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

[Valmy]

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.

[Martinus]

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?

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.

[derspiess]

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 

[Valmy]

Ok are we actually going to discuss things like this or just troll Meri? 

[Legbiter]

Ok are we actually going to discuss things like this or just troll Meri? 

We can't do both? 

[Martinus]

Ok are we actually going to discuss things like this or just troll Meri? 

I am discussing.

[derspiess]

Ok are we actually going to discuss things like this or just troll Meri? 

Okay, Jacob

[CountDeMoney]

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.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Ok are we actually going to discuss things like this or just troll Meri? 

I'm not sure how much there is to debate 

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.

[merithyn]

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.

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.

[Valmy]

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.

[Valmy]

Ok are we actually going to discuss things like this or just troll Meri? 

Okay, Jacob

Oh lighten up.

[merithyn]

I'm not sure how much there is to debate 

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.

[Legbiter]

When Skynet takes over, all objectification (that is, men liking cute girls) will cease. Finally.

[merithyn]

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.