For the record, here's the photo causing Althouse's vapors:
An emailer calls this to my attention saying: "I don't think you should post about this, but why would they put in this photo where you can see all the way up her skirt??"Okay, fine, whatever. I'm really not shocked that Althouse would rather she appear in her photo in a featureless potato sack, or hiding anything that might slightly indicate that she's a woman; Ann has always been uncomfortable with women looking like, well, women. But then she reads through her comment thread, and finds this one that she feels is worthy of featuring in her post. (Bolds mine.)
Well, I am posting about this, and I wouldn't say "you can see all the way up her skirt." You can see that Sonia Sotomayor wears a skirt and crosses her legs in a relaxed and casual way that lets you see some leg. The photo also has her smiling prettily, with her hair in relaxed ringlets, one of which falls gently into her eye. Her left hand is devoid of any relationship-manifesting rings, but she's wearing long dangling earrings, and the hand is unclenched and draping gracefully.
Get the message? She's a woman. A womanly woman, fully embodying womanhood — even as she is not married, she's wearing a professional suit, and she's at home with the law books.
IN THE COMMENTS: Palladian, who has expertise in art, writes:I repeat, what the fuck is wrong with these people?
Her knee looks like a giant grey Idaho potato hovering in the foreground. The arm of the chair repeats the shape on the right of the frame, making it look like her other knee, which in turn makes it look like her hand is dead center in her enormous crotch, pawing at her cooch. You avoid those things in portraiture. Also not good to crop her right arm off. It implies that she's an amputee.He is right, of course, but that isn't the answer to my question why the photograph was selected.