The Forum > Article Comments > Hard to believe, but apparently even feminists can be sexy … > Comments
Hard to believe, but apparently even feminists can be sexy … : Comments
By Audrey Apple, published 3/1/2008'Zoo' magazine’s latest stunt is designed not to, as it argues, appease critics but to poke fun at women who disagree with their childish behaviour.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- Page 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- ...
- 32
- 33
- 34
-
- All
If the pay rate for models in men's magazines was the same rate as for, oh, supermarket check-out or aged-care worker, well, it hardly needs to be said; the smut rags would be rather empty (if they're not that already).
Posted by Johnny Rotten, Friday, 4 January 2008 9:40:25 AM
| |
HRS, I'm left wondering where you live. You've mentioned on a number of occasions previously that you've never seen a woman with a black eye and now you tell us that you have not ever seen a copy of Zoo magazine. Check the magazine rack in most large service stations and newsagents.
I do agree that the contents of "Womens" magazines are likely to be a much more serious contributer to issues about womens self image and the treatment of people as objects than porn wannabe mags such as Zoo. Zoo is not mainstream, not the sort of stuff that generally sits around doctors waiting rooms or is read openly on public transport. Cosmopolitan http://cosmo.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=44776 "Cosmopolitan has a readership of over 978,000 and a circulation of over 222,323 in Australia. Frequency: Monthly Core target: 18 to 34 Content: Women's Lifestyle Editor-in-chief: Mia Freedman Editor: Sarah Wilson In the UK, women who read Cosmopolitan spend over 1 Billion pounds a year on fashion. " I've not managed to find similar for Zoo yet - does anybody have access to their readership/distribution info? Maybe the efforts of feminist writers would be better directed at Cosmopolitan (and it's ilk) than at Zoo but maybe like the rest of us some things bug authors more than others regardless of the overall importance. Any objections to what was actually written rather than what you think should have been written? R0bert Posted by R0bert, Friday, 4 January 2008 10:00:53 AM
| |
HRS
I’m not sure what point you are making about ‘female sexuality’ in posting those links to Cleo etc. The pictures I saw there of male objects of desire were just head-and-shoulders shots of hunky young men, with confident, assertive facial expressions – one was even wearing a suit and tie. Are you trying to say that women’s brains are ‘wired’ to mix desire with respect, while men’s aren’t? Or are you saying that because men and women both do awful things, women deserve whatever awful things men do to them. If so, please find me something a lot more ‘awful’ than Cleo and Marie Claire pics of smiling men with naked shoulders. R0bert 'Maybe the efforts of feminist writers would be better directed at Cosmopolitan (and it's ilk) than at Zoo ...' True. Except that feminists are, and always have been, proactively critical of the messages conveyed by women's magazines. However, women's publications are part of much larger, powerful publishing corporations worldwide - who place fashion advertising revenue much higher than women's struggle for equality. Ironically, because of their wide reach, women's magazines can also provide feminists with a wider platform to convey their messages on women's equality, health, relationships etc. Life is full of compromises. Posted by SJF, Friday, 4 January 2008 10:32:52 AM
| |
SJF,
I read up on "internalised sexism" and it seems to be a rather negative name for what is key aspect of western culture. A culture that like all others was influenced by the distinct biological roles of each gender, and thus developed distinct cultural roles as well. It is a criticism of the identify of so many individuals within our society. Zoo is not forcing this culture upon anyone, just as you should not try to force your "idealized gender role" culture onto the readers or publishes of Zoo. "Are you trying to say that women’s brains are ‘wired’ to mix desire with respect, while men’s aren’t?" That's the general trend as I understand it. There's certainly nothing wrong with not fitting to the trend, however complaining about biological traits is not really going to achieve much. Some women identify as a "house wife" and are happy about it, some women identify as "model" and are happy about it. Don't attack or criticize someone for who they are just because you would not be happy in their shoes or they don't fit some poorly constructed ideal. "Brilliant writing. Keep up the passion." Well written and passionate? Yes. Unfortunately assumptive, biased and self righteous too. Kathryn, Did a women chose to become a doctor, or was she pressured to want to make use of her intelligence? Did the mother chose to have a child or was she pressured to want to start a family? People form their identities from the experiences and interactions they have with others, so there's no such thing as a pure identity. If a woman is happy with choosing to pose for a magazine, where is the problem? Iain, A quick read of Audrey's blog gives the impression she's more humourless than feminist. A quote about New Year's: "NYE will never be different. It will never be fun, and it will always, always disappoint. FACT." It appears Audrey is driven more towards projecting her views and experiences onto others and criticizing cultures she neither understands nor appreciates rather than achieving equality and freedom for women. Posted by Desipis, Friday, 4 January 2008 11:00:58 AM
| |
Lev,
It becomes very difficult to believe the feminist premise that women are being oppressed when a women’s magazine has a $250,000 prize in handbags and shoes. SJf I think women’s magazines are now showing more than a head and shoulder shot of men. http://www.cosmopolitan.co.uk/index.php/landing/9069 http://cleo.ninemsn.com.au/cleo/hotmen/hotbabe/profile155.asp You can “rate” these centrefolds if you wish, by registering and then casting a vote. But if feminists are so concerned with equality and respect, then I am puzzled as to why feminists have not complained about the widely read women’s magazine that recently described men as being the latest “fashion accessory”. Obviously this did not affect feminist sensibilities or notions of sexuality, morality, respect, equality and all that. Posted by HRS, Friday, 4 January 2008 11:17:11 AM
| |
I have read "How the Women of the Media Sell Unhappiness --- and Liberalism --- to the Women of America" by Myrna Blyth.
One thing which stands out from the book is that the women of the media think that all women should think exactly like them. The other thing was that the message to the women readers was that they were never good enough, and that all the advances of feminism was under constant threat and that women had still had a long way to go before they achieve 'equality'. Magazines would run stories like how to have the greatest sex ever then in the same mag have a story on sexual abuse. Plus there were always these relationship quizzs that helped to create a sense of anxiety. You could be a victim and not know it! Take our wizbang quiz to find out. Posted by JamesH, Friday, 4 January 2008 5:01:10 PM
|