hallo,
i'm from Munich and write this at the last (very warm and sunny) sunday of the octoberfest (the last day is tomorrow).
Of course, those pictures are media-constructions (e.g. they don't show any negative aspects of the Octoberfest: drunken persons, fights, criminality.. ) including genderaspects. But all those pictures of young women with dirndl (and young men with lederhosen) show exactly what's going on at the "Wiesn" since 3 or 4 years: for the young generation of Munich (and very often for those of foreign countries too - i'm pretty sure, that those guys in blue shirts are not from Munich) it is nearly a 'must' to got there in traditional bavarian clothings we call "Tracht" - very oft in crazy (or even sexy) variations of the traditional forms of Tracht (including sneakers). And obviously they like it a lot.

The Time slideshow makes me absurdly happy.

That is all.

You're grasping at straws.

Interesting post. What's more, doesn't Germany have a sizable population of people of color, some of whom are second- and third-generation Germans? Are you telling me dark-skinned people don't drink, like crazy costumes, or serve beer? The woman in the next-to-last photo might be of Turkish ancestry.

How can you tell that the older men are wearing lederhosen? They are only shown from the shoulders up, so how can you tell what pants they are wearing?

There's no there there. I, too, am amazed at your extraordinary ability to figure out what the old men were wearing. I can only deduce that you'd hoisted a couple steins yourself before writing this useless post. "Objectification"... seriously? Of the five - apparently scandalous - "young girls in dirndls" photos, one appears somewhat focused on cleavage. (Of which, also, I must ask, really? "Young girls?" They're what? 7 or 8 years old? Talk about loaded language. Let's accuse Boston.com of being a direct accessory to pedophilia while we're at it.) Please post when you have a point only. Sad.

The lady in the last picture is actually dressed to appear conventionally attractive. Those pants aren't fitted so tightly to make it easier on her to move around, you know.

If you don't believe that the women aren't being shown in "functional roles" might I point out the only picture in which beer is being distributed is by none other than the dirndl-clad hard working ladies?

I'm going to go ahead and say they're the most hard working and most important part of Oktoberfest.

My God. The first picture of the "two photos of young men in leiderhosen" reveal men wearing a shirt with a deep neckline, exposing their hair man chests. I'm writing to Time immediately. As a man, I will NOT BE OBJECTIFIED.

I thought of a new, admittedly longer, title for this post: "Oktoberfest and the Hypersensitive Gaze: In Which A Sociologist Attempts to Justify Her Education by Throwing Around Terminology Irrelevant to the Matter at Hand."

Incidentally, I see two pictures which have women older than 25 in them: the one you cite - which has three middle-aged women in it - and the photo of the older male bartender which also has three older women in it. Yet you say that the photo you cite is: "the only one that includes a picture of a woman who might be over 25." Did you not see that obvious and glaring error? This exemplifies the problem with this whole post: you obviously had a spin to put on it, and, actual, obvious, visual evidence be damned, you were going to stick to that spin.

Also, you refer to the five photos of "young girls," but in your introductory paragraph you claim that "Women, then, were included primarily as eye candy..." Why the change? Are they young girls or women? You post five pictures of "eye candy" labeling them as "young girls," but you previously had said that "women" were the "eye candy." To echo my previous comment, this is deliberately loaded language serving only to sensationalize your already specious argument. Hell, you can't even keep the language consistent within a very short article.

Lisa, I like this blog. I often post your articles to my Facebook page, but I have to call "bullshit" on this. I'd give you a D- only because you put in some effort, and your grammar is solid.

I'm not defending Oktoberfest; I'm saying this post offers no real evidence to support its thesis, and, beyond that, astoundingly refutes its own case with the visual evidence it presents as support. I strongly recommend you rewrite it. Better yet, delete the whole thing. It sullies this blog's reputation immensely.

What is the objectifying part? The (traditional) clothes that the girls/women wore? The poses? Also, in the photos the women all have on different dresses while the men often dress alike. This would make them more interesting to photograph. The clothing is tradionally feminine but nothing I would call even remotely sexy. I see only one cleavage shot and a humourous intended kissing scene. The rest are not even all that flattering. They are just drinking/carrying beer.

What I am saying is: men and women are both wearing traditional clothes, drinking beer and having fun. No-one (except maybe for photo 1) is posing sexily for the camera. The only difference is the lack of portraits of non-conventionally attractive women. But in my own experience, these are often the people trying to avoid having their picture taken. Who wants non-flattering pictures of themselves circulating the internet?

There is some selective editing to make the point about males in functional roles.

The men with rifles are in a parade, dressed up in historical costume. Is that "functional"?

The man opening the cask of beer is the Mayor of Munich and the other man in the foreground is the Prime Minister of Bavaria. The Mayor pours the first beer to start Oktoberfest and serves it to the Prime Minister. This photo can't have women "at work" unless women are elected in Bavaria.

Here are the photos left out:

A farmer in silhouette, only identifiable as male from the caption.

Women's hands icing gingerbread hearts.

Waitresses, one holding a large platter of food.

A man's hand pouring a beer.

Doesn't seem like a big swing towards men in functional roles, to me.

I find it very interesting that a sociology blog, in an attempt to talk about how adult women are objectified, labels several pictures of people who do, in fact, seem to be adult women (MAYBE they're older teens, but most seem to be adults) as 'young girls.' Also, since when are those traditional (albeit modernized and made somewhat sexy) 'conventionally attractive' but tight jeans and a top (on the thinnest, blondest woman picture no less, though not sure how relevant that is considered cultural differences) are somehow not? Everyone I know from Germany would consider the final picture more 'conventionally' attractive, while the other pictures are something somewhat novel (perhaps still attractive, but not at all conventionally so). Aside from the faux-kiss picture, the pictures of the young women mirror the pictures of the men and the older woman pretty closely, at least in tone. They aren't in sexy poses, but in shots that mostly appear to be candid shots of people having fun at an event where lots of beer is available. However, the fact that only two visibly older women are shown is a bit odd. I wonder if this is the choice of the makers of the slideshow, the photographer(s), or of the attendants of Oktoberfest itself.

The second older man in lederhosen is definitely Karl Marx.

Hi there, just a note from the editor of the blog post in question. First, I'm happy to see the discussion here, believe it or not subjects like this are often in mind when compiling my photo stories.

This seems like fair criticism, and I'm not being defensive. What I will offer is last year's entry for comparison and contrast: http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/09/oktoberfest_2009.html - not nearly as many "boob-poppin'" dirndls there.

As an editor I am limited by the photos available to me, and their quality. In this case, for example, there may have been a decent photograph of an older woman in a strong functional role, but maybe it was poorly lit or repetitive just not up to par, and was left out. I compile entries three times a week on varied subjects that endup being 30 to 40 photos total, starting with anywhere from 100 to 300 to begin with. The selection process is long, subjective, and can certainly be viewed as flawed from many points of view.

If you think the blog is intentionally objectifying, I invite you to look through my archives: http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/09/ and judge for yourself. I can also be reached by email at ataylor@boston.com

Thanks for the discussion,
-Alan Taylor

Hi, i'm from Germany, it's called Lederhosen, not Leiderhosen.
I have never been to Oktoberfest and i'm not planing on doing in the future, it's just a very expensiv very drunk party. I can have that cheaper in my city too.

Actually, the Germans themselves are noticing a huge uptake in women dressed in "sexy" dirndls this year. At first, I dismissed it as a non-trend moral panic-esque "threat to tradition" trope. However, maybe it really is just really trendy this year? Either the sexy dirndls really are trendy this year or the media is potraying them more at the forefront so it seems like they are.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704116004575522072707578194.html?mod=WSJEUROPE_hpp_MIDDLETopNews

It's Lederhosen, not leiderhosen. That makes them sound like something unfortunate...

It's the same thing as guys here in the states: tits n' beer. Or, if you're a yuppie, martinis and ample cleavage. :P