute to a mindset where such violence is normalized, and that this happens through their denial, which is clear when they are taken contextually, of women's subjectivity.

Yeah, and violent computer games are turning kids into stone-cold murderers. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, but the whole "media affects behaviour" claim is bullshit when it comes from right-wingers, and is just as bullshit when it comes from the left.

Why? Because media are far from the only sources of expected social behaviour (and even media are not uniformly misogynist). Social mores & etiquette, upbringing, hell even laws & regulations have a greater influence on human behaviour.

Of course, you get the occasional moron who thinks women do/should behave as they do in music videos, but most women sensibly avoid such cretinous assholes.

[jake williams]

Yeah, and violent computer games are turning kids into stone-cold murderers. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, but the whole "media affects behaviour" claim is bullshit when it comes from right-wingers, and is just as bullshit when it comes from the left.

Why? Because media are far from the only sources of expected social behaviour (and even media are not uniformly misogynist). Social mores & etiquette, upbringing, hell even laws & regulations have a greater influence on human behaviour.

Of course, you get the occasional moron who thinks women do/should behave as they do in music videos, but most women sensibly avoid such cretinous assholes.
You're only right in a very narrow sense. Media and representations of sex and gender within it are part of a culture which essentially causes rape, but media is inseparable from culture. You're technically correct, but I get the impression you reject the notion that images and representations reinforce beliefs etc. that lead to violence.


ed: Just for the record though, I don't think the "image" in question is itself "sexist". It's part of a creative expression by a group of males, they're heterosexual males and their sexuality contributes to the content of their creative expression. You can talk about that sexuality being shaped by a patriarchal society, or the fact that the creative expression of men is allowed to dominate that of women, but the image in itself is not sexist - except insofar as sexuality itself is "sexist", except insofar as my choice of female partners over male partners is sexist, except insofar as my having gendered ideals or fantasies with respect to sexuality is sexist, etc.

[Jazzratt]

of course all the goddamn men would say it's not sexist.

Yeah, that's why the most vociferous arguments for the picture being sexist are being made by men. I'm not sure you've thought this one through.

EDIT:

Thinking about the link with porn you made I started looking at all the criticisms (and some defenses) of the picture and came to an interesting conclusion: a lot of people seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that this picture (and, perhaps any nude picture of a woman, was made for sexual stimulation. This is fucking bizarre. It may be aesthetically pleasing but I'm struggling to see it as sexual, perhaps this is because I'm not a maladjusted weirdo and can seperate simple, comfortable, nudity with sex or possibly it's because I am strange and everyone else has noticed something sexual in this picture.

Perhaps if the album designs were stitched into a niqab this picture wouldn't be sexist.

[Module]

You're only right in a very narrow sense. Media and representations of sex and gender within it are part of a culture which essentially causes rape, but media is inseparable from culture. You're technically correct, but I get the impression you reject the notion that images and representations reinforce beliefs etc. that lead to violence.


ed: Just for the record though, I don't think the "image" in question is itself "sexist". It's part of a creative expression by a group of males, they're heterosexual males and their sexuality contributes to the content of their creative expression. You can talk about that sexuality being shaped by a patriarchal society, or the fact that the creative expression of men is allowed to dominate that of women, but the image in itself is not sexist
I agree with all this.

There is nothing sexist about the image, just because it has women in it.

Rape porn is a different discussion entirely, but whilst I don't think that rape porn is in itself sexist, or wrong, it is just another part of a sexist culture in which the rape, and general sexual domination, of women is seen as acceptable, and to a great extent a normal part of male sexuality.
But again, a different subject.
If anybody is interested, there was a thread dealing with this a while ago;
Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/should-violent-pornography-t74734/index.html?t=74734).


Thinking about the link with porn you made I started looking at all the criticisms (and some defenses) of the picture and came to an interesting conclusion: a lot of people seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that this picture (and, perhaps any nude picture of a woman, was made for sexual stimulation. This is fucking bizarre. It may be aesthetically pleasing but I'm struggling to see it as sexual, perhaps this is because I'm not a maladjusted weirdo and can seperate simple, comfortable, nudity with sex or possibly it's because I am strange and everyone else has noticed something sexual in this picture.
Yeah, this!! I don't think it's sexual, it's just 'beautiful'. I don't think it's supposed to look sexual at all.

[apathy maybe]

@ Jazzratt.

Yes, I don't see what is sexual about it either. However, I have to disagree that you aren't "a maladjusted weirdo", you are :p.


For all the people who think it is "sexual" please explain?

[numbernine]

Yeah, this!! I don't think it's sexual, it's just 'beautiful'. I don't think it's supposed to look sexual at all.

QFT.

I would also like to add that I agree with the person who stated something about women reclaiming their sexuality from the corporate world. it feels like that some feminists (of which I would count myself as one) would go back to the head coverings and ankle length dress days. why wouldn't we use sexuality as a "weapon" of sorts. Sexuality is something that we're not supposed to be comfortable with. it's something that makes the quasi-puritanical masses wildly uncomfortable and disgusted.
Hustler = bad for a zillion reasons.
this picture = fine if you ignore the capitalistic nature of the reason for it existing.

[Rascolnikova]

Yeah, and violent computer games are turning kids into stone-cold murderers. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, but the whole "media affects behaviour" claim is bullshit when it comes from right-wingers, and is just as bullshit when it comes from the left.

Why? Because media are far from the only sources of expected social behaviour (and even media are not uniformly misogynist). Social mores & etiquette, upbringing, hell even laws & regulations have a greater influence on human behaviour.

Of course, you get the occasional moron who thinks women do/should behave as they do in music videos, but most women sensibly avoid such cretinous assholes.

1) Believe it or not, the work I referenced made a more substantive point than I could do justice to in one line. I was very dubious of this position myself till I encountered more substantive analysis. This particular substantive analysis resonated deeply with what I have encountered in real life.

2) I believe I was very clear in my initial post on this thread that I do not believe such images are implicitly sexist--whether they are sexist or not depends on their position within a wider discourse. Leaving aside the question of whether discourse can be sexist by on it's own, if you don't believe it influences behavior I don't understand why you would ever speak or write.

3) Probably the most compelling part of this critique is the section where footage of women being publicly assaulted in real life is interspersed with footage from music videos. The similarity, other than consent, is incredibly striking.

[TC]

No, its not sexist, its beautiful actually (and I say this as a straight woman who doesn't typically appreciate seeing pictures of naked women who are better looking than I am on guy's dorm room walls, or i guess, anywhere).

No *image* is inherently sexist however *displaying* images that can be reasonably sure to provoke feelings of sexual humiliation in one sex and not the other, in some contexts has the potential to repress people socially along gendered lines, and inconsideration for this *is* sexist. Looking at pictures of a stripper on your computer isn't sexist, holding a meeting in a strip joint is sexist.

[TC]

what's so sexist about women being free together?

This is sexist:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/A_fair_Puritan.jpg
No its not. Just as depicting a group of attractive nude women creates no expectation that women in general conform to those standards (it just doesn't, the analysis on that is so crap) simply depicting a puritan woman dressed in an absurdly conservative fashion doesn't entail any general statement about how women should dress or comport themselves. If it said "An ideal model woman" or "a socially acceptable woman" in its title that would be sexist as it would make an overt and sexist value judgment but the title is 'A Fair Puritan.'

[TC]

Rape porn depicts violence against women.

This picture doesn't.

Actually rape porn depicts violence against a specific woman, not against women in general or all women.

Why should i feel more scandalized by violence against someone who happens to look more like me, than by violence against someone who happens to look less like me? I'm female, but I'm also white (semi) educated and carry an American passport; if its rational for me to take it as a personal attack when actors depict simulated violence against *other individual* women to a greater degree then with men, why not against other whites, other college graduates or other americans?

I'm sorry but its analytically the same and the position is gender chauvinist.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You're only right in a very narrow sense. Media and representations of sex and gender within it are part of a culture which essentially causes rape, but media is inseparable from culture. You're technically correct, but I get the impression you reject the notion that images and representations reinforce beliefs etc. that lead to violence.

Because it's an unproven hypothesis. Sexist individuals may be receptive to sexist media, and the naive may be influenced by such media, but no mechanism is given for media viewing to override personal experience.

Women in the West are increasingly realising they don't have to associate with sexist assholes, and rightly so.


1) Believe it or not, the work I referenced made a more substantive point than I could do justice to in one line. I was very dubious of this position myself till I encountered more substantive analysis. This particular substantive analysis resonated deeply with what I have encountered in real life.

Well, I read the transcript, not sure if it does the program any justice. I could definately see how some pop music videos (especially Rap and Hip-Hop, ugh!) could be construed as objectifying women, or otherwise depicting them as having little agency other than to please men. That doesn't surprise me - after all, the directors, producers and musicians involved tend overwhelmingly to be heterosexual men, creating works aimed at young hetero males.

But that's the point. Obviously, enough young hetero males have a sufficiently warped perception of women's sexual agency for this sort of thing to be profitable. Even I have had idle fantasies about women, before I matured some more and fully embraced my bisexuality, that I would be fucking embarassed to admit to now.

This is because in my interactions with real women, I learnt that women are their own agents in matters of sexuality and relationships, rather than the pathetic doormats they can be depicted as in the media. Thankfully I didn't have to learn the hard way.


2) I believe I was very clear in my initial post on this thread that I do not believe such images are implicitly sexist--whether they are sexist or not depends on their position within a wider discourse. Leaving aside the question of whether discourse can be sexist by on it's own, if you don't believe it influences behavior I don't understand why you would ever speak or write.Because I can differentiate between fantasy and reality? However much I may daydream about it, nubile women and cute young guys aren't going to paradrop out of the sky wearing revealing uniforms and inform me they're a little randy, "sir".

I'm sure I'm far from the only one who realises this.


3) Probably the most compelling part of this critique is the section where footage of women being publicly assaulted in real life is interspersed with footage from music videos. The similarity, other than consent, is incredibly striking.Does sexist media create sexist assholes, or are sexist assholes attracted to/create sexist media? It's not enough to notice a similarity, a causative relation has to be established before jumping to conlusions.

[Rascolnikova]

Actually rape porn depicts violence against a specific woman, not against women in general or all women.

Why should i feel more scandalized by violence against someone who happens to look more like me, than by violence against someone who happens to look less like me? I'm female, but I'm also white (semi) educated and carry an American passport; if its rational for me to take it as a personal attack when actors depict simulated violence against *other individual* women to a greater degree then with men, why not against other whites, other college graduates or other americans?

I'm sorry but its analytically the same and the position is gender chauvinist.

To say that it may contribute to an environment where such actions are accepted when they should not be is not to say that it is a personal attack.



Because it's an unproven hypothesis. Sexist individuals may be receptive to sexist media, and the naive may be influenced by such media, but no mechanism is given for media viewing to override personal experience.

Women in the West are increasingly realising they don't have to associate with sexist assholes, and rightly so.


Well, I read the transcript, not sure if it does the program any justice. I could definately see how some pop music videos (especially Rap and Hip-Hop, ugh!) could be construed as objectifying women, or otherwise depicting them as having little agency other than to please men. That doesn't surprise me - after all, the directors, producers and musicians involved tend overwhelmingly to be heterosexual men, creating works aimed at young hetero males.

But that's the point. Obviously, enough young hetero males have a sufficiently warped perception of women's sexual agency for this sort of thing to be profitable. Even I have had idle fantasies about women, before I matured some more and fully embraced my bisexuality, that I would be fucking embarassed to admit to now.

Perhaps if they were being marketed primarily at young hetro males, I could agree with you--they aren't. Extremely sexualized, extremely objectified concepts of identity are marketed at females on massive scale, starting at a sickeningly young age. What makes you think that the music videos referenced are only pointed at males?

Remember, happy people don't need to buy so much crap.

In a way, that's the most frightening part of it all. There are actually three editions of Dreamworlds, progressing from--I think 1989 is the first one? The imagery really is very powerful. It's not saying that women behave like characters in music videos--it's saying the music videos contribute to a general agreement that it's both normal and cool for each gender to behave in the specified way.

In the early versions of dreamworlds, the women who say no don't really mean it. In the most recent one, they never say no. I honestly believe this reflects a shift in the wider discourse--explicitly justifying rape is no longer accepted, but the feminine identity presented as ideal simply never rejects anyone--or if they do, the individual rejected is a gross and intendedly humorous parody of physical unattractiveness, social ineptitude, or poverty.

I'm not saying people take their identity directly from music videos. I am saying that which ideas have greatest voice in the public sphere have a substantial impact on lots of people. Teenagers who don't really receive parenting, for example, often are far too heavily influenced by the sorts of ideas purveyed by MTV--but I think this can be generalized much more. Advertising wouldn't be a multi-billion dollar industry if it didn't work.



This is because in my interactions with real women, I learnt that women are their own agents in matters of sexuality and relationships, rather than the pathetic doormats they can be depicted as in the media. Thankfully I didn't have to learn the hard way.I am a real woman, and I had to learn the hard way. As human beings we are susceptible to the social environment surrounding, even the best of us.



Because I can differentiate between fantasy and reality? However much I may daydream about it, nubile women and cute young guys aren't going to paradrop out of the sky wearing revealing uniforms and inform me they're a little randy, "sir".

I'm sure I'm far from the only one who realises this.kindly refrain from straw man attacks, please.



Does sexist media create sexist assholes, or are sexist assholes attracted to/create sexist media? It's not enough to notice a similarity, a causative relation has to be established before jumping to conlusions.If not discourse, what does create sexist assholes?


Thank you, by the way, for bothering to go have a look at the transcript. That was awesome of you. :)

[Bilan]

of course all the goddamn men would say it's not sexist.

Not everyone who thinks its not sexist is a man. Easy to generalize and accuse, instead of proving an argument.

[TheCagedLion]

I'm a male, and no, I don't think it's sexist

[Revolution 9]

Well, it depends on your definition of sexism. I don't think the picture somehow states that women are inferior, but there is an element of sexuality in it, which some could view as sexist.

[scarletghoul]

Yes, all men are sexist, hahaha.

Really I dont see what is sexist about this. Its pretty cool though.

[alpharowe3]

I find it very hard to turn art sexist... beliefs? Yes. I find the human body to be beautiful... male or female... the thing i dont like is when people get offended... Being offended is for the close-minded right!

[alpharowe3]

Actually I think the fact we're talking about it like this is more susceptible to being viewed as sexist than the pics...

[JimmyJazz]

^Unless you are going to elaborate, don't say stuff like that. You just sound like Ann Coulter.

[alpharowe3]

^Unless you are going to elaborate, don't say stuff like that. You just sound like Ann Coulter.
lol, thats not very nice pointing like that. We can identify that about 15% of the voters are female and 64% are male (roughly). What if we had pics of a bunch of black ppl, and at least two thrids of the voters were white, when it came to the discussion of whether the pics were racist... I hink you'd be able to look upon the thread and see it as a whole racist... am I making sence? If not it does not matter this is a case of perception & I prefer to stick with subjects that can be quantified.

[JimmyJazz]

You are making perfect sense, but you don't understand what racism is any more than you understand sexism. Racism is not the same as racial discrimination, it's a thousand times bigger. Same goes for sexism and sex discrimination.

[alpharowe3]

OK I see what you mean... but I dont have an answer for that.


You are making perfect sense, but you don't understand what racism is any more than you understand sexism. Racism is not the same as racial discrimination, it's a thousand times bigger. Same goes for sexism and sex discrimination.

[Taboo Tongue]

. . . viewer interprets the image.
I voted No and I'm a male. The image does not say anything explicitly or implicitly about the women. Except they have a thing for Pink Floyd. Maybe you could stretch it to include if you want to be like these girls, you should like Pink Floyd too.

An image could be interpreted 1000 different ways. Just like this image:
http://pinkyshow.org/support/images/uploads/shirt_bunny_akvintage_sm.jpg
Does it support war and guns?
- - - OR - - -
Does it support Liberation and Revolution?
Or something else?

The creators of the above responded to an email here: http://pinkyshow.org/archives/episodes/070715/

Nice thread.

[Rascolnikova]

The image does not say anything explicitly or implicitly about the women. Except they have a thing for Pink Floyd. Maybe you could stretch it to include if you want to be like these girls, you should like Pink Floyd too.

If we're trying to stretch it, we can arguably get to, "if you want to fuck these girls (and by extension other girls like them), all you have to do is like pink floyd too." . . . but I think that's a weak argument, so I won't be making it. Just pointing it out. :)

[synthesis]

The meaning of a symbol depends on the person interpreting it.

If you know an ardent feminist who has that poster on their wall, they probably think they're just appreciating the aesthetics of the human body - or they just like Pink Floyd.

If you know some frat-boy douchebag with the same poster, they were probably thinking, "Whoa! Nice asscrack on those *****es!" Or they just like Pink Floyd.

On the other hand, if you're just concerned that the poster might be interpreted as sexist by someone you're trying to impress, it's probably better to be safe than sorry.

[Rascolnikova]

The meaning of a symbol depends on the person interpreting it.

If you know an ardent feminist who has that poster on their wall, they probably think they're just appreciating the aesthetics of the human body - or they just like Pink Floyd.

If you know some frat-boy douchebag with the same poster, they were probably thinking, "Whoa! Nice asscrack on those *****es!" Or they just like Pink Floyd.

On the other hand, if you're just concerned that the poster might be interpreted as sexist by someone you're trying to impress, it's probably better to be safe than sorry.

Right, but given that any symbol can essentially indicate anything--depending on context--it only makes sense to examine the context. . . and it isn't silly to draw some conclusions about how a symbol is likely to be interpreted, based on an examination of the context.

Edit: also, the ardent feminist could just be stupid, and/or have a poor interpretation of feminism.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I think it's neither sexist nor beautiful. Are the women being objectified? Of course, but not necessarily sexually. It's just like someone getting a stamp of a corporation on their shaved head. It's lame consumerist bullshit, but not necessarily sexist.

[The Deepest Red]

It isn't sexist at all.

[KC]

How can a photgraph be sexist/racist?:confused:

[Pawn Power]

How can a photgraph be sexist/racist?:confused:

When it is said that a inanimate object (song, picture, etc.) is sexist and/or racist its colloquial meaning is that it represents or indicates sexist/racist concepts or expressions. Objects are produced by people embedded in society and the things that they produce often exhibit particular attitudes and behaviors (like sexism or racism).

Examples of obviously racist imagery, from Spike Lee's movie Bamboozled;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C45g3YP7JOk

So when people say that an image is racist, it means, colloquially, that it is a representation of a racist mentality. The same applies to sexism, though people are often less willing to except this.

[gorillafuck]

How can a photgraph be sexist/racist?:confused:
It's pretty easy for a photograph to be sexist or racist (although I don't find this particular one to be)

[Chicano Shamrock]

I would add that rock is definitely sexist. e.g.-
.
How is rock sexist when "fat bottom girls make the rockin' world go 'round"?

I am male and I don't think this picture is sexist. As a musician I think it would be sick to have my album artwork painted on the human body. Imagine the pride you would have to see your art used to make art.... art art art!

[bluestar]

I love art but don't think it should be used as an excuse for sexism. I thought the picture looked artistic and unless there is an underlying message in the symbolism that I have missed I think it is fine.

Also the poll is a little skewed - defining feminism needs some explanation for association.

[JimmyJazz]

Whatever guys, the poster has been hanging in my bedroom for like 2 months, let this thread die. :bored:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

"Chill pill" definitely suits this thread. That image is no more sexist than this:

http://dyn.ifilm.com/resize/image/user/1807582.jpg

It's called marketing and advertising.

[Invincible Summer]

I see the picture as a celebration of music as well as the female form. It's not even explicit enough to warrant any "objectification of women" or "misogyny" calls, not that I've seen any so far in this thread.

Plus, it's not turning the women into objects (as some beer ads do) as much as the album art being on the women. I'm not sure if I'm being clear, but that's the best I can think of explaining it for now.

Not sexist.

[Yazman]

I fail to see anything vaguely sexist about the picture.. Besides, its a pretty benign artistic endeavour, I like it.

[brigadista]

why not men and women in the picture?

i think it is there purely to give the impression that pink floyd are a bunch of studs....and for that to appeal to their male fans

[Glorious Union]

1. Billboards are property, and by making these women into billboards, this poster is turning them into property, and property does not feel and does not have cognition.

2. Turning women into sex objects. These women are placed in a position in which it accentuates these women's figures, creating a dominant narrative within males minds that women are only operational as objects built for their pleasure.



1: That is looking really deep into things, too deep in fact. But yeah, you are kinda right about that.

2: I found nothing about the women in that picture sexually arousing at all and they do not appear to be sex objects at all. And I am a straight male. Of course, other people may have a different opinion on how sexually atractive a woman's back is.

[redSHARP]

i think something is sexist if it creates a sense of gender superiority (i.e. men rule women or women rule men). i don't think creating sexual attraction is sexist, as long as it does not create a hierarchical sense of the sexes.

[Rise Against]

It is inarguable that having a sexual attractions is not sexist. Being sexually attracted to something is not a crime, if the attraction does not infringe on said person's/people's Life, Liberty or affect their pursuit of happiness then there is nothing wrong with the attraction.

Like Freudian imagery, once aware of sexism you see it everywhere; Even if it's not actually there. I like to call this the Freudian Paradox.

But then again, that's an objective opinion; and I'm sure someone will easily enough contradict me on this intellectual forum ;D

[pastradamus]

I absolutely adore that marvelous work of modern photographic art. I actually have a huge poster of that in my apartment which adorns my wall and both myself and my girlfriend totally love it. There is Nothing sexist about it. Anybody with an appreciation of Photographic art or even art in general would appreciate it.

Lets take it as it is. What do we see?
We see a few attractive women sitting facing into a swimming pool with pink floyds album covers artistically painted on their back. Pink floyds album covers are quite artistic in their own right but combined in a photo which celebrates the female form and human beauty as well as the reflective beauty of the swimming pool and the room itself it becomes brilliant artwork. Take for example Michelangelo's David which is an amazing work of sculpting which celebrates the human form more so then almost anything else or take the Mona Lisa, does one call Da Vinci sexist for painting a women and showing off her beauty? No, because its a work of art and sex is not an issue. It appeals to the vision and intrigue of someone not to their sexual senses. There is nothing particularly arousing about this photo anyway, Its not like the modern smutty covers of albums which use sex to sell.

[Adam KH]

You'll forgive me if I find this entire thread to be a little facetious.

Those who have argued that this picture is "sexist" sound more like PC liberals then revolutionary leftists. If anything, this thread looks like a parody of leftism.


Right. Thanks for this.

I am kind of shocked at how many people on this site are buying into the whole "equivalency" thing--as though we can simply imagine men in the womens' place, and ignore all societal context, including a long history of female oppression by males.

It's a bit similar to the stupid conservative argument that affirmative action is actually "reverse racism", or that such a thing as reverse racism is possible. Even cookie cutter Democratic liberals can see through that crap, usually.

Then I suppose a group of black supremacists targeting a white person because of their race is not racism. Your complete lack of logic is mind-numbing.

Every race on Earth is responsible for it's share of racist oppression. Millions of white Europeans were used as forced laborers and sex slaves in the Barbary nations for hundreds of years. The white race is not "the cancer of history".


Did I miss when society finally reached a point of equality between the sexes and eliminated patriarchy?

No, but you apparently missed when large numbers of women started willingly objectifying themselves.

I've found that women who choose to use themselves as sex objetcs are well aware of what they're doing and it's social ramifications.

They just don't care. They enjoy it.

To insinuate that they're too stupid to know otherwise is sexist.

[JimmyJazz]

You're annoying, "Adam KH".

[rednordman]

Crickey those pictures are so sexist..my eyes are burning!:lol:

[Adam KH]

You're annoying, "Adam KH".

What a brilliant counter-argument. You definatley showed that you can defend your position.

[Jazzratt]

Then I suppose a group of black supremacists targeting a white person because of their race is not racism. Your complete lack of logic is mind-numbing.

I can't really feel as bad for that kind of racism as for the kind that systematically oppresses people through the various white institutions in the state or the kind that creates an underclass of other human beings. You know the kind that actually matters.

Although look through your other posts it appears you failed hard at life, maybe you should kill yourself and hope there is an opportunity to start again.

[hammer and sickle]

I don't think its sexist for men to put up pictures of naked women up on their walls either. Is it sexually objectifying? Yes...that's the point of being physically attracted to someone - you disregard their personality and focus on their looks. So what? How does objectifying one woman objectify women as a whole? Do I objectify men when I put posters of a man up on my wall?
Thats exactly what I was thinking!:D

[PC81]

It's a cool image and very well done. Great poster.

[Mike Rotchtickles]

I don't think the picture is sexist on its own, but if you look at the general depiction of human bodies in works of so called art it is usually women who become the objects. The question that needs to be asked is why have the artict chosen to have women as the canvases for their paintings. would they have expected the same reaction from their fans if they used men instead. I therefore think there there is an underlying sexism which is apparent in a patriacal society.

[JimmyJazz]

hello, little thread!

[9]

I'm a feminist, and no, the Pink Floyd image is certainly not sexist. In fact, I quite like it.

[Rebel_Serigan]

I love that picture and I love Floyd! Np the picture is not sexist. it is just girls (who are pretty attractive) sitting and they all have p[aitings on thier back. it is just cool. Straight up rad.

[Hoxhaist]

its just art. sexist would have reinforced gender roles or to be sexist would have focused on the womyn's nudity instead of the painting

[Nulono]

Of course not! The human body is a beautiful thing that should be celebrated!

[Comrade Anarchist]

i dont really think anything can be sexist as long as the women gives permission.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

It's interesting that people align themselves more with their gender than their perspectives on equality, in the polling results. I suspect many saw the description that "fit them" first, and voted quickly. However, the results still seem invariably imply people place more importance on "being a certain gender" than "being someone who supports equality." Implication isnt' truth, of course. I just found it interesting.

[rivalin]

Totally sexist.

[Killfacer]

Totally sexist.

Gonna say why or you just going to leave it at that?

[Il Medico]

I don't think so, it is a fucking awesome picture though.
:cool:

[Oktyabr]

what image?

Nevermind, I found it.

[Manifesto]

If it is purely meant to be a work of art then no. It could have done without the butt cracks though.

[Jazzratt]

If it is purely meant to be a work of art then no. It could have done without the butt cracks though.

You know that it's just something humans have right? Objecting to a pretty much matter-of-fact portrayl like this is just outright prudery.

[Agrippa]

what's so sexist about women being free together?


You make no sense to a rational human being. It's not "sexist" for women to be free with their body - quite the opposite.

Eco-Marxist, I sense some willful ignorance on your part.

This isn't about a bunch of women painting up their naked bodies and posing for a photograph for fun. It's about a commodity produced by mostly male-owned mass-media industry using images of the female form in a specific way in order to tantalize and titillate a mostly-heterosexual male audience for the explicit purpose of capital-accumulation.

Do I think the image is sexist and offensive? Not really, honestly. It's pretty benign in my opinion - actually quite pleasant compared to some of the "erotic" materials produced by capitalist society. (And this is coming from someone who doesn't really care about Pink Floyd) But do I think there's a difference between women being "free with their body" and women being taught by the superficial values of post-modern capitalism to view their bodies only as useful as far as they are "beautiful" as defined by heterosexual males, and more specifically, by the mostly heterosexual male mass-media industry, which is constantly rewriting public standards of beauty in mindless accordance with the dictates of capital.

As someone who comes from an ethnic background where many women still dress like the painting you posted, I can tell you that
A) excessive prudishness and modesty in a culture is not always a sign of the culture being more repressive towards women
B) excessive salaciousness and immodesty in a culture is not always a sign of the culture being less repressive towards women
C) freedom for women means freedom for women to dress in whatever way they feel is comfortable and empowering. That means in a free society, there will be as many women who will dress like the woman in that painting as there will those who walk around in thong bikinis and mini-skirts, much to the dismay of heterosexual male anarchists and Marxists excited about the destruction of all forms of female modesty in the wake of social revolution.


It's medieval to force women into this mindset.And "medieval" oppression of women has given way to more advanced and sophisticated forms of oppression of women.


This is what we're doing here, making the female body into something that's bad because of some MIM-esque logic.Comparing everyone who criticizes porn and the capitalist mass-media's handling of the task of producing erotic imagery to the Maoist Internationalist Movement, which currently seems to comprise of a single paranoid schizophrenic who thinks there are secret messages for him in the New York Times, is ridiculous and intellectually dishonest.

[fiddlesticks]

I voted no, the picture is very far from being sexist..would you consider one of Goergia O'keefe's vagina flower paintings sexist? It' is art.. art has naked women in it pretty frequently, probably because more people would want to look at a woman naked than a man, regardless of our gender. Anyway, I saved this picture because it is awesome :)

[Misanthrope]

The most offensive thing about that photo is that they put The Wall before Animals.

So true.. Animals is their best album, BY FAR.

OP: No, the picture is not sexist at all.

[ʇsıɥɔɹɐuɐ ıɯɐbıɹo]

I think you're over-thinking this. All of you. Does it encourage discrimination towards women? No, it's just a couple of painted people. You know men can be painted as well.

[Manifesto]

You know that it's just something humans have right? Objecting to a pretty much matter-of-fact portrayl like this is just outright prudery.
I meant it like guys will find that arousing.

[ʇsıɥɔɹɐuɐ ıɯɐbıɹo]

I meant it like guys will find that arousing.

I think that was the point. Advertising does like to appeal to a few basic drives, sex is one of them.

[A_Ciarra]

I am a feminist and no it is not.

What you do with your own body is your choice, and these women did not feel objectified in the negative. Objectification alone is not enough to claim we know what others feel at the moment they make their choices.

It's meaningless to frame every last detail of objectification with negative spin. That makes a game out of sexism to sell propaganda. At that point is sexism even the issue any longer, or has it become unreasoned argument?

[the last donut of the night]

I think it's sexist, but not overtly. Look at it: it's not a coincidence that all the women fit what our culture sees as sexually pleasing, from an aesthetic point of view. I'm not too sure why, but it bothers me. Maybe my religion. But it seems to almost 'stack' the women as they were products on a shelf.:confused:

[A_Ciarra]

When I post to a thread I tend to skip reading further replies right away until I put my own thought down in order to avoid any possible for lack of a better word "influencing" from others. This helps me focus honestly on my own beliefs, then I can move into the thread and hear others. Here my first reply was to say;

“It's meaningless to frame every last detail of objectification with negative spin. That makes a game out of sexism to sell propaganda. At that point is sexism even the issue any longer, or has it become unreasoned argument?”

:unsure: That was not directed at any persons post’s, or meant as a disregard to their thoughts (or communication period). That's certainly the way a response to the thread start post could have came out. Anyway, this thread is interesting to me though (great points and questions), but I gotto go so I’ll just have to get to a reply later if the subject matter keeps pressing in my thoughts and what not.

[A_Ciarra]

What I was going to comment on here would be better in a fresh thread, or blog or something. I think I’ll work on an “essay” type thing since I have a lot of thoughts going about this topic that would require some detail to get at.., then I’ll place it there (will take me several days or even week though).

:crying: But before I do that - I think I was very insensitive and implied poor logic in those that find this photo sexist (or those just thinking period), and very much want to apologize for implying that. I don’t want disown my problem here, that’s not any motive here; I just wish to say sorry. I was so totally occupied with thinking about the how things even initially become defined as sexist, and didn’t stop to think of others. But I was obtuse there to be sure. I wasn’t trying to be careless, or any of that, that wasn’t the spirit or intent, I GOT careless. I definitely appreciate the act of dissent and don’t want to make it any harder for anyone to speak because of the risk to insult so I’ll be more careful too. Anyway, again - very sorry about that.

Later