ironic sexism: GQ’s Glee cover not funny or cute

You’ve no doubt seen or heard about the Glee actors posing suggestively and ‘unGlee like’ on the cover of this month’s GQ magazine shot by creepy ‘sexual exploitation is liberation’ photographer Terry Richards.  On Tuesday night, I posted the cover photo to my Facebook wall and coversations ensued there and all over the web.

I kept coming back to men who are constantly baited with these types of images that reinforce oppressive norms. But then I realized, “Wait, most men LOVE these norms!”

Here we have an example of ironic sexism, a modern phenomena in advertising and mass media that has been flummoxing feminists because we know we’re being toyed with but we can’t quite put our finger on what it is because we’re obviously too busy complaining about women or advertising or the women in advertisementsDefined as modern attitudes and behaviors that mimic or glorify sexist aspects of the past, often in a mocking way, ironic sexism is always tough to pin down because it’s never easy to determine if it’s a parody or if it’s just reinforced sexism. If we guess ‘parody’, we might be forced to give up our feminist card and if it’s sexism, not many people will want to listen. It’s a dilemma.

But here, GQ illustrates an important aspect of ironic sexism: they “talk the talk” of the target audience. In this case, it realizes the fantasy of GQ’s target 33.4 year old audience – school girl and/or girl-on-girl porn – and recreates the images in a way that makes you feel as if you’re seeing these characters in a male fantasy. Would these men watch the original high school drama/musical TV show? Only if it involved high school girls playing ‘teachers pet’ and striping in the locker room.

GQ knows that men will respond to these images because it’s an obvious yet ironic portrayal of porn: previously squeaky clean high school teens playing in a man’s fantasy.  But GQ also knows that you’ll think these images aren’t so bad because the women are self-objectifying.  For the record, self-objectification is harmful not only to Leah Michele and Dianna Agron who participated in the pseudo-porn shoot, but also to other women who realize that this is completely sexist but have to go along with it in order to be ‘one of the guys’ and/or to avoid being called a feminazi.

So: Parody or Sexism?

GQ isn’t making fun of kiddy porn, they’re recreating it to sell products to men, and in a self-realized turn of events, even hired alleged pedophile photographer, Terry Richards to shoot it.


One of the best points in the feminist blogosphere was brought up over at The Broadsheet where Mary Elizabeth Williams said

…playing off the setting of the show, it essentially keeps its stars in character, thereby then allowing its readers — median age 33.4 — to ogle them as porny teen fantasy characters — all spread legs and underpants in the locker room… And knowing that it was shot by a man with a long, storied and reputedly unpleasant history involving teenagers makes the whole thing just that much more repugnant.

Richards, 44, is known for his pedophilia-like advances on the young models he photographs and moreover, he’s loved and adored in the industry for it. Doesn’t this sound similar to American Apparel CEO, Dov Charney? That’s really interesting you make that comparison because it just so happens that the Glee stars are wearing all American Apparel clothing.

All this song and dance in an effort to sell these stupid products, which BTW you probably don’t need or want anyway. Here’s the contact information for the people who made this whole thing happen. Because we can’t just go on writing/commenting on blog posts and not do anything. Our fingers and wrists are starting to hurt and carpel tunnel can be an early onset disease.

Here’s what Leah Michele’s looks like advertising to women:

And the amazing ironic sexism Vlog post:


3 thoughts on “ironic sexism: GQ’s Glee cover not funny or cute

  1. Simon says:

    I’ll be honest, i only read a paragraph or 2 of your post (tl;dr) but i think (note: think) you’re basically saying that you’re against women posing on the cover of magazines in their underwear (Extra note, i realise i could be wrong)
    But i have to ask, who is the real sucker here? The women getting money for posing in, lets face it, less revealing things than they may wear beside a pool or at the beach, or the guys that pay £4 – £5 for the magazine? Personally i think it’s the guys that pay for it.
    I’m not going to lie, i’m a guy, and i would only buy such a thing if i’d stumbled from the pub to Tesco, and i’m not going to deny that i enjoy the images, but i still think the women come out on top from that kind of industry.

    • Thanks for your comment, Simon. If you’re interested in diving deeper into the topic, I suggest you check out Jackson Katz work.

      To answer your question: in the long run, we’re all the suckers. Both women and men are hurt by such images. Men are pigeonholed to believe this is what women look like while simultaneously being stereotyped as sex-driven consumers. Women who self-objectify not only hurt themselves but also to other women as it creates a standard whereby women must self-objectify to be non-threatening to men.


      [image: Twitter] [image: Facebook] [image: WordPress] [image: YouTube] [image: Vimeo] [image: Blog RSS] [image: Delicious] [image: LinkedIn]

      Talking backto pop-culture with better stories about women that don’t revolve around men (or babies).

  2. I taught high scohol English for two years. Then I got married and moved away, and considered teaching again. After talking to other teachers and discovering that the situation in the scohol at which I had worked was not substantially different from other scohols, I decided to take a clerical position, at lower pay, instead. I got a master’s degree in Information Systems and went to work in the business world. Why? Not because of the pay. Because I found the scohols to be a nightmare of incompetence and lack of caring. There were good teachers; don’t get me wrong. But the older teachers were mostly holding on for retirement and just doing what they had to to get by, never mind what the students needed. The younger teachers in general had not a clue, and although we officially had a mentoring program it in reality did not function. (My mentor was my department head, whose son was even in one of my classes the first year I taught. I *never* was able to meet with her and she *never* sought me out.) Those who could get a job elsewhere usually left after a few years. Almost all the male teachers, by the way, were coaches who got a little extra money for those duties.I was an English major, not education, but I had to take extra education classes to get my teaching certificate. I was a straight-A student, and I found the education classes to be pathetic, almost without exception. The interesting thing is that not one of my education courses actually taught me how to teach English, and only one of them even covered what to do in a classroom at all. That one covered generic lesson planning, essentially. And if you’ve ever read the state requirements for a particular grade level, at least here in Texas, they’re well nigh incomprehensible. Most teachers of my acquaintance played games with their lesson plans to give lip service to covering the requirements because to do otherwise would be a)impossible (not enough time) and b)a mess (because no coherence).My oldest is just turning 5, and we’re homescoholing. We’re using a challenging curriculum (but one that doesn’t start traditional academics until the children are older, which I also like), and I can deal with “values such as caring, fairness, honesty, responsibility, and social justice” within the context of our own religious beliefs, thereby saving the scohols that burden.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s