Skip to Content

Double standard in getting naked

January 28, 2010
Gender Columnist

In 1982, Scott Brown, a 22-year-old law student from Boston College, posed nude in a Cosmopolitan Magazine centerfold. He described himself as “a bit of a patriot,” but with a well-placed arm, he kept any bits of his patriot shielded from the camera.

Nearly 30 years later, the same Scott Brown ran for the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts and won. When asked about his modeling past by the Boston Globe, he explained away any outcry with the following quote: “You don’t see anything.”

What’s really on display are the different standards set for men and women today in public office. A woman would never been able to do what he did and still make it to Washington.

In 1982, Martha Coakley was an associate at a law firm in Boston.

Imagine if, to pay off her law school student loans (the main reason, Brown said, that he appeared in Cosmo), she had worked as an exotic dancer.

What if in a moment of fun or silliness — or even in all sincerity — she had posed for a pictorial in some Boston University short-shorts for a Girls of the Eastern College Athletic Conference photo spread?

Females in positions of power are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Their hair and clothes can be deemed too sexy, too dowdy, too expensive, too masculine or too feminine.

We’re told as women that we can do anything if we put our brilliant minds to it, but it seems that a little winking and flirting will get you a hell of a lot further in terms of popularity. (I’m looking at you, Ms. Palin.)

And although I’m sure some people chose their vote after seeing Brown and his Cosmo-approved “stimulus package,” men running for office are generally assessed by their ideas and values first — even if they are overweight, pale or sporting an impressive set of jowls. Although it’s not impossible to succeed, women have a trickier tightrope to walk regarding their appearance and actions.

But Brown did have a line he wouldn’t cross: “It’s Cosmo, not Playgirl,” he said. (Once again, imagine a female candidate saying, “It’s Maxim, not Playboy,” and not getting raked over the coals.) We’ve stripped beauty queens of titles, however, and chastised actresses because of nude pictures.

And with some more boyish charm, Scott Brown joked during his acceptance speech that his daughters were “available.” Yet during the 2008 presidential primaries, MSNBC correspondent David Shuster said Chelsea Clinton was being “pimped out” for Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Why the difference?

In many ways, Brown’s decision as a young adult not having to define his career choices is a welcome one. Thank God we’re not all held to the choices we made when we were 22. But when we’re holding some people to certain standards and others not, it’s important to speak up and ask questions.

Many might say Brown’s words and actions fall under the excuse of “boys being boys,” a catch-all phrase intended to explain away any behavior that disrupts without explicitly causing harm.

But women don’t get as wide a net; their actions are either good or bad. And according to society, no “good girl” worthy of running for senator would ever do such a “bad” thing as pose nude.

 

Jessica Fuller is a second-year journalism graduate student. Contact Jessica at jvfuller@email.unc.edu.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I agree totally, Jessica, and

I agree totally, Jessica, and am currently laughing at the prospect of a woman recovering from a naked photograph enough to run for high public office. However, I would not say that winks get you further. Clinton ran for president which I find to be more impressive than Palin's appointment to run for vice. Indeed, Clinton, now in the highest position in government ever held by a woman, has worked hard in the political sphere to attain that seat. She deserves it and is capable of holding it. Luckily, though, there is another double standard here...she succeeded and is obviously too masculine.

Definitely something I would

Definitely something I would expect to be published by a "Gender Columnist." That title just screams "Desperate to find bias." But comparing Maxim to Cosmo?

I strongly disagree with this

I strongly disagree with this column. I see Carrie Prejean, for example, becoming a powerful GOP voice in California.

This is terrible and just

This is terrible and just sounds bitter rather than making a coherent point supported by any facts.

In fact, I can imagine a female candidate saying, "It's maxim, not playboy" and everyone replying, "Oh, OK." Let's say Danica Patrick wanted to run for office. Would anyone hold it against her that she posed for maxim? I think not.

I hate the damned if they do, damned if they don't position women are in. I think it's totally unfair. However, this article has nothing to do with that.

You're a silly goose, and I

You're a silly goose, and I feel bad for you. You are going to spend your whole life feeling bitter and paranoid thinking the world is against you.

As a disclaimer, I am not

As a disclaimer, I am not going to get involved in the political debate that is occurring in the comments section of this column. That said, this was overall a rather poor article in my opinion. As another poster already pointed out, you do not provide any examples of why you are making this weighty assumption and instead apparently choose to wallow in a pool of self-pity. Actually, the only example you do provide is Sarah Palin, who, in light of recent events, is not necessarily a good role model for a budding politician of either gender. I really hate it when gender columnist are as defeatist as you seem to be. To some point, I have to wonder whether it's the assumption of some women that there are double standards like this rather than the existence of said double standards that is holding women back. I particularly take issue with your last two paragraphs. It really amazes me that you can take a phrase that is more often than not used to condescend males and try to turn it into evidence of some sort of discrimination against females. Also, shame on you for making such a wide-reaching statement as the one in your concluding paragraph. Not only is it unsupported by any sort of evidence other than your own negativity, but it is also a vast generalization, and if there is one thing that irritates me about some of those so-called "feminists", it is their repeated attempts to combat gender stereotypes with generalizations of their own making. You know, maybe if you're so concerned about this issue, you should make it your life goal to pose nude and hold political office, because then your article might have some sort of basis behind it.

Exactly. Well-put.

Exactly. Well-put.

Don't be afraid to look good,

Don't be afraid to look good, ladies.

" A woman would never been

" A woman would never been able to do what he did and still make it to Washington."

how do you know?

an editorial about a double standard would be a lot stronger if you actually showed examples of that double standard in play. as is, this just reads like an argument against assumptions you yourself have made.

Do you forget that one of

Do you forget that one of Carolina's own female law students posed nude in Playboy this year? Not to mention the fact that it was featured on the front page of The Daily Tar Heel highlighting her 'School Spirit'. Personally, I'm a Republican (and a female) and I don't see a thing wrong with Scott Brown or this young woman posing, regardless of their reasons for doing so. You should really consider the predominate age of the "society" that you name, because I can assure you that the younger generation, regardless of political affiliation, is much more open minded to such topics than the baby-boomer population that most college-aged students parents' comprise.

And yet, somehow you've

And yet, somehow you've missed the obvious connection here - namely, that conservatives are hypocrites and self-serving. Well, surprise - why do you think that even with a super-majority and public support Democrats couldn't get anything done?

Scott Brown introduced his campaign commercial with "I'm Scott Brown, and this is my truck." Where could it go from there? Certainly not uphill. He's a liar and doesn't understand the issues that he takes positions on, and hardly a representative for what good political praxis looks like. Be very careful before you make statements like "according to society" - it reifies the very positions that you're trying to indict, and is the sort of non-sensical, non-falsifiable rhetoric that belongs in first-year sociology papers. I've never chastised actresses because of nude photos, and it wouldn't affect my opinion of their acting skills nor the validity of their political opinions - although I might question if someone who spent his or her career in Hollywood was necessarily the best person to be making political decisions for me.

Many people would say that "according to society," men who would pose naked for a magazine are sexually aberrant. Doesn't appear to be the case, and I doubt that Sarah Palin posing naked would result in a dramatic drop in her fan-base. If men were really judged according to their ideas and values, how do you explain the re-election of George Bush? Most people who vote in the United States or run for political office have neither the ability nor the training to understand the gamut of social, economic, historic and legal issues they face. I think you're giving democracy too much credit when you suggest that sexism is at work - I doubt most voters get very far beyond whom their friends / pastors / coworkers are voting for.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/14/scott-brown-held-tea-part_n_423198.html

"why do you think that even

"why do you think that even with a super-majority and public support Democrats couldn't get anything done?"

. . . . .

"If men were really judged

"If men were really judged according to their ideas and values, how do you explain the re-election of George Bush? Most people who vote in the United States or run for political office have neither the ability nor the training to understand the gamut of social, economic, historic and legal issues they face. I think you're giving democracy too much credit when you suggest that sexism is at work - I doubt most voters get very far beyond whom their friends / pastors / coworkers are voting for. "

Wouldn't that also apply to Obama, then? All of the hoopla about the "First Black President" and "Making History" had no mention of his platform, his morals, his plans for the Nation, etc.

Duh. That's my point,

Duh. That's my point, although Barack Obama at least didn't have an obvious track record of screwing things up as president, while Bush Jr. did. It's a criticism of democracy in general - namely, that you have to appeal to people who don't know anything about the issues other than what their gut or their religion tells them.

Look at the people who continue to support Obama after he has proved to be miles away from the base and his campaign promises. He was always much farther to the right than people thought he was, mainly because Karl Rove painted him as the next Mao Zedong. Obama's presidency has been a failure because he continues to listen to conservative pundits and not the actual intellectuals (e.g. Krugman). Should have voted for Dennis Kucinich.

Stop trying to blame

Stop trying to blame conservatives for Obama's presidential failures. Democrats have the majority in the Senate and the House, and hold the presidential office. Blaming conservatives got old with Bush in office, but at least there was some logic there, now it's just ridiculous. Obama's problems come much more from Nancy Pelosi than they do "conservative pundits."