Is this photo sexist?

[Jamie Holladay]

This post is not intended to be political. (Please don't take it down that path) I just wanted to see what your answers (as photographers) are to the question posed to the population of the US.

Is this photo sexist?

http://foxforum.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/reuters_palin1.jpg

My take:

From a purely photographic sense, I like the photo. I find it to be a very creative shot. It catches the intensity on the young mans face and demonstrates that he is listening to her. When I am shooting I try to find the creative angles of my subject. I think the photographer accomplished this very well. The idea behind photography is to capture the moment and envoke emotion in the viewer, much like Ansel Adams did in his landscape shots. The photographer certianly did that here. No we probably would not see a shot like this of gentleman, but why not. If the photographer can capature the same intensity of the audience through a photograph taken of one of them in their Brooks Brothers suit and Bally shoes, would we be having this discussion? I don't thinks so. Is this photo sexist? Only if you the viewer choose to make it sexist. Personally I don't think it is. I think it is a creative take on photo journalism. Only the liberal media could turn this into forest fire. As a photographer, I believe this is a good piece of work.

[Michael_Lambert]

Nope i don't think so. I think it's a great capture. Exspecially when people find out its really a Drag Queen compitition that they where attending :D

[Michael]

I don't think it's sexist at all.

[ccc_javier]

he is looking up... face?

no sexist at all

[BillsBayou]

I'm looking at the photo from a photographic sense. Framing and DOF are two of the most critical elements that make up this photo.

Ignore who is in the photo and the things for which they stand.

Sexist? No. Sexy? No. Innuendo? Yes. He's framed between the woman's legs and he's staring intently. The expression on his face is not one of wonder, but of study.

Make a political statement about that, and you'll be banned.

[gjl711]

I don’t see how it can be sexist. For it to be sexist there has to be some type of discrimination based on gender or some type of stereotyping to reinforce certain social roles. I don’t see this photo doing either.

[neil_r]

in a word .... no

gjl711 (John) has nailed it above

[jgrussell]

Part of my reaction to this stems from part of what you said: "we probably would not see a shot like this of gentleman, but why not. If the photographer can capature the same intensity of the audience through a photograph taken of one of them in their Brooks Brothers suit and Bally shoes, would we be having this discussion? I don't thinks so."

The problem, for many women, is that very fact: "we probably would not see a shot like this of gentleman." You ask why not, and the problem is what the answer actually is. Is it simply because people haven't thought of it before? Be serious. Photographers have been taking photos of male politicians since the dawn of the camera age, and there aren't a whole lot of shots through their legs. How about all the women politicians who wear pantsuits? I haven't seen a whole lot of shots between their legs either. So what made this a shot worth taking? What's different between this politician and all the other male and pantsuit-clad female politicians besides the bare legs and heels? If there's no answer to that question, then yeah, actually, it is sexist.

[FlyingPhotog]

I think it does a great job showing where our political landscape is right now.

A Woman running for VP .. The youth of America upon whom the system very much depends.

It says a lot to me but in a very simple fashion.

[Jamie Holladay]

Be serious. Photographers have been taking photos of male politicians since the dawn of the camera age, and there aren't a whole lot of shots through their legs.
Ok let's be serious. If that shot had been a male, with the young man listening intently to him, would it have been as an emotional shot as this? Are you saying that it takes a woman in hills and a skirt to inspire a photographer to take a "creative" shot? If you answer yes to the last question, something is wrong with our craft. To me the subject is the young man, not the legs. They just provide the framing and dramatic element.

[sidg]

Another option is that this shot is not easily made with a male speaker unless they are wearing shorts. Most politicians wearing a suit or even jeans are not going to give enough space between their pants to get this kind of a shot.
I see it as a creative way to tell the story in picture and not sexist at all.

[scokar]

Ok let's be serious. ...the legs...just provide the framing and dramatic element.

so if there were saplings in place of the female legs, would this image be as interesting/controversial? no.

the picture must be considered in its whole. we have a young man looking intently up at a woman, whom we only see parts of.

the elements are there for people to interpret it either way.

[Junior's G7]

This shot would never have been framed this way if it were a male politician speaking.

Of course it's meant to evoke something, and that something is exactly what you think it is.

[theflyingkiwi]

typically I would say no. However since the guy is looking up and we only see her legs then the photographer is implying something else. other than him watching her do her speech.

When you jamie had said that we wouldn't have seen this shot if it was a guy then the gender of the legs does in fact pay a part in the photo. If the legs had been male then then the message that the photo is giving would be completely different. in fact it's a given that this type of photograph would never been taken if the speaker would have been male. Because generally the photographer would be male and doing so would put a homosexual overtone to the photo.

the question I have is, if it's not using sexism to sell the photo then why place the guy in the middle of the legs. there would have been other ways to frame the guy and his attention to the speaker. by placing the guy in the middle of the legs is to suggest some sexual innuendo. This would only happen if the both parties in the photo are the opposite gender. after all most guys would be happy to be in between some legs.

so I think the framing of the photo, the fact that the legs are female and the guy is looking up to her, him being young and her being older some sexual innuendo is implied.

so is the photograph sexist, yes. the only way it isn't, is if the both people in the photo were of the same gender would the photo have the same meaning? Which we all know that it wouldn't.

just because it's sexist does it mean it's wrong? in this case no.

[gjl711]

Sexual innuendo is not sexism. The question was not if the photo was sexy but sexist.

[midnight_rider]

I do not think it is sexist at all to be honest. The framing is very interesting to say the least but I think it is a great shot. If it were not there would not be near as much debate over it and because of that the photographer did their job very well.

[theflyingkiwi]

Sexual innuendo is not sexism. The question was not if the photo was sexy but sexist.

innuendo
an indirect intimation about a person or thing, esp. of a disparaging or a derogatory nature.
source (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/innuendo)

by the fact that the legs are women and the subject being male, the way that everything is framed, then yes that is implied

and I never said the photo was sexy.

[Junior's G7]

theflyingkiwi nailed it in post #14. Exactly right.

It is sexist? Obviously. Is that necessarily a bad thing? No.

The photographer was obviously making a comment on Sarah Palin's sexuality, and the public's perception of that.

Is it a valid comment? Sure.

[Woolburr]

The photo was taken to target a very specific audience. Of course it is sexist...say what you want, but there is no way that photo carries the same impact or appeals to the same audience if it is shot between the legs of some stodgy old geezer in a fancy suit and Sunday-go-to-meeting shoes. The whole image plays off the obvious woman's anatomy and apparel.

[Quad]

People on POTN get into arguments about photographic technical terms and we understand some of the basics of photography at least. Then take a term like "sexism" and really it is a pointless question since such a term can take on such a huge range of meanings. We first need to take a couple of weeks/months/years (I don't really know how long it will take) to define the terms in the question.

Can we begin by agreeing that the object in question is a photograph?

[neil_r]

A definition of sexist is "prejudice or discrimination based on sex ; especially : discrimination against women"

I do not think this picture demonstrates prejudice or discrimination.

[Jamie Holladay]

The photo was taken to target a very specific audience. Of course it is sexist...say what you want, but there is no way that photo carries the same impact or appeals to the same audience if it is shot between the legs of some stodgy old geezer in a fancy suit and Sunday-go-to-meeting shoes. The whole image plays off the obvious woman's anatomy and apparel.
I can't disagree with you in whole but in part maybe. Yes the legs in the photo play a key role in the image. But if Matt Damon was standing on stage in a Brooks Brothers suit and Bally shoes giving a speach, and this shot was made of his legs with the same DOF with a young lady peering up at him, would that image be sexist? Would it be nearly as interesting?

[Junior's G7]

...But if Matt Damon was standing on stage in a Brooks Brothers suit and Bally shoes giving a speach, and this shot was made of his legs with the same DOF with a young lady peering up at him, would that image be sexist? Would it be nearly as interesting?

Of course not, at least to the latter question.

The picture in question is obviously reminiscent (and purposely so) of the myriad scenarios when young men are looking up at women on stage, entertaining them in any number of ways.

Before I get called Stodgy, let me reiterate that I think it's a comment well-made by the photographer. I have no problem with it.

But if you deny the inherent sexual implications, then you're fooling yourself. (EDIT: And not giving the photographer enough credit, for that matter.)

[theflyingkiwi]

A definition of sexist is "prejudice or discrimination based on sex ; especially : discrimination against women"

I do not think this picture demonstrates prejudice or discrimination.

but using her legs in that way, doesn't that imply that? The photographer is using her legs as an object.

I can't disagree with you in whole but in part maybe. Yes the legs in the photo play a key role in the image. But if Matt Damon was standing on stage in a Brooks Brothers suit and Bally shoes giving a speach, and this shot was made of his legs with the same DOF with a young lady peering up at him, would that image be sexist? Would it be nearly as interesting?

sexist yes, it works both ways. interesting, well that's up the viewer

[Jamie Holladay]

The picture in question is obviously reminiscent (and purposely so) of the myriad scenarios when young men are looking up at women on stage, entertaining them in any number of ways.

I understand what you are describing here, but that thought or implication never crossed my mind. Do you truely think the photographer purposely shot it that way? I guess I can't see it that way because poeple is not what I shot as a general rule (only in the case of motorsports candids). I liken this to the shot of Robert @ RobiSpec that I shot in the spring. I shot him as I was looking throught the spokes of the passenger side rear wheel while he was working on the driver's side. The wheel spokes framed him as the legs frame this young man. My focus was on Robert not the wheel. I choose that perspective for the "dramatic" effect that the wheel added to the photo. Is that the reason that I can't see this shot as sexist?

[Woolburr]

I can't disagree with you in whole but in part maybe. Yes the legs in the photo play a key role in the image. But if Matt Damon was standing on stage in a Brooks Brothers suit and Bally shoes giving a speach, and this shot was made of his legs with the same DOF with a young lady peering up at him, would that image be sexist? Would it be nearly as interesting?

The answer is no...and that is exactly what qualifies this as sexist. When Neil provided his definition of sexist, he left out part of it.....behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

[Junior's G7]

I understand what you are describing here, but that thought or implication never crossed my mind. Do you truely think the photographer purposely shot it that way?
I really do. I think that was his/her purpose, and I say, well done. But maybe I shouldn't say "obviously" because it must not be obvious. Even the intent is up to interpretation, I suppose. To me it was obvious, but I can see how it may not be as evocative to everyone as it was to me.

I guess I can't see it that way because poeple is not what I shot as a general rule (only in the case of motorsports candids). I liken this to the shot of Robert @ RobiSpec that I shot in the spring. I shot him as I was looking throught the spokes of the passenger side rear wheel while he was working on the driver's side. The wheel spokes framed him as the legs frame this young man. My focus was on Robert not the wheel. I choose that perspective for the "dramatic" effect that the wheel added to the photo. Is that the reason that I can't see this shot as sexist?
Maybe so - and I agree that it's a good technique, framing the subject in its context that way. But I do still feel that this photographer was making a comment related to sexuality, and our perception of it.


Good thread here. I like discussions.

[Woolburr]

I understand what you are describing here, but that thought or implication never crossed my mind. Do you truely think the photographer purposely shot it that way? I guess I can't see it that way because poeple is not what I shot as a general rule (only in the case of motorsports candids). I liken this to the shot of Robert @ RobiSpec that I shot in the spring. I shot him as I was looking throught the spokes of the passenger side rear wheel while he was working on the driver's side. The wheel spokes framed him as the legs frame this young man. My focus was on Robert not the wheel. I choose that perspective for the "dramatic" effect that the wheel added to the photo. Is that the reason that I can't see this shot as sexist?

A wheel is an object Jamie...sexless. The legs on the other hand.....:lol:

[Jamie Holladay]

The answer is no...and that is exactly what qualifies this as sexist. When Neil provided his definition of sexist, he left out part of it.....behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex
Well Dan, I have to respectfull disagree. In the context of the definitions provided it would be as sexist. Either that or the use of the definitions applying only to a pair of female legs is sexist. Now it might not be as dramatic. But the standards should apply to both.
I really do. I think that was his/her purpose, and I say, well done. But maybe I shouldn't say "obviously" because it must not be obvious. Even the intent is up to interpretation, I suppose. To me it was obvious, but I can see how it may not be as evocative to everyone as it was to me.


Maybe so - and I agree that it's a good technique, framing the subject in its context that way. But I do still feel that this photographer was making a comment related to sexuality, and our perception of it.


Good thread here. I like discussions.
I can agree that the photographer had the intent to express the speaker's gender. But I find it hard to believe that it goes beyond that.
A wheel is an object Jamie...sexless. The legs on the other hand.....:lol:
Yes it is just a lifeless object. And I have to agree that a woman legs are far from "lifeless objects" (one hopes :) ). But from a purely photographic stand point - their comparitive use is the same.

[Junior's G7]

I can agree that the photographer had the intent to express the speaker's gender. But I find it hard to believe that it goes beyond that.
I'll refer you back to the end of post #23. ;)

That's all I've got.

Thanks for the topic - enjoyed it. :cool:

[jgrussell]

If that shot had been a male, with the young man listening intently to him, would it have been as an emotional shot as this? Are you saying that it takes a woman in hills and a skirt to inspire a photographer to take a "creative" shot? If you answer yes to the last question, something is wrong with our craft. To me the subject is the young man, not the legs. They just provide the framing and dramatic element.If it were in fact "as emotional a shot" with a male politician in pants, why has such a shot not been done over and over and over ad nauseam in all the hundreds and thousands of elections that preceded this one? What, there has never in the history of our Republic been another partisan (the kid is wearing a shirt, after all) who was focusing on his/her candidate so intently ever before???

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the shot. What's wrong is the very fact that even you admitted in your original post that the shot wouldn't have been done if the candidate had been a man in pants, and I suggest wouldn't have been done if the candidate had been a woman in pants.

[sevillafox]

I think it's a neat shot. Maybe it does imply sex in a way but what in the US doesn't now-a-days? ;)

Besides, his eyes seem to be focused a little too high to achieve the "looking up the skirt" look to me.

[jgrussell]

by placing the guy in the middle of the legs is to suggest some sexual innuendo.I don't see that, particularly. I do think it's in somewhat bad taste, but I doubt that there was deliberate innuendo here. More likely just insensitivity. (Never ascribe to malice that which can be as easily explained by incompetence.)

[Woolburr]

Yes it is just a lifeless object. And I have to agree that a woman legs are far from "lifeless objects" (one hopes :) ). But from a purely photographic stand point - their comparitive use is the same.

Not true at all...don't believe me? Switch the legs in the photo from Sarah Palin's to Hillary Clinton's. And no...this is not a political statement...Sarah wears dresses, Hillary seems to prefer pants.

[Jamie Holladay]

their comparitive use is the same.
What I meant was that framing Robert with the wheel spokes and framing this young man with the speaker's legs, is comparitively the same use, photographicly speaking.

[theflyingkiwi]

I can agree that the photographer had the intent to express the speaker's gender. But I find it hard to believe that it goes beyond that.

but isn't pointing out the fact that the speakers gender is female, sexist? If it wasn't then a, it wouldn't matter what sex the legs are and b, that the photo wouldn't be taken at all. it's the fact that the legs are women and the fact there is a guy looking up is what the photographer intended and the message is a comment on that.

Yes it is just a lifeless object. And I have to agree that a woman legs are far from "lifeless objects" (one hopes :) ). But from a purely photographic stand point - their comparitive use is the same.

You my be looking at it from a photographic stand point, however the way a photograph is taken and everything that is in the photo, or even left out of the photo effects it's meaning.

You may have thought that it would be good framing, but what makes the legs a good frame?

[harroz]

no I don't think its sexist. if the crop was above her knees I think I would answer diffferently though. I think the photographer saw the image, thought it was a winner, saw through the viewfinder that an above knee crop was showing something entirely different, then cropped accordingly. And I think he got a winner. It doesn't show any inuendo. It just shows that the speaker is a female. I think the only reason you wouldn't see the same image with pants, female or male, is because you wouldn't be able to diferentiate the speaker to whichever, so ofcourse you would use a different crop/angle, you would still look for something to make the image interesting, which could be anything but a crop of back of head and hands holding papers out of focus, cutting a third or something comes to mind, crowd in focus.

Good job, nice shot, why is there people up in arms over it or something?

would the question be the same if the guy was a female i wonder?

[Woolburr]

What I meant was that framing Robert with the wheel spokes and framing this young man with the speaker's legs, is comparitively the same use, photographicly speaking.

It is a similar technique...but the intent is far different.;)

And while I do think the shot itself is sexist, it is still a good photo and the shooter deserves a lot of credit for seeing and getting the shot.

[Mike-DT6]

Not in the slightest.

Not only is it not sexist but he appears to be looking slightly to his left and not even up to the woman, whether that be up her skirt or to her face. That removes any possibility of sexual innuendo, or indeed symbolic significance.

I think that the only way that could enter the realms of sexism is if someone who is going out of their way to find it so, deliberately misinterprets it - erroneously so - and puts that thought into the mind of others.

Mike

[Oneslowz28]

I do not find it sexist at all. I actually think thats how my face would look if she was standing in front of me.

[gjl711]

Hmm... Can we be sure that those are Sarah's' legs? The picture is sort of blurry. Maybe those are John's legs. ;):)

Still, assuming that they are hers, where is the discrimination based on gender or the stereotyping to reinforce a certain social roles, or the behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex. I'm not seeing it. The sex part I see, it's the social roles and stereotypes that's missing.

[Junior's G7]

Not in the slightest.

(etc)

Of course. No other possibility exists. :|

[Mike-DT6]

Of course not. Sometimes the obvious needs to be pointed out or people will waste so much time debating something that doesn't exist. ;-)

Mike

:lol:

[theflyingkiwi]

Of course not. Sometimes the obvious needs to be pointed out or people will waste so much time debating something that doesn't exist. ;-)

Mike

:lol:

so then you believe that if it was a mans legs and a women looking up, it would have the same effect?

if it was a man looking up at a man in the same way, would it be the same?

if it was a women looking up at a women in the same way, again would it be the same.

people see the world differently. the same photo can be seen many people and each one would have a different option.

[Jamie Holladay]

people see the world differently. the same photo can be seen many people and each one would have a different option.
Exactly the point I was trying to get to.

[Oneslowz28]

so then you believe that if it was a mans legs and a women looking up, it would have the same effect? NO

if it was a man looking up at a man in the same way, would it be the same? NO

if it was a women looking up at a women in the same way, again would it be the same. Yes

people see the world differently. the same photo can be seen many people and each one would have a different option.

My answers in red.

[Mike-DT6]

so then you believe that if it was a mans legs and a women looking up, it would have the same effect?

if it was a man looking up at a man in the same way, would it be the same?

if it was a women looking up at a women in the same way, again would it be the same.

people see the world differently. the same photo can be seen many people and each one would have a different option.

My point is that the man isn't even looking at the woman, so the concept for discussion doesn't exist on that basis of what is portrayed in that photograph.

I agree, people do see the world differently, and I can see that the man is looking slightly to his right of where the woman is standing and slightly above straight ahead. He isn't looking up at her.

Mike

:-)

[Checkers Fan!]

I have no problems with the photo or its possible intenmt or implications.

Ther are all kinds of ways to look at thnigs. If your a feminist, you can take two opposite points if view:

1. male chauvinism in the classic sense meaning that man puts wonmen on a pedestel and idealizes her. (Why any woman would worry about that iswell beyond me. ladies, put me on a pedestal and I'll love ya forever!)

2. male objectification of women

3. the subordination of women to men as exemplefied by the fact that the woman's anatomy is not in focus.

It all depends upon yuor hangup or political view. I like it.

[masayako]

This photo is not sexist. but sure it is sexy. Otherwise, we won't be chatting here about it for 4 pages long.

[hatmandue]

I think the young man in the photo must be very in touch with his feminine side to be wearing that pink shirt.

[hatmandue]

killed another one!:p