THANK YOU! This is an excellent article. The especially sad thing here is that the photographer supposedly is a woman ... a double shame IMO. I also may be a cynic but if anyone believes this woman is giving the fee to a charity ... well, I have a bridge to sell you. Furthermore, giving 1% of her fee doesn't count. These pictures are ALL about the money, or in the case of the subway photographer, perversion.
I read the article. Problem is, our whole society objectifies women, and that includes women themselves, or at least some of them, and I include Kate within this category.
Why do women feel the need to wear skirts instead of trousers and ridiculous high heels that make their buttocks protrude - something that apparently attracts men - and makes their legs look shapelier, instead of the far more practical and comfortable options which are available? Why do they spent many hours and thousands of dollars having their hair done and nails painted and their bits waxed, and spend even more hours on painting their faces to emphasise their eyes and make their lips look red, and more time and money on expensive and often useless facial preparations in the hope of remaining of youthful appearance? To attract and/or keep men, of course. To look good for men. And that's why they parade around in clothes that hug their figures and show off their feminine curves, and why they wear shiny baubles, too, often shiny baubles that men have bought for as signs of the men's "ownership" of said women.
It's all about sex and the biological imperative, and the emphasis in our society on women making themselves look attractive for men, and that involves advertising their assets to the men. Once you admit that it all falls into place. And before some outraged woman screeches that they do it for themselves and to show off to other women, it still comes down to sex and the competition for men and the fact that men – some more than others - tend to stray and women – some more than others - tend to feel the need to make themselves look as good as they can in the hope of keeping the men interested in them. Men tend to respond to visual stimulation. But that's fine, just admit it. Though I wish to stress that not all men are that shallow and easily distracted, many are.
Women have a choice. They can play that game and do all those things or they can choose to do otherwise and wear sensible clothes for the occasion. It's their right to choose to go either way, but if they choose the exhibitionist route and things do not go the way they planned, they shouldn't complain if they're caught out. They should take responsibility for their own actions and not bleat and blame the nasty photographer.
Women who wear short dresses of flimsy fabric that are likely to blow up in windy conditions, and wear "sexy" underwear while wearing those short, flimsy dresses rather than skirts that due to design won't do that (or, even more sensible, trousers) and sensible underpants that won’t show their nether regions when the skirt inevitably blows up, are just as much a part of the "problem" as the men who expect their women to look desirable for them and the people who photograph them and publish the photos. If women choose to wear clothes that have a risk of blowing up and showing off what they are - or, in Kate's case, are not - wearing underneath, then they have no-one but themselves to blame for they have voluntarily assumed the risk and should not complain if they are seen, and perhaps captured by the camera.
I don't blame the female photographer for taking photos of this silly woman making the same mistake for - what is the tally now - maybe the seventh time, and flogging it. I would, too, and I wouldn't give the money to charity if I needed it. I suspect the photographer thought 'this is too good to be true! I've caught the idiot doing it again! She'll never learn.'