Is it just me or this is headline a bit misogy?

[FlirtsWithRhinos]

https://amp.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2023/nov/20/national-museum-women-arts

It's a good article apart from the requisite substitution of gemder for sex, but that "fishy" seems very unnecessary.

Yes, and there's a pussy too. Although I honestly feel like I'm being a bit pearl clutchy but I wouldn't put anything past the Guardian. Misogynist wankers.

I rolled my eyes and clicked on this to laugh at what I assumed would be a huge reach, I have a very high tolerance for things I personally find offensive. I'm incredibly suprised that this has actually truly made me side eye the author and her headline. I even read the article twice to see if it was a curation predominantly focused on actinopterygii, but no it really isn't. Struggling to believe that an educated journalist who is also a historian who champions females in art history would not know the connotations and loaded misogyny of that term when used in that particular context, especially as it seems so out of place in the title. It sadly smacks of click bait which plays into the patriarchical tropes she seems so keen to break down. Disappointing

Wow! Agree

I wonder if it was a click bait title given by a sub editor.
It is definitely suss I think but may not be the writers choice.

There are fish on the accompanying picture but I’m sure the Guardian would be aware of the connotations of the word. I doubt the author of the article was responsible as usually it’s sub-editors who write the headlines. They probably think only their LGBT audience will get the “joke”.

The first paragraph though. Men are men, but women … well, they’re female-identifying, which could mean anyone.

The statistics are shocking. In 2019, a study published in the journal Plos One found that in the collections of 18 major US museums, 87% of artworks were by men and 85% by white artists. In 2022, the Burns Halperin report found that in the acquisitions made at 31 prominent US museums between 2008 and 2020, 11% were by female-identifying artists, while just 0.5% were by Black American women.

What better way to title a purportedly feminist article than with a misogynist slur?

Don't worry, art guys. I'm not like those boring old-fashioned feminists. I'm a cool girl. I think it's hilarious to joke about how vaginas smell like fish.

In tv culture, she'll be so surrounded by Drag Race queer misogyny and wokebro culture that it never occurs to her that some readers may have other reference points.

And no-one at the Guardian thought better of it, even though a decade ago, Patrick Strudwick in that paper called the term 'fishy' a 'choking illustration of the misogyny of gay men' and a 'vile denigration': https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/06/misogyny-gay-men-sexist-rose-mcgowan-rights-women .

One for the Readers' Editor, Elisabeth Ribbans. https://www.theguardian.com/info/2014/sep/12/-sp-how-to-make-a-complaint-about-guardian-or-observer-content#5567ec1f-5d63-44be-9679-1773f6d34f83

The Guardian may well have published an article a decade ago by Patrick Strudwick calling the term 'fishy' a 'choking illustration of the misogyny of gay men' and a 'vile denigration', which ought to be commendable.

Shame that Patrick opted to conclude his claims to feminism by then using the term …“I understand McGowan’s anger, I share some of it, but I ask this: before blame is disproportionately laid at the feet of gay men, is there not something a little bit fishy about any theory that excludes the bulk of the evidence?”

The paper lays bare its seam of misogyny from then until now.

Yes the Guardian is full of misogynists writing jokes to each other. They know women will be offended but they don’t give a shit.

Side comment but anyone interested in representation of women in art should give Art Activist Barbie a follow. She's fabulous. padlet.com/smwilliamson1/artactivistbarbie-7bukrpvxo2pgpm76

It's disgusting and completely and utterly done on purpose!

Shame on them!!!!

The cat is what proves it to me, what possible relevance does it have? It's just getting a 'pussy' in there somewhere

'Fishy' in the sense of 'a bit suspicious' or 'odd' (or, come to that 'queer') makes no sense whatever there.

So yeah.

The first paragraph though. Men are men, but women … well, they’re female-identifying, which could mean anyone

The statistics are shocking. In 2019, a study published in the journal Plos One found that in the collections of 18 major US museums, 87% of artworks were by men and 85% by white artists. In 2022, the Burns Halperin report found that in the acquisitions made at 31 prominent US museums between 2008 and 2020, 11% were by female-identifying artists, while just 0.5% were by Black American women

Gender ideology in a nutshell. They just can’t see it, can they?

Wow. I read the article fully expecting to find some justification for the sub-editors' choice of image and headline. but found none. The artist of the picture shown is mentioned in the text, but that still waay underdetermines the choice of image and headline.
So I have to agree with the op's point.

made me side eye the author and her headline

As @CorruptedCauldron says headlines (and standfirsts) are written by the sub-editor. This one is a shocker, but the writers won't get approval of those parts of the article and probably have no idea what they are until they see it in print.

Well worth a complaint to the readers' editor, but the blame is with the sub-editor who wrote it, the editor who approved it, and the general attitude of the paper that encourages this sort of thing rather than the individual journalist.

That whole paragraph seems to be an identity politics word salad. "Men" and "white" easy, clear definitions, everybody (including the author) knows exactly who she means. But wait! Did she ask every single one if they "identify as male"? What about the dead ones? If a dead Roman Emperor can be declared trans, how do we know none of these men were?
And as for "Black American women" is that particular trinity of intersectionality not subject to the usual rules?

F*ckin' Guardian! They HATE women and don't deserve a female readership. I tell everyone and their aunty not to support their mysoginistic comic. If you know anyone who subscribes, please make them aware. Ta!

I really so hope that relevant people at the guardian see this thread, or similar reactions elsewhere, or are made aware of them.
I did try complaining to the readers' editor about something related to their coverage of trans-related issues a few months ago but didn't get a reply. It is just too fucking depressing to make the effort again, just to have some wanker filter my complaint through his set of prejudices about What Older Women Mean When They Say Stuff, rather than actually reading the complaint properly.

I hate the assumptions, I really do.

But this truly lays bare why gender ideology disadvantages women. Ok, so some men are being retrospectively transed (the Roman emperor for one). But generally, men get to keep their stuff. Their language, their arts, their sports, their sex class, their place in society. Women, not so much.

And who’s to say how many biological female artists are actually female-identifying anyway? I don’t identify as female, I just am, on account of my biology, not because of any inner gender feelings. The Guardian is so captured and steeped in misogyny that I’m not sure it’ll ever find its way back.

I'm incredibly suprised that this has actually truly made me side eye the author and her headline.

Yeah I'm normally pretty robust about this stuff. I was genuinely surprised to find myself thinking Wait, What? That's why I posted, to see if it was just me.

Interesting the posters calling out "pussy". I'd be very interested to know if "pussy" and "fishy" were terms for women/female genitals that the artist would have been aware of (in her own language) at the time. If they were terms the artist would have had in their immediate mental context that adds a whole new layer to the pictures and the headline, makes both much more interesting.