3 ms·
i don't get the photo they used for this article. it seems to invite you to objectify the person in the photo (presumably a founder)?
by outside1234 12y ago
i don't get the photo they used for this article. it seems to invite you to objectify the person in the photo (presumably a founder)?
- axlprose 12y agoI'm not sure I understand what you mean here, is that photo supposed to be considered provocative? Putting aside the possibility that's it's most likely just stock photography -- she's fully dressed in respectable business attire, and even her facial expression is completely normal for someone in the middle of a meeting. Is it a negative thing to display images of women at all now?
- emilsedgh 12y agowhy? She looks like a female at workplace. Nothing more/less.
- huuu 12y agoI also don't get it. I think models (men/women) on stock photo's don't represent reality. To me the picture looks very unnatural. One of the sources of sexual harassment is the very unnatural image of men/women created by unnatural (movie) pictures. Not everybody is looking very slim. Not everybody is looking fresh all day. Not everybody likes to have sex every moment at the day. Not everybody likes sexual harassment... So in the context of this article they should have gone for a more natural picture. Or just a picture of Jessica (http://cdn.ycombinator.com/images/partners/jessica-a1fd7421.jpg http://cdn.ycombinator.com/images/partners/jessica-a1fd7421....).