![]() ![]() I do web dev work in an open office area where I'm surrounded by people who don't really understand what I get paid to do. I'm in a similar situation to the original OP. Or did he try to protect himself from the reactions of his female co-workers to this imagery?Īgain none of this is meant to be taken as an insult or attack I would genuinely like to understand why you feel this way. What makes these images immature and what validates the OP's reaction that he wanted to protect his female co-workers from this imagery. Like I mentioned in my original post I don't understand the standpoint of OP and neither do I understand yours. Pictures of an adult woman's face are immature? You say it is suggestive but I don't find them suggestive at all, does that mean I'm immature or not? > In any case, I found the choice of images immature and closed the website right away. I think the biggest problem for us as people (humanity) is when we start quantifying and differentiating between different types of "hurt". ![]() Even if it might not be the same type of hurt or even have the same effects. As a matter of fact I don't see how the two are related at all, what in this scenario is sexist? But since you brought it up I do not agree with you at all because I think sexism (or the "patriarchy" whatever you want to call it) hurts men AND women. I'm talking about his co-workers reactions to said images (whether Brad Pitt or Emma Watson) not about sexism. > Any argument that goes "But if we switched genders, then it would be fine!" is completely missing the point that we are still living in a de-facto patriarchy, where objectification of men is not even an issue. That's why an image of Brad Pitt is okay, whereas an image of Emma Watson is not okay! (and by the way, they are suggestive) Sexism, in reality, favours men and hurts women. But to blatantly have double-standards while claiming systemic inequality is quite disingenuous. We are still far from true equality, and it is something we should strive for as an enlightened society. The fact that it's okay in this society to objectify men but not women is not proof of patriarchy, if anything it's proof of "matriarchy" (if we borrow feminist-naming conventions). It's odd how you claim "defacto" patriarchy, then concede that this patriarchy allows the objectification of men to occur as a non "issue". >" Any argument that goes "But if we switched genders, then it would be fine!" is completely missing the point that we are still living in a de-facto patriarchy, where objectification of men is not even an issue." Not only that, but "sexism" against men occurs on multiple levels in our society, so much so that we are actively blind to it, see your comment as well as below. If seeing attractive women "hurts women", then by that you have to concede that the same happens to men when it comes to attractive men. That's why an image of Brad Pitt is okay, whereas" Show the zoomed image in a fullscreen modal instead.>" But that's not the point. Attach the plugin to your image and done. To get started, include the jQuery ImageViewer plugin after you've included jQuery JavaScript library. ![]() Allows to load high resolution image asynchronously.ġ.Mouse drag to move an image within the viewport.Container mode: allows you to switch between images just like a gallery.Image mode: zoom & pan the image inside itself.Fullscreen mode: displays images in a fullscreen modal.For jQuery users, you're able to download the ImageViewer V1 here. Note that the plugin (v2) now works as a Vanilla JavaScript plugin without any 3rd dependencies. A feature-rich, touch-enabled jQuery & Vanilla JavaScript image viewer plugin that provides zooming and panning functionalities for your images, inspired by Google Photo. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |