I only discovered feminist blogs (specifically, Pandagon, Feministe, and Feministing) a year and a half ago. I've always had a feminist side, and the Bush administration only brought it closer to the surface. But, like with anything else one wishes to learn about in society, the vast amount of information, opinion, analysis, and current events was too daunting to tackle while going about a non-academic life. I settled for Planned Parenthood's updates. Then feminist bloggers came along and made it quick, accessible. It's so convenient to stop in once a day and learn, oh, this bill in the Senate will make it more difficult for a woman to… If you had more time, there were also the 2,000-word posts and links to lengthy articles. They have opened up a world of knowledge about how domestic and international laws can hinder a woman's life and what can be done about it. But once in a while, I can only roll my eyes and wonder, "Is it a slow news day?"

Last Sunday the NYT ran a story about female soldiers suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder due to the war and sexual harrassment or assault from fellow soldiers. The story was excellent. The few pictures dispersed throughout of the women were, to my eyes, plain. Zuzu of Feministe and Lindsay of Majikthise, however, see sexism, pin-up parodies, and miserable faces.

Take, for instance, this photo:

From Lindsay: "Why would you get a woman in jeans and a t-shirt to pose like a swimsuit model on a beach in order to illustrate a story about how she got PTSD in Iraq and went AWOL?"

Um, what if she insisted on posing that way? What if this was the best shot? What if the photo editor chose this one? Or, what if everyone involved cared more about the content of the story instead of what anyone may read into a single photo? She goes even more improbably for the next one:

"There's something weirdly sexualized about this image. Look at the angle of the shot. She's wearing a knee-length skirt, but she's positioned so that her bare legs and daintily flexed ankle command as much attention as her face."

There is nothing sexualized about this image. This is a tramautized woman wearing her uniform and sitting in a sparse setting. Where her hand is placed or however her ankle may be turned mean nothing.

"…it doesn't seem like [the photographer] Grannan intended to make her subjects to appear happy or comfortable in the positions she chose for them." So, when you have a story about women who  wanted to serve their country only to be raped by comrades, ignored by superiors when reporting it, then screwed by the government when they come home scarred and broken, you're supposed to have pictures of smiling, happy-looking subjects?

Zuzu chimes in: "Her gaze is almost hostile, her arms look like she didn’t know what to do with them, and her legs are pressed together in a way that suggests she’s a construction worker who’s not very comfortable wearing her dress uniform skirt."

How is this woman supposed to look comfortable? She's telling the entire world details of her ordeal? And can we pick one — either this woman's "dainty" ankle is meant to be sexy, or her entire legs evoke a utilitarian construction worker? Pin-up or laborer?

Hasn't one of the main complaints of feminism always been that people focus too much on the physical images of women instead of who they are as human beings? Sometimes sexism is just in the eye of the beholder.

Even if these photos were "sexualized," intentionally or not, that is besides the point. Cerrtain feminist bloggers are the only people who read this story and focused on the possible suggestiveness of the images.

Instead of focusing on something meaningless and opinion-based, why don't feminist bloggers concentrate on doing something about the situation? Why not start a fund for some of these women to get help? Why not promote the health center in California? Contact lawmakers about the gigantic problem of sexual assault in the military, the lack of punishment rapists receive, and the insult to injury the female soldiers endure? Is there really nothing else to be done besides blather on about how someone is posed?

Here's what this story was really about: "Taking into account the large number of women serving in dangerous conditions in Iraq and reports suggesting that women in the military bear a higher risk than civilian women of having been sexually assaulted either before or during their service, it's conceivable that this war may well generate an unfortunate new group to study — women who have experienced sexual assault and combat, many of them before they turn 25." (NYT).

The world, men and women, can deal with this situation and support these women, or we can criticize their looks, posture, and whether or not they smile like good little girls for the camera. ♦

Jennifer Leblanc