| “I was literally the only female in this classroom with 30 men,” says Needell. “They open their textbooks and there’s Lena, and all the men start giggling. You just feel like ‘Oh, my gosh, this woman is being materialized (in a textbook)…’ What does "being materialized" mean? (marginalized? objectified? material-girl-alized?) What year was it that all the men started giggling at that particular picture of Lena? In order to draw attention to the sexism inherent in the use of the picture, Needell and co-author Rachel Ward recently published a paper where they rejected the use of Lena. How is it sexist to use that picture, which is g rated, of Lena? Is it sexist to note that even across species, one sex (not always the female) is often what humans, cross culturally, agree is "prettier"? If it's not, then why would it be sexist to use a picture of an attractive woman in a paper? http://www.amazon.com/Survival-Prettiest-Science-Nancy-Etcof... Would it be exploitative of the scientists that write these papers to use their writing talents and skills to draw their readers in? Or to create well designed graphs that clearly and quickly communicate their points and draw the eye? I have no problem with the authors using a picture of Fabio. I am trying to understand the claim that using a picture of Lena is somehow sexist. (In my day it was a male baboon with a penis on its face that was the classic image.) |
Probably because it was sourced from a Playboy magazine is all.