Teri Hatcher, the actress who stars in Desperate Housewives (don’t worry – I don’t watch this shit) and who used to be in The new Adventures of Superman a few years back (saldy, I’m afraid I did watch this) has recently admitted to Vanity Fair magazine in the US that she was sexually abused by an uncle as a child.
Abuse is, of course, a very serious matter and I applaud Ms. Hatcher for being brave enough to talk publicly about such a horendous past – however, I can’t help but feel that using a picture such as this one on the cover of the aforementioned issue of Vanity Fair, is extremely distasteful:
She is holding onto her clothes, her underwear is showing and – quite frankly – she looks pretty damn scared. But, at the same time, she has a tanned ’sexy’ body and is in full make-up. Just what are we being told here? That being sexually abused as a child somehow enhances Teri’s sex appeal? That only pretty girls get raped? That rape is sexy? That rape sells?
I have no doubt that the actress had little to do with what picture appeared on the cover here, so I’m not blaming her whatsoever. The magazine decides what sells and what to do with the cover and, in this case, it appears that sexualising a story about child abuse is the editor’s idea to sell more copies.
The misogynistic media strikes again.
March 20, 2006 at 9:38 pm
[...] Why the visible underwear, and why is she clutching a disheveled shirt? Is she supposed to look like she has just been assaulted? What’s that all about? More at Ms. Violet’s Musings. [...]
March 21, 2006 at 9:50 am
That’s fucking disgusting, and triggering.
March 21, 2006 at 11:06 am
That is pretty disturbing- well done for calling them on it!
March 21, 2006 at 2:11 pm
*rolls eyes* it’s utter and complete bullshit. Since when do we try to make rape of a minor sexy?
March 21, 2006 at 3:14 pm
That’s just plain awful. You should write to them about it.
March 21, 2006 at 8:20 pm
I too saw that cover and thought it was totally inappropriate and sick.
March 23, 2006 at 12:42 pm
I completely agree with this! When I saw the cover I knew I didn’t like it because it portryaed the woman as vunerable and almost childlike- the way hollywood and other sexist institutions like to see them.
March 24, 2006 at 2:56 pm
VF does it again with another offensive, woman-as-mere-things to sell magazines covers. I agree with everything said and add: “Well, dressed like THAT, I’m guessing she asked it for it!” (Grrrr!)
March 26, 2006 at 6:58 pm
Personally I do not blame the media on this; everyone is responsible for their own actions. Sex sells; the consumer has also a responsibility to avoid this crap, like people who avoid Housewives and other shite programmes (including young Superman).
I blame her (Teri Hatcher). Why did she do it? For money or for more publicity! I doubt anyone forced her to do it.
As to the picture on the cover, I think she would have known the type of picture that would appear; it would be obvious in the photo session. Also I do not think it would have gone past a manager.
March 27, 2006 at 10:23 am
That’s right–blame Teri. SOOOOO much easier than questioning the Big Issues, ey Alferd? Thanks for being my case in point, incidentally.
March 27, 2006 at 10:30 am
Alferd: Often, the stars do not know what picture is going to appear on the cover or what it looks like. Magazines also do not always use photographs from the shoot accompanying the interview, and will use whatever image they want to.
Think back to Kate Winslet’s outrage when a magazine put a picture of her on their cover with VERY airbrushed legs. Kate was apparenetly furious and had no knowledge of it whatsoever.
But, of course, Teri Hatcher could have approved of this picture going on the cover. We don’t know. But, my gut instinct says she probably didn’t.
March 27, 2006 at 3:31 pm
Kaka Mak
Yeah that is it, just blame the “Big Issue”. They forced her to do a half nude picture and then they surprised her by using it on the front cover without paying for it. They really were itching for a court battle. Oh wait, maybe the picture was taken outside her house while she was collecting her mail. That is it, those BASTARDS! It is so easy to blame others for your own stupid actions.
Ms. Violet
She is an adult working in an industry where it is profitable to sell your image. The picture depicts her trying to hide something, which rather abhorrently instead of a sexy secret it is a very disturbing past that should not be sold to stupid trashy magazines. Oh and by the way even if it was a sexy secret it does change my view that this woman is selling herself short; wait she stars in the pile (bile) of trash called “Desperate Housewives” so I doubt that this is any worse.
Also the magazine has to purchase the right to use the images. And she would have known the type of images that are going to be used either within the magazine or if she is lucky she might get one on the cover.
There is a huge difference between air brushing and using a star’s image without their consent. I think the magazine would fear a lawsuit. As to the publicity, I think we can safely say that it does her no harm. These people (actors male or female) sell themselves not for money but for the need to remain under the limelight. Sad but true. She could have refused the shoot and demanded that the article should not contain any images or the pictures taken are serious ones or gawd knows what else. But she didn’t, because it would not sell as much. The people who are going to get attracted to these types of magazines need to be first caught by the gloss. This is not the economist. Though I admit Vanity Fair does seem to tackle serious issues and politics, but it remains still that its biggest selling point is culture and current trends. Also let me clarify this, the picture and such like pictures are not appropriate either as front cover or supporting images to the current serious subject at hand. They are pretty tasteless considering the article is supposed to be about child abuse. That didn’t stop her or the magazine in using them, and I doubt it would stop the readers which may I add is mainly going to be middle or high class educated (white) women.
The only way to stop this is to make people stop buying these trashy, crappy magazines and I doubt that would happen simply because most people like to fantasize on being someone else and it is so simple to idolize some actor or actress that is on the big screen. And it is so much easier when they happen to be attractive like Tom Cruise, Teri or whoever the heck is supposed to be a sexy star.
March 28, 2006 at 1:47 am
*groan*.I think most of you are ignoring the crux of the problem which is simply the conflation of sex and sexual abuse/rape.Not that different from the current ‘anti-rape’ aimed-at-men campaign (the names elude me,sorry).It doesn’t matter whether Terri Hatcher approved the photo or what the fuck not – would it really make the whole deal alright if she did?If she decided that her personal abuse is an acceptable marketing tool?That point is irrelevant (or more precisely,matter for another different sort of post).
Yes,the media is a heartless corporate pimp-machine whoring out male and female celebrities alike.The other half of the equation is that it both sets the precedent for the making and breaking of taboos in society and is also the ‘medium’ that heralds,presents,and sustains them.And so we have a magazine cover prettying up,glamorizing almost the sexual abuse of a minor.And the point here is that this SAYS SOMETHING.And you should question yourselves:about what?whom?
So…I don’t understand why the argument is centered around where to place blame.Where could we place it?Our pop culture’s bedrock is misogyny.Nothing new,folks.The Vanity Fair cover is just another extension.It’s disgusting,stupid,end of story.
March 28, 2006 at 8:05 am
I agree with your statement g.d.
The point here is not WHO is to blame, but rather why it is happening in the first place.
March 28, 2006 at 7:24 pm
g.d.
There is a blame, and the blame lies with the individual actions in this case. Everyone has to be accounted for what they do (I am not talking rape/crime victims here but the adult who buys, sells, is involved with this media trash). You have to have your own thoughts and own moral standards and you need to try to live up to them, and build on them if needed be. Some men and women like being treated like sexual objects and like to treat others as sexual objects and that is a fact of life. The problem is it affects us all. And yes it does matter what “stars” do, oh I wish it didn’t, but it seems there are many brain-dead children (and adults) that over idolise these morons.
So the reason this exists is because of humanity, or more accurately humanities diversity. This media trash will remain and if the market wasn’t there it would die out. Well the market is there and will continue to be there, and as an individual you need to stop buying this trash and take the silent revolution of withholding your money, and developing your OWN well founded thoughts. Instead, most of humanity follows a pack like lemmings and then claim there are individuals; what claptrap.
Another problem with most who claim to be solving these issues is they are mainly trying to work from the top down. It isn’t going to work. To build a pyramid you need to start from the base. Stop blaming the fat soulless mammon worshiping corporations, in the end it is futile. Work on the individual, work on your own actions (and your kids if you have any). Stand out, some will imitate and follow you others would despise you. Fact, you are not going to make a utopian world, because humanity will not conform, unless you force them then it would be totalitarian utopia which is an oxymoron.
How can the cover almost glamorise the sexual abuse of a minor. It doesn’t at all. Anyone who sees the cover would not connect the dots to child abuse, and anyone who is going to open the magazine won’t even think about the cover and just concentrate on the columns.
Now you mention that the crux of the problem is the correlation of sex and abuse, I disagree. I merely see it as the symptoms. Haven’t you noticed, there is also sex & violence (not same as abuse), humour & abuse, disability and humour, and other perversions? Do they form there own axis? IMHO, I think they are all related symptoms.
As to why? Ask a conservative, a religious conservative and then ask a liberal, and then ask a socialist feminists, anarchist feminists, pro-porn feminist, a masculist, an X… you won’t get the same answer. Everyone sees things differently.
That’s my two cents worth.
March 29, 2006 at 3:48 am
I understand where you’re coming from,Alfred,which I’m sure is an attempt at objectivity and not indignant trollitude which is what it seemed like evidenced by your “I blame Teri” comment.Alas, it is still a different place than mine,which is,indeed,that of a socialist feminist.And from here,I could ask you all types of questions which I’m sure you won’t be keen on answering or maybe even understanding considering YOUR opinions and viewpoint.I don’t know.But here’s an example:
“Some men and women like being treated like sexual objects and like to treat others as sexual objects …”
WHY?A fact of life?If you were familiar with radical feminist analysis and opinion in general you wouldn’t be making these types of statements,knowing full well that things or statements or “facts” which intersect capitalism and sexuality do not exist in a vacuum by any means.You would instead ask,”Why do people feel comfortable dehumanizing themselves or others or both?Would they still be comfortable with that choice if they knew of the very serious impact,the damage it has on others,which is a fact in itself?”.Which plays right into your argument that there is no solution because of the simple fact of differing individual/group opinions.But,contradictory to popular belief,an important factor of feminist doctrine is looking for solutions.Obliterating ignorance,even more so.That is why your rather circular reasoning doesn’t match up with the views expressed here.
One thing I agree with you on is the importance of the individual to make a difference.That is something I work on everyday,educating friends,boycotting,donating.But how is THAT supposed to accomplish anything given everyone’s unchanging differences?It seems to me like you’re completely anti-activism,which is understandable but not in tow with feminism,its penchant for occasional pessimism notwithstanding.Well,no where else to go from here,it seems…the 2 cents,apologies for any misinterpretations.
March 30, 2006 at 2:58 pm
I understand where you’re coming from,Alfred,which I’m sure is an attempt at objectivity and not indignant trollitude which is what it seemed like evidenced by your “I blame Teri” comment.Alas, it is still a different place than mine,which is,indeed,that of a socialist feminist.And from here,I could ask you all types of questions which I’m sure you won’t be keen on answering or maybe even understanding considering YOUR opinions and viewpoint.
Yes, that is what a troll does; he disagrees with you and gives reason in a reasonably acceptable manner because only when he agrees with you he is not a troll! And here I thought a troll is one who is rude, insulting and usually incoherent. Not a blogger and maybe I don’t actually understand the term troll (kind of quizzed it out on my own), maybe you can enlighten me.
My main goal was not to try and show my objectivity when I blamed Teri Hatcher for the actions of posing for the images. I was blaming her and clarifying my viewpoint because I took into account the TYPE of people that are going to read this which seemed like a sensible idea. I tried and maybe failed to get my point of view across with minimum misunderstanding. Differing input like that one can so easily be misconstrued when all the other inputs come from the same thought of mind and are all in agreement with the original post
However, I do like that you appear to be a cynic of people you do not know and whom you disagree with, it is a safe bet. Not trying to be condescending or complementing just a (sad) note of agreement.
WHY?A fact of life?If you were familiar with radical feminist analysis and opinion in general you wouldn’t be making these types of statements,knowing full well that things or statements or “facts” which intersect capitalism and sexuality do not exist in a vacuum by any means.
Are you defining facts of life as something that conforms to a particular view? Life as we know it (Jim) is diverse and ever changing, so yes it is a fact of CURRENT life. How it became so and what currently feeds it does not negate that it has become part of OUR society, OUR life. This does not make it right or permanent it just makes it. I don’t see how anyone can deny that. I also think you (and others) give capitalism too much weight, it maybe the catalyst but it sure isn’t the cause of the initial reaction. I think these and similar issues exists pre-capitalism; even when we were living in tribes, working cooperatively within nature, I think they existed. Just maybe not so open and not on such a large scale (mainly due to lack of Vainty Fair).
Also note, I never claimed it existed in a vacuum I claimed it is the way we are (now). And I did state they are symptoms which would automatically imply that there are outside (& internal) factors. It should be obvious from my previous posts that I am not comfortable with this type of destructive diversity as I agree with you in that it has an adverse affects on society. Though one needs to be a realist and realize that people who want to change it are in the minority, and there is no harm in noting (temporal) truths just as this and the above, but there can be (harm) when you do not factor them in to any possible solution.
My posts were never intended to provide global solutions or any answers for that matter. My initial post was differing input because I disagreed with the way people analyzed the initial issue, all the nodding of heads and pattings on backs in congratulating agreement. This is not constructive. I posted to make others think of a differing view (my view), and more importantly I disliked of what I saw as a lack of critical analysis to come up with such a conclusion.
You stated that my arguments leave no room for solutions. If anything there is amplitude of solutions, many contradicting each other. The question is which path to take, and can there be more than one path leading to a pleasing outcome. I personally think there is more than one, and it may differ from person to person. And the journey would be a long (endless) journey, and not every step takes you forward. It would be slow and conflictive because history shows us this. And I do not believe that we will achieve a utopian vision or egalitarian society, and this should not dampen you or anyone down. One more thing, I do not believe that there is a group that has all the answers, even though they claim to. I believe that the answers lie within different competing groups and sometimes even within moderation of competing ideas (e.g. capitalism and socialism). And that the answer for a particular problem for one group of people may not work for another.
Your (Social feminist) goal seems to be a solution for every major ailment of mankind, keeping on dreaming. That will not happen. Just won’t, not without bloodshed, war and assimilation. Conflicts of ideas and ideologies exist and will continue to exist. Hell, even within differing types of feminism there are conflicts of interests.
That is something I work on everyday,educating friends,boycotting,donating.But how is THAT supposed to accomplish anything given everyone’s unchanging differences?It seems to me like you’re completely anti-activism,
Changing yourself, and those around you, I see it as part of being active, and the most important part. Not all activism need to be in a group, or on the street with placards. In most cases those achieve the least success rate, as can be seen in the anti-war, anti-globalization, anti-IMF, anit-World Bank, anti-Corporations, anti-whatever rallies. Same goes for the Pro-rallies. These demonstrations are not going to work if the powers that be decide that the gain is worth it. It doesn’t mean you should stop it, as it sometimes does some good. The most famous example I can think of, is the Gandhi’s salt-rally. However, in my view the grassroot approach is the only truly viable path to take. It is slow and pain staking, but that is the way to achieve the goals.
You would instead ask, ”Why do people feel comfortable dehumanizing themselves or others or both?Would they still be comfortable with that choice if they knew of the very serious impact,the damage it has on others,which is a fact in itself?”.
And what makes you so sure I did not ask similar questions. That people need to take these questions upon themselves, and try to find answers is something we can agree upon, and it should already be obvious for those who give a damn. I would already hope that most of the posters have already run similar questions through their minds, otherwise why did they become feminist or whatever ideology movement you might believe in the first place. Mind you, first you have to come to the conclusion is that these actions have an adverse affect on the self and others. Many just don’t see that, no matter how much you try to enlighten them. And some do but don’t care, they perceive the gains as worth it.
This thread did not start with the discussion of solutions which I think you, as a socialist-feminist and the other posters would already have your own ideas of possible solutions. I would not have joined in if it was about solutions, as I have no solutions that I believe in that would fit your views. When I am bored I generally have a few blogs that I like to read, some funny, most political, some just catch my eye (like this one, well the old pink version), and most contain differing views to me. On rare occasion I post and hardly ever have a discussion (don’t want to get caught up). It helps me pass the time, and see what others outside my immediate world think which I find interesting. That is all.
I believe if you are going to have a serious discussion which this didn’t start out as but is starting to become, you need to give it the time it deserves. I don’t want to give this anymore time as I find these debates can easily end up being circular and usually defensive; being the outsider I am already defensive in replies. So this is my last post (I hope). I will read any further replies you make here. Thanks for the polite discussion.
March 30, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Oops… I made a mistake. Ms. Violet are you able edit the italic bit. It is only supposed to be g.d’s quotes only.
April 26, 2006 at 5:18 am
i think that there is some beauty in it actually. in the picture she is covering herself up and is stripped down to her undergarnments. i see this as symbolizing the vulnerability she has displayed by going public with this. that’s just what i see …