Being a really really attractive woman and a really really famous star shouldn’t interest the 14-34 yr old men that read MAXAM magazine at all.

Obviously it is so popular because it exploits male patriarchal conditioning, not natural instincts, so this makes it sexism not capitalism, it makes perfect sense.

Unless it is one of the many hottest men or eligible bachelor ranked lists, then it’s all show boating and male ego.

For the record, I'm no fan of "hottest men" lists, either. But they're in no way comparable to Maxim's Hot 100. People magazine's Sexiest Men Alive are pictured (with one exception) fully clothed, and the blurbs about them contain more than a description of their bodies.

Mens hedonistic fantasy woman is sexually appealing and willing, it is looks and sex, it is shallow, the human condition is ruff.

Womens hedonistic fantasy of men is power and money and height and looks don’t hurt either, it is power and money and sex, it is shallow, the human condition is ruff.

We like the looks you like the money.

Not really a fair representation of anyone, we are all just pimps and whores?

But we all keep buying it, women keep exhibiting, men keep showboating la de da.

Anne as a feminist would you rather that no women exhibited their bodies, thus becoming more the perceived male power money steriotype or that more men should start exhibiting their bodies and becoming more the perceived female sex and body steriotype?

Should we just all start dressing in loose gray sweats so that no one can be labeled rich powerfully or beautiful, we would all have to cover our faces as well.

It’s a tuff one, what would you like to see happen?

You cannot disentangle capitalism and patriarchy. They support each other. Capitalism is not necessary for patriarchy, but I can not imagine what other system could support capitalism.

I'd bet that when they do the bachelor or studlyist or whatever that they list the male patriarchal assets, such as income and income potential - also rather capitalist - and well fitting jeans.

Jane you ignore how the stereotypes also affect the men, having to be rich, good looking, successful, all that is a blow to the male self esteem, an unrealistic expectation and a perpetuation of stereotypes.

You also ignore how all the industries responsible, marketing, design, advertising, journalism, They all consist of both men and women. They are not all yet proven to be all run by the government.

Average Joe, The Bachlorette, it's prevalent for both genders.

"They" treat both of us like shit.

I find it upsetting how Swiffer would even HAVE a contest targetted specifically at women. I mean, is it so natural for Swiffers and women to go together? Why women?

I have always done almost all of the vacuuming and, when we had hardwood floors, swiffering in my family, and I'm male. Since I'm a poor cook and I want to contribute equally to any household I'm a part of, I'll probably be doing Swiffering and vacuuming as part of my share of household tasks for the rest of my life. And I don't mind. I actually find it kind of fun.

Sooo... should I get a sex-change operation? Or just go through life feeling shame at doing something so inappropriate for my sex? Which would the Swiffer company prefer I do?

"Womens hedonistic fantasy of men is power and money and height and looks don’t hurt either, it is power and money and sex, it is shallow, the human condition is ruff. We like the looks you like the money."

If women earned what they deserved for raising children ($134,121 a year for a full-time or stay-at-home mom or $85,876 for a woman who also works outside the home) women would have the looks and the money. Where would men be? Nowhere, we'd have several sperm banks where men used to be.

http://feministing.com/archives/004967.html

Parry, I think if Swiffer advertized that men who do more housework get more luvin' action from their spouse/partners, I think you would see many more adds depicting a Swiffering man as sexay.

Just think of the advertising innuendo alone! ;)

"Where would men be? Nowhere, we'd have several sperm banks where men used to be."

"we are not man haters"

Haha, so true, Sylke. It doesn't even make sense that Swiffer wouldn't try to do something like that (or find SOME way to advertise to men) -- at least it makes no sense to me. Why would they willingly give up an entire market like that? Is promoting sex stereotypes more important than even profits now?

P.S. Wait, sorry, I just remembered seeing a Swiffer commercial in which a man was housecleaning and then calling his wife at her office to tell her about how great the Swiffer is. Soo... never mind, they do SOME advertising to men. ^_^ Or at least, they did before, haven't seen that ad in ages.

Still... this contest thing... and the fact that they advertise to women more in general... I still say they have much improving to do.

Interesting post, just some quick thoughts...it frustrates me that it is important/noteworthy that the Swiffer-prize winning women 'actually appear to be doing something other than cleaning the house' because that just seems to further the point of view that housework isn't worthy enough/challenging enough in itself, that we have to do something more/outside the home, to be worthy of recognition.
So, even though I take the point that, for these awards, family is intensely foregrounded (to the exclusion of women without children), I also get annoyed that domestic work is still not considered 'enough'.

I think everyone's missed an important point - most of Maxim's staff is female. It's women telling men how they should act, using language designed to appeal to men. It's both sexist in its assumptions of what men want to see, how they talk, and how they think, and in its objectification of women to that end. However, it's not something that can just be chalked up to the patriarchy.

Prarielily:
While it might have more factors that patriarchy, like, for example, the influence of capitalism, your post points out nothing that cannot be attributed to the patriarchy. Do you sincerely believe that females in our culture don't contribute to patriarchy and sexism? Those aren't problems that are limited to one gender.

So, no, we haven't missed any point here. The makeup of Maxim staff has no bearing on the analysis

Jenna:

It does indeed have a bearing on the analysis. The patriarchy is, by definition, male domination. When women become complicit in it, I believe it becomes something else.

And I didn't say Maxim wasn't sexist. I said it was entirely too easy to blame things on the patriarchy instead of looking at where the feminist movement is currently failing. We need more initiatives like the REAL Hot 100. That's where we're going to make a difference.

hujo,

No, feminists really hate sexism and the extreme hatred of women in the country which is obvious from many of the news items posted on femininisting.

Prarie lily
"I think everyone's missed an important point - most of Maxim's staff is female. It's women telling men how they should act, using language designed to appeal to men. It's both sexist in its assumptions of what men want to see, how they talk, and how they think, and in its objectification of women to that end. However, it's not something that can just be chalked up to the patriarchy."

Yeah, you get it! Not to mention the male modles being perfect and decked out in rich guy clothes(gotta dress rich to get the ladies)

Same with spike tv and most male entertainment, i find it very insulting to men.

Thats fine Nonwhiteperson, just that definition of yours hardly rings true most of the time,

Like in your naziesqe post about men having no value outside of thier sperm.

priceless really.

I was just pointing out you were a feminist that hates men.

Swiffer is a shitty product. Why not stick to a mop or a bucket and a rag? I don't see why this product is necessary. The idiotic campaign is the clincher for me. I will never buy Swiffer.