April 23, 2013 - ...or Aaron could walk her to her car cuz it's kinda his fucking job! In seriousness, Aaron's job is to make people feel safe, but as Aaron correctly deduces, Patience's request isn't out of true concern for her safety, her request is an expression of a desire to conform to gender roles as she thinks it will in some way make her more attractive to the opposite sex. I could argue that conforming to gender roles isn't necessarily bad. We all have different personalities that combine a variety of different traits some of which may be perceived as more feminine or masculine than others and at times it may make sense to play up more feminine or masculine traits when the situation calls for it (though I'm racking my brain for a good example of this). However there's a difference between exaggerating characteristics of one's personality and changing one's personality entirely to fit expectations.
Patience was totally fine walking into work on her own. Nothing about the situation has changed to make her feel less safe. Patience should feel fine on her own exiting. In fact, not leaving on her own undermines her struggle to overcome her insecurities over having an abortion by attempting to make it someone else's problem. She may want to get closer to Philip, but any person so rapidly attempting to change her personality is just going to make themselves that much harder to get close to. I therefore think she's much better off being herself and not playing an inane game that undermines her true personality.
Hopefully that makes sense. I now want to draw attention to this blog exposing the uncomfortable and unwilling objectification of women in media particularly journalism and music journalism. It basically calls out photographers and editors for publishing content on the basis of sex appeal without obtaining consent from the subjects of the photos for the use of their likeness in this manner. One of the problems I had with the coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing was the realization that likely none of the photographs of the bombings had obtained likeness rights for the people featured within them. To a certain extent one could argue they attended and/or participated in a public event therefore forfeiting such rights to journalists. But stepping beyond the rights of the news media to publish such photos is the question of how responsible was it to take such photos to begin with.
I acknowledge some photographs were taken by stationary cameras intending to capture the race, and in general these are not the photographs I'm talking about. Even the video of the explosions is more a question of the editors taste than the photographers responsibility. But I imagine everyone's taken a photograph at some point. You know that unless there's a shadow or mirror the photographer is rarely seen and presents the world as if the photographer doesn't exist, even though in the real world the photographer is very much a part of it (and in least in my family it's almost become a running joke that every christmas photo we send out is invariably taken by one of my aunts whom we're very close with). But the point is for every photograph that was taken at the Boston Marathon bombing there was some photographer that rather than run to safety or help those suffering, the photographer stood on the street snapping away with a camera. How on earth is this a natural, decent, and human way to respond to tragedy? We can commentate on circumstances when situations like this occur and life isn't in jeopardy or at the very least we're too far from the scene to bring immediate aid. But it appears there were several photographers in the immediate area of the bombings whose instincts weren't fight or flight, help or run, but, "damn, i bet this will make a great photo." Medical professionals have stated that the quick work of first responders saved several lives in Boston, but I really can't help but wonder if maybe three more could have been saved if more hands had put down a camera and rushed to help those injured. Is journalism nothing more than exploitation at this point? Where's the responsibility and accountability? Why can't we respect reporters who are there to help instead of stand by and observe?
Aaaaaaaaaaand it's probably about time to step off my soapbox. Back tomorrow.
-D
Patience was totally fine walking into work on her own. Nothing about the situation has changed to make her feel less safe. Patience should feel fine on her own exiting. In fact, not leaving on her own undermines her struggle to overcome her insecurities over having an abortion by attempting to make it someone else's problem. She may want to get closer to Philip, but any person so rapidly attempting to change her personality is just going to make themselves that much harder to get close to. I therefore think she's much better off being herself and not playing an inane game that undermines her true personality.
Hopefully that makes sense. I now want to draw attention to this blog exposing the uncomfortable and unwilling objectification of women in media particularly journalism and music journalism. It basically calls out photographers and editors for publishing content on the basis of sex appeal without obtaining consent from the subjects of the photos for the use of their likeness in this manner. One of the problems I had with the coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing was the realization that likely none of the photographs of the bombings had obtained likeness rights for the people featured within them. To a certain extent one could argue they attended and/or participated in a public event therefore forfeiting such rights to journalists. But stepping beyond the rights of the news media to publish such photos is the question of how responsible was it to take such photos to begin with.
I acknowledge some photographs were taken by stationary cameras intending to capture the race, and in general these are not the photographs I'm talking about. Even the video of the explosions is more a question of the editors taste than the photographers responsibility. But I imagine everyone's taken a photograph at some point. You know that unless there's a shadow or mirror the photographer is rarely seen and presents the world as if the photographer doesn't exist, even though in the real world the photographer is very much a part of it (and in least in my family it's almost become a running joke that every christmas photo we send out is invariably taken by one of my aunts whom we're very close with). But the point is for every photograph that was taken at the Boston Marathon bombing there was some photographer that rather than run to safety or help those suffering, the photographer stood on the street snapping away with a camera. How on earth is this a natural, decent, and human way to respond to tragedy? We can commentate on circumstances when situations like this occur and life isn't in jeopardy or at the very least we're too far from the scene to bring immediate aid. But it appears there were several photographers in the immediate area of the bombings whose instincts weren't fight or flight, help or run, but, "damn, i bet this will make a great photo." Medical professionals have stated that the quick work of first responders saved several lives in Boston, but I really can't help but wonder if maybe three more could have been saved if more hands had put down a camera and rushed to help those injured. Is journalism nothing more than exploitation at this point? Where's the responsibility and accountability? Why can't we respect reporters who are there to help instead of stand by and observe?
Aaaaaaaaaaand it's probably about time to step off my soapbox. Back tomorrow.
-D
comments powered by Disqus
