In the light of the Beeb thing on sexist Sci-Fi covers, NO brings you:
It’s been happening for quite some time:
Filed under: Chuckles, haiku, Literature & performing arts
Popped over to the beeb; the definition arsehole just doesn’t do him justice. That Parillo bloke seems to be a right thinking chap.
Which of them is more likely to get taxpayer funding?
And what is the difference between that (in the article) and the pictures of men with the buff, waxed chests and ‘guns’ on the front covers of romances aimed at women. And a big ‘lunchbox’ too! The modern depiction of the stereotypical fantasy idea of the tall, dark, handsome stranger.
A buff chap and a curvey woman are quite different. One pretending to be the other can only be unserious. A parody. The ‘real thing’, as far as the covers go, can only be done by depicting a realistic woman or a realistic man. Overdo the stereotype of either to much and you just get ‘silly’.
The issue of attracting heterosexual males is also overdone. Adolescents perhaps. And perhaps pooftas (as in the last cover, above). But what about attraction to homosexual females? Has anyone asked a selection of lesbian ladies just what sort of female form depiction is attractive?
Move away from sci-fi wotsits, then again, maybe that is what the covers of women’s magazines are for. And all the undressed ladies that hide inside. The average women’s magazine has more under-dressed ladies inside than the avarage men’s magazine does.
Why are these pics sexist? In the Imagination cover there is a newspaper headline ‘Miss Earth Arrives’. Here the artist simply depicts two alien pressmen innocently doing their job. The nylons being worn by Miss Earth are probably just product placement.
The second image depicts a lady who has found a bug in her clubhouse-sized washing machine. Using the wrong setting has slightly damaged her delicates.
OK, I agree the COG pic is a bit near the bone showing a poor, downtrodden drudge of a girl forced to carry her 24thC Dyson over her shoulders.
Everyone knows Kilgore Trout’s true identity and we forgive Vonny his take on Botticelli especially as the lady isn’t wearing any breathing apparatus.
So there is nothing here to cause offence to anyone except pedantic scientists.
I agree with Rossa – no one takes Sci-Fi or Romance covers seriously, it’s all fantasy – people have a right to their fantasy, no matter how ridiculous.
In fact, I think it’s actually a man doing those romance covers – because only a man would think most women want a Mr. Body-Builder/Arnie type.
Forgive another movie reference, but take “The Avengers” – though Thor’s physique was featured prominently, most women were actually swooning over Captain America’s slim gymnast physique.
It’s only sexist, to me if the book or article presents itself to be a serious look at the lives of say “Businesswomen of ____”, but instead, features them in unzipped blouses, strattling chairs or is asking them about they balance their relationships and home life with their business.
However – if someone can show me a picture and/or article where Donald Trump, Bill Gates or Steve Jobs were featured sitting in a chair (in which you can even see their legs), sucking on a pen, then being asked about how they balance work with their home life?
Then I will eat those words right now
Why are these pics sexist?
Well, according to the feminists, these sorts of things are disgusting, degrading and demeaning to womanhood and racist too. They celebrate the beauty of women and that is something all left-thinking feminists are having absolutely no man doing if they can help it.
“Imagination is everything. It is the preview of life’s coming attractions.”
Today I am imagining the day (just one single day) that the F word does not appear on Nourishing Obscurity.
Although it is I naive hope, the thought of it does make me smile
Reply will be as a post today, which is already in the pipeline.
The final pic has a controversial author.
nourishing obscurity is proudly powered by WordPress and WPDesigner via DeathStar Avenger IT Services.