Monday, March 2, 2009

Rachael Ray objectified by For Him Magazine  

I was thoroughly repulsed by the photo shoot Rachael Ray did for For Him Magazine. I've never particularly been a fan of Rachael Ray, but I had hoped she had just a little more sense than to subject herself to posing in a hyper-sexualized set of photos, in which the food exists only as a fetish. It's offensive and sexist, and I'm thoroughly revolted by both the low standards of the pornographic rag that is For Him Magazine, and by Rachael Ray's choice to allow herself to become a sex object.


What next?

You can also bookmark this post using your favorite bookmarking service:

Related Posts by Categories

16 comments: to “ Rachael Ray objectified by For Him Magazine

  • March 2, 2009 at 5:28 PM  

    ICK x2

  • March 3, 2009 at 12:00 AM  

    I suppose she must have done this to regain a male fan base, who generally find her annoying.

    Though that doesn't make it any less "ick".

  • March 3, 2009 at 8:40 AM  

    oh no no no no no.

  • March 3, 2009 at 5:05 PM  

    Women can't be smart/talented/powerful and sexy? Rachael Ray is hot. I don't see what the hell is wrong with it.

  • March 3, 2009 at 8:47 PM  

    Adam, it's a pattern. This is not an isolated incident. Women can't be in the spotlight without being objectified in some way. Another example is the horribly offensive Sarah Palin porn that was created.

    These pictures just make me cringe. They're distasteful in every way. Why does a woman have to take off her clothes to be sexy? She was sexy before she did this. She was sexy in jeans and a t-shirt. This is not sexy. This is offensive.

  • March 3, 2009 at 9:54 PM  

    Nobody can be in the spotlight without being objectified in some way! Women don't objectify Brad Pitt? We objectify one another each and every day. On one level, I don't guess there's any harm in it. On another, the shoes don't always fit and that causes some distress – but women don't have exclusive province over that!

    I reject (entirely) that the pictures you have posted from this FHM shoot are in any way pornographic or akin to presumably photoshopped Palin porn (although I am not entirely sure what you're referring to). The woman in these pictures is posed in clothing of her own free will and is, presumably, aware that the pictures will be published.

    Besides that, you seem to suggest that a grown person oughtn't do something she wants to do because you find it distasteful. Hunh? Who made you "the decider"? She's not even showing anything she wouldn't show at the beach. I don't share her apparent fetish for food, but whatever. To each their own. No? Maybe she's having the time of her life doing that shoot. (Maybe not. But, neither you nor I know.) I certainly don't think she should be disparaged for it. And, frankly, I don't feel that I have any better understanding of why you do.

  • March 3, 2009 at 11:35 PM  

    If we argue objectification of women vs. objectification of men, this is going to be a discussion that has to go deep into feminist theory. In the most basic terms, because males are in power, and because there isn't a history in the male gender of men being treated as sexual objects and being victims of sexual violence nearly as much as women have, it's much much different.

    The Palin porn wasn't photoshopped - it was a movie starring a Palin look-alike. You're right - this is on her own free will, which is why I made a point to state that I'm not only disappointed with the magazine, but in Rachael Ray's choice to pose like this. It just perpetuates the notion that "hot" women can't be in the spotlight without baring their bodies. Think of all the top female celebrities - they are all considered extremely attractive, and I would dare say 97% of them have bared the majority of their bodies at some point, whether in film or in magazines such as For Him Magazine. The male celebrities are not in the same situation. Yes, "hot" men such as Brad Pitt might pose half-naked, but how many female Jack Blacks are there? Would a female celebrity make it if she were overweight and not considered "attractive"? How many female Paul Giamattis are there? Seth Rogens? John C. Reillys? Steve Buscemis?

    I never claimed to be any type of "decider." I'm a person who adopted feminist principles, and looks at everything through a feminist lens. Upon examination of this situation, I believe, personally, that she is setting women back. We are trying to move forward and shatter the stereotype that only "hot" women can make it big, and only if they allow themselves to be sexualized.

  • March 4, 2009 at 3:17 PM  

    Why must someone be punished and denied the ability to be an inspiration if they tastfully participated in portrayls such as these which are not likely do go away soon? You have stated before that the act of feeling comfortable naked is a powerful source of inspiration for yourself. Don't you think that the decision to be in these films can also be viewed positively? She made a decision to do it herself and has suffered weight and other self esteem issues in the past, for her this is probably providing a source of inspiration and power. The photo's dont seem to be that pornographic but rather powerful and playful.

  • March 8, 2009 at 6:59 PM  

    I disagree completely. There is a huge difference between feeling comfortable with your body and promoting yourself as a sex object. These pictures celebrate Rachel Ray's hot body and sex appeal instead of her success in the cooking world. There are ways to be beautiful and sexy in a men's magazine without fetishes and kinky outfits. i think these pictures are extremely distasteful.

  • March 8, 2009 at 8:28 PM  

    @ Amy, you have a very narrow view of objectification and the canned reasoning to which you allude (from a place, whereat one must study feminist theory and accept same on its face) would seem to speak of bias and egocentrism. I am truly sorry that you feel this way -- and that your lens prevents you from seeing the world accurately.

    I don't know where you get this ridiculous "97%" figure from, and, I didn't realize that the media represented the whole world. Not only are there myriad examples to refute you (from female policy makers to women on Wall St. and even celebrities) but men are routinely objectified as part of a long history, which often includes sex, violence and extraordinary tension between right and wrong -- self and other. I guess you just can't see it through the lens of "feminism".

    Moreover, you are become "the decider". You explicitly decide what is right and wrong, tasteful and distasteful, etc. And, you would have people act in one way and another but not some other... using your own moral code (even your best intentions) as a compass -- no ostensible socioeconomic benefit -- no empirical justification -- no data. How are you any different from G. W. B. or any other fascist?

  • March 8, 2009 at 8:34 PM  

    Adam. This is a blog. In which I express my personal opinion. Doesn't mean everyone has to accept it.

    The end.

  • March 8, 2009 at 8:52 PM  

    Ah... I see. I guess I misunderstood because I thought you craved intellectual interactions and debate... You certainly don't post mild fare.

    I have a blog at which I am eager for spirited debate and am always sad that (despite increasing pageloads) few comment. If I were you, I guess I'd be pretty happy.

    Maybe you and I should swap blogs. ;)

  • March 8, 2009 at 11:06 PM  

    I am always up for debate. But you are accusing me of acting that I possess the belief that I am some sort of godly "decider." I was trying to emphasize the fact that this is a personal blog in which I express personal opinions, and people are welcome to read. Nowhere do I say that my opinion is the only opinion. Defending my opinion is not the same thing as being a fascist. What a preposterous accusation.

    Moreover, I believe I debated quite a lot with you. However, a good debater knows when an argument reaches a point where it will continue in circles, and thus feels it is best to end it.

  • August 26, 2009 at 2:11 AM  

    I think Shelley Duvall is a good candidate for a female Steve Buscemi.

    But you are right, Amy, actresses in general are unnecessarily attractive and something should be done about it. It's simply vulgar to have a character who ought to be quite plain (like Miri in Zach & Miri Make A Porno) played by a conventional "hot girl"-type actress.

  • February 1, 2010 at 5:31 PM  

    These pictures are a bit objectifying. I mean, it is one thing if Rachel suggested to pose like this, and it's another if the photographer wanted her to. But either way, I can see how these photos can be offensive to many. An intelligent, successful, woman was posed in a belly shirt and seductive poses - it kind of suggests that in order to be "sexy" one must dress like this... when in fact, there are other ways.

  • May 25, 2011 at 4:17 PM  

    OK if you guess what I was thinkin when I saw the pcitures with the giant lollipop you win a special prize!!!