So you are saying because person X and person Y are approximately the same size then person Y cannot be in person X’s shadow?
The original had the woman behind and smaller. The current has the man behind and very slightly larger.
Again, how is one better than the other?
Why not go with something like this:
It’s clear that it’s people, but so generic that there is no sex differentiation.
You’re a guy asking “Why does this thing to not make women feel second class matter?”
Yeah, time to grow up.
Not exactly. Unless two people are side by side then one is in front the other is behind. Shuffling it one way or the other is not better or worse.
There are far bigger fish to fry than getting into silliness.
Also, you should not attack others that have a different opinion than you. Pot meet kettle?
That is clearly the blue guy from sesame street with his mixed race cousins in his shadow.
Everyone is missing the big change: female sillhouettes no longer resemble darth vader.
Says a man about the concerns of women.
It could seem to be my shtick, but I really don’t believe in the binary. My hair has been both super long and shaved smooth at various times, but I doubt if there was much speculation that I changed sex by doing this. But it goes beyond me, it seems to demonstrate that people are focusing not upon intrinsic differences, but fickle fashions of hair and clothing. Which is odd, because people can easily be considered to be gendered, whereas clothes and hair are not. As far as possible differences go, fashion is about as superficial and transitory as it gets.
I prefer this, not assuming a sexual aspect, although I’d hesitate to say that it clearly resembles people. Maybe just a pair of shaking hands? Although I do not know how universal the gesture may be. It seems to more clearly suggest a relationship - people standing together could just as easily be strangers riding an elevator.
I have the right to my opinions. And I am not required to agree with the opinions of others - even those, generally, on the same “side”.
If I were to follow your logic then you really have no business being the “white knight” for women. Right?
And, in this case, it appears to be more the “concerns of a woman” rather than the “concerns of women”.
You make an awful lot of assumptions with very little to go on.
Sure and I have the right to think you’re an insensitive dude who doesn’t give a crap about the way women are treated in society by implicit little things like this.
After all, you started this by complaining that this was done. You could have just moved on with your day but, instead, you felt it was obnoxious enough that you needed to share your displeasure that this was done with the world.
See my previous comment: “You make an awful lot of assumptions with very little to go on.”
More than you seem to understand. Your attitude is pretty clear.
I apologize, I hadn’t realized that this conversation was due to you not being a native english speaker.
Yes. “In someone’s shadow” is connoted by someone appearing both behind and lower than the person casting the shadow. It is not a synonym for merely being behind someone, but is used to convey the idea that if there was a source of light, say from the sun, the shadowed person would have the light reaching them completely blocked.
In this case, the person behind being around the same hate and, in fact, slightly taller, cannot by any reasonable reading of the image be symbolically representing him being in the woman’s shadow. No matter how small he was, his top line extending beyond hers completely eliminates that reading as valid.
Yes, this is a good explanation of how the first one has the woman cast in the man’s shadow, but the second one does not have the man cast in the woman’s shadow.
This one is better than the other because no one is in anyone else’s shadow in the image.
All of the following effects can remove the “shadowed” nature of an image:
Moving the person behind far enough away towards the back.
Moving the person behind far enough to the side.
Making the person behind larger in at least one dimension (which is what was done here).
Placing the person behind higher in the image.
Nope - my “attitude” clear at all to you.
I’m simply not going to “defend” myself but I could play the same game as you if needed. Go back to feeling you need to be the “protector of women”. I prefer to feel women are adults and don’t need your protection.
If I am behind you and taller than you and the light source is in front of us then you are casting your shadow on me.
Evidence of height crime!
Have you just never been exposed to the concept of being in another person’s shadow and what the phrase and symbolism associated with it means?
In that case, I feel happy for you, because you get to learn something here today, but I do caution you that your contributions aren’t particularly helpful if you don’t actually have the frame of reference to understand what people are actually talking about.
The negative symbolism of being “shadowed” is only attached to someone being completely shadowed, to be cast as having no role or being outside the boundaries defined by the one casting the shadow. It is a term primarily used in linguistic and visual symbols associated with relationships of various sorts - matrimonial, sibling, and business being the most common. If it’s not a complete shadowing, however, then it’s not actually the symbolism we’re discussing here - any breaking of the boundary negates the intent of the symbol.
Could “being protected from the searing sun” count?
I’m not protecting women. I’m a man criticizing another man for making men look bad and being an ass towards the concerns of women.
By all means, continue to try to make this about me, rather than your public disdain for leveling the portrayal of women online.
What I mean by “your shtick” is your apparent surprise or confusion every time exceedingly common societal gender/sexual norms/mores are brought up.
This really can apply to an awfully large number of topics of conversation.
