Feminist Looking Glass

There has been much discussion in blogs about the PETA advertising campaigns. Most of the blogs and comments say that the campaigns are sexist and objectify women. For example, see Feministe, Womanist Musings, and Feministing.   I can’t say that I disagree, but I want to see how people feel about the article I discuss below.

One of the objectionable PETA ads that has been mentioned is this one of Holly Madison, a former Playboy model (and past contestant on Dancing with the Stars), which is included in a post on Feminists for Choice.  (The blog also contains a letter to PETA and PETA’s very interesting response.) 

But my question for this blog is what do people who believe PETA’s ads are sexist think about an article in the most recent issue of Men’s Health Magazine.  I have been reading Men’s Health for at least 15 years.  It claims that it sells more magazine issues world-wide than any other magazine about men’s health topics.  Each issue contains many topics and has at least some photos in each issue of semi-clothed models.

The article is titled “Walk Like a Man But Work Like a Woman: What the ‘weaker sex’ can teach you about real strength.”  Its message is that men need to learn how to think more like women in order to succeed in the workplace.  (I realize that that is stereotyping, but let’s take it on face value for now.)  After introducing the article by giving examples of what some consider a typical male act of thinking of business as war, the author (a male) says:

Does it ever occur to these guys that sometimes it might work better to not act like such a guy? Or at least that it might make sense to be a stealth guy, cleverly disguised by day as a mild-mannered, semirational member of the community? In the modern workplace, the best way for a man to succeed might actually be to suppress his caveman and try to think like a woman instead.

It’s not about acting like a woman. People respond badly to what psychologists call “gender rule violations.” Nor is anyone suggesting that women always make ideal employees. They can be just as stupid as men can be. On becoming CEO at Yahoo early this year, for instance, Carol Bartz reportedly threatened to “drop-kick to f–king Mars” anyone caught leaking company information. (Her staff promptly leaked the quote.)

But the case for learning a few basic skills from the so-called weaker sex is simple: Women are succeeding in a time when men generally aren’t. Four out of five jobs lost in the current recession belonged to men. (It’s been dubbed the “he-cession.”) Male-dominated construction and manufacturing sectors are taking the hardest hits.

Even in white-collar industries, men often look more expendable than women. “Women work a little harder,” says one male boss in market research. “They’re more loyal and they stick with things a lot longer.” And, not least, they’re frequently paid less. “So if I’m going to fire somebody, I’ll fire Fred, not Fanny.” Thus for the first time ever, women might become a majority in the U.S. workplace.

The political zeitgeist also favors women. One business magazine recently offered a predictable list of ideal qualities for a chief financial offi- cer, and then added, “Oh, yes, and the company might be better off if it chooses a woman.” Research suggests that investors trust women to scrutinize potential deals more carefully, and that they take points away from men for being overconfident. And in financially struggling Iceland, the women who run one of that nation’s only investment firms still turning a profit recently blamed the country’s economic collapse on “typical” aggressive, indiscriminate, high-risk, “male” behavior.

(The article can be found online, but only the print edition has the photos that I discuss below.)

The article then goes on to give tips for how men might change their actions in the workplace in order to act more like women: (1) It wouldn’t kill you to smile, (2) Be as smart as she is, (3) Stop barking, (4) Play down the fight-or-flight instinct, (5) Act as if people have outside lives, (6) Gossip, (7) Be nice to people you outrank, (8) Don’t think just inside the company, (9) It’s not just about the money, and (10) Recognize what you don’t know.

So far, I don’t think any feminist would be critical of the article.  But the print edition, not the online article, includes these photos:

My question is whether the photos automatically make the article sexist, given that the text of the Men’s Health article sends a message that is supportive of women?  For that matter, are the photos even sexist at all and do they objectify women?  And for anyone who believes that the text justifies the article even with the photos, how is that any different than PETA’s ad with Holly Madison that has the purpose of bringing extra attention–by having the photo–to the welcome goal of an anti-fur campaign?