Stay classy, Details
via Kate at Female Impersonator, check out this lovely photo illustration in a recent issue of Details:
Ah yes, the recession. Making it so difficult not to stuff women into trash cans.
As Kate points out, this isn't exactly new imagery. See Esquire, 1967:
Such a convenient shorthand for "we don't give a shit about women."
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Stay classy, Details.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12021
Yes, and wasn't it it Da Vinci who said "I want to cut the arms off of women. Because fuck 'em, that's why."? (that's translated from Italian, obviously)
You know, because the actual words in the article that are used to convey the intent and add context are irrelevant.
Based on what I read of the article...it doesn't really add much content. Perhaps it's satirical, but it's not very well-written, insightful nor important & kind of a waste of space. It also doesn't improve the context of the offensive imagery. If anything, the article laughs at the fact that rich men can no longer "afford" all of "their" women. So...it still lowers young, attractive women to things & not people.
HA! God bless you
For the quote... not the rest of the comment. Sorry, but there's really no good context for that image. It's tasteless.
Sounds more like Dali, to be honest.
And did anyone read follow the link at the bottom of the article called, "Why male chauvinism is back"?
Uh! NO. *Brain explodes*
Yes, according to the blog its "emasculating" to empty the Diaper Genie for your wife. It rather made me want to stab every male mentioned in the article in the eye with a spork from the cafeteria. But I'm also very grumpy today after being tortured at the dentist's yesterday.
Perhaps someone should let the "author" know that what's really emasculating is to have to admit that you're so scared of the Diaper Genie that you let it fester until until your wife empties it.
From "Why male chauvinism is back"
"Recast as nurturers, some of these guys are finding themselves almost indignantly nostalgic for that time, not so long ago, when husbands got to be babied by their wives—and never had to empty the Diaper Genie."
Does any one else read this as these men don't want a wife. They want a maid they can screw. It seems like a form of perpetual childhood. First mom took care of me, now my wife does.
And why is taking care of your children emasculating? Leaving them to be taken care of by their mother seems to be a pathetic form of escapism.
Oh geezus. That's not limited to men. I would love, fucking LOVE, to be babied and cared for like Mommy always did. What, you think I ENJOY cleaning and doing my own laundry? You think it's FUN to have handle all the shopping and cooking and everything by myself? FUCK no!! Good Christ, who WOULDN'T want a perma-mom, especially when that came with all the additional perks of being an adult? Problem is, I did this thing called growing up and now I have these things called bills I have to pay and other responsibilities. Because sometimes life kinda SUCKS. That's what being a GROWN UP means. Do I get to complain about being emasculated now?
Yeah, I don't really see what the stuff described has to do with women. (Apparently women getting to have careers AND wear "fuck-me pumps" is terribly emasculating, but it's not said how.) Men are regretting being "well-behaved" all these years, so they are indulging their "roguish instincts" to cheat and ignore their responsibilities, and this "selfishness" is "about snatching a bit of unapologetic selfhood—manhood, damn it—back from the clammy clutches of coupledom."
Well...it's selfish, all right. But I don't see how it's women's fault that some apparently equate being "well-behaved" with a loss of selfhood and manhood. What's well-behaved mean - not getting to go out and party and get wasted every night like in college? What is coupledom forcing on them, exactly? If you don't want to be married and have a family...don't. You'll be single, and free, and you'll still have to have a job to support yourself and do your own domestic chores. Uh, tough shit? All I read there is "waah, waah, I don't want to grow up." Women have stolen men's balls by not treating them like man-children? I'm confused.
The pictures with that article are also really gross.
Well said! I think your post encapsulated the current trend of men trying to deny and hide around confronting their sexism by making themselves feel like theyve been doing 'good' for so long that they deserve it.
AGGGH! I just subscribed to GQ and Mens Health. I'm a female but all womens magazines tend to talk about are clothes and make-up. I'm not against style, but would like something that isnt solely about what lipstick to wear during lay-offs. I cant win; misogyny in both magazines.
I would just like an alternative without compromising my feminist integrity.
this makes me soo mad!! it's imagery like this that is not helping our blind-sighted culture to not get past differences.
Oh, and on a side note..I am never moving to North Dakota...the House there OK'd a bill that gives a fertilized egg human rights...grrrrr
it's a fucking egg, not a human yet!!!!
This is very much Ew.
"The New American Woman: through at 21". What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Done Career-wise? Diminishing in sex-appeal? Ugh.
The Esquire article was a response to a then-current belief that young women (particularly in LA) were overexposed to drugs, sex, and had suicidal tendencies that were out of line with most American women, etc. Of course much of what it was responding to was not some "new" trend in women, but the fact that we were learning a little bit more about the realities of women at that time. Classic case of the media responding to media-hype with more media hype. Certainly misogynistic in the sense that it was men telling other men about and how to fix women's problems, but not in the direct sense of saying "fucking women, they are such trash."
The cover was suggesting that women were feeling as if their lives were somehow "over" by 21 (an arbitrary number probably chosen because it's got more punch than 'mid-20's')
Note the lack of clothing. Shoes and purse do not count.
I certainly hope the article was satirical, but I don't get that vibe from reading it (which was not easy what with the teensy weensy type). I have no pity for these i-bankers on SO many levels. You poor thing, you don't have a job screwing over hardworking Americans anymore. Or at least, it doesn't pay as much anymore, since now instead of taking people's hard-earned money with their consent, you're getting it through the government (which is only socialism when the money goes to poor people). And on top of everything, now you don't even get to have arm candy? Oh poor little baby!! Having to attract women with charm and personality instead of money, you poor thing.
Well it's good to have them clear up the muddy issue as to whether or not women are people; clearly we are just objects which can be dumped in the trash when finished with.
Note that the lower half of the body is all that is accounted for.
It's good that they finally cleared all that "women are people too" nonsense and represented us for what we truly are- walking vaginas (note the lack of the upper body)which can be thrown away when men are finished.
It's good that they finally cleared all that "women are people too" nonsense and represented us for what we truly are- walking vaginas (note the lack of the upper body)which can be thrown away when men are finished.
It's not any woman in the bin, it's a high-heeled party type, with excess baggage - in other words, high maintenance. Does she have a full time job? Probably not.
Oh, okay. So you're saying that sex workers are disposable. You and Jack the Ripper would have plenty to chat about.
I want to do a photo shoot where I toss the Details publishers and a pile of their mags into the Fresh Kills dump. No, they don't get noseplugs.
I would love to see that. Maybe a list of the top ten ugliest misogynistic men, or something as well.
As previously noted at Shakesville, I am so creeped out by the fact that there is no way that the woman in the top pic could have a properly attached head to fit in that trash can- she would have to either be decapitated or have a broken neck.
Also, it bugs me a little that the link to the Esquire cover is not something that discusses its general fuckupedness, but something that discusses how great the guy responsible for that shit is.
Anyway, I seriously hope that it is some sort of clumsy and classless satire, although one problem with satire is that there are always a few people that take it seriously, and I think that something like this is at risk for that kind of problem. Hopefully we won't have a widespread epidemic of former investment bankers decapitating their girlfriends and dumping them in trash cans, though that would certainly stop all the anti-Muslim bullshit being put out there for the last couple of days, and make people realize that misogyny, not religion is the culprit (not that that is a point that would justify the loss of more women's lives to make).
Yeah, but alot of religions are misogynistic. I cant think of one major religion thats not. Islam is in that religious pile as well.
As always, the most important aspect of including a woman (or her legs) on the cover of a magazine is for the woman to be white and thin and attractive. I will say the one thing that is better (this is a very relative term) about the retro cover is that we can see a human face, rather than totally dehumanized body parts.
Cause dontcha know, a woman, as far as these readers are concerned, is nothing more than sexy gams and uncomfortable, dangerous shoes that are worn to be provactive and attractive. Let's not rock the boat by taking the leap and asserting personhood. Then we'd have to relinquish all that we know and hold dear about the patriarchy, and that's just way too hard.
For some unknown reason that 'caused a mental image to jump into my head of the same image, but with overweight (over what weight, exactly, I'm not sure) legs of a different color. This caused a feeling of pure horror and revulsion, as for some reason, in my mind, that made it look "real."
I'm not sure what the psychological reason is for either the mental image or the reaction to it, but I think I need to scrub my brain with bleach and get some therapy.