Here's what I've been thinking/writing about recently:
Three (pretty huge) Reasons Why No One Should Read GQ
So, if you’ve come into contact with me in the past 2 days, you have heard me talk about this issue of GQ someone recently gave me to read. The following are problems I’ve often thought about in a fleeting kind of way, but reading this magazine made me pull them into focus. So here are 3 reasons why no one should read GQ, Cosmo or anything in that genre:
1. It limits the identity of females: People who think feminism is no longer a relevant discussion need only look at magazines like GQ and Cosmo to know that the subjugation and stereotyping of females is still a pressing issue. Blanket statements are made with little or no qualifiers to define femininity. “We all know that we should buy women flowers”; “The only correct answer to ‘can we split the bill’ is ‘absolutely not’”; “Valentines sin #3: Giving you supermarket flowers.” This is not to say that any of these things are totally untrue for any given female. There are many women who have been raised to think they should not have to pay a bill, and there are many women who have very high standards for flowers. However, this in no way should be a description of females as a whole. It limits both those who fall within its bounds and those who fall without. For a woman who takes pride in her financial self-reliance, and would be uncomfortable not splitting a bill, this brings up questions of her own femininity. For a woman who enjoys getting flowers and would be disappointed getting generic supermarket flowers, statements such as these force her to question her individuality. Is she “just a woman” for wanting flowers, or does she need to not want flowers in order to be a unique individual? To be a woman means nothing more than to have two x chromosomes, though this does imply more than physical differences. However, that other x chromosome does not make us crave flowers, be more needy, lose our ability to open doors or like or dislike romantic comedies. Stereotyping like this also limits some women from embracing desirable “masculine” roles, such as leader or unemotional observer. For others of us, a desire to avoid these stereotypes causes us to avoid classically “feminine” roles, such as empathizer or nurturer.
2. It limits the identity of males: Of course, men are just as much victims. A recent article in GQ discussed how men should deal with crying and emotions, and to what extent “the waterworks” would turn her on or off. Another article on “henpecked men” said, “isn’t marriage one of the cornerstones of male acquiescence?” Articles in Cosmo discuss how to not be too needy, how to grab any guy’s attention (one tip: “Find out his favourite team and get yourself a jersey!”), and how to be romantic to any guy (“Seriously, nothing says ‘I love you’ to a dude like an unexpected six-pack of beer. We're that easy.”) Again, this kind of pigeonholing hurts both those who fit the mould and those who do not. Should someone with one x and one y chromosome feel less “male” if he is easily moved to tears, hates sports, wants to get married or enjoys romance? And should someone who loves football, is rather unemotional or is oblivious to romance feel as though these are not his own qualities, but rather inescapable “male” qualities?
3. It promotes the objectification of both men and women: These lead to an inevitable conclusion for readers of these magazines. If men and women are easily labelled and defined with simple stereotypes, then they are objects, not complex individuals. The most striking example is in the current GQ article “So You Want to Date a Supermodel”. The whole idea of the article is that, while most men think beautiful women are some other, unattainable species, they are in fact simply women who want to be treated with courtesy and respect. While this is a good basic idea, it is voided by the assumption that one particular beautiful woman (Adriana Lima) can speak for all beautiful women everywhere, and her “tips” are somehow inherently valid because she’s pretty and female. Of course, it doesn’t help that this whole article in which she says things like, “don’t treat my friends like meat” and “treat people with respect” is interspersed with borderline pornographic pictures of her on the beach. But this is an understandable and logical contradiction. Adriana Lima is not, apparently, a single, individual, unique woman. She is “beautiful women”. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with taking off her clothes and using her body as a vessel for fantasy. But women do the same thing. Cosmo is full of shirtless men giving us tips on how to catch a guy. Again, these men are not unique individuals. They are “hot guys”, and hence fair game for treating like meat.
The point of this is not to say that anyone who subscribes to or buys GQ or Cosmo is a bad person. I, too, have known the joys of buying a Cosmo, counting how many times the word “sex” or “orgasm” appears on the cover, and taking the quiz to find out how good of a flirt I am. And it is not to say that there is nothing worthwhile to be found in any given issue. Even in this GQ, I found myself agreeing with some points. But today, as I was talking to somebody about this particular magazine, I realized that many people don’t know how many hurtful, degrading messages they endorse when they buy publications such as these. And I get how easy it is to say, “it’s just a magazine…it doesn’t kill small children”. But here’s the thing: 1 in 6 women in the U.S. will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. There are not enough sociopathic people to account for all of those. So how do basically sane, normal men sexually assault women? That is a very complex question, but it certainly makes it much easier when they’ve been raised in a culture where women are easily viewed as objects, and not individuals. Yet of those 1 in 6 women, only 48% will report it to police - and that goes down to 24% if the assailant is a non-stranger. Why would these women not report this heinous act? Again, that is a very complex question, but the constantly reinforced idea that men are somehow innately animalistic and overly-sexual does not help. But these stereotypes don’t just hurt women. Males are forced to embrace a strong, heterosexual sexuality at a very young age, and if they somehow do not fit that mould, it can be very confusing. Perhaps that is why, out of all subgroups of sexual abuse victims, boys between the ages of 12 and 18 are least likely to report.
If we, the most educated 1% of the world’s population, don’t stop buying magazines and endorsing a culture in which people are objects, these statistics will never change.
So, if you’ve come into contact with me in the past 2 days, you have heard me talk about this issue of GQ someone recently gave me to read. The following are problems I’ve often thought about in a fleeting kind of way, but reading this magazine made me pull them into focus. So here are 3 reasons why no one should read GQ, Cosmo or anything in that genre:
1. It limits the identity of females: People who think feminism is no longer a relevant discussion need only look at magazines like GQ and Cosmo to know that the subjugation and stereotyping of females is still a pressing issue. Blanket statements are made with little or no qualifiers to define femininity. “We all know that we should buy women flowers”; “The only correct answer to ‘can we split the bill’ is ‘absolutely not’”; “Valentines sin #3: Giving you supermarket flowers.” This is not to say that any of these things are totally untrue for any given female. There are many women who have been raised to think they should not have to pay a bill, and there are many women who have very high standards for flowers. However, this in no way should be a description of females as a whole. It limits both those who fall within its bounds and those who fall without. For a woman who takes pride in her financial self-reliance, and would be uncomfortable not splitting a bill, this brings up questions of her own femininity. For a woman who enjoys getting flowers and would be disappointed getting generic supermarket flowers, statements such as these force her to question her individuality. Is she “just a woman” for wanting flowers, or does she need to not want flowers in order to be a unique individual? To be a woman means nothing more than to have two x chromosomes, though this does imply more than physical differences. However, that other x chromosome does not make us crave flowers, be more needy, lose our ability to open doors or like or dislike romantic comedies. Stereotyping like this also limits some women from embracing desirable “masculine” roles, such as leader or unemotional observer. For others of us, a desire to avoid these stereotypes causes us to avoid classically “feminine” roles, such as empathizer or nurturer.
2. It limits the identity of males: Of course, men are just as much victims. A recent article in GQ discussed how men should deal with crying and emotions, and to what extent “the waterworks” would turn her on or off. Another article on “henpecked men” said, “isn’t marriage one of the cornerstones of male acquiescence?” Articles in Cosmo discuss how to not be too needy, how to grab any guy’s attention (one tip: “Find out his favourite team and get yourself a jersey!”), and how to be romantic to any guy (“Seriously, nothing says ‘I love you’ to a dude like an unexpected six-pack of beer. We're that easy.”) Again, this kind of pigeonholing hurts both those who fit the mould and those who do not. Should someone with one x and one y chromosome feel less “male” if he is easily moved to tears, hates sports, wants to get married or enjoys romance? And should someone who loves football, is rather unemotional or is oblivious to romance feel as though these are not his own qualities, but rather inescapable “male” qualities?
3. It promotes the objectification of both men and women: These lead to an inevitable conclusion for readers of these magazines. If men and women are easily labelled and defined with simple stereotypes, then they are objects, not complex individuals. The most striking example is in the current GQ article “So You Want to Date a Supermodel”. The whole idea of the article is that, while most men think beautiful women are some other, unattainable species, they are in fact simply women who want to be treated with courtesy and respect. While this is a good basic idea, it is voided by the assumption that one particular beautiful woman (Adriana Lima) can speak for all beautiful women everywhere, and her “tips” are somehow inherently valid because she’s pretty and female. Of course, it doesn’t help that this whole article in which she says things like, “don’t treat my friends like meat” and “treat people with respect” is interspersed with borderline pornographic pictures of her on the beach. But this is an understandable and logical contradiction. Adriana Lima is not, apparently, a single, individual, unique woman. She is “beautiful women”. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with taking off her clothes and using her body as a vessel for fantasy. But women do the same thing. Cosmo is full of shirtless men giving us tips on how to catch a guy. Again, these men are not unique individuals. They are “hot guys”, and hence fair game for treating like meat.
The point of this is not to say that anyone who subscribes to or buys GQ or Cosmo is a bad person. I, too, have known the joys of buying a Cosmo, counting how many times the word “sex” or “orgasm” appears on the cover, and taking the quiz to find out how good of a flirt I am. And it is not to say that there is nothing worthwhile to be found in any given issue. Even in this GQ, I found myself agreeing with some points. But today, as I was talking to somebody about this particular magazine, I realized that many people don’t know how many hurtful, degrading messages they endorse when they buy publications such as these. And I get how easy it is to say, “it’s just a magazine…it doesn’t kill small children”. But here’s the thing: 1 in 6 women in the U.S. will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. There are not enough sociopathic people to account for all of those. So how do basically sane, normal men sexually assault women? That is a very complex question, but it certainly makes it much easier when they’ve been raised in a culture where women are easily viewed as objects, and not individuals. Yet of those 1 in 6 women, only 48% will report it to police - and that goes down to 24% if the assailant is a non-stranger. Why would these women not report this heinous act? Again, that is a very complex question, but the constantly reinforced idea that men are somehow innately animalistic and overly-sexual does not help. But these stereotypes don’t just hurt women. Males are forced to embrace a strong, heterosexual sexuality at a very young age, and if they somehow do not fit that mould, it can be very confusing. Perhaps that is why, out of all subgroups of sexual abuse victims, boys between the ages of 12 and 18 are least likely to report.
If we, the most educated 1% of the world’s population, don’t stop buying magazines and endorsing a culture in which people are objects, these statistics will never change.