|
climbsomething
May 24, 2006, 9:18 AM
Post #1 of 41
(5993 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
OK, we've seen some very, um, colorful discussions in here about how women are (?) sexualized in climbing photography and adverts.
But this isn't about adult women. This is about tween girls (and a couple token boys).
Click through this site. Am I being a prude?
http://www.kidsofclimbing.com/
Example:
http://www.kidsofclimbing.com/...ids_of_Climbers4.jpg
A 10 year old girl, lens trained down her bikini top with her painted lips parted in the breeze?
12 year old girls in short shorts doing heel hooks under roofs?
I am just a tad disturbed.
|
|
|
|
|
booger
May 24, 2006, 1:21 PM
Post #2 of 41
(5993 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 23, 2003
Posts: 1163
|
That pic distrubs me too. If I had kids, bet your ass you wouldn't see my daughter climbing in a little string bikini. But maybe I'm a prude too... because a lot of the younger (10-12-ish) girls in my gym are wearing backless/stringy stuff. Maybe the moms are better qualified to weigh in...
|
|
|
|
|
elvislegs
May 24, 2006, 2:53 PM
Post #3 of 41
(5993 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2002
Posts: 3148
|
good god.
this looks the climbing equivalent of all those creepy jon benet style little girl beauty contests. it is wrong. these have obviously been shot in a certain way and for a certain effect.
as a dad, i can tell you that if someone shot pics of my little girl in that style i would take that camera from them and... how should i put this... greatly increase their personal "aperture"?
|
|
|
|
|
climberterp
May 24, 2006, 3:52 PM
Post #4 of 41
(5993 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2003
Posts: 386
|
yeah, those pics are a bit creepy. definitely see a difference in the way the shots are framed/set up for the girls as opposed to the boys :shock:
I wonder how many of the clothing decisions were made by the photographer and how many by the girls/parents......I know lots of parents are okay with letting their pre-teens dress like that; I wouldn't be, but hey, I don't have kids yet so what do I know? :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
happiegrrrl
May 25, 2006, 3:10 AM
Post #6 of 41
(5993 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 4660
|
It bothers me, too. Too adult-looking.
I am overly sensitive, I know, but there is just no way on earth I would allow my child to be photographed for any commercial venture. When one knows that pedophiles look to print images like children's clothing catalogs to get a fix of "innocence," the idea of putting out something like this....um, no.
Inappropriate. I am sure the photographer, the kids, and the parents all did the work with good intentions, but the fact is that there are a lot of sick people out there.
|
|
|
|
|
alexis_86
May 25, 2006, 4:10 AM
Post #7 of 41
(5993 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2005
Posts: 69
|
Is it me or is the way the girls and boys photographed different? Because the boys seem to be photographed in such a way that really shows their climbing but the girls seem to be photographed with an asthetic purpose in mind. Or is that too much of my first year uni exams speaking?
|
|
|
|
|
blonde_loves_bolts
May 25, 2006, 5:27 AM
Post #8 of 41
(5993 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2005
Posts: 2287
|
http://www.kidsofclimbing.com/...ds_of_Cover1_cov.jpg
Another image that I find slightly age inappropriate...
The advertising stereotype is that boys are to be shown doing something active and/or rambunctious, while girls are supposed to be delicate, cutesy and usually sedentary. Since climbing obviously involves moving athletically, the pics instead show a little skin for the girls (models first, athletes second), while their male counterparts could be posing for a scouts' calendar...
On an unrelated note, Hillary's new signature kicks ass!
|
|
|
|
|
acacongua
May 25, 2006, 12:00 PM
Post #9 of 41
(5993 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 14, 2003
Posts: 657
|
Why are they wearing make-up??? Who are the parents allowing this?
I wouldn't have a problem if my little girl (and by that, I mean my five nieces) wore a swim top since they wear them swimming, but to have it photographed .... NO WAY.
I'm a prude as well.
|
|
|
|
|
kimmyt
May 25, 2006, 1:42 PM
Post #10 of 41
(5993 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 4546
|
Do you have any examples of the photographs of the boys? I'm just curious as to whether I notice a difference in the type of shot.
K.
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
May 25, 2006, 5:38 PM
Post #12 of 41
(5993 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
I'd be pretty stoked if that were my son in those shots, looking like a strong smart young athlete. I'd have it framed and make smaller prints for grama.
But my baby girl in a bikini top and makeup? Aw hellz to the no, as Whitney would say (that was for blondie ;) )
|
|
|
|
|
iamthewallress
May 25, 2006, 6:10 PM
Post #13 of 41
(5993 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 2463
|
Before I read what you said about it, I looked at that picture and thought, "Who knew that Jean-Benet Ramsey climbed?" Professional women climbers don't wear that much make up for photo shoots. You're not being a prude, cs. The tarted out 10 year olds are over-sexualized for my tastes too.
|
|
|
|
|
blonde_loves_bolts
May 26, 2006, 5:29 AM
Post #14 of 41
(5993 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2005
Posts: 2287
|
Hillary, the new sig is just for you :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
thomasribiere
May 26, 2006, 8:15 PM
Post #15 of 41
(5993 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 9306
|
I love the name of the photographer. Jean-Michel Casanova... is that a pseudo or what?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
May 26, 2006, 9:37 PM
Post #16 of 41
(5993 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: I love the name of the photographer. Jean-Michel Casanova... is that a pseudo or what?
No. That's his real name, as far as I know.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jumpingrock
May 26, 2006, 9:43 PM
Post #17 of 41
(5993 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 5692
|
I think you guys are being prude. The makeup may not be required, the poses *might* be prime for future sexualization, but they are harmless. If I had a daughter or a son, I would love it for them to idolize these young and fit kids who can climb harder than I can dream. Sure there are sicko's out there, but odds are those sickos are easily able to find more "rewarding" photographs out there to satisfy themselves. I think the pictures are fine and while I may not agree with the makeup (i personally don't believe anybody needs to wear makeup) I think that the idea behind them is a good one. If only more kids in Canada and the US would get off their asses and strive to succeed at something other than chatting better.
|
|
|
|
|
nola_angie
May 28, 2006, 5:21 AM
Post #19 of 41
(5993 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 1, 2005
Posts: 265
|
In reply to: *snip* If I had a daughter or a son, I would love it for them to idolize these young and fit kids who can climb harder than I can dream. Sure there are sicko's out there, but odds are those sickos are easily able to find more "rewarding" photographs out there to satisfy themselves.
Do you have nieces or nephews? Neighbor kids that you like???
Would you still be so stoked if you noticed your son was put in baggy shorts and a T shirt (even tho we *all* know about the mad shirtless boulderers!) but your daughter was given a tight pair of capris or daisy dukes and a BIKINI TOP to wear??? C'mon, man. Yeah, I'm sure pedophiles will look for more obscene porn, but it's not about pedophiles as much as it's about people obviously setting 10 year old girls like sexualized young women. It's hard enough to try and find clothing for my 6 year old niece that isn't super short shorts or baby doll tees! Let the kids be kids, and treat them like young athletes.
|
|
|
|
|
alexis_86
May 28, 2006, 12:59 PM
Post #20 of 41
(5993 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2005
Posts: 69
|
I think the annoying thing in this calendar is how the girls are portrayed. They are mainly potrayed as non threatening objects that are only there to be looked at. Even though they are supposed to be participating in a sport, they are still being objectified and reduced to being little more than dolls. The calendar seems to be catering to the sterotypical notions of boys being powerful and dynamic while girls are really nothing more than just pretty objects to be looked at. The photographer is obviously trying to cater to popular ideas of gender stereotypes, which is really quite sad, since it just reinforces the idea that girls are first and foremost pretty objects to be looked at and disempowers girls and women. There's a text I read a couple of years back by Julia Kristeva about how the camera is always the voyueristic male eye that objectifies the female form. It definitely applies here. And I think it's the blatant objectification of these young girls as well as the way the girls are photgraphed so as to pander to an audience who would feel more comfortable and familiar with stereotypical representation of girls that makes the calendar so disturbing. That and the slightly pedophilic overtones of little girls with painted faces and showing lots of skin. My 2 cents at least.
|
|
|
|
|
jumpingrock
May 29, 2006, 6:28 PM
Post #21 of 41
(5993 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 5692
|
In reply to: In reply to: *snip* If I had a daughter or a son, I would love it for them to idolize these young and fit kids who can climb harder than I can dream. Sure there are sicko's out there, but odds are those sickos are easily able to find more "rewarding" photographs out there to satisfy themselves. Do you have nieces or nephews? Neighbor kids that you like???
Actually I do. I have a 16 year old neice, who was 14 when we last met and is quite beautiful. If I saw her in these kinds of pictures I would say, I hate the makeup, (again I don't think anybody whether 12 or 25 needs to wear makeup) but you look beautiful.
Have any of you watched the video? I don't think that anything wrong was done here that isn't being done 10 times worst elsewhere. With regards to the positions, it just seems to me that the girls are climbing harder stuff than the guys. I don't think anybody is being objectified. But that's my opinion and I guess that many won't agree with me, and perhaps when I decide to have kids I won't agree with me either. Actually probably won't.
So my final verdict: Makeup - ugly. Clothing - It pushes the line, and I guess my line is a little further forward than average. Idea - good. Pictures - nice.
|
|
|
|
|
missedyno
May 30, 2006, 3:32 PM
Post #22 of 41
(5993 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2001
Posts: 4465
|
i found the calendar to be quite disturbing as well.
and it's just my own opinion, but anyone i've talked to who has seen this photographer in action is also creeped out. when i've seen him, he was surrounded by children. maybe he just genuinely likes kids in a grandfather/uncle sort of way, but really he should watch his image....
the december photo is of him with all the kids on his lap... *gag*
let the little girls be little girls, not young women. i do recall that there was one pic in the calendar where a young girl was showing some good muscle tone and therefore looked athletic, but otherwise there were some definite sexual overtones to all of the female pictures.
|
|
|
|
|
blonde_loves_bolts
May 30, 2006, 11:38 PM
Post #23 of 41
(5993 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2005
Posts: 2287
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: *snip* If I had a daughter or a son, I would love it for them to idolize these young and fit kids who can climb harder than I can dream. Sure there are sicko's out there, but odds are those sickos are easily able to find more "rewarding" photographs out there to satisfy themselves. Do you have nieces or nephews? Neighbor kids that you like??? Actually I do. I have a 16 year old neice, who was 14 when we last met and is quite beautiful. If I saw her in these kinds of pictures I would say, I hate the makeup, (again I don't think anybody whether 12 or 25 needs to wear makeup) but you look beautiful. Have any of you watched the video? I don't think that anything wrong was done here that isn't being done 10 times worst elsewhere. With regards to the positions, it just seems to me that the girls are climbing harder stuff than the guys. I don't think anybody is being objectified. But that's my opinion and I guess that many won't agree with me, and perhaps when I decide to have kids I won't agree with me either. Actually probably won't. So my final verdict: Makeup - ugly. Clothing - It pushes the line, and I guess my line is a little further forward than average. Idea - good. Pictures - nice.
I'm slightly more with you there in regards to the video, but pictures speak for themselves. They are inherently decontextualized, meaning there is no one or thing there to claim that the shots of the girls wearing revealing tops and/or pageant-caliber makeup are NOT bordering on unethical. This is not to say that I find all the shots of the girls disturbing - I think the shots of Cicada are pretty well done - but in a lineup versus the boys? It's not a pleasant or progressive trend.
Let me put it another way. If I had that calendar hanging at my desk and it was December, I would be in violation of my company's sexual harassment regulations.
|
|
|
|
|
blonde_loves_bolts
Aug 13, 2006, 3:52 AM
Post #24 of 41
(5993 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2005
Posts: 2287
|
At the prompt of the Sasha DiGuilian thread, which included a link that showed Sasha as the covergirl of the 2007 Kids of Climbing calendar, I had to check out the website again. Judging by the new format, I'd say last year's calendar received a bit of negative feedback...
What do you all think??
|
|
|
|
|
comet
Aug 13, 2006, 4:08 AM
Post #25 of 41
(5993 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 5, 2005
Posts: 358
|
I had the same thought checking out the Sasha thread: "Hey, cool pics, that girl can crank. Wait, wasn't that the site with those awful, oversexed kid photos??"
MASSIVE improvement, IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
