British Esquire editor stands by comments: Women are ‘ornamental’—just like cars

[garbon]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/esquire-women-ornamental-sexist-alex-bilmes-162452500.html

The editor of Esquire's British edition is not backing down from his controversial comments that the women featured in the magazine are "ornamental," and he says he doesn't understand what the fuss is about.

"I stand by what I said, albeit while accepting I didn't put it very well," Alex Bilmes wrote in a post on the magazine's website. "I do find the response to a simple statement of fact slightly baffling."

The controversy began last week during an Advertising Week Europe panel discussion in London, where Bilmes—appearing alongside Cosmopolitan U.K. editor Louise Court—compared women to "cool cars."

"The women we feature in the magazine are ornamental," Bilmes said. "I could lie to you if you want and say we are interested in their brains as well. We are not. They are objectified."

He added, "We provide pictures of girls in the same way we provide pictures of cool cars. It is ornamental. Women's magazines do the same thing."
The Guardian published Bilmes' comments along with video of the panel, sparking fury among readers who saw them as sexist.

"Being honest about objectifying women isn't anything to brag about," one commenter wrote.

"An overtly sexist man may be more honest than a covertly sexist one but does that make him any better?" asked another.

"[Bilmes] said the women's magazine industry and advertising targeting women were primarily responsible for perpetuating stereotyped and negative images of women," another commenter wrote, "which he appears not enlightened enough to challenge or change in his own magazine. He seems to be holding the worst examples of women's objectification as some sort of benchmark worth reaching."

In his column, Bilmes tried to clarify his approach to putting women in Esquire:

Here's what I was trying to get across before we ran out of time.

Esquire is a men's magazine, for men. It's no more for women than Cosmo is for men. When we are considering whether or not to photograph a woman for the cover our first question to ourselves is: is she conventionally sexually attractive? In other words, is she likely to appeal aesthetically to the biggest number of potential male readers? There are other criteria: does she have cultural currency, do we like her stuff, is she worth celebrating, will she agree to it, will she say something funny/entertaining/enlightening? But most of all, we wonder: is she hot? Will our readers agree that she's hot? Ornamental, see?

Can anyone truly be surprised about this? Did everyone think it was an accident that the women who appear on the covers of men's magazines are uniformly ridiculously good looking? Do they actually think it's somehow wrong that we find these women attractive? Do they find the male libido revolting? What exactly is the problem here?

He then used "Girls" star Lena Dunham to illustrate his point:

Why haven't I asked Lena Dunham to be on the cover of Esquire? I could give you some mealy mouthed reasons: like, her show is aimed at young women, not men, and as a result many of our readers will not have heard of her or, if they have, will not be interested in her. But the main reason is that she doesn't look like an Esquire covergirl. 'Girls' wouldn't work if she did. That's kind of the point of it: most young women are not, never have been and never will be the poised, perfect, blemish free, sexually confident, expensively dressed and groomed creatures depicted in glossy magazines (men's magazines and women's magazines), in advertising, and elsewhere in the media. Lena Dunham is a brilliant, brazen, necessary corrective to that. This makes me want to watch her show but it doesn't make me want to put her on the cover of Esquire. It's not my job to provide positive role models for young women, or to challenge the homogeneity of representations of young women in the media. I'm a men's magazine editor. I supply entertainment for men.

[11B4V]

Unless they can chop wood.

[Valmy]

I am not really sure how to respond to this.  I mean this is what models and magazine coverpeople are used for: to sell magazines (and other things).  To claim they are being objectified is sort of a weird way to put it, I mean they are providing a service by helping you sell crap.  But I guess if you want to put it like that how is it different than any of the other pretty people in magazines?

But I was never very clear on what the actual line one must cross to objectify somebody.  I mean you sorta know it when you see it and all but it seems going a bit too far to denounce all pretty people photos in magazines used to sell things.

And just to clear up the thread title it seems pretty clear the dude is only saying this about the women in his magazine not women in general.

[merithyn]

It's not my job to provide positive role models for young women, or to challenge the homogeneity of representations of young women in the media. I'm a men's magazine editor. I supply entertainment for men.

This is the part that bothers me. I do think that it is his responsibility to take this into account, just as I believe that it's Cosmo's responsibility. As a presenter of information to the public, I feel that there is an inherent responsibility to be socially aware of what your publication presents and the affect that will have on the public. Simply saying, "it's entertainment" isn't good enough. There is a certain amount of expectations in movies, in newspapers, video games, etc., to not portray all women as bimbettes and purely sexual objects, which is pretty much accepted as the norm anymore. And somehow this man thinks that his particular magazine should get a pass.

I understand where he's coming from, but I don't agree with him. Which is going to get me strung up verbally on Languish, but so be it. 

[Valmy]

I understand where he's coming from, but I don't agree with him. Which is going to get me strung up verbally on Languish, but so be it. 

Nah they will just say things to try to piss you off.

I guess I am not clear on the definitions here.  If you are using pretty people to sell products, a lifestyle, a fantasy or whatever they are going for at Esquire what is the point that it becomes objectification?  Is Esquire somehow more crass and more objectifying than other magazines?  I mean this douchey Esquire guy may believe he is doing that but that seems going a bit far to me.

[derspiess]

It's entertainment.  Let us be entertained and don't force fat acceptance on us. 

[garbon]

It's entertainment.  Let us be entertained and don't force fat acceptance on us. 

But it isn't just entertainment, of course. Media portrayals do have an affect on people.

[Richard Hakluyt]

It is not as if Esquire is some unique snowflake in the world of glossy "lifestyle" magazines, they are mainly shit. So what do we do about it? Ban them because we are more enlightened  ?

[Valmy]

But it isn't just entertainment, of course. Media portrayals do have an affect on people.

Well that is something different.  I don't think anybody would claim magazines like Esquire are big positive social forces.  They are very much lagging...erm...indicators.  Once things finally show up in something like Esquire you know it was probably on the social cutting edge 20 years ago.  I mean who even reads these mags anymore?

[garbon]

But it isn't just entertainment, of course. Media portrayals do have an affect on people.

Well that is something different.  I don't think anybody would claim magazines like Esquire are big positive social forces.  They are very much lagging...erm...indicators.  Once things finally show up in something like Esquire you know it was probably on the social cutting edge 20 years ago.  I mean who even reads these mags anymore?

I sometimes read GQ and Details.  Of course both have largely drifted into gay publications (though GQ will vehemently deny it).

[Malthus]

The guy is being pilloried for stating the obvious. He puts hot women on the cover of his mag to sell copies. Either he says as much (and gets shit for it) or he somehow denies it (and gets shit for hypocrisy). 

One thing is unlikey to change: "Esquire" may well go the way of the dodo, but people will still be selling stuff to men by associating hot women with the crap they are flogging into the foreseeable future. They will only stop doing so when it stops working as a sales tactic.

[merithyn]

But it isn't just entertainment, of course. Media portrayals do have an affect on people.

Exactly.

[Legbiter]

The guy is being pilloried for stating the obvious. He puts hot women on the cover of his mag to sell copies.

Yep.

Of course this sort of manufactured outrage is what frumps and feminists feed on.

[Valmy]

But it isn't just entertainment, of course. Media portrayals do have an affect on people.

Exactly.

Ok so...attractive people should not be used in media?  That in itself is objectification?  And you think not doing this is now the norm?

I do not get this guys bizarre 'we objectify women deal with it!' thing nor what his social responsibility is here he is shirking as editor of Esquire.

[Martinus]

It's entertainment.  Let us be entertained and don't force fat acceptance on us. 

But it isn't just entertainment, of course. Media portrayals do have an affect on people.

Let's hope so - maybe it will affect some of the "fat acceptance" pigs to lose some weight - or their husbands to dump them.