Media Portrayal Of Women
I was standing at the duty free store in San Francisco International Airport, looking for books and snacks. We had a couple of hours to kill before our flight. When I noticed my daughters were staring at a large display of magazines, I looked up to see the display too. What I saw made me so MAD, I had to share it with you.
Now, yes, I am very much a feminist, and many of you are likely not (now I’m curious. Female or male, are you a feminist? please share in the comments). But take a look at the way women are portrayed in these magazines - then take a look at the way men are portrayed. See the difference?
Women are presented as half-naked, ready and willing sexual objects.
Men look strong and powerful, whether they are fully dressed in a business suit or more exposed (but never as exposed as the women).
My 8 years old daughter said this image in particular bothered her. She was uncomfortable because the model was half-naked:
The contrast between the way each gender is presented by the media was especially striking here, because these two magazines were placed next to each other at the store:
Feminist or not… I hope you can see the problem here.
Do you?
PS. In case you were wondering, when I started taking these photos, the other customers at the store looked at me like I was a madwoman. However, despite my worries, the police did NOT appear out of nowhere to question me or take away my camera. I read that in today’s panicky atmosphere, innocent photographers are sometimes harassed by law enforcement people. But I was left alone despite my weird behavior.
Related Articles:
Women’s Magazines
Plastic Surgery Pressure
Photo Retouching: Just Say No
Subscribe: Email Or Feed Reader
Filed under Women & Feminism —
Email This Post,
Subscribe To Comments, Trackback,
carrie responds:
Posted: July 27th, 2008 at 8:29 pm →
yowsa - i’m first??
i do consider myself a feminist, although i guess i do support the traditional female role in the family since i am a WAH mommy.
but living in LA, raising two young girls - it is very disturbing to me. not only the magazines - but even the so-called “news” out here is more concerned with which mommy has her body back (two weeks post-partum) and looks “sexy” again, than what is happening in what i would call “real news.”
i’ve boycotted magazines that depict women like this - and my husband has as well. but short of keeping the girls in a bubble, it is unavoidable. i love that your 8-year old was bothered by the magazine. what have you told them already to make them understand that it is indeed something to be troubled by?
carrie’s last blog post..Graceful ~ Best Shot Monday
Miranda responds:
Posted: July 27th, 2008 at 8:43 pm →
A reminder of how far we still have to go. *sigh*
Scott McIntyre responds:
Posted: July 27th, 2008 at 8:55 pm →
I always thought that women’s portrayal in the media- especially front covers- was as “eye candy”, Vered.
However, I’ve never seen the evidence so graphically displayed than in your photographs.
Don’t you also find that female newcasters also go for the glamor look as, at least, an equal quality as their journalistic skills?
I believe in equality and meritocracy.
I wonder, though, if these women aren’t simply being super savvy and playing this media game to their own advantage- just as the men are?
It certainly doesn’t challenge the media’s “eye candy” portrayal of women, but do they want to?
It’s often mutually beneficial to both parties to maintain the status quo… and that benefit is $’s & £’s.
Sandier Pastures responds:
Posted: July 27th, 2008 at 9:54 pm →
I once had a hard time explaining to my 4 year old why one model forgot to put on her panties in the magazine. Children are always curious and we as parents always need to be ready for any interrogation! We stay away from magazine stands after that.
Sandier Pastures’s last blog post..Saturday Photo Scavenger Hunt - Hanging
MomGrind responds:
Posted: July 27th, 2008 at 9:59 pm →
@ carrie: I’ve been to LA a couple of years ago and was amazed at how women look, especially in Beverly Hills. I can’t imagine raising young girls in that atmosphere.
To answer your question, as we were looking at the display, I said something about how mad I am that the women are all scantily dressed while the men are fully dressed. My 8 years old thought about it for a moment, and said “I especially don’t like the way this woman looks. She has no pants on. And no underwear!”.
In the past, I also talked with them about airbrushing and about the fact that models are beautiful, but not as perfect as they look in magazines. I’m trying to get these messages across now, before they are teenagers.
@ Miranda: Very true!
@ Scott: I appreciate your honesty. I don’t think women are using the system. I think they are being used. If the men make money with their clothes on, but the women have to undress to make money, then I don’t think they are that savvy.
But my main concern is not with the individual models. It is with the effect these images have on society as a whole, and on young girls in particular. I have two young daughters. I REALLY want them to value themselves for their brains, their personalities and their many talents. Sure, looks are important. They’ve been important throughout human history. But it can’t be all about looks.
Also: these women are not portrayed as beautiful women. They are portrayed as sexual objects. This, to me, is even more offensive.
To answer your question on newscasters, YES, it’s true, and every time I see an older male newscaster next to a young, glamorous female newscaster, I want to pull my hair out in frustration. This is actually another issue: the issue of age based discrimination. I have to wonder: I am 37… I am not going to be young forever. Do I REALLY have to fade into the background and disappear (or do Botox and plastic surgery) once I turn 40?
@ Sandier Pastures: That’s a funny story.
“We stay away from magazine stands after that” - that’s not a bad idea at all.
Christina responds:
Posted: July 27th, 2008 at 10:20 pm →
I have had the same thoughts many times. It truly is disturbing, on so many levels. What’s even worse than women being depicted as nothing more than sex objects is that many women in a role-model position actively support that idea!
Christina’s last blog post..Maybe I’m a dog person after all
Tanya responds:
Posted: July 27th, 2008 at 10:26 pm →
It totally agree with you..but the part of your post that really stood out for me was that your daughter was 1. uncomfortable and 2. told you about it. That says a LOT about how you’re raising her. Good job!
Tanya’s last blog post..Rattletree Trance ~ BSM
Jill responds:
Posted: July 27th, 2008 at 10:26 pm →
Well, I don’t need to tell you how I feel… you know that I completely agree with you. I think it is incredibly smart that you are talking with the girls now, before they stop listening to you.
Ann at One Bag Nation responds:
Posted: July 27th, 2008 at 10:40 pm →
UGH I really resent having to see that stuff on the news-stand, let alone have my 6-yr-old see it. What’s even scarier and more upsetting are the dolls that are sexualized - it goes way beyond Barbie these days. Luckily my girl - so far - is happy with more innocent dolls and stuffed animals.
Ann at One Bag Nation’s last blog post..The Dilemma of the Left-Handed Gloves
Scott McIntyre responds:
Posted: July 27th, 2008 at 10:53 pm →
I actually agree with you 100%, Vered.
If the debate is widened a little more, then I am also very concerned about the media’s front-cover portrayal of the ideal body as being an airbrushed, super-sculpted creation.
This applies to the possible negative psychological effects on both young boys and girls.
It is equally potentially damaging to chase the 6-pack Adonis look as it is to aim for the size-0 supermodel one.
I’ll be interested in your other male readers’ comments.
Writer Dad responds:
Posted: July 27th, 2008 at 10:57 pm →
Daisy says: Unfortunately, the images made your daughters uncomfortable. Fortunately, this sparked a teachable moment, with your influence and words helping to mold them into the people you want them to be, and not how society thinks they should be displayed.
Writer Dad’s last blog post..Swallowing Without Chewing
Barbara Swafford responds:
Posted: July 27th, 2008 at 11:20 pm →
Hi Vered,
There was a time when photos of half naked women on magazine covers were wrapped in plain brown paper. Not anymore. And we wonder why girls grow up receiving the wrong message, and boys grow up thinking girls are sex objects. I think you just one of the nails on the head.
Barbara Swafford’s last blog post..Interview With Lorelle VanFossen - Part 4 - Finding Fresh Content
Kelly@SHE-POWER responds:
Posted: July 27th, 2008 at 11:20 pm →
Your photos make the truth impossible to argue with in my opinion. How can anyone say looking at these magazines that women CHOOSE to display themselves like that from a place of 100% power. What utter bullshit! Women have been revered for their beauty for probably forever. It’s almost a primal thing that women seek powerful men and men seek beautiful women. This does piss me off because women have a lot more to offer than just physical beauty, but I’m not sure how possible it is to change something so fundamental in human relations.
But what really gets me is over the past 20 years we’ve moved into a notion of women as breathing sex toys. As you said, it’s not about beauty, it’s about male sexual gratification. Giselle Bundchen would look good in a flowing white sundress, but hey that’s not sexy according to magazines unless the dress is see through! The media is warping people’s brains and contaminating our children’s world to think sex is what women are here for.
A case in point is a friend recently was giving me ideas for what to get her 5 year old daughter for her birthday. he said a BRATZ doll, and I must have said “No” a little too quickly and harshly because then she’s like “what’s wrong with a BRATZ doll?” I said I thought they looked skanky and I didn’t want T to think that was how she needed to look to be pretty. She then got quite defensive and said, “Well, everyone has them so I have to get her one.” I wanted to scream. If she’s 13 and her friends are having sex, do you want her joining in that too?
I really don’t think it’s over-reacting to get your girls young and limit their exposure to this incidious sexualization. That’s our job as parents, to build a strong foundation for the women of tomorrow. Maybe they’re pretty, maybe they’re not, either way they deserve more than to be some male’s play thing, even if it is only as a 1 dimensional fantasy on a magazine. A real man wants more than that, and they shouldn’t settle for anything less in a partner.
Off my soapbox now. My arms are hurting from all this arm waving and ranting.
Kel x
PS: Sounds like you’re doing a fine job mothering your girls, Vered
Linda responds:
Posted: July 27th, 2008 at 11:45 pm →
I wish someone had told me about airbrushing when I was a teenage girl, dreaming of looking like a model one day.
We’ve had many “If I ran the world” discussions with friends over the years about things like these images and worse. What we come back to over & over is that it’s too hard to change the world. And what we do in our own homes to set examples for our children to model is what matters the most.
Vered, in your case, you’re obviously on top of things with your girls! Keep up the good work.
Linda’s last blog post..A Big Welcome to All My Visitors!
Evelyn Lim responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 12:46 am →
It’s great that you are bringing up a topic like this because I’ve been pretty peeved too at some of the ads shown in our local newspaper. Top actresses, who are mothers by the way, endorsing for slimming centers and bust enhancement programs. Don’t they realise that they are also sending the wrong messages to their own kids? Is it all about getting the money from their sponsors? Where is the social responsibility?
Ok…I know I am venting here but you’ve provided me just the outlet that I need to say my peace. I guess I am touchy on this topic because I’ve got two girls and would like them to grow up being confident, empowered and accepting themselves for who they are.
Evelyn
Evelyn Lim’s last blog post..How To Do Pendulum Dowsing
Cath Lawson responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 1:34 am →
Hi Vered - I’m definitely a feminist but I like to call myself a Peopleist too, as there’s also areas where men are discriminated against.
These photos are really annoying. They definitely represent men as the more dominant species and women as sex objects.
I’ve stopped reading women’s magazines totally over the last few months.
Cath Lawson’s last blog post..Make The Business Of Influence Work For You
Robin responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 2:45 am →
Hi Vered
Yeah - I see the problem. Apart from all the problems it creates for growing girls, boys grow up thinking that women are all wanting to be sexually available to them. Even though most of them know better, I think it still creates difficulties for many of them.
Robin’s last blog post..Is Living Like Today Might Be Your Last A Good Idea?
Al at 7P responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 2:52 am →
I remember a time when GQ would only put men on the cover. I guess with the magazine market becoming more competitive, GQ and other magazines resort to the lowest form of attracting readers.
I’d like to think of myself as being relatively progressive when it comes to feminism, but I feel I’m in the minority when shows like “The Girls Next Door” and “Dr. 90210″ get popular.
Al at 7P’s last blog post..Jump Right In!
Irene | Light Beckons responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 3:12 am →
HI Vered,
Good post! I’ve stopped buying magazines like these for a long time. It wasn’t just the pictures on the cover that didn’t resonate with me … it was also the captions on what’s inside! Like “10 sure-fire ways to please your man” or “top 20 lingerie selections to sex you up” or “best places for Botox”. Geez …
Irene | Light Beckons’s last blog post..Ask Why
Natural responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 3:15 am →
oh Vered, i have long ago noticed magazine covers and the difference. on the magazines for women, the articles would be how to cater to the man, win his heart and make his dinner, the male magazines had to do with how the man can improve his looks, have a great golf game or fix his car, hardly ever focusing on how he can please the woman. i started writing a book about it i was so mad. it’s unfair on how lopsided relationships are…not that they have to be = in duties, but as far as concern, both parties should be putting in just as much work and attention as the other.
se* sells and women are used to push a product.
MizFit responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 3:26 am →
( Ilaughed at your description of taking the pics because I WAS asked to leave the grocery store when I filmed my Hungry Girl Newsletter vid)
will things ever change?!
how long have we women been CLAMORING for all this to stop?
and then the next woman leaps at the opportunity to bare her tatas (ok git thisclose to baring them) on a mag cover simply for the fifteen minutes it garners…
MizFit’s last blog post..Monday Facetime. Blooper Reel.
Barbara Ling, Virtual Coach responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 4:09 am →
Sex sells. Always has, always will.
Personally, I’d have no problem with half-naked men on covers. Half-naked women just don’t do it for me. Luckily, my kids aren’t swayed by sex in advertising as I always explain why it’s there and what the advertisers expect you to do….and why folks like them (my kids, that is) never have to stoop so low.
‘course, if you REALLY want my attention, a seductive picture of a freshly-brewed cup of coffee will always win out…..
Barbara
Max Forlani responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 5:27 am →
Hi,
nice article. It reminded me of a hilarious episode in Two and a Half Men, where Jake was caught browsing through an issue of Sports Illustrated and Alan tried to make Jake understand that this is not what real woman look like. Of course, Charlie begged to differ.
Cheers,
Max
Max Forlani’s last blog post..Important Message For New Visitors
Tish responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 5:34 am →
Not a feminist, but I do see what you are talking about here, and glad you blogged about it. It’s always around us, but I guess I’ve stopped noticing and it’s sad that it took a child to remind me of the gender “roles” still being played throughout the USA.
It is not an image you want your daughters to see or your sons for that matter. Advertising can be the devil, and our children aren’t immune to its vicious tactics.
Tish’s last blog post..Savage Remarks Produce Savage Consequences
GMcG responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 5:42 am →
Is this really about feminism?
There are a few points I have issue with;
- Why is the word ‘portray’ used instead to depict or represent? Portray suggests that there is more to these models that the magazine should be interested in. As smart as the models might be, their job is to look good on the front of a magazine.
- Mike Myers isn’t half naked because he’s coveted for his sense of humour.
- GQ has not “resorted to the lowest form of attracting readers” as Al at 7P suggests. Using sex to sell is very wide spread and very powerful. And it’s used much more subtly in many other forms.
- Marisa Miller (the GQ model) is very attractive, and does have sex appeal. That’s a fact and it bothers me as much as it bothers you. But I have to deal with it, you have to deal with it and your children, when they grow up, will have to deal with it. Some people are attractive and nice to look at and some people are funny and good to listen to.
- And on that last point, airbrushing is a fact of life too. Your children will probably have a lot more to deal with in terms of things not being as they seem. Your subway sandwich doesn’t look like it does on the poster. Make up is as much a deceit as airbrushing. And a well-cut suit does make a comedian seem more dapper and composed than they might actually be.
I’m not a huge fan of magazines like this and I can see why people respond to them in the many ways they do. But they are not doing anything that any TV drama, movie, soap, ad or news program isn’t.
Teaching your children that adverts lie and that, in a capitalist society, everything is an advert is more useful than the specifics of how you think women should be portyed.
And Sandier Pastures , please tell your child the truth one day; that that woman had no panties on because it’s her job to take them off and be photographed. It’s not nice, it’s not good but it’s what really happens. She got paid a good wage.
G
tracy responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 5:55 am →
Didn’t you know women aren’t supposed to wear clothes?!?!
I believe in equal rights, equal pay… just plain equality. Mom stays home with kids… dad stays home with kids. Whatever works! I have to say that upon reflection, I know I would not have made this observation…. desensitized- or resigned- as I am to how our culture portrays women.
Great job reminding us that even as we settle into a certain level of equality, women in various stages of undress gracing magazine covers beside men, dapper and destinguished, still indicates otherwise!
tracy’s last blog post..Best Shot Monday: To Desaturate or Not To Desaturate….
RJ responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 6:47 am →
To paraphrase a a Seinfeld quote:
“The female body is a thing of beauty. The male body however is a hairy, awkward mess.”
While I’m not defending the media’s depiction of women and men, I can understand where they are coming from. I certainly don’t want to see a half naked man on a cover of a magazine. Especially if he has no underwear on >_<
Great topic Vered.
Charlie responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 6:48 am →
First thing’s first: I’m male and a feminist.
Great post, which I found through stumbleupon. Sadly, advertisements have presented males and females in these ways for years. Males look strong and stand tall; women are undressed and usually canted (basically, women in advertisements rarely stand face forward in ads). When I teach a section on advertisements to college freshmen in writing classes, males will use the argument that the female models are gaming the system to make money. Females never make this argument.
It’s especially disheartening because, for a lot of people, the term “feminist” has negative connotations. (You hear this also about “the gay agenda” and how homosexuals want “special rights.”) Even some young females approach feminism as some sort of militancy. If only they knew.
Charlie’s last blog post..Reusable materials
Veronica responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 6:53 am →
Personally, I don’t like it, but I’m not exactly upset about it because the magazines you posted here are basically Men’s Magazines. They are published with Men as the intended audience. Women’s magazines tend to have beautiful women and beautiful clothes on their cover OR a shirtless man with a six pack. It goes both way in the media. I know it’s not exactly good and believe me, I’m a feminist, but you do have to realize that they are Men’s magazines. And sadly, sex sells.
Cate responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 6:55 am →
Hmm. At first glance, I was as disturbed as you are, but upon further contemplation, I’m not so sure. Hear me out:
Part of it has to do with the type of magazine. If you’re on the cover of GQ, you’re not going to be in your boxers. And if you’re on the cover of Maxim, you’re not going to be in a pantsuit. Think about it. On the covers of men’s fitness magazines, there are usually half-naked men, also. And in Cosmo, Marie Claire and those types of magazines - they often have spreads of half naked guys reminiscent of playboy shoots. The sections are often called “guy of the month” or “eye candy.” It’s a 2 way street. Plus, ask Gisele Bundchen if, on the cover of a men’s magazine, she’d rather wear a t-shirt and jeans or what she’s wearing - I’ll bet the answer is the latter. However, if she were posing for the cover of Seventeen, she’d probably choose a cute , classy dress instead. It all has to do with the type of magazine.
Shevonne responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 6:56 am →
I’ve always been disgusted by this. I think one of the reasons why there is this discrepancy is for two reasons: Women are influenced by these images of these half-naked women to try and strive for “perfection,” while men want to see these magazines to well…ummmm…you know. The sad thing is that this isn’t perfection. Seeing an extremely thin woman who has made herself beautiful by tons of plastic surgery isn’t that appealing to me. But ask a man, and he will beg to differ.
It’s sad, but until society changes their viewpoint, we are going to continue to see these magazines.
Suzie responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 7:24 am →
I absolutely am a feminist! I dont want my baby girl trying to look like these women. The women in my family are not svelt they are bigger girls. The idea is your not pretty if youre not very very thin with really really large boobies. We will never look like that. I waste so much time trying to be what i acnnot be. Imagine if I spent that time being constructive like finding a cure for cancer. What a waste.
Shaun responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 7:41 am →
All the magazines you photographed were targeted for men/boys 13-40. Yes the women are scantily clad and their photos are post production digitally enhanced. The men are men the target audience want to be like. These magazines have less than a second to catch this target audience, who are visually stimulated and have an very short attention span. Magazines targeted at other demographic groups have more realistic images.
This is what I explain to my daughter when she asks, actually it’s what I explain to her before she asks. When I discover a touch up or something unrealistic (no underwear) I make an effort to show her this is marketing and not real life.
Dove has a great campaign called “self esteem” that uses real images of women. Their website has some great features designed to educate young girls and women on exactly this type of slanted marketing. My favorite item is a short video that shows a photo shoot from start to finish. The video shows the hair, make up, lighting, artificial wind and digital imaging. My daughter loved it. You can check it out at dove.com.
Zendad responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 7:55 am →
Unfortunate but true (because I have a daughter myself)
1. Target market for magazines is 20something males, and they’re visually motivated.
2. As stated above, sex sells.
It’s probably never going to change, not that its right.
Zendad
http://www.zendad.net
Zendad’s last blog post..Why You Should Be Taking More Photographs
zoe responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 8:04 am →
I would guess since my first thought about the GQ cover was, “wow, Gisele is looking smoking hot [launch fantasy],” that I’m probably not too much of a feminist and just as much of a pig as the men that magazine is targeting.
My thought on this is that those magazines know their demographic and sell to it. Straight men don’t want to see provocative photos of other men, but half naked women…now you’re talking. Say what you will, but sex sells, and men are much more visual creatures than women. Call me a perv, but if I’m at a magazine stand I’m much more likely to buy a magazine with a hot chick on the cover than some guy.
As far as men think that’s what real women are or look like, I think that’s crap. I think men no less think that is reality as women think real men, love, and relationships are what is portrayed in romance novels.
Now perhaps my attitudes about this will change when I have kids, but doubt it. Adults should be allowed to have things (books, magazines, movies, television shows, whatever) that are marketed for and to them as adults.
zoe’s last blog post..Mystery
Lawrence Matthews responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 8:10 am →
It seems to me someone has unfortunately forced you/your children to look at these magazines.
I believe the formula is simple. Men have desire for women and to look strong, companies want money, companies market products to appeal visually to the more visual sex.
Larry, Sympathizer but not a feminist
Nancy responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 8:14 am →
It is not just magazines out there that portray this image of the wanton woman but the easily accessible porn sites and “porn for the ears” sites (rapstar music etc) only a click away for kids as young as 4 and 5!! Alot of kids these days unfortunately are more advanced with computers… parents being busier and busier and not able to monitor what their children are doing. Too exhausted. Too preoccupied. Too much to think about. Too much to do. Too trusting.(trust isn’t the issue here; it can be so totally innocent.)
I have a son who is now nearly 15. And have ongoing issues with this subject. He doesn’t think porn (and I mean taken to the EXTREME) is any big deal; as he says …”its everywhere, Mum, so whats the big deal?” He honestly cannot see what is wrong with it. It is a real worry. He needs a USB for school but comes home with inappropriate material often; picked up from other kids that have brought their innapropriate material to school on their USB to share. I now format his USB on a regular basis.
I expose my son to wholesome music and art as much and as often as possible. The great classic composers; famous artists to try to combat what he is being exposed to.
It genuinely and deeply saddens and scares me what our world is coming to. Attitudes towards women are conducive to and explain increasing rapes, misogyny, anger and disrespect in the most devastating way imaginable.
Jaylar responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 8:39 am →
I’ve noticed that it’s almost impossible to discern porn from
men’s magazines from main stream magazines from
women’s magazines by the covers.
Woman as slut is the new ‘grundnorm’.
Vanity Fair’s Annie Liebowitz, for example, takes
slimey and suggestive photos of other women,
for no particular purpose; and one questions this.
A non-feminist responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 8:41 am →
I see it as a manifestation of women’s power.
Maybe you wanna read some of this:
http://www.warrenfarrell.com/pages.php?id=27
http://www.warrenfarrell.com/pages.php?id=27
Have a good life.
Marelisa responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 9:02 am →
Did you know that the largest growing segment in the cosmetics/grooming products industry is men? Also, the number of men who get plastic surgery to improve their looks is increasing.
I like the comment that maybe these women are simply being savvy. If Pamela Anderson wouldn’t have exploited her looks she would probably be a waitress somewhere in Canada with an unemployed husband, worrying how she was going to feed her six children (yes, she would have six children, play along). If sex is so powerful–and women are a more magnetic sex object than men–why don’t women hold the upper hand when it comes to sex? Why isn’t it women who get rich from “the sex industry”? I think focusing on their sexuality is a road some women choose to go down, and I think it’s OK as long as everyone understands that it’s a choice and not something to be expected of all women, and as long as women gain the upper hand in the money that is made from the fact that they are beautiful.
Marelisa’s last blog post..Creating Your Dream Life: Practical Intuition
Mrs. Micah responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 9:13 am →
What’s worst to me (besides the fact that women apparently need to be sex objects to be recognized for their success) is that these women are totally airbrushed/Photoshopped. It’s an unreachable ideal, even the models can’t do it. And it annoys the hell out of me that these images are put out there like they’re real.
I’m sure these women are drop-dead gorgeous anyway. If we’re going to look at them, we might as well look at them the way they are.
Besides giving girls a bad body image, it sets up boys with unrealistic expectations. You’ll never find a woman who actually looks like that (even Gisele)…
Dot H. responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 9:14 am →
I’m a feminist, though I still have problems with empowerment. I hate seeing that stuff, and I hate knowing that thirty years ago we protested against this sort of thing and thought we’d made some progress.
>>they are not doing anything that any TV drama, movie, soap, ad or news program isn’t.
Yeah, and that’s the problem. All of the media treat women this way in products aimed at men. Also, some of the male commenters seem to think that what we find offensive about the pictures is the fact that the unclothed models aren’t men.
The progress that was made back in the 70’s has been eroded a great deal since then, except for certain employment issues, and then only to a certain extent. I don’t know how it works all over the country, but here in Washington, DC, the term “Mrs.,” which we worked so hard to abolish, is claimed with pride by young women, and those who are called “Ms.” are assumed to be unmarried. So they have converted “Miss” to “Ms.” One step forward, one step back.
I think that one difficulty we had in the seventies was that some people of both genders assumed that if we were feminists, we were blaming men for the status quo. But I’ve seen conservative women oppose a feminist agenda as much as men did. It’s something we as a society, or our ancestors asa a society, created — not just men. We were mostly portrayed (displayed, pictured, described, whatever verb you prefer) in the media as only the most extreme of us ever behaved — the furious, bitchy, man-hating ones. Feminism became a threat in many men’s minds.
It is difficult to change. Men asked the question, back then, “What do women want?” Well, I think your photos and text tell us — equality and respect.
Mimi responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 9:28 am →
I see your point, and I’m not trying to justify the way the media treats women and men differently but actually there is a evolutionary backgroud to these differences: Women traditionally look for a strong, successfull man with a lot of money to protect her and care for her and potential kids. (I’m not saying this because I’m a man and I would like it to be like that. In fact, I’m an 18 old girl and I consider myself to be a feminist, but in my own way) Men just look for a beautiful girl, as young as possible (the younger a girl is the better are the chances for having healthy children). Men don’t look for successfull women, because they don’t need them. (By the way: not every women and every men looks for a partner after these criteria. They are just those who are based on the evolution)
If you look at it this way: every gender gets to see what the are looking for.
Davina responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 9:39 am →
Hi Vered.
I’ve never really thought of myself as a feminist. Men are men, women are women and that is a fact of life. But it does bother me how we are portrayed in advertising.
Society is easily led by the media and all the glamour and sex that these magazine covers “seem” to exude. I’ve dreamed about being beautiful and glamorous as per their standards, just for one day. And in that sense this all becomes personal. It works both ways; you can be discrimminated against if you’re good-looking or if you’re unattractive. Where is the middle ground?
These magazines are selling something deeper than what’s on the cover. It’s about human behaviour and desire. It’s not really about men and women… we just see it that way (it’s hard not to). These covers appeal to the senses. Just like a picture of a yummy hamburger or a milkshake. Just like a photo of a still lake with the morning mist rising into the morning sunshine…. sigh…. They all lead past the photo to tickle our senses.
Unfortunately with these magazine covers and society’s me, me, me attitude, some people get caught up in all this hoopla and lose themselves along the way. We are so easily led by our senses, and even sex itself is being used!
Davina’s last blog post..Core Value Statements
MomGrind responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 9:45 am →
I LOVE this discussion. I would like to thank each and every one of you for participating.
@ Christina: “women being depicted as nothing more than sex objects” – this is exactly what bothers me.
@ Tanya: Thank you!
@ Jill: “before they stop listening to you.” Yeah, I worry about that. I know it will happen and I feel that time is so short.
@ Ann: “dolls that are sexualized” - I am so glad that my girls are indifferent to dolls.
@ Scott: “I am also very concerned about the media’s front-cover portrayal of the ideal body as being an airbrushed, super-sculpted creation.” I agree. I think research shows that this creates feelings of inadequacy in many teens – and I agree that this is likely true for boys as well as girls.
@ Writer Dad: “Fortunately, this sparked a teachable moment”. True. The experience wasn’t all negative.
@ Barbara: “And we wonder why girls grow up receiving the wrong message, and boys grow up thinking girls are sex objects.” This is exactly what I’m worried about.
@ Kelly: “Sounds like you’re doing a fine job mothering your girls, Vered” – This… this brought tears to my eyes. I’m trying, you know? And you never feel like you’re good enough because these kids are so precious. Sometimes the responsibility feels huge. Anyway. Yes, women have more to offer than being sex toys. There ARE men out there that want personality and not just looks. Even if we can’t change society, we can teach our children the values that we believe in. It’s probably the best that we can do.
@ Linda: “it’s too hard to change the world. And what we do in our own homes to set examples for our children to model is what matters the most.” EXACTLY (see my response to Kelly). And… thank you so much!
@ Evelyn: “I’ve got two girls and would like them to grow up being confident, empowered and accepting themselves for who they are.” AMEN.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 10:01 am →
@ Cath: “I’ve stopped reading women’s magazines totally over the last few months.” Me too! Except on long flights or long delays at the airport.
Men are discriminated against?? I have to disagree. The only thing I can think of is custody of children after a divorce. But other than that, I think men pretty much have it made in this society (and in many others, they have it made even more).
@ Robin: This scares me too – the effect that this has on young boys and on how they treat girls.
@ Al: The shows you mention are horrendous. I saw a single episode of each (there was also “The Swan” which I saw once) and was rendered speechless.
@ Irene: I agree! Those titles… the way women’s magazines try to teach us how to please men… that’s at least as annoying as the photos.
@ Natural: I think you should finish that book!
@ MizFit: Yeah, I thought they might ask me to leave the store… they didn’t.
I sometimes wonder about the individual models. I guess if they don’t do it, another girls will do it and earn a few thousand bucks.
@ Barbara Ling: A seductive photo of coffee. Interesting idea.
@ Max: Funny! I used to watch that show, but I haven’t seen that episode.
@ Tish: “It is not an image you want your daughters to see or your sons for that matter.” Exactly what I thought when I realized my daughters were looking at that magazine display.
@ GMcG: “Some people are attractive and nice to look at and some people are funny and good to listen to.” True, but to judge from magazine covers, women almost always fall into the former group while men often fall into the latter.
“Teaching your children that adverts lie and that, in a capitalist society, everything is an advert is more useful than the specifics of how you think women should be portrayed.” I don’t know if it’s MORE useful, but I am certainly teaching them that too.
kms responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 10:12 am →
Any of the models shown on the magazine covers had a choice. They chose to go with the “theme” of the shoot, and to wear the sexy attire.
Also, evidence shows that half-naked women in magazines attract, and half-naked men don’t. Even women are more attracted to the half-naked woman on a magazine cover.
Regarding valuing your body, I think this is one way people value it, for others and themselves. Displaying it is still valuing it for some people. Think of it logically. How does a nude or nearly nude photograph devalue someone’s body? Remember the quote from Eleanor Roosevelt “No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.” Kids can be reinforced and explanations can be made so they understand things differently. I mostly ignore magazines, because I don’t care, they are boring and uninformative. We aren’t possessed by imagery, with an upbringing of variety and good examples, we can choose how sexual we want to be, and be fine with that.
You really have to take away certain cultural and religious biases to understand it. Magazine sales are all about ad “injections” Ads pay for magazines, and their content is nearly always for perpetuating that system. It’s not an indicator of a culture going down the tubes, it’s driven by money and it’s based on repetition of the process, a so-called science of selling and marketing. If it grabs your attention, and you don’t like that it did, what does that say about you?
John responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 10:13 am →
I am a man and a feminist. Or at least, to the degree in which we nowadays talk about feminism. I think so, at least. Your feminism may not be my feminism. However, back to the magazines. Evolution, schmevolution. Women’s magazines/ Men’s magazines, it’s all one and the same. Pretty pictures; archetypes. Damsel in distress. Knight in shining armour. You can’t just blame advertising, Start with Disney, popular fiction, literary history, art, fairy-tales(!) and nearly 3000 years of history stamping gender-specific roles and rolemodels on our awareness. On the other hand, there is a lot to be said for the argument that the portrayal of women has improved. There’s more power to women in modern advertising than in that of 50, 40, 30, etc years ago.
I do have one aside comment about the children who might notice something odd in commercials or ads. That’s bollocks. I’m sorry, but it really is. If a child below the age of 12 notices this, it is because parents have raised their awareness to it. And there’s a rub.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 10:26 am →
@ tracy: “I know I would not have made this observation…. desensitized- or resigned- as I am to how our culture portrays women.” I wouldn’t have made it either. My kids made me see something that I probably wouldn’t have noticed otherwise.
@ RJ: “The female body is a thing of beauty. The male body however is a hairy, awkward mess.” I beg to differ. Seinfeld’s body might be an awkward mess, but there are beautiful men. I don’t think it’s about who looks better. I think it’s about who is using and who is being used.
@ Charlie: “for a lot of people, the term “feminist” has negative connotations.” I know, and I will never understand why. Looking back at the progress that women have made thanks to the feminist movement – would people really want to go back to a world where women can’t vote, can’t own property and can’t earn higher education?
@ Veronica: I get what you say about the fact that they’re men’s magazines and they do what they can to sell. But I have to disagree that “Women’s magazines tend to have beautiful women and beautiful clothes on their cover OR a shirtless man with a six pack”, because women’s magazines never (almost never?) feature half-naked men! They only feature women on the cover. Again, you could say that this is because a half-naked guy on the cover won’t help them sell the magazine, so they do what they need to do to sell. I think my problem is not with the magazines per se – it’s with the culture that they represent.
@ Cate: Again, I get it. Each magazine puts on the cover the photo that would help them sell the magazine. The photo that’s “appropriate” for that magazine. This is a good, valid argument. But the bottom line is… it can’t be a 2-way street if you stand in front of a magazine display and 90% of the women you see are sexualized while 90% of the men look strong and powerful. There’s still a huge gap here.
@ Shevonne: “until society changes their viewpoint, we are going to continue to see these magazines.” One of my fears is, that society will NEVER change.
@ Suzie: It’s true. We waste too much time and energy trying to look like an image that is unnatural and unattainable.
@ Shaun: Yes, they do what they need to do in order to sell. But the results just make me sad.
“This is what I explain to my daughter when she asks, actually it’s what I explain to her before she asks. When I discover a touch up or something unrealistic (no underwear) I make an effort to show her this is marketing and not real life.” – this is really important. I am trying to do that too.
That video of a model that’s going through makeup, hair and airbrushing is very important. I haven’t shown it to my daughters yet, but I will – today. Thank you.
@ Zendad: “It’s probably never going to change”. Probably. But so many things HAVE changed. Maybe evolution will, at some point, make men feel differently about women.
@ zoe: You are making some good points. It’s interesting, because it seems like you react to these images like a man would.
“As far as men think that’s what real women are or look like, I think that’s crap” – I think this is true for men that have some experience, but what about teenage boys? And – more importantly – research shows that teen girls are trying to look like these models.
“Adults should be allowed to have things that are marketed for and to them as adults.” – Absolutely. But this was a public, highly accessible display at an airport store. My problem was with my daughters looking at a display that delivers silent, highly problematic messages about women’s and men’s roles.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 11:01 am →
@ Lawrence Matthews: I know. Sex sells to men. Sigh.
@ Nancy: This IS disturbing. I do think that women have come a long way. We have more legal rights than ever. But the underlying culture is still very much male-oriented and uses women. I do hope that a lot of this is evolutionary, and that human evolution will eventually catch up and change the power balance. It sounds like you are doing the best that you can with your son.
@ Jaylar: I agree that “soft porn” has become mainstream and can be found everywhere.
@ A non-feminist: “I see it as a manifestation of women’s power.” You are entitled to your opinion, of course. But if sexual power is the only real power women have, then to me that’s a big problem.
@ Marelisa: Interesting. But as I said, to judge by these magazines, sexual power is the ONLY power that women have. That upsets me.
@ Mrs. Micah: “Besides giving girls a bad body image, it sets up boys with unrealistic expectations.” Some people here claim that this isn’t the case. But I tend to agree with you, especially as far as teens are concerned. If all they know is what they see in magazines and in porn movies, then they know nothing about real women.
@ Dot H.: “Men asked the question, back then, “What do women want?” Well, I think your photos and text tell us — equality and respect.” AMEN. Wow. You said it so well. Thank you. I want RESPECT, and those images – they do not show respect.
@ Mimi: I do agree that this has deep evolutionary roots. Evolution is slow… but in today’s world, things are changing. Women don’t need men to survive. They can take care of themselves. Women are fertile and can have safe pregnancies until their forties (and beyond, if they use fertility treatments). We are not animals. We should be better than that. We should view each other as human beings, not just through a reproductive lens.
@ Davina: “I’ve dreamed about being beautiful and glamorous as per their standards, just for one day.” Many women have this dream. But even the models don’t really look THAT perfect. We know it. Do teens know it?
@ kms: “It’s not an indicator of a culture going down the tubes, it’s driven by money”- well that’s the big question, isn’t it? Are ads indicative of society, do they INFLUENCE society, or are they detached from it? I think they do influence societal attitudes, and that’s what bothers me.
@ John: “I do have one aside comment about the children who might notice something odd in commercials or ads. That’s bollocks. I’m sorry, but it really is. If a child below the age of 12 notices this, it is because parents have raised their awareness to it. And there’s a rub.” I agree to some extent. My kids looked at that display with curiosity, but were not necessarily bothered by it, until I pointed out that they should be bothered. HOWEVER, I still think that seeing such a display would have registered messages about gender roles on a subconscious level, and I wanted to address that.
Sarah responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 11:28 am →
Hi Vered
I’m not a feminist in the traditional meaning of the word…but those kinds of photos always make me angry. Esp when my kids are with me!!! Ugh! Did you talk to your daughter about it?
Sarah’s last blog post..The Truth About My Grocery Bill
MelodyA. responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 11:40 am →
You are SO right. And it happens with the teen magazines as well.
MelodyA.’s last blog post..Horse Show
Computer Addict responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 12:13 pm →
These are all valid points, from both sides - yes, this is demeaning to women, but also, this is common practice throughout the capitlaist sociey - so the question becomes - what do you think can really be done to change it?
Urban Panther responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 1:15 pm →
Yep, I had a similar rant in my June post on ‘Going grey, yes, but wrinkles?’ where I contrasted the story headlines on the magazine covers. However, your contrast of the images is very stark and disturbing. But sex sells. The magazines that you feature are all targeted at men. Supposedly they want to look at half naked women, and as straight men, they don’t want to be looking at half naked men. I would like to think this marketing strategy is degrading to both men and women, but I watch the highly intelligent and reasonable men at work dive into the newspaper to check out the Sunshine Girl. Whassup with that, guys?
Urban Panther’s last blog post..Whatever you do, don’t go there
learnandlive responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 1:33 pm →
Male, feminist, and thinking there’s nothing wrong with these covers per se. Body-wise, physical attractiveness in men is largely measured in terms of their virility/health and strength where as women are largely desired for their attributes that contribute directly to their successful child bearing and rearing. Basically, it is about sexual fitness. As long as they’re not mixing it with degradation (which I have seen Maxim do sometimes) or violence, I think it’s fine.
Ellen Wilson responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 2:43 pm →
Haaaaa! Oh yes, I am VERY much a feminest. It is NOT a dirty word people! Like bell hooks says, it’s all about dignity and equality. And I think you pointed out the inequality very nicely here.
This is so great, Vered. I am so happy you wrote this. I started cracking up and brought it right over to show my husband who was reading the paper. Granted, this was a man who was raised by a father who read Playboy and left it lying around on the table. Yes, people need to be educated.
How else will will make the world a better place? And it all starts at home. I agree, that Giselle Bundchen photo is pretty disturbing. I’m glad your daughter said that. And I’m glad you took the photos. Most excellent. I think in regards to this I will print my post I had on the back burner, but you got me all fired up now. Haaa!
I have to go eat dinner now, but I will go and read what everyone else says after dinner.
Ellen
Ellen Wilson’s last blog post..Writing the Wild Within: Part 5 - Why Fly when You can Soar?
Janice Cartier responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 3:27 pm →
Vered,
Those images are everywhere. Even Disney is moving that age bar lower and lower. Best we can do is teach a reasonable and responsible response to whatever confronts our children.
Janice Cartier’s last blog post..Small Steps and Beginnings
MomGrind responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 3:30 pm →
@ Sarah: Yes, we talked. It was actually a good teaching opportunity for me, as Writer Dad pointed out.
@ Melody A.: Teen magazines – that’s even more disturbing.
@ Computer Addict: “what do you think can really be done to change it?” I wish I knew! But blogging about it is a good start, I hope. I am trying to raise awareness.
@ Urban Panther: “I watch the highly intelligent and reasonable men at work dive into the newspaper to check out the Sunshine Girl. Whassup with that, guys?” I know… I guess the people here that say “that’s how men are, deal with it” make a good point. But I still find it degrading and disrespectful towards women.
@ learnandlive: But isn’t this degrading? Just the way they dress, the way they look at the camera, the way they convey that they are sexual objects with no traces of intelligence or personality? I do get what you say – I really do – but as a woman, this makes me feel devalued and disrespected. Perhaps I’m oversensitive, but this is how I feel, and I am not the only one who feels this way. I wrote this post to let people know how I feel.
@ Ellen: I adore you.
Can’t wait for your own post on the subject.
@ Janice: It’s true about Disney. I just feel that it has to be STOPPED. It scares me.
Urbane Lion responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 5:34 pm →
Unfortunately a lot of us males have yet to come out of the stone age. You’ll notice of course that all these magazines are geared for the male market… let’s say 25 to 45. If you don’t have scantily clad women you better have some pretty awesome techno stuff. As far as the health magazines are concerned, if the men on the front cover had any less clothes on it could possibly be a threat to a potential buyer’s virility. There are still a lot of men out there who are not completely confortable in their masculinity. My two bit!
FYI, most of the mags I buy have food on the cover. Unfortunately no one has come up with the idea of matching great recipes with half naked women. OMG, just had a flash…….
Urbane Lion’s last blog post..I am Lion, hear me roar! Tabarnack!
B responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 6:31 pm →
I’ve engaged in some pretty weird behavior myself
Yes, we bloggers sometimes have to take our pictures, even if it makes us look a little funny.
I agree that there is something wrong with this picture. The true value of a woman is her identity, who she is. But magazines portray the physical in an excessive manner which renders women objects. Not really the highest praise in my assessment.
B’s last blog post..You are The Writer of Your Own Story
Bamboo Forest responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 6:34 pm →
oops, didn’t type in my full name, by accident. I sprained my finger today, more difficult to type.
Bamboo Forest’s last blog post..You are The Writer of Your Own Story
MomGrind responds:
Posted: July 28th, 2008 at 10:55 pm →
@ Urbane Lion: “OMG, just had a flash…….” Good luck with your new business venture.
@ Bamboo Forest: Hope your finger feels better soon. Although I have to wonder… how does one sprain a finger??
Stacey responds:
Posted: July 29th, 2008 at 7:05 am →
First, I’m very impressed w/ how many comments your posts receive. What is your secret above and beyond great content? Second, thank you for bringing this to everyone’s attention. As a mom of two young boys, how do I possibly shelter them from our culture’s projected image of women and men? My 4 year old’s image of women is currently formed from his image of me (as a loving mom) and from his wonderful pre-school teachers. Yet it is just a matter of time until he begins to see images of women like the ones you posted on this blog. No one said beging a mom would ever be easy.
Stacey’s last blog post..Monday’s Meditation: Intention of Love
SpaceAgeSage responds:
Posted: July 29th, 2008 at 7:28 am →
In teaching Sexual Assault Prevention classes to women, I’m, always amazed at the “smallness,” “restrictiveness,” and “timidity” of movement demonstrated by many girls and women. It is as if females are taught to “hold back” and not “follow through” on strong, powerful physical motion. These magazine covers show why:
Men are shown as strong, reliable, capable, resilient, calm, and confident
Women are shown as vulnerable, weak, usable, pretty, and needy of approval
So yes, I do see a problem here, BUT, which came first, the chicken or the egg? Does media just reflect society since there is so little outcry about these differences? Is the news media; where women anchors often dressed rather skimpily while the men are in suits and ties; going to help bring this up? Even Bill O’Reilly, who claims to be “fair and balanced,” is showing more and more images of women (and only women) baring their bodies for one reason or another.
If I was a mom, I would have to approach this with my kids as if I was living in the racists South in the 1950: tell my kids that certain people believe in hatred, but explain why it is wrong, how it hurts both sides, and how to stand up for themselves in the face of it, because changing the world never came from embracing timidity, smallness, or “pretty” as a call to arms.
SpaceAgeSage’s last blog post..Drought as ‘deep as a dollar’?
zoe responds:
Posted: July 29th, 2008 at 8:43 am →
Well I still don’t put the responsibility on the magazines. They don’t have anything to do with how or where their product is displayed, that is up to the newstands or stores that carry those magazines.
zoe’s last blog post..Back to my regularly scheduled life
chris responds:
Posted: July 29th, 2008 at 9:06 am →
Our perceptions are formed and controlled by the powerful. Until women get in equal footing with men in all levels of society, we will continue to have half-naked pictured women and well-dressed men on magazine covers.
Mark Salinas responds:
Posted: July 29th, 2008 at 10:59 am →
As a male I think it is rather sad. I can honestly say that magazines are not in my list of reading.
Mark Salinas’s last blog post..Want to fight fatigue?
MomGrind responds:
Posted: July 29th, 2008 at 11:23 am →
@ Stacey: I think my “secret” is that I value my readers and never take them for granted. If they have a blog, I regularly visit it. If they don’t, I try to keep in touch via email or via social media tools such as Twitter, Facebook and Stumbleupon.
I think the best we can do is raise awareness. That’s what I was trying to do here.
@ SpaceAgeSage: “If I was a mom, I would have to approach this with my kids as if I was living in the racists South in the 1950”. I agree. This is exactly the way it needs to be handled.
@ zoe: I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
@ chris: True. But how do we achieve true equality? We’ve been trying to make it happen for over 100 years now.
@ Mark: Yeah, I generally avoid magazines too.
Dazed responds:
Posted: July 29th, 2008 at 12:16 pm →
The double standard here is the only thing to get upset about. There’s nothing about the nude form that should need to be justified to your children. If I had kids and they asked me why some chick in a magazine had no panties on, I’d tell them the truth, and say she lets people take pictures of her like that for money because she probably has no life skills outside of snorting coke and opening her legs, and there’s a big market in “looking hot” because men as a whole are testosterone driven cattle.
In addition, all of the magazines pictured (except maybe Radar) are MEN’S MAGAZINES.
Macho crap sells to men, only twinks are gonna buy Maxim if it has a male underwear model on the cover. Straight men aren’t interested in that at all, and would probably prevent them from buying it.
There are magazines geared towards females where “Scantily clad” men abound, I’m sure.
Sara responds:
Posted: July 29th, 2008 at 12:17 pm →
I am proud to call myself a feminist and as a 24 year old, I find few women my age are willing to describe themselves as such. I think that’s baffling because doesn’t feminism just mean that you want women, to be treated equally, with dignity and respect?
I personally believe we should boycott Magazines, TV programs and movies that objectify and belittle women.
Dazed responds:
Posted: July 29th, 2008 at 12:30 pm →
Feminists presume to speak for a whole gender, when the majority of your gender is content with the status quo. Respect and dignity are something you earn on an individual basis and not some gender-based right.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: July 29th, 2008 at 12:44 pm →
@ Dazed: “The double standard here is the only thing to get upset about.” I agree – and it’s what upsets me. That women look submissive while men look powerful.
“Respect and dignity are something you earn on an individual basis and not some gender-based right.” – but the discrimination is gender-based. What about racial discrimination? Would you say that African Americans need to earn respect as individuals rather than as an ethnic group?
@ Sara: “I find few women my age are willing to describe themselves as such.” This really worries me. There’s still so much work to do before we gain true equality. I wonder why young women don’t see that.
Dazed responds:
Posted: July 29th, 2008 at 1:03 pm →
Yes, I think it would be wrong for african-americans, or females for that matter to be given respect simply because they are african-american or female. Any group as large as an ethnic group or a gender is going to be ridiculously diverse. Some people worthy of respect, others not, and to prejudge any of them before they’ve demonstrated their individual merit would be foolhardy.
I guess being in Canada we have less discrimination than you, as I presume you’re in America. Plenty of women and black men get more respect than me though, and I’m a young white male.
The only real gender discrimination that is left exists in the minds of people now, as here there are laws giving women exact equality. You may go for a job interview and not get the job and feel it was because you are a women, and hey, it may even be true. But it’s not because of some giant faceless gender conspiracy trying to hold you back at every turn, it’s just one idiot employer, and there’s plenty of idiots out there. It’s just as likely that I could go for a job interview, and have a feminist employer, and be turned down because she secretly wants to hire a women, because she feels women are oppressed and wants to give them the opportunity before some “privileged white male” like me.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: July 29th, 2008 at 1:13 pm →
@ Dazed: Yes, I’m in California. I assumed it was pretty much acknowledged, and backed by research, that women still earn a fraction of what men earn, and have a much lower glass ceiling. I do see your point: on an individual basis, obviously there are women that are more successful than men, but in general, I don’t think that’s the case. I think women as a group do suffer cultural discrimination, even where the law gives them full rights. Anyway, we will probably have to agree to disagree on this one.
Dazed responds:
Posted: July 29th, 2008 at 1:27 pm →
I think the income disparity comes from the nature of blue collar jobs. Working in factories or construction is generally dirty, dangerous, and physically demanding. That’s why they pay higher than say, a secretarial position. But women, for the most part, don’t gravitate towards jobs like construction, be it for whatever reasons cultural or biological. Of course there are many exceptions.
The point being… What are they going to do? Make all jobs pay the same amount so nobody can cry discrimination? I think that’s called communism.
Dazed responds:
Posted: July 29th, 2008 at 1:30 pm →
I forgot to add, when you get up into the white collar jobs, like CEO, or university professor, the disparity virtually disappears. At least that’s what this article suggests.
“When you see more women taking senior positions you see the incomes are more equivalent. In London, we have a lot of professional women, women at the university and in health care, and they’re more likely to be paid equivalent to their male colleagues.
“Often the discrepancy comes in at the lower, entry level positions,” Stephenson said. ”
http://www.lfpress.com/perl-bin/publish.cgi?x=articles&p=232485&s=societe
MomGrind responds:
Posted: July 29th, 2008 at 2:14 pm →
@ Dazed: That’s encouraging - although there still aren’t enough women at the top (how many women CEOs are in the U.S. compared to men?)
Sure, one could argue that there’s no glass ceiling. That women CHOOSE to scale back their careers once they have babies. But why do they make that choice and is it a real choice, or is it because women are still the ones that are expected to care for young children and do most of the household chores - regardless of their professional achievements or potential?
It’s true that laws protect women. On paper, women can do whatever they choose to do. They can have it all - the career, the family. In reality, many women find that they can’t do it all. Men go on with their careers and reach the top while women often give up on their big career dreams once they have children. I’m just not convinced it’s a real choice.
Thank you so much for contributing to the discussion. I really enjoy “talking” with you! It’s always interesting to listen to the other side. But now it’s time for me to pick my kids up from summer camp.
I will check back later. Thanks again, Dazed.
Janice Cartier responds:
Posted: July 29th, 2008 at 3:23 pm →
It is not a real choice. You can have it all, just not all at once… not and stay sane.
There’s a book called The Body Project. I have had the priviledge of working with a lot of young girls as mentor and artist in residence. They are more savvy than you think. But it takes a look at Women’s History to bring home what the gains have been. You can see ths ah ha moments happen. This is the book that lots of schools use if permission is granted from their parents. It looks directly at historical context. Sparks lots of conversations. This was a single sex environment so statiscally more leaders will come from here. Because they must assume all roles within the school, they see fewer obstacles or role restrictions in life. It was really fun talking about language in music with them and Abercrombie ads, and finding out if they thought it was demeaning, or if their male friends spoke to them like in the music. No and no, were their answers.
Janice Cartier’s last blog post..2 Words
MomGrind responds:
Posted: July 29th, 2008 at 9:47 pm →
@ Janice: “It was really fun talking about language in music with them and Abercrombie ads, and finding out if they thought it was demeaning, or if their male friends spoke to them like in the music. No and no, were their answers.”
Interesting. You write beautifully, you know? I almost feel like I was there with you.
I agree that it’s not a real choice.
Sara at On Simplicity responds:
Posted: July 29th, 2008 at 9:48 pm →
I think women should have equal opportunity and equal pay, as well as the choice to be a stay at home mom, working mom, or not a mom at all with no judgement. Heck yes, I’m a feminist. I get so peeved that the term feminist is used like a dirty word, like it’s a radical, crazy idea to want equal pay.
Sara at On Simplicity’s last blog post..30 Ways to Make Your Life More Simple
Wilson’s Words and Pictures | Ethics in Photography responds:
Posted: July 31st, 2008 at 4:52 pm →
[…] But this is standard fare. Women are used as commodities to sell things - as Vered so succinctly pointed out in her blog. […]
MomGrind responds:
Posted: July 31st, 2008 at 7:04 pm →
@ Sara: “I get so peeved that the term feminist is used like a dirty word”. Amen to that!
The dude responds:
Posted: August 2nd, 2008 at 8:54 am →
How about another side of this. Women look wonderful scantily clad and men don’t. Men traditionally are powerful, and women traditionally are beautiful. Look at a wedding party. Men put on a lot of clothes to look good. Women put on a dress and still look 500x better than the sharpest dressed man. Objectification is done by the eyes and mind of the viewer, not the photographer. Instead of being mad about all this, you should be finding victory in the fact that men really are just jealous of the female form. Really, the ugliest women still looks better than the midpoint for the best looking man.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: August 2nd, 2008 at 10:47 am →
@ The dude: I know what you mean. I think the bottom line is, straight men react to scantily clad women while straight women do not react the same way to scantily clad men. So, from a marketing point of view, it makes perfect sense to put a half-naked female model on the cover of a magazine that’s targeting straight men.
But the result is, that the media (magazines, ads, television) often portrays women in a highly sexualized way. And since the media is highly visible, and it emphasizes just one aspect of women (their sexuality), it sometimes seems as though this is all women have to offer, when in fact women have a lot more to offer than their sexuality.
Paul MacPherson responds:
Posted: August 4th, 2008 at 1:56 pm →
Its a interesting photo essay… but is the topic feminism? or is it something else?
I am not against equality, but it seems to me your jumping to a conclusion… that ‘men’ made these decisions on how women are portrayed in magazines.
But what part of the feminist movement, the sexual revolution is it when the all powerful editor and chief and president of the playboy magazine empire (which publishes some of the magazines you depict in your photos), is a women. She sets the tone, the tempo, she is in control… She is the power.
Would your arguments be the same when your debating a women, a fellow mother over how she thinks men and women should be displayed? ?
MomGrind responds:
Posted: August 4th, 2008 at 2:05 pm →
@ Paul: “She sets the tone, the tempo, she is in control”. Is she? Her first priority is to SELL. She does whatever it takes to sell, regardless of what it means for women. No doubt, there are many women, just like there are many men, who make the choice to do whatever it takes to make money, regardless of ethics.
Computer Addict responds:
Posted: August 4th, 2008 at 4:50 pm →
Paul and Vered - I think you are talking past each other. Paul, the fact that the CEO of Playboy Enterprises is a woman is undeniably a product of the feminist movement - it would have been almost unheard of 100 years ago that a woman would be in charge of such a media empire, and that she would rise to such a position on her merits (though in this case, one does wonder if she would have attained that position had she not been Heff’s daughter). Vered, she is most definitely in charge, and does set the tone and tempo - she’s a willing participant in an enterprise predicated on making money by depicting women as sexual objects. Is that strange? Far less strange than black slave owners, or anti-Semitic Jews. Personal gains, be it money, power or fame, often trump one’s self-identifcation with class, gender, ethnicity or race.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: August 4th, 2008 at 9:40 pm →
@ Computer Addict: “Personal gains, be it money, power or fame, often trump one’s self-identification with class, gender, ethnicity or race.” I agree!
When does feminism end and censorship start? : beingpauly.com responds:
Posted: August 5th, 2008 at 5:46 am →
[…] was trolling the web this weekend and I discovered a ‘Mommy Blog Posting‘ categorized by the author under ‘Women & Feminism‘: But I wonder is it […]
Jewcakes responds:
Posted: August 7th, 2008 at 10:40 am →
I’m 20 and a feminist (and saddened and disappointed at the miserable numbers of my own friends and acquaintances who dare identify as feminists).
The point’s been made a few times that these are all men’s magazines and that somehow excuses their covers. Firstly, as a straight woman, I love looking at naked men, but how come nobody’s trying to sell me stuff that way? Sure, Cosmo has shirtless guys buried down between their beauty ads, but I can’t recall EVER seeing a man on any magazine cover in as provocative a position as any of these women. Go with me for a minute, and ask yourselves: WHY are men’s magazines sold with sex, but women’s magazines sold with beauty tips and food? Because although it’s taboo to say it, I like sex, thinking about sex, and looking at sexual images as much as the next guy, and I’m pretty sure I’m not alone.
Furthermore, walk into any newsstand and these men’s magazines dominate. There are the racks for the women’s magazines, and the intellectual magazines, and the business magazines, but even in places where these get equal space (which they usually don’t), the men’s covers are by far the LOUDEST.
So, please, don’t act as if the fact that these target men is any kind of excuse. The issues run much deeper than that.
And finally, for those who say, as if it nullifies the issue, “It isn’t going to change,” (and I don’t mean those who say it in despair, but those who defend the magazines and then say it), why are you so sure, and why should that matter? There were probably millions of people in the ’50s who believed that racial segregation was a fact of life, and we now have an extremely good chance of having a black president. Never write something off because it seems impossible. Even if it doesn’t happen in your lifetime, it’s your actions that are going to pave the way, so get on it.
Jewcakes responds:
Posted: August 7th, 2008 at 11:49 am →
ADDENDUM: I hate to double-post, but have one last word regarding Mimi and MomGrind’s dialogue about evolution.
“Women traditionally look for a strong, successfull man with a lot of money to protect her and care for her and potential kids.”
Traditionally, maybe–NOT evolutionarily! Because what MomGrind said in response–that humans aren’t animals–is not true. We are absolutely animals and, like females in other species, human females are perfectly self-sufficient. In fact, plenty of other animals are female, rather than male, dominated. The idea that women need men according to nature is just another piece of sexist tradition that has been driven into everyone’s brain. And if you believe it, the idea that humans aren’t animals may be comforting; but turns out, you don’t need that excuse, since female animals have total girl-power.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: August 7th, 2008 at 2:17 pm →
@ Jewcakes: “saddened and disappointed at the miserable numbers of my own friends and acquaintances who dare identify as feminists” – ME TOO!
“Never write something off because it seems impossible. Even if it doesn’t happen in your lifetime, it’s your actions that are going to pave the way, so get on it.” Amen to that, and that’s exactly what I’m trying to do. Thank you for your comment!
Your second comment is interesting too, even if I don’t fully agree with it. I think humans have many traits that set them apart from animals. But it’s interesting that you think this is not evolutionary but rather a culture/ tradition thing. Because if we need to wait for evolution to kick in, that may take thousands of years. But if it’s culture, we have the power to change it a lot sooner than that.
Suzie Q responds:
Posted: August 8th, 2008 at 6:35 am →
I do understand why some might have a problem with this, I am a 28 year old woman and I do consider myself a feminist, however, we have to appreciate that the magazines spend lots of money on marketing and research. As a female, I find that strength that is displayed on the “male covers ” is appealing, and I would not want to see more flesh, I would consider that a turn-off…maybe for the males it’s different? we are different! so maybe we should rather focus on the beauty of the picture. And I do want to add, I bet you anything, the girls got paid a lot more than the boys… one for the girls!
MomGrind responds:
Posted: August 8th, 2008 at 8:55 pm →
@ Suzie Q: “I bet you anything, the girls got paid a lot more than the boys… one for the girls!” - probably. But their personal gain came with a price, and the ones who pay the price are young girls who look at the way women are portrayed in the media, and what they see is not power, or intelligence, or humor, or anything else that women have to offer. What they see is sex. Sex is of course not bad - but it’s just one aspect of women. I hate to see that aspect take over while other aspects are neglected.
Legacies, Links, Bad Ads And Puker Powder | Catherine Lawson responds:
Posted: August 12th, 2008 at 7:11 pm →