Mindful Marketing
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Mindful Meter & Matrix
    • Leadership
  • Mindful Matters Blog
  • Engage Your Mind
    • Mindful Ads? Vote Your Mind!
  • Expand Your Mind
  • Contact

Making Sport of More Women

2/24/2017

11 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch, founder of Mindful Marketing & author of Honorable Influence

Inclusion is a good thing.  People shouldn’t be bypassed for jobs, kept out of college, or otherwise be excluded just because of their race, gender, etc.  However, it’s also wrong to include people when doing so harms them and others.  Why, then, are many celebrating Sports Illustrated’s new inclusiveness, which hurts the very women it pretends to promote?
 
For the past 53 years, the iconic athletics magazine has published a special issue dedicated to “swimsuits.”  More accurately, the annual edition has literally exposed supermodels who, in minimal attire, have struck sexy poses on sandy beaches and in a variety of other seductive settings.
 
Some have rightly wondered how such images even represent sport:  What exactly is the game?  Wherein lies the competition?  Nevertheless, the annual spectacle of skin has continued, probably because the magazine’s largely male target market also enjoys sexual stimulation.
 
Surprisingly this year, Sports Illustrated has altered its strategy.  Rather than limiting layouts to the stereotypically beautiful (e.g., young and slim), the magazine has adopted a more inclusive approach.  The newest issue embraces women who vary much more in shape and size, as well as age.
 
One of the women featured is “plus-size” model Hunter McGrady, who some are calling Sports Illustrated’s “curviest model ever.”  The issue also includes veteran super model Christie Brinkley, a very young-looking 63.  In addition, tennis star Serena Williams makes an appearance, adding both physical and racial diversity.
 
Many have commended Sports Illustrated’s efforts to dispel stereotypes.  In an era of rampant body-shaming, it’s refreshing to see a popular periodical actively support a broader standard of beauty.  Such compliments would be well-deserved, if Sports Illustrated portrayed women in ways that preserved their personhood.  Unfortunately, however, the magazine seems determined to blur the lines between popular press and pornography. 
 
In many shots, models wear very little or nothing at all, which is ironic since the issue bills itself as the “swimsuit edition.”  Several of the women go topless, barely concealing their breasts with their hands or other creative coverings.  For her photos, McGrady wore nothing at all, save a layer of body paint.  She was, in her own words, “100% naked.”
 
In addition, the positions in which many of the women pose appear aimed at erotica.  One shot of Hailey Clauson shows her in a see-through top, lying on her back, on an animal skin, with legs spread open toward the camera.  Another has her stretched-out, stomach-down, on a beach, her buttocks bare as she pulls at the bikini bottom wrapped around her ankles.
 
These images aren’t unusual; they’re typical of the shots Sports Illustrated selects, most of which oversexualize and objectify women.  The magazine might argue that it’s celebrating beauty and the female form, but that pretense is as much a perversion as the pictures themselves.
 
Realistically, most men who buy the magazine or view the photos online aren’t admiring women as whole persons (body, mind, and spirit); rather, they’re ogling them as sex objects (breasts, legs, and bottoms).  Given the great personal and social costs of pornography and other sexual addition, SI is not doing these men or anyone else a favor.
 
Equally concerning are the damaging perceptions of women that these pictures promote.  Reducing women to body parts undermines their personhood, intellect, and abilities.  It’s hard to think of others as colleagues worthy of equal pay and promotions when they’re simply seen as a sex objects.
 
So, is Sports Illustrated’s new inclusiveness benefiting women who are bigger, older, or otherwise more diverse?  Absolutely not.  The swimsuit issue is now just sexually objectifying a wider range of women—doing to them the same thing it has done to a smaller sample for decades.  However, this oversexualizing of women of all shapes and sizes is even more troubling.  Framing certain types of women as sex objects was bad enough; seeing all women through a purely sexual lens further democratizes the dehumanization and promises even more widespread gender inequality.
 
At a time when many people rightly reject locker room talk and take stands for the fair treatment of women, it’s amazing that Sports Illustrated’s popular press flesh-peddling endures unscathed.  More people should be concerned about the impact such pervasive images have on both sexes.  Inclusion is generally good, but equal exploitation makes for "Single-Minded Marketing."


Picture
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
11 Comments
Rob Martin link
2/28/2017 03:19:49 pm

I'm pretty sure that if the SI swimsuit edition was really about swimsuits, and they merely posted pictures of the swimsuits on mannequins, or perhaps even just the swimsuit laying out by itself on the same sandy beaches as their models are, their profits would change. The swimsuits are NOT the focus of the magazine by any means. Heck, half the models aren't even wearing half (or all of) the swimsuit! Furthermore, if they surveyed every single person who purchased the magazine, a surprising percentage of them probably would: a) be men, b) not have any significant history of shopping/researching women's swimwear, c) would have a history of internet searching for women. Finding a trend here? Here's a question you can ask yourself: if the title of the magazine was switched with Playboy, and you wouldn't notice a difference, does that tell you anything?

Reply
Katie
2/28/2017 11:15:19 pm

I think this post raises an interesting point about how accepting society is of objectifying women in magazines, yet we are quick to lash back the moment anyone says anything that demotes one gender over the other. The SI magazine is largely marketed to men. So why do they have a swimsuit edition filled with women? Not only are they mainly advertising to the wrong demographic, but they are also encouraging men to objectify and dehumanize women. I see this problem a lot in the Victoria's Secret magazines, as well. VS tends to pick the sexiest women available for modeling, and then "clothe" them in seductive lingerie and swimsuits. It's basically a pornography magazine in disguise, seeing as how they usually wear next to nothing and are photographed in seductive positions. As the previous comment mentioned, if the content of a mainstream magazine (such as Sports Illustrated or Victoria's Secret) is on par with the content of Playboy, is there really much of a difference in the behavior and thoughts that it elicits towards women?

Reply
Courtney
3/1/2017 02:09:27 pm

Society has become increasingly accepting of objectification of women (and even men) in advertising and media. SI advertises to men, so having a section of women's bathing suits doesn't make sense. The idea behind the advertising isn't the bathing suits.... it's the women and the sex appeal that they bring. Men will want to subscribe to magazines that allow them to look at beautiful, sexy women. They aren't necessarily subscribing for the products the company produces. The brand name of SI is what gives the magazine the ability to advertise in this way without anyone raising their heads. The company's reputation and credibility is what brings in its customers, not its products. They will advertise the way they see fit based upon their audience: in this case, men.

Reply
Olivia
3/1/2017 05:23:57 pm

This most recent issue of Sports Illustrated demonstrates the ultimate war our society faces: do we conform to the patriarchal society or do we conform to sustaining a privileged white society? While Sports Illustrated might view themselves as gaining victory on the grounds of diversity, they have really done nothing for women or ethnic equality. Rather, they have continued the legacy of objectification which they have always been known for, but now hope to sell issues to both those who seek the erotic, and those who champion equality and diversity.

Reply
Sarah Henry
3/1/2017 11:38:19 pm

Olivia, you could not have articulated yourself more effectively. Unfortunately, not only does Sports Illustrated degrade women, but they promote a singular body type, age, and skin tone. Now that they have expanded the demographics of women exploited, they cannot be said to have started to improve the ethicality of their issues. They have simply hitched on to the trend towards body acceptance, which was not an ethical move, but a marketing one. They just offer these women as a wider selection of products. I want the next move to be towards including men in the photo shoot; then they might argue that their goal is to express the innate beauty of the human body, rather than offering women as sex parts.

Reply
Alyssa
3/1/2017 08:08:19 pm

I believe the sentence in this post that states, "reducing women to body parts undermines their personhood, intellect, and abilities" perfectly describes the entire problem behind Sports Illustrated's swimsuit edition. These women are being displayed as their body parts with no reference to the fact that they are in fact human beings with goals, ideas, and talents of their own. There is far more to being a woman than simply existing with the body parts given to us by our genetic makeup. It doesn't matter if the woman is a size 2 or a size 20, she does not deserve to be objectified. The sole purpose of this edition of the magazines is to put women's bodies on display. There is no intent to sell any bathing suits, given the fact that this is distributed to men who would not wear any of swim suits. Women are hardly even wearing bathing suits in the photos in the magazine. Overall, I agree that Sports Illustrated is single-minded in their swimsuit edition.

Reply
Maris
3/27/2017 02:50:46 am

Reading this made me wonder if the people who are "standing up for women" actually practice what they preach. It is a disturbing image to see the celebration of inclusivity of different shapes, ages and races splattered across SI, when in reality it is doing the exact opposite of celebrating women, it objectifies them. Yet, this is what the target audience of SI wants to see, which is a barely covered female. For executives, they know sex sells, so why would they stray away from a marketing technique that profits well? Furthermore, I think the real issue with sexualizing women lies within the marketers themselves. If someone holds a high worth and purpose of themselves, they will likely hold the same worth and view in others. The lie that society tells both men and women is that their sexuality is their purpose. The truth is that there is more to a human than their outer appearance. The challenge is that people want to feel good and SI provides that service well to men. If only the men who look at SI could see the damaging affects objectifying women has caused.

Reply
Kaylyn S.
3/8/2018 07:55:11 pm

Hey Maris,
I agree that it's ironic that it is "inclusive" when SI does something like this, but they still are objectifying women tremendously when putting out this edition in the first place. It seems backwards for SI and other companies and groups that say they stand up for women start with inclusiveness, but fail to see the disturbing effects of something like this.
;)

Reply
Jesse Casillas
3/27/2017 11:45:12 pm

Wow, this was a real eye opener. Yes, I was aware of SI exploiting women, but not to that extent. How are some of these spreads (literally) considered for a swimsuit edition if they are not even wearing a swimsuit? Surely they are focusing heavily on their male audience and baiting them with sexuality. You make a great point about this not being a part of a sport to begin with. It is upsetting that these women are willing to place themselves in this position to become sex objects. Hopefully they stumble upon this blog and the following responses.

Reply
Kaylyn S.
3/8/2018 07:49:47 pm

I think that it is interesting that Sports Illustrated tried to expand on the women that they have pictures of in their swimsuit edition, because to me, this just shows that they know that they are objectifying women and that women's bodies are the point of this edition. Also, while they are choosing older and curvier women for their edition, these women still are good looking for their age by the world's standards. They are still choosing bodies that most people do not have, hence not showing that they believe that beauty comes from the inside.

Reply
Naomi Loftsgard
3/12/2018 05:26:56 pm

It is sad to see how society has twisted the objectification of women and tried to justify it under the banner of "inclusion". Objectification of women is wrong by itself, but it is even more wrong and dangerous when people believe it is being done under a good cause. I hope people begin to realize that not everything done under the banner of "diversity" or "inclusion" is excused from other upright moral obligations.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Subscribe to receive this blog by email

    Editor

    David Hagenbuch,
    founder of
    Mindful Marketing    & author of Honorable Influence

    Archives

    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014

    Categories

    All
    + Decency
    + Fairness
    Honesty7883a9b09e
    * Mindful
    Mindless33703c5669
    > Place
    Price5d70aa2269
    > Product
    Promotion37eb4ea826
    Respect170bbeec51
    Simple Minded
    Single Minded2c3169a786
    + Stewardship

    RSS Feed

    Share this blog:

    Subscribe to
    Mindful Matters
    blog by email


    Illuminating
    ​Marketing Ethics ​

    Encouraging
    ​Ethical Marketing  ​


    Copyright 2020
    David Hagenbuch

Proudly powered by Weebly