Comments on: Cleavage-clad Jennifer Lawrence on Glamour cover is not what we’re “hunger”ing for

By: Heather

Heather — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 13:53:01 +0000

Thanks for encouraging me to further explore the origin of these desires. I think alot of it has to do with the way we are socialized and have unconsciously digest definitions – visually and conceptually of what it means to be attractive, successful, etc. that are inherent in gender roles since we were born. It does bother me, though that even women’s magazines could be so reductive to their own kind by splashing photoshopped perfection on covers and in spreads and push products that encourage us to “be our best self” as though the matter we are organically working with is inherently flawed. Unfortunately, we do still live in a patriarchal society which is why I think that the work About-face does is so important to encourage media literacy and spreading the message that we should not take media messages at face value, but that they are something that need to be critically constructed and brought into honest dialogue, especially among young women.

By: Heather

Heather — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 13:47:17 +0000

You’re right, unfortunately, aside from niche roles, physical attractiveness is usually a mandate for many blockbuster Hollywood roles – male and female alike.
I do agree with you and absolutely think that one can be BOTH sexy and powerful, but the trouble is that our culture has created a very limited, idealized standard of sexy that is often synonymous with objectification. More often than not bodies (male AND female) are offered up as objects to strive to be, attract, etc. Also, sexy, to me, is an individual definition and is diverse and nuanced depending on a person’s preferences. Unfortunately our mainstream media feeds us a steady diet of a one-size-fits all characterization which does not encourage variety.

By: Heather

Heather — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 13:01:10 +0000

Thank you! I hope you continue to read and add your voice on these important matters.

By: Maggie

Maggie — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 21:54:44 +0000

I agree with many of your points here. However, while male heroes may not be sexualized as overtly, it seems to me that physical attractiveness is a quality mandated for strong male protagonists as well. And to play the devil’s advocate here, couldn’t one view the idea that women can be powerful AND sexy as a positive message?

By: Anjeli Shah

Anjeli Shah — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:11:56 +0000

I completely agree. Great article!

By: Lilly

Lilly — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 17:24:56 +0000

I completely agree, the Glamour cover is in really poor taste. I’m sick of women being presented as nothing more than eye candy. Why can’t our society grow up?

By: Ashley

Ashley — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 03:47:17 +0000

You make some pretty strong points here. Wherever there is a female heroine, 9 times out of 10 she has to be sexy as well as a badass. Then I wonder why this is. I wonder if the movie still photo were the cover, would Glamour be selling as many copies? This idea of having normal looking females on covers and all through magazines has been tested, and doesn’t seem to sell as much versus issues featuring sexy, glamorously dolled up people. Then I wonder why that is. Is it just social structuring that we subliminally want to buy a magazine with sex appeal rather than people who look more like every day folk, stemming from the fashion and beauty industry or media, or was it created somehow by society? In other words, chicken or egg?