Esquire’s UK editor, Alex Bilmes, made comments so douchey I thought I was reading The Onion for a second. Nope.
At a panel discussion on feminism (!), Mr. Bilmes almost went out of his way to make the most anti-feminist statements ever.
As reported in Gawker, Alex Bilmes said this:
The women that we feature in the magazine are ornamental. That is how we see them. I could lie to you and say [we’re] interested in their brains as well, but on the whole, we’re not. They’re there to be beautiful objects. They’re objectified.
There are certain times when we just want to look at them cause they’re sexy. One of the things men like is picture of pretty girls. So we provide them with pictures of pretty girls. And those pretty girls, for that purpose, they are ornamental. We also provide them with pictures of cool cars, or whatever. It’s a thing that you might want to look at.
Wait, wait, this is my favorite part:
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.
More “shape-diverse”? I’m guessing that means women of all sizes 0 – 4 because I haven’t ever seen Precious on their cover.
It would be really awesome if actresses now refused to pose for the UK edition of Esquire but we all know that won’t happen.
Speaking of super duper old actresses, here are the photos from Ms. Diaz’s Esquire spread. They make me feel a little bit sad inside.
In this day and age? How awful! Who would ever think a mens mag would objectify women? I think Esquire UK should take a lesson from Cosmopolitan UK, they would never objectify men in their magazine. Pot, meet kettle!
Yeah..I don’t see the big deal. At least he’s not pretending the magazine ISN’T objectifying women. Essentially this is the same as Hefner saying “we take photos of chicks so you can cum on their faces”.
Hahaha Hef really said that?
I have a feeling that women aiming to be in Esquire really couldn’t care less if they are objectified or not. Nor will refusing to pose for them ever become a reality (although I wish they would) bc they don’t have a problem with it. They love being ogled by drooling men and they enjoy being objectified. They must, bc if they wanted their intellect or talent represented, then they’d pose for something different, not mens magazines like Esquire, of all mags..
I don’t and can’t object to guys eyeing pretty ladies…I wouldn’t be here if they didn’t…worse, neither would my grandkids!!! I’m very sure, however, that my dad didn’t objectify my very good-looking mother. He always said that her long legs took his eye and then her sweetness and her freckles took his heart. This is NOT what Esquire is about. By continually using the word “objectify”, this ass-hole is chipping away at the fact of women being human-beings. That’s what serial killers do.
He’s being honest. I don’t have a problem with that. I have a bigger problem with the women’s magazines shoving men’s ‘ideals’ down our throats. But not esquire. It’s a wank mag.
tot tot totally!
Ugh that IS the worst. I hate their stupid claims like “Five things that drive your man wild in the bedroom!!”, “Ten things men love about your body, and you’d NEVER guess what they are!” or “Men told us what the LOVE and HATE about sex!” LOL it’s like shuuut uuuupppp. No one gives a flying fuck about your fake articles. Men don’t really think like that half the time and they speak for all of the male population on like, the 15 guys they interviewed… so retarded.. And the answers are always the most obvious shit, too. Like ‘the way you flip your hair’ or the freckles on your face’ or “looking him in the eyes bla blah blah” It’s a wonder how these mags still even sell. Every single time I click on some article online that states they have the top 10 nail/hair/makeup tips I’m ALWAYS disappointed. I hate it.
Well, keep practicing those nail/hair/makeup tips! When you have the spare time just sit your hysterical butt down for a while and try a few things. I got some of my best looks out of Glamour and Harper’s.
I think it’s really refreshing that he’s being so blunt and honest. None of all that pretentious crap. I like it.
His comments aren’t uniquely “douchey” as Catherine described them; he hasn’t mentioned anything that we don’t already know.
Magazines exist to sell things. Women’s bodies are used as a commodity in advertising. Surely we aren’t surprised by what he’s saying.
If I’m irritated by anything, it’s his inability to say something interesting or insightful.
(In other words, I agree with you.)
What’s with the picture that looks like Camron Diaz is about to take a dump in the bush? The one squat is okay, but the really wide low riding one not. That is not sexy, that is bush pooping. The only thing grosser than pooping in the bush, is when your dog eats it afterward. Who edits these magazines?