Image credit: kalleboo
Emma Sudderick looks at FHM’s 100 Sexist Women of 2013 list, and asks if being ‘sexy’ is sexist.
As Mila Kunis becomes FHM’s sexiest woman for 2013, the male magazine’s controversial award raises all the expected questions; is it acceptable to portray women as sexual objects in the media? Does using phrases like “trouser-shatteringly sexy” degrade the female gender? And is this award just another example of a core societal problem regarding expectations of the body?
There is something to be said for the magazine’s popularity, despite accusations of derogatory publications denouncing women as little more than sexual objects. After the outrage at Tulisa Contostavlos of N-Dubz being named sexiest woman of 2012, FHM experienced their highest polls in the history of the magazine. The outcome named Perrie Edwards of The X Factor winning girl band Little Mix 55th in the list, Game of Thrones star Emilia Clarke at 33rd and Beyonce Knowles still making the top 20 despite having a baby bump for most of the year.
Yet, despite criticism that it is degrading and chauvinistic in its approach, the photographs used for the list are not as revealing as you expect. Though this cannot be said for the entirety of the publication, there were some unexpected names revealed this year such as the 51 year old television presenter Linda Barker and News Reporter Susanna Reid, which proved that the list is not merely a repertoire of scantily-clad models.
That is not to say that the FHM list is media at its finest; far from it. Rather, there seems something hypocritical about those who say a woman must be proud of her body but only exercises the right to express it in a way that society deems appropriate. In other words, by suggesting there is a deeper societal problem with categorising women as ‘sexy’, the problem itself becomes solidified. I am all for the argument that what is inside matters more, but it seems many of those who criticise publications such as this have more of an issue with the sexual objectification of women rather than sexual objectification as a whole.
Though it is undeniable that judging women based on their physical appearance alone is vanity at its worst and debases the gender as a whole, the truth is that men are objectified in exactly the same manner. You only have to look at the equivalent glossy magazines like Glamour, which publishes their equally shameless sexiest male award, to recognise the extent to which the male body is scrutinized by mainstream media. Take as another example the Diet Coke adverts, which appear to rely on little else other than the skimpily dressed gentlemen to sell the product without even a murmur of contradiction.
The crux of the argument then is that to recognise a woman as ‘sexy’ is to degrade her somehow. Yet, by suggesting that the female body should be considered sacred, women’s bodies are being put into exactly the patriarchal category which feminists are contesting. Indeed, feminism is about having freedom to choose their own bodily expressions and it would seem many of those announced by FHM as ranking in the worlds sexiest women consider the recognition flattering, even honourable. Last year’s winner, Tulisa reportedly stated that “[the title] is a true honour and definitely a lovely confidence boost […] I’m proud of me and who I am”.
Though I am not contesting the notion that sexism is still rife in society, it seems that by singling out magazines like FHM as portraying women as nothing more than physical objects, the barriers which are being challenged are actually strengthened. Instead, we should look at these images as liberating and light-hearted rather than criticising women for exposing their bodies and men for appreciating them.
Emma Sudderick
exeposedev 