Hacker News Reader

Comment by jccc | Hacker News Reader

For the benefit of those who have not read the 1995 article all the way through to the end:

"As I thumbed rapidly through box after box to confirm that the entries described in the Finder's Aid were actually there, I tried to glance at only the faces. It was a decision that paid off, because it was in them that a crucial difference between the men and the women revealed itself. For the most part, the men looked diffident, oblivious. That's not surprising considering that men of that era were accustomed to undressing for draft physicals and athletic-squad weigh-ins.

"But the faces of the women were another story. I was surprised at how many looked deeply unhappy, as if pained at being subjected to this procedure. On the faces of quite a few I saw what looked like grimaces, reflecting pronounced discomfort, perhaps even anger."

View on HN

That quite well illustrates the unacknowledged privilege of women at that time. The men were so accustomed to being denied privacy, either by cultural norms at the time, or by force by the government, that being forced to undress and be photographed was nothing unusual to them. Women, on the other hand, considered this an affront, because they were not subject to either of these. Thank you for pointing this out.

Or you could see it entirely the other way. In fact, I'm rather surprised that you saw it as you do. I guess it takes all sorts to make a world.

What is the "other way"?

That women, far from having extra privilege in this area, felt extremely threatened at being made to be naked, knowing that this level of vulnerability had no upside for them. Whereas men had no particular concern, because their photos would not likely be misused.

Frankly, the suggestion that women have more power in this sort of situation is so wrong-headed that I honestly can't imagine how anyone familiar with Western culture could come up with it.

What was the upside for men?

They were doing what they were told, and would therefore get whatever benefits obedience brings.

Whereas the women now had:

- a bunch of male scientists leering at them [1];

- some photos in the hands of those scientists that could be embarrassing;

- the possibility of those photos being stolen and distributed;

- a strong sense that they have no right to privacy or dignity in the highly male-dominated Ivy League world.

That last one would count as an educational bonus, at least.

[1] I'm only guessing that the scientists were male here, but I think it's a safe bet. Even nowadays, but more so then.

So if it was such a bad idea for the women, why did they do it?

When it is better for men to do what they are told than otherwise, you classify it as a benefit. When it is better for women to do what they are told than otherwise, you call it oppression. I'm trying to draw attention to this double standard.

To be clear: neither the men nor women gained directly from having their photographs taken.

I don't honestly believe it's possible for someone to ask questions like that without a malicious purpose, so I shall refrain from engaging you henceforth. I pray that the women in your life, if you have any, can see what you are -- but I'm fairly sure it's obvious, so I'm not worried.

My purpose is to get people to question feminism and see outside a very narrow worldview in which women are always victims. In your case, I have failed. And the way you make this argument personal is really pathetic, although not surprising.

Or you could interpret is (as I think other replies are suggesting) as men feeling no shame or threat to being nude. I'm not sure how to articulate this but the women may have felt they were "losing" something by being photographed nude. The men probably didn't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com