Thank you for your inciteful analysis of visual sexism. I frankly think Earle-Sears is weird and I can't see any universe where I could seriously entertain voting for her, but I realize that most of the pictures I have ever seen of her make her look weird, regardless of her views. Thank you for reminding me of the built-in sexism that permeates everything we do.
I happen to be a 72-year-old white southern male (born in NC, now semi-retired here) who edits the monthly Black newspaper in our community. The owner, a Black woman who retired early from two previous careers but had always wanted to be a journalist; the photographer, an Italian immigrant; the layout and design chief, a Black woman; the writers, a whole range of Black, White, Hispanic men and women of different ages and backgrounds.
We recently covered a forum of four state legislators from the Black Legislative Caucus, plus a fifth member who's our local state senator. The owner/publisher (the Black woman) chose a photo of the event that was so unflattering I couldn't believe it. One of the Black female legislators looked open mouthed and bewildered; another was texting; the third was talking into a mike which half hid her face; and the Black male was seemingly conversing with someone out of the camera range. All were slightly blurred. (And our photographer is good -- he must have taken 100 pictures that night.)
I immediately sent a note that the photo was unflattering and unfocused, and emailed the owner one that I had taken that showed them all looking happy (holding a giant check for hurricane relief) and professional. The layout and design chief emailed us both that she had had the same reaction, and provided a different, even better photo. And that's the one that ran.
But I couldn't figure out why the publisher would choose such a bad photo that diminished the perceived value of the officials as both legislators and as African Americans -- as well as to their specific role as members of the Black Legislative Caucus! Still don't get it!
Thanks for the analysis. I believe it needs more space to resolve the following:
Let me be clear: I’m not saying that it’s sexist to photograph women talking, debating, or even arguing passionately. Then two graphs later: When women are shown with mouths open, brows furrowed, and fingers pointing, it reinforces existing stereotypes about women and their emotions.
Excellent analysis, from the viewpoint of an old white guy with two truly smart daughters (smarter than me).
This comment made my day!!
🥸
Thank you for your inciteful analysis of visual sexism. I frankly think Earle-Sears is weird and I can't see any universe where I could seriously entertain voting for her, but I realize that most of the pictures I have ever seen of her make her look weird, regardless of her views. Thank you for reminding me of the built-in sexism that permeates everything we do.
All of this is sooo true.
I agree with D Schmitt. Excellent analysis.
Here's TMI, but an echo of what Azza Cohen wrote.
I happen to be a 72-year-old white southern male (born in NC, now semi-retired here) who edits the monthly Black newspaper in our community. The owner, a Black woman who retired early from two previous careers but had always wanted to be a journalist; the photographer, an Italian immigrant; the layout and design chief, a Black woman; the writers, a whole range of Black, White, Hispanic men and women of different ages and backgrounds.
We recently covered a forum of four state legislators from the Black Legislative Caucus, plus a fifth member who's our local state senator. The owner/publisher (the Black woman) chose a photo of the event that was so unflattering I couldn't believe it. One of the Black female legislators looked open mouthed and bewildered; another was texting; the third was talking into a mike which half hid her face; and the Black male was seemingly conversing with someone out of the camera range. All were slightly blurred. (And our photographer is good -- he must have taken 100 pictures that night.)
I immediately sent a note that the photo was unflattering and unfocused, and emailed the owner one that I had taken that showed them all looking happy (holding a giant check for hurricane relief) and professional. The layout and design chief emailed us both that she had had the same reaction, and provided a different, even better photo. And that's the one that ran.
But I couldn't figure out why the publisher would choose such a bad photo that diminished the perceived value of the officials as both legislators and as African Americans -- as well as to their specific role as members of the Black Legislative Caucus! Still don't get it!
Thanks for the analysis. I believe it needs more space to resolve the following:
Let me be clear: I’m not saying that it’s sexist to photograph women talking, debating, or even arguing passionately. Then two graphs later: When women are shown with mouths open, brows furrowed, and fingers pointing, it reinforces existing stereotypes about women and their emotions.