{"id":2275,"date":"2013-03-23T16:12:46","date_gmt":"2013-03-23T20:12:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.bu.edu\/core\/?p=2275"},"modified":"2013-03-24T20:14:01","modified_gmt":"2013-03-25T00:14:01","slug":"gender-inequality-cc204-the-claims-of-esquires-editor","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.bu.edu\/core\/2013\/03\/23\/gender-inequality-cc204-the-claims-of-esquires-editor\/","title":{"rendered":"Gender Inequality: CC204 & The Claims of Esquire’s Editor"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

Relating to last week’s lecture by Professor Mears on gender inequality and Hochschild’s readings, are two articles discussing the claim made by the\u00a0Esquire<\/em>‘s editor, that “women are there to be beautiful objects”. Some extracts:<\/p>\n

“The women we feature in the magazine are ornamental,” he said, speaking at the\u00a0Advertising Week Europe conference in London on Tuesday. “I could lie to you if you want and say we are interested in their brains as well. We are not. They are objectified.”<\/p>\n

Seeing someone admit outright that his magazine deliberately objectifies female models is refreshing.<\/p>\n

Sadly, however, having admitted to perpetuating sexism, Bilmes then tried to rationalize it with two of the most illogical sexist excuses in circulation: That’s just how men are and women do it, too! He trotted out the latter when he accused women’s magazines of also objectifying women, as if the practice becomes less, not more, objectionable for being ubiquituous.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

For the full articles, visit slate.me\/14eHHuw<\/a> and\u00a0gaw.kr\/ZdcjZ0<\/a>.<\/p>\n

This directly relates to\u00a0and integrates themes addressed in both CC202 and CC204.\u00a0In last week’s CC204 lecture, Professor Mears highlighted some important changes in gender inequality in our society. Here is a sample:<\/p>\n