ew. ick. magazine. ick.
January 30, 2004 02:11 PM
A survey from some people thinking about starting a plus-size magazine.
This is so the next to last straw. And people wonder why feminists talk like all guys are nasty uneducated skeezydaddies sometimes. They're not, generally speaking, but sometimes...
See the second question:
2. Do you consider men's magazines such as Maxim, Razor, and King exploitive to women?
- Yes, the women in these mags are sluts!
- I do not have a strong opinion
- No, there is nothing wrong with a little sexuality
Not only did they misspell "exploitative" and use it with incorrect grammar (one thing is never exploitative TO another but exploitative OF something), but the question betrays an appalling lack of understanding of objectification. Or perhaps, too strong an identification with the ideas that objectification sometimes produces. That a woman whose image is exploited sexually (by herself or someone else) is inherently a slut. Generally, when we say something/one is being exploited, we're talking about that thing/person as a victim or tool.
Exploitation turns people into objects that you can then ascribe your own fantasy traits to. And I assume these guys are doing exactly that - they sort of vaguely [mis]heard some feminist criticism of men's magazines, and then translated it to stupidguy-speak. The funny thing is, I'm not actually wildly opposed to the idea, though I do think it reflects what most of the men's magazines they mention are actually about - namely half-naked chicks, but the approach to asking me what I think is so icky I just want to respond back "You're nasty! Nasty! Go away!"
But then. My theory is that the survey is actually a joke, and the magazine doesn't and will never exist, because a real magazine would have editors who could actually, you know, edit copy.
On the other hand, there are people like Paul to make fun of half-naked chick magazines like this (make sure you take a look at the pictures).
[Something funky seems to happen with the link when you click instead of cutting & pasting. It's http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=63404369275.]
TrackBack : in fat & health stuff
« activist in one sphere doesn't mean activist in another |
| stupid media kerfuffle »
your wicked thoughts
The link said that the survey no longer exists or something. :-/ Either way, I bet if I read that question I would close the window and move on. Sluts? Please people.
these are the thoughts of Kim on January 30, 2004 02:22 PM
If that was a real survey (which as Kim said, appears to be gone,) it's obvious that the magazine isn't really for fat women. Perhaps it's "Maxim Plus." (shivers)
these are the thoughts of Paul on January 30, 2004 02:28 PM
So the exploitation of women now makes them sluts? Ugh...
these are the thoughts of Justine on January 30, 2004 08:56 PM
I couldn't get past question #2 on the survey...I was so enraged by that. Well, of course those women are exploited in Maxim, they're sluts, what did they expect. (insert scream here)
They already do have porn mags that feature fat women, but they are treated as a fetish, right alongside the "Orient" magazines and "Les Sex" ones.
these are the thoughts of Kerri on January 31, 2004 12:23 AM
Oh, god - Kerri reminded me of all those grotesquerie-style "big nasty ho" sites. As lots of people have pointed out before, there are plenty of others who think that size acceptance is basically about fetishism.
But there is some fat-friendly porn (mostly independent) that isn't fetishized so much. Online, nofauxxx.com is an example, assuming it's still around. And there could be fat-friendly men's magazines, I just don't think this is one.
these are the thoughts of april on February 1, 2004 11:40 AM
please note that your IP address is logged when comments are posted, and comment abuse including spam will be investigated and reported to your internet service provider.