Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Flip

Original poster

How would you describe this photo?

20 replies

CheddarGorgeous · 01/02/2021 04:58

For some reason I can't describe it irks me that the Times has used this photo to illustrate an article about a new female prime minister.

How would you describe how Ms Kallas is presented?

OP posts:

Shaniac · 01/02/2021 05:08

Yeah thats pretty shit. It should be a straight on reflection of her stood omitting her power and high position. This is shit. Its a coy backward girl next door kind of pose.

Tavannach · 01/02/2021 05:13

For some reason I can't describe it irks me

It's because the photo puts the viewer in the dominant position looking down on the subject (and she appears in this photo as "girly"). They wouldn't do that with a male Prime Minister.

cateycloggs · 01/02/2021 05:15

I would have said she looks like a woman working in some kind of office or at a conference. since you mention she has been elected as a PM , I looked her up - Estonia. So now I would think she is sitting in a modern parliament/senate where they have their own seats with laptops etc. Looks like a microphone in front of her. If you mean her appearance, she looks like she is glancing back to in a friendly way possibly to answer a question or acknowledge somebody. I don't think it is a remarkable or sexist photo if that is your sub-text.

Original poster

CheddarGorgeous · 01/02/2021 05:21

@Tavannach

For some reason I can't describe it irks me

It's because the photo puts the viewer in the dominant position looking down on the subject (and she appears in this photo as "girly"). They wouldn't do that with a male Prime Minister.

That's a good description of my feelings. Thank you.

OP posts:

Premium5 · 01/02/2021 08:03

Can you imagine one of Johnson looking like that?

Porridgeoat · 01/02/2021 08:07

Cant imagine there are many photos of Boris like this

Camomila · 01/02/2021 08:13

I don't mind it, she looks like she is at work. It feels like an 'action shot' rather than a 'facing the front' portrait but I've seen 'action shot' style pictures of other prime ministers (The Canadian man whose name I can't remember is always walking around outside in the articles I remember seeing about him).

waitrosetrollydolly · 01/02/2021 08:16

To me it shows someone who's at work. Someone busy. Why should she have to stop work for a photoshoot ?!

Margotshypotheticaldog · 01/02/2021 08:22

It sort of reminds me of the red carpet- looking over the shoulder, show us the back of your dress love- pose.
Then again she is very photogenic, so perhaps all shots of her will have a particular look, no matter how she is standing or sitting.
Didn't Cosmo recently do something similar with Kamala Harris, use a slightly softer more girly shot than the power pose picture she had okd? Tbh the most surprising thing to me about that is that anyone still reads Cosmo...

Tavannach · 01/02/2021 08:28

I don't think it is a remarkable or sexist photo if that is your sub-text.

It's sexist, no sub-text. See if you can find a photo of a male leader who has just won an election in the same pose.

inappropriateraspberry · 01/02/2021 08:35

It looks like a stock image of 'friendly woman in an office.' Nothing authoritative or prime ministerial about her.

Picktionary · 01/02/2021 08:36

She is not shown as powerful, but I do not find it sexist or upsetting. I think only someone looking for offence would find this problematic. I suppose in the context of patriarchy its worth noting. Tricky one.

Clymene · 01/02/2021 08:37

Yes it's shit. I've just looked her up. Thousands of photos - this is the only 'looking over her shoulder up at the camera' one.

Totty with your toast

kindlingtwigs · 01/02/2021 08:39

Crap. It should be taken at the level of the subject.

PinkPlantCase · 01/02/2021 08:40

I can’t believe others on this thread can’t see it. They wouldn’t photograph a male prime minister like this.

There are so many other photos they could have used -

MechantGourmet · 01/02/2021 08:44

I'd say it was for the male gaze.

Original poster

CheddarGorgeous · 01/02/2021 12:38

@waitrosetrollydolly

To me it shows someone who's at work. Someone busy. Why should she have to stop work for a photoshoot ?!

There are a lot of other photos available of her.

As a PP said, it's very "male gaze"-y

OP posts:

Tavannach · 01/02/2021 23:59

Why should she have to stop work for a photoshoot ?!

The photo is accompanying an article about her election as Prime Minister which is why The Times should have chosen a picture which illustrates this in some way.
Instead there's a picture of a typically pretty woman, eyes welcoming, lips slightly parted, submissive to the viewer's look - as @MechantGourmand says it's for the male gaze.

Photographs are vital in communication - they give the message that the viewer understands quickly. Boris Johnson spends a great deal of time setting up opportunities to demonstrate his persona - his man-of-the-people (eg. camping holiday in Scotland), good fun bloke (dangling from a wire), serious concerned politcian (visiting a lab in Livingstone white-coated, goggled and examining a test tube also in Scotland - no coincidence there, he's trying to sell himself to Scottish voters atm) etc., etc.

cateycloggs · 02/02/2021 16:33

@Clymene

Yes it's shit. I've just looked her up. Thousands of photos - this is the only 'looking over her shoulder up at the camera' one.

Totty with your toast

I'm going to admit to being disingenuous in my post on this as I was sticking to the letter of the pos:, what did I think of the photo? In itself the photo is of a youngish ( attractive) woman looking over her shoulder in some kind of work situation. Obviously the question of who took it, when and why brings in the considerations others have pointed out. i was disingenuous because I did actually realise that it was the selection of the photo for a politcally illustrative purpose that is sexist if not remarkable.

After I posted I looked her and Estonia up so I learned something. And I agree choosing to illustrate the election of their first female PM who is now serving alongside their female President ( a world first) is outright sexist as there are many photos clearly showing her political position available. So I now acknowledge the photo is being used in a sexist way.

I did also think about how male politicians are portrayed, someone mentioned Boris Jonson. Frankly given the blatant degree of manipulation of how he is presented in each and every situation it amazes me he ever got elected or ever employed. But then ever since I first saw him back on Have I got News for you I regarded him as a ravening wolf in sheep's clothing (I am sure there is a more aptly insulting analogy but can't think).

Obviously I am way out of step with many on that so mostly never look at him, I can actually feel my blood pressure rising now so I will stop.

Bubblefart · 02/02/2021 16:46

It is showing her in a light that they think she should be in as a woman. Modest, not posing, caught unawares.

Not good judgement. Unconscious bias.

Flip

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet Log In

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.