Why is Facebook's avatar a dude?
Sociological Images has a great short post about Facebook's default avatar - which appears to be a white male.
Lisa makes the interesting point that when Facebook wants to represent people globally, they use avatars that look markedly different:
So when Facebook wants to represent global humanity, the avatars are orange and of mixed sex; when Facebook is charged with representing an individual, the avatar is white and male. This is not random or accidental. Globally, as Facebook, ironically, reminds us, people are not "white." Representing people in this way centers men, Western countries, and whiteness (because there are non-white people in Western countries, too) and marginalizes women, non-Western countries, and non-whites (though one might argue that at least ALL of the avatars aren't white and male).
Normalizing white men (while Othering everyone else) isn't exactly a new phenomenon, but I think it's really fascinating to see the way this plays out online. It reminds me of an interview I did with Alice Marwick for this Guardian article about online misogyny.
"The promise of the early internet," says Marwick, "was that it would liberate us from our bodies, and all the oppressions associated with prejudice. We'd communicate soul-to-soul, and get to know each other as people, rather than judging each other based on gender or race." In reality, what ended up happening was that, online, the default identity became male and white - unless told otherwise, you would assume you were talking to a white man. "So people who brought up their ethnicity, or people who complained about sexism in online communications, were seen as 'playing the race/gender card' or trying to stir up trouble," says Marwick.
Thoughts?
Thanks to Samantha for the link.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Why is Facebook's avatar a dude?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13113
I think they should all be orange. Nobody is orange (well, except William Shatner?) so nobody is singled out as a "standard" or the "default" human.
Well, at least it's a gay white man, right?
It could be a lesbian. I TOTALLY had that haircut!
It also could be an Asian male, judging from the hair and mandarin collar... Again. I had it.
I propose a new avatar: whitedude and 3 of his best friends of various colors and genders, getting effed up, vandalizing something. Little do they know their universities, employers, parents, and parole officers are soon to discover and seize the photograph as evidence.
Err, I think they are taking "white" because the image uses #FFFFFF to fill in the silhouette, not because the haircut is "white". Just from the silhouette shape, race is not strongly suggested to me, though maybe one can take "not black" from it. We all almost certainly read our own biases into it - if I had to guess, and was told it was a real silhouette, I would probably guess the man was Latin American, though I could not tell you why.
He's also 'normal' body weight. Why can't facebook have like... a freakin a question mark? I thought they used to. At least someone did.
And of course it's radical to say that you don't think a thin white dude is representative of everyone, but if it were a non-white person or a woman or both, the privilege sex and race would be all "why is it a this-race/woman?" Welcome to the realization everything that is not aimed directly at anyone else is directed at you, white dudes who think it doesn't matter.
I'm pretty sure they still have a question mark on your profile page if you don't fill in a picture. This avatar is somewhere else on the site, right? And clearly anyone can make any profile picture they want, including a different silouhette.
No, this male icon has replaced the question mark. It is meant to represent any person with a profile.
What's even more depressing is that I didn't even notice this until you pointed it out.
Sometimes the most obvious assumptions just sneak under my radar, like the peanut butter in the pantry.
Um, it's just a freakin' avatar with no features. It's white because it's transparent and light against a blue background.
Seriously, stop getting so offended over everything.
As a Deaf South Asian Muslim feminist, I find nothing outrageous or offensive about this avatar, but I do agree there should be a female one for female FB users.
Oh wait! There should be an avatar with a Hijab! Or an avatar with a hearing aid! Or how about an avatar with a mohawk for us punk rockers!
I can't believe you're making a big mountain out of a molehill. Wow.
To me (and the folks at Sociological Images) the hair indicates someone white - as does the, um, whiteness. And I don't think there's a question that the avatar is male. So if it's not a big deal - why not create an avatar that clearly a woman or person of color? I think Lilith is right on to point out if Facebook did that they would get complaints, but because white dudes are positioned as the norm, we're supposed to think this is okay.
If you're not offended by it, that's fine - but I think that centering white men as the default human identity is pretty fucked.
I think Yahoo and Gaia Online do it, too (Gaia maybe before you choose your sex). You know, make a male avatar for people without pictures. Maybe Blogspot, too. I've found a new mission for today.
But when you lump it all together, it suddenly becomes more of a problem, because that means MOST websites assume dudes are the norm, unless it's a website FOR women. So it's not just about Facebook, it's about how people see all the other websites and learn that male is, in fact, the norm. And I don't like being 'normal,' but I certainly would rather choose the ways I'm not normal instead of my vulva and boobs (or I guess lack of penis and testicles, as some may say) doing it for me.
I think Yahoo and Gaia Online do it, too (Gaia maybe before you choose your sex). You know, make a male avatar for people without pictures. Maybe Blogspot, too. I've found a new mission for today.
But when you lump it all together, it suddenly becomes more of a problem, because that means MOST websites assume dudes are the norm, unless it's a website FOR women. So it's not just about Facebook, it's about how people see all the other websites and learn that male is, in fact, the norm. And I don't like being 'normal,' but I certainly would rather choose the ways I'm not normal instead of my vulva and boobs (or I guess lack of penis and testicles, as some may say) doing it for me.
Sorry for the double post, my first one never showed up so I posted it again : (
Yahoo uses smiley faces for those without set avatars, or at least that's how it is on yahoo answers. On Gaia it's impossible to not be signed up and post a comment or reply in the forums or go into the interactive worlds. The first thing you have to do when making an account is make your avatar. I beleive however on the apps on sites like Bebo that they list several standard already made avatars that you can use if you don't have a gaia account, only a couple of which are white male.
hair indicates someone white - as does the, um, whiteness. And I don't think there's a question that the avatar is male.
Last I checked people of any ethnicity can wear their hair however they want. "White hair" ? Seriously?
You could make a white silhouette of a photo of someone black, and colour it white, that wouldn't make it the silhouette of a white person. The colour of a silhouette doesn't indicate anything. (Shadows are black) Also, as previously mentionned, white and blue is facebook's colour scheme.
As for your assumption that the avatar is male... I have to ask why?
Seriously? That's such a weak-ass argument. Wow. If people are so *offended* by the so-called white male avatar, then why don't they just upload a photo of something or someone that represent them.
Seriously, stop making such a huge issue out of this. This is one trivial reason why many people think we feminists are such a joke.
You know, you don't have to be offended by this. But do me a favor and don't tell me what to blog about.
I'm not offended, I'm just amused how you are making a huge issue out of this trivial topic.
I hate the "Don't make a huge issue" statement. Jessica found an article on another blog she thought was interesting, she highlighted it here. It does not have any more weight than any of her other posts so when someone says she's making a huge issue to me it sounds like they're saying she shouldn't talk about it at all which is not their right to tell Jessica what she shouldn't or should blog about. To be fair, Jessica's writing surrounding the issue (not counting, introducing the link) is only around 5 sentences. Not a big issue at all.
Instead of complaining about what they write about, either discuss the topic or don't comment, don't make "why are you writing about" accusations which are just another silencing technique
"And I don't think there's a question that the avatar is male. So if it's not a big deal - why not create an avatar that clearly a woman or person of color?"
So, just to follow through with this line of argument..
what exactly would a silhouette of of a woman or person of color LOOK like? I can kind of see the "typical" answers of what might make a "feminine" silhouette, (which I would be surprised to see you advocate for) but I am really curious about what would say "person of color" to you.
How does one make an avatar that is clearly a woman or a person of color without reducing the avatar to a stereotype?
The avatar does look like a White dude, but that's not really Facebook's fault. The avatar can be a person of any gender or color, because it's neutral. But few of us will see it as anything other than a White male, at least initially, because we see White and male as race- and gender-neutral. So most of us, including you, are doing the same thing as Facebook did. We're projecting what we see as normal onto an ambiguous stimulus. It's like an inkblot.
I think the best solution is for Facebook to allow people to create their own avatars. Some people don't want a picture of themselves or the plain avatar Facebook is using now.
The avatar is white because Facebook's colors are white and blue. The picture sticks out with the white profile page more with a blue background and white person than the other way around. I'm hesitant to believe Facebook actually made an avatar deliberate of a white male. Male? sure. White male? probably not.
I think this issue is more complex than that. It's not about this isolated incident of Facebook choosing a male-ish, white-ish default avatar. It's that "white male" is the default everywhere -- even on the internet, which had this promise of being a space where gender, race, ability, etc., wouldn't be the first things you'd use to categorize (marginalize) someone you "met." That's what makes it a significant issue rather than a nitpick. IMO.
Not to say I agree with the trollish behavior going on previous to your comment, but I think that using this image as a critical analysis tool is a bit off because the image of the avatar is given gender by the viewer, not infused into the avatar itself. I think that, perhaps, this is a case of racial and sexual oversensitivity being used as critical theory. I'm a bit more detailed on my comment below to the OP, but I think that the issue of this particular issue is a bit overblown.
I'd like them to return to a question mark, but Facebook doesn't like what the users have to say anymore, anyway ;-)
I'm glad you're just letting this all roll off your back, but why exactly do you even read this site if you have a problem with this blog?
Just letting things go and not "making mountains out of mole hills" is just another way of putting accepting being "the other".
I think the fact that people don't find this offensive only makes it more of a big deal.
Male = default = normal = unoffensive.
BUT!
Female = special = not normal = unequal.
For those that argue that females can also have short hair...The majority of men have short hair. Okay, yes, some men have long hair, and some women have short hair. But the majority of people with short hair are male.
Point is, most people would see this as male. Why can't it be a gender-neutral, nondescript icon? Why is male seen as neutral? This is the problem, and I'm surprised a lot of people overlook it.
Someone down thread mentions that a stick figure is seen as male, and this is sort of the same deal. Don't you see that THAT is the same problem? Referring to everything as "he" by default?
But the avatar IS gender- and race-neutral. Anyone who is seeing the avatar as a white male is equating whiteness and maleness with being race- and gender-neutral. You, Jessica, the people Jessica cited in this post, and everyone who hasn't realized that the avatar can be anything is doing that. Is there anything particularly wrong with that? I don't think so, because it all depends on a person's perspective.
I'll refer to my inkblot analogy that I made in my first comment here. The avatar is an ambiguous stimulus, just like an inkblot. And just like an inkblot, people are going to see a bunch of different things. Some might see a white guy. Some might see a lesbian. Some might see a Latino(a) or a South Asian. Some might say that they're unsure because the avatar doesn't have facial features. Some might see a ghost. Some might not see a person at all (it wouldn't surprise me if it were a butt plug). Some commenter down there saw Mr. Softee. None of these perceptions are right or wrong, because the avatar could be any of these things and more. What one sees is going to be affected by culture or what's on the person's mind at that particular moment.
I just thought that it was white because their color scheme is blue and white. if they made it another color, it would clash.
Also the creator of facebook is a white (jewish) guy. There used to be a picture of him in the left corner, and no one got mad about it, maybe it's a white man because a white man made facebook.
I think if people have a problem with it, then they should upload a freaking picture of themselves.
I seriously can't muster a single ounce of indignation over the default avatar. It's a silhouette, its gender and ethnicity can't be automatically assumed to be male and white. People of all races cast black shadows. Feministing has a white background. Sometimes a colour is just a colour.
In reality, what ended up happening was that, online, the default identity became male and white - unless told otherwise, you would assume you were talking to a white man.
Wow, I think this is a really important observation, though I've never really thought about it before myself. The internet has reproduced (and sometimes exacerbated) existing social structures and problems, and this is one of them.
So to be female it has to have long hair? Or is it that it's not wearing a skirt? hmmm.
Guess I must be a white male since that's pretty much my silhouette. Comes as a surprise to me!
To be completely honest, I don't read the image as white or male, but as a blank template. I can see how it appears gendered to other people, but I don't personally equate short hair with male so I don't really see it myself. I do see that they have 1950s cartoon lady heads on the world map which look more out of place to me than this one because they are much more clearly identified with a specific stereotype to me in their styling. For me it is a bit like the person on the "walk" symbol or street crossing signs - signifying human without being overtly gender-specific.
The choice of white to convey blankness is part of the website's overall color scheme and to imply a "cut-out" to be replaced with a real image. It would likely look out of place in the design to use a different color there without changing the site's scheme. In the world map shown, I don't think orange was chosen as some sort of skin tone representative, but because it is a good color to go with the white/blue background that fits while still being clear.
What would be a preferred solution to this? If they removed the hair doodle at the top would it still read as male to most people? I'm not sure there is a winning solution, but if there is one and it is suggested to facebook, maybe they will implement it. They have made changes to their blank avatar in the past, so maybe we could make a recommendation to them that would be heard.
I think there is a winning solution. I big question mark, like I swear I've seen before.
I believe it was facebook that used the question mark before. I read an interview somewhere that said that people didn't like that so it was changed to the current one. That's what I was thinking of when I mentioned that they had changed it before based on feedback. (I think that was facebook)
It'd be interesting to know how they got feedback the replacement image of a white male. What percentage of the people who (a) created sample images (b) mocked up screens (c) got feedback and (d) gave feedback and (e) made decisions were male? white? aware of the issues of othering and normalization of whiteness and maleness?
then again maybe i'm giving 'em too much credit. quite possibly the guys running Facebook did it without bothering to get feedback. "looks good to me!"
jon
Definitely would be interesting to know. My guess is that they took it to their marketing/advertising people and said, "people are complaining about the question mark" and this was the result.
I don't have especially strong feelings about this specific avatar, but I do think it's a very interesting observation and - as several people have pointed out - very telling that it tends to escape notice. While on a case-by-case basis such things are insignificant, cumulatively they do perpetuate an assumed white, male 'norm'.
The question of the assumed internet identity is very interesting. Because I move in very specific circles online (media fandom) I tend to assume that people who don't explicitly identify their gender are women. More specifically, I probably skew towards imagining white, queer or queer-friendly women - i.e. other people like me. I think that depending on where you hang out, the assumption that you are male is more or less prevalent, but I strongly suspect that online space is disproportionately constructed as white.
Yikes, but Lisa's reading too much into this. Facebook's colors are white and blue. So the icon's gonna be white and blue. It's orange when it's against a white and blue background.
And who's to say it's a guy? I'm rockin a 'hawk right now. Looks kinda like my profile.
Another way white maleness is normalized online is with pull down menus for indicating race and gender in surveys and forms and stuff like that. Usually, the default is male, so women have to change the setting whilst men don't. I think the same typically applies when it comes to race.
For facebook at least, (http://www.facebook.com/), the default gender is "Select Sex". I cannot swear I have ever seen anything in a dropdown menu out of alphabetical order, except country of origin (where America, and occasionally Britain, get pushed to the top). But I do not use social networking sites very much, so that may not be worth much.
This is standard on most sites these days. The default in drop-downs in usually "Please select" with the following options listed either all alphabetically or by order they are most commonly chosen such as listing the top 5 countries chosen then the remaining countries alphabetically.
I've seen the "Select Sex" out of alphabetical order lots of times.
(i.e. "Male" and then "Female")
Haven't you?
Not that I specifically recall. Facebook's sexes are in alphabetical order (since we're discussing Facebook).
Previous to this, though, I can not remember the last time I saw a "select sex" button at all. My good friend Alexa tells me Google is the most popular English language website, but I cannot find a way to put my sex into Google Profile. She also tells me Yahoo.com is the second most popular English language website, and I find that if I try to sign up with Yahoo, my default gender is "Select one", but the options are listed reverse alphabetical. Youtube is third (radio boxes, no default), and is also reverse, and Facebook is forth and alphabetical. It's then a while again before I will get a chance.
So now, at least, I have seen two, and I think we can reasonably call it "not uncommon" to see it.
Whether or not women can have short hair, I'm betting if you asked people to give the sex of avatars like this, most people would call this one male.
And yeah, I think there was a question mark before.
The title banner for Facebook and the little icon/avatar-y thing in the URL bar used to be an actual drawing of a guy. And if I remember correctly, he was blue. So I'm going with the whiteness as part of the colour-scheme.
I found a screen shot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thefacebook.png
Thats the creator, Mark Zuckerberg
I think the picture is just a silhouette of the old face person.
I should really start looking for things before posting comments...
Is it possible that maybe the silhouette is meant to represent Facebook-founder Mark Zuckerberg? A bit like how on MySpace everyone is friends with Tom? His hair isn't quite the Ken-doll do that the avatar has but then I don't think that exact style is maintainable without a mold.
Could this make it more acceptable?
There is a picture of Zuckerberg with this article: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techinvestor/2007-02-24-next-big-deal_x.htm
This is the new default avatar that represents any person with a facebook page who doesn't upload a picture. This replaces the former question mark avatar.
It would make no sense for it to represent the founder.
I think people are over reacting if they get offended. I don't even know anyone that uses that avatar for a profile pic. 99.9% of my friends (and i have a pathetically high number of Facebook friends) use an image they uploaded.
If you seriously have a problem with it, change the picture! seriously, you could upload a picture of the middle finger, with "fuck you, facebook" and they wouldn't care. I don't think they're trying to oppress people. They just want your personal information so they can sell it to companies, thats all they care about.
I don't think people are getting offended. I think they are trying to critically analyze the media and what messages it sends. If we got offended over things like this we'd be offended most of the time.
This isn't about Mark Zuckerberg trying to oppress people. I don't think most people consciously try to oppress people. This is about looking at how he or whoever decided to put up that avatar have internalized the message that male is default. This is about trying to think outside the box and analyze what is assumed in our culture. Can you imagine a world where when sex in unknown people always refer to women? I can't even imagine one where it's equal.
I don't understand how that avatar can be taken as any of:
white
male
"normal" (thin) weight
I can't tell any of those things from this picture. Blue/white are the colour schemes of facebook. It's not white because the character is white but because it's transparent and that's the colours they use.
Personally from this silouette alone I can't tell if it's male or female. Nor how "heavy" the person is.
So I don't get it??? What am I missing here.
Oh hey! I'm OFFENDED that there's a long-haired flapjack icon on the top of the banner of this website! It's not fair that she's thin and has big boobs!
I demand a flapjack with short hair, small boobs, and a plus-size body!
Your caustic satire would work a lot better if you picked a remotely fair analogy.
The mudflap girls are an offensive, patriarchal image being repurposed as a feminist statement. They are, by their very nature, supposed to be offensive, heteronormative images of the ideal "tits-on-a-stick" submissively sexual white woman.
The mudflaps girls in their non-feminist use are intended to marginalize women and create a heirarchy of the male gaze. This is precisely the opposite purpose of the facebook avatar, which is to serve as a stand in for the identity of all users, regardless of physical attributes.
Though I tend to agree with jessica on this, your side has some fair points that you and many other commentors have brought up. Please try to make them without alienating people.
Here's the deal--this isn't the sort of thing I would spend a lot of energy analyzing or doing activism around, but I think it's important that there are folks who are looking at normative images on one of the internet's most trafficked websites. It may not be your issue, but that's give you grounds to belittle others who find it interesting. I wish the comment section could be less caustic sometimes. Rigorous is great, but aiming at humiliating or belittling others is just plain tired.
We're not humiliating or belitting anybody because there is NOTHING to analyze about that avatar. Once again, White feminists at it with their Oppression Olympics games. I call it how I see it.
You've been a commenter here for a long time, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt - but I'm going to ask that you refrain from personal attacks and stop telling us what to blog/what is relevant.
I never attacked anyone. You are a well respected feminist writer and blogger. I respect your opinion and your thoughts. However, I am criticizing YOU for making an issue out of something so trivial, because your blog is well read, well known, and widely circulated on the Internet. You are sending out the wrong message to people out there who might be turned off once they read this post. This is something I thought I would read in THE ONION, not on Feminsting.
Anyway, this is my last comment here because obviously, I'm starting to piss you off, which is NOT my intention.
I appreciate that you disagree, and that's obviously fine - I'd just appreciate if you were more respectful of folks' opinions and not attack Courtney (or myself). I post on what I think is relevant, not on what I think will send out the right message, etc. That said, I appreciate your contributions to the site and we can def agree to disagree. :)
I have to say, I'm a little disheartened but this exchange, not because I disagree with either BROWN TRASH PUNK or Jessica, but because it seems that in order to get a response (from the OP), one needs to say something offensive and then is permitted to engage with said poster. I, along with three other people, attempted to engage with Jessica asking legitimate questions about her point of view (up by Jessica's first comment), and we were not engaged with. I have to say, that is one thing that bothers me about this site and I think the difference between this site and others like it - sometimes the posts are just put out there with little follow-up, or *selective* follow-up by the OP. and normally I don't even attempt to engage with the original poster because I know I won't get a response back. but when I saw that Jessica was commenting back this time, I thought, well I really do have something to add, a question to ask - and it seemed that other people did too. However the only person that was able to engage with the original poster is the one person that thinks this post is kind of useless. (no offense to browntrashpunk) How's that for logic? I don't know, I feel like I had to say this. Why aren't the people who are trying to engage with the original poster being engage with?
*not* being engaged with (the last sentence should say)
Indeed. I was one of a few people who commented on one of Jessica's comments and asked how the avatar could be made clearly female or brown, and that question hasn't been answered.
And I do agree with Brown Trash Punk. I might be as frustrated as she or he is, but I just haven't typed that way. I don't think this post is useless. I think it's ironic, because a lot of people are projecting their own race and gender biases on this simple little Facebook avatar. Paging Dr. Rorschach! A lot of people could have kept these biases hidden if they weren't so eager to point out those same biases in other people.
That's what I've been talking about! what we need is an internet emoticon genderfuck revolution. http://againstmybetterjudgement.wordpress.com/2009/02/19/emoticon-genderfuck/
Excellent point, and great quote from Alice Marwick too. Thanks for highlighting this!
I don't think discussing this topic is entirely ridiculous, and I realize it's annoying when people say "Why do you care about X? Y is soooo much more important!" but I'm going to do it anyway -- DAMN it disappoints me that judged in terms of sheer volume of comments, the post about the facebook avatar is more important to us as a commenting community than the post about Angie being murdered.
Topics the community has a fundamental disagreement over will always get more comments. The only way for the volume of comments to reflect actual relevance and feminist importance is if every single viewer wrote "I agree!" or "Yes, that is a terrible thing" after every post about a significant transgression.
I don't think that would elevate the level of discussion on the website.
While the facebook default avatar is, of course, a small symptom of a larger problem, it's the symptoms and examples of larger sexist issues that are often in our feminist scopes. By your logic, BrownTrashPunk, we shouldn't criticize commercials, or the way individual rape cases are represented in the media, or the Chris Brown/Rihanna scandal. Those things are trivial, right?
Jessica is right to point this out. I've never noticed it. It is a HUGE problem that the "default" human being is male, and the female is always the other. Not just in avatars or the Internet, it's everywhere. It's like how you can walk up to a group of girls and say "hey guys" but not to a group of boys and say "hey girls." It's how you assume your doctor or college professor is going to be a white man and you're surprised when somebody else walks in. Instead of providing other ethnic and gendered options, they could just neutralize this one. Getting rid of the silhouette of hair and the color would be a nice start.
I'm with you except for the part about assuming your doctor or professor will be a white male. That must depend on where you live and what backgrounds you are personally exposed to because it doesn't jive with my experiences.
For me when I goto a doctor, dentist, or anything like that I ASSUME the person will not be white. Because they usually aren't (which I kinda like).
Now granted I live in Toronto, where there are now more visible minorities then white people, so perhaps I'm used to diversity much more then people who live in an "all-white" town/city. But still it goes to show the what we expect is based on what we see ourselves in real life. So if you assume the person will be a white male, I can only assume that in your experiences most of the time they were a white male. And thus it isn't odd to expect it will be one if that's what you're used to.
Yeah, you're right. I can see how this would vary by experience. After all, in some parts of the world, white doctors are probably extremely rare. It's more an admission of my own guilt of when the nurse says "Dr. Jones will be in shortly," the mental image I get is of a white male, as much as I am aware of how terrible this is.
NYTimes.com has a very similar "default" image. It bugged me so much I put a picture of myself in, despite the fact I don't comment on the articles there.
I bet if they had a generic male and female silouhette that they assigned you based on the gender you chose, people would be upset about the cis-normativity or something. I don't think there's any one silouhette they could choose that would make everyone happy (which is why you're supposed to upload your own picture).
I do think the question mark was better, but I just can't get that worked up about it. I bet they picked something lame on purpose to encourage people to upload photos-- facebook would lose a lot of its glamour if no one used their actual face. Of course they're not stopping anyone from making their own sillouhette or cartoon either.
The only people getting "worked up" are the people who are upset that Jessica is critiquing it. It's just a critique, like any other feminist analysis of a movie or commercial.
I didn't say anyone else was too worked up, did I? I just said that *I* can't get worked up about it. I agree that its mildly sexist, but I find that I don't really care. I never said people shouldn't discuss it or anything like that-- I think you might be projecting someone else's opinions onto me.
Ok, I don't think the avatar is that big a deal, but how in the world is this "castrating" you?
To the mods: If you removed the trolling post, can you also remove my response to it? Otherwise I look kinda crazy.
I think the silhouette does strike me as being male, but that's only because more men wear their hair short. I don't think we want to say that women can't wear their hair short-- actually that could easily be a silhouette of my aunt. So it seems statistically more likely to be a guy but not for sure a guy at all. Wouldn't some people be offended if facebook assumed that women automatically have long hair?
As for race, it tells me nothing about race. Its a silhouette, which means the color is just a solid color that tells us nothing about race. Shadow silhouettes are usually done in black, and it doesn't mean the person is black. It white and blue because the theme of facebook is white and blue. And no one's skin color is actually that color, not even an albino. If it were kind of beige it would look more like a "white" person. And since you can't see any facial features or any of the body, I can't tell if this person is attractive, or overweight, or anything like that.
But I do agree that most people will see it as a guy, so its mildly sexist (not racist), and the question mark they used to have was better.
Okay, as far as the female thing goes, there's little one could do.
But as far as race goes, I don't understand why they didn't just reverse the white and blue? Problem solved with that.
Do you think they thought about this, or was it a subconscious thing?
I just turned my own pic into a silhouette avatar, and it looks quite a bit like the generic. Does that mean I'm a white man, too?
http://woolverine.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/betraying-bias/
Oh hey girl. I did the reverse. I used the silhouette to draw a female: http://i42.tinypic.com/2ed18q1.gif
Nice! Cute, too...
What's amazing to me is how many people are getting so worked up over how Jessica just brought this up. When I saw this I was like "hm, another instance of male being the perceived norm," commented, and forgot about it til I checked other comments and noticed how a majority of people really got offended that Jessica even brought this up... like it's a crime to question something.
I understand if you disagree, but are the "OMG why do you CARE!?!? WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU!?!" doesn't seem all that necessary to me.
But then again, I guess looking into ways that the male figure is normalized isn't necessary, either.
I see exactly one person in this comment thread getting offended about this post. The majority of dissenting opinions here seem to me to be perfectly calm and saying either, "Meh. I don't see it," or, "This is a bad example of the otherwise valid issue you've raised."
I read this blog every and find something enlightening and intellectually stimulating every single day, but this post was very disappointing. I absolutely have to agree with BROWN TRASH PUNK's sentiment:
"Seriously, stop making such a huge issue out of this. This is one trivial reason why many people think we feminists are such a joke."
With all due respect to everyone, regardless of opinion, I do believe that we feminists need to prioritize--with all of the injustices being committed in the entire world, this vague reflection of the heteronormative patriarchy doesn't deserve our attention in the gender equality struggle just yet.
I wholeheartedly disagree with this. Of course there are issues much more grim and pressing than this one, however this is just a small symptom of the BIG problem. No issues is too small, if it makes a woman anywhere feel less relevant.
You cannot just fight things like domestic violence if discrimination still exists.
Never silence another woman for "making a huge issue out of something" that hurt her.
I don't know about this one. I think in the grand scheme of things there is room to analyze why male (specifically white male) is the default in many situations, but I'm having trouble getting offended by this avatar. If it were a female represented by long hair would we have a post complaining that not all women have long hair? Obviously the ideal solution is to use a question mark as others have suggested, I just think there are a lot of other issues that demonstrate the male-as-default issue a hell of a lot better than a blank avatar for facebook.
After reading the rest of the comments I see Pantheon already made this point, only hers/his was worded better.
Hehe, thanks. I should also maybe add that if I had my hair in a ponytail when a photo was taken from the front, the silhouette might look very much like that. Well, there does seem to be a little cowlick on top which you don't usually get with a ponytail, but my ponytail can get pretty messy and bumpy by the end of the day. Its less likely than a short haircut but its possible for it to fit that picture.
Honestly, all I get out of that avatar is that the person has short hair, or possibly hair that is tied back in some way. Short hair probably makes most people think of a guy, but should it? I know plenty of guys with long hair and girls with short hair. So yeah, I think the avatar looks like a guy, but not in such a clear-cut way that it couldn't also very easily be anyone else.
I always thought it kind of looked like TinTin the reporter. But, then again, I loved watching that show when I was little.
Google image search -- the resemblance is remarkable.
That's who it is! Whenever I saw the default avatar, I always had a nagging feeling it reminded me of someone specific, but I couldn't figure it out. Thank you.
HAHAHA glad I could help! :-D
More on point -- I think it's interesting that just because the avatar has short hair and appears to be dressed well, we assume the avatar represents a white man. Most people from the shoulders up, with short hair, will look pretty much the same in silhouette. Nothing is really given about any of this. there's not even enough detail to see a lot of defining racial features. I don't see anything particularly race-infused about it. The only way to insert race into it is to make it dangerously caricatured, which is something none of us are interested in.
It's a collared shirt with a faux-hawk. That could be anyone with Metrosexual fashion from, like, 2 years ago.
I think it may show more racism and classism on the part of the viewer than actually of any real racism or classism on the part of Facebook. Who's to say it's not a funky, black lesbian; or gay male Asian Pacific Islander? Maybe it's some Swedish dude? Short latina who loves her hair short. There's really no way to know.
You know, people also think of stick figures as white males. If they want to signify another race, gender, orientation, etc. they are marked with skirts or afros or something. That isn't the stick figure's fault - it's just that we've been trained to think of it as male
I don't think the avatar necessarily suggests a white male. The haircut is certainly more masculine, yes, but that doesn't require that we interpret it as belonging to a cis-gendered male. The white on blue silhouette doesn't suggest any race to me.
Also... um, I was bored at work: http://i42.tinypic.com/2ed18q1.gif
As a feminist, I just want to weigh in that this doesn't bother me.
And judging by the hair, I think this is a picture of Mr. Softee.
I always assumed that it was a stylized picture of Zuckerberg.....
The default avatar on the community bloggers' profiles' looks remarkably similar to Facebook's default avatar. Does that mean this discussion is over now?
Where do we have avatars? This site is confusing.
I believe he's referring to this image
http://www.feministing.com/mt-static/images/default-userpic-90.jpg
I came here to say this. While I don't agree with the consensus on this thread that Jessica is making "too big a deal" out of this issue, I do think it is somewhat hypocritical for her to criticize the facebook default avatar when feministing's is just as indicative (to me) of a white male standard.
To the posters who think that "overreaction actually hurts the feminist cause":
I thought this post was a smart and current way to provide an example of how whiteness and masculinity are the "natural default" in so many situations; it really is a pervasive phenomenon, so much so that one commenter hadn't even noticed the inscription of gender and race on the default avatar before this post. The facebook avatar isn't an instigating issue, it's a symptom of a problem. Bringing it to light challenges privilege and works to deconstruct current power dynamics that underlie the struggles with inequality that all minorities (whether by ability, class, sexuality, etc) face on a daily basis.
Thank you, Jessica! I think this is one of the most interesting posts I've read here on Feministing, and I'm kind of disappointed in this thread. Maybe the Facebook Avatar isn't the clearest example, but it's a part of a big problem. It seems to me a lot of people are doing their best to negate the very existence of the problem, maybe that way it hurts less, don't know.
As a language teacher (Spanish, Portuguese and Basque), in each and single class I get frustrated with the male-as-the-default-sex norm. How can I teach my students that the male encompasses the female and the female is a deviation from the norm? Why are the pronouns presented in the textbooks male first, female second?
At least Basque and my mother tongue (Finnish) don't have gender-specific pronouns and the male norm is at least more hidden.
If I talked to anyone else about being offended by this male-as-a-norm thinking, seen EVERYWHERE in the world, I would be told exactly the same things Brown Trash Punk told Jessica. That's why it hurts to see it here on Feministing as well.
Yes, saying that maleness and Whiteness is the norm and everyone else deviates from it is bad. But that's not what this is about. Jessica is projecting maleness and Whiteness onto an silhouette of a person that could, in reality, be anyone. She's not rectifying the problem. She's actively partaking in it! And you're thanking her for it! The title of this post should not be "Why is Facebook's avatar a dude?" It should be "Why do I think Facebook's avatar is a dude?"
I can understand that point of view, and it was the part of the discussion I found interesting. Maybe it's also true that if the avatar had long hair, people would complain about the stereotypical female. Still, the avatar has all the usual characteristics that in our culture describe a male, not a female. And it's just happens that every time people try to point out the male-as-a-norm, as many people think that in this particular case it's not sexist. So how do we get the bigger picture, if every single case is trivial?
"She's not rectifying the problem. She's actively partaking in it! And you're thanking her for it!"
I was thanking her for bringing up the issue. And even if this was only projection from our part, why is that? Why have we learned to think that way? Why the people who are very self-aware and self-critical on the gender issues still project the maleness and whiteness onto the silhouette? If we do it, what about the rest?
There's obviously more behind the image than simply representing the average Facebook user. Now we have to ask, who is the average Facebook user? There probably isn't one definitive answer, just as there is not one definitive way for an avatar image. How is one distinct image supposed to represent everyone in the Facebook community? Perhaps they need to rethink the human avatar image all together, and come up with an image that won't discriminate against its users. If Facebook had the time to create the orange avatars for women too, then why didn't they think more about it for the profile picture avatar, especially when that seems to be more important. This just goes to show you that white males still hold all of the power in our society and how everything is catered to them, even in subtle ways on networking websites.
Facebook's avatar is a silhouette of founder Mark Zuckerberg, because (and excuse my language) he's a narcissistic douchebag. I strongly doubt there are any ulterior motives.
It is clear that prejudice is in the eye of the beholder. Why can't it be a lesbian, or gay male, or anyone of any other ethnicity?
Is this really a big deal?
Maybe it's a white male by default because white males are the largest population that are using facebook.
Furthermore having a untasteful avatar gives users that much more motivation to change the avatar to something that more represents themselves!
Having worked on a social network I think I have a bit of a unique perspective.
The real reason they show one image for everyone is that they wrote some easy code long long ago and never revisited it.
If they thought it was important enough to cycle through a variety of images they would. While it's a mistake on their part to undervalue the impact something like that can have if enough noise is made I'm sure it will come to their attention.
But when it come to social networks the picture that they show before you upload your photo is not high on their list of things to think about.
I'm still not convinced that this conversation should be a top priority for feminists, but it did make me realize this morning that my default gchat avatar seems to be of ambiguous race and sex. Good for you, gmail.
I feel like this sort of overreaction actually hurts the feminist cause.