The 'Woman' point of view

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 67219
  • Start date Start date
To me the argument that "women arent taken seriously" [on photo sites] smacks of "you is only saying that cos I is black" i.e that its a convenient excuse for not behaving in a way that merits being taken seriously to say "you don't take me seriously because I'm a woman"

The answer I'd give to which is "No, I don't take you seriously because you don't behave/debate in a way that commands respect and credibility regardless of your gender" and there are people of both sexes on here I'd take very seriously (and indeed those who's gender is unknown to me) , and there are those of both sexes who i'd consider to be a complete joke
- but that opinion is informed by how they behave not their gender (or indeed, race, sexuality, political leanings, fitness etc)
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
Why are you concentrating on texts that conform to your world view ? If you want to be academically rigorous (and as a by product high grading) you should be studying critiques and sources from as wide a range of positions as possible
Click to expand...


^^THIS

Even if you want to prove a feminist theory or write a dissertation that attempts to prove one, it will be more academically robust if you present a balanced argument and present evidence from opposing theorists. To merely cite from those who agree with you is to merely use other people's research to put a spin on a subject. If ou present a balanced argument and the research genuinely backs up your opinion, then not only does your conclusion write itself, but you will receive much higher grades for being thorough, ethical and rigorous.
 
big soft moose said:
- but that opinion is informed by how they behave not their gender (or indeed, race, sexuality, political leanings, fitness etc)
Click to expand...

Fitness?

I'm familiar with prejudice/bias based on the other factors you mention, but fitness?
 
Steve said:
Fitness?

I'm familiar with prejudice/bias based on the other factors you mention, but fitness?
Click to expand...

I take it you weren't that fat spotty kid who always got picked last during PE ? - all sorts of things can lead to bias or discrimination , looks , hair colour , height, weight, academic prowess - the list is endless
 
big soft moose said:
To be frank this
Why are you concentrating on texts that conform to your world view ? If you want to be academically rigorous (and as a by product high grading) you should be studying critiques and sources from as wide a range of positions as possible , regardless of whether you agree with them or not.

For example I woud charecterise my political leaning as moderately centre right , but when I was working on Poli Sci units of my masters I read and drew quotes from a wide range of texts from Das Capital to Mein Kampf and assorted in between the better to understand and analyse the positions people have taken and the reasons behind them.

It is of course harder to read something that expresses views you find ridiculous or abhorrent, but credibity of analysis is not established by listening only to preaching to the choir.
Click to expand...

Because... I'm doing a module called 'Reading Art History' where we study more than ten different approaches to writing about the history of art. Week seven was feminist and gender studies and so I had been devouring those texts in week 7 which happened to be last week. This week I am looking at otherness in non-Western art. I expect if I get time, I'll also explore that subject thoroughly too, although that is harder for me to write a personal blog post about, as I am not non-Western.

But you know, mostly because it's my personal blog. And I like blogging about things that are relevant to my life. This was relevant to my life in the same way that I blogged about some Vortographs that I liked. Or the costume I made last week. Or the events I photographed last year. It's a *personal* blog. :)

Also - as an afterthought. Feminist art history doesn't mean 'hates all men'. But rather it is the school that deals with how women have previously represented within art historical writing and how women have been represented in images themselves. It is not 'feminist art' nor 'we hate all men art history'. Historical biographical writing, for instance, specifically *does not* generally deal with female artists as before the 1970's it was believed within art history that women were incapable of making great art. So feminist art history is merely just a reaction that came out of the 1960's women's lib movement in America - which gave the type of art history it's name. I don't like the name, I think it has negative associations in many peoples eyes. I term myself a Revisionist art historian because I think it encourages people to engage with me in a less negative way. I do see the difference.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pookeyhead said:
^^THIS

Even if you want to prove a feminist theory or write a dissertation that attempts to prove one, it will be more academically robust if you present a balanced argument and present evidence from opposing theorists. To merely cite from those who agree with you is to merely use other people's research to put a spin on a subject. If ou present a balanced argument and the research genuinely backs up your opinion, then not only does your conclusion write itself, but you will receive much higher grades for being thorough, ethical and rigorous.
Click to expand...

And I'm entirely sure that if this was a paper that I was handing it, I would have done more than empirical research. However, whichever way you look at it, it was just a blog. A blog with endnotes, but still just fundamentally my opinion. Or rather, mostly my friends opinion. I just thought it might provoke interesting discussion, which it has.

I think people are reading a little too much into it. I like to write about photography more than I like to take photographs. Therefore on a photography site I'm more likely to say 'what do you think of my writing on photography' than 'what do you think of my photograph'. I know it's unusual, but it's not unheard of.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
big soft moose said:
To me the argument that "women arent taken seriously" [on photo sites] smacks of "you is only saying that cos I is black" i.e that its a convenient excuse for not behaving in a way that merits being taken seriously to say "you don't take me seriously because I'm a woman"
Click to expand...

I'm not saying what women aren't taken seriously, but rather their opinions can be treated like they're a mass entity. That individualism is lost to some extent when you're a female in a male dominated arena. You become 'the woman' rather than 'another person'.
 
Lindsay D said:
I wonder if your friend just read too much into what was said? Remarks like that are usually said innocently, in the belief that a gender-based opinion may have particular relevance. All your friend has to do is politely assert that she is giving a personal opinion rather than one which should be viewed as exclusively feminine. It is not something I would take personally, if it were me. Nor does it mean that the man asking the question necessarily thinks any less of her.
Click to expand...

Yes absolutely, I think it's more than possible to read 'too much' into it, but rather I'm questioning the culture that makes those remarks so easy to say, and why we do not say similar things towards men.

So for instance, a male friend recently told a female friend that she 'read too much into' a guy that wolf whistled her on the street. While I'm sure that the guy felt he was doing nothing wrong - giving a compliment even, I think it's interesting to review the underlying cultural conditioning that says it's acceptable to comment on a woman's appearance who you've never met and have not engaged with in any other way (I'm not passing judgement here, trying to just present a situation).

So the issue is not with the comment itself, or even the person making the comment. The investigation is into why that has become 'a thing' that is said, if that 'thing' is a positive or a negative thing and perhaps if we can remove that as 'a thing' and how we might do that.
 
Lindsay D said:
People can be discriminated against because of their weight, or their state of health. Disability discrimination would fall under that as well. ie 'fit' for a particular task.
Click to expand...

As a disabled person I resent and totally reject any link between fitness and disability. I'm sure its not what you meant but my disability has nothing to do with fitness levels or weight or cholesterol or any other fitness indicator you may choose to use. I dislike the implication that by linking disability to fitness that the disabled person can somehow improve their disability by getting fitter. Not having a go at you Lindsay, as I'm sure from reading your posts that you don't mean that. Just feel I need to emphasise that in case anyone else reading this thread makes a different link.

big soft moose said:
I take it you weren't that fat spotty kid who always got picked last during PE ? - all sorts of things can lead to bias or discrimination , looks , hair colour , height, weight, academic prowess - the list is endless
Click to expand...

I am fully aware of being the last kid picked at school but you were talking specifically about bias/prejudice against people's opinions. I am fully aware that other forms of discrimination may take place, but I was voicing surprise that anyone would react to the fitness of a person in assessing the validity of their opinion. Cant say I've ever seen that happen.
 
Steve said:
As a disabled person I resent and totally reject any link between fitness and disability. I'm sure its not what you meant but my disability has nothing to do with fitness levels or weight or cholesterol or any other fitness indicator you may choose to use. I dislike the implication that by linking disability to fitness that the disabled person can somehow improve their disability by getting fitter. Not having a go at you Lindsay, as I'm sure from reading your posts that you don't mean that. Just feel I need to emphasise that in case anyone else reading this thread makes a different link.
Click to expand...

She didn't say that. Being 'fit' for purpose is not the same as being physically 'fit'.

A personal in a wheelchair, for example, is not fit to stack high shelves in a supermarket without additional help. However that does not mean that they couldn't win a wheelchair marathon.
 
CharlotteM said:
She didn't say that. Being 'fit' for purpose is not the same as being physically 'fit'.

A personal in a wheelchair, for example, is not fit to stack high shelves in a supermarket without additional help. However that does not mean that they couldn't win a wheelchair marathon.
Click to expand...

Well the post was specifically about my question of the word fitness, and in reply Lindsay mentioned Disability discrimination. Being unfit is not a disability. It can be a as a result of an underlying disability and in due course it can cause a disability. But the Disability Discrimination Act does not cover an able bodied person who happens to be overweight so there is no need to mention the DDA in response to a question about fitness.
 
I don't have any Gender issues as both gender can at times p*** me of,as for amateur photography it has always been dominated by the same group of people :)
 
Steve said:
Well the post was specifically about my question of the word fitness, and in reply Lindsay mentioned Disability discrimination. Being unfit is not a disability. It can be a as a result of an underlying disability and in due course it can cause a disability. But the Disability Discrimination Act does not cover an able bodied person who happens to be overweight so there is no need to mention the DDA in response to a question about fitness.
Click to expand...

Steve, Charlotte's assessment of what I meant is correct. I wanted to point out the very real discrimination that so many disabled people face (I have two disabled family members and I suffer from a disability myself, albeit a very mild one by comparison). When I use the word fitness I am not referring to whether someone can run a marathon, push weights etc. I am referring to whether or not a person is physically able to perform certain tasks, and the discrimination which can arise when they cannot.

I am sorry if I offended you, that would never be my intention.
 
CharlotteM said:
Yes absolutely, I think it's more than possible to read 'too much' into it, but rather I'm questioning the culture that makes those remarks so easy to say, and why we do not say similar things towards men.
.
Click to expand...

And again with the generalisations - do you know for a fact that such things aren't said to men ? - in fact many men will report being asked for a male opinion regularly , i know I am - just as people regular position other gender stereotypes toward men - 'all men' love the footie, know about cars, are sexist pigs etc .

memes like this are common

1920116_724451850928667_88914448_n.jpg


but men are expected to take it on the chin and laugh along (as a lot of guys do - but that still doesnt make gener stereotuyping aceptable) ,
 
Last edited:
CharlotteM said:
But you know, mostly because it's my personal blog. And I like blogging about things that are relevant to my life. This was relevant to my life in the same way that I blogged about some Vortographs that I liked. Or the costume I made last week. Or the events I photographed last year. It's a *personal* blog. :)
.
Click to expand...

but the comment you made was

Of course it doesn't help that recently I've been devouring feminist critiques of imagery and educational texts as I prepared to study gender image within self-portraiture next year
Click to expand...

not for a personal blog , and my point was if you want to study 'gender image within self portraiture' with academic rigour then you need to 'devour' texts that look at the issue from more than one stand point
 
Last edited:
CharlotteM said:
I'm not saying what women aren't taken seriously, but rather their opinions can be treated like they're a mass entity. That individualism is lost to some extent when you're a female in a male dominated arena. You become 'the woman' rather than 'another person'.
Click to expand...

I can see that might be the case if you were part of a very small minority - like when women first joined the armed forces for example - but on a photography critique site its rubbish, look at TP losads of women present , possibly not quite as many as men, although its not possible to say for sure because of the number of posters with gender neutral screen names, but certainly enough that any given poster isnt going to be 'the woman'

Just because someone asks a woman for a womans perspective on a certain issue, doesnt mean she's not being treated as an individual - most people are bright enough to realise that not all women (or all men) think alike - but its because as a woman she has a better chance of making an assessment of what another woman might think.. just as if you wanted to know what a lawyer might say you'd ask a lawyer, if you wanted to know what a mechanic might think you'd ask one, if you wanted to know what a photographers view might be you'd ask one and so forth.

At the end of the day this is a non issue that doesnt exist outside of the perceptions of a very few people who go looking for things to be upset about... I'm not saying there isnt discrimination against women, certainly there is and its wrong (just as discrimination against men is eqully wrong) , but the fact that someone might be asked for a gender based opinion is hardly the major issue.
 
Last edited:
Steve said:
I am fully aware of being the last kid picked at school but you were talking specifically about bias/prejudice against people's opinions. I am fully aware that other forms of discrimination may take place, but I was voicing surprise that anyone would react to the fitness of a person in assessing the validity of their opinion. Cant say I've ever seen that happen.
Click to expand...

My key point was that i only judge peoples photography on photographic merit and form opinions of their credibility based of their conduct, not other factors. I mentioned fitness because one of my best freinds on here is extremly overweight so it was an example that sprung to mind, I no more treat him differently because he's unfit than I treat Lindsay different because she's female , or TBY differently because he looks like a wookie (his description)
 
big soft moose said:
And again with the generalisations - do you know for a fact that such things aren't said to men ? - in fact many men will report being asked for a male opinion regularly , i know I am - just as people regular position other gender stereotypes toward men - 'all men' love the footie, know about cars, are sexist pigs etc .

memes like this are common

1920116_724451850928667_88914448_n.jpg


but men are expected to take it on the chin and laugh along (as a lot of guys do - but that still doesnt make gener stereotuyping aceptable) ,
Click to expand...

Personally, I speak out against memes like that. I find them abhorrent. I encourage guys to work to stop this kind of stereotyping - I believe that the nuclear family has damaged 'men' as much as 'women'.

big soft moose said:
but the comment you made was that you'd be devouring those texts in preperation for your disserttaion - not for a personal blog - that was what i was saying about the lack of academic rigour.
Click to expand...

Well kind of. I have a module in just under a years time that I'm starting to research for - where I'm interested in the ways that people represent themselves through self portraiture. Feminist art history is where I'm starting because it's something that particularly interests me, but next on my list is to investigate if there's a correlation between the way that women photographers represent themselves and the way that non-Western and Western minority ethnicities represent themselves. It's interesting stuff, but you have to start somewhere, and feminist art history is where I started in order to find new leads because it's a place that I feel I know quite well.

My dissertation (in two years time) is actually likely to be on the subject of connoisseurship within photography and if social status and background of individual artists affects the prices that their work reaches on the market, unless I find a more interesting subject to work on.

big soft moose said:
My key point was that i only judge peoples photography on photographic merit and form opinions of their credibility based of their conduct, not other factors. I mentioned fitness because one of my best freinds on here is extremly overweight so it was an example that sprung to mind, I no more treat him differently because he's unfit than I treat Lindsay different because she's female , or TBY differently because he looks like a wookie (his description)
Click to expand...

Then you are a good guy. But do understand, not everyone is like you. People do judge based on factors that aren't relevant to their work or opinions. And horrible people with horrible opinions do seem to permeate the community and get under the skin of those who are just trying hard to create things they love. When you constantly get these nasty and belittling opinions thrown at you, they do wear you down over time. Not me personally, I don't really care... but some of my friends are squishier on the inside than they appear on the outside, and it hurts them.
 
CharlotteM said:
And I'm entirely sure that if this was a paper that I was handing it, I would have done more than empirical research. However, whichever way you look at it, it was just a blog. A blog with endnotes, but still just fundamentally my opinion. Or rather, mostly my friends opinion. I just thought it might provoke interesting discussion, which it has.

I think people are reading a little too much into it. I like to write about photography more than I like to take photographs. Therefore on a photography site I'm more likely to say 'what do you think of my writing on photography' than 'what do you think of my photograph'. I know it's unusual, but it's not unheard of.
Click to expand...

It was merely advice.. not criticism.
 
I'd just like to say how much I've been enjoying reading this thread. I don't have anything much to contribute - a couple of times I've read something that I think I can respond to, but then I've found that someone else has beaten me to it. (Maybe that's because all the thoughts which are in my head are so stereotypical?) But it's really refreshing to read such an intelligent debate that has stayed on topic and avoided personal sniping, despite the (apparently) widely differing opinions of some of the protagonists.
 
I wonder what families were called before the nuclear age?
 
Last edited:
Not certain you people are serious but I'll bite - Two parents (normally man + woman) plus their kids.
 
Sounds like the mumbo-jumbo you see on feminist tumblr sites. Has patriarchy been blamed yet? Whilst on the subject, what is the purpose of dissertations in soft subjects like photography?
 
Laudrup said:
Sounds like the mumbo-jumbo you see on feminist tumblr sites.
Click to expand...
I've never examined such a thing but at least we know how you spend some of your free time.

Laudrup said:
... what is the purpose of dissertations in soft subjects like photography?
Click to expand...
Photography can't exist outside social and cultural contexts. Thus they are relevant.
 
Lindsay D said:
Steve, Charlotte's assessment of what I meant is correct. I wanted to point out the very real discrimination that so many disabled people face (I have two disabled family members and I suffer from a disability myself, albeit a very mild one by comparison). When I use the word fitness I am not referring to whether someone can run a marathon, push weights etc. I am referring to whether or not a person is physically able to perform certain tasks, and the discrimination which can arise when they cannot.

I am sorry if I offended you, that would never be my intention.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the follow up post Lindsay. As I said in my original post I was certain it wasn't your intention.

I should apologise too; I tend to get a prickly and over sensitive about disability issues and have a tendency to over-react.
 
I apologise for not having read the blog or the entire thread. I will when I have a chance.

Based on the little I have read I sense we're into the realms of Historiography and Anthropology.

If that is the case, there are at least two fatal mistakes to be avoided.

1. We know what happened next.
2. Application of today's moral landscape to the past.

Both easily avoided in this context by reference to contemporary texts.

Just a thought.
 
Last edited:
Ulfric M Douglas said:
Re: Nuclear Family

Oh.

I only asked what's a "nuclear family" because I thought it couldn't possibly mean a man, woman and children if this is a view of it ;
Click to expand...
Because the reinforces gender stereotypes. Or at least creates fertile ground for them to thrive.
The nuclear family, independent of the extended family, has the problem of childcare and household maintenance. And that has traditionally meant the male as worker/breadwinner and the female as childcarer/homemaker.
 
Last year I had an unexpected conversation with another local resident. She was talking about someone she knew, and their lifestyle, and I made some comments to support the person under discussion. It turned out that the person I was chatting to had a scathing (if not brutal) opinion of women who go back to work after having a family. She is also appalled by women who choose not to go down the marriage and children route (and she thought nothing of telling me how selfish I am for falling into that category, even though she knows nothing about my background). I think most of us know that these days a household cannot necessarily survive on the man's wage alone, and we also have to acknowledge that women have the right to pursue a stimulating or rewarding career.

I will say at this point that the person spouting these views was female, and almost without exception when I hear this kind of thing it is another woman coming out with it. A man would never be criticised for going to work every day after having a family, but women are often vilified, we are still seen as almost wholly responsible for domestic duties and child rearing and we are condemned if we don't conform to that. This is why so many women are riddled with guilt when they can't (or don't want to) spend all of their time at home with the kids.
 
"Personally, I speak out against memes like that. I find them abhorrent. I encourage guys to work to stop this kind of stereotyping - I believe that the nuclear family has damaged 'men' as much as 'women'."

Really? Personally I think they're great. Light hearted and generally good natured, not to mention (in this case) pretty accurate :)
I have scanned most of the thread and there are some in depth arguments I won't pretend to be able to enter into but I think the differences between men and women should be celebrated. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. As my mum would say on the subject of equality, she would "never want to be equal to something she is already far superior to" ;)
 
The majority of people, especially women will approach me, even when it is the female that I work with that is holding the camera and ask about photography.

The majority of my customers are female, are they interested in my gender? No they are interested in my photographs.

I often ask for a female point of view, why because I am not stupid enough to believe that I always understand what a woman may place value on and there again I ask many people for their opinion as a customer, both male and female as I am not a customer but the provider and then I ask young people for their opinion as I am no longer a young person.

I acknowledge and value that others have a different view on things, a different approach to things and a different understanding of many things and amazingly I find that even an old dinosaur like me can view things in the same way as people that are not the same as me.

Mike
 
Lindsay D said:
Last year I had an unexpected conversation with another local resident. She was talking about someone she knew, and their lifestyle, and I made some comments to support the person under discussion. It turned out that the person I was chatting to had a scathing (if not brutal) opinion of women who go back to work after having a family. She is also appalled by women who choose not to go down the marriage and children route (and she thought nothing of telling me how selfish I am for falling into that category, even though she knows nothing about my background). I think most of us know that these days a household cannot necessarily survive on the man's wage alone, and we also have to acknowledge that women have the right to pursue a stimulating or rewarding career.

I will say at this point that the person spouting these views was female, and almost without exception when I hear this kind of thing it is another woman coming out with it. A man would never be criticised for going to work every day after having a family, but women are often vilified, we are still seen as almost wholly responsible for domestic duties and child rearing and we are condemned if we don't conform to that. This is why so many women are riddled with guilt when they can't (or don't want to) spend all of their time at home with the kids.
Click to expand...

It is unfortunate, but I also know a few people who hold these or very similar views. The common link with the people I know is education, they just don't have a lot of it - I'm not just talking grades/qualifications. They just aren't interested if it doesn't involve them, so they just don't absorb what's going on in the world, unless its named; big brother, celebrity, or TOWIE...
 
Lindsay D said:
Last year I had an unexpected conversation with another local resident. She was talking about someone she knew, and their lifestyle, and I made some comments to support the person under discussion. It turned out that the person I was chatting to had a scathing (if not brutal) opinion of women who go back to work after having a family. She is also appalled by women who choose not to go down the marriage and children route (and she thought nothing of telling me how selfish I am for falling into that category, even though she knows nothing about my background). I think most of us know that these days a household cannot necessarily survive on the man's wage alone, and we also have to acknowledge that women have the right to pursue a stimulating or rewarding career.

I will say at this point that the person spouting these views was female, and almost without exception when I hear this kind of thing it is another woman coming out with it. A man would never be criticised for going to work every day after having a family, but women are often vilified, we are still seen as almost wholly responsible for domestic duties and child rearing and we are condemned if we don't conform to that. This is why so many women are riddled with guilt when they can't (or don't want to) spend all of their time at home with the kids.
Click to expand...

I don't know,what next you women will want to vote :rolleyes:
 
mike weeks said:
I often ask for a female point of view, why because I am not stupid enough to believe that I always understand what a woman may place value on and there again I ask many people for their opinion as a customer, both male and female as I am not a customer but the provider and then I ask young people for their opinion as I am no longer a young person.
Click to expand...

But that is my point. I am not 'a woman'. I am a person with a set of views that are particular to my time.

For instance, looking at the picture of Lindsay (I'm sorry Lindsay... forgive me for what I am about to say if I make inaccuracies...) we are both 'woman'. Therefore according to many people we will have 'a woman's point of view'. However it has been explored several times in several threads that we are extremely different people with extremely different cultural backgrounds.

We are different ages for a start, we're likely from different parts of the country, we probably have different values instilled into our personalities (for instance I get the impression that Lindsay is quite family oriented and I think she's mentioned her husband before, whereas I am opposed to the idea of marriage, children or even finding one partner for life). We almost certainly have very different educational backgrounds and we even like different things for breakfast.

You would never suggest that 'men' have a similar point of view as a homogeneous group, so why suggest it about women? My opinions on imagery are likely to be diametrically different to Lindsay's (in fact they are, we've clashed in threads about images before I think) but yet we are lumped together as having 'a woman's point of view'.

You may say that you are not stupid enough to believe that you always understand what a woman may place value on - but in that statement you suggest that you inherently *do* understand what 'a man' might place value on. Can you honestly say that you know what all men would think? Do all men think the same? Do all men hold the same opinions on subjects such as imagery? If not, then why specifically seek out 'a womans' point of view, because surely by extension, not all women think the same.
 
george g said:
It is unfortunate, but I also know a few people who hold these or very similar views. The common link with the people I know is education, they just don't have a lot of it - I'm not just talking grades/qualifications. They just aren't interested if it doesn't involve them, so they just don't absorb what's going on in the world, unless its named; big brother, celebrity, or TOWIE...
Click to expand...

It is off the point somewhat - but the most resistance I have met for my somewhat unconventional lifestyle choices most often comes from people who are highly educated.
 
ghoti said:
Because the reinforces gender stereotypes. Or at least creates fertile ground for them to thrive.
The nuclear family, independent of the extended family, has the problem of childcare and household maintenance. And that has traditionally meant the male as worker/breadwinner and the female as childcarer/homemaker.
Click to expand...

Yes, this. The nuclear family forces men into an outdated view of what 'men' should be. Thus I have friends who are male househusbands who have found themselves ostracised from their friendship groups when they made that decision. One in particularly very selflessly gave up his career in order that his wife could chase her dreams, and yet he is told that he is somehow less of a man because he chooses to spend time with his children. The nuclear family suggests that men should be breadwinners, defenders of their wife's honour and protectors of the family home. It's simply outdated and encourages an awful lot of bad behaviour while too often not allowing women to pursue their own talents. It would be a better world if individuals could stand on their own feet and make their own decisions as to how they want to live their life, but we don't quite seem to be there yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top