Sexing Up The G-20

another bit of weirdness from the UK protests:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Slideshows/_production/ss-090401-g20/ss-090401-g20-21.ss_full.jpg
via
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4999736/

The hat shows the tongue is the traditional “bobbie” hat for males; contrast it to the female hat below.

I honestly don’t understand your comment about the police officers. There are three of them and they all are looking down. Isn’t it conceivable that they are doing something, something with their hands, writing maybe, that requires their attention? Yet you read one of the downcast gazes as ‘demure’ because you have decided that that officer is female. If, as the poster above indicates, only male bobbies wear those hats, then the officer is male and presumably, by you, would no longer be looking ‘demurely’ down.
There’s stereotyping here but I don’t think it’s being done by the photographer. Who probably took the photo—and whose editors probably chose it—because of the very attractive color of the eyes of the central figure and the fact that she is engaging the viewer directly with her gaze. By the way, that’s the only connection to the photo of the Afghan girl: the startling eye color. The Afghan girl is alone in the shot, disheveled, in great distress, and is not masked; the English woman here is in a crowd, well-groomed, and is quite composed. Ridiculous comparison. Except, of course, they are both females with pretty color eyes. Sexualization instinct indeed. Context just seems to fall away in importance for some male viewers.

Jerry’s right. You can see the difference between the helmets worn by men and women more clearly in picture 8 from the same slideshow.
Not sure I see anyone “checked out from the job”, here.

I immediately saw the three police as not at all engaged in the scene — texting, perhaps? — while the protestors’ attentions are focused on the moment.
And while I thought of the McCurry photo comparison, I wondered: why is she covered? what/why is she hiding?

why is she covered? what/why is she hiding?
at a war protest i attended, i asked a girl wearing a kerchief over her mouth and a cap that same question. she said it’s so the cops couldn’t identify her. later on i realized trying to be incognito is mark of an anarchist. so they can’t be identified if and when they destroy property. that march i attended was completely peaceful though.

Being incognito is the smart thing to do. Demonstrations in the US are heavily video recorded by the police, and even more so by the demonstrators. Whether or not one plans on engaging in property damage one would be well advised to cover up to at least slightly hamper attempts at surveillance by the State. We all should realize by now that the government is not above engaging in surveillance of their citizenry for political as well as law enforcement purposes. The police generally remove their badges and name tags when they attack protestors. Baclavas and gas masks give them further anonymity and immunity from complaints or charges of misconduct.