Esquire and its Construction of Gender

In Kenon Breazeale’s article “In Spite of Women” discusses the construction of the male consumer while simultaneously being critical of Esquire Magazine’s construction of the female consumer. I found this image relatable to the text because I found that it’s presence in the text was substantial. It can be seen by not only Breazeale’s statement that “Many periodicals disdained any connection with alcoholic beverages, so Esquire’s willingness to tout beer, wine, and liquor as adjuncts to the good life made those industries important early advertisers in its pages,” but also through the construction of woman through this advertisement, as supported by Breazeale. First of all, Breazeale discussed how, for a men’s magazine, how it was really about women, specifically the “exploitation and denial of the feminine.” This advertisement would imply that men don’t think about how they dress or what they drink, they just know what they like and are straight to the point. This is a blatant and one-sided comparison between male and female thought process that strictly makes the same argument that I believe Esquire would be trying to make. In the article it says, “In home décor women were also accused of overvaluing appearance, this time at the expense of comfort.” This attacks the not only the actions of women, but their thoughts behind their actions, depicting them as shallow and dim-witted. This advertisement’s copy of “Thank God you’re a man” also depicts this sense of hierarchy, that somehow being a man is so much better, directly correlates to the statement that “Esquire gave advice to counter the looming rhetorical prop of a woman who is doing all things wrong.” Basically, what I believe the advertisement to be saying is “drink our beer, and you won’t be a woman and this won’t be wrong.”

How To Be A Man

The construction of the male consumer, as discussed in Kenon Brezeale’s article, is an interesting concept that is said to have begun with the production of Esquire magazine. Supposedly the Depression diminished the “image” of the male and this magazine was built as a source to counteract this problem. What I found interesting about this idea is that the magazine established gender roles, and always presented the heightened image of the masculine male. It reinstated the idea that women were supposed to stay at home with the children and of course never hold a job at a higher status than the male. This magazine is supposed to empower males to feel better about themselves however I think it’s extremely interesting that by doing so they are also brainwashing them. “…a new kind of magazine-one that will answer the question of What to do? What to eat, what to drink, what to wear, how to play…” (231). This magazine, like many others, is now just a form of media telling its consumers how to think. This cover of Esquire magazine states, “How To Be A Man” with the ultimate icon staring back at you: George Clooney. Esquire’s goal was to create a following of men that will consume just as much as women, not to empower men and their individual qualities.

While reading "In Spite of Women" by Kenon Breazeale, I could not help but think about the male gaze. To successfully advertise male products, advertising agencies need women, but not just any women. They need very beautiful and sexy women as seen in all of the Esquire magazines. Esquire has sections that solely talk about sexy women. They use this to draw in the male consumer. A few months ago I remember seeing this picture in a magazine and it drew me in because it was a picture of Marisa Miller, who is only like the hottest girl ever. I finally found this ad on the Internet and saw that it had been in an Esquire magazine. It was Marisa Miller that made me look at the ad, not the motorcycle. If Harley Davidson had used a male to advertise their bike, I probably would of never looked at it. Like in Breazeale’s argument, advertisers for male products need women.

Cosmo Hasn't Changed

One thing that struck me about Ouelette's article was that, despite her best efforts to try and make a case for the positive results from Brown's "creation", Brown still came across with a negative image. Quotes like, "Poor girls are not sexy!" are too general and straight-forward for any meaning other than the one presented to be pulled from the statement. It was interesting then, when it was mentioned that Brown, along with the times, eventually changed her "credo" (which, according to Ouelette, she has tons of) to include the idea that women can be sexual objects/symbols and high-level businesswomen. I find this interesting because, from my most recent glancings through Cosmo, I have noticed that articles like the above are still the dominant subject of each issue. Also, I feel that the magazine has shifted to a younger audience because of the increased awareness and discussion of sex at a young age. Because of this, it seems that Cosmo has either gone back to its original platform, or it never really changed, and the idea of women in the workplace is just not brought up often in the magazine. Unfortunately, I don't read Cosmo on the reg(ular) so I can not fully assert this claim, but maybe others have more insight.

The Original Cosmo Girl

After reading Inventing the Cosmo girl by Oulellette, the first thought or person who popped to mind was Samantha from Sex in the City. She is the perfect example of an independent women, who is stunning, stylish and centered on sex. She may not be the typical 25 year old model, but she has the attitude that Cosmo is trying to build into their readers. She has the perfect pink collar job being a PR, she is not too concerned about committing to a man and she spends a great deal of her life talking about sex with men she has/ is yet to be involved in. Brown promoted "a girl style American Dream that promised transcedence from class roles as well as sexual ones" (117). Sam is a high class female who has clearly made her way through her pink collar job, and maybe through the way she is so sexualized in her everyday life, but the main point to address is that she maintains this vibe without coming across as trashy.
Samantha is definitely an example of a women "who may no longer have recognized her place in male orientated American Dream mythology"(120).

While reading "Inventing the Cosmo Girl" by Laurie Ouelette, I came to the conclusion that the former editor-in-chief of Cosmopolitan Magazine, Helen Gurley Brown, had in fact created a subculture in itself with the invention of the Cosmo Girl. "...Cosmopolitan was the first consumer magazine to target single 'girls with jobs' with feature articles, advice columns, budget fashions and advertisements for mainly 'feminine' consumer items..." (Ouellette 119) Cosmopolitan was the first magazine, with Brown at the helm, to target a specific audience that was just emerging with the changing social tides and shape them to whatever she wanted them to be. Cosmopolitan magazine placed an emphasis on female sexuality, and this is what sets it apart from the other female-targeted magazines of the era. "Features on female orgasm, birth control, masturbation, casual sex and sexual experimentation appeared under Brown's editorship, while quizzes with names like 'How Sexy Are You?' " (Ouelette, 123) This direct focus on the working girl was intoxicating and something that had not been done before, which is a direct link to the magazine's overall success. This image is from an issue of Cosmopolitan, and it heralds "The Naughtiest Sex Position".

Cosmo Girl

The article “Inventing the Cosmo Girl” by Laurie Ouellette, analyzes the effects of the advice given to women by Cosmopolitan Magazine and its construction of the “Cosmo Girl”. I am not dedicated reader of Cosmopolitan, but I have been known to skim through an issue or two. I have always been fascinated by the construction of the seemingly “ideal” women the magazine continues to build issue after issue. Ever since Helen Gurley Brown structured the magazine to do this, there has been hardly a single issue that is without advice for women that leads them to be more like the “Cosmo Girl”. Before even reading the article, I could construct the characteristics of the “Cosmo Girl” from just the experience of reading a few issues of the magazine. The “Cosmo Girl” is fashion forward, a “pink-collar” worker, well educated in the art of seduction, Healthy with good diet and exercise habits, confident, involved politically or with “good” causes, and most of all centered on sex. Sex is a major part of Cosmopolitan’s advice and constructions. It was its attention to Sex for women that stirred so much controversy and criticism in its early years of publication. Even now some critics of the publication claim it is to focus on sex. I have attached images of past and present covers of the magazine. The covers usually feature and actress or celebrity that captures some of the essence of the constructed “Cosmo Girl.” Even in the images from the 1970’s the covers were extremely sexualized.

Upon reading this journal, the first ad that came to mind was this Disel ad. The woman pictured is the Cosmo Girl. A lot of women complain about femininity in advertising or portray it as bad and misrepresentative. I agree whole heartedly that it is. However it is through EFFECTIVE ad campaigns such as this one that this stereotype is perpetuated. In terms of the consumption article, if this shit would not work, I highly doubt advertisers would do it. In terms of the Cosmo girl, this is it. This is striving to "catch" your boss. An overarching theme in the Cosmo Girl article was that not only are brains a bad thing in an unattractive sense, but that they are hard. That being smart takes so much more time than faking it. It really does take more time. However, which is more self serving? Which is better in the long run? At the beginning of the article I thought that Brown was empowering women through sexuality, but really she is reaffirming the house wife of the 50's, of her time. I believe she was suggesting not to actually strive for anything concrete, but to merely look like you were striving. Not to actually read books, but carry them around to make yourself look smarter. She was border lining on saying be ambitious in all aspects of life that really do not matter at all. Be ambitious about trying to snag a "great catch" without seeming to be. The most troubling thing about this article was that the Cosmo Girl had no true identity. She was a shape shifter of sorts that conforms to whatever a "successful" male needed or wanted her to be. This ad perpetuates that sentiment. Be stupid. Be what your boss "really" wants. Lose yourself in hopes of being picked up by him. Do not be you be what he wants you to be. This ties to the eharmony ad a little too. If you are defining yourself through someone else's expectations, perceptions, and most importantly definition of happiness then what kind of person re you? How do you define self? Who are you and what do you want? Whatever your boss says.

bright colors and attractive females sell..

Whilst reading the Cosemtics- A Clinique case study reading, by Kirkham & Weller. I came to the conclusion that there were trying to address the gendering of toiletries for male and females. The difference in the colors that are used for both genders in their different products, and the information that is used to sell the product. With males the information is literally more about the product as most males are pretty clueless. Whereas females almost rehearse using different beauty products while through there youth and teenage years, so when this becomes a reality they pretty much already know what they need. The advertisement that came to mind was Rhianna CoverGirl Ad (“cover girls,” fashion models who appear on the front cover of ladies' magazines, wear their products). This one in particular was featuring the singer Rhianna, she self promotes a song title whilst promoting the lip gloss. One of her lines is "want to know what i have under my umbrella, even if it's raining your lips will have a lasting fruity shine". This has limited information on the product but was so popular for the pure fact that the advertisement had hot pink and girl colors, was acted out BY Rhianna and the song Umbrella was playing in the background.