those "sassy" babes Saturday, April 14, 2007
11:37 AM Permalink
i chanced upon an edition of that gem of a magazine, India Today.
"smart and sassy" said the cover page, showing a young woman. the story was ostensibly about how women are making it big in the corporate world. india today is india's largest-selling english magazine, so i think it's a fairly representative visage for that fuzzy beast called mass media. i want to dissect the representation made by them now.
first, have a look at a couple of recent editions which have featured men on the cover page.
(from indiatoday.com)
and then, the current issue:
(from indiatoday.com)
let's see, famous actor... think of the face.
a cricket coach who was murdered ... how do we recall the person? face.
representation of powerful women ... strike a pose, display that groin. obviously a woman's intelligence, power or drive to succeed all lies centered in her crotch. therefore it's completely relevant if not absolutely vital to include a splay-legged display of it when discussing her abilities.
it makes you freeze to realise that it's easier for the media to portray a dead man as a person, than portray a woman as something more than a "body".
i don't know about you folks, but i'm yet to see a woman posture like that in a board-meeting, or even in a team meeting. wow, how realistic a pose. so that's what women do at work - stand like they're about to launch into a quick tea-break version of moulin rouge.
(from allposters.com)
using a chair in a cabaret act is almost cliched now. in 1972, liza minelli made a movie called "cabaret". the poster of the movie less blatantly highlights the woman's groin than this supposedly non-sexualised depiction!
also, how many women have you seen waltz into office dressed in the finely embroidered ensemble that this one has on? can you imagine getting any work done dressed like that? is it even remotely practical? the only thing you could comfortably do with an outfit like that, would be to sit in an air-conditioned glass case. someone's been suffering an acute attack of woman-are-decorative-elements.
finally, the most obvious idiocy. "sassy"?
impudent of the little girls to walk into an office and get noticed? ooh, they're being spirited in the presence of the Big Male In Charge, huh? the word drips condescension. so that's a really bad choice of words, mr editor, even if the reader didn't know that "sassy" is an americanised corruption of the word "saucy" which happens to have certain specific connotations.
"sexually suggestive"? well, knock me down with a feather.
"smart and sassy" said the cover page, showing a young woman. the story was ostensibly about how women are making it big in the corporate world. india today is india's largest-selling english magazine, so i think it's a fairly representative visage for that fuzzy beast called mass media. i want to dissect the representation made by them now.
first, have a look at a couple of recent editions which have featured men on the cover page.
(from indiatoday.com)
and then, the current issue:
(from indiatoday.com)
let's see, famous actor... think of the face.
a cricket coach who was murdered ... how do we recall the person? face.
representation of powerful women ... strike a pose, display that groin. obviously a woman's intelligence, power or drive to succeed all lies centered in her crotch. therefore it's completely relevant if not absolutely vital to include a splay-legged display of it when discussing her abilities.
it makes you freeze to realise that it's easier for the media to portray a dead man as a person, than portray a woman as something more than a "body".
i don't know about you folks, but i'm yet to see a woman posture like that in a board-meeting, or even in a team meeting. wow, how realistic a pose. so that's what women do at work - stand like they're about to launch into a quick tea-break version of moulin rouge.
(from allposters.com)
using a chair in a cabaret act is almost cliched now. in 1972, liza minelli made a movie called "cabaret". the poster of the movie less blatantly highlights the woman's groin than this supposedly non-sexualised depiction!
also, how many women have you seen waltz into office dressed in the finely embroidered ensemble that this one has on? can you imagine getting any work done dressed like that? is it even remotely practical? the only thing you could comfortably do with an outfit like that, would be to sit in an air-conditioned glass case. someone's been suffering an acute attack of woman-are-decorative-elements.
finally, the most obvious idiocy. "sassy"?
sassy
• adjective (sassier, sassiest) informal,
chiefly N. Amer. bold and spirited; impudent.
impudent of the little girls to walk into an office and get noticed? ooh, they're being spirited in the presence of the Big Male In Charge, huh? the word drips condescension. so that's a really bad choice of words, mr editor, even if the reader didn't know that "sassy" is an americanised corruption of the word "saucy" which happens to have certain specific connotations.
saucy
• adjective (saucier, sauciest) informal 1
chiefly Brit. sexually suggestive in a light-hearted way. 2chiefly N. Amer. bold, lively, and spirited.
"sexually suggestive"? well, knock me down with a feather.
Back-Links | »
April 15, 2007 3:36 AM
you might be interested in this
April 15, 2007 7:12 PM
madhat, thanks! nice one.
April 16, 2007 12:03 AM
Good post! Really appalling...it's incredible how mainstream media's representation of women just never seems to get better. From suggestive saris to suggestive pant suits - what next? Have you written a letter to the editor?
April 16, 2007 12:34 PM
fantastic analysis !
April 16, 2007 2:18 PM
great analysis .. india today's editors shoulda thought a little bit before putting that cover ..
April 16, 2007 9:11 PM
I am sorry but I don't see anything wrong with the cover except for the fact that its just cheesy...
Few points:
There is a difference between the covers that have been compared here. The other two covers talk about specific people, this one talks about women in general. Look into the back issues of India Today, you will find pictures of Sania Mirza and Kiran Mazumdar on the covers with their faces up close/ focus on upper bodies instead of torsos
The groin argument: I think the photographer's attempt here is for the woman model to strike a "powerful" looking pose. I don't think the model has been positioned in a way that focuses on her groin. To me, the leg held higher up probably rests on something to show control over things. So, I guess what you read into the picture is highly subjective. Her dress-up isn't sexy. It seems to be a business trouser, a full length shirt and some kind of a jacket on top. Seems to me to be more comfortable and practical than a saree anyday.
Finally, the literal meaning and the colloquial usage of words differ many a times. A "sassy" person in daily usage may also be construed to be someone who is bold, knows their mind and doesn't mince any words.
April 16, 2007 9:11 PM
Great Post! I have never seen the word sassy used in a serious context.I can understand (not agree) the lame commerical excuse that they want cover pages to be noticed and do the look-at-me thing.But one can easily show some sense in the copy that goes with it?
April 17, 2007 1:11 AM
Continued Contemplation, you're a fool. The very fact that they chose a professional model to stand in for professional women says it all. This is just the business-casual version of tits and ass.
Streeling, this is a really well-observed post - good job. You should write to the Editor. India Today is sinking from subterranean layer to layer of crassness in an effort to sell magazines. It will be Maxim with news soon enough.
April 17, 2007 2:23 AM
good post - got here following some other link
and isn't it sad that they have found no achiever to put on the cover - maybe because she is 40, wrinkled and with 'not so perfect assets' but someone who poses as an anchiever!
April 17, 2007 5:56 AM
though sad but true - for these magazines especially one like India Today and Outlook Women continue to remain more as a galm presentation object.
But as "continued contemptation" said the understanding could be subjective as well. Though i think his observations besides being good are not going to be the common ones. The common view would be as u presented of the tea break mouline rogue.
April 17, 2007 12:01 PM
sorry, agree with continued-contemplation. Stop nitpicking. I think the gal in the picture looks really smart n sassy- not inappropriate at all. I see a lot of women here in the UK dressed in a similar way, though yes, haven't seen anyone in full whites yet- but c'mon, give the guys at India Today some rope...It's still a crap magazine though...am sure you can find many other things to complain about them.
April 17, 2007 4:11 PM
what???
this is a disgusting "analysis"! are you are trying to find a victim in each and every potrayal of woman ?
April 17, 2007 6:03 PM
@m
interesting read.
here's what i think though
1. they did not pick a well known face cuz theey did nt want to tie the article to one successful person. it was for the common (wo)man.
2. the right leg up definitely displays authority and boldness.
3. the idea of the pic (in my mind) was to drive hom ethe point that women smartly dressed in business suits are storming the corporate workplace.
but then again.. thats just my thought.
@continued-contemplation
good points..nice to see someone point out "the world is not all bad".
@Nizam of Sarakki
i donno what kinda wack job would think of this business suit as just tits n ass. dude, u need professional help.
April 18, 2007 10:02 PM
n: yeah, and what really fogs me is that the person/source doing the "suggesting" is never considered, while the person/group that receives the suggestion is morally judged! yeah, i've written to the magazine, but as of now haven't heard from them.
alok: thanks.
blog barfer: thanks, they should have thought. period!
continued-contemplation: making an explicit statement that you're making someone a "thing" or "body" - a name and face that can be pinned down, facts that can be shaken in your face as the people you've been unjust to - is different from doing that to a concept, or generic representation. the second kind of crime doesnt have a name or *person* associated with it, making fighting against it much harder, and therefore much safer for you.
"bold" is different from "sassy". ever heard a man being described as "sassy" unless he was actually employing sexual innuendo? i haven't.
vidya: thanks, and yes!
nizam: feel free to disagree, but please keep it civil! and thanks.
harini: very sad! and in their idea to use her as such, in such a context, the model's the one likely to be labelled, not the magazine! convenient aint it?
ankurg: i must say i find the slick custom of declaring something as "subjective" when an involved/affected group speaks up very amusing!
dazedandconfused: go ahead, agree with whom you want. i'm not trying to win a democratic vote on it! - that was an analysis of representation.
anon: first ask yourself why you associated victimhood with "each and every portrayal of women [sic]". then we can talk.
v.: maybe. maybe not! but your freedom of thought as much as mine, i guess.
April 19, 2007 2:12 AM
Hi
Interesting post.Well, I really respect your views . But let me present another perspective..this is what I feel about it ..When women are represented as beautiful, good looking, attractive, I personally, even though being a very strong 'feminist' myself, don't feel that it is wrong or in any sense degrading..
Really, it is just the reflection of truth- women are beautiful, sensitive, attractive creatures while men are generally not.
The media only produces what sells, what has a demand...
let me draw an analogy...men are often depicted in the media as say having big muscles..so isnt that too in a sense a stereotyping ..if i dont have muscles such as those men, does that mean i am lesser individual? ofcourse not..
the point is just that you need an attractive faces on the covers to sell..because people like beauty..it is something to be appreciated..more so in the case of women because they are such beautiful people..and i know being beautiful is just luck but then so is having any other talent like say singing..what say?
anyway, what we all need to do though is to raise a voice against the conservativeness/traditionalism in our society which continues to deny equal rights/status to women..what i find sad though is that this movement is mostly led by women themselves and not by men..
April 19, 2007 2:15 AM
by the way, do check out my blog at http://freedomnoodles.blogspot.com/
i will be glad to exchange links..you write very well..
April 19, 2007 1:43 PM
m: I too belong to the "affected group", as you put it..I do not expect my opinion to get more credibility by claiming my womanhood. And I still believe in subjectivity, as I earlier claimed. But, it is always good to put dissent in the perspective as well
May 03, 2007 11:17 PM
Did you open the magazine issue? I did - unfortunately - and found that the first couple of articles on the cover story talked about beauticians and air hostesses (as far as I can remember - and believe me, I'd prefer to forget). THAT is what India Today thinks women being 'smart' is all about. It's more 'sassy', of course, to become an airhostess than an entrepreneur!
June 08, 2007 8:17 AM
if you have read aspects of visual culture, then it is all in the brain. the female is always represented looking into the frame (lens) where as the male looks away.
Now, considering these big publishing houses, would they approve of a strong headed woman, if a famous name then better, heading for a meeting? I don't think so. This is the case, has been the case and will continue to be so. sad but true.
Now, her dress up is fine, i only have a problem with the adjectives, sassy and saucy. Marketing guys will argue that this would surely sell; of course because u have made the audiences submit into seeing the female like that.