1. MORE ABOUT MORE!: THE SEXUAL LANGUAGE OF YOUNG
WOMEN'S MAGAZINES
On this page (by David Gauntlett) we consider whether the sexual freedom and
assertiveness encouraged by magazines like More (and its sisters, like
Cosmopolitan and Glamour) is a good thing for young women - basically, I
argue that it is - and then we see what some actual teenagers think about this,
via the results of some brand new qualitative research conducted over the
internet.
More is a British magazine aimed at older teenagers and twentysomething women,
although it is also enjoyed by younger teenagers eager to read a more 'grown up'
magazine. International viewers might think of an even more youthful and zesty version
of Cosmopolitan, with even more emphasis on sex and enthusiastic discussion of how
you can make men submit to your sexual will.
The content of More is a clear-cut positive rejection of the stuffy old conservatism about
sexual matters that was around 10 or 20 years ago. It is emphatically post-traditonal -
or, indeed, anti-traditional (in terms of its exuberant celebration of female desire). Like
other 'girl power' texts, it emphasises that women should be able to get what they want
from men, when they want it; that men should not dictate the terms of a relationship;
that a woman has the right to look and dress however she likes, for her own pleasure;
and that a woman has the right to demand satisfaction in sex, in work, and in every
other area of life.
Of course, there are some problems with this
recipe. It is emphatically heterosexual (in a way
that is not really undermined by the occasional
feature on the joys of lesbianism). Some people
complain that the magazines reduce women to
sex-obsessed predators, and objectify men as
'eye candy' - but this is a blatant reversal of the
traditional 'male gaze', and remains powerful politically. Also, like all women's magazines
(and to a lesser extent, men's magazines) they may promote an ideal of attractiveness
which readers may be unable or unwilling to attain.
Angela McRobbie has argued that feminists should not dismiss magazines such as More
out of hand. She admits that such magazines may not exactly reflect feminist ideals, but
points out that, as far as many young women are concerned, academic feminism is part
of the world of middle-aged authority figures - and we cannot really expect young people
to simply 'do what they are told' by the establishment. Nevertheless, McRobbie says that
'feminism exists as a productive tension' in the magazines. More and Cosmo do promote
the kinds of confidence, self-awareness and assertiveness that feminism was always
calling for: woman are encouraged to know their own bodies and their needs, to
articulate what they want, and to make well-informed decisions based on their own
interests and desires, and not what other people want them to do. As I say in Media,
Gender and Identity (2002):
In the magazines for older teenagers and young women, the encouragement of women
to be sexual actors - even predators - rather than sexual objects or victims, reflects a
'feminist' turning of the tables. Feminists never really suggested that having sex with
lots of men was a goal in itself, but the rejection of passive femininity, and the freedom
to openly desire others, is feminist progress.
http://www.theoryhead.com/gender/more.htm