3 ms·

I read the article again. Your comment seems to assert that when she is arguing for a lower ratio of pictures of females in the coverage of the event, that she

I read the article again. Your comment seems to assert that when she is arguing for a lower ratio of pictures of females in the coverage of the event, that she is "wrong" about it. I can only read the article that way if you assume that 1) the paper sold better because off that ratio and 2) whatever increases sales is ultimately the right thing to do. While I am not sure about 1) I am convinced that 2) is immoral, and will continue to lead to the discrimination against minorities.

scythe 9y ago
I used "if she was wrong" as a way to say "even if everything you're saying is true, your conclusion does not follow from your premises". It's a counterfactual which I hoped would emphasize my rejection of the GP's argument specifically. I do think that she might be wrong, relative to a perspective where you want to increase sales, and while increasing sales at all costs is immoral, I don't think that any real moral achievements are made by "objectifying" men if it's not what readers want, because the whole point of objectification is giving readers what they want. What is immoral is the case where the perspectives of female readers are valued less than the perspectives of male readers in a publication which is supposedly for both men and women, but if, on average, men and women prefer pictures of women (which is my guess), taking advantage of that would not be immoral. However, it's also possible that the key assumption is false -- it mostly comes from a course in aesthetic psychology I took back in college, and my memory is a bit fuzzy.