this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2024
377 points (96.3% liked)

HistoryPorn

7335 readers
2 users here now

COMM MOVED TO !historyphotos@piefed.social

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] PugJesus@lemmy.world 39 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't believe it was meant maliciously - more a manifestation of the common cultural casual sexism that leads women to often be defined by their husbands or male partners, regardless of their own talents or achievements, simply as a matter of perspective.

[โ€“] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Subtly, and for a female reporter this was likely necessary, she's actually doing the opposite of the casual sexism. This is actually a fairly savvy rhetorical piece that simultaneously spotlights the artist's work and personhood while not throwing off any alarms for the patriarchy to revise, censor, or overreact to. I imagine a contemporaneous female vs male readership would interpret this article very differently.