(no subject)
Sep. 26th, 2011 08:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
theweaselkingScarborough MP Rathika Sitsabaiesan, on her campaign website:
Scarborough MP Rathika Sitsabaiesan, on parl.gc.ca:
Once again, side by side:
I kind of REALLY want to know whose decision that was, and what the fuck they were thinking. If it was Ms Sitsabaiesan, why not just take a new picture? If it wasn't her, WHAT THE HELL, PEOPLE?
Scarborough MP Rathika Sitsabaiesan, on parl.gc.ca:
Once again, side by side:
I kind of REALLY want to know whose decision that was, and what the fuck they were thinking. If it was Ms Sitsabaiesan, why not just take a new picture? If it wasn't her, WHAT THE HELL, PEOPLE?
(no subject)
Date: 2011-09-27 12:49 am (UTC)If it *wasn't* her, I sincerely hope they catch hell for it.
Talk about fucking *erasing* visible signs of womanhood . . .
-- A >:(
(Yes, I know that not all women have cleavage, or breasts, or a vagina, or two X chromosomes -- but *erasing her breasts* seems like a really gender-hostile act to me. And if it was her -- fuck, woman. Own your body!)
(no subject)
Date: 2011-09-27 12:51 am (UTC)But seriously, NEW PICTURE.
thems'll poke ya eyes oot!
Date: 2011-09-27 01:02 am (UTC)methinks this was done by someone in pr in parli. it looks like some other 'subtle' touch-ups have been done as well.
(note that the two pictures have the same dimensions 142x230px, but you can see more of her left shoulder/arm, and her face is slightly narrower.)
makes me wonder if this has been done to/for other mps?
Re: thems'll poke ya eyes oot!
Date: 2011-09-27 01:03 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-09-27 01:08 am (UTC)Re: thems'll poke ya eyes oot!
Date: 2011-09-27 01:15 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-09-27 01:20 am (UTC)Which is another thing that drives me crazy -- I ran into that issue when I was working in conservative law firms. Given the way I'm endowed, a top that's modest on some people is positively indecent on me . . . but even if I only wore high scoop-neck tops and button-up shirts, I'm still going to have cleavage if I'm leaning over or my arms are pressed against my breasts. I had a few people, all women, make snitty remarks to me about dressing "professionally", when I was actually dressed in a very conservative outfit that simply failed to hide the fact that I have curves.
It's something that a lot of fat women have to deal with, as well (at the time I was being criticized, I didn't fall under that category -- I was a size 10-12) . . . clothing that is considered "professional" on thin women is open to criticism on fat women -- either they're told that fitted clothing is too tight (meaning "I can see your body shape", not talking about clothes that are actually too small), or they're told that loose concealing clothing looks "sloppy." Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
And that doesn't even BEGIN to address the inequity in the clothing available to smaller women vs. larger women -- it's really hard to find classy professional clothes in a size 18, and I don't have ANY issues compared to women who are a size 28.
(Sorry, tangent -- but this thing actually OFFENDS me, which is a pretty rare occurrence.)
-- A <3
Re: thems'll poke ya eyes oot!
Date: 2011-09-27 01:21 am (UTC)Her face may also be marginally lighter, but that could be an effect of compression.
-- A <3
(no subject)
Date: 2011-09-27 01:34 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-09-27 01:43 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-09-27 01:51 am (UTC)But in this case - the easiest and also most ethically defensible course would be to take a new photo.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-09-27 01:56 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-09-27 02:04 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-09-27 02:15 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-09-27 02:24 am (UTC)DUDE.
-- A (who likes to be cleavage-y in my off hours, but dressed very sharp-professional for work -- the most suggestive thing I ever did was wear jackets with a bit of shape at the waist/more of a retro silhouette, because they FIT MY BODY. *gah!*)
(no subject)
Date: 2011-09-27 02:29 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-09-27 02:45 am (UTC)Oh my. I bet you chose them specifically in order to get her goat, too.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-09-27 02:58 am (UTC)I share your pain regarding professional clothing! My, um, issues tend to happen on the other end, though. The junk in my trunk will not be hidden. Other women can wear pencil skirts to work and not have anyone comment. Me - not so much.
I think its dang odd that someone would actually choose the cleavage erased pic as a campaign pic. She just looks weird.
(Here via A's link on G+ - hope that's okay.)
(no subject)
Date: 2011-09-27 03:16 am (UTC)(Or, at least, my body apparently shares the same opinion of my mother as I do, so it flooded me with estrogen at age 12 and provided me with the Rack O'Doom!)
-- A ;)
(no subject)
Date: 2011-09-27 03:19 am (UTC)And, yes. Poor taste. I was also, for once, speechless.
She also suggested that I wear minimizer bras every day so that they didn't "stick out so much." (I actually DID wear them to work for a while, when I was 19 and 20 and needed people to take me seriously at the law firm, but they're PAINFUL and I refuse to literally bind my breasts just to conform to some idiot's notion of what a "professional" woman looks like. So, eventually, I just started wearing normal bras in my proper size, and yes, they do "stick out" -- and people just had to COPE.)
-- A :P
(no subject)
Date: 2011-09-27 04:48 am (UTC)Re: thems'll poke ya eyes oot!
Date: 2011-09-27 05:28 am (UTC)Image with cleavage scaled by 93% and overlayed on the non-cleavage image. The registration is not perfect, but the proportions are identical.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-09-27 05:35 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-09-27 06:09 am (UTC)Re: thems'll poke ya eyes oot!
Date: 2011-09-27 06:11 am (UTC)