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.
Filed under Women & Feminism —
Email This Post,
Subscribe To Comments, Trackback,
Subscribe Via 
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 →
[...] of Vered’s recent posts on bad advertising, like this one: Powerful Men, Half Naked Women made me take a good look at some of the ads around me. A few bars I passed had signs like: Come in [...]
Stacie responds:
Posted: August 15th, 2008 at 8:43 pm →
As a straight woman, I whole-heartedly disagree with anyone who says women are more beautiful than men. I would prefer seeing a naked man anyday to seeing a naked woman. I am not the only woman who feels this way. I think women are too often afraid to publicly admit they are attracted to men (eg. by buying something marketed with a half-naked man) because of long-standing cultural beliefs that they have been surrounded by all their lives. I feel we should protect children from images that are purely sexual in nature (especially if they are demeaning or violent), but adult women should have just as much sexual imagery of men for their viewing as men have of women.
In response to the Seinfeld quote, the only reason women aren’t “hairy” like men is because we are expected to shave, wax, etc, or cover it up. Men are capable of removing hair in all the same ways. Also, there is nothing awkward or messy about the male form when that man has confidence and takes care of himself.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: August 15th, 2008 at 10:08 pm →
@ Stacie: You are one smart woman. I agree with you completely, except that I believe research shows that males respond more to visual images of nudity than women do.
These two sentences are so very true:
“the only reason women aren’t “hairy” like men is because we are expected to shave, wax, etc, or cover it up”. SO TRUE. We ARE hairy, we just “take care of it”.
“there is nothing awkward or messy about the male form when that man has confidence and takes care of himself.” I agree that the male form is just as beautiful as the female form.
Isaac responds:
Posted: August 16th, 2008 at 9:03 am →
Is it so bad to want to be desired?
Isn’t that what’s really going on for both men and women, only what’s desirable is different?
As a man, I wish I could be attractive simply by looks alone–and not need to impress others with my job title, my intelligence, my humor, my emotional fortitude, etc.
But the question is: would I really be happy seen that 2-dimensionally? Happier than I am now? And most of all, what is the sense of asking such questions?
“If you could be anything you wanted, I bet you’d be disappointed.”
People are simply unhappy alot of the time, and look for things to blame it on. And when they percieve that someone else is happy, then the assume that what that person has that I do not is what must make them happy. If men appear happy, and do not have to worry about their looks (which is false anyway), then they must be happy becuase they don’t have to worry.
I can’t help but wonder if you aren’t making people trade one impossible ideal (e.g. beauty) for another (e.g. equality [whatever that REALLY means]).
MomGrind responds:
Posted: August 16th, 2008 at 9:23 am →
@ Isaac: You are raising interesting questions. Of course we all want to be desirable. But being judged by your looks only is very insulting to an intelligent woman, and very unfair to women who have a lot to offer in terms of intelligence and personality, but were not blessed with good looks.
I went to a professional event a few days ago. I was presenting a new software. A man spotted me from the other side of the room and came over to talk. His opening line? “I liked your colors so much that I had to come and see you”. When asked what he meant, it turned out that he likes dark hair and fair skin. From that point on, I was talking about the software, but he was not really listening. He was just checking me out the entire time. Was I happy about being “desirable”? No. It was a professional setting. I am already married and am not looking for a partner. I was not taken seriously, because he was only interested in how I looked. As I said, insulting.
Now, I have to agree with you, that individual men don’t necessarily have an easier life than women. They often have to work hard to attract women’s attention. But on the societal and cultural level, men certainly have more power than women do, even in the western world, even with all the laws that are aimed at protecting women.
Johnny responds:
Posted: August 19th, 2008 at 10:12 am →
You know, what everyone seems to be leaving out of the equation is the AGE of these models.
Young people in their 20′s — male or female — are portrayed in a lot more sexual light than older people. Have you seen the pages of the Abecrombie & Fitch catalog lately? It’s full of half-naked, six-packed skinny guys in their underwear who are clearly put there for college girl fantasy purposes. And how many shirtless photos of boy band pop stars grace the pages of teen girl mags?
But look at how older female stars — women in their 30′s and up — are more often depicted as glamorous and confident. It’s really not a fair comparison putting Mike Meyers up against some twenty-two year old bimbo model. Put him next to a magazine with, say, Gillian Andeson (dated example, I know) and see if the field isn’t more level.
It’s true that men a genetically programmed to respond to the sight of sexy women, just as women are programmed to respond to the sight of a baby. (You think SEX sells? Put a BABY in any advertisement and see how women perk up.) But the feminist outrage here seems a little misplaced.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: August 19th, 2008 at 5:34 pm →
@ Johnny: Thank you for this interesting comment. I think that the Abecrombie & Fitch ads ARE a very interesting exception. Men are portrayed there in a way that frankly makes me feel uncomfortable. I was in Vegas a couple of years ago, and there was this very young male model in the entrance to an Abecrombie & Fitch store. He was gorgeous, half naked, and his job was to stand there presenting his glistening shaven body like it was a piece of meat. I felt sorry for him! I guess I just don’t think that PEOPLE should be viewed this way. As in, being just sexual object.
Having said that, I do believe that Abecrombie & Fitch is the exception. You still see more half naked women in the media than you do men. The only reason they don’t show half naked older women is that they are considered less attractive.
Carojay responds:
Posted: August 21st, 2008 at 8:12 pm →
So many comments have been made about how men are more visual than women, I just had to comment. This has been disproven! A scientific study was done in which both men & women were shown erotic images of the opposite sex. The study measured which areas of the brain were stimulated when the pictures were shown. It was found that women were just as “interested” in depictions of naked men, as men were with naked women. In fact, it was noted that men were first drawn to the women’s faces, while women were drawn to… You guessed it! Straight to the goods!!
I do not understand why this is not more widely known. It seems obvious to me. Women want good-looking guys. It isn’t all about the looks, of course. That’s nowhere near what’s really important in a mate. Likewise, the men who are interested solely in looks aren’t the men with anything to offer a woman of substance, anyway.
I also get upset by the comments about evolution. Women do not need a successful man to “take care” of them. We are perfectly capable of takiing care of ourselves. On the other hand, do you really think men are looking for a woman to “reproduce” with? Not usually, unless they are in a committed relationship and looking to settle down.
Johnny commented that men are “genetically” programmed to respond to sexy women while women respond to the sight of a baby! What nonsense!! I don’t know any woman who would buy a magazine because of a baby on the cover. I wouldn’t give such a cover (or advertisement or whatever) a second glance. And men are no more programmed to respond “genetically” to the opposite sex than women are.
Regarding the magazine images of scantily clad women versus the fully-dressed men, it really is disturbing and offensive. But women have to take some of the blame. IWe women need to take a stand and refuse to be portrayed like this.
One interesting sidenote… Have you noticed that in the Olympics the women in the beach volleyball event are in skimpy bikinis, while the men in this event are more appropriately and comfortably dressed in tank tops and knee-length shorts? What is up with that??? Pretty much follows the route of the magazine covers, doesn’t it? But if Misty May and Kerry Walsh refused to play in bikinis and instead insisted in playing in t-shirts and shorts, that might make a difference!
MomGrind responds:
Posted: August 21st, 2008 at 8:23 pm →
@ Carojay: I didn’t know about this research. Interesting. Thank you for telling us about it.
Re evolution, I think the argument is that we are still programmed this way although obviously we don’t really need men to take care of us anymore. But presumably in the past we did, and we still react this way on a subconscious level. The same with men – looking for a woman that’s a good candidate for reproducing is supposedly something that happens subconsciously, and explains the preference for younger women, for example.
I don’t buy magazines that have babies on the cover.
The volleyball outfits are infuriating. I just can’t stand it, and I do wonder – what if one of them just said that she wants to wear a tank top and shorts? Would they kick her out? It’s similar (though not as bad) in tennis – the roomy tops and shorts for men as opposed to tiny skirts and tank tops for women.
I do agree with Computer Addict, though, who said that “Personal gains, be it money, power or fame, often trump one’s self-identification with class, gender, ethnicity or race”. So that might explain why individual women are willing to be portrayed this way. They are paid a lot of money to do this.
Search Engine Optimization | MomGrind responds:
Posted: August 22nd, 2008 at 1:00 am →
[...] never try to write posts that would land the front pages of Stumbleupon or Digg. When my post on women in the media landed the front page of Stumbleupon (Thank you Scott McIntyre for the stumble!), I couldn’t [...]
Tarraguña responds:
Posted: August 22nd, 2008 at 9:31 am →
Hola, I don’t know if I would consider myself a femenist or not. Sometimes I think that term is too strong and too focused. I do hope for equality, well as much as can be in this world. I do see a huge problem with the way men and women are portrayed in popular media. It is unfair and unjust and totally unrealistic. Men have just as much right to be a sex object as women. Male models are often spoofed and made fun of and they make a lot less than the super models. And in turn women should be able to be on the cover of a magazine wearing an armani business suit and looking like she is ready to fire you and take on the world as the new CEO.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: August 22nd, 2008 at 1:56 pm →
@ Tarraguña: Thank you for your comment!
I think you should not be afraid to use the term feminist. It is an honor to fight for equality.
veena responds:
Posted: September 12th, 2008 at 11:12 am →
I’m feminist. I’m a 22 year old woman.. i live in India and such sexually explicit pictures of women are so offensive but not a great problem in my country because we are still a pretty conservative society but we are getting there….
veena’s last blog post..
MomGrind responds:
Posted: September 12th, 2008 at 11:35 am →
@ veena: “but we are getting there….” – I’m sure it’s the general trend. But moving away from a very traditional society has its advantages too.
Brionne responds:
Posted: September 27th, 2008 at 3:51 am →
I am a feminist but not a womens liberationist… by that i mean the early feminist movement with regard to property/education/voting & financial rights etc was an appropriate thing to fight for… but the ‘liberationists’ who came after them went way too far and still do.
And, I totally agree with you here. Only today i was sitting in my car waiting for a pizza and the shop next door (bottle shop) had a huge poster of a completely naked woman holding a 6 pack of beer. This made me quite angry and I would love to fight the media and their sexually discriminating & derogatory crap that they keep spewing out. If a court can put a gag order against a criminals background being publicized surely the media can be gagged against printing sexually discriminating material???
MomGrind responds:
Posted: September 27th, 2008 at 1:13 pm →
@ Brionne: You’re raising an interesting question. I’m guessing it would raise issues of free speech.
Brionne responds:
Posted: September 28th, 2008 at 2:27 am →
yeah you could be right there… free speech is a little ambiguous though, in Australia the government can silence lobby groups and ban the media from reporting on their complaint… im not sure how it works in America but it seems that, here anyway, free speech can be restricted. Anyway, I am thinking about carrying a spray can around with me and spray painting clothing on any naked ladies I come across…how would that go down in America??? Would that be considered vandalism or an expression of free speech?? LOL i know im half joking, but I am actually seriously considering doing it out of protest.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: September 28th, 2008 at 12:13 pm →
@ Brionne: I’m pretty sure it would be considered as vandalism. I wouldn’t do that, although the idea IS tempting.
Stacie responds:
Posted: September 29th, 2008 at 6:40 pm →
@ Brionne: Maybe you could try the opposite tactic and put up posters of naked men in the same general location as advertising with naked women. The same thing could be done here in America, except that most of the sexually explicit images of women are in media that we can’t directly affect like movies or TV.
Brionne responds:
Posted: September 30th, 2008 at 2:03 am →
@ Stacie: as tempting as that sounds, i dont believe in fighting fire with fire. If vandalising the posters themselves was possible, then it would start effecting the media’s bottom line becuase they would have to spend money on replacing the posters… but it would take a lot of people on the ground for it to be effective…hehehe yes i’ve thought a lot about this LOL.
Vandalism was something that the early feminists used in order to demand a change in womens working rights… in england they started throwing bricks through shop windows and setting shops alight, it forced change and it obviously worked.
10 Bizarre Ads: What Were They Thinking? | MomGrind responds:
Posted: September 30th, 2008 at 9:30 am →
[...] you enjoyed this post, you will probably enjoy these too: Top Ten Fashion Mistakes Powerful Men, Half-Naked Women You Read Women’s Magazines? I’ll Give You Ten Reasons To Stop Mona Lisa, [...]
Top 10 Fashion Mistakes To Avoid At All Costs | MomGrind responds:
Posted: September 30th, 2008 at 12:47 pm →
[...] you enjoyed this post, you might enjoy these too: Ten Bizarre Ads Powerful Men, Half-Naked Women You Read Women’s Magazines? I’ll Give You Ten Reasons To Stop Mona Lisa, [...]
Women's Magazines | MomGrind responds:
Posted: September 30th, 2008 at 12:56 pm →
[...] you enjoyed this post, you might enjoy these too: Top Ten Fashion Mistakes Powerful Men, Half-Naked Women Mona Lisa, Enhanced Ten Bizarre Ads: What Were They Thinking? Did you enjoy this post? Subscribe [...]
Willy responds:
Posted: September 30th, 2008 at 2:27 pm →
How about we discuss an even bigger problem: the attempt to sell men’s underwear through sex. I mean Jesus, you’d think these people would have a little more class than to put these Hollywood-ideal depictions of lean, ripped men wearing nothing but a pair of whitey tighties making all the fat, weak little boys out there insecure and under such enormous pressure to look like that when they grow up that many of them just can’t handle it!
Ok, sarcasm over. Here’s my actual points:
The magazines you chose were almost exclusively aimed at a target audience of men (I mean, be honest with yourself here, you took a picture of Maxim, what were you expecting?). And that’s how the magazines feel they can best sell to men. Until they go so overboard as to permanently traumatize children, there shouldn’t be a problem here. They’re going to learn about this stuff eventually, it would be best for them to hear it from their parents than someone who doesn’t know them nearly as well such as a teacher. Would you rather they make a law banning any somewhat-scantily-clad women on magazine covers? Where do we draw the line so as not to cross over into a police state then? If we made laws that banned anything offensive to anyone, we’d be in a pretty sorry condition. Had you chosen magazines aimed more towards women, you would undoubtedly have seen much less of the trend you showed in these magazines.
I also pose this question: where do you think the line for equality should stop between men and women? We’re obviously not born the same, and it’s in our DNA to be different, so when do you say, this is fair and this isn’t?
MomGrind responds:
Posted: September 30th, 2008 at 3:01 pm →
@ Willy: Thank you for sharing your point of view. The fact that these magazines are aimed at men does not make me feel any better. If it were up to me, there would indeed be laws against it, but I do see your point about personal freedoms such as freedom of speech. To answer your question, regardless of biological differences, every human being deserves respect. These images are disrespectful.
Willy responds:
Posted: September 30th, 2008 at 7:22 pm →
I do agree that every human deserves respect (well maybe not every human, you can still lose respect through your actions, but that’s a whole other story), but I don’t see how this is disrespectful. Maybe I just don’t have the proper perspective, but when I see men half-naked in ads, magazines, etc I don’t feel disrespected at all, and it’s not like the people in these pictures are disrespected….they did agree to it after all. I guess my confusion just comes from who is disrespected and how? No sarcasm in this post either…I really am curious where you’re coming from on this. I like to keep an open mind in these kinds of discussions.
Kate responds:
Posted: September 30th, 2008 at 8:13 pm →
I agree.
The men should be wearing less clothes.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: September 30th, 2008 at 8:36 pm →
@ Willy: Like I told others, there’s a strong possibility we will have to (respectfully) agree to disagree on this.
But you’re asking about my experience, and I can tell you that as a woman, whenever I see one of these images, I cringe. I feel that it sends a message that it’s OK to USE women. To reduce them to nothing more than a nice body. Yes, these individuals agreed to do it – as Computer Addict said above, “Personal gains, be it money, power or fame, often trump one’s self-identification with class, gender, ethnicity or race”.
@ Kate: Haha.. not exactly what I was going for in this post but thanks for the laugh.
Baldi responds:
Posted: September 30th, 2008 at 10:15 pm →
I am a man and a bit of a MCP according to my wife. Well, perhaps more than that.
I think women are so much better looking and love looking at them. Half naked men would be mostly gross (to women too). On the other hand not all the magazines you posted portrayed women badly. E.g. Giselle Bundchen has made it big in the fashion world through hard work and being smart about her choices. Same for other models, actresses, etc. The car magazine is targeted at men and shows two of men’s desires, fast powerful cars and gorgeous women. What’s wrong with that? It’s a biological thing not to be evaded. Men desire power and women, plain and simple.
Lastly, the magazine world is not meant to replace serious reading, magazines have own niche market (a large one) of people who want to see the good things in life; a bit of escapism. There are a lot of publications out there where people are commended for their intelligence and achievements; notice I said people and not just women.
Tyler responds:
Posted: September 30th, 2008 at 10:47 pm →
I take issue with the idea that only women being portrayed in a specific way by the media is sexist. Sure the men are fully clothed but the way men are expected to act and look according to similar publications is equally sexist, and ignoring the part gender roles play for all people, not just women, plays a critical role in the continued bigotry of all people. None of the men look weak or fragile because its not okay for them to.
I don’t deny that the objectification of women is a real problem, I just hope that everyone understands that women arn’t the only ones suffering from classical gender roles.
I also don’t feel anyone should be insulted as a class of people because of what one person chooses to do with his/her/its life. If Marissa Miller wants to be seen by people in her underwear then no one should be upset about it, and i’d hope that if Micheal Myers choose to do the same (he often does watch Austin Powers) then y’all shouldn’t get upset either. The actions of any one person only say something about that person and comments like MomGrind’s “there would be laws against it” take away the personal freedom that feminists and tons of other group activists have been working for. It should be liberating for a person to BE ABLE to show off their body if they so choose(limiting to relevant examples) and there are plenty of famous respected women and men and people who do not classify as either a woman or a man by strict definition that choose not to do so. Certainly there is a problem with the way people are portrayed but lets not limit our discussion to the way women and men are portrayed versus each other in such a limited context, and lets be honest: everyone faces discrimination even if you are a middle class white male to the rest of society you are a “middle class white male.” Pretending away such discrimination does a great disservice to equality movements of all types, and until we acknowledge the plight of all people as a whole we will get caught up in bickering over who is being hurt more.
Brionne responds:
Posted: October 1st, 2008 at 12:09 am →
@willy: i think what it comes down to is WHY are women shown in such a way…yes i know your going to say ‘sex sells’ but Should it? I have often thought that it must be a lonely world for a man when he has no equal other then other ‘men’
if you look at nature you see animals pairing up with each other and they trully are equal, the males and females have different characteristics and often play slightly different rolse, but they are equal when they are together
it seems that when you look at human beings…men have no equal partner… thats very sad.
Willy responds:
Posted: October 1st, 2008 at 7:27 am →
@MomGrind: I believe agreeing to disagree is all we can do as I think we’re just not going to be able to see each others’ perspectives.
@Brionne: To the question of should sex sell: Yes. Not because of morals or ethics, but because it’s natural instincts. When you’ve found a way to overcome natural instincts, then sex won’t sell anymore.
And I have no idea what you’re talking about with the equal partner stuff you just said.
Amy responds:
Posted: October 1st, 2008 at 8:52 am →
All of those people are powerful and successful; not just the men. The magazine covers are just portraying each celebrity’s success in his/her chosen career field.
Women:
Pamela Anderson – Actress/Model
Marisa Miller – Model
Gisele Bundchen – Model
Men:
Mike Myers – Actor/Comedian
Dana White – UFC (Ultimate Fighting Championship) President
Jack Johnson – Musician
You wouldn’t expect to see a picture of Marisa Miller being chewed on by a goat any more than you would expect to see Mike Meyers posing in sexy underwear.
And as for the fact that the magazines with women on the cover only featured models…
Two of the magazines, GQ and Maxim, are largely erotic magazines targeted at men, and Radar is a sleazy tabloid that regularly has covers featuring half naked women, men, and even politicians! (do a google image search) Of course your 8 year old feels uncomfortable looking at such magazines!
The next time Dora the Explorer is on the cover of Maxim, I’ll let you know.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: October 1st, 2008 at 12:45 pm →
@ Baldi: “Men desire power and women, plain and simple.” I agree. But I still want men – and women – to respect me and to see me as an intelligent, capable human being. I never want to be reduced to my looks only.
@ Tyler: I do agree that rigid gender roles hurt men too.
@ Willy: Well, at least we managed to keep it calm and polite.
@ Amy: If the best way for a woman to gain power and money is to undress, while the best way for a man is to use his brain and talent, then that’s a big problem in my opinion. But I strongly suspect we won’t be able to change each other’s opinions on this topic… thank you for taking the time to join the discussion and express your opinion.
David Le Page responds:
Posted: October 1st, 2008 at 2:20 pm →
Well, I’m landing here mainly to say that I’m male, and I hope, as feminist as a male can be, having grown up in a pretty sexist household. I also grew up in apartheid South Africa, so I’ve had to work on the (subconscious) racism thing as well. Am I a feminist? My feeling is that only women can judge that one. Bill Clinton couldn’t say, “I’m the first black president of the US,” but Toni Morrison could say it.
It’s a matter of some despair to me that so few of the women I know are prepared to identify themselves as feminist, and have bought into the caricatures so thoroughly. The contexts I’m talking about are university-educated women, mostly, in Cape Town, Johannesburg and London.
I recently attended a World Economic Forum conference here in Cape Town. 90% of the attendees were men. I was submerged in an army of black suits. I have not been in such an all-male environment since enforced conscription to the South African army. But it was interesting to see who’s running the world, really.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: October 1st, 2008 at 2:30 pm →
@ David: I agree. The fact that so many young educated women refuse to call themselves “feminists” is disturbing.
Brionne responds:
Posted: October 2nd, 2008 at 12:24 am →
@ Willy, I’m sorry if it wasnt clear…basically its a bit of personal philosophy so it could be way off base but i’ll try and explain it clearer.
In the natural world, males and females co-exist & co-inhabit quite equally…they may behave in different ways according to their gender but they still form equal partnerships
It seems to me that in the human world, if the role of the female is merely a sexual one, as can be seen by the media’s portrayal of women and as the slogan ‘Sex Sell’s’ is all too apparent, then equality between them is lost. (of course not all men view women this way) because sexuality is only a small part of a womans makeup…she is also a nurturer/mother, she is a support for her male counterpart and her children… a companion and a caregiver, an emotional support and a physical support.. .being a mans opposite, she fills where he is lacking
Willy responds:
Posted: October 2nd, 2008 at 10:52 am →
@Brionne: I can pretty much guarantee less than .5% of all men actually think that women’s only purpose is as sex items. And the media doesn’t portray them that way either. Sex sells doesn’t mean that only sex sells, lots of other things do.
D responds:
Posted: October 3rd, 2008 at 8:23 am →
Feminists should embrace this.
Notice, first, that these are all men’s magazines. (And I would point out that while Jack Johnson does look fit in that picture, he doesn’t look particularly powerful or threatening.)
Second, I notice that you did not photograph an issue of Men’s Health. If you want to see pictures of half-naked, ready and willing men, check that one out. Given that its target audience is straight men, there is something odd going on at that magazine. Most of their covers are more than a little homo-erotic. I stopped reading when I got the issue with the “sexy firefighters” cover.
But on to the women. Feminists are missing the point– the greatest asset a woman has is her ability to look dumb, submissive, and sexy, and make men pay them TONS of money for it. It is a failure of my gender, not yours, that we can so easily be bilked out of our money and driven out of our minds by women who are exerting so little effort. And it happens everywhere– it drives magazine sales, new car purchases and court decisions.
And any woman can do it. Put aside the feminist theory of conquering by brute force– it is doomed to fail. For thousands of years, women have been killing men softly.
D responds:
Posted: October 3rd, 2008 at 9:12 am →
@MomGrind:
Why do you find it “disturbing” that so few educated young women refuse to identify themselves as “feminist”?
I have had a few close male friends in my life and several close female friends. On the whole, I feel I can communicate better with women than I can with men. My female friends have been intelligent, kind-hearted, and open-minded. I would suggest that the best venue for the cause of women’s rights is in interpersonal relationships. You are never going to make the entire world appreciate you.
The same goes for all of us. We are poor and some rich people do not take us seriously. We are black and some white people do not take us seriously. We are from the South and some New Englanders do not take us seriously. We live, anyway.
Did you ever hear that heart-warming story about the Klansman who walked into a black Baptist church and made friends with everyone?
Neither did I. Because that guy intentionally labeled himself as hostile to black people, and folks have negative reactions to that sort of thing. When a woman labels herself as a feminist, she identifies herself as someone who believes men are her enemies. She does not have to do this for men to understand that she wants equality (it goes without saying, in today’s world, that everyone wants to be treated equally). If a man truly is her enemy, that man will not take her more seriously just because she calls him out.
D responds:
Posted: October 3rd, 2008 at 9:48 am →
Okay, this is my last, I promise.
@Brionne: There is absolutely NOTHING equal about animal sexual partners, save for a few anomalous species that practice monogamy (i.e. penguins).
From the Wikipedia article entitled “Cat”:
The male cat’s penis has spines which point backwards. Upon withdrawal of the penis, the spines rake the walls of the female’s vagina, which may cause ovulation.
I don’t know about you, but it sounds like a pretty raw deal for the female cat to me. Have you ever heard cats mating? They emit a blood-curdling scream. I’d imagine it’s quite painful, but the male cat is not considerate.
Nothing “equal” there. Nor is it “equal” how in most species, once the sex act is done, the male LEAVES, and the female is left to raise the young on her own.
It’s much more “equal” in human relationships. Unless a woman erroneously has a deep emotional attraction to a man who feels nothing for her, sex is either relatively monogamous or completely casual for both partners.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: October 3rd, 2008 at 11:15 am →
@ D: First, I wanted to say that I really appreciate that you took the time to read my posts and write several thoughtful comments on them. Thank you.
“the greatest asset a woman has is her ability to look dumb, submissive, and sexy, and make men pay them TONS of money for it” – but I don’t want to make money that way. I happen to be a very smart person. I want to be appreciated for my brains, not just for my looks.
I disagree that the best way to get what we (women) want it to go about it gently and quietly. The first and second waves of feminism only accomplished what they did because of forceful, demanding behavior by pioneer feminists. I will always be grateful to them. If it weren’t for them, I would not be entitled to have my own property, vote or go to college, among other things.
D responds:
Posted: October 3rd, 2008 at 11:44 am →
@MomGrind: I apologize for my wordiness (three years of law school will do that to you), but hope you found my comments at least entertaining.
I understand that you don’t want to make money that way, and that you want to be appreciated for your brain. I was being a bit flippant when I said that this was a woman’s “greatest asset.” I, personally, have certainly not chosen to associate with women who are or act stupid and blatantly use sex to get what they want.
However, with regard to early feminism, let’s not forget that sexual liberty was also a goal. I understand that your views on this differ, but where you see women being exploited in the media, I see pragmatic, capitalist women. These women know that they are selling sex, and they are making money at it, and most of them don’t feel the least bit exploited or used.
For the real woman who feels disrespected by these bodies on parade, I don’t understand why. I don’t believe that video games make kids kill their neighbors, and I don’t believe that magazine photos of scantily-clad women (or even hard-core pornography, for that matter) cause men to grow up with unrealistic ideas about women. Celebrities and porn stars all live in a fantasy world that all of us know we will never experience (and for the most part, don’t actually want to). They might temporarily shape the sexual reality of adolescent boys, but meeting some real girls will teach them better. And if there is anything a grown woman doesn’t want, it’s the kind of respect and admiration a 13-year-old boy can give to her instead of pornography.
I agree that the sexes should be social equals, but I also respect some form of gender-role identity. I like that women think, read, own property, go to college, and vote. My problem with feminism per se is that while it empowers women, it sometimes tends to discourage femininity. Frankly, we like women to be kind and soft and pretty. It can be difficult to be all of these things as well as smart and funny, but likewise, it’s difficult for men to be handsome, intelligent, sympathetic, and strong all at once too.
So, aside from the body-image crisis and the objectification of women, which to you are broad social issues and to me are frat-boy dick-head issues, what is left for feminism to achieve? Equal pay for the same jobs, surely. But after that? I think social movements outlive their usefulness when they champion causes of questionable value: Jena 6.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: October 3rd, 2008 at 12:19 pm →
@ D: “I don’t believe that video games make kids kill their neighbors, and I don’t believe that magazine photos of scantily-clad women (or even hard-core pornography, for that matter) cause men to grow up with unrealistic ideas about women.”
Well, that’s the million dollar question, isn’t it? Does it or doesn’t it influence people.
Don’t worry about wordiness. I used to be an attorney – I can handle wordiness.
David Le Page responds:
Posted: October 3rd, 2008 at 2:43 pm →
@ D, being a feminist does not in my experience — and I know lots of feminists — equal a woman who hates men. So I think you’re working off a bit of a misconception there.
The dictionary definition of a feminist, if you will forgive me being tedious, is a woman who seeks social, political and economic equality with men. Nothing there about hating men. Most feminists are too intelligent to engage in sweeping generalisations about any ‘category’ of people.
Some persnickety types will say, ‘yes, gender equality, that’s lovely in theory, but it just doesn’t work in practice.’ But *in practice*, there’s no equality between men either. That does not and should not stop us from working towards the ideal.
If you had a daughter — perhaps you do — would you really prefer that she accept a lesser status in society than men? I live in South Africa, where women definitely have lower status than men, not legally, but socially. And the consequence is that one in three South African women can expect to be raped at least once in her lifetime. Here, any rape victim also has an excellent chance of being infected with HIV, if she hasn’t already been infected by husbands or boyfriends who disdain condoms, the consequence of which is HIV infection rates of anywhere between 10% and 30% depending on region. Looking beyond the statistics, many women are multiple rape or gang rape victims.
In other words, there are distinct and uttterly brutal consequences for women who do not have the same rights as men, consequences which I am quite certain do horrify you when spelt out.
On to ‘angry’ feminists, do you really believe that women would have the rights they now do have, had it not been for furious struggle? Have you ever had your rights challenged or suppressed? It’s difficult, when you do, to remain composed and calm. And when you remain calm and composed, it’s difficult to get people to take you seriously.
Some seem to be invoking biology here as a means of clarifying these issues. I think it’s a bit of distraction. Gender equality definitely is not biologically preordained, in the simplest sense. But then nor are democracy, human and civil rights, justice and equality. These are things we choose to create or to deny. Do we have a sense of justice that demands we create gender equality, or do we just sit back and let things slide?
David Le Page responds:
Posted: October 3rd, 2008 at 2:46 pm →
@ D — apologies, I see you do specifically endorse social equality. Please excuse rant.
David Le Page’s last blog post..Rehabilitating porridge
MomGrind responds:
Posted: October 3rd, 2008 at 2:58 pm →
@ David: Thank you. You are more articulate about feminism than I could ever be. I agree with every word you wrote, and especially with “On to ‘angry’ feminists, do you really believe that women would have the rights they now do have, had it not been for furious struggle?”.
Sebastian R. responds:
Posted: October 5th, 2008 at 1:24 pm →
Not that I wish to cause any offence, but the magazines shown are all of different calibers and aimed at different audiences. GQ and Maxim are general interest magazines designed and marketed towards men, and as such their content and cover images feature what is known to arouse the interest of the majority of men. They’re not trying to insult or demean women, it’s just better business to deliver what the majority of your customers desire. They are of the higher class of mens’ magazines though, and this is reflected in the cover shots having an artistic tinge as opposed to some of the lower class magazines blunt pictures, which are probably best summarized by the ‘Import Tuner’ magazine in your test sample, which I’m sure is a highly credible publication.
As for Esquire, I can’t say that I’m entirely familiar with it, but I believe it’s meant to be loosely unisex and as such it runs with a cover that could appeal to either sex.
Men’s Health is, I believe, aimed at men. It deals with the male form, however, and for many men seeing the male form presented before them nakedly is something that they are uncomfortable with, hence the compromise of clothed but still physically oriented men on the cover. If you look to the top right of the cover though, there’s something there to bring men towards their comfort zone. The ‘hot’ female golfer.
As for Pamela Anderson’s cover shot on Radar, being a whore is her image, and that’s why they printed her as such.
Bye.
Carojay responds:
Posted: October 5th, 2008 at 5:29 pm →
Sebastian, if you will allow me my 2 cents worth, your reply was thoughtful but I disagree with your assessment of GQ and Maxim. I think they don’t care at all if they insult or demean women. If they did, they would portray women as full-fledged human beings rather than objects for men’s amusement. One of the subtitles on the Maxim cover is about Tom Brady being the “luckiest man on earth. ” Why? Because Gisele is hot, not because she is intelligent or a nice person or gives lots of money to charity or has a great sense of humors (I do not know if any of these things are true). That sure doesn’t sound like the magazine views women as having any value aside from their looks.
And I sure hope these magazines do not appeal to the majority of men. I would certainly like to believe than men in general have a higher opinion of women than that.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: October 5th, 2008 at 6:06 pm →
@ Sebastian @ Carojay: I’d like to thank both of you for your thoughtful comments. Not surprisingly, I do agree with Carojay’s point of view.
D responds:
Posted: October 5th, 2008 at 9:02 pm →
@Sebastian: The magazine pictured above is Men’s Fitness, not Men’s Health. Men’s Health has featured half-naked men on its covers several times (to the dismay of many readers).
@Carojay: I don’t read GQ, but I have read Maxim. It’s a smart magazine. It does, to a certain extent, portray women as sex objects, but it laughs at itself for doing so.
The simple fact is that men want to buy magazines with sexy women in them. Those pictures are, as I said above, part of a fantasy world that we all know we will never, and don’t really want to, experience. Just because a guy looks at these pictures in magazines doesn’t mean he believes women are sex objects and nothing more.
I think a lot of women have trouble understanding this. Sexual images are appealing in a completely different way than conversations are. I’ve had a number of close female friends. I could talk to them for hours, often about things that I couldn’t talk to my male friends about. They were wonderful people. But everyone’s brain needs some sexual stimulation, and most of my female friends wouldn’t help me with that even if I had been brazen and disrespectful enough to ask them to (which I wasn’t).
It is truly baffling to me why this objectification of certain women makes other women feel disrespected. Next time you meet a guy who watches a lot of internet pornography (the most “degrading” of all–and you know the guys I’m talking about), talk to him. See how he reacts. Most likely he will be mostly nonresponsive and avoid eye contact, because he feels that he, not you, is inferior.
When guys see these photos, it may affect their opinions of the women photographed, but not the average woman on the street, and certainly not women they have interacted with socially. The feminist idea that men are that stupid is truly disturbing and insulting to me. It’s pretty myopic to direct your energies toward changing the male mind while intentionally remaining ignorant of the way the male mind actually works.
Willy responds:
Posted: October 6th, 2008 at 7:06 am →
D basically said exactly what I was thinking but couldn’t convey in a non-sarcastic, non-angry manner.
Nurit responds:
Posted: October 6th, 2008 at 10:00 am →
We were in Las Vegas last October. Needless to say sex is being advertized everywhere over there.
) and he doesn’t care.
I was concerned about my little 5 years old boy being exposed to that – the signs in the streets, the big screens in our (well respected) hotel, the guys in the sidewalks giving handouts to sex shows, etc. But he didn’t even notice, to my relief.
Also, I, as a women, had also noticed that sex in LV is being marketed to women as well. It is not only about naked women over there. Oh no. Half naked men, Chippendales and the likes, sex shows for women, and much more. I found that it doesn’t interest me one bit. I saw in the hotel’s magazine the ads with guys half naked, insinuating sex is within a short reach. I couldn’t care less. So, I think that if it doesn’t appeal to me and other women, it doesn’t necessary appeal to all the guys.
I asked my husband what does he think about all this, well, I was referring to the naked women… He said he hadn’t even noticed (or did he?
Well, my point is – some women and men like those things. Some don’t. OK, maybe more men find it interesting than women do, but still, we need to give them some credit.
Nurit’s last blog post..Try something new: Acorn squash
MomGrind responds:
Posted: October 6th, 2008 at 10:18 am →
D, Willy: you’re saying that men can separate between these images and real-life women. That these images do not necessarily mean disrespect to real women. Perhaps. Still, whenever I see these images, I cringe. Many other women feel the same.
Perhaps if real women feel it’s disrespectful and demeaning, men should respect their feelings and stop consuming these images.
Perhaps I’m naive.
Nurit: I’m sure many men ARE oblivious to these messages. Unfortunately, most men are not.
D responds:
Posted: October 6th, 2008 at 1:03 pm →
MomGrind: I think I’ve found the disconnect. The idea I have that does not make sense to most women (and probably never will) is that it’s natural and innate to think about sex in a purely sexual manner, to think about a woman, if you will, as an object, but most men, I think, respect the real women in their lives too much to objectify them in this manner. It’s easier and feels better to think this way about celebrities and porn stars.
It’s similar to the kind of thrill that people get from watching horror movies. It’s a type of fantastical excitement that no one wants in his everyday life, that no one wants to get emotionally invested in, but that everyone needs to experience in a controlled environment from time to time.
No matter what you tell a guy, he feels a little insecure when he discovers a vibrator in the drawer of your bedside table. But no masculinist would suggest that since these things make men uncomfortable, women should stop consuming them. Well, maybe some would, but none would expect the argument to succeed.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: October 6th, 2008 at 4:36 pm →
@ D: As long as this doesn’t translate into the Madonna-whore complex.
Carojay responds:
Posted: October 6th, 2008 at 5:45 pm →
D: You’re right… your argument makes no sense to me. Everyone — women as well as men — thinks about sex in a sexual way. Yet we can do so by seeing the object of our desire as a complete human being, not just a collection of body parts.
What would you say about magazines that portrayed blacks in a humorous way as not very bright people who nonetheless are awesome athletes and dancers? Or depicted Jews as shrewd money-lenders? It would be extremely offensive, right? Even if there were representatives of these ethnic groups who agreed to appear in the magazines because they were paid handsomely to do so. Why should anyone be offended? It’s an innate human need to laugh often. As long as we have real friends who are African American and Jewish who we treat with respect, what does it matter if we occassionally enjoy this type of entertainment?
Willy responds:
Posted: October 6th, 2008 at 8:41 pm →
@Carojay: Worst analogy ever. Firstly, if a magazine were to portray blacks, Jews, etc in a very stereotypical manner with the intent only to be humorous, I would not find it offensive. This is not because I am white, if a magazine wants to portray negative middle-class white college boy stereotypes I wouldn’t find that offensive either, if there was no malicious intent. Or hell, even if there was I wouldn’t be concerned. People are entitled to their opinions, who am I to say they don’t deserve 1st Amendment rights just because I disagree with them? Now I know I’m in a very small minority when I say that, so let me give more objective reasons as to why your analogy is totally irrelevant. There are many different ways to be humorous, many of which are very non-offensive, and racial humor is not the only type of humor in the world. However, there is only one way to appeal to sexual desires…and as is the nature of sexual attraction, someone’s going to be offended by it. It’s that simple. Now these people are generally the same type who would prefer the government be a nanny state and raise their children for them through the public education system, protect them from every little thing that could possibly go wrong, make so many laws that we practically live in a police state, etc. But regardless, appeals to sex drive will not go unnoticed.
D responds:
Posted: October 7th, 2008 at 7:36 am →
@Carojay– Your analogy makes no sense to me, either.
First off, these magazines are not perpetuating any stereotypes about women. These are particular women who are, happily, largely appreciated for their sex appeal. Believe it or not, there ARE black people who are not very bright, but are talented athletes. There ARE Jews who are shrewd money-lenders.
Does this mean that I support the reinstatement of the institution of slavery? Does this mean I think Jews have caused all the world’s major wars? No.
Hank Hill once said, “What kind of country is this, where I can only hate a man if he’s white?”
Your analogy assumes that every perception we have about another human being is a result of a stereotype about some group that person belongs to. Are you that shallow?
D responds:
Posted: October 7th, 2008 at 8:18 am →
And further, if you don’t like the idea of members of certain ethnic groups being portrayed in a negative light for entertainment value, tell Dave Chappelle, who is black, and whose television program routinely depicts black characters as gangsters and illegal drug abusers and uses lots of racial slurs. His show has a large and ethnically diverse viewership.
Or tell Kanye West, who, before performing the song “Gold Digger” live, instructs the white people in his audience that singing along with it is the only time they can say the n-word and get away with it.
Or tell Carlos Mencia, who is Latino and often makes jokes about Latinos eating animals’ testicles, etc. I don’t find him funny at all, so feel free to get him canceled if you want.
Carojay responds:
Posted: October 7th, 2008 at 10:49 am →
Wow, guess I touched a nerve!
The analogy IS appropriate. I did not say that “girlie” magazines should be banned. I would hope that they would fall out of favor because the consumers of these magazines have respect for the feelings of the women of the world, but apparently that is too much to ask.
The types of fictitious “humor” magazines that I mentioned do not exist (or not that I’m aware of) because the ethnic outcry would be overwhelming. Unfortunately, it’s still OK to disrespect women just because some men can’t get their kicks in any other way.
These magazines definitely ARE perpetrating stereotypes about women. They are portraying women as one-dimensional creatures whose only function is to look good and service men.
I did not say that every perception we have about another human is based on a stereotype. But stereotypes do contribute to a great many people’s perceptions.
I knew someone would mention the ethnic humor “practiced” by members of those ethnic groups. I do not find that humor appropriate or particularly amusing either, but members of ethnic groups can get away with saying things about other members of that same ethnic group that the rest of us can’t.
D responds:
Posted: October 7th, 2008 at 11:09 am →
I’m far from unwilling to see the female point of view. I just don’t agree with YOUR point of view. I pointed out why, but because the wildly popular ethnic humor that abounds in this world is not in the form of magazines, you ignore it.
I have a girlfriend. She is certainly more than a collection of body parts to me. I’m not a consumer of men’s magazines, haven’t been for quite some time. I just still don’t see why women are threatened by them, and your analogy is less than persuasive.
And no one but me has cared to talk about the other side of this issue: why do women need vibrators? Is the thrill you get from a battery-operated motor inside a polymer phallus a deep emotional experience for you?
It’s objectification of men in an even worse sense than men’s magazines objectify women– the only thing that matters to consumers of these products is the penis. And not a realistic penis, either, but one that vibrates, that does things a real man could never do. The fact that these things make men uncomfortable don’t make women stop buying or using them.
D responds:
Posted: October 7th, 2008 at 11:25 am →
And with regard to members of ethnic groups being able to get away with making jokes about their own race… do you think all of Chappelle’s material is written by black people? Do you think all of Mencia’s material is written by Latinos?
D responds:
Posted: October 7th, 2008 at 1:04 pm →
And further, not only does Mencia joke about Latinos, he has also done sketches about penny-pinching Jews.
But beyond that, South Park also has an extremely large viewership, despite its numerous biting jokes about women, gays, blacks, Jews, Christians (and specifically Catholics and Mormons), Scientologists, Muslims, rednecks, hippies, and celebrities. Odd that the most vocal criticism of South Park has come from the Scientologists, whose religion was born out of a bet between two science-fiction writers.
Willy responds:
Posted: October 7th, 2008 at 1:32 pm →
@Carojay: If you’re going to claim the analogy is relevant, please show how. I can say “God does not exist and that is proven, whether you accept it or not,” but if I end right there chances are no person who believes in God is going to suddenly change their mind. Debates only work if you CAN and DO back up your points, which is something you have failed to do thus far. While I disagree with MomGrind’s views, she at least backs them up with relevant information.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: October 7th, 2008 at 1:36 pm →
OK guys, I’m busy here editing out personal insults from your comments yet making an effort to leave your ideas and thoughts intact. I don’t want to close the comments to this post because this is an important discussion, but this is MY party and I get to make the rules. So please – no personal insults. Thank you.
D responds:
Posted: October 7th, 2008 at 2:00 pm →
Sorry, Vered. That did get a little out of hand.
Carojay responds:
Posted: October 7th, 2008 at 5:00 pm →
OK, one last post for me and then I’ll go away and leave Vered to post her responses in peace. She is far calmer than I could ever be. I apologize to HER if I upset the egos of the male posters.
I do not know who Chappelle’s writers are and I have not ever heard this Mencia person, but if they have non-black and non-Latino writers, then those writers are directed by Chappelle and Mencia as to what type of material to write. So it is written under the auspices of those ethnicities, so to speak.
D, I believe you said above that images of scantily clad women and even hard-core pornographydo not cause men to have unrealistic views of women. Studies have shown that this is not true. Men & women who were exposed to large amounts of pornography are less likely to want daughters. Who would want to bring a girl into such a world? With increased viewing, what was once shocking becomes habitual. One of the participants in a large study admitted that women he once found attractive, he no llonger found to be because they weren’t as overtly sexy as the women who appear in porn. Pornography inherently cheapens sex.
I know Maxim and the like aren’t hard-core porn, but they do exhibit unrealistic portrayals of women. Who among us mere mortal women can look like Gisele what’s-her-name? Why do you think so many young girls have eating disorders? Because they are trying to live up to an unattainable standard. I coulld make a similar argument as above about how these images give (some) men an unrealistic view of what an attractive woman is, but I’m sure it would fall on deaf ears.
I disagree with your vibrator analogy. We are not subjected to countless images of “half-naked” vibrators wherever we look. Women who use vibrators do so in private. Women DO care about men’s feelings–perhaps too much so. Why do you think so many women (so the joke goes) fake orgasm? Because they do not want to hurt their partner’s FEELINGS by telling him how inadequate his performance was.
Willy, I do not know what to say about your attack on my analogy. I think the comparison is obvious.
Let’s see if I can summarize:
!. Disrespect women’s feelings by consuming magazines that portray women as sex objects = disrespect ethnic groups by stereotyping them as being not very bright, or penny-pinching, etc.
2. Dismiss the arguments by the women’s groups because of man’s inherent need for sexual stimulation (which apparently, according to you, is the ONLY way to satisfy the sexual nature= dismiss the arguments against ethnic insults in the form of “humor” because everybody needs to laugh.
I could go on and on, but in respect to Vered, I will leave now. I know that I am not going to change D’s and Willy’s minds. I just thank God there are men in the world like David Le Page who truly seem to understand the female perspective.
D responds:
Posted: October 8th, 2008 at 7:38 am →
@Carojay: Carlos Mencia is a stand-up comic who, like Chappelle, has a sketch comedy series on Comedy Central. And as I said, he insults not only his own race, but also others– I have seen a sketch involving a Jewish character diving to the floor to snatch a coin that someone dropped. It’s funny because it’s an exploitation of a stereotype that most of his viewers don’t believe to be true, except, maybe a little bit. Chris Rock, who is black, makes more jokes about white people than his own race, and people still find him funny. And South Park, which is mainly written by a plain old midwestern white guy and a Jew, certainly does not have the intrinsic blessing of other ethnic or religious groups. For God’s sake, the show has a black character named “Token.” He’s voiced by a black actor, of course, but in your view, consent of a member of the target group doesn’t make it okay.
To be clear, I don’t think these jokes are in any way analogous to the objectification of women, but you do. Your analogy is not only inapposite to the subject, but also crumbles under its own weight, because such humor does exist and is popular.
Vibrators inherently cheapen sex, as well. The fact that they are used “in private” is a smokescreen that adds nothing to this discussion, because pornography is used in private as well. If you ever meet a guy who is masturbating publicly to pornography, you come and find me, and I will buy you a drink, no questions asked. You don’t even have to show him to me.
And as for faking orgasms, make up your mind. Is it something women really do to ease their partners’ minds, or is it a joke? Your fear of commitment saddens me.
As for harmful ideas about body image– and this is a subject in discussion on others posts here– the women in Maxim are typically pretty healthy. Sometimes they are a little thinner than the average woman, but sometimes they are not. The body-image risks posed by these actresses and men’s magazine models is nowhere near that posed by the fashion models found in women’s magazines– it is women’s magazines, not men’s magazines, that attempt to promulgate the ultra-skinny idea of beauty and sex appeal– men do not subscribe to this theory. If we did, we’d read Cosmopolitan instead of Maxim.
So that we don’t get confused, I think that a guy consuming men’s magazines to look at half-naked pictures of celebrities can be disrespectful to his significant other, and he should certainly respect her feelings about it. However, I don’t think that this “private use” is disrespectful to women in general. I certainly don’t go knocking on doors telling single women to throw away their vibrators because they offend me.
I also understand how seeing these images on newsstands can make one “cringe,” as Vered said. The cover of Men’s Health, to which I was briefly a subscriber, certainly made me cringe on more than one occasion. However, I stand fast in my belief that the mere existence of these magazines is not degrading to women in general.
Baldi responds:
Posted: October 8th, 2008 at 8:12 am →
Some of you are probably going to hate, but I love watching women. I mean I watch women that are attractive to me, and not just according to some magazine’s definition. There are so many models or “beautiful people” whom I just do not consider my type. On the other hand there are others who do fit my definition of pretty / attractive. Interestingly, my type are not restricted by weight, ethnicity, height etc. And the definition of my type has also changed many times. Its amazing how many different attributes can be attractive at different times and on reflection many should be mutually exclusive. Some of the crushes I have had would not be classified by the media as the ideal of attractiveness, but there was an attraction (great smile, eyes, some other physical or personality attribute that clicked). The point probably is that fantasy life and real life is separate. In my opinion not all our fantasies are really meant to be acted out. I have heard some people say that once they achieved their fantasies, they were not mentally titillating any more; also experienced it myself. The human condition; desire the unattainable, or if you attin it shift your focus to another unattainable…
Baldi responds:
Posted: October 8th, 2008 at 8:13 am →
Missed out a word in the above post meant to type that some will probably hate me.
The world needs a blog software with grammar and spellchecker
MomGrind responds:
Posted: October 8th, 2008 at 10:23 am →
Baldi: How can anyone hate someone without knowing them? I prefer the word “disagree”.
If I were sure that people can fully separate fantasy from reality, I wouldn’t be concerned about any of this. But I don’t think complete separation is possible. So, if we keep seeing images in the media that show women as nothing but sexual objects – I worry that it could affect our perception of women in real life.
D responds:
Posted: October 8th, 2008 at 11:09 am →
Why, pray tell, did Carojay’s last comment get in while mine did not? Mine was just as objective and far less insulting. I felt I made some good points, and I mostly agreed with you.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: October 8th, 2008 at 12:52 pm →
It got caught in the spam filter. I pulled it out.
D responds:
Posted: October 8th, 2008 at 12:53 pm →
Thanks Vered. Disregard.
Baldi responds:
Posted: October 9th, 2008 at 9:01 am →
I am 43 years old. A question to the people here of my age or above…
How many of you perceived the other sex as sexual objects in your teens and 20s? No sugar coating please. If my generation went through hormonal changes and sexual urges at a time when the magazines were not so overtly sexual (sexist yes, sexual no), then may we not ascribe that to biological instincts? Admiring someone sexually is not a crime, imposing our desires / attitudes on a non consenting person is. If we didn’t have a built in urge, hardly anyone would get into bed with some one
Stacie responds:
Posted: October 9th, 2008 at 7:48 pm →
@ Baldi:
I am younger than the people from which you are looking for a response, but I want to say something about your comment: “Admiring someone sexually is not a crime, imposing our desires / attitudes on a non consenting person is.” That is exactly the problem. If a single man, or a man with a woman who does not mind, looks at porn in private, that is his decision. The magazines in question, though not quite porn, are pushed into view of us all, with or without our consent.
@ D:
The same problem I just mentioned to Baldi exists with vibrators. The vibrators are not on sale at the local gas station or Walmart (at least not where I live) where everyone is exposed to them on a routine basis the way that sexually explicit images of women are. It is a matter of consenting to view something sexual in nature, and being exposed to it against your own will. Women should not have to view these things if they do not want to do so.
Baldi responds:
Posted: October 9th, 2008 at 8:48 pm →
One more point to think about. Porn existed in Victorian times. There was a large underground distribution network. The publications on display were very straightlaced. So the point seems to be that items that people may find offensive should not be displayed to the whole public. But who will decide what is offensive and what not? Where is the dividing line? Should there be a law and censorship of publications? Should some publications currently in supermarkets be moved to adult only stores?
On the topic of objectification of people, we can all play our role by teaching our kids to respect all human beings. If we are consistent in our actions and teachings, our kids will have a balanced view. With our need as humans to be admired by the opposite gender, there will always be a focus on looks as that is the first thing everyone displays / sees. The relative importance of looks, politeness, gentleness, kindness, sense of humour is perhaps the crux of the matter. Each of us places the above qualities elsewhere in the scale of importance.
D responds:
Posted: October 13th, 2008 at 9:10 am →
@Stacie:
That is just like saying I shouldn’t have to look at NFL team logos if I don’t want to, but people wearing licensed T-shirts force me to. Everyone is offended by something, but as Vered conceded earlier, the First Amendment protects a lot of things that offend a lot of people. The simple solution is just not to look, if it bothers you that much. I think tampon commercials are largely tacky and disgusting, but no one cares that I’ve been exposed to them even though I have never been, and do not plan to be, a consumer of tampons. So, if I absolutely cannot stand 30 seconds of advertising, I simply change the channel. More than likely there will soon be a tampon commercial on whatever channel I switch to, but c’est la vie.
Anonymous responds:
Posted: October 13th, 2008 at 12:11 pm →
While I am not disagreeing with your point here- I noticed that these are all men’s magazines. They are all very obviously targeted at men. If you look at a “W” magazine or even most Cosmopolitan issues, the women are usually fully clothed. Quite often there will be half naked men in the women’s magazines too.
As I said, I am not completely disagreeing with your point- I just think that saying that men are always photographed as powerful and woman are photographed as pieces of meat is too general of statement and it really depends what specific magazine are being looked at.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: October 13th, 2008 at 12:53 pm →
@ Anonymous: I guess in my ideal world, women would not be reduced into sexual objects even on men’s magazines… thank you for joining the discussion!
JustMe responds:
Posted: October 13th, 2008 at 5:28 pm →
D: The problem of just not looking at magazines that objectify women is that those magazines are still there and they still portray women in a very one-dimensional fashion.
The tampon commercials may be disgusting to you (and I feel the same way about the near-constant barrage of erectile dysfunction commercials) but they do not objectify one segment of society. They do not make men feel inferior (I’m pretty sure about this).
The same cannot be said about half-dressed (or less) women on men’s magaazines. The message that most women and girls get, to some degree, is that they had better be beautiful. If you are not, you are worthless. Nothing else you could ever hope to achieve is going to be valued as much as how you look.
Girls in the formative years are especially vulnerable to this message, but I think that all women assimilate it to some degree.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: October 13th, 2008 at 5:33 pm →
@ JustMe: “Nothing else you could ever hope to achieve is going to be valued as much as how you look.
Girls in the formative years are especially vulnerable to this message, but I think that all women assimilate it to some degree.” – It’s true. I know I do.
Willy responds:
Posted: October 13th, 2008 at 6:22 pm →
No 5-year-old looks at these magazines and thinks “My smarts are worthless and if I don’t become anorexic and stupid, I’ll never be successful.” All they think is “She should put some clothes on.” Seriously, when was the last time you knew a 5-year-old that had profound inner reflections? The assimilation to the idea of having to be beautiful is a natural instinct…. Men are naturally attracted to more beautiful women. Does this mean we only care about beauty? Of course not, and to presume so is insulting and ridiculous. All it means is that our ancestors living in caves preferred their mate to not have diseases. All physical attraction is built on today is the signs of health waaaaay back before civilization even started.
And let’s face it, if a magazine cover has more sway over your daughter’s views on the world and on her own self-image than your parenting does, you’ve failed as a mother (or father).
MomGrind responds:
Posted: October 14th, 2008 at 11:51 am →
@ Willy: “if a magazine cover has more sway over your daughter’s views on the world and on her own self-image than your parenting does, you’ve failed as a mother (or father).” Our kids listen to us in the early years, but there’s a point when peers become more important and parental influence fades. Sure, we must do everything we can to build their self confidence and self respect while they’re still very young, but at some point, societal attitudes and messages will become powerful influences in their lives whether we like it or not. My own parents did a wonderful job of teaching me to respect myself – it’s no coincidence that I chose to marry a man that truly loves me and respects me – but I am still influenced by the media, and I was certainly influenced by it throughout my teens.
JustMe responds:
Posted: October 14th, 2008 at 4:14 pm →
Willy — you claim to find ridiculous and insulting the notion that men only care about physical beauty and then go on to state the reasons why men ARE mostly interested in physical beauty. Exactly which position do you want us to believe?
Willy responds:
Posted: October 14th, 2008 at 9:41 pm →
@MomGrind: If you don’t view yourself as a worthless sex object, than you are living proof of exactly what I said. Had you got terrible parenting, don’t you think you would have a far greater chance of viewing yourself that way? The media has zero sway over any of my opinions, including my views of women, which are mostly formed by my dad, who taught me utmost respect for women. I was raised right. It sounds like you were, too.
@JustMe: The two are not mutually exclusive….I said men are attracted to physical beauty to an extent. I never said we mostly or only are attracted to it. So I still say the same: to presume that is the only thing we are attracted to is ridiculous and insulting. That’s the same thing as saying that if you think a man’s height is important at all in your attraction to them that automatically that’s the only thing that matters.
JustMe responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 3:45 am →
Willy — I was simply mirroring back what you said. There was only a question. You claimed on the one hand to find the notion that men are shallow to be insulting, but then all your evidence pointed out why men ARE that shallow.
I really don’t think all men are only interested in physical beauty. However, I think that’s definitely top priority for the consumers of the types of magazines that we’re talking about here.
Women are interested in male attractiveness, too; but we know that other qualities are really more important. We don’t find it necessary to devote entire genres of magazines to ogling male beauty. Sure, there are some magazines with suggestive pictures of men, but not nearly to the extent that men’s magazines abound.
I admit some women can be shallow, too. I like to think that is not true for the vast majority of all people.
Willy responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 7:30 am →
So basically, you’re saying that women can be mildly attracted to physical traits, and still put more priority on deeper things, but men are physically incapable of not being shallow. Ok, this discussion is clearly falling on deaf ears.
Baldi responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 8:18 am →
But, but, but, I WANT to be perceived as the sexiest, hunkiest male around
Doesn’t even matter if thats true or not (actually its not true, as you may have guessed). I want to be the ideal of male beauty to at least a few people.
Seriously, human beings’ self image IS largely based on how they look to others and the feedback they receive on it. Of all the compliments I received (and I can count them all), the ones about my looks were my fondest memories. Perhaps I am flawed, but then I assume I also have a lot of company
JustMe responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 10:09 am →
Willy,
You seem to be intent on pulling messages out of my comments that are CLEARLY not what I stated (or remotely intended.)
I give up. You are going to see what you want to see.
Baldi,
It was going to be a surprise, but I was planning on nominating you for People’s next “Sexiest Man Alive” issue!!
MomGrind responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 11:33 am →
Moderating these comments is a full time job.
Willy responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 12:58 pm →
JustMe,
Just one more thing I have to know before I give up on you entirely… what exactly is your point in attempting to pin men as shallow? It’s completely off the point of the article and all my previous arguments.
D responds:
Posted: October 22nd, 2008 at 10:01 am →
Vered, this is my last comment on this post, ever, I promise. But poor Willy is taking an undeserved beating here, so here goes.
@JustMe:
Actually READ what Willy said. Here is the part you took issue with and misrepresented:
“The assimilation to the idea of having to be beautiful is a natural instinct…. Men are naturally attracted to more beautiful women. Does this mean we only care about beauty? Of course not, and to presume so is insulting and ridiculous. All it means is that our ancestors living in caves preferred their mate to not have diseases. All physical attraction is built on today is the signs of health waaaaay back before civilization even started.”
I will now paraphrase what he said:
1. Attraction is based on physical attractiveness. (My note: To say that this is untrue, weak, or morally wrong is to deny the influence of nature, even apart from any belief in evolutionary theory.)
2. The fact that we are attracted to that which is attractive does not mean we think in one dimension.
3. Natural physical attraction is based on a biological preference for healthy mates.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: October 22nd, 2008 at 11:49 am →
@ D: No problem.. comment away. My only job here is to make sure comments are free of personal insults, and yours is fine.
Funny Hairstyles | responds:
Posted: October 26th, 2008 at 7:02 pm →
[...] you enjoyed this post, you might also enjoy these: Top Ten Fashion Mistakes Powerful Men, Half-Naked Women You Read Women’s Magazines? I’ll Give You Ten Reasons To Stop 10 Bizarre Ads: What [...]
Scarlet responds:
Posted: October 27th, 2008 at 7:22 am →
Being new to this website I must cofess I am a little overwhelmed by the amount of thats going on here; some extremely powerful content!
xx
I am not a self procclaimed feminist, however I do believe firmly in equality, mutual & self respect and a ‘decent’, broad social education. As someone who was always brought up with these values I have shared your oppinions on the media for quite some time now, but have never stood back and looked at a magazine stand in quite that way!! The wider image is shocking!
I consider myself an attractive woman and love my image…an oppinion achieved via a good upbringing, not make-up and diets!….,I take pride in my image because it feels good to look good. My chosen style is inspired by the forties look of rolled hair, red lipstick and pencil skirts. Does this make me a bad advert?? I NEVER ‘display’ myself & have friends who are very honest about the line between looking good and looking like I AM good!! What shocks me is that some people, including people I know, catagorise the care of ones own appearance under the same heading as posing in lace and stockings while your boobs poke a photographers eye out!! Its as though women can’t wear flattering clothes and eyeliner without being labelled as ‘provokative’!
The tought of recieving money for being naked I find, personally, repulsive, and when my time comes to raise a child they will soon understand the necesity of equal rights and self awareness. Is it not sad that it is, in places, frowned upon to ‘dress up’ when you take your children out? And often the frowning comes from OTHER mums who have opted, with every right, for a tracksuit and trainers!! (I would like to clarify that when I say dressing up im not talking mini skirts & crop tops, but simply fitting items, the sort of flattering, classy tailoring you might more commonly associate with out-of-hours office wear.)
It doesn’t matter what you decide to wear, freedom of choice…etc. but how can we expect the men around us to respect that we have a right to look good without the sexual connetations if we don’t enforce this right within our own feminine circles? I have witnessed this behaviour first hand in the towns and cities local to me & quite honestly it saddens me that women, facing quite enough descrimination already, will do this to one another!! I think we’re long over due some infectious unity and understanding!!
Many Thanks if you have read my entire rant!
MomGrind responds:
Posted: October 27th, 2008 at 5:43 pm →
@ Scarlet: Of course I read your entire rant.
I agree. I do define myself as a feminist, and I have been told more than once that I can’t be a true feminist if I care about how I look. I too find it ridiculous and agree that there’s a big difference between looking good, or looking feminine, and dressing provocatively.
How To Get More Blog Subscribers | responds:
Posted: November 4th, 2008 at 9:32 pm →
[...] have no doubt that if I were a “real” mommy blogger, or if I wrote exclusively on, say, feminism, I would have more subscribers. In my case it’s worth it, because limiting myself to a niche [...]
Women Who Say No To Photoshopping | responds:
Posted: November 16th, 2008 at 3:39 pm →
[...] MomGrind: Plastic Surgery Pressure Media Portrayal Of Women You Read Women’s Magazines? I’ll Give You 10 Reasons To [...]
Plastic Surgery Pressure | responds:
Posted: November 20th, 2008 at 10:03 am →
[...] Women’s Magazines Beauty Standards Have Sure Changed Non-Botoxed Actresses. Awesome. Media Portrayal Of Women Subscribe: Email Or Feed [...]
I Read A Vogue Article And Now My Brain Hurts | responds:
Posted: November 26th, 2008 at 8:23 am →
[...] this article? Try these too: Media Portrayal Of Women Women Who Say No To Photoshopping Plastic Surgery Pressure Beauty Standards Have Sure Changed [...]
Female Athletes Say Skimpy Outfits Are Not Sexist | responds:
Posted: December 1st, 2008 at 9:51 pm →
[...] possible answer was given elsewhere by one of my readers, Computer Addict. According to him, these women are “willing participants in an enterprise predicated on [...]
elle responds:
Posted: December 3rd, 2008 at 10:47 am →
Agreed. It seems that for women it’s almost exclusively about looks, doesn’t it? And as a feminist, it makes me sad to realize we haven’t come that long a way, baby. It is alarming that women have to take off their clothes to make money in the entertainment industry. In movies, just like on the covers of these magazines, who is undressed most often? Women. When an actress reaches a certain age (35 or so) she is never heard of again. And it’s kind of pathetic when an older actress, most often, has fallen out of favor the come back remedy of choice (or is it a choice?) is posing for playboy.
Respecting the newscaster deal: do young, glamorous female newscasters allow men to absorb current events more easily? I mean, WTF. A man can be old as dirt, and not so easy on the eyes and he reads the news forever. But with the women we’re treated to a new cavalcade of bathing beauties every year. All this demonstrates to me that it is truly a man’s world and that a woman’s role in it is to look good, spread her legs, and have the children. That’s our value. Once this is no longer possible, we become non-entities.
Willy responds:
Posted: December 3rd, 2008 at 12:14 pm →
Gosh, you’re so right. You have no place in society except at a stove. And that’s how everyone in the world looks at you. So go watch the View with a box of tissues and cry your eyes out.
Or get over it, stop complaining, and do something about it.
Your choice.
sara responds:
Posted: December 14th, 2008 at 11:14 pm →
radar is not a sleazy magazine, it is a satirical magazine, and often blatantly photoshops the heads of famous people onto ridiculous pictures. You would actually probably like it, if you read it.
Kenwood Chef Ad | responds:
Posted: December 20th, 2008 at 3:19 pm →
[...] Articles: Media Portrayal Of Women Women’s [...]
Sexist Vintage Ads: Women Are Stupid | responds:
Posted: December 20th, 2008 at 3:23 pm →
[...] Articles: Media Portrayal Of Women Women’s [...]
Sexist Flight Attendants Outfits | responds:
Posted: December 20th, 2008 at 3:25 pm →
[...] reading: Media Portrayal Of Women Women’s Magazines Indian air hostesses too fat to fly Being overweight won’t fly – not [...]
Sexist Fifties Ad | responds:
Posted: December 20th, 2008 at 3:27 pm →
[...] Reading: Media Portrayal Of Women Women’s [...]
Beautiful Women, Rich Men | responds:
Posted: December 20th, 2008 at 3:29 pm →
[...] Articles: Media Portrayal Of Women Women’s Magazines Bookmark this on [...]
Ageism Is The Last Acceptable Form Of Discrimination | responds:
Posted: January 10th, 2009 at 12:51 pm →
[...] Articles: Media Portrayal Of Women Women’s Magazines Subscribe: Email Or Feed [...]
20 Ways To Help Your Child Develop A Positive Self Image | responds:
Posted: January 12th, 2009 at 9:43 am →
[...] partner, she doesn’t need a man to rescue her: she can take care of herself; talk about the media, advertising and photo retouching; point out to strong female role models and let her know she can [...]
Desi responds:
Posted: January 14th, 2009 at 11:20 pm →
Okie. I know it’s really super wrong, but I’m bisexual and see the reason for both these types of pictures. Unfortunately magazine editors are not worried about the image problems they create in people, they are simply trying to sell magazines. But that’s a fair thing because we all want to make money. Now the best way to do this is to attack the subconscious. The typical male wants to feel wanted and enticed and subconsciously sees this as an opportunity at a family, at a pretty (and in evolutionary talk meaning perfectly able and willing to have children, wait, scratch that, HIS children thus carrying on his genes for another generation) woman. It’s a sexual draw that has been used to attract males for eons. Why do you girls primp before they go outside? Why do we even shampoo and condition our hair…? For women, we are wired to want a powerful, strong male (no, this does NOT diminish the female role in whichever role she decides to play. We are designed to do this because males have much more testosterone which makes them more aggressive and more protective of what they decide to consider theirs.) So having a half naked, sexually available male portrayed for us is the close second to the well dressed, well portrayed guy.
On the opposite, guys subconsciously know women want this and want to be portrayed this way and they want to be that way. Girls want to be sexually appealing and appear available to attract the males so they look to be portrayed like this.
elle responds:
Posted: January 15th, 2009 at 1:43 pm →
This is never going to change. As long as men are visually oriented and there’s a market for porn (make no mistake that MAXIM and all that is soft porn) then magazines will continue to cater to this clientel. I find it disturbing that porn has gone main stream. Children have access, it’s thrown up in our faces whenever we go to the grocery store. I’m fully for keeping it behind brown paper again and keeping it out of circulation in civil society.
I’m not advocating going back to the sexual oppression of earlier years, but imho, we could cover it up a little. It’s almost as if society has said to women, you want your little sexual revolution? Okay you whore, we’ll give it to you with both barrells. Even “respectable” women will be made out as whores. It’ll be sex, sex, sex, all the live long day.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: January 15th, 2009 at 3:59 pm →
@ Desi: I like to think that people are more than their biological urges.
@ elle: “I find it disturbing that porn has gone main stream” – I agree.
SayBlade responds:
Posted: April 8th, 2009 at 1:56 pm →
I remember when entering adulthood in her career Britney Spears first shed her teeny bopper image along with some clothes. A male colleague where I worked cheerily commented that she was “all growed up.” Thinking about that, I wondered if that means that men never grow up.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: April 12th, 2009 at 9:42 pm →
@ SayBlade: Good point. I guess they don’t!
Richard responds:
Posted: September 12th, 2009 at 2:23 am →
What I find ironic and sadly hilarious are the adverts at the top of this page:
One is for “Flirt Xchange” – a chatting, camming, dating site.
The other is asking, “Want to be a model? Launch your Career. STARNOW”.
It seems that we can’t get away from such adertising or sexualising for money anywhere. And sadly this doesn’t surprise me. It’s all money driven in my opinion.
kjeads responds:
Posted: November 12th, 2009 at 11:41 am →
I was so relieved to hear others speak of outrage against semi-nudity in female models. I have mixed feelings about where to place responsibility. On one hand, advertising companies and the media are accountable for a big part of the problem. The models themselves also own a big portion of the responsibility. Not all women in fashion or TV undress for the sake of the almighty dollar. I truly believe there are women out there who enjoy showing off their stuff and it may give them an adrenaline rush and a big ego boost. Sadly, they are setting extremely poor examples for our youth. We live in a youth-centered society that is increasingly revolving around sex and money. That’s a huge temptation to lull a little girl away from. When she sees all the attention half naked girls get from the opposite sex, it’s a monumental job to help her understand that that’s not the kind of attention she wants. I explain to my little girl that she is gorgeous on the outside but what’s more important? And she answers, ‘what’s in my heart.’ I’ve been teaching her this from the day she could understand my words. Because, I tell her, there are many beautiful people on the outside who are absolutely hideous on the inside and so, their insides make thier outsides quite ugly. And, conversely, there are people who others might not think are pretty on the outside but who’s insides are so delightfully beautiful that it shines out and makes them pretty all over.
And since I’m sharing, can I complain about Victoria’s Secret? I used to shop their 20 years ago when it was classy, elusive and elegant. They didn’t have models in the windows and there was an understated elegance and an alluring mystique to it. You walked in and there was classical music playing and they offered a plethora of beautiful bedroom items to choose from. Now, it’s turned to trash. And they have 12 foot tall pictures in the windows of women in provocative, half-there underwear. Why? Are they not selling to women? I don’t want to look at naked women! And why has it become acceptable? We are not allowed to walk around the malls in our underwear, so why is it okay to post giant pictures of women in provocative positions, sometimes in the throws of passion, in skimpy underwear? Now, they may fight that they have ‘rights.’ The right to advertise. What about my rights? What about my children’s rights? Don’t we have the right not to be exposed to someone’s half naked body? If the law says we must not walk about indecently, then why are they allowed to advertise indecency?
I have started shopping at stores that don’t plaster the checkout lines with magazines (it’s a small list of places). And the places that do have magazines at the checkout lines, I try to avoid looking. I truly believe the advertisers want we women to feel like crap so we’ll buy more stuff. The worse we feel, the more we’ll spend to feel better and look better. I have also called managers over to complain about indecent magazine displays. One time at CVS I was on the childrens aisle picking out crayons and craft paper with my children when I turned to the other side of the aisle and was face to face with a Maxxim magazine…half naked, giant, mostly exposed boobs! I called the manager over and pointed to the crayons on one side and ‘Miss Half Naked-Big Boobies’ on the direct opposite side and asked him, ‘don’t you see the irony here? Doesn’t this seem a little incongruous to you?’ He said that those magazines pay high dollars to get the front line display. I suggested he find another aisle to display the magazines, away from the children’s items. I have no idea how it turned out. He probably thought I was a prude.
I’m not a prude. I’m a healthy red-blooded American woman. But there’s a time and a place for nudity and sexuality.
And if sex sells, it sells to more men than women and are men so obtuse and unevolved that they can’t see a manipulation when it’s glaring them in the face? Why on earth would any intelligent, evolved and intuitive man buy something because there was a half-naked beautiful women displayed with the ad? It makes me shake my head in wonder. There was a time when men valued modesty in women. There was a time when men didn’t value whorish dress and immodest behavior. It seems that sleaze has become the in trend in fashion.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: November 12th, 2009 at 1:16 pm →
kjeads, wow, thank you for your comment! I think I can safely say it is at least as powerful as the original article.
elle responds:
Posted: November 12th, 2009 at 4:04 pm →
I’m not a prude. I’m a healthy red-blooded American woman. But there’s a time and a place for nudity and sexuality.
You hit it on the nail. Like you, I’m no prude. But it seems that porn – and make no mistake that VS is porn – has become increasingly main stream and I find it disturbing. It seems to me there should be a balance between Victorian sensibilities and letting it all hang out. There is indeed a time and place for nudity and sexuality and it’s NOT everywhere and anywhere. I completely abhor the cheapening of sex.
I don’t know what the answer is. I know that men actually are obtuse when it comes to media images of idealized women. That’s why porno sells, why the Victoria Secret fashion show gets so many viewers, why Sports Illustrated has a women’s swimsuit issue which has absolutely nothing to do with sports. As long as men are visual, lust driven creatures who rule the world – and women continue to be on the bottom so to speak, it’s not going to change.
I think once we become more equal, more women in politics making decisions, then we can demand that our sexuality and our bodies not be commoditized to the extent that they are. I know some women think it’s empowerment to be freely sexual and pose for playboy, etc. But who are we kidding? I don’t see anything empowering about feeling compelled to show your breasts if you’re a young actress trying to make it, or having to strip to pay for school, or wear skimpy clothing to waitress.
If it were up to me, I would put an end to exploitation of women’s sexuality. No more Hooters, no more Lingerie Football League, no more soft-porn lingerie modeling, no more Girls Gone Wild, no more Sports Illustrated, no more Miss America, Miss Teen America, Miss Tiny Tot, no more mainstream movie female frontal nudity unless there is equal male frontal nudity, no more porn. Did you know that porn makes men love the women they are with less?
Lizzie Miller Glamour Magazine responds:
Posted: December 22nd, 2009 at 11:57 am →
[...] to look. Whoever claims that women should “know better,” and should ignore media portrayal of women, is either naive or stupid. We can’t ignore these images. They have power over us. They are [...]
MomGrind: Best of 2008 responds:
Posted: December 22nd, 2009 at 4:27 pm →
[...] Media Portrayal of Women. One of the first feminist posts I wrote on this blog. I wrote it after viewing a magazine display [...]
monique responds:
Posted: February 16th, 2010 at 9:55 pm →
I agree with you 100% MomGrind !!! When I was a child I remember being mortified by seeing hard core
pornography at Drug Fair, High’s etc. The magazines would be out in the open without any brown wrappers
covering them up…I remember telling the cashier’s at these stores that it was degrading and
harmful to females and as an adult I still see vulgar magazines with scantily clad women in the
grocery stores, at the libraries etc….the women are almost naked, the men are fully dressed.
I hate the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit sexploitation issue, I hate the Women’s Beach Volleyball thongs,
and don’t get me started on beauty pageants.
monique responds:
Posted: February 17th, 2010 at 3:10 pm →
I am disgusted with the diet commercials……. they always have women in tiny bikini’s while the men are
wearing shorts past their knees….over and over I have seen one rediculous t.v. commercial where the
camera zooms onto the women’s Buttocks while running in a teeny tiny vulgar pink bikini……the travel commercials
also have the women weaing up the ass lowcut swimsuits…..one t.v. ad had a women wearing a thong
swinging on a rope. I HATE THIS !!!!!!
International Women’s Day 2010 | Blogger For Hire responds:
Posted: March 8th, 2010 at 11:11 am →
[...] not there yet, and while some of my readers argue that my focus on media portrayal of women is wrong – that we have the choice to simply not consume those images, that the media [...]