i always thought of that default picture as being white out of a blankness, because you're supposed to replace it with your own picture, as in, "here is this blank person, replace it with what your face actually looks like"
but in terms of the ken doll-esque silhouette, yes, it's kinda creepy

I agree with Anna, the white is just blankness. I, myself, am pink like this comment box. And the only thing male about the avatar is the short hair, right? Women can have short hair, and men can have long hair, and I think we're all overthinking this.

Oops, my comment box wasn't pink. But you get the idea.

Blank or white is not the actual color of white skinned people (at least not all of them).

Seeing as how there aren't any features on the default face, I'd agree that it's blank, not "white."

The Alfalfa forelock is moderately gendered, but that's it. Strip that off and it's completely genderless, unless a lack of long hair genders it. But that doesn't work either (says the ponytailed man with a short haired wife).

With the global image, I just figured the orange was used because it provided a good contrasting color to the bluegrey/white map. It's what I'd have chosen from a graphic design standpoint, not to represent some manner of skin color.

"when Facebook is charged with representing an individual, the avatar is white and male."

No surprise there. Human = white male. All else is deviation.

People talking about "blankness" are right, in a sense, but missing the point. Why not use this odd orange color? Selecting white (even intending it to mean blankness) is still human =white and male. Think of all the forms with set defaults in the fields of "sex" and "ethnicity". What are they virtually *always* set to?

I may agree on the "male" (with one note: in the West it's more likely to see a woman with short hair than a man with long hair), but I tend to see the "white" as "blank" (as pointed out by Anna and SN), or at least a "Wedgwood silhouette". But then again, I am white and I grew up among almost exclusively white people.

They used to use a question mark when a user did not have an avatar. I always quite liked this, as it implied mystery.

OK, I guess I can see what people are talking about with the "blank" space rather than a "white" space. However, there's still a certain head shape (tall and thin), hair texture (straight, if prone to cowlick) and clothing (button down shirt-see the collar outline?) included in information we are given about the "blank" space: these could all be seen as coded marks of whiteness, especially taken together. I would agree with Tobin B.

I had never even REALIZED this!

I personally see the white as blank also, because it is a silhouette. Traditional silhouettes are black (despite ethnicity), and I think white was chosen simply because the predominant color of the background (white, as in most web design). Speaking as a designer, it seems to be for aesthetic/graphic reasons. I do agree that the color white will always have implications (white=good, black=evil), and this can be rooted in racism.

What I find truly problematic is the fact that it is CLEARLY a male. Anyone who argues that women can have short hair....do you honestly see this as being female? I certainly don't.

The simple solution would be a nondescript, gender-neutral icon. But of course, male is the default sex, as always.

Agree with Samantha - while we all know that women sometimes have short hair, I think we'd be hard pressed to find a westerner who upon split-second first impression would not say the silhouette was male.

Related anecdote: I'm reading "The End of Faith" by philosopher Sam Harris, and throughout the entire book Harris, like so many authors, uses "he" in all instances meant to apply to a general person. The book is modern, copyright 2004, and I assume that if asked, he'd give the standard disclaimer that it's done for the sake of elegant prose and that using "he/she" is too awkward.

Yet, on page 60 of the edition I have, his true colors show. Harris presents a scenario (unrelated to linguistics, pronouns, or anything like that) to open a passage on cognition and truths/falsities, and he asks the reader to imagine you've briefly leave the table where you're having dinner with your friends, and you come back to overhear them say, "Shhhh, he can't know anything about this."

Harris writes:
"What are you to make of this statement? Everything turns on whether you believe that you are the "he" in question. If you are a woman, and therefore excluded by this choice of pronouns, you would probably feel nothing but curiousity"...

Whoops. So it turns out Harris considers it a fact that women are excluded by "he", yet he still chose to use "he" as the general pronoun throughout his entire book. HMMMMM.

I agree that the white denotes blank rather than caucasian. and while i understand that the short hair might traditionally denote "male", i think it's fairly ridiculous for aware people to choose to view long hair as equalling female and short as equalling male.

KLG, you're not hard pressed, it only took one comment. I'm a western (femme) woman, and the first thing i thought was: that that person has my hair.

Since everyone's focusing on the first picture, I'll focus on the second:

My take all along has been those orange placeholders are not representative of people or skin color but analogous to street cones. X marks the spot, if you will.

It might be interesting to compare this to other default icons. For example, the Japanese language site Mixi uses a genderless circle on a vague set of shoulders as a default image. The default color is orange, I assume to match the colors of the site. Considering the overwhelming majority of Mixi users are Japanese (however, the founder is not) I'm pretty sure racism was not a consideration when choosing the images.

It seems a little odd Facebook chose white for the generic picture and orange for the others, but in their defense, maybe like Mixi, they chose white and blue because it's the colors of the site. The default male is a bit disturbing. I was under the impression mine was male because I registered as such.

Keith,

Good questions. I checked to see if women were also assigned the "male" avatar. They are.

KLG - Dawkins runs into similiar pronoun problems and in "The Blindwatchmaker" attempts to explain himself. He does a piss poor job of it. Acknowledging sexist language and then continuing to do it seem remarkably dumb to me.

I agree about the problem with "he/she", etc. Apparently, just using "they" never occurs to them.

"He/she" is ungainly, but it is singular. "They" is plural. While it is gender-neutral, it can't replace a singular pronoun.

The best examples I have seen so far tend to alternate between male and female pronouns. Baby books often switch genders at each example or chapter if they are not marketed toward a specific gender of baby.

Many economics books use "she" as the general agent; most game theory books and articles use a "she" as a player, or use a female player against a male one (usually the female is player 1 and the male is player 2) - in which case you don't always have to write "player 1/2" but a more concise"S/he".

Personally, I would give away the women in the examples in exchange for more women (with equal pay, please) as full professors (not to mention prizes, and so on).

I have to agree with the white outline being "blank" and not a representation of ethnicity. Also, in many cases the male gernder-type is used to encompass all genders when not speaking specifically of any particular person. As for the orange color of the global cut-outs: As a graphic designer all I saw was that you can't put blue or white on an already blue and white background, which appears to be the main color scheme of Facebook (blue and white), and since orange is the complimentary color to blue, it made the most sense to be visually engaging. I seriously think this is a case of something not meant in any way whatsoever to be taken offensively, and yet in our hyper-sensitive times, it is.

"Also, in many cases the male gernder-type is used to encompass all genders when not speaking specifically of any particular person."

Wait, seriously?
THAT'S THE PROBLEM. That's one of the reasons for this post to begin with - that male is seen as neutral and female is "special" AKA not equal. Women are expected to identify with a masculine icon but men wouldn't be expected to identify with a feminine icon.
Sheesh.

Personally, I would give away the women in the examples in exchange for more women (with equal pay, please) as full professors (not to mention prizes, and so on).

I don't think those are unrelated. Just being able to visualize a woman in a certain position of power as easily as one envisions a man can be a difficult step. If the description of a scholarly award, for example, includes a phrase that genders the possible recipient as male I imagine that has at least a little influence on just who seems to really "fit" the characteristics the award is aiming at.

(This reminds me of the implicit bias tests; I'm a female biology student myself but apparently I have a huge bias towards picturing the humanities as feminine and the sciences as masculine. I can't help but think that has led to a lot of my anxiety and self-doubt about my chosen career...)

"This is not random or accidental."

No, but it's almost certainly not racist or sexist, either. While we certainly can't know for sure without talking to the designers, I would guess that visual design principles are probably the main reason for the color scheme. As for the single-sex representation, that's harder to explain, but I seem to recall a time when Facebook had different silhouettes for both sexes.

Bagelsan: I don't mind if a letter informing me of the possibility of an award has a gender-inclusive language. This may have to do with the fact that my first language is Italian, in which gender is much more stressed: there is a name for male-doctor and a name for female-doctor, the latter was created as the name of the wife of a professional/nobleman used to be created; the name for female-minister is still in debate...

I do mind the lack of female models. Even reminding girls in school that there were Marie Curie and her daughter, or Sophie Germain (I study mathematics), or... could be a good starting point. Even if the risk is to give young girls the idea that they can make it only if they are geniuses (and, in the words of Chris Rock: "equality is the chance to s*ck like the white man").

I have never had many problems seeing myself as a mathematician, given the fact that my father is a humanist and my mother a physics graduate (furthermore, in Italy maths and biology students are mostly women). But I do have problems seeing me in a faculty track - I cannot help noticing the gender of the average full professor. On the other hand: if even the Wiener Philarmoniker had to accept a woman in their ranks...

The blue and white are a reflection of the brand colors.

This is a really really stupid article.

In my previous post about orange being a complimentary color (forgot to enter my name, sorry) I wasn't excusing the common usage of the masculine to encompass the whole, while the feminine is specific... at the moment it's just the way many languages are constructed, so I am neither offended not surprised when I see a stylized image to represent "people" as being male. As Robert Hienlein says in "Time Enough for Love", language is often a century behind culture in aspects of representing gender and other equality... photos are just one aspect of communication and language. I see changes that have ocurred in the past 30 years of my life, and appreciate the progress that HAS been made so far with better awareness of discrimination. While I can see how the avatar can bother you, to me it's unimportant as I see it as an attempt by an artist to stylize an image... Should I be upset that ladies' room signs don't show women of all sizes, and often portray women in a dress? Should men be upset that men are often portrayed as lantern-jawed and taller than most women when this is not always (or even usually the case)? The avatar would look much less interesting were it simply an impression of a head on a neck.

I subscribe to the blank silhouette theory. I've also never seen a man quite as white as the avatar portrays.

facebook doesn't matter.

Are you people serious about it being "white"? There are other markers of race besides color palette.

Just like that hair looks like a male haircut, it also looks like some typical white-boy hair. Seriously, does it look like a fro to you? And the shape and build looks like a stereotypical white boy, too.

The uber-literal reactions here make my head explode.

Deconstructing stuff is certainly fun, but there is also the chance that the blank avatar represents the white male who came up with facebook. Don't people always project themselves into a default idea of what normal is?

I completely disagree with Toban B. Do you also take issue with the fact that the Earth is white on Facebook’s illustration of global connection? The Avatar's color is not white, it is blank, colorless. This is a basic premise of graphic art. And, by the way, the word man is simply an abbreviation for the word human. And human is the race each of us is a member of. The only time the word man is used to designate the male gender of a human is when it is defined as such by the context in which it is used. Mankind unite.

sorry for the newbie question: just signed up to Facebook; have looked all over the site for the space to insert my photo; can't find it. Ideas? Tnx

way overthought

Stick people are considered to be male at anyone's first sight unless a skirt or hair is involved. Mickey Mouse is Minnie when there's eyelashes and a dress. Same with Donald and Daisy. The statement "male is the default gender" resonates throughout cultures, even the one today.

Oh, and anna (first poster of this page), it's "Here is this blank man..." j/k, you get the idea.

I agree with the statement about design. Orange is a contrasting color to the blue in Facebook's branding. It's not a race issue.

It seems they got rid of the avatar and replaced it with a black square or at least that is what I have seen.

I agree that whiteness and maleness are often universalized, but I have to disagree with the interpretation in this case.

One of my grandmothers had a framed silhouette of me and my brother made of black paper; that doesn't make us black. My other grandmother had a necklace with gold silhouette charms of us; that doesn't make us gold. Everyone got these regardless of their skin color or racial identity. Facebook's avatar is just a silhouette where the color of the silhouette is the background color of the page.

The image is similar to what one would see in the frame of a photo or video chat, and the white is a void looking out at you, reminding you (Facebook's nagging) that you have not added a photo like they'd like you to do. Although by having it be the color of the page background, and the grey being fairly low contrast, which makes the avatar relatively inconspicuous and not as naggy as if the color contrast was starker (as black would be) or if they made it some primary color.

The white here is void, blank, empty, undefined, absent - maybe it's nice that black does not represent these negatives? Indeed, the image is a negative image.

Alternatively, rather than an image of myself looking out, it could be an image of the back of my head. Recursive me looking at my computer screen looking at myself looking at my computer screen. The self and the computer screen constituting the self; Facebook identity as identity.

Geotag-based social networking site "Gowalla" actually uses (what looks like) a female avatar as their default pic:

http://gowalla.com/images/default-user.jpg

again, like many before me, I have to agree with the idea that the avatar is blank, not "white". And it's gender is also very questionable. People do tend to overthink some things. There is enough racism and discrimination in this world as it is, let's not try to find even more...

Try to picture that sihuette as female or even black and you may get a hard time...

Oh, gee. Because any silhouette rather than outline means the person is black, right?

And, uh, females DEFINITELY can't hair haircuts like that. Because I'm not female with a haircut like that at all.

No, I think the problem is that the default icon is not heteronormative enough. Girls can't choose girly, long haired icons! GOSH!

Dude. I can tell you why the silouettes in the map graphic are orange. Facebook's color scheme is blue and white. Always has been. Default avatar could either be blue on white or white on blue.

But overlaying avatars w/a map of the world forces you to add a third color, at least if you want the avatars to be remotely clear/discernible. So what color do you use?

I personally might have gone for yellow -- I'm sure it was tried out -- but orange is stronger, less lemony and springtimey and feminine (and, I guess also less open to interpretation as "Asian"). Pure red would be too USA/angry. I suppose green would have been another option, but if you want a warm contrast instead of a cool compliment to your blue and white then orange is where you end up.

The new "female" avatar looks like Darth Vader to me...

new avatar looks like a penis to me

I find all this to be a massive stretch. First of all, caucasian skin isn't white. Second, if you're going to complain about the default avatar's white "skin", then I'm going to be a little creeped out by the fact that it also has white hair and is wearing white clothes.

It's a silhouette. An OUTLINE. The person depicted in that avatar is no more white than they are standing in front of clear, blue skies: it's an abstract colour scheme. There is no race involved, much like there is no eye colour or age involved. I guess the only thing you can viably complain about is the fact that the outline is slim ("Where is the representation of overweight people? Rah rah!").

I always thought the default avatar was Alison Bechdel.

I'm surprised this hasn't been pointed out (or perhaps I missed the comment), but the "neutral" Facebook avatar is a testament to the narcissism of Facebook's creator: the "neutral" avatar is a stylized silhouette of Mark Zuckerberg. Originally, the default profile picture on Facebook was a question mark, and the logo in the top left-hand corner of the site was a stylized Mark Zuckerberg (light blue head/torso on a darker blue background, with the facial features lightened so much as to be almost indistinguishable). That logo was taken down at some point during the massive expansion of Facebook, and the silhouette replaced the punctuation mark as default profile picture. So in this case, it's not a sexist/racist default avatar, it's a narcissist default avatar -- a likeness of someone who just so happens to be male and white (and young and with short hair and and and...).

“the orange is supposed to be a sort of compromise skin colour.”

No, orange is the complementary colour of blue, which is what the oceans are in that logo. Perhaps a little less politics and a little more graphic design is in order, if graphic design is what you want to critique.

See #4 on this list:
http://www.cracked.com/article_18664_5-annoying-trends-that-make-every-movie-look-same.html

This is stupid! If avatars were created as generic genderless beings, why were some of them look male? That makes it unreal and unfair. It also makes it sound like the male and white as "universal". Screw that!!! We should celebrate differences and respect who we are. You can never ignore us or deny our humanity because we can't be all the same and see it as the norm. We should accept differences and to say differences is embraced.

Large numbers of brands have entered into the marketplace for offering
the very best, distinctive kinds of trackers to the customers.

Excellent way оf describing, and pleasant article to take
facts about my prеsentation subject, which i am going to present in institution of higher eⅾucation.

That profile picture is set automatically. when registering for a Facebook account, the user has not installed an avatar, the avatar will automatically be set like this. sedecordle wordle

With more and more dream interpretations on Facebook, people are starting to believe in dreams.