To have quite enjoyed the Legs-it headline

[smashedinductionhob]

I may regret posting this.....

I am a proud feminist who reads The Observer and am currently rereading a biography of Mary Wollstonecraft.

I am very depressed about Brexit and usually really hate The Daily Mail.

I saw the photo of May and Sturgeon yesterday and thought for a moment "ooh who knew they both had nice legs?" And vaguely thought it was nice to see two somewhat older women expressing both power and sexuality.

Then when I saw the headline today I smiled.

I thought it wasn't like the 70s at all. Not one little bit.

Just want to put an alternative feminist perspective.

Like I said, I may regret this but I do think Private Eye would have got away with this.

Private Eye would indeed have done it, in order to SATIRISE shit shitstirring rags run by shitheads. It's the difference between being Warren Mitchell and being Bernard Manning.

To be fair I am mildly interested to see what Private Eye does do about this. Quis satiriest satiristes?

What even is retaining femininity apart from bollocks
you wouldn't hear that a male PM had managed to retain his masculinity

www.facebook.com/HaveIGotNewsForYou/photos/a.480809768770138.1073741828.470137386504043/682637901920656/?type=3&theater

You'll like this, op.

Just to confirm I haven't used used the word femininity.

Apologies - i was paraphrasing. "Expressing their sexuality" i.e. wearing skirts, something usually associated with being female/feminine.
You wouldn't refer to male politicians "expressing their sexuality", so no need to do it to female ones either.

The point still stands. You don't see photos from that angle of powerful men. Only women. I don't see them expressing anything. I see an attempt to belittle them.

Hmmm,

I can't remember now if I saw the image as a still on to or footage. IIRR, there was no filming just photos.

So I guess really it is the photographer who chose the more sexualised image. Which I casually noticed without realising what the photographer had done.

So the DM was really reporting something the photographer created.....

In the interests of balance, Radio 4 had male politicians describing their legs on PM tonight.

I have seen the same photo elsewhere, cropped so you only see their upper halves.

The line the Heil crossed was focusing on the legs as the subject.

:)
I have hairy toes.

I like scaring my Pilates class with them.

God yes!

Every time i saw david c and george o sitting together on the front bench i'd marvel at them expressing their sexuality.

Feminist my arse.

The headline was vile and incredibly sexist.

And can someone explain the biscuit thing to me please? I've seen it a few times and don't get it? Thanks

It means no comment.

A photographer does not get to express themselves on the front page of the Mail.

The editor chooses and buys a picture that tells the story they want to tell, within a layout that they approve, which also supports the story.

See very interesting book 'Pictures on a Page' by Harold Evans for more info.

Thanks smashed

Ok.

I am not a very visual person so don't monitor very much.

I think it is a very nice photo albeit sexualised. They both look strong.

It is nothing like the denigrating images of Hillary Clinton. You could imagine a horrible photo if one or the other was caught uncrossing/recrossing legs but this isn't it.

Are you stupid?

This is absolutely nothing to do with feminism, and absolutely everything about undermining two strong, important and influential people because they're women.

You need to check the definition of feminism and have a long, hard look at yourself.

Photographers take pictures. Editors choose pictures. And crop, or not, as the case maybe. May and Sturgeon would have been in a room facing a bank of photographers/correspondents, some of whom would have been standing on benches probably, some standing, some sitting and some kneeling at the front, just so they could all fit in. The editor flicked through the images presented and chose to go with this one, uncropped, image. Not in a satirical 'Women: have legs, And: wear clothes' way but in a demeaning 'Women, know your place' way. I showed my 13 and 14 yo DD the picture/headline last night and asked them their thoughts. They nailed it, first time. Thank god because they, and their generation, are apparently going to have to put up with this shit for years to come.

They do both have nice legs but at the same time as noticing that, I did think that if it was Cameron sitting there we'd not have the same articles. I think it just shows the poor standard of British reporting generally.

I'm all up for powerful women. 100% feminist. It was childish of the daily mail, but not sexist as we all saw trudeau shirtless in the guardian. Both men and women can be both powerful and attractive. What is wrong with that.

Men do not have much of a variety in socially acceptible business wear

I think that is a shame. I'd like to see men able to express their individuality more at work. If they have nice legs and want to show them by wearing shorts or kilts then that is up to them.

:)

LadyPW, well at least I'm not weird for noticing they had nice legs :)

If they like wearing one why not.

Like I said, I may regret this but I do think Private Eye would have got away with this.

Private Eye isn't a national daily newspaper. It is a satirical paper which parodies them and often holds them to account. HTH.

If nothing else then perhaps yesterday's DM front page has reminded everyone that it is nothing more than a cheap tabloid. I think many of its readers like to think that it is a cut above the red tops. It isn't.

"but in a demeaning 'Women, know your place' way."

I totally get that the DM has, shall we say, form for that.

But in this case their place is/was at the apex of society either helping or mucking up our lives.

I thought the reactions of both women were very good too.

One of the very few good things about the past year has been that no-one thinks twice about May being a woman, women in power are becoming normalised a bit more.