2009-11-03
People on Flickr, gender and politics
It’s now a couple of weeks since Flickr launched their People in Photos feature, which allows users to add people to photos. Of course, you’ve always been able to add unstructured metadata to do this, but now it’s both easier (there’s a trademark slick UI) and structured (the person’s photos are linked to their account and visible in their profile).
Unlike Facebook (which, perhaps unsurprisingly, the feature has drawn comparison with), you’re able to opt out of the feature entirely, meaning that previously tagged photos of you are no longer so marked, and that you can’t be added to new photos. The point of this post is that, of the people who I know have done this, all of them are women.
I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. A woman’s appearance, and the depictions of it, still carries far more importance in society than the way a man looks. If you doubt that, just take a look at Tanya Gold’s opinion piece on Liz Truss:
Why do we tolerate and even encourage the physical objectification of female politicians? Does anyone know or care about Truss’s politics or what she has to offer? Has it oozed out into the popular consciousness yet? Will it ever? We know that she owns a gold satin jacket, and that she once slept with Mark Field MP. Gold. Jacket. Nice.
There is no one enemy in this; it is a national sickness. This, from a (female) columnist in yesterday’s Daily Telegraph: “She [Liz Truss] is OK-looking, if a bit dodgy in terms of dress sense.” Well, thank you for that. Award yourself an over-reaching-insight-of-the-week gong; then explain to your daughters why politics is dangerous for women. “Naughty Tory Candidate,” said the Sunday Times, as if possessed by the spirit of Readers’ Wives.
(Just don’t read the comments.)
I don’t really have a conclusion here (it’s always the hardest thing for me to write), except perhaps to congratulate Flickr for the opt-out option while wishing people didn’t feel the pressure to use it.
