I saw a link this morning on Twitter to a blog post that, on the surface seemed fairly innocuous, but while reading, became apparent that, even unconsciously, some people will reveal more about themselves and their ideological inclination than making a direct accusation.
I use “unconsciously” because I am being generous here. I don’t know this person, and I cannot recall the last time I read their blog, if ever. But I found a few statements well, curious.
The following paragraph caught my attention:
Much of the ire about selfies seems to be directed towards women and young people specifically, which is ironic given the historical trend of rich and powerful older white men having actual oil paintings of themselves commissioned and displayed in their homes. That’s a lot more effort than even the most well-posed selfies, I’ll tell you.
Now, in the context of the entire post, that’s not a lot, is it? I found using the word ire as unusual because I don’t know of anyone expressing that emotion towards selfies in general but then to say that that anger or wrath is directed at “women and young people” I believe is ludicrous.
Why women in particular? Why not just say “young people” in general (although I’d disagree with that as well)? Why does this writer seem to believe that “ire” is directed first at women who take photos of themselves? I can only speculate, which I won’t do here.
The next part of the paragraph is equally confusing where it’s stated that “…which is ironic given the historical trend of rich and powerful older white men having actual oil paintings of themselves commissioned and displayed in their homes.”
I guess there’s never been an oil painting of a rich and powerful woman ever rendered. For some reason, I can’t think of a single woman that’s ever adorned a canvas, can you?