Esquire says women are ornaments
The editor of Esquire Magazine has admitted women are purely ‘ornamental’ for its male readers.
Last week, London played host to the Advertising Week Europe conference, a ‘hybrid of inspiring thought leadership featuring the world’s best and brightest with engaging special events.’
Not captured your interest yet? Well, one of these special events was a panel hosted by Cosmopolitan editor Louise Court, which looked at feminism in the media and advertising.
The panel was called ‘Cosmopolitan and the F Word’ and it asked questions about modern feminism in media and advertising such as: ‘how many true role models are there for women in the industry? Is media innately sexist in the way it covers news stories? How do women want to be portrayed?’ And such like.
So just to reiterate – a panel about feminism in the media.
It would seem, then, that someone either stumbled into the wrong room, or took the title ‘Cosmopolitan and the F Word’ to mean something quite different.
Enter Esquire Magazine editor Alex Bilmes who, in his infinite wisdom, addressed the panel with the statement that the magazine used pictures of ‘ornamental’ women for male readers ‘in the same way we provide pictures of cool cars’.
He went on to assert that this was more honest behaviour than that of the women’s magazine industry, which, in some publications, perpetuated ‘negative images of women’.
Was that a clanger I heard dropping? Did he think these chauvinistic ponderings would endear him to his feminist audience?
Here’s what he said in more detail:
‘What we do at Esquire is produce a men’s magazine, and it has a male gaze. So this is the controversial bit that people don’t like but I always say the truth about it: The women we feature in the magazine are ornamental.’
At this point, a woman in the audience, clearly agog, interrupted, saying, ‘We have sharp objects.’
Alas, the man had no fear.
He continued: ‘Yeah I know. Well, I could lie to you if you want and say that we’re interested in their brains as well, but on the whole we’re not, and they’re there to be beautiful objects. They’re objectified.’
He went on to share other pearls of wisdom including the idea that men ‘regard women in many, many ways: They’re our sisters, our daughters, our wives, our mothers, and we do see them as three-dimensional human beings.
‘But there are certain times we just want to look at them because they’re sexy… One of the things men like is pictures of pretty girls, so we provide them with pictures of pretty girls.
‘For that purpose, they are ornamental. This may sound even worse, but it’s the same way we also provide them with pictures of cool cars.’
Holy nauseating sexism Batman.
Who is this dweeb anyway? He is clearly a pony short of a gymkhana if he thinks it’s smart to offend women while surrounded by a room full of feminists.
But he wasn’t done yet. Oh no.
Alex, in mitigation of this jaw dropping sexism, offered ‘We’re at least, or possibly more, ethnically diverse [than other magazines]. More shape-diverse. We also have older women. Not really old, but in their 40s… Cameron Diaz was on the cover three issues ago. She’s in her 40s.’
Well, that’s ok then Alex. As long as you are being ethnically and age diverse in your objectification and sexism, who are we to complain?
I wonder if the women who appear in this magazine are aware that this is how they are being sold? That they are simply pretty baubles for men to drool over, as they would a Lamborghini or an Aston Martin?
In fact, put the two together and millions of men would fall catatonic, if Alex is correct.
Would the cover girls of Esquire Magazine be happy to know that none of the readers care about their brains, abilities, personalities or opinions, and that they are nothing better than pieces of meat?
And what of the readership? Men are being told that these attitudes are fine, that women are just things, to be gawped at and drooled over and, yes let’s not beat about the bush, to be ‘relaxed in a gentleman’s way’ over, to use an old fashioned phrase. You get the drift.
In a further attempt to justify Esquire’s blatant sexism, Bilmes also said that the women’s magazine industry was just as irresponsible, and far less honest, with regards to perpetuating negative images of women.
Oh really? And how do women’s magazines perpetuate a lad culture that stereotypes women as being nothing more than a series of body parts, there for the pleasure of men?
Hilariously, Bilmes later took to Twitter, claiming that ‘actually I said mental, not ornamental, but was misquoted.’
Yes, because saying that women are mental is so much better than saying they are ornamental.
Alas the camera does not lie, and he was caught in his full glory on film. (If you can stomach it, you can watch for yourself).
Needless to say, reactions to his admissions have been less than favourable.
The Guardian asked ‘Isn’t there a Benny Hill sketch somewhere, missing a ruddy-faced pervert?’
Kat Stoeffel of New York magazine picked up on Bilmes claim that Esquire embraced diversity by featuring older women on the cover.
She said, ‘Personally, I would forgo such bold and anti-ageist cover models as Cameron Diaz, 40, in favor of women being distinct from cars.’
Even the Daily Mail seemed ‘outraged’ (how very unlike them) despite the fact that they feature seismic numbers of semi-clad women on their website every day.
Alex Bilmes clearly thought that there was some merit to his candour.
Sorry Alex. You’re just a narrow minded, repellant, chauvinistic twit.
Just being honest, you understand.
A chauvinist is essentially someone with a psychopathic attitude towards women. He also lies, another symptom of psychopathy. His candour is useful, as it essentially shows the mindset of he and his readers to women, that they are objects not people, one of the key symptoms of psychopathy.