Let's Talk Feminism

In my previous post, I mentioned the existence of more alternative media sources aimed at female audience - the so-called feminist magazines. Some of these magazines understand the amount of objectification of women in the media and rebel against it out loud; others, in my personal opinion, such as Women's Health, claim to be feminist but do not move a lot beyond 'the body' as their central theme. Not that feminist magazine cannot and do not write about how to stay in shape, relationships or motherhood. Feminist magazine, unlike many might think, are not anti-men or anti-everything-that-women-usually-do (i.e. give birth); they deal with everything females around the world deal with and are concerned about, but with a more empowering message, giving the emphasis to HER. Some of them, of course, will mostly talk about feminism as a movement and gender-related issues, providing in-depth feminist analysis (i.e. Ms. Magazine, wholly owned by women). On the other hand, some, such as (e.g. BUST) can talk about fashion or male-female relationship and still be called feminist, for it is not that feminism and family/love life/taking care of yourself/being healthy are mutually exclusive. The difference between these magazines and Vogue is that they will not make women value themselves through the eyes of men; furthermore, they will not treat them as objects nor promote unhealthy standards of beauty (although I personally think there is no such thing as a healthy standard, for a standard immediately applies everyone should fit in it). They will make the female important and everything around her - starting from her sexual satisfaction to her engagement in politics.

If these magazines had the funds as Vogue has, they would certainly be able to reach a wider audience and become the mass media, shaping women's views in a positive way. As Betty Friedan said in the 1960s, this is a problem that has no name, since not many people acknowledge it; what is important is to talk about it  out loud, for every change begins with small steps.

Source: Feminist Magazines, 2013. Feminist Majority Foundation.
 http://www.feminist.org/research/zines.html

Why are women's magazines still sexist?

In my concluding remarks, I will try to answer to the question proposed above - why is there still so much magazines in women's magazines? Women magazines, in theory, are made for women and (in theory) should be led by women. The US Vogue's Editor-in-chief, as most of you probably know, is a woman called Anna Wintour. Why does she, as a supposedly educated woman, allow for so much sexism to appear on the pages of her magazine? And it's not only her - editors of all 23 Vogue editions are women. Firstly, Vogue magazine is not Wintour's; she and all other women editors and journalists are just employees at the company. What kind of company, you're asking? A multinational, mass media corporation called Condé Nast. This MNC issues around twenty print and digital media brands, including Vogue, but also men's magazines such as GQ and Golf Digest. The company is, as a large percent of all MNCs, owned by men. While women are given important position in different women's magazines in order to increase the legitimacy and prestige of the magazine (and the company), deluding people into thinking that the magazine is all about women's rights and gender equality, people who really stand behind everything are insanely rich businessmen. This is closely related to the lack of female leadership in all spheres. As a notable documentary Miss Representation suggests, in the US, only 3% of clout positions in mainstream media are held by women; needless to say how few women hold high positions in governments and companies worldwide. This is one of the reasons why I believe sexism is still present in women's magazines - magazines are still controled by men, which proves the lack of true female leadership in huge businesses. Secondly, the main aim of these powerful men is to sell; make more money. And what sells better than sex? Nothing I could think of. In my opinion, large amounts of objectification of women in women's magazines (and generally in the media) come from the fact that "the exploitation of women's bodies sells products, magazines etc" (Miss Representation, 2012). So making it all about the body is, in a nutshell, all because of capitalism, increasing profits and human greed. Consequently, a vicious circle is created - the media shapes our opinions by emphasising the importance of the body, making us feel insecure about ourselves, leading us into buying women's magazines that give advice on how to feel more secure about ourselves, and then, when they are asked why they emphasise the body so much, they will respond that it is because the audience wants it. Well it is not. It is just that the audience cannot easily access other choices, because other, non-sexist choices are not mass media, but more alternative, more hidden (more about the alternative feminist media in my next post). 

Check out the link below - it is the extended trailer of the already-mentioned documentary Miss Representation that talks about the media as a tool of dictating gender expression. I highly recommend.

Meanwhile on the pages of Vogue...

Vogue Shape Issue 2008

Vogue Paris 2010

I would like to show you several more photos found on the pages of Vogue that indirectly (or very openly) depict sexism. In the first two photos, we can see the presence of male models, both showing superiority of the male kind. The first one is racing ahead of a woman, showing his dominance and the fact that he is the breadwinner, whereas she can only desperately try to catch up. On the other hand, she is a stereotypical cheerleader - sexy and not supposed to be anything but sexy. The second photo shows something similar - the man is manly, strong and confident, whereas the woman is weak, fragile and incapable, but still feels safe in her man's arms. He is there to protect her and provide for her; she is there to be pretty and skinny. If that's not sexism, I don't know what is. Finally, French Vogue did a photo shooting with a plus-size model (Berlin 2010). When I first heard about that project, I was so thrilled Vogue finally decided to show other forms of beauty. However, the extent by which she was discriminated was tremendous and can be seen on these three photos. She is presented as someone gluttonous - she is fat and she can't stop eating. As we can see on the third photo, what Vogue is suggesting her to do about it is start vomiting in order to become skinny. Needless to say that one of the photos resembles of oral sex. These three photos are not even trying to hide it - the word sexism is written all over them.

Images taken from: Vogue Shape Issue, 2008, viewed November 201 
http://wickedwench88.wordpress.com/2008/03/26/vogue-april-2008-shape-issue-gisele-bundchen-and-lebron-james/ 
Berlin, B, 2010, 'Crystal Renn by Terry Richardson for Vogue Paris October 2010', Live Journal, viewed November 2013, http://noirfacade.livejournal.com/510631.html

Celebrating women of all sizes: just a myth

Vogue annually publishes the so-called Shape Issue, whose aim is to celebrate women of all sizes and silhouettes. In 2009, Vogue published this video, combined of short interviews with Adele, who was supposed to represent all the plus-size women; Doutzen Kroes, a Victoria's Secret model, and Zoe Kravitz and Olivia Thrilby, two good-looking actresses. The combination of women at the first glance look like women of all sizes are represented indeed. In the beginning of the interview, Vogue's Fashion Editor, a lady called Phyllis, claims that Vogue is trying to show how ''anybody can look chic and beautiful". Needless to say that I agree with this statement. Shortly after, however, the hidden sexism appears. The next scene depicts Adele dressed in something that looks a lot like a sack - huge and without any shape or style. Five seconds after, you can see Doutzen Kroes dressed in nothing but her underwear, showing off her athletic body, exercising and living a healthy life. The message I got from that is - look at Doutzen, she's hot, tall and skinny, so let's represent her as a piece of meat, while Adele, on the other hand, can be represented as a sack. The two actresses, Zoe and Olivia, are pretty and in shape. Yet, according to Vogue, there is something wrong with them - they are both short! Therefore, Vogue put on them on extremely high heels in order to make them look more like supermodels or, in other words, come closer to "the ideal of female beauty" Vogue is trying to promote. What is sad is that the actresses loved that act. As a matter of fact, one of them said that the message they want to convey is "don't just sit there if you're only 5'3 tall - do something about it". There you go. Even when it is trying to be more feminist, Vogue can't avoid being harsh on women, stereotyping, objectifying and, above all, being sexist. I am sure Vogue has received a lot of praise for coming up with Shape Issues, for originally there was a good idea behind this project; unfortunately, all one needs is to be a good observer in order to realize that shapes and curves belong nowhere near Vogue's philosophy.

Twitter: #Vogue #sexism

Vogue's sexism has not been unnoticed in social media either. Twitter is said to be one of the most influential social media websites, where news spread as quickly as they happen. I was glad to discover that Twitter people are calling Vogue sexist out loud; these are only some of the twits that criticize different editions of Vogue for being sexist. Will this harm Vogue reputation? Will it influence Vogue to change its philosophy? I wouldn't dare to say no. Social media has been extremely influential in the 21st century. Twitter had a large role in the Arab Spring - why wouldn't it help organize another Feminist Revolution, putting an end to sexism once and for all?

Source: Twitter.com

Vogue on Kirsten Gillibrand: Nothing but pure sexism

Kirsten Gillibrand is a US Senator, a talented politician and an important part of the successful campaign to repeal the U.S. military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Yet, what Vogue was interested in while doing an interview with her was how much weight did she lose and whether she can now fit in all her skinny clothes (Van Meter, 2013). The interview Vogue did with Gillibrand could hardly be more sexist. It focuses on a very dangerous philosophy where women are measured and valued through their aesthetics, rather through their deeds and brains. It also shows that Gillibrand did not "earn" a couple of pages in Vogue because she is promoting LGBT rights but rather because she is a rather good-looking female for someone of her age. Furthermore, in this interview Vogue promotes the opinion that women should value themselves through their partners and husbands, as well as try to always look good for them(Vogue on Kirsten Gillibrand: Just Plain Sexist, 2010). The interviewer admired the fact that Gillibrand has managed to "remain attractive to her husband for nine years" even though her husband is two years her junior. Apparently, this act was depicted as Gillibrand's great success, greater than her political activism and liberal views. I couldn't help but wonder, when will it be enough to be only the New York Senator in order to be seen as a successful female? For Vogue, apparently never. Ms. Gillibrand did try to promote feminists values throughout the interview, but according to the interviewer, that's not what Vogue's readers are interested in; they are interested in Gillibrand's new dress and advice on how to lose weight after childbirth. Well, Mr. Interviewer, you were wrong. Information about dresses and weight loss is the only information Vogue's readers are being served and, hence, becomes the means to manipulate their minds, creating, or shall I say, maintaining great gender inequalities in our society.

Van Meter, J, 2010, 'In Hillary's Footsteps: Kirsten Gillibrand', Vogue, viewed November 21, http://www.vogue.com/magazine/article/in-hillarys-footsteps-kirsten-gillibrand/#1
'Vogue on Kirsten Gillibrand: Just Plain Sexist', 2010, Name It Change It, viewed November 21, http://www.nameitchangeit.org/blog/entry/vogue-on-kirsten-gillibrand-just-plain-sexist

Sexist video 'Blurred Lines' as a tribute to Vogue

Most of you have probably heard Robin Thicke's insanely popular song 'Blurred Lines'. What made this song so popular is undoubtedly the video - it is either much loved or hated. For those of you who haven't seen it, I'll try to summarize it in a sentence. Thicke and his buddies, fully dressed, are acting all cool and macho while several topless women dance around them, crawl, eat hot dogs, are being blown cigarette smoke in their faces and are "gently" kicked. An increasing number of people started calling this video sexist, so at some point, Robin Thicke and his buddies realized they should defend their work of art. How did they plan to do that? Pharrell Williams, one of the buddies, recently said that the video never meant to objectify women but make 'a moving image of a page in Vogue' (Littlejohn, 2013). There you go. Not that they were wrong; this, most often, is how an average page in Vogue looks like. Vogue's sexist influence spread far beyond its cover pages and has reached one of the most viewed videos ever, and hence, wider audience. This video will not be seen only by women interested in fashion (like Vogue most likely will), but by people of all age and sex. Indirectly, Vogue wins in spreading its sexist philosophy beyond its pages, even if this video was meant to criticize it, which is, in my opinion, highly unlikely.

Littlejohn, G, 2013, 'Pharell Williams says Blurred Lines Was Meant to be a 'Moving Vogue Page', Entertainment Wise, viewed on November 22, http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/121289/Pharrell-Williams-Says-Blurred-Lines-Video-Was-Meant-To-Be-A-Moving-Vogue-Page

Image: McLaren, J, 2013, 'Guest Post: #Sexism: stop blurring those lines", Shameless, viewed December 2, http://www.shamelessmag.com/blog/2013/09/guest-post-sexism-stop-blurring-those-lines/