Imagine it were a photo of a good looking man wearing almost nothing and suggestive of some exposure if only you were looking from another angle. Would that have done so well?
I think it's just hard for us as men to recognise the sexism because we're not used to being systematically sexualised.
Not true. Men get all sorts of comments about their height, appearance, facial hair, even genital size... We can not work at some jobs because of oversexualization.
And this type of harrasement is normalised.
If someone manipulated the image to be explicit or presented it in an obviously sexual context, that might be a different story, but even then, the original image itself was never inherently sexual.
I’d reframe this to point out the image is very natural, i.e. what could be more natural than experiencing nature in one’s natural state?
Seeing this as something sexual is a choice, and an unnecessary one at that.
Context is important. I've spent time on nude beaches, that doesn't mean its appropriate to turn up to work with my dick out. What is appropriate in one place is weird in other places (it would also be weird to rock up to a nude beach in my work clothes).
Yes, context matters, but I fail to see anything about this particular context shift that is inherently sexual.
It’s also worth pointing out that exposing your genitalia is in a different category than taking your top off, and certainly different than implied toplessness.
This is exactly the kind of image you would use to market Photoshop, a tool for image makers who are concerned with producing exactly this kind of idyllic, escapist scene.
I love the photo, but it's a great photo for private use, not work use. I think you guys aren't paying attention to the HR videos you are supposed to be watching.
I do think John knew exactly what he was doing and that the killer app for Photoshop, computers, and the internet that would come after was sex.
Maybe you should ask some women that you know what they would think about this actual scenario (not contrived scenarios), rather than presuming.
Oh yeah, I've heard that one before - its Lena/Lenna:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna
Here is a random example I found of a women talking about her experience
https://www.cmc.edu/news/every-picture-tells-a-story
And another one
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-playboy-centerfold...
Over the last decade or so journals and professional bodies have been trying to stop people using the Lenna image - Nature essentially banned it in their publications in 2018, and IEEE just this year.
100% not. In fact it's the opposite: you're supposing that a woman in swimwear at a beach is giving implied consent for her image to be used in a radically different context. That would put the onus on the woman to cover up in a way that I wouldn't.
In any case, I think the bigger problem is actually for instead those people in the business environment where this appears. Is it really a surprise that a semi-nude image used for illustrating image processing software is of a woman? Do you honestly think it is just as a likely as a man? I know the term "micro aggression" is controversial but sexist choices like this are real and common and do have an impact on attitudes for both men and women.
Are you suggeting he used the image of his wife without her consent? That would indeed be inappropriate, but the article does not seem to support this accusation. The quote from her imply she is fine with it:
> "The beauty of the internet is that people can take things, and do what they want with them, to project what they want or feel," she says.
Given my cultural background, it disturbs me that you’ve sexualized this photo enough to start casting the shadow of sexist offenses onto others, when it’s an opportunity for self-reflection. Why are you sexualizing this photo?
I'm not the person you asked but I feel like answering with my (unwanted) perspective. The statue of David, in its current context in a museum is not a particuarly sexual or sexist object. On the other hand if my employer (or whoever) started introducing equivalent statues of naked people (of any sex) into my workplace I would probably view that as innapropriate.
This is essentially how I view the image of Jennifer - in the context of a loving relationship between two people on the beach its a nice thing, but I would view it as a bit weird if someone at my workplace started sharing an equivalent picture of their partner.
Some people are offendend by women having uncovered hair. Being offended does not mean everyone else have to accomodate you.
Clearly in the context of my comment its neither. Its whoever is bringing the naked statues into my workplace.
This (to me) is such a blindingly obvious third option that I assume you deliberately didn't include it as an option because you're trying to argue a point you know is flawed.
The impact of (to take a random example) a university having a statue of Venus or whatever in the grounds, is not the same as having the Lenna image in a textbook
https://www.cmc.edu/news/every-picture-tells-a-story
Even though the statue might objectively be showing more, people are not automata, so the context is everything.
I’m unable to comprehend how you got to that assumption.
But to be clear, I undestand you shouldn’t bring art or musical instruments to work if you work for the Taleban. But in the story, the audience are adult creatives working professionaly with visual arts
Because you conflate art in public spaces with the use of images like Jennifer in selling software. To me it seems obvious that these are fundamentally not the same.
Rude...
wut? ambiguous on what dimension? That's a brick shithouse right there. (how's that slang for you, ESL learners!? it's definitely not an insult, and it's unisex so, not offensive, just means "good build")
No, it means an exceptionally muscular build, which the subject of that photo doesn't have.
Anyway, the comment you're replying to clearly means "a build that leaves the gender ambiguous", not that the dimensions are ambiguous! You don't seem to really be disagreeing with that.
In what dialect of English?
Jeffersonian, 'Straylin, British.
Here's Thomas Jefferson's Brick Shithouse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Poplar_Forest6.jpg
But also, it's just obvious from the words in the phrase. I assume that outside toilets were often just wooden shacks, so a brick one is notable for its robustness. Is that comparible with a beefy labourer's physique? Sure. Is comparible to a curvy, classically feminine body shape? That doesn't make sense.
As the sibling comment to this one says, it doesn't even just apply to people (in fact I'd say it primarily doesn't).
Maybe in some places but north-west UK just means "kinda robust/big/thick" (e.g. could be a bouncer or wrestler) - there's no requirement for "exceptionally muscular". Akin of what kids these days use "absolute unit" for.
(quibbles aside, I agree with you - GP is wrong, not even slightly a "brick shithouse" by any of the definitions)
it does not only mean exceptionally muscular (nor only mean what it means in some farflung gotham of Britain)
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/built_like_a_brick_shithouse#...
in the picture she also is muscular, not like a body builder, but like a fit person showing definition (everybody working out or doing yoga was not "a thing" when that picture was taken)