A note about blogging and pictures

I've made great progress on my grading today, so I'll slip in a post.

Jill has been the subject of some really nasty Internet attacks, the sort that tend to focus on demeaning remarks about personal appearance.  Jill, like her co-blogger at Feministe, Lauren, has links to personal photos on their shared site.

This raises the delicate question  of the "embodied blogger".  To what extent do our pictures -- and the assumptions and judgments our readers make about our face and bodies as a result -- affect the impact of our blogs?  There seems to be a widespread notion (one that I can't prove) that female bloggers who are thought of as "hot" have a larger readership.  (If anyone has any further stats on the matter, please provide!)   If true, this wouldn't be surprising given our cultural obsession with women's beauty, but it does raise some interesting questions for those of us who blog explicitly as feminists or pro-feminists.

Lauren offers a forthright explanation of why she and Jill put up their photos:

We don’t put our pictures up to be considered fuckable, we put our pictures up so that people can put a face to our writing. I appreciate this as a reader of many blogs and I’m sure others feel the same. While that does leave us open to be judged on our appearances, I never expected to be commented upon in such a wide sphere.

I'll be the first to agree that pictures do help readers to "put a face" to writing, and I'm generally of a mind that that's a good thing.  I know that whether I'm reading men's blogs or women's, I like knowing what the person who has written a post looks like.  Many bloggers don't have pictures available, of course, and so I simply imagine in my head what they look like.  On more than one occasion, I've been stunned by the gulf between the real and the imagined writer when an image finally does appear!

Like Lauren, Jill, Trish, Amanda, and other feminist bloggers, I've been attacked by "trolls" who've said some fairly nasty things about me.  But though I have close to a hundred pictures of me in my photo albums, none of my critics ever go after my weight or my looks.   None of the MRAs have called me "ugly" or "fat" or anything similar.  A year ago, this picture elicited ridicule -- but not scorn for my body.   This silence about my appearance is not a compliment to me as an individual, but rather a function of male privilege.

The attacks on my see-saw picture last year were not about my body or my face -- they were about my engaging in an "unmanly" activity.  Trolls, you see, attack men for acting in ways that aren't congruent with generally accepted standards of masculinity; they attack women for their weight and their looks.  In that sense, I -- and other male bloggers whose photos are up -- are protected from the kind of nastiness directed towards Jill at the moment.  Though my MRA (men's rights advocate) critics have often been vicious towards me, they have never used the kind of highly personal and sexualized invective they direct towards the women at Feministe and other feminist blogs.  Yes, folks, once again a kind of perverse male privilege protects someone like me. Somehow, it seems that even among trolls, a code of conduct bars insulting remarks about other men's bodies.

There are many reasons why I don't put up photos of my wife.  One reason, however, is because I want to protect her from the kind of scrutiny that I am aware she would be instantly subjected to were I to do so.  My wife's looks are far more likely to be judged than mine, and remarks about her appearance would then be connected to me. If she's perceived as too pretty, my feminist credentials would be challenged.  If she's perceived as unattractive, she'll be ridiculed. I won't expose either of us to that.

I do put up lots of pictures of me (and even more of my chinchilla.)  I do this to share quickly with family and friends, but also, as Lauren says, so that people can put a face to my writing.  I do think that pictures help humanize us.  Who among us hasn't carefully studied the face of an author on a dust jacket of a favorite new book, looking for insight and clues about their "real" identity?  At the same time, I regret that women -- particularly feminist women -- who choose to provide visual images risk both sexualized objectification and ugly ridicule.   Jill's post today is ample evidence of that.

Comments

[Oneman]

There are many reasons why I don't put up photos of my wife. One reason, however, is because I want to protect her from the kind of scrutiny that I am aware she would be instantly subjected to were I to do so. My wife's looks are far more likely to be judged than mine, and remarks about her appearance would then be connected to me....I do put up lots of pictures of me (and even more of my chinchilla.)

Well, your chinchilla is a fat, ugly slag! Typical feminazi chinchilla, that one! :-)

[Hugo]

Sigh. Fortunately, chinchillas are of such generous temperament that they can rise above any an insult.

[Ampersand]

None of the MRAs have called me "ugly" or "fat" or anything similar. ... This silence about my appearance is not a compliment to me as an individual, but rather a function of male privilege.

Yes and no.

There are overlapping privileges to consider here; not just the privilege you get from being male, but also the privilege you get from being conventionally attractive and thin. If you were fat, some anti-feminists and MRAs would certainly be jeering your weight, even though you're male. I've run into a bit of that, and I'm sure I'd run into a lot more if I posted photos of myself more prominantly.

Of course, male privilege is involved too; Jill, after all, is not at all fat and is conventionally attractive, just as you are, and yet she's criticized for being fat and ugly and you are not. And if I were a woman, I'm sure the criticisms of my wieght would have been both more frequent and more vicious. So I'm not denying that male privilege is important; I'm just saying that it's not the whole story in this particular case. A flat claim that men don't get crap for being fat is incorrect.

[aldahlia]

"On more than one occasion, I've been stunned by the gulf between the real and the imagined writer when an image finally does appear!"

Oh, I'm terrible about that. I dunno where I get my ideas, either, 'cause it seems like I'm always wrong.

[Hugo]

Amp, that's a fair point, and one I hadn't considered in my haste to bang out that post.

What I am uncomfortable acknowledging is that someone like me is in a sense "twice privileged" in terms of both a conventionally attractive appearance and maleness. It's difficult to write that without coming across as whoppingly conceited, of course. But my discomfort doesn't mean you aren't right.

Do you think would things be easier in the 'sphere if we described our bodies but didn't display them? I wonder, sometimes.

[zuzu]

There are overlapping privileges to consider here; not just the privilege you get from being male, but also the privilege you get from being conventionally attractive and thin. If you were fat, some anti-feminists and MRAs would certainly be jeering your weight, even though you're male. I've run into a bit of that, and I'm sure I'd run into a lot more if I posted photos of myself more prominantly.

I noticed a marked upturn in weight-related bashing by trolls after Steve Gilliard posted pictures of himself (albeit with his face blurred out).

They still don't always get that he's black, though.

[Lauren]

Another interesting thing is how the trolls attempt to divide Jill and I into camps: which one is Ginger and which is Mary Anne, which is the funny/smart one and which is the cute/bangable one, etc, etc, etc. Jill and I laugh about these ones, but what I find so disgusting about this most recent attack on Jill is that it's done in a semi-gated forum by her own classmates. Although I have never encountered one of my detractors in real life, Jill interacts with many of these people on a regular basis. At one point, there was a live thread wanting to know if there had been any Jill sightings -- and that, pardon my language, is fucking scary.

[Hugo]

Language pardoned.

What's happening to Jill here is indeed scary. I mean, my office hours are available on the Internet; I am an easy man to track down. But no matter how vile the commentary, male privilege ensures that I don't worry about being accosted or sexually assaulted by trolls.

And for what it's worthy, if the "smart" and the "bangable" are in two separate categories for these clowns, then they really are tiresome "nerdlets." (A word that may make its way into my regular vocabulary, thanks!)

[The Happy Feminist]

Even though I blog anonymously and don't post photographs of myself, I prefer to read blogs where I can see the person who is writing. I think it's just plain human curiosity, but it also helps to put the writing in context because a person's appearance provides a clue as to his or her relationship with the rest of society. Because we all know that a conventionally attractive person has different life experiences than someone who is perceived as unattractive. And people also have different experiences based on other facets of their appearance (whether they look athletic, or sexy, or conform to some stereotype -- crunchy/granola, preppy, activist, hippie, nerd, whatever).

On the other hand, blogging anonymously has allowed me (in my short blogging life) to post more openly about many topics that I never would touch otherwise. I would never in a million zillion years discuss my own conventional attractiveness (as I did in a recent post) if there were a picture of me people could look at and say, "Who does she think she is? She's hideous!"

[Hugo]

True, Happy. But pictures -- assuming that they are accurate and contemporary -- only tell us who the person is now.

Yes, I'll take the small risk of admitting that I suppose I am generally perceived as conventionally attractive for a man my age by most people. (I risk getting flamed for that in exactly the way you describe, HF.) But I was not always so, certainly not in high school. Folks transform themselves over time, and few of us spend are entire lives at the same high, low, or middle level of perceived desireability.

This raises another question: in a world where youth and beauty are privileged, are younger feminist bloggers who are conventionally attractive at an advantage or a disadvantage in the 'sphere? Do they gain a wider audience? Do they lose credibility and risk being stalked? Do they arouse hostility from other women?

Another point: it's obvious to most of us that the attacks on Jill are absurdly inaccurate. But if she were heavy and not conventionally attractive, would our collective response be any different?

[aldahlia]

"in a world where youth and beauty are privileged, are younger feminist bloggers who are conventionally attractive at an advantage or a disadvantage in the 'sphere? Do they gain a wider audience? Do they lose credibility and risk being stalked? Do they arouse hostility from other women?"

HA! I think I'm pretty hot, but I don't think that affects my traffic in the least bit.

However, women that "flaunt" thier hotness do seem to gain wider (although in some cases "courser") audiences, whether feminist or not. I think the woman that runs Moxie.nu pretty much cemented that one. Another big example in that vein is Heather Corinna. In general, there's a difference being hot and between posting a picture or yourself, and being hot and posting a picture of yourself in something skimpy splayed out on a bed.

[Amanda Marcotte]

Do you think would things be easier in the 'sphere if we described our bodies but didn't display them? I wonder, sometimes.

My experience is the opposite of Happy's--people assumed outright that I was lying when I said I was commonly regarded as pretty until I confirmed it with photographs.

Do they arouse hostility from other women?

I've never noticed any hostility to Lauren or Jill from women, though I don't read every comment. And while I'm not in the same league as them for being considered an internet hottie, I'm usually regarded as pretty and I've never noticed any kind of hostility.

On the other hand, all three of us have gotten a lot of resentful comments from men, primarily right wingers who outright complain that they are being cheated because women they find physically attractive are not politically compliant. (See: the song I wrote.)

[Hugo]

I suppose I was taking the hostility from certain kinds of men for granted, Amanda -- and liked your song very much.

[Lauren]

I've never noticed any hostility to Lauren or Jill from women, though I don't read every comment.

There has been little hostility aimed toward us except by conservative men. For the most part, any woman who has been hostile has done so on a purely intellectual level. Those that decided not to go that route insisted that they were hotter than Jill and I and thus more credible.

(Tell me how that works.)

[kate.d.]

in a world where youth and beauty are privileged, are younger feminist bloggers who are conventionally attractive at an advantage or a disadvantage in the 'sphere? Do they gain a wider audience? Do they lose credibility and risk being stalked? Do they arouse hostility from other women?

sorry to re-quote, but i think these are really interesting questions. i blog fairly anonymously, and don't post pictures, but then again i have a microscopic audience. so, though i'd be comfortable plunking myself in the "conventionally attractive" part of the spectrum, the issue doesn't affect me.

but it is something to consider, as one's blog evolves - if i ever do go public with my identity, do i post a picture? or not? if i had to decide tomorrow, i'm really not sure what i'd do. because to see someone like jill damned both ways - cut down and demeaned for being too attractive, and also being called fat and ugly - that's just discouraging.

i'm going to have to mull over how my knowledge of how other feminist bloggers look influences the way that i read their blog. well, no - i'll have to mull over how much it does.

[Hugo]

Yes, I'd be interested in hearing about how hotness increases credibility! Sheesh.

I wonder, though, if those feminist bloggers who are perceived as hot attract more male readers than those who aren't so regarded (or who don't offer photos).

This is a topic for another post, but I've noticed that one of the functions of misogyny is that it leads some fellas to be particularly enraged at beautiful women. The more desirable they perceive a gal to be, and the more frustrated at her unattainability (or, actually, the unattainability of similarly attractive women they know personally) the greater their impulse to verbally harass and abuse her. This doesn't mean that conventionally less attractive women have it any easier; they are likely to be ignored or dismissed by the same guys.

[Hugo]

Kate, we cross-posted. I do think it's a discussion worth having, especially since it's clear that looks do impact even those of us who are professionally sensitive to the double-bind that you're talking about. But as the Happy Feminist points out, this involves some serious risk-taking. Saying "Look, here's what I think I look like and here's how it seems to be affecting what others say and think about me" is pretty daring.

[The Happy Feminist]

Although I'm still a newbie in the blogosphere, I was surprised to draw what I perceive to be a high percentage of male readers from the get-go (before I wrote anything about being cute or not). There were a couple of men whom I invited, like you and bmmg39, but I continue to be surprised at how many men, both feminist and not who tune in and comment. I think that's mainly to do with the fact that my blog is trying to be a conversation between feminists and non-feminists, so it's less intimidating to men than an insider conversation among feminists. Plus, my writing tends to be somewhat measured.

In real life, I've certainly had the experience (not often but often enough) of men becoming angry if I wouldn't go out with them, which I always struck me as incredibly wierd. I could never figure out why they felt they were entitled to take up an evening of my very busy life just because they wanted me to.

[LAmom]

. . . it also helps to put the writing in context because a person's appearance provides a clue as to his or her relationship with the rest of society.

I definitely agree.

When I started my blog, my husband requested that I not post pictures of myself for fear that some ultra-patriot would come after me. But I did want people to have a sense of who I am, and my body and appearance are indeed a part of me. Fortunately, I have a little doll that a friend gave me that looks enough like me to give people a general idea. I recently took a picture of Dolly and made it my main blog graphic.

I've also tried to straddle the issue by posting pictures that don't really show what we look like (e.g., baby pictures of my now-six-year-old or a picture of our wedding kiss where our heads are turned and our faces can't be seen). Since no one has seen my face, nobody knows where I land on the hotness scale (I'm actually kinda lukewarm), but I guess they do know that I'm thin. They also know that I'm black, which is important to me -- but, of course, that doesn't matter a bit to anyone else, since we live in such an enlightened, colorblind society :-)

[The Happy Feminist]

I was thinking of posting the South Park version of me (which looks frighteningly like me) but couldn't figure out how to post it!

Also, Hugo is too right about the fact that our current appearance doesn't not necessarily reflect who we've always been. Part of my post on cuteness related to the fact that my cuteness may have waned. Other people may be hot now but were chubby etc. as kids, and that experience of once having been chubby or awkward has effected who they are in some way. That's why I think it's neat that Hugo has posted his high school picture as well as current pics!

[David Thompson]

"There are many reasons why I don't put up photos of my wife."

It's not her blog. She doesn't post here, and she has no place here. That's the beginning and end of the list of valid reasons.

[Hugo]

Happy, that's why I put that pic up. David, I understand what you're saying, but the "she has no place here" strikes me as an odd and vaguely hostile way to phrase it.

[norbizness]

I just judge people by how conventionally cute their pets are. Or, in Lauren's case, how unconventionally fat her boyfriend's pet is.

[jenofiniquity]

This doesn't mean that conventionally less attractive women have it any easier; they are likely to be ignored or dismissed by the same guys.

Hugo, I've always considered being ignored and dismissed by assholes to be a badge of honor.

[The Happy Feminist]

Not that you were that bad in high school, Hugo!