4 ms·
This deep underlying assumption that nudity = scandal is amusing. I'm Australian, and I thought my culture was pretty similar to the US in a lot of ways, but th
by etfb 13y ago
This deep underlying assumption that nudity = scandal is amusing. I'm Australian, and I thought my culture was pretty similar to the US in a lot of ways, but the puritanical terror of nudity that pervades ever word of the article seems very odd indeed to me.
- jccc 13y agoFor the benefit of those who have not read the 1995 article all the way through to the end: "As I thumbed rapidly through box after box to confirm that the entries described in the Finder's Aid were actually there, I tried to glance at only the faces. It was a decision that paid off, because it was in them that a crucial difference between the men and the women revealed itself. For the most part, the men looked diffident, oblivious. That's not surprising considering that men of that era were accustomed to undressing for draft physicals and athletic-squad weigh-ins. "But the faces of the women were another story. I was surprised at how many looked deeply unhappy, as if pained at being subjected to this procedure. On the faces of quite a few I saw what looked like grimaces, reflecting pronounced discomfort, perhaps even anger."
- yetanotherphd 13y agoThat quite well illustrates the unacknowledged privilege of women at that time. The men were so accustomed to being denied privacy, either by cultural norms at the time, or by force by the government, that being forced to undress and be photographed was nothing unusual to them. Women, on the other hand, considered this an affront, because they were not subject to either of these. Thank you for pointing this out.
- etfb 13y agoOr you could see it entirely the other way. In fact, I'm rather surprised that you saw it as you do. I guess it takes all sorts to make a world.
- yetanotherphd 13y agoWhat is the "other way"?
- etfb 13y agoThat women, far from having extra privilege in this area, felt extremely threatened at being made to be naked, knowing that this level of vulnerability had no upside for them. Whereas men had no particular concern, because their photos would not likely be misused. Frankly, the suggestion that women have more power in this sort of situation is so wrong-headed that I honestly can't imagine how anyone familiar with Western culture could come up with it.
- yetanotherphd 13y agoWhat was the upside for men?
- etfb 13y agoThey were doing what they were told, and would therefore get whatever benefits obedience brings. Whereas the women now had: - a bunch of male scientists leering at them [1]; - some photos in the hands of those scientists that could be embarrassing; - the possibility of those photos being stolen and distributed; - a strong sense that they have no right to privacy or dignity in the highly male-dominated Ivy League world. That last one would count as an educational bonus, at least. [1] I'm only guessing that the scientists were male here, but I think it's a safe bet. Even nowadays, but more so then.
- yetanotherphd 13y agoSo if it was such a bad idea for the women, why did they do it? When it is better for men to do what they are told than otherwise, you classify it as a benefit. When it is better for women to do what they are told than otherwise, you call it oppression. I'm trying to draw attention to this double standard. To be clear: neither the men nor women gained directly from having their photographs taken.
- nigel182 13y agoOr you could interpret is (as I think other replies are suggesting) as men feeling no shame or threat to being nude. I'm not sure how to articulate this but the women may have felt they were "losing" something by being photographed nude. The men probably didn't.