From NOW - Newsweek Glamorizes Women's Submission (re: Objectification)

[redqueen]

As we all probably already know, being feminists and all, the National Organization of Women has opposed the objectification of women for decades.

Texasgal's post about that Twilight fanfic spinoff crap reminded me of this. Since we're all feminists and therefore concerned about the increasing defense and rationalization of this *actually* dehumanizing tactic, I thought I'd share it again.

http://www.now.org/issues/media/hall-of-shame/index.php/violence-against-women/newsweek-glamorizes-women-s-submission

Offender: Cover story "Spanking Goes Mainstream" by Katie Roiphe in the April 23/30, 2012, issue of Newsweek magazine

Media Outlet: Newsweek and The Daily Beast

The Offense: The cover photograph shows a woman who is styled to look like a high-fashion model. She is blindfolded with a large black sash tied in a bow at the back of her head. Her bare shoulders and the top portion of her chest are visible. The caption says: "The Fantasy Life of Working Women | Why Surrender is a Feminist Dream."

NOW's Analysis: Media outlets have a long history of glamorizing women's submission. Typically the fashion industry is guilty of this practice, but news outlets aren't afraid to employ the same strategy. Under the theory that titillation sells magazines, combined with the belief that objectifying women makes you seem edgy, consumers end up with junk like this on the newsstands (and the Internet).

More at link.

[seabeyond]

1. "envision that cover with a blindfolded male model." while neck exposed, head tilted

in a manner of do whatever submission. shoulders hunched forward.

" women want to throw in the towel on being in charge of their sexuality and their lives in general? " it would be what the porn is telling our men. it would be what our movies and culture and books are telling us.

" rolled off the presses just as advocates are struggling to get the Violence Against Women Act reauthorized in Congress " when our progressive tell us the sexist behavior on the board has no more deeper meaning than "fun", i see a conditioning that allows exactly this.

they may see the line at rights. others see it as an opportunity to ride rough shod over.

[redqueen]

2. It was truly hard to read that without getting angry.

In addition to the part you quoted re: VAWA, we have this...

Roiphe argues that feminists are "perplexed" by the persistence of dominance/submission fantasies, but when Gloria Steinem tries to explain it, Roiphe shrugs her off, writing that "maybe sex and aggression should not, and probably more to the point, cannot be untangled." Sure sounds like a writer with an agenda that's hostile to women's empowerment and safety. Not to mention the fact that Roiphe never asks why men might want to dominate and hurt women, and what that might say about them.

[seabeyond]

3. but, isnt that the experience when talking about this. the totally, immediate dismissal thru name

calling, hyperbole of want to ban, want to stop free speech. and the most hypocritical part of it all, is the immediate reflex to stop a woman from talking, in all that is holy, do not let her speak, even if it means yelling at the top of your lungs.... freedom of speech, i tell ya.