Disfellowshipping Image

by naazira 150 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  OrphanCrow

  Sparrow: The patriarchal culture of the kingdom hall seems the perfect environment to perpetuate the idea that women are either temptress or saint.

  And the idea that women are weak and emotional.

  A layer of meaning that often gets missed when looking at images, is not what is in the image, but what is left out of the frame. By depicting women as vulnerable or threatening, by extension, the message is that the Men are not those things. Men, by their absence, are portrayed as strong and good.

  Where are the men positioned in the "disfellowshipping image"? Well, they are somewhat removed from that emotionally charged space - a couple of them chatting casually in the background, on the periphery, and an older gentlemen minding his own business, not getting involved. Rank and file men, just a couple of guys and an old fellow. And the elders, the ones with the authority and power? They are exactly where they should be - outside of the frame, taking the dominant position of 'capturing' the subject matter. They are the ones who 'took' this picture, the ones with the control.

  By the way, those two guys in the back smiling and chatting? What is with the fellow on the right? His smile looks so weird. His mouth goes right up to his eyes. Every one of the other people in this image have relatively realistic features. His features make him look like some sick cartoon guy.
• 

  OrphanCrow

  Sorry for talking so much...but I downloaded this image and have spent some time studying it these past couple days and now that I took another look at it, I have a few more things to say about it.

  I had mentioned the elders in my last post. In re-examining the image, it is possible that the one man in the center of the image has a 'elder' position. Notice how he is placed exactly center in the image. Even though he isn't the main subject, he takes center stage. Regardless, most of the men, including young boys (up and coming authority figures) are outside the frame.

  I also want to address the demon and the funny clown guy in center left of the image. I know that other people besides me will see the demon so I must as well talk about it now.

  I have given some thought as to the artistic processes involved in the making of this image and I believe that the source image is a photograph. Probably a candid photo that someone owned from years ago. Which would explain why the blue woman has a book bag - she did in the original photograph. It wasn't a staged photograph. Manipulated but not staged.

  I don't think that it was drawn by a human hand, unless you consider that the computer's choices are directed by a human. I think it is a digitally manipulated photograph and that it is the intervention of the computer that may be responsible for translating the tonal values in such a way that inadvertent 'subliminal' images appear.

  The 'demon head' appears right beside the little girl on the chair - to her left and on the chair back. I noticed the demon face right away - the contrast of the tonal values on the edge of the chair drew my eye to that area. I looked and there was the demon.

  I think the demon may have been a shadow from the arm rests, and how the computer has translated those tonal regions, through the process of scanning, and then through the transition into a 'drawn' image, has left those shadows in the shape of a demon face.

  I am not sure about the clown guy, but, digital manipulation of photographs often will distort certain ares of the photo. Maybe that is what it is.

  However, what I don't understand is this: why were those 'errors in translation' not corrected before the image was printed? Why would an artist, who could not help but see the same things I did, not say, "Oh my jehovah! There is a demon on the chair! I better get THAT out of the image." And "Oh my! Look at how that extra contrast draws an eye to that area...surely someone will see it...better change that quick!"

  There are only two explanations. One - the artists are incompetent. They lack the ability to know what it is that they are doing. Or two: they saw it and left it.
• 

  OrphanCrow

  Okay, okay...I promise...I will sit down after this post.

  A poster had made the comment on another thread that if the WTS photoshopped images, that we would jump all over them. Well, I believe that the image that is the subject of this thread is a digitally manipulated photograph.

  Some posters have drawn attention to the dress and shoes of the blue woman in this photo. The WTS illustrators have given the woman some extra attention. The dress has likely been shortened by the computer technician because the hem is too straight - it doesn't fall naturally. I think the shoes have been changed - the size and placement are just a bit 'off'. A tiny bit - not quite right.

  Does the WTS manipulate and 'photoshop' images? Yes, indeed they do.

  
  
• 

  purrpurr

  I can see an apes head on the back wall inbetween the two brothers? I do wonder very much if this is the work of one of the conscious class?
• 

  naazira

  Wait there's a demon in the photo? Lol ahh another slip up like the song book and the demon hand in the Revelation Climax book eh?
• 

  millie210

  
  done4good2 hours agoMillie210 - what was in the '07 KM?
  I am sure I can find it here later, (at work now), but in short this was the first time I remember reading an article that flatly stated, (and I'm paraphrasing), "Don't read anything, don't research anything, just listen to us and shut up...."
  My never have been a JW wife paraphrased the article as such, after I asked her to read it and tell me what she thought its message was. Very telling.

  Thank you done4good. Your wifes take on this was very telling~

  I appreciate you responding. Now that I have re-read that section of the 07 KM I do remember it.

  07 was a busy year, we were launching a new product at work and I was making meetings on the wing but I was there sitting in a chair and I remember reading that.

  I remember thinking "is this a big problem somewhere? I had just started reading Greg Stafford and was learning a lot. I was keeping this a big secret and actually was reading him in an attempt to help a friend who was leaving the "truth".

  So when I read that blurb in the KM I naively thought they must mean Greg Stafford or others like him, probably in other countries.

  I had no idea apostates had a cohesive online presence at that point. I wasnt disgruntled enough to go looking (yet). I was however, very aware that the Org did not supply the spiritual info I would need to try to rescue someone. There just wasnt enough substance in the pablum they were now coughing out and that is why I had found Greg Stafford in the first place.

  It is amazing to read that info in the 07KM knowing what I know now. I agree it sounds "mild" or benign compared to the strongly worded things they say today. That has to be a measure of progress. The threat is growing, the control is slipping. They are not as mildly concerned as they were in 07 are they?
• 

  Heaven

  You know you're in a cult when .... their definition of 'loving provision' causes immense pain and suffering.
  
• 

  Ruby456

  this pic is doing a lot of work cos the woman in colour is dressed the way sisters who work fulltimes dress dress at our meetings during the summer. Some elders' wives dress like that too. Is there an implicit warning to successful sisters to beware lest they fall?
• 

  millie210

  I see that too Ruby.

  Even the hair style has that professional cut and "look" of a boardroom career woman.

  I keep being drawn back to this picture.

  The picture I love to hate.

  I am fascinated mostly by what it the *^^* were they thinking???

  Do they really think a "modest spiritual woman" looks that schleppy? Are they really that out of touch?

  I might answer my own question here with: maybe, their wives look just like this when we see the occasional picture of them. I am referencing that picture of Tony Morris (Governing Body) and his wife at a door.

  Why didnt they make the girl leaving in the colored dress "more"?

  As in tighter dress, shorter, cleavage implied.

  Actually cleavage is implied even though it is a side shot.

  That poor woman on the left in the picture that is part of a couple is a sad sight.

  Flat chested with an underbite and an eager look on her face because she is being "recognized" (that would seem to indicate the man addressing the couple is a somebody ie; elder ((gag))

  And look! Her husband is noticibly better looking than she - so there you go aging single pioneering girls in your late 20s and 30s. You too can get "tall, dark and handsome" becaise they are looking for women who are "spiritual".
• 

  StrongHaiku

  The dress shows her bare arms entirely... Shocking! Tsk, tsk...How immodest. Next time they'll have a picture with a disfellowshipped brother in a tight suit...