On my old blog, where I haven’t posted in years, I at one time had a series of posts called “spot the misogyny”, where I had been making an effort to document misogynist images and texts in my everyday environment. The rule was, I couldn’t go out looking for them; I had to just stumble across them in my everyday life. I can’t promise how often I’ll do it here, but I just happened to stumble across this ad today:
This isn’t as blatant, by a long shot, as some of the things I’ve captured, but it was a little microaggression getting in the face of every woman passing the sign. For what I find misogynist about this image, see below the fold.
– Woman as work of art –> she exists for the aesthetic enjoyment of others, rather than for any of her own reasons
– Note that the hand holding the polaroid is a masculine one, suggesting that a man took a photo of this woman without her consent
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
8 comments
June 7, 2014 at 2:24 am
roughseasinthemed
I would add more.
The suggestive stance of the man in the art gallery who looks quite predatory, the gender specific language of masterpiece (yes, we all know what it means, it still doesn’t alter the origins of the word), and to add to your comment re existing for others to look at, that also reinforces the notion that women have to meet a certain standard for them to be worth looking at (by men).
Here’s one I wrote on the same theme. I doubt anyone else was annoyed by it :(
LikeLike
June 7, 2014 at 4:18 am
pinkagendist
Not sure about this one. I agree that someone lurking in the background and staring at someone else is dodgy- but calling someone a masterpiece seems more like a compliment to me.
LikeLike
June 7, 2014 at 5:05 am
Alex Rodrigues
I don’t believe that just because it is a male hand, means that the picture was taken without consent. She is obviously posing, meaning she knew the picture was being taken.
Also if it was a feminine hand, why must that mean consent was given?
LikeLike
June 7, 2014 at 1:41 pm
syrbal-labrys
I am a dirty old lady — all I could think in my muscle-relaxed, back-out-of-whack state was that the guy leaning on the wall was a work of art. Which is why I always ask myself and others (who almost always get pissed at me for it), is EVERY sexual attraction moment automatically a bad thing, is every approving/appreciative glance a rape-in-thought? I see lots of women staring at me (mind you, I try to be subtle, myself) — is there really, as it seems to be — a presumption that it is misogyny and sexism when a male does it, but is not misandry or sexism when a female does it?
We ARE sexual beings, it is what keeps the species going (like the freaking Energizer bunny, but that is another topic); I think we need some better diagnostic of good look/bad look than whether it is male or female eyes doing the looking.
LikeLike
June 7, 2014 at 4:03 pm
syrbal-labrys
correction: “staring at meN” — I really am not coping well with whacked-back-attack this day.
LikeLike
June 8, 2014 at 5:28 pm
Gwen
Calling her a masterpiece, objectifies her.
LikeLike
June 8, 2014 at 7:00 pm
VR Kaine
Syrbal-labrys I would happen to agree with your view on this one.
LikeLike
June 9, 2014 at 3:04 am
bleatmop
Vern and Syrbal – Not to speak for TIO (and please correct me if I am wrong), but I think this is more of a case of it being a micro-aggression, as was stated in the body of the post. It’s not a blatant slap you up the side of the face with a loaf of bread type of of misogyny but instead a pinprick of it. So no, not every sexual attraction is automatically a bad thing, a part of societal misogyny. However when you pass this ad, then another, then another, then another, all seeming to to show one role for women, subtly like the picture above, that the only role for women is to be objects, then it starts to add up. Death of a thousand cuts and all. To discuss this ad in a vacuum is different than discussing it in the greater societal context IMO.
LikeLike