Reply
Thu 3 Jul, 2003 09:17 am
There has been a really interesting discussion going on about ogling, and how male and female perceptions thereof.
Here is where that discussion begins.
I'm interested in getting more viewpoints. This photo sparked a very similar discussion between my husband and I when we had just started dating:
I'd like to ask that people share both their visceral and intellectual reactions, if those differ. (Mine do.)
Bigger version:
http://www.greatmodernpictures.com/orkinlg.jpg
(edited to de-stretch)
I prefer reality as a basis for discussion. See if it were real, my sympathy would be for the woman. Since it's an exagerrated fake my sympathy is for the slandered men and Italians in particular.
That's true! I found that out when trying to find the picture -- it was at least partially staged. Hmph.
Still, it served as a catalyst for discussion not so much for whether it was "true" or not in the strictest, documentary sense, but because of the very different reactions it elicited, and discussion of those reactions.
Notice the leg positions of the two guys on the motor scooter? Thought provoking.
Soz, partly staged? I didn't think there was a single unstaged piece.
My reactions:
It's the perfect slander of men. There is not a single man, not ONE that is not bahaving like a dolt in the picture. The woman is vastly outnumbered and as a basis for discussion I find it along the lines of "how do you feel when you beat your wife?".
I think it's just a joke, and everyone should relax.
It's not being used as a joke, it's being posited as something for serious discussion, hence I think it should make a slight attempt to represent reality.
You know what, this picture could be true if an American woman walked through certain parts of India
Gautam raises my next question -- do you think this COULDN'T happen, or that it DOESN'T happen, apart from whether it really happened exactly as shown in the photo?
I heard a news story today, sorry, can't find a link, about a man who was fired because a woman in his company complained that she thought he was staring at her breasts, and this constituted sexual harrassment. He never touched a woman in the office, he never made untoward remarks, he never did anything outwardly offensive, except maybe taking an innocent male glance at some breasts, just for a second. Sometimes I wonder, to a woman, what would be worse...not noticing her breasts? Mind you, that is only for certain types of women....no, not whores, just those who fit the psychological profile of some of the more annoying women friends we have...Mrs. cav would concur on this. I think the issue is complex....women spend so much time trying to be noticed, and then if the notice is unwanted (and I am only referring to non-hostile reactions) they can cry harrassment. Male sexual harrassment issues are treated like a societal joke. Just makes one think...
Ofcourse it happens. Imagine a blonde in a leather mini skirt with high heeled boots walking down a street. Don't you think she will be ogled ? Modern times and mannerism have dictated that men should not be so obvious. So glances are on the sly. But they do happen.
Men look. Period.
Just to add, yes, this could happen, especially in cultures where women are not expected to walk alone without a man. Sad but true. My issues with the previous post are with Western culture.
sozobe wrote:Gautam raises my next question -- do you think this COULDN'T happen, or that it DOESN'T happen, apart from whether it really happened exactly as shown in the photo?
It certainly does happen. But where are the respectfull males? Where are the ones glaring at the untoward actions of the others? Where are the ones smacking their freinds upside their heads telling them to use the upper brain? Where are the ones who appreciate beauty without looking like an ape?
If I posted a picture of the Palestinian kids cheering the 9/11 attacks asking for discussion about Palestinian culture some would be quick to point out that the imagery is disproportionate and did not capture the faces of some who looked at the celebratory Palestinians in horror.
And the difference is that it would be a real image, not a staged one. Reality can already be disproportionate enough without resorting to staged generalizations.
This is what I found about the staged-ness:
Quote:Setups that provoke a "real" response are yet another variation in the genre of directed photography. Two examples of this strategy can be found in photographs by Ruth Orkin and Nacho López of attractive women being "complimented" by men in the street. Both Orkin and López utilized the women as "catalysts" to provoke the famous piropo that is a common phenomenon of Latin cultures, and which they knew would result from parading their models by groups of men.
Orkin made An American Girl in Italy during 1951 in Rome, when she worked with a friend, Jinx Allen, to recreate the problems women encountered traveling alone: asking directions, paying with unfamiliar currency, ordering food, and dealing with impulsive young men. The idea for this picture had been in Orkin's mind for years, ever since she had been old enough to go through the experience herself, but she knew that she needed to have the right crowd, lighting, background, angle, and, above all, the right model in order to recreate the situation (Orkin). Orkin described Allen as a "great natural actress" who participated in staging the scene, walking by a group of men lounging on the corner of the Piazza Della Repubblica, while Orkin ran ahead of Allen and stood in the middle of the intersection to shoot. The photographer says she spoke only to the two men on the motor scooter, asking them to tell the others not to look at the camera. She took one photo of Allen passing the men, and then asked her to back up and repeat the scene, of which she took a second. Orkin's photo was eventually published in an article, "Don't Be Afraid to Travel Alone," in the Cosmopolitan issue of September 1952, after several other magazines rejected it.
http://www.zonezero.com/magazine/articles/mraz/mraz04.html
Cav mentions another issue that is central to this. Michael Crichton wrote a book called "Disclosure" about sexual harassment against men. I have heard women rant about that book and it was odd because sexual harassment of males is an not an over-represented occurance. If anything it is downplayed. It's perfectly understandable that the sexual harassment of women is the focus. I'd not have it any other way.
But when one book about a man being harassed can bring about anger from females you can imagine that disproportionate characterization of males ad nauseum can have a hurtful effect as well.
sozobe,
The "real" reaction could be that the fact that something obviously staged draws attention.
Craven de Kere wrote:It certainly does happen. But where are the respectfull males? Where are the ones glaring at the untoward actions of the others? Where are the ones smacking their freinds upside their heads telling them to use the upper brain? Where are the ones who appreciate beauty without looking like an ape?
Craven's remarks are right on. On the bright side, these are women's times. You can read a comic where a man gets beat up by his wife and laugh, or chuckle when a woman in a movie yells at her stupid male servant, you can argue that you aren't just a baby machine when you want a career, and you can insist that you're naturally nurturing when that doesn't work out. You can snipe about your co-worker's weight gain, and blame men for women's eating disorders in the same sentence. Anyway, all of this is to say "lighten up". You don't have a lock on sexism any more than blacks have a lock on racism.
Craven de Kere wrote:If I posted a picture of the Palestinian kids cheering the 9/11 attacks asking for discussion about Palestinian culture some would be quick to point out that the imagery is disproportionate and did not capture the faces of some who looked at the celebratory Palestinians in horror.
And the difference is that it would be a real image, not a staged one. Reality can already be disproportionate enough without resorting to staged generalizations.
That's actually a really good analogy. I think that would be a good way to start a discussion on Palestinian culture.
Negative reactions -- "that's not how it is! THIS is how it is" -- are just as instructive, discussion-wise, as positive reactions -- "yep, that's exactly how it is". In fact, the former can give rise to a discussion of more length and depth than the latter.
Meanwhile, I haven't given my opinion of the photo, but everyone seems to think they know what it is.
Staged or not as a male I will confirm on any number of occasions being part of a similar group staring at a woman well above average in the eyeability department (and not slyly). I've been both glared at and smiled at. One part of the scenario in the picture missing of course is the vocal reaction which we all know happens. I've never done catcalls but groups I've been in have. This will sometimed elicit a haughty look (I would probably recognize you if my eyes could get so low) to angry verbalization (if you were remotely worth it I would squash you like a bug). The verbalization over the decades has become more strident and more profane. It hasn't stopped or even deterred me. I hope it never will.
I'm curious what it is, Soz, whatever the case may be.
soz,
I have not made any attempt to guess at your opinion but now I will.
I think you think these things happen, that in some areas things have gotten better and that there are a lot of men who do not act in such manner.
My qualm is on emphasis (due to the ad nauseum factor in society) and dispropotion.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace