Sociological Images

You have likely seen the image above.  The photograph of a 20-week old fetus was taken by Swedish photographer Lennart Nilsson.  Another of his photographs graced the cover of Life magazine in April of 1965:

Nilsson’s images forever changed the way that people think about fetuses.  His haunting pictures made it possible for a woman, and her society, to visualize the contents of her womb and to do so independently of her body.  Notice how the images do not depict the relationship between the fetus and the woman… they simply depict the fetus. Suddenly, with these images, the fetus came to life.  It was no longer just something inside of a woman, it was an individual with a face, a sex, a desire to suck its thumb.  

In the 1970s, the pro-life movement began using the images.  Once the fetus could be idividualized, arguments in favor of its preservation could be made more powerfully.  The beautiful photos, further, romanticized the fetus, discouraging abortion.  The pictures served to suggest, essentially, that fetuses weren’t so different from babies.

This testifies to the power of visualization and how technological advances can have significant political ramifications.

There is more, though, to Nilsson’s photographs.

It turns out that the photographs are not of fetuses in the womb, they are photographs of aborted fetuses.

Although claiming to show the living fetus, Nilsson actually photographed abortus material obtained from women who terminated their pregnancies under the liberal Swedish law. Working with dead embryos allowed Nilsson to experiment with lighting, background and positions, such as placing the thumb into the fetus’ mouth.

– Quote from the University of Cambridge’s history of the science of fetal development (found via Jezebel).

There is something wildly ironic about the fact that liberal abortion rights laws resulted in a product that was used to mobilize anti-abortion sentiment. 

And there is an interesting story here, too, about photography and the real.  What is real?  And can pictures lie?

8 days:

28 days:

40 days:

16 weeks:

16 weeks:

19 weeks:

24 weeks:

26 weeks:

For another interesting controversy regarding photography, see our post on Shelby Lee Adam’s images of Appalacians.

We’ve offered many examples of companies co-opting feminism in order to sell products.  In the video below, we see that the co-optation of feminism is nothing new:

(At Vintage Videosift.)

Actually, I shouldn’t be so flippant.  Inventions like the washing machine did, indeed, save women a great deal of time and effort.  From what I understand, however, as women’s cleaning became more efficient, standards of cleanliness rose.  So even as time-saving devices were introduced, the time women spent cleaning did not substantially change.  I’d love to hear more from scholars who have a better handle on this history.

Here’s another step in the trajectory, this one from 1971, also about cleaning appliances (found here):

Text:

The American Appliance Industry has always championed women’s liberation.

There was a time when women washed clothes by hand in water carried from a well…

…shapped every day because there was no way to refigerate food…

..tried to keep house with just a broom…

…made clothes without a sewing machine!

It’s obvious.  America’s appliances have freed women from the oppression of endlessly dull, backbreaking work.  They’ve helped liberate the American woman to enjoy a more stimulating, more interesting life…

In or out of the home.

Women who seek successful careers in the arts, sciences, business, industry, education, or the professions are finding themselves.

It’s all part of America’s new freedom of preference.  And Republican Steel Corporation, a leading supplier of steels to the appliance industry, is proud to be a part of it.

Visit your nearest appliance dealer and you’ll see hundreds of our modern steels — intricately shaped and beautifully finished in the world’s finest consumer appliances.

Like to help liberate the women in your life from some hard work and drudgery?

Buy her one of the new convenience appliances this weekend.

Or maybe a whole houseful.

Notice that women’s liberation DOES NOT involve men sharing housework responsibilities, but men replacing women’s labor with tools he purchases for her.  Ultimately, even if she has a “successful career” in “the professions,” it is her responsibility to make sure that the housework is completed (and apparently still wouldn’t be able to buy herself one of these machines).

For contemporary examples, see these posts on make up (here and here), botox, cigarettes (here and here), right-hand diamond rings, cooking and cleaning products, fashion, and other miscellaneous products (here, here, and here).

Elisabeth R. sent us this one-minute commercial.  I’ll let you experience it as designed (it has a surprise ending) and include my comments below:

We might feel that feminism and gun ownership are incompatible.  An argument could be made that (especially machine) gun ownership is anti-feminist, but it’s also true that we artificially cluster rather random, unconnected ideas into political ideologies that we then understand to be compatible by definition.  For example, what does being anti-gay marriage and anti-taxes have to do with each other?  Nothing.

For more on pro-gun propaganda, see this extensive set of really fascinating posters making feminist, anti-racist, and pro-gay arguments in favor of gun ownership.

For another example of an effort to bridge the political binary, see this post on pro-environment/anti-immigrant activism

I’ve always found it troubling when I hear people use the word “Nazi” metaphorically.  Terms like “fashion nazi,” “food nazi,” even Seinfeld’s famous “soup nazi” episode, seem to trivialize the Holocaust.  Of course, we often recognize the hyperbole and that’s part of what is supposed to make it funny.  But do we really want to make fun with such an idea?   Lots of people didn’t like it when PETA did it.

In any case, I was thinking about similar uses of the word “rape.”  The word “rape” seems to be everywhere.  People use it not just for its literal meaning, but to describe all manner of unpleasant experiences.  For example, in this story at bestweekever:

Do other societies use words like rape and murder metaphorically?  Have we always done so?  Must we?  Or are there alternatives that may be more sensitive to people who lost loved ones in the Holocaust, were raped, or knew someone who was murdered?

All of this to introduce a cartoon from Principia Comica, sent in by Markus B., that aims to illustrate the absurdity of using “rape” as a metaphor:

Or maybe this cartoon is even more subversive.  Maybe it is suggesting that we feel comfortable being flippant about pain that disproportionately affects women, but not pain that affects men.

In this set of videos, we see Bill O’Reilly call Helen Thomas (of the White House press corps) a “witch” and then his response to the criticism. It is a demonstration of of sexism in the media, the left/right culture war, and the sad, sad state of political punditry:

Think Progress.

Fascinating:

Bush’s comment is offensive (yes, all pro-choice women are ugly, angry, and undesirable). Clinton’s complicity is unfortunate.

In the comments, Sabriel asks what my “sociological angle” is.  Sabriel, I think Bush’s comment and Clinton’s complicity reveals that it’s still essentially fine to be hateful towards women, especially those who refuse to play by the rules of patriarchy (whether that be measured by attention to their attractiveness to men or accepting that their role of mother should take precedence over any and all other needs and desires). Regarding Clinton’s complicity: Imagine the flak he would have taken had he defended the woman that Bush castigates. By and large, at least in politics, it is easier to be sexist than it is to be feminist.

Via Feministe.

Taylor D. sent in a link to a set of vintage ads featuring African Americans. This one is for wigs. Notice the commodification of liberation and freedom: you buy it in the form of a wig, which gives you a whole new look in seconds!

This one is for a hair straightener:

Of course, the “tamer” and “the boss” that can “stir up some beautiful new excitement in your life” can also refer to the man who is stroking her hair, playing into the idea of the man who tames a wild woman–and that all women, deep down, want a strong man to tame them.

This next one uses women’s fear that men won’t find them attractive to sell deoderant:

Thanks, Taylor!