Well, if you didn't care and didn't buy the mag, then that's cool...heh. I didn't care at all about the cover and actually didn't want to buy it and increase their revenue, but I was drawn in by the Eric, Viggo, Jake thing. But I was sorely disappointed. Would have been better off just downloading the pics and skipping the mag. Grr.
This salon article has some interesting points on the whole VF issue, and I agree with most of it. And even putting the whole feminism issue aside, I think what annoys me most about this issue is that I don't think the photographs are even all that good. Most of my reaction seems to be: Blah, how bland. Why is this guy famous for being a good artist/photographer again?
Ooooh, thank you so much! That Salon article makes me feel much more sane...she pointed up all the stuff I was saying about it so at least I know I'm not crazy. Salon's an awesome, intelligent site so I'm glad they did this piece.
And exactly--on top of the offensiveness of the thing, it was pure crap. The mag was really just an ode to Tom Ford's ego and I don't think he cared one iota about the actual pics.
I think it boils down to one thing: men rule the world, and they make the rules to suit themselves. And as long as they do, women will be ridiculed/called names/blackballed/etc. for refusing to pose nude while men who refuse to put up with the same BS are simply excused for feeing that way. You're absolutely right: Eric Bana hasn't been laughed at for wanting to wear a robe over his Speedo. His modesty is a non-issue. A modest woman, however, is a prude/frigid/pick your invective. It's the same old same old: a double standard.
You had to have noticed the pic of George Clooney: George dressed up his handsome earlobes, complete with knee-high friggin' boots, while nubile beauties stood around him in their undies. *moons George*
Vanity Fair is one big, self-important hypefest, so yeah, the photography in the mag didn't do much for me either. Past pix have been more beautiful. I'm thinking about Leo DiCaprio with a swan in his arms, Keanu and his motorcycle in sharp black and white, Courtney Love in pale, floating satin...
( ... )
Did you see the article in Salon that lamath linked to above? It's incredibly well-written and just as scathing as we want them to be, so that made me feel better. I wish I'd picked up on this bandwagon sooner but I think I'll still send VF a big f-u email.
In the Salon article it says the George pic was supposed to be a woman's fantasy? Huh? Granted a gay man doesn't know much about what straight women want, but what a bullshit answer that was. And yeah, I am a bit disappointed in George for agreeing to such a pic. But what man is gonna say no to such a thing? GAH.
VF HAS had some beautiful pics in the past--it's one of the best things ABOUT this self-important mag. But these...I was shocked. Half the people didn't even look *attractive*, let alone provocative. And then Dakota Fanning looked provocative, which was disturbing. GAH.
The Salon article linked to above explains it all much more intelligently than I could...heh...and with stats and all.
I've heard lots of different stories about the third actress--some said she knew it was going to be a nude shoot and then bowed out, some said she didn't know and then I can REALLY see why she didn't want to do it. What's unsettling is that her refusing to be nude meant she didn't get to be in the issue, whereas men who refused to be nude just got to be clothed.
I just want *equality*. If the dudes aren't taking their clothes off, then the women shouldn't have to either. And if you're throwing naked women into the men's shots, then throw some naked men into the women's, right? But no, that would be treating a man like an *object*, and we can't have that.
I think EXACTLY like you. And finally, I think that until those actresses accept to pose naked as objects, well, then...there is very little to do. Kudos to the one girl that didn't accept, and shame on all the other, and BLAH to all those men that refuse and are let to get away with it. Yep, I'm angry :)
Yeah, that's the thing. Women just go along with it because "that's the way it is" and so it will never change. How will it change if we don't change it? I mean, if I could get nekkid Orlando Bloom in my living room I'm going to accept it, right? Why would I ever change unless he refused to do it? Waiting around for men to become enlightened isn't going to happen.
It's really quite depressing. But it made me feel better that at least Salon.com called it like it was. But critics can complain all they want, if people keep buying the issues (myself included), then they have no reason to change.
*hugs back* I'm with you. I'm not against nudity itself, it's how this whole thing was presented. Amazing when a mag can manage to be both sexist AND racist at the same time. Gah!
I know a number of gals have said they're used to all this--but I'm actually not. It offends me and gets me riled up every time I see it! You can imagine how pleasant this makes me in RL...lol! Seriously, I don't go around all day shaking my fist at the world, but I've never gotten *used* to women as objects. Just as I haven't gotten used to actresses looking like skeletons. I still gasp every time I see that rack of bones down the middle of their chest. Eep!
It is funny how men DO get so offended at being treated like meat--and really, that's okay--I don't expect them to be happy about it either--but those SAME men will think it's perfectly okay for a woman to be treated that way and never question it.
Comments 57
It just isn't important.
Reply
Reply
Reply
And exactly--on top of the offensiveness of the thing, it was pure crap. The mag was really just an ode to Tom Ford's ego and I don't think he cared one iota about the actual pics.
Reply
You had to have noticed the pic of George Clooney: George dressed up his handsome earlobes, complete with knee-high friggin' boots, while nubile beauties stood around him in their undies. *moons George*
Vanity Fair is one big, self-important hypefest, so yeah, the photography in the mag didn't do much for me either. Past pix have been more beautiful. I'm thinking about Leo DiCaprio with a swan in his arms, Keanu and his motorcycle in sharp black and white, Courtney Love in pale, floating satin... ( ... )
Reply
In the Salon article it says the George pic was supposed to be a woman's fantasy? Huh? Granted a gay man doesn't know much about what straight women want, but what a bullshit answer that was. And yeah, I am a bit disappointed in George for agreeing to such a pic. But what man is gonna say no to such a thing? GAH.
VF HAS had some beautiful pics in the past--it's one of the best things ABOUT this self-important mag. But these...I was shocked. Half the people didn't even look *attractive*, let alone provocative. And then Dakota Fanning looked provocative, which was disturbing. GAH.
Reply
Oh, and I haven't see the entire issue so I didn't know what the inside was like.
Reply
I've heard lots of different stories about the third actress--some said she knew it was going to be a nude shoot and then bowed out, some said she didn't know and then I can REALLY see why she didn't want to do it. What's unsettling is that her refusing to be nude meant she didn't get to be in the issue, whereas men who refused to be nude just got to be clothed.
Reply
I think EXACTLY like you. And finally, I think that until those actresses accept to pose naked as objects, well, then...there is very little to do. Kudos to the one girl that didn't accept, and shame on all the other, and BLAH to all those men that refuse and are let to get away with it.
Yep, I'm angry :)
Reply
It's really quite depressing. But it made me feel better that at least Salon.com called it like it was. But critics can complain all they want, if people keep buying the issues (myself included), then they have no reason to change.
Reply
Reply
I know a number of gals have said they're used to all this--but I'm actually not. It offends me and gets me riled up every time I see it! You can imagine how pleasant this makes me in RL...lol! Seriously, I don't go around all day shaking my fist at the world, but I've never gotten *used* to women as objects. Just as I haven't gotten used to actresses looking like skeletons. I still gasp every time I see that rack of bones down the middle of their chest. Eep!
It is funny how men DO get so offended at being treated like meat--and really, that's okay--I don't expect them to be happy about it either--but those SAME men will think it's perfectly okay for a woman to be treated that way and never question it.
Reply
Leave a comment