Offender: Cover story "Spanking Goes Mainstream" by Katie Roiphe in the April 23/30, 2012, issue of Newsweek magazine

Media Outlet: Newsweek and The Daily Beast

The Offense: The cover photograph shows a woman who is styled to look like a high-fashion model. She is blindfolded with a large black sash tied in a bow at the back of her head. Her bare shoulders and the top portion of her chest are visible. The caption says: "The Fantasy Life of Working Women | Why Surrender is a Feminist Dream."

NOW's Analysis: Media outlets have a long history of glamorizing women's submission. Typically the fashion industry is guilty of this practice, but news outlets aren't afraid to employ the same strategy. Under the theory that titillation sells magazines, combined with the belief that objectifying women makes you seem edgy, consumers end up with junk like this on the newsstands (and the Internet).

It's hard to tell what's more offensive. The haute couture style of the cover photo, which presents the blindfolding of a woman as elegant and refined. Or the accompanying article, which uses the popularity of the book "Fifty Shades of Gray" -- which Katie Roiphe describes as the "skinny-vanilla-latte version of sadomasochism" -- to speculate that women are not comfortable with power and might even find it boring.

Roiphe considers whether women are exhausted by the "relentless responsibility" of their modern lives. She proposes that women are rebelling against "the pressure of economic participation" and their own "strength and independence and desire" -- that's why they're drawn to the idea of "sexual surrender." The article attempts to support its premise with the not terribly precise estimate that "between 31 percent and 57 percent of women entertain fantasies where they are forced to have sex" (according to Psychology Today).

Picture for a moment a mainstream magazine arguing that men feel there is something "basically liberating about being overcome or overpowered." Imagine a male author positing that men have an "incandescent fantasy of being dominated." And try, just try, to envision that cover with a blindfolded male model.

Is it paranoid to suggest that Newsweek and Roiphe intentionally portray women as fearful of equality in order to grease the wheels for rolling back their rights? Is it too extreme to suggest that the cover image and the article work together to convey the message that women want to throw in the towel on being in charge of their sexuality and their lives in general? Would it be going too far to characterize articles like this as contributing to a cultural environment where it's not so bad when men physically assault women, even rape them, because that's what women really want?

Roiphe argues that feminists are "perplexed" by the persistence of dominance/submission fantasies, but when Gloria Steinem tries to explain it, Roiphe shrugs her off, writing that "maybe sex and aggression should not, and probably more to the point, cannot be untangled." Sure sounds like a writer with an agenda that's hostile to women's empowerment and safety. Not to mention the fact that Roiphe never asks why men might want to dominate and hurt women, and what that might say about them.

That this magazine rolled off the presses just as advocates are struggling to get the Violence Against Women Act reauthorized in Congress should make even the most trusting person stop and think.

Take Action: Write to Newsweek at letters@newsweek.com and tell them what you think about this cover story. And put pressure on the Senate to reauthorize VAWA.

This post is part of the #HERvotes blog carnival on the Violence Against Women Act.

Lisa Bennett, NOW Communications Director, April 24, 2012

More offenders in : Objectification of Women, Violence Against Women, Print Publications, Internet, Media Hall of Shame

Rank this item with our Misogyny Meter:

Spread the word:

Offender: Rush Limbaugh on the Rush Limbaugh Radio Show

Media Outlet: Aired on radio stations nationwide 2/29/12 - syndicated by Premiere Radio Networks, a subsidiary of Clear Channel Communications

The Offense: Rush had this to say: "What does it say about the college co-ed Susan [sic] Fluke who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex."

NOW's Analysis: Limbaugh was talking about Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown University law student who conservatives refused to allow to testify at a Feb. 16 congressional hearing about birth control. Fluke would have been the only panelist testifying in favor of policy requiring that employers, including relgiously affiliated universities like Georgetown, provide their employees and students with health care plans that fully cover contraception. A week later, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi organized a separate hearing at which Fluke was able to give her testimony in full.

On his radio show, Limbaugh continually misrepresented Fluke's testimony, repeatedly claiming she said that she (and other students) are "having so much sex, she can't afford her own birth control pills." First, Fluke said nothing of the kind. Second, does Limbaugh understand how birth control pills work? That the amount of sexual activity a woman engages in has no bearing on the cost of her pills?

It doesn't matter what Limbaugh really thinks or believes, of course. It's all about his intent -- which is to shame and ridicule a woman who was speaking in the public arena about women's right to reproductive health care. Limbaugh showed his disrespect by continually calling Fluke by the wrong first and last name, including referring to her as Flake. Limbaugh also got in a dig at Pelosi, dubbing her the "Botox-filled Nancy Pelosi."

These insults, as Rep. Carolyn Maloney has pointed out, are meant to scare women away from standing up for themselves and demanding their rights. Calling a forthright, unapologetic woman a slut is an age-old tactic that never seems to go out of style. One of the reasons women are still unequal is because our society continues to judge them based on their sexual activity, appearance, age and other characteristics that are not used to disparage men in the same way. We must speak out when we see examples of this kind of bias, otherwise it will never go away.

One final point: If this had been someone on MSNBC calling a conservative woman a slut, you can bet that right-wingers would be calling for their head right now. It will be interesting to see if any conservatives call out their buddy Rush Limbaugh for his offensive comments.

Take Action: Contact Clear Channel at publicrelations@clearchannel.com and tell them how you feel about Rush Limbaugh's attacks on Sandra Fluke.

Updates
3/1/12: Limbaugh suggests on his show that if Fluke wants contraception to be fully covered, she should post videos of herself having sex online so Limbaugh and others can watch.

3/2/12: NOW issues a statement calling on Clear Channel to take Limbaugh off the air.

3/3/12: Limbaugh issues a non-apology apology.

3/5/12: Nine advertisers have now pulled their commercials from Limbaugh's show. His employer, Clear Channel, still stands behind him. Write to Clear Channel now at publicrelations@clearchannel.com.

Rush blames "the left" and the president's "socialist agenda" for his slurs against Sandra Fluke.

3/6/12: As of this afternoon there are a total of 32 companies (according to ThinkProgress) that have either pulled their ads from Limbaugh's show or have made sure that their ads will not air during the program. Additionally, two radio stations have dropped the program from their line-up -- KPUA of Hilo, Hawaii and 1420 AM WBEC of Pittsfield, Mass.

Lisa Bennett, NOW Communications Director, March 1, 2012

More offenders in : Sexist Piggery, Reproductive Rights, Radio

Rank this item with our Misogyny Meter:

Spread the word:

Offender: New TV comedy "Work It"

Media Outlet: Premiered on ABC, 1/3/12

The Offense: Two out-of-work men dress up as women to get jobs selling pharmaceuticals. The first episode included lines such as: "Women are taking over the workforce. Soon they'll start getting rid of men. They'll just keep a few of us around as sex slaves . . . Not the kind of sex you like . . . Just kissing and cuddling and listening," and "When women take over, they'll make pride illegal."

NOW's Analysis: As one might expect from such an outdated and convoluted concept, "Work It" relies heavily on the presumption that viewers will crack up at the mere sight of two men dressed as women. The script is obsessed with ticking off every supposed difference between the sexes.

For instance, women eat itty-bitty lunches, while men crave giant subs. Men sit around and pound beers at pubs, while women drink cocktails and dance at clubs. And, of course: Men just don't get women, even their long-suffering wives. They need to literally walk in women's shoes to empathize with the other half of the population.

The stereotypical female characters in the office include the blonde princess, the driven bitch, and a slight variation on the Manic Pixie Dream Girl (this version's on hand to help the lead male character, Lee, become a better man and woman).

Other clichés are trotted out, too, like straight men's fascination with lesbians and this classic: "I'm Puerto Rican, I'd be great at selling drugs." Even book clubs where women read about coming of age (and dying) in Rwanda are played for laughs. Aren't women and their interests just silly?

"Work It" might be easy to write off, if it weren't so offensive. The plot is kick-started when Lee runs into a prescription drug saleswoman in his doctor's office, and she tells him: "We're kind of just looking for girls . . . we've had some guys, but the doctors seem to want to nail them less." And Lee's wife has to remind him to "stop comparing prostate exams to the pinball scene in 'The Accused'" -- no matter how old the reference, is gang rape ever good fodder for a joke?

Set aside for the moment that the characters repeatedly refer to adult women as "girls." And the ridiculously mocking way Lee's friend, Angel, walks in heels and a skirt. Even worse than these superficial offenses, the show has a nonchalant attitude toward inappropriate sexual remarks and attitudes. At his interview, Angel tells the female boss: "Your ass looks tight in those pants" (is this ok because he's presumed to be a woman?). Afterward, Angel tells Lee he was fighting an erection during the interview.

Perhaps the most insulting thread in the premise is how Lee gets hired. Vanessa, the boss, expresses surprise that Lee researched the company before his interview and actually understands its products. She confides: "Most of the girls who interview here think clinical trials are the things Lindsay Lohan keeps having to go to." Lee replies: "I'm not your ordinary girl."

So, ordinary "girls" are dumb and don't know how to prep for interviews? But a man (especially one with experience selling macho cars) knows how to impress the boss? Were any women writers or producers present when this exchange was waved through?

This kind of sexist buffoonery is juvenile even in beer commercials. Thirty minutes of it is just pathetic.

Take Action: Tell ABC what you think about the outdated and offensive stereotypes of women and men in "Work It." Update: ABC canceled "Work It" after two episodes, but it's still ok to contact the network and tell them why shows like this are a big mistake!

Lisa Bennett, NOW Communications Director, January 9, 2012

More offenders in : Objectification of Women, Television, Harassment, Intimidation, Media Hall of Shame

Rank this item with our Misogyny Meter:

Spread the word: