Why were women surprised when in the
1970-80s that they were not taken seriously in the workplace? To a degree, the ardent followers of Sex and the Single Girl, Cosmopolitan magazine, and the men who
watched their ‘pink collar’ secretaries maneuver in the 1960s workplace were to
blame. In the 1960s, Helen Gurley Brown,
author of the bestseller Sex and the
Single Girl and was editor-in-chief of Cosmopolitan
magazine. These publications promised social
advancement for working class women who were not advantaged by good looks, a
good family background and / or a college education. These women, whom Brown targeted, worked ‘pink
collar’ jobs – largely created in the 1960s by the growth of the U.S. service
industry – a trend in the American marketplace that marked the beginning of a
decline in manufacturing and factory work.
Brown’s book, Sex and the Single Girl, published in 1962, targeted the growing
demographic of single, working women. It
encouraged them to improve their social status through relationships with men –
specifically by exchanging sexual favors for commodities they wanted. As a result, Brown encouraged sexual
liberation for women, removing the earlier stigma of premarital sex. In 1965 Brown took over as editor-in-chief
of Cosmopolitan magazine, which
offered advice to “girls with jobs” on how to reflect upper-class style, use
products to enhance their attractiveness, and entice men with sex more
successfully. Brown filled this print media with notions of a better life for these
women, whom she called the “working girl”, by targeting, dating, and marrying
men who could improve their social status.
In her article Inventing the Cosmo Girl Laurie Ouellette described Brown as
“concerned with shaping and transforming the class position of the Cosmo Girl
through a combination of self-management strategies, performative tactics,
sexuality, an upwardly mobile romance” (269).
Brown advocated “an alternative way to get men to part with their disproportionate
share of power and resources” (266). Perhaps in the 1960s women sought economic
elevation through men because they could not compete for the jobs and salaries
that would improve their standing.
Today, Cosmopolitan objectifies women.
While Cosmo writers may believe they are fostering better opportunities
for women, but their articles and images make women an accomplice to the male
ego, encouraging women to satisfy men. Cosmopolitan creates a standard of
beauty that women should obtain to gratify the male ego, enticing women to
shape themselves as an object of men’s desires, neglecting their individuality. It perpetuates femininity as defined by pleasing
men. It persuades women to accept male dominance
by shaping themselves to meet male expectations, creating stereotypes of
femininity. If women truly want to be recognized
for their ability to contribute equally in society, competently handling positions
of power and influence, they cannot be eager to satisfy the desires of men.
Women need to fulfill
their own aspirations to command satisfying, empowering roles in society. First, women are empowered with education. By 2012, 71% of women enrolled in college
immediately after high school compared to 61% for men (Lopez). Next, women have powerful role models; Angela
Merkel, Oprah Winfrey, Sally Ride, Hilary Clinton have led successful careers
in politics, science and entertainment in the 21st century. Last, women do not need to see their success
as a function of satisfying men’s desires.
It’s counterintuitive.
Yet, March 2015
marks the 500th issue of Cosmopolitan
magazine. Why, according to Bauer Media
Group, is Cosmopolitan “the most
powerful women’s media brand” and “the most read women’s magazine in the
world”? Clearly, the opportunities for
deeper levels of success through education, role modeling, and empowerment are
available, yet Cosmopolitan continues
to appeal. It has been the best-selling
magazine in college bookstores for 25 years (source: College Store Executive), outpacing all its
competitors in the college market as well as with well-educated women, working
women with children, and career-oriented women (The Cosmo Effect).
Cosmopolitan,
Glamour, Vogue, Allure, Self, Elle, InStyle objectify women by reinforcing that
their self-worth is tied to how they look and not what they are capable of
achieving for themselves and contributing to society. These magazines pressure women to conform to
prescribed (men’s) ideals of beauty and sexuality, rather than reinforcing a
pursuit for individual excellence in academics, careers, volunteerism and
community. This is a ‘chicken and egg’
dilemma – do women need to view themselves differently in order for these
magazines to transform or do the magazines need to transform in order for women
to view themselves differently?
Works Cited
Lopez, Mark and Ana Gonzalez-Barrera. “Women’s College Enrollment Gains Leave Men Behind.” Pew
Research Center. 4 March 2014. Web.
28 February 2014.
“The Cosmo
Effect.” Demographic Profile. Web. 28 February 2014. http://www.cosmomediakit.com/hotdata/publishers/cosmopoli2521681/categories/
Readership_Section.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment