The entire basis of photojournalism is using photo framing and composition to show a message. No matter who was responsible; the photographer themselves, the person holding the sign or both of them, it's clear that they framed that picture in a way implying that some of the blame falls on those three women's feet. If that weren't the message then why not crop those two out?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Post-Women's March: white women, working class, and people might need to reflect
- Thread starter Messofanego
- Start date
- Status
The entire basis of photojournalism is using photo framing and composition to show a message. No matter who was responsible; the photographer themselves, the person holding the sign or both of them, it's clear that they framed that picture in a way implying that some of the blame falls on those three women's feet. If that weren't the message then why not crop those two out?
sturgboski
Member
Sorry, I guess it was "if a percentage of a group of people voted for Trump, then we should admonish the group as a whole for not voting for Clinton" like the tweets imply, can generally be applied to the roughly 50m who voted for Trump which includes all minorities.
Or I guess its just I am confused on the premise. Roughly half the nation voted for a monster, including folks from all walks of life. Does deriding a group because members of it voted for Trump or abstained from voting (or voted 3rd party, same thing) really benefit the half of the population who voted Clinton and who want to correct this wrong?
And look, I am not trying to be antagonizing here, but isn't the true "enemy" Trump and the GOP? What do the people gain by infighting, by saying "well I supported him less than you did"?
Sunster
Member
How?
The framing of the photo is making a very specific argument against the three women in the background.
Those three women have individual lives that you don't know shit about.
I agree that America has a serious fucking problem with white people who are willing to vote for their economic interests, xenophobia and racism along with a dash of evangelical beliefs and not give a shit that it is actively harming a whole slew of people.
But, my point is, we don't know anything about the three women in the background of that photo, and it is harmful to their individual agency to be dismissive about their actions, hearts of minds.
QisTopTier
XisBannedTier
A picture is worth a thousand words
The framing of it is fucked up and makes the picture hateful not meaningful.StoOgE gets it
I see you've taken a page out of the Trump administration's handbook of "alternative facts"
I had to take a second look because I didn't realize the sign was held up by a Black Woman until just now LOL. The only thing I can tell you is that I don't take the framing of the photograph to be an indictment that those three women in the background specifically voted for Trump (how could you possible know?) but rather a reminder and expression of frustration that for all the solidarity being shown at the march, White Women overall didn't do their part (keep Trump out of office). That its great these women came out to march but a shitton of people like them in the country basically stabbed Women of Color in the back. This seems to be an extension of the constant friction within Feminist circles about how inclusive they are with regards to the concerns of Women of Color. Mainstream Feminism has often been criticized as ignorant or less concerned with issues Women of Color preferentially face. It's also somewhat frustrating politically considering how politically unified Women of Color are and how politically unified White Women are not. I can't force you to feel one way or the other but there is a lot of context behind something like that. I just seems obvious to me to not be an attack on those three specific women in the back but rather the voting patterns of White Women across the entire country.
Would it have been better if she had a drawing of a fictional White Woman on her sign instead? (this is a legit, non-snarky question)
reaction:
blame the targeted community for putting in the oppressor rather than the ones that put him in and are not targeted by his policies
disown the negative while embracing the benefits of being white
it's so hard, I didn't get the instant results I'm used to being able to get due to my white privilege
gonna need blood and sweat and skin in the game in addition to dollars. as soon as you went home from the march, you were no longer actively engaged. POC are engaged 24/7. Whether they like it or not.
Because a lot of earlier feminists specifically excluded POC from the movement. They often promoted bans on interracial marriage and wanted suffrage only for white women. That didn't just disappear overnight.
and therefore we come back to the white fragility:
white people: collectively benefitting each other but absolutely hate being identified for being a collective that needs to work more to talk to other white people instead of pushing black people out in front of them and going "don't worry i'll spot you 10$"
"being lumped in" is what POC have to deal with from the white population CONSTANTLY. Having your identity removed is part and parcel of being non-white in this country and feeling like you've been betrayed or hurt by simply being addressed as part of the group you are is one of the literal examples of white fragility.
celljean89
Neo Member
The message itself is still meaningful. More white women voted for Trump than not. Fact. While i do not like the photo itself. The message ain't lost on me, I understand what is being said. I won't let it stop me from understanding what is being said.A picture is worth a thousand words
KO Traveling Hobo
Member
No offense to Messofanego because he's a good poster, but the whole OP is a meandering mess.
It's centered on the belief that a significant portion of white Woman's March participants voted for Trump, based on no apparent evidence.
Seems like the movement should (and may already be) use white people as a legitimizing element so concerns of minorities can be brought to those masses. We know what would have happened if this was primarily a black march. It needs to be truly intersectional for it to really succeed. I don't think this can be the 60's era marches designed to simply show the humanity of black people. Cops don't use hoses or dogs like that anymore. The problems facing minorities are much more entrenched and normalized across the entire country. It's not just "those southern rednecks". You can't show someone a documentary like "The 13th" in a march. Huge numbers of all different types of people voicing concern for each other however may get people on the sidelines asking the questions.
MistakenMobius
Member
The message of the photo, and the tweet, are that those who protested somehow are still responsible for Trump getting in. No ifs or buts, that's the only reading one can get from the composition of the photo and the wording of the tweet. If "More white women voted for Trump than not" is your message then why not post a picture of a voting statistics graph instead?
Is the anti-abortion a Christian issue for the most part (well it is I don't know I'm asking since it's rhetorical)? Like if you are white Christian women then being anti-abortion is likely to be super super high on your list? What's the breakdown of Christian white women?
ClosingADoor
Member
I don't get the issue. They showed up, they protested. The protest was for women's rights, minority rights, LGTB rights, immigrant rights.
So 53% of white women voted for Trump. I doubt they were there. And even if they were, good on them for turning their backs on him now. Would rather have had it sooner, but that is too late now anyway.
So 53% of white women voted for Trump. I doubt they were there. And even if they were, good on them for turning their backs on him now. Would rather have had it sooner, but that is too late now anyway.
And no one has responded to what was actually said really. More responses have been in relation to a picture or tweet
not psycho
Member
Are there any studies on this?
It seems reasonable, but then again, people aren't reasonable. People often double down on their pre-existing views when presented with information that counters it.
I've wondered sometimes if white people have an even harder time than minorities in convincing other white people of anything having to do with race. Because white people have no credibility on the subject. Clinton could talk about racial issues, but does anyone presume her to be genuine on the subject? Nope, the opposite. She was considered fake and calculated by many. The rich white liberal in an ivory tower.
Whereas Obama was credible on racial issues. Republicans still disagreed with him, but they at least believed that he believed what he was saying.
I think it just shows how wide the gulf is between the different perspectives.
the picture doesn't imply or even suggest those women voted for Trump. What it does suggest is sobriety in the face of what we actually have to deal with. Smile if you want, but none of us have anything to really smile about. We have fields and stables full of Herculean tasks and right now we aren't even agreed on what to shovel first.
Its not enough to fight "against Trump" this time. I don't see their feelings being legitimized. They are just being offered extra data and being told they need to handle that business too.
Tangentially related to what we're talking about here, I think there's a point people miss when talking about why Clinton lost the election—there's a lot of ways to win.
Clinton could have done a better job in her campaign.
More white women could have voted for Clinton.
More minorities could have voted + voted for Clinton.
More people could have voted, period.
I think it's helpful to remember that it can be no one's fault as well as everyone's fault for the election, and that singling out groups for non-individual actions is not exactly morally sound, nor is it pragmatically helpful. We have multiple paths to winning elections, whether converting white folks, getting more colored folks to the polls, getting young people to become regular voters and active in state politics, etc. There's plenty of ways to skin this cat, and we can work on addressing all of them.
Clinton could have done a better job in her campaign.
More white women could have voted for Clinton.
More minorities could have voted + voted for Clinton.
More people could have voted, period.
I think it's helpful to remember that it can be no one's fault as well as everyone's fault for the election, and that singling out groups for non-individual actions is not exactly morally sound, nor is it pragmatically helpful. We have multiple paths to winning elections, whether converting white folks, getting more colored folks to the polls, getting young people to become regular voters and active in state politics, etc. There's plenty of ways to skin this cat, and we can work on addressing all of them.
That picture is out there, why it wasn't used in the OP, I don't know. A black woman held up a graph of who voted and who they voted for
Among catholics? Most certainly. I know a few and that's all they mentioned in their vehemence for denying Hillary the White House. Among Evangelicals, it rates high, maybe not on the same level, but it's pretty damn high.
I mean, you're doing precisely what people are asking you to do given the advantage you have. You use your position to make inroads into a demographic that minorities find tough to crack on an everyday personal basis or on a national stage. What more can minorities like us ask for really? That's an ally we like to have.
But the way you reply and react to the simple broader request for introspection on what more can be done? How quick you were to show everyone your receipts? Maybe the message could have been handled a little more gently, but even though you knew you did everything you reasonably could you still came back with 'I'm sure I'm part of the problem.' Don't try and tell me that's not you being a touch fragile. It's not much different from the previous responses.
theignoramus
Member
You're playing games and feigning outrage, and Im not here for it. I didnt "reduce trans issues to a bathroom bill", I gave an example of an LGBTQ issue that received a massive level of support. You're the one who decided to single out Black males, like we have the economic resources to stop White Conservative anti-LGBTQ agendas.
Unspeakable Evil
Member
The most important question that nobody has the answer to.
TurnipFritters
Member
There's a strong correlation between people who voted for Donald and people who identify as Evangelical Christians.
Except that sign has nothing to do about individual agency and everything to do about institutional problems. It is not singling out a particular person but rather the white institution that is the root cause of the suffering of minorities. It is not meant to rob anyone's individual agency because it is not meant to even be about individual agency.
And while you are not responsible for a bunch of racist shit bags, the fact of the matter is that as a while male, the actions of those racist shit bags is directly benefitting you. That's the entire reason this argument is about institutionalized oppression: no one can escape being a part of this institution. The problem is that white people specifically are the only ones benefiting from this arrangement, at the expense of everyone else. If white people are specifically benefiting from institutional racism, how else do you propose to call this issue other than by the descriptor of the exclusive beneficiary?
"White women voted for Trump" is not only playing on the statistical outcome of this election, but pointing out the privilege that ALL white women have – both the allies and the deplorable, and how the continued existence of this institutionalized privilege will keep affecting the life of every black and non-white woman.
Since this isn't a sign about individual actions but institutional problems, there is absolutely no reason to be offended nor feel like this is targeting YOU – because it has nothing to do with you as an individual.
Can you articulate it? What makes it different from just a factoid that white women as group marginally favored Trump?
Because for the life of me, I don't see any way to interpret it other than these women are hypocritical because they march now but their demographic supports Trump. And that is problematic for fairly obvious reasons I should think.
EDIT: That is assuming that the framing of the photo is intentional. If you want to argue that it's all about the sign and thus it could be taken anywhere I guess you could do that but I think that is being coy.
Got a picture of that? the sign in the OP wasn't a graph.
And it wasn't used because it wasn't the message the OP was trying to talk about, we likely had threads literally just saying that information nearer election date. This thread is specifically about the protests, not specifically about statistics as you're implying it is.
plagiarize
Banned
I don't see it that way, so I don't agree that its point is *specific*.
You don't know what the intent of the photographer was. Or their ideology. Or why they are the person they are. Heck you don't know their race or gender.
I respect you enough to challenge you. I didn't see this photo as singling out three women for blame for Donald Trump. Maybe the photographer didn't want to chop their heads off. Heck, maybe the photographer was their friend, and someone else cropped it.
Instead of talking about whether white women need to reflect on if they could be doing more to convince other white women to be more aware of other people's needs, we're arguing about how mean a photographer is for making three white women look bad.
And I just do not see how that makes anything better.
Obama got called a "race baiter" by people for pointing out the very real systemic racism. Cold hard factual statements of historical events were now "just attempts to stir people up". The typical "I'm not responsible for slavery because I didn't exist then but I'm sure as fuck going to partake in the benefits of that event that exist to the day" "let's just all get along and not yell" quote progressive unquote
ArchedThunder
Banned
It legitimizes prejudice and divides us more. When you attack an ally because of their skin color your making things worse.
Not to mention the idea that minorities can't be racist is downplaying race issues between minority groups as well, not just with white people.
Instead of pointing fingers we should be coming together instead of letting Trump win because we're dividing ourselves.
King Tubby
Member
If a homeless chinese dude walks up to me and calls mefor a dirty spic it's still going to be pretty racist.
What are you even trying to accomplish with this shit. I don't understand. You're basically telling someone who is doing as much as can be reasonably expected to go fuck themselves.
Nope
I'm not here to win anything. I was just expanding on the valid point the person I was responding to made.
Vault Dweller 111
Member
Holy shit this is stupid. How many white women are there in America? 47% could cover every single white female protester with ample room to spare. This is actually so fucking stupid.
Why the hell are we fighting among ourselves?
This really angers me.
Why the hell are we fighting among ourselves?
This really angers me.
ElBoxyBrown
Banned
As a man I defend feminism even when they sometimes make broad stroking claims about horrible things men do because I know that it's not being directed at me and their struggle is way more important than whatever I have going on.
Police racism has an entire group that has held multiple major, televised protests trying to stop it. How is that not a "massive level of support"?
I'm sorry, do you have any idea who I am and what my life is about?
Because I can promise you, you absolutely do not. You have no idea what my background is, who I am, or what I do on a day in day out basis, and this post is increadibly dismissive of me and what I am about.
voodoojohn
Banned
As a male minority, what bothers me about the women's march is that it places the female gender's concerns vis-à-vis men as being equal to male and female minority's concerns vis-à-vis white people. And that's disingenuous. Promoting understanding between races is the singularly most important, difficult, and complex issue of our times. It's insulting and childish to behave as if a white woman's concerns are equivalent to a black man's. They're not.
KO Traveling Hobo
Member
If you made a thread "Why did 51% of white women vote for Trump?" with just a period in the body of the post, I guarantee you will have answers up to your ears.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
I gave an example, but hey if you want to absolve yourself of all guilt of helping others while condemning everyone else regardless of whether those specific people are helping you or not be my guess. It doesn't make you any less of a hypocritical fool though. Also, I'm not sure what I'm "feigning outrage about", I'm not mad in any sense but you seem to enjoy assumptions.
So...human?
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
Are you being serious? One can never tell on these boards.
Sunster
Member
I'm not commenting on the photo or tweet. Just that I disagree with you on what racism entails. Power and attitude.
notworksafe
Member
but how useful are 100s of pointless gifs and people saying "because they're racist" over and over?
MistakenMobius
Member
Mechanized
Member
That tweet and that image are some stupid shit. 53% voted for him, the other 47% didn't. Why wouldn't the women in these marches be in the 47%? This is a distraction that's just causing more division. Women are human beings, they make mistakes, they have faults, they're just as stupid as men sometimes. To say all women have to reflect, man fuck that nonsense. You only learn if you want to learn, and for some people, it's trial by fire. If some of the 53% of women realized they made a mistake after the election they have every right to go out and protest and want things to change.
The only people that need to reflect here are navel gazing pseudo-intellectuals whose only platform for "change" is a fucking tweet.
"Maybe UR the problem, think about that one?"
Fuck off.
The only people that need to reflect here are navel gazing pseudo-intellectuals whose only platform for "change" is a fucking tweet.
"Maybe UR the problem, think about that one?"
Fuck off.
Unspeakable Evil
Member
But will any of them actually answer the question?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked