http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/esquire-women-ornamental-sexist-alex-bilmes-162452500.html
QuoteThe 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:
QuoteHere'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:
QuoteWhy 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.
Unless they can chop wood.
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.
QuoteIt'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. :sleep:
Quote from: merithyn on March 25, 2013, 02:15:27 PM
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. :sleep:
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.
It's entertainment. Let us be entertained and don't force fat acceptance on us.
Quote from: derspiess on March 25, 2013, 02:40:05 PM
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.
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 :P ?
Quote from: garbon on March 25, 2013, 02:43:05 PM
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?
Quote from: Valmy on March 25, 2013, 02:52:23 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 25, 2013, 02:43:05 PM
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).
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). :lol:
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.
Quote from: garbon on March 25, 2013, 02:43:05 PM
But it isn't just entertainment, of course. Media portrayals do have an affect on people.
Exactly.
Quote from: Malthus on March 25, 2013, 03:02:48 PM
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.
Quote from: merithyn on March 25, 2013, 03:06:05 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 25, 2013, 02:43:05 PM
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? :hmm:
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.
Quote from: garbon on March 25, 2013, 02:43:05 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 25, 2013, 02:40:05 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on March 25, 2013, 03:02:48 PM
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.
Sex will always sell...at least until we become sexless balls of light.
Quote from: Valmy on March 25, 2013, 03:13:14 PM
Quote from: merithyn on March 25, 2013, 03:06:05 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 25, 2013, 02:43:05 PM
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? :hmm:
Fat people should not be in the media as they provide wrong role models for easily impressionable people. Having fatsos is like having alcoholics and drug addicts as role models.
Quote from: garbon on March 25, 2013, 02:43:05 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 25, 2013, 02:40:05 PM
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.
Hush-- I was trying to bait Meri <_<
Ok are we actually going to discuss things like this or just troll Meri? :glare:
Quote from: Valmy on March 25, 2013, 03:23:01 PM
Ok are we actually going to discuss things like this or just troll Meri? :glare:
We can't do both? :(
Quote from: Valmy on March 25, 2013, 03:23:01 PM
Ok are we actually going to discuss things like this or just troll Meri? :glare:
I am discussing.
Quote from: Valmy on March 25, 2013, 03:23:01 PM
Ok are we actually going to discuss things like this or just troll Meri? :glare:
Okay, Jacob :rolleyes:
Maybe if women stopped acting like ornaments and putting their ankles over their ears for stupid shit like money, status or security, maybe they wouldn't be looked at as ornaments.
Quote from: Valmy on March 25, 2013, 03:23:01 PM
Ok are we actually going to discuss things like this or just troll Meri? :glare:
I'm not sure how much there is to debate :hmm:
In the absence of censorship then there is a niche in the market for magazines like Esquire which focus on a relatively trivial selection of things that some men find interesting. That niche does not seem to be as big as the plethora of women's magazines that (IMO) objectify women just as badly. But I don't think any of us would want to suppress these publications.
Quote from: Valmy on March 25, 2013, 03:13:14 PM
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? :hmm:
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.
:huh: I never said that the new norm didn't involve objectification. I said that when it comes to movies et al, there is a growing understanding that what is shown has an affect on the audience. Because of this, there are more movies with different types of "attractive", and at least a nod (albeit a shallow one) toward seeing these attractive people as, you know, people as well as just attractive things there to decorate.
This guy, on the other hand, holds to a single type of "attractive" and makes no effort to show them as anything other than an "ornament". On top of that, he openly states that the women in his magazine aren't meant to be "people" at all, merely ornaments.
I have no issue with his having beautiful women on his magazine cover. It's his magazine, and he can do as he pleases. I do not, however, agree that his perspective is something laudable. I believe that as a member of the publishing world, there's a certain level of responsibility to treat humans as something other than ornaments.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 25, 2013, 03:32:58 PM
In the absence of censorship then there is a niche in the market for magazines like Esquire which focus on a relatively trivial selection of things that some men find interesting. That niche does not seem to be as big as the plethora of women's magazines that (IMO) objectify women just as badly. But I don't think any of us would want to suppress these publications.
My question was does this actually qualify as objectification? If it is just pictures of pretty people than objectification takes place all the time on a near constant basis and would apply to all ages and genders. I mean is this dude even right? It is not like the pictures of dudes in Esquire are not also carefully constructed to be attractive.
Quote from: derspiess on March 25, 2013, 03:25:40 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 25, 2013, 03:23:01 PM
Ok are we actually going to discuss things like this or just troll Meri? :glare:
Okay, Jacob :rolleyes:
Oh lighten up.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 25, 2013, 03:32:58 PM
I'm not sure how much there is to debate :hmm:
In the absence of censorship then there is a niche in the market for magazines like Esquire which focus on a relatively trivial selection of things that some men find interesting. That niche does not seem to be as big as the plethora of women's magazines that (IMO) objectify women just as badly. But I don't think any of us would want to suppress these publications.
I think the biggest difference between Esquire and the plethora of women's magazines is that Esquire is blatantly using sexy women as decorations. They are, as the editor said, no different than "things" like cars.
In women's magazines, there is at least a modicum of trying to make them appear to be people first, sexy second. The models in women's magazines are generally interacting in some fashion with their surroundings, doing things, showing their clothing, etc. It's not uncommon for a model to be told that she is being "too sexy" for some of the women's rags (though clearly Cosmo is the exception).
In Esquire, the women are basically just fucking the camera in a setting that happens to be there.
When Skynet takes over, all objectification (that is, men liking cute girls) will cease. Finally.
To reiterate:
The part that offends me the most is that he very specifically equates the women in his magazines to "things" such as hot cars. It may be just that he openly states it where others don't, but it's quite clear that the women in his magazine are not humans to him.
This may be the case in other magazines, but at least they usually make some token gesture toward treating the models as humans. In Esquire, that just doesn't seem to be the case, and it's clear in the way the photos are laid out compared to other magazines.
Quote from: Martinus on March 25, 2013, 03:16:16 PM
Skinny Fat Anyone not my ideal type of people should not be in the media as they provide wrong role models for easily impressionable people. Having too thin people fatsos anyone I don't particular find pleasing to me is like having alcoholics and drug addicts as role models.
:)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 25, 2013, 03:32:33 PM
Maybe if women stopped acting like ornaments and putting their ankles over their ears for stupid shit like money, status or security, maybe they wouldn't be looked at as ornaments.
This is true, though I doubt it.
Hey Marty do some bears complain about twink objectification in the gay community?
Quote from: Legbiter on March 25, 2013, 03:50:52 PM
Hey Marty do some bears complain about twink objectification in the gay community?
Yes because Marti is in touch with the wider gay community. :rolleyes:
Anyway, yes, of course.
Quote from: garbon on March 25, 2013, 03:51:36 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on March 25, 2013, 03:50:52 PM
Hey Marty do some bears complain about twink objectification in the gay community?
Yes because Marti is in touch with the wider gay community. :rolleyes:
Anyway, yes, of course.
They into fat acceptance as well?
Equire has an affect on women to the extent that the women want to be hott and turn to Esquire for tips on how to hotten up. They have no more responsibility to provide positive, supportive role models for women than a random person walking down the street does. Esquire doesn't value you for your brains and personality? So fucking what. Find your own validation.
Quote from: Legbiter on March 25, 2013, 03:52:44 PM
They into fat acceptance as well?
I've never heard anyone use the term fat acceptance. I would think generally recognized as unhealthy but they don't feel like changing...it's just a look.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2013, 03:52:53 PM
Equire has an affect on women to the extent that the women want to be hott and turn to Esquire for tips on how to hotten up. They have no more responsibility to provide positive, supportive role models for women than a random person walking down the street does. Esquire doesn't value you for your brains and personality? So fucking what. Find your own validation.
Actually, I feel the same way. My concern isn't for women, in this case. It's more that men see the women portrayed in Esquire, and then expect something similar in real life. Case in point, the sharp elbows meme. In addition, because there is no real humanity in the pics of the women, for those men inclined to already treat women as objects rather than people, it supports that conviction and does nothing to say, "Hey, asshole, women are actually human."
Who reads Esquire anyway? I had assumed that it was for aspirational wankers who hadn't succeeded yet and probably wouldn't............is that fair?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 25, 2013, 04:03:46 PM
Who reads Esquire anyway? I had assumed that it was for aspirational wankers who hadn't succeeded yet and probably wouldn't............is that fair?
I have no idea. Even the target audience, aspiring wankers, would be online these days I would think.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 25, 2013, 04:03:46 PM
Who reads Esquire anyway? I had assumed that it was for aspirational wankers who hadn't succeeded yet and probably wouldn't............is that fair?
They can look at the fancy cars and watches they will never buy, alongside pics of the hot women they will never date. :D
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 25, 2013, 04:03:46 PM
Who reads Esquire anyway? I had assumed that it was for aspirational wankers who hadn't succeeded yet and probably wouldn't............is that fair?
I think it's targeted at the post-collegiate entry level type that's graduated beyond whacking off to
Maxim in the dorm, but can't afford the shit in
GQ yet.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 25, 2013, 04:03:46 PM
Who reads Esquire anyway? I had assumed that it was for aspirational wankers who hadn't succeeded yet and probably wouldn't............is that fair?
Apparently British Esquire only has 56,000 as of Feb last year.
I'm staying out of this thread.
Quote from: garbon on March 25, 2013, 02:43:05 PM
But it isn't just entertainment, of course. Media portrayals do have an affect on people.
For example, how dating is portrayed in popular media...
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 25, 2013, 04:03:46 PM
Who reads Esquire anyway?
That was going to be my question as well.
Quote from: Jacob on March 25, 2013, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 25, 2013, 02:43:05 PM
But it isn't just entertainment, of course. Media portrayals do have an affect on people.
For example, how dating is portrayed in popular media...
:D
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 25, 2013, 04:12:49 PM
I'm staying out of this thread.
Why, we're talking
Esquire, not
Weirdo Twins Weekly.
Quote from: derspiess on March 25, 2013, 03:25:40 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 25, 2013, 03:23:01 PM
Ok are we actually going to discuss things like this or just troll Meri? :glare:
Okay, Jacob :rolleyes:
:hug:
Quote from: garbon on March 25, 2013, 04:12:29 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 25, 2013, 04:03:46 PM
Who reads Esquire anyway? I had assumed that it was for aspirational wankers who hadn't succeeded yet and probably wouldn't............is that fair?
Apparently British Esquire only has 56,000 as of Feb last year.
Well that is good news at least :cool:
Quote from: garbon on March 25, 2013, 04:12:29 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 25, 2013, 04:03:46 PM
Who reads Esquire anyway? I had assumed that it was for aspirational wankers who hadn't succeeded yet and probably wouldn't............is that fair?
Apparently British Esquire only has 56,000 as of Feb last year.
Heh. So maybe objectification of women doesn't sell? :D
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 25, 2013, 04:19:43 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 25, 2013, 04:12:49 PM
I'm staying out of this thread.
Why, we're talking Esquire, not Weirdo Twins Weekly.
:(
You'll pay in 15 years when they mindblast you to atoms.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 25, 2013, 04:22:46 PM
:(
You'll pay in 15 years when they mindblast you to atoms.
Stop collecting children as ornaments. :mad:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 25, 2013, 04:23:45 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 25, 2013, 04:22:46 PM
:(
You'll pay in 15 years when they mindblast you to atoms.
Stop collecting children as ornaments. :mad:
No.
Quote from: merithyn on March 25, 2013, 04:22:40 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 25, 2013, 04:12:29 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 25, 2013, 04:03:46 PM
Who reads Esquire anyway? I had assumed that it was for aspirational wankers who hadn't succeeded yet and probably wouldn't............is that fair?
Apparently British Esquire only has 56,000 as of Feb last year.
Heh. So maybe objectification of women doesn't sell? :D
Not the way Esquire does it, apparently!
Quote from: merithyn on March 25, 2013, 04:22:40 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 25, 2013, 04:12:29 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 25, 2013, 04:03:46 PM
Who reads Esquire anyway? I had assumed that it was for aspirational wankers who hadn't succeeded yet and probably wouldn't............is that fair?
Apparently British Esquire only has 56,000 as of Feb last year.
Heh. So maybe objectification of women doesn't sell? :D
Practical Caravan has a very similar circulation to that. It features homely middleaged women brewing up cups of tea for their beefy husbands as they cock-up yet another enhancement to their caravan.
.........or we have
Railway Modeller with its dreadful front-page objectification of steam engines, they are transport workhorses goddamit............not pinups.
I won't even go into the
Angling Times, front-page story "Top angler reveals 'smelly pellets' approach", a cruel objectification of our very own Ed Anger :mad:
Men are interested in all sorts of stuff, sometimes one gets a bit peeved with this focus on a particular little sub-class of men.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 25, 2013, 04:33:51 PM
Practical Caravan has a very similar circulation to that. It features homely middleaged women brewing up cups of tea for their beefy husbands as they cock-up yet another enhancement to their caravan.
.........or we have Railway Modeller with its dreadful front-page objectification of steam engines, they are transport workhorses goddamit............not pinups.
I won't even go into the Angling Times, front-page story "Top angler reveals 'smelly pellets' approach", a cruel objectification of our very own Ed Anger :mad:
Men are interested in all sorts of stuff, sometimes one gets a bit peeved with this focus on a particular little sub-class of men.
:cheers: My favorite post of the thread. Shockingly, it's from one of my favorite Languishtas.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 25, 2013, 04:33:51 PM
Practical Caravan has a very similar circulation to that. It features homely middleaged women brewing up cups of tea for their beefy husbands as they cock-up yet another enhancement to their caravan.
.........or we have Railway Modeller with its dreadful front-page objectification of steam engines, they are transport workhorses goddamit............not pinups.
I won't even go into the Angling Times, front-page story "Top angler reveals 'smelly pellets' approach", a cruel objectification of our very own Ed Anger :mad:
Men are interested in all sorts of stuff, sometimes one gets a bit peeved with this focus on a particular little sub-class of men.
:lol:
http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/03/womens-magazines-objectify-women-just-as-much-as-mens-magazines-do/274330/
QuoteWomen's Magazines Objectify Women Just as Much as Men's Magazines Do
What Esquire UK's editor got right—and wrong—about images of women in mainstream media
women's magazines often follow the same general formula. Men's magazines are mostly based around heavily eroticized images of women. And women's magazines are also based around heavily eroticized images of women.
I'm hardly the first person to point this out. Last week, as just one example, the editor of Esquire UK (disclosure: I wrote an article for the U.S. edition once) made the link. Alex Bilmes admitted that the women in the men's magazine were "objectified." He then added:
QuoteWe provide pictures of girls in the same way we provide pictures of cool cars. It is ornamental. Women's magazines do the same thing.
That last bit, is, obviously, meant as something of an excuse: Men's magazines objectify women, but women's magazines do it too, so how bad can it be? He went on to argue that women's magazines enforce more rigid and damaging beauty standards than Esquire does.
Amanda Marcotte cheerfully shredded Bilmes's self-serving and unconvincing rationalization, so I don't have to. But while Bilmes's effort to excuse himself is not particularly convincing, his argument still raises an interesting question. Namely, and again—why do women's magazines look so much like men's magazines? Why do Esquire and Vogue often look like they're selling the same gendered things when, in theory, they're selling them to different gendered people?
Sharon Marcus's 2007 book Between Women: Friendship, Desire, and Marriage in Victorian England provides some possible, and surprising, answers. The basic argument of Marcus's book is that, in Victorian England, intense friendships between women were seen as an essential part of heterosexual female identity. These friendships might be platonic, they could also be sexual, or they could be somewhere in the middle. But sexual or platonic or in the middle, they were perceived as normal. In other words, during this period, an eroticized interest in other women did not mean that a woman was a lesbian. It simply meant that she was a woman. As an example, Marcus quotes from the published memoir of the married Fanny Kemble, in which the actress says that upon seeing one particularly attractive woman, she found herself "wishing it were consistent with her comfort and the general decorum of modern manners that Isabella Forrester's gown could only slip entirely off her exquisite bust."
Again, the point here is not that Kemble was gay, but rather that there was nothing at the time considered odd or unusual about a heterosexual, married woman having this kind of erotic fantasy about another woman. Marcus goes on to connect these heterosexual, eroticized female-female bonds specifically to fashion magazines of the era. Then (as now) these magazines were a venue in which women were encouraged to actively participate in the admiration of other women's bodies.
Marcus suggests that this admiration was explicitly and intentionally erotic and as evidence she points to debates about birching in the Englishwoman's Domestic Magazine. These debates were a series of letters in England's leading fashion magazine devoted to the question of whether or not mothers should punish girls (especially those past puberty) with beatings. These letters were explicit, debating how and to what extent girls should be undressed—some arguing, for example, that girls must strip themselves in preparation for punishment, and dwelling on the relative merits of bare bottoms vs. the retention of underwear. Marcus says the letters also frequently picked up on the tropes and style of Victorian pornography, including "teasing delay, first-person testimony, and punning humor." Again, the link to a sex-drenched contemporary woman's magazine like, say, Cosmo, seems fairly obvious.
There are other similarities as well. Marcus points out that many Victorian women's magazines often showed women looking at other women in their images, explicitly inviting the reader to see herself as a woman seeing/appreciating/enjoying other women. This remains a common trope in contemporary fashion magazines as well. Here's an image from the Amazon.com/Fashion ad in April's Vogue.
Arm on shoulder, knees touching, hand in the pocket pointed down towards the crotch—and that intense look of fascination/desire, suggesting and modeling the reader's fascination/desire.
It's true we're a long way from the Victorian era in many ways. But still, the tropes and ideas Marcus identifies remain quite recognizable. Which means that in many ways Bilmes is more accurate than he suspects when he compares men's magazines to women's magazines. Not only do both kinds of magazines objectify women, but they both present images of women for similar—and similarly erotic—reasons. The reason images in men's magazines often look like images in women's magazines is that, despite the different audiences, they are both doing more or less the same thing. They are making women sexual objects, and serving them up to satisfy, or more likely to provoke, the desires of their readers.
Still, doing the same thing for different audiences ends up not being quite the same thing after all. Esquire is providing female bodies for men. It is telling men (as the editor himself says) that female bodies are objects to be used for their enjoyment. This is a pretty common message; men are in general and in lots of ways are told, day in, day out, that the world is organized for their erotic pleasure.
Women's magazines, on the other hand, are providing female bodies for women, and telling women that (other) female bodies are objects to be used for their enjoyment. This is a much less prevalent message, and it's not hard to figure out why so many women find it so appealing. In most ways, in most of the culture, women are told that their gazes and their pleasures are secondary. In women's magazines, though, those gazes and those pleasures are paramount. Women get to be in the position of power, looking at and consuming bodies displayed expressly for them. Men's and women's magazines, in this sense, really are different. Esquire retails yet another fantasy of mastery for men. Women's magazines, on the other hand, offer a fantasy of mastery for women.
Such a fantasy of empowerment could perhaps be seen as feminist, with a major caveat. Women's magazines do let women take the (usually male) position of master. But they also and insistently want them to continue to occupy the position of mastered object. In women's magazines, women can be the lookers, but only if they also and simultaneously imagine themselves as looked at.
Folks are generally much more comfortable thinking about women as looked at than they are thinking about women as lookers. That's why both men and women tend to assume that women looking at women's magazines identify with the women pictured—that they want to be that pictured her, rather than wanting to be with her. The fact that women are assumed to be the objects not just in men's magazines, but in women's as well, indicates just how prevalent, and how constricting, gender expectations can be. But the fact that women in women's magazines are figured, quietly but definitely, not just as objects, but as objectifiers, suggests that gender expectation can also sometimes be less restrictive than we expect, if we open our eyes.
Quote from: Martinus on March 25, 2013, 03:16:16 PM
Fat people should not be in the media as they provide wrong role models for easily impressionable people. Having fatsos is like having alcoholics and drug addicts as role models.
Methinks the chubby Pole doth protest too much.
Quote from: fahdiz on March 25, 2013, 04:36:42 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 25, 2013, 04:33:51 PM
Practical Caravan has a very similar circulation to that. It features homely middleaged women brewing up cups of tea for their beefy husbands as they cock-up yet another enhancement to their caravan.
.........or we have Railway Modeller with its dreadful front-page objectification of steam engines, they are transport workhorses goddamit............not pinups.
I won't even go into the Angling Times, front-page story "Top angler reveals 'smelly pellets' approach", a cruel objectification of our very own Ed Anger :mad:
Men are interested in all sorts of stuff, sometimes one gets a bit peeved with this focus on a particular little sub-class of men.
:cheers: My favorite post of the thread. Shockingly, it's from one of my favorite Languishtas.
Okay yeah. That was just excellent. :P
Quote from: merithyn on March 25, 2013, 04:22:40 PM
Heh. So maybe objectification of women doesn't sell? :D
Esquire doesn't objectify them enough.
Quote from: merithyn on March 25, 2013, 03:46:31 PM
To reiterate:
The part that offends me the most is that he very specifically equates the women in his magazines to "things" such as hot cars. It may be just that he openly states it where others don't, but it's quite clear that the women in his magazine are not humans to him.
He doesn't say (or even suggest, IMO) that they aren't human. He's not even saying that women are, or should be, just ornaments. He's saying that their purpose in his magazine is strictly ornamental. That's a bit of a difference, I think.
Quote from: merithyn on March 25, 2013, 04:22:40 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 25, 2013, 04:12:29 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 25, 2013, 04:03:46 PM
Who reads Esquire anyway? I had assumed that it was for aspirational wankers who hadn't succeeded yet and probably wouldn't............is that fair?
Apparently British Esquire only has 56,000 as of Feb last year.
Heh. So maybe objectification of women doesn't sell? :D
why buy objectification when you can get it for free on the Internet :P
Esquire probably sold more magazines as a result of this scandal than they did all year. ;)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 25, 2013, 06:34:08 PM
Esquire probably sold more magazines as a result of this scandal than they did all year. ;)
I'm not sure I buy that. I mean sure they got a little press but how many people are there that are going to rush out and buy it because they want to see hot women? Really I think if there was any increase in circulation it would just be for folks who had forgotten it existed. :D
It's a printed magazine. Just because they have a truthful editor that upsets some hair-trigger feminists, that's no reason to spend money on something that outdated.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 25, 2013, 02:52:22 PM
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 :P ?
I swear Esquire has some sort of connection to Piers Morgan. Can we ban them for that?
QuoteFat people should not be in the media as they provide wrong role models for easily impressionable people. Having fatsos is like having alcoholics and drug addicts as role models.
I don't entirely disagree :mellow:
This returns to my point about banning positive media portrayals of Piers Morgan.
Quote from: garbon on March 25, 2013, 02:43:05 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 25, 2013, 02:40:05 PM
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.
So does murder.
Quote from: Scipio on March 25, 2013, 10:56:23 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 25, 2013, 02:43:05 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 25, 2013, 02:40:05 PM
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.
So does murder.
And people are generally sour about that too.
Quote from: Neil on March 25, 2013, 05:10:42 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 25, 2013, 03:16:16 PM
Fat people should not be in the media as they provide wrong role models for easily impressionable people. Having fatsos is like having alcoholics and drug addicts as role models.
Methinks the chubby Pole doth protest too much.
I believe there is a correlation between being gay and higher rates of suicide, so it could also be considered a health risk. So maybe they shouldn't be in the media either.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 25, 2013, 11:14:40 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 25, 2013, 05:10:42 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 25, 2013, 03:16:16 PM
Fat people should not be in the media as they provide wrong role models for easily impressionable people. Having fatsos is like having alcoholics and drug addicts as role models.
Methinks the chubby Pole doth protest too much.
I believe there is a correlation between being gay and higher rates of suicide, so it could also be considered a health risk. So maybe they shouldn't be in the media either.
Of course suicide rate probably wouldn't be so high if people were more accepting of gays.
Sorry to rain on your Marti-taunting parade. :blush:
Quote from: garbon on March 25, 2013, 11:16:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 25, 2013, 11:14:40 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 25, 2013, 05:10:42 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 25, 2013, 03:16:16 PM
Fat people should not be in the media as they provide wrong role models for easily impressionable people. Having fatsos is like having alcoholics and drug addicts as role models.
Methinks the chubby Pole doth protest too much.
I believe there is a correlation between being gay and higher rates of suicide, so it could also be considered a health risk. So maybe they shouldn't be in the media either.
Of course suicide rate probably wouldn't be so high if people were more accepting of gays.
Sorry to rain on your Marti-taunting parade. :blush:
If people were more accepting of fat people they would likely suffer from less stress and thus decreasing the chances of heart attack. :contract: Being gay or being fat is a health risk, and there are many elements that factor into that.
Of course they are - it's Esquire magazine. Hot women will be used as a crude marketing tool until the day that enough men stop being interested in them. Raging about it won't make one iota of difference.
That being said, you'd have to be a juvenile, superficial mouth-breather to enjoy that magazine.
I don't think you're doing that right, Raze.
Quote from: garbon on March 26, 2013, 07:29:27 AM
I don't think you're doing that right, Raze.
Yes, but that's because you are wrong. There are of course other health risks in being gay. For instance STD rates are like 4 times that of that straight people. At least according to the CDC.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2013, 09:56:20 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 26, 2013, 07:29:27 AM
I don't think you're doing that right, Raze.
Yes, but that's because you are wrong. There are of course other health risks in being gay. For instance STD rates are like 4 times that of that straight people. At least according to the CDC.
You're not allowed to say that.
I know! That's what makes it so great!
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2013, 09:56:20 AM
Yes, but that's because you are wrong. There are of course other health risks in being gay. For instance STD rates are like 4 times that of that straight people. At least according to the CDC.
You're right that's two sources: STDs and depression/anxiety. The only other potential one I can think about for gays might be body image issues but I think women probably have that in a much higher weight. If you wanted to get really crazy, you could probably even throw in drug use and domestic abuse.
Meanwhile here's what wikipedia listed as issue with obesity.
ischemic heart disease
congestive heart failure
high blood pressure
abnormal cholesterol levels
deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism
stretch marks
acanthosis nigricans
lymphedema
cellulitis
hirsutism
intertrigo
diabetes mellitus
polycystic ovarian syndrome
menstrual disorders
infertility
complications during pregnancy
birth defects
intrauterine fetal death
gastroesophageal reflux disease
fatty liver disease
cholelithiasis (gallstones)
stroke
meralgia paresthetica
migraines
carpal tunnel syndrome
dementia
idiopathic intracranial hypertension
multiple sclerosis
breast, ovarian
esophageal, colorectal
liver, pancreatic
gallbladder, stomach
endometrial, cervical
prostate, kidney
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, multiple myeloma
depression in women
social stigmatization
Respirology
obstructive sleep apnea
obesity hypoventilation syndrome
asthma
increased complications during general anaesthesia
Rheumatology and Orthopedics
gout
poor mobility
osteoarthritis
low back pain
erectile dysfunction
urinary incontinence
chronic renal failure
hypogonadism
buried penis
So yeah, you're doing it wrong. :)
I fail to see why. Simply because one is less healthy then the other doesn't me they both don't have health consequences. At no point did we make threshold of unhealthiness that had to be reached. Besides how many people have died of "hirsutism"? You are right about domestic violence, body image problems (anorexia etc), and drug use. I'm fairly certain that more people have died from domestic violence then "stretch marks", though.
It's apparently a health risk in Wyoming.
Pretty sure dementia is linked to gayness.
Quote from: Neil on March 26, 2013, 12:05:37 PM
Pretty sure dementia is linked to gayness.
Also, "buried penis" sounds like it might be.
Quote from: Neil on March 26, 2013, 12:05:37 PM
Pretty sure dementia is linked to gayness.
Not sure that someone whose mind is gone to the point that they can't tell men from women anymore should be labelled "gay". Though they do say ignorance is bliss.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 26, 2013, 12:02:25 PM
It's apparently a health risk in Wyoming.
Less so than being a cop in Baltimore.
Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2013, 12:23:57 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 26, 2013, 12:02:25 PM
It's apparently a health risk in Wyoming.
Less so than being a cop in Baltimore.
I wasn't being facetious. But good ahead, keep being a cunt. It becomes you. Not as much as garbon, but at least he does it with style.
Anyway, Raz, I don't agree with the Mart-Sheil connection that there is an issue with using fuller figured individuals on magazine covers.
So if we agree that buttsecs is a health risk, do those of you who agree with Bloomberg on trans fats, sugary sodas, cigarettes, etc. also think we should either tax or outlaw gayness?
No because the incidence of the problem is so small that it probably has a negligible effect on overall public health. The same can't be said for things like trans fats, sugary sodas and cigarettes. (As well as the fact that the health risks cited for homosexuality can be mitigated.)
Also, why are you conflating anal sex with homosexuality? :huh:
Quote from: garbon on March 26, 2013, 01:41:31 PM
Also, why are you conflating anal sex with homosexuality? :huh:
Wow, good question.
I'm told that homosexual men tend to be quite fond of it. Isn't that what contributes to their high risk factor for contracting HIV?
The reason I ask is because as far as I know there are heterosexuals that engage in anal sex as well. Do they also have an increase risk factor for contracting HIV and would you want to ban their sexual activity too?
Quote from: garbon on March 26, 2013, 02:19:10 PM
The reason I ask is because as far as I know there are heterosexuals that engage in anal sex as well. Do they also have an increase risk factor for contracting HIV and would you want to ban their sexual activity too?
I don't want to ban anything. I was just posing the question to those who want to ban other unhealthy habits/activities.
Well I answered your question. And I guess you answered mine though I suppose your answer was more implicit in that your conflation was the result of laziness.
Also as far as I know (even if the legislation on sodas hadn't faced a challenge), it isn't illegal to eat trans fats, drink soda or smoke in New York. There are just sensible limitations put in place on where you can purchase or engage in such activities. Similarly there restrictions on where one can have anal sex. In fact, I believe there are still criminal sanctions in place if you knowingly infect someone with HIV.
Quote from: garbon on March 26, 2013, 02:27:55 PM
Also as far as I know (even if the legislation on sodas hadn't faced a challenge), it isn't illegal to eat trans fats, drink soda or smoke in New York. There are just sensible limitations put in place on where you can purchase or engage in such activities. Similarly there restrictions on where one can have anal sex. In fact, I believe there are still criminal sanctions in place if you knowingly infect someone with HIV.
Now you're conflating public decency laws with public health laws. When they start taxing bathhouses for unhealthy behavior, let me know.
Well a lot of bathhouses were already shutdown in the past. There are some now but I assume they have more standards on them than they ever had in the past (similar to how bars now get in trouble if it is discovered sex is taking place in a bar). I'm not that interested though, so I don't think I'm going to do research on it.
Fine, then. Lazy!! :P
Quote from: derspiess on March 26, 2013, 01:15:54 PM
So if we agree that buttsecs is a health risk, do those of you who agree with Bloomberg on trans fats, sugary sodas, cigarettes, etc. also think we should either tax or outlaw gayness?
Well, to make the Bloomburg-sugary soda comparison more exact, wouldn't the idea be to ban anal where the "active party" has an organ larger than a certain state-mandated maximum size? :lol:
Only on Languish would the conversation over female objectification in Esquire take this turn. :P
Quote from: derspiess on March 26, 2013, 02:54:42 PM
Fine, then. Lazy!! :P
What's up with you? Why can't you do research? ;)
Quote from: Malthus on March 26, 2013, 02:56:13 PM
Well, to make the Bloomburg-sugary soda comparison more exact, wouldn't the idea be to ban anal where the "active party" has an organ larger than a certain state-mandated maximum size? :lol:
Only on Languish would the conversation over female objectification in Esquire take this turn. :P
I believe that it's the container that has a maximum size, not the sticky stuff going into it.
Quote from: derspiess on March 26, 2013, 02:22:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 26, 2013, 02:19:10 PM
The reason I ask is because as far as I know there are heterosexuals that engage in anal sex as well. Do they also have an increase risk factor for contracting HIV and would you want to ban their sexual activity too?
I don't want to ban anything. I was just posing the question to those who want to ban other unhealthy habits/activities.
Who are "those"? I am not aware of anyone who wants that on Languish.
Quote from: derspiess on March 26, 2013, 01:53:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 26, 2013, 01:41:31 PM
Also, why are you conflating anal sex with homosexuality? :huh:
Wow, good question.
I'm told that homosexual men tend to be quite fond of it. Isn't that what contributes to their high risk factor for contracting HIV?
I hate it.
Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2013, 03:05:48 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 26, 2013, 02:22:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 26, 2013, 02:19:10 PM
The reason I ask is because as far as I know there are heterosexuals that engage in anal sex as well. Do they also have an increase risk factor for contracting HIV and would you want to ban their sexual activity too?
I don't want to ban anything. I was just posing the question to those who want to ban other unhealthy habits/activities.
Who are "those"? I am not aware of anyone who wants that on Languish.
I don't think we ever did a full vote on the issue(s), but I thought grabon and Seedy indicated that they were sympathetic to Bloomberg on at least some of his ban-type measures.
Quote from: derspiess on March 26, 2013, 03:09:29 PM
I don't think we ever did a full vote on the issue(s), but I thought grabon and Seedy indicated that they were sympathetic to Bloomberg on at least some of his ban-type measures.
I'm entirely sympathetic.
Quote from: frunk on March 26, 2013, 03:04:33 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 26, 2013, 02:56:13 PM
Well, to make the Bloomburg-sugary soda comparison more exact, wouldn't the idea be to ban anal where the "active party" has an organ larger than a certain state-mandated maximum size? :lol:
Only on Languish would the conversation over female objectification in Esquire take this turn. :P
I believe that it's the container that has a maximum size, not the sticky stuff going into it.
Fine then.
But if the state gets around to banning giant assholes, Languish would be depopulated. :P
Well played. :bowler:
Quote from: garbon on March 26, 2013, 02:19:10 PM
The reason I ask is because as far as I know there are heterosexuals that engage in anal sex as well. Do they also have an increase risk factor for contracting HIV and would you want to ban their sexual activity too?
From what I've read, yes, heterosexual anal sex carries a greater chance of contracting STDs, including HIV, than oral or vaginal sex.
Quote from: garbon on March 26, 2013, 02:52:18 PM
Well a lot of bathhouses were already shutdown in the past. There are some now but I assume they have more standards on them than they ever had in the past (similar to how bars now get in trouble if it is discovered sex is taking place in a bar). I'm not that interested though, so I don't think I'm going to do research on it.
Isn't the thing about bars and the like getting into trouble if sex is taking place in them more about the possibility that they're being used as a front for prostitution than it is about public health concerns
per se?
Quote from: dps on March 26, 2013, 04:00:40 PM
Isn't the thing about bars and the like getting into trouble if sex is taking place in them more about the possibility that they're being used as a front for prostitution than it is about public health concerns per se?
I don't think so. I think there's probably little likelihood of that increasing if sex in gay bars was allowed. In fact actually, sex still happens regularly at a lot of establishments as being men, the gays are just horny.
Also, I'm not sure I understand difference there between bars v. adult bookstores, bath-houses and sex clubs where I think for the most part sex is allowed legally. (Well maybe not that first one but then I don't think anyone is fooled...:hmm:)