Is there sexism (or reversed sexism) in this?

maestrowork · Feb 23, 2006

With regard to the Vanity Fair cover....

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/02/23/naked.actresses.ap/index.html

Personally I find the cover tastefully done and sexy (and I wish McAdams had appeared with Knightley and Johansson - yum, yum, yum - sorry... kind of drifted off for a while...), but I also understand where the "sexism" talks come from, especially since Ford (the man) is clothed in the cover. However, I don't really buy that women don't like to see naked men/celebrities. The "gross, put your shirt on" comment made me laugh -- I mean, c'mon, I seriously doubt a female editor would say that to a shirtless Brad Pitt or George Clooney or Orlando Bloom.

Perhaps men and women do view nudity differently, but I do not for a second believe that women don't sexually objectify men; and there's nothing wrong with that (unless that's ALL we care about). That's just a bunch of crap, somehow aiming at making men look more "piggish." So, in a way, I see that article as portraying reversed sexism...

I think men just don't like to be seen naked on a cover of a magazine -- or use sex as a gimmick. It's not to say these women feel they need to either, but for men, I think it's even less appealing -- they want to be taken seriously without being treated as a piece of meat. Then there's that Burt Reynolds thing -- and no men would want to be the butt of a joke like he was. George Clooney can sell tickets without taking his shirt off (or he did take his shirt off, but after gaining 30lbs for Sariana). But if you really look, there are plenty of sexy pictures of hot stars of both sexes, but it does seem that the only time you see them half-naked on a cover is when they're on Men's Health.

Do we have a double standard here? The whole "controversy" surrounding the cover is simpy that: it's a magazine cover (or is it because it suggested a threesome?). Stars have disrobed in films througout the decades, from Susan Sarandon (yum) to Matthew McCaunaughey. But magazine covers? Why all the brouhaha?

Shadow_Ferret · Feb 23, 2006

Women have beautiful bodies.

Men are just icky.

clintl · Feb 23, 2006

maestrowork said:
I do not for a second believe that women don't sexually objectify men; and there's nothing wrong with that

Being in a writing group that was female-dominated for many years, and being present during many, many discussions between the women about which actors they thought were hot, I know for a fact that they do, whether they'll admit or not.

tjwriter · Feb 23, 2006

Yes, there is a form of sexism there. I enjoy looking at a good topless man and sometimes even a nice shot of some buttocks. I've always wondered why we don't see more guys nekkid or even half-nekkie. Girls commonly have to show skin to attract attention or at least it seems that's what our up-and-coming young women think.

I guarantee that if I showed my husband that cover, he would hope those girls would go put some clothes on because they are entirely too skinny for him. My point being that not even all men are turned on by that kind of cover.

I enjoy seeing some men half-naked, but I have a thing for muscles so it's probably my quirk. Taste is individual and my assumption is that magazines and such need to hit as much of the population as possible. The joys of doing business.

Jcomp · Feb 23, 2006

Shadow_Ferret said:
Women have beautiful bodies.

Men are just icky.

word.

That said, I know plenty of girls that love themselves a half naked man. My homegirl loves the movie I Robot just for the Will Smith shower scene.

travNastee · Feb 23, 2006

There is no such thing as reverse sexism (or reverse racism or reverse any kind of discrimination). Just because it's not coming from the group that normally does it, does not make it reverse. Discrimination is discrimination no matter who is doing the discriminating and reverse discrimination is a mis-nomer, like double tax (if I had a dollar for every time someone refused to ring up an item (like a PS2) in the electronics department because their shopping cart full of groceries was on the front end and they didn't want to pay double tax...OUR TAX IS A FREAKING PERCENTAGE! No matter if you seperate every single item in the cart and ring them up in twosies, or if you pay for everything in one transaction, you will pay the exact same amount of tax. Of course I dare not say this to a customer, as they are always right...)

*breathes*

*breathes*

Great...I'm ranting about double tax and I haven't even been to work yet.

This is going to be a great day-before-vacation-starts day. Everybody is going to complain about double tax.

But no, Vanity Fair cover doesn't scream sexism to me. Of course I'm thankful that I don't have to look at Ford's pale, chubby, hair covered body, either.

But Rachel McAdams...mmm...I swear, one day I'll drown in my own drool thinking about that girl.

spike · Feb 23, 2006

Jcomp said:
word.

That said, I know plenty of girls that love themselves a half naked man. My homegirl loves the movie I Robot just for the Will Smith shower scene.

Oh yeah! Practically wore out the DVD playing that scene over and over!

Shadow_Ferret · Feb 23, 2006

Never heard of a double tax.

Never heard of any of those actresses before either.

spike · Feb 23, 2006

Yes it is sexist, but not because of the naked ladies. If it was just naked ladies, that would be borderline (depending on content). If it were naked ladies and a naked man (or nearly naked) that would also depend on the content of the pic.

But to put a clothed man in a pic with naked women, portrays the power structure that our culture likes to deny, but still lives under. Men are powerful, women are just pretty little things.

And that is sexist.

Jcomp · Feb 23, 2006

spike said:
Yes it is sexist, but not because of the naked ladies. If it was just naked ladies, that would be borderline (depending on content). If it were naked ladies and a naked man (or nearly naked) that would also depend on the content of the pic.

But to put a clothed man in a pic with naked women, portrays the power structure that our culture likes to deny, but still lives under. Men are powerful, women are just pretty little things.

And that is sexist.

Well, I see what you're saying. Hard to argue that. I've always seen it, kind of like Ferret said, as men aren't terribly attractive naked, but women are. God yes they are. Naked dudes are like pickup trucks, naked women are like Bentley's or some other beautiful luxury vehicle. I don't see this as saying "men are powerful," as much as "men are hideous." But I can see how other people would interpret it as a man being powerful, so I can see how some might call it sexist.

I, personally, could do without dude on the cover at all.

PattiTheWicked · Feb 23, 2006

I don't see it as sexist, really. Actually, I think it's quite sexY. Despite the fact that Tom Ford has his clothes on, you can be darn sure that the reason he's on the cover too is because he ain't ugly or flabby.

Both men and women like to look at pretty people, and I don't think men objectify women any more than women objectify men. The difference is that men tend to be more open about it.

There are plenty of men that I look at and think, "Yep, he's hot." It's not because I know them personally, because they have a great mind, or a dazzling personality. It's because they look tasty, and there's nothing wrong with appreciating beauty in life. When that becomes your sole focus, then, yes, Virginia, there is a problem, but I think it's more because folks can be shallow. It's not necessarily sexism at all.

Frankly, the only thing I really found unsexy about this cover is that I think Kiera Knightly would look better sporting about twenty more pounds on her.

Jcomp · Feb 23, 2006

PattiTheWicked said:
Frankly, the only thing I really found unsexy about this cover is that I think Kiera Knightly would look better sporting about twenty more pounds on her.

Word life!

When did backbones and ribcages become sexy? That still baffles me.

Shadow_Ferret · Feb 23, 2006

Jcomp said:
I, personally, could do without dude on the cover at all.

Right! That way I can pretend they're all mine!

Even if they are skinny.

Kevin Yarbrough · Feb 23, 2006

They could have left all three of them off and just put McAdams on. It would have been perfect then.

Is it sexist? No. The shoot was set up for a threesome and they needed someone to fill in. Ford did it. Do you think Kiera or Scarlett would have felt comfortable with Ford sitting there naked with them? They signed on to do a shoot with three naked women, they can't just turn around and say 'sorry, McAdams didn't show so we are going to put a naked Ford in her place.' Maybe they feared the shoot would have been a bust if they tried so they didn't and put Ford in clothed.

This wasn't sexism.

Kiera does need about 20 pounds on her though, she to skinny.

eldragon · Feb 23, 2006

Honestly, at first glance at the cover, I didn't notice Tom Ford was clothed. However, I think the shoot would have been more appropriate if the story were about Gucci or something.

Tom Ford was just there, at Vogue, and became the third person needed for a cover shot? Wasn't the photographer skilled enough to have a great cover with just two naked girls? I'm sure the third girl wasn't going to strike a frontal shot, like Ford does.

Beyond that, I don't think Ford adds a thing to the photo, because he has nothing to do with it. And I think all three actresses should have refused the project. If all three had refused, perhaps they (Vogue) could have come up with another cover idea.

Obviously the women are airbrushed.

Why didn't they add a beautiful black woman to the mix, or perhaps a lovely latino?

eldragon · Feb 23, 2006

Kiera does need about 20 pounds on her though, she to skinny.

Maybe they should have phoned Rosanne up for the third position.

Kevin Yarbrough · Feb 23, 2006

eldragon said:
Maybe they should have phoned Rosanne up for the third position.

Why not, they could have airbrushed her too.

I don't care if you are a female or male, if your ribs and collarbone show you are to skinny. It's not just a female thing. But, my preference, I like women with some weight.

jackie106 · Feb 23, 2006

About a year or two ago, Vanity Fair put a half-naked David Beckham on its cover. I sure as heck wasn't complaining.

Jackie

Carole · Feb 24, 2006

I think that if he wasn't clothed there would be a lot more controversy because the "scene" would look a lot more like a threesome rather than a hot guy hanging out with two nekkid chicks.

I think it's a great photo. Vanity Fair is known for their scandalous covers. Remember Demi?

Carole · Feb 24, 2006

Kevin Yarbrough said:
I like women with some weight.

My hero!

Celia Cyanide · Feb 24, 2006

Shadow_Ferret said:
Women have beautiful bodies.

Men are just icky.

Not ALL women have beautiful bodies, Ferret!!!

PattiTheWicked said:
I don't see it as sexist, really. Actually, I think it's quite sexY. Despite the fact that Tom Ford has his clothes on, you can be darn sure that the reason he's on the cover too is because he ain't ugly or flabby.

What about the fact that the actress who didn't want to take her clothes off was not allowed to be on the cover, while a man was allowed on fully clothed?

That's about the only problem I have with it. The image itself I don't find sexist, but the fact that a woman who did not want to appear nude was not allowed in the cover image at all. I don't even know if it's sexism, exactly, but it's unfair.

oswann · Feb 24, 2006

You're right, Vogue should have fully clothed ugly people on the cover. The mag would sell like hot cakes. They should change the name and call the thing "Not Really In Vogue But We Don't Care Because This Is Real People Posing For No Reason With Nothing To Sell"

Os.

Shadow_Ferret · Feb 24, 2006

Celia Cyanide said:
Not ALL women have beautiful bodies, Ferret!!!

Allow me to be the judge of that.

Right now.

I mean it.

robeiae · Feb 24, 2006

I think it's a weanie cover. Not sexist, just a poor attempt at art, wherein nudity is used as a means of titillation, but really says nothing. Zero. Nada. But it's typical "high art" from Vanity Fair.

Rob

oswann · Feb 24, 2006

I agree, and just noticed I made reference to Vogue and not Vanity Fair, which of course changes everything...

Os.

Is there sexism (or reversed sexism) in this?

Fear the Death Ray

Court Jester

Represent.

Emerging Anew

in a bulletproof vest...

Mostly Ignored

Court Jester

Mostly Ignored

Unleashing Hell.

Court Jester

Will write for peace of mind

in a van down by the river

in a van down by the river

Will write for peace of mind

How 'bout some ether?

How 'bout some ether?

Joker Groupie

Grumpy

Court Jester

Touch and go

Grumpy