Vanity Fair’s sexist Jimmy Fallon profile erases his wife, highlights Victoria Secret models

I’m a huge Jimmy Fallon fan. This is why I bought the new Vanity Fair where he’s on the cover even though it annoyed me that Fallon is shown in a suit while he’s flanked by two nameless women in bathing suits.

rs_634x890-140107101257-634.jimmy-fallon-vanity-fair-cover-010714

There are more pics of Fallon and naked women inside the magazine. Reading the caption, I learned that the women are Victoria Secret models.

There is a third picture of Fallon and the women at what looks like New York’s Natural History museum. Once again, the women are in skimpy bikinis and we get a full view of ass. Fallon is once again pictured in a suit.

Showing important, powerful men fully clothed while women appear as naked accessories underscores the idea that men valued for what they do and think, while women are valued for how they appear. Vanity Fair repetitively resorts to this sexism. There’s a famous photo featuring naked Scarlett Johanssen, Keira Knightly, and Tom Ford. When Rachel McAdams refused to undress, she was asked to leave.

scarlett-johansson

Of course, Vanity Fair is hardly alone in promoting this sexist imagery. Here are five GQ covers that came out simultaneously: four men are shown in suits, one woman is shown naked.

gq

What about Rolling Stone?

Boeh2GICYAE0Ddz.jpg_large

There’s Justin Timberlake’s “Tunnel Vision” video where he is clothed and the women are naked.

Many claimed Timberlake was copying Robin Thicke’s “Blurred Lines” video where he is clothed and the women are naked, a pairing repeated in the infamous Miley Cyrus performance (where Miley was blamed for being a slut.)

“Alternative” musicians resort to the same cliche. Did you see Nick Cave’s latest album cover?

nickcave-pushtheskyaway

The truth is, we’ve been dealing with the clothed man-naked woman pairing for a long time. Here’s a famous painting by Edouard Manet in the Musee D’Orsay in Paris that would make a perfect Vanity Fair cover.

manet

But here’s what really pissed me off about the Jimmy Fallon article. As I wrote, I’m a fan of the comedian, but part of the reason I bought the magazine is because I wanted to know more about his wife, Nancy Juvonen. She’s a film producer and a business partner of Drew Barrymore. Both Barrymore and Juvonen are interested in making movies where cool women get to have adventures. I wanted to hear the whole story about how Juvonen and Fallon met and fell in love, just the kind of thing you’d expect to find in a Vanity Fair profile right? They recently had a daughter, Winnie, so I assumed Fallon would be asked about being a new father. I’m an avid reader of Us Weekly and People and I often see pictures of their family. Fallon is always cuddling his baby, playing with her, smiling at her, and I was curious about his thoughts on raising a girl in the world. Another thing I wanted to hear about: Fallon is 39 while Juvonen is 46, a rare gap in Hollywood where a woman’s age is measured closer to dog years than man years. Do you see my point here? Fallon married a successful career woman who is 7 years older than him, and this, besides his talent, is part of the reason I admire the guy. But here’s the weird thing: Nancy Juvonen is missing from Fallon’s profile.

Juvonen isn’t mentioned at all until 5 pages into the long piece. After writing that Fallon always watched “SNL” alone, the text reads:

His one concession to adulthood is that he now watches the program with his wife, the film producer Nancy Juvonen, and if she is awake his baby daughter, Winnie, born last July.

Can you imagine Vanity Fair doing a profile on a famous woman and not mentioning her big time producer husband or her new baby until page 5? The piece goes on for two more pages and there are just two more brief references to Juvonen. Here’s all the magazine has to say on how they met and why they married.

Though the Fever Pitch experience had a saving grace–it was through the film that he met Juvonen, one of its producers who he would marry in 2007– he considers his LA years kind of a lost period.

Here’s the final reference to Juvonen, about persuading Fallon to become the “Tonight Show” host.

It was Fallon’s wife who persuaded him to go with Michael’s instinct. “Nancy was like, ‘You’ve got to try it. You’ll be one of three human beings who have done it– Letterman, Conan, and you. You have to do it. If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work,'” Fallon said.

That’s it. WTF? All Fallon’s wife gets in a profile is a few sentences in passing coupled with a cover and three photos where he’s shown with naked women? That’s not the Jimmy Fallon I love or wanted to read about.

 

 

14 thoughts on “Vanity Fair’s sexist Jimmy Fallon profile erases his wife, highlights Victoria Secret models

  1. As I was saying… (which was apparently posted then pulled):
    I am probably going to make few friends here in the era of man-bashing and female exploitation and the like, but the cold hard facts are, exploitation runs both ways and is for the most part voluntary. Of course I am not talking about genuine instances in which women are forced into submission, but that is hardly the case with any of these. If you are going to look at male advantage in society it is only fair to look at the built in disadvantages that we all assume are merely a part of life. The vast majority of homeless men are male, as are incarcerations. More men at the top, but vastly more on the bottom rungs of society. Men are seen as more expendable. We tolerate women’s colleges, women-only gyms, women-only yoga studios, women-only non-profit agencies… New reports reporting “blast kill hundreds “including more than a dozen women and children (as if the men are of lesser consequence) , bag “ladies” vs “bums…” Almost all soldiers in the line of fire are men… The vast majority of sexual harassment cases favor the “innocent women” when everybody knows this is hardly ever the complete story. Frankly, it does no good to bash one gender for exploitation when there is plenty on both sides to go around. Thinking men and women recognize this, though few are willing to admit it. So I would suggest if you dislike exploitation, be sure to stand up for all exploitation, not just the practices that favor your own personal or political agenda.

  2. I am probably going to make few friends here in the era of man-bashing and female exploitation and the like, but the cold hard facts are, exploitation runs both ways and is for the most part voluntary. Of course I am not talking about genuine instances in which women are forced into submission, but that is hardly the case with any of these. If you are going to look at male advantage in society it is only fair to look at the built in disadvantages that we all assume are merely a part of life. The vast majority of homeless men are male, as are incarcerations. More men at the top, but vastly more on the bottom rungs of society. Men are seen as more expendable. We tolerate women’s colleges, women-only gyms, women-only yoga studios, women-only non-profit agencies… New reports reporting “blast kill hundreds “including more than a dozen women and children (as if the men are of lesser consequence) , bag “ladies” vs “bums…” Almost all soldiers in the line of fire are men… The vast majority of sexual harassment cases favor the “innocent women” when everybody knows this is hardly ever the complete story. Frankly, it does no good to bash one gender for exploitation when there is plenty on both sides to go around. Thinking men and women recognize this, though few are willing to admit it. So I would suggest if you dislike exploitation, be sure to stand up for all exploitation, not just the practices that favor your own personal or political agenda.

  3. Hmm I’m not sure I agree those women are nameless. Vanity Fair’s audience probably knows they are Alessandra Ambrosio and Doutzen Kroes. I haven’t been reading much in the way of magazines for years (because blatant sexism) but I still know these models (admit I had to google to make sure I’d correctly spelled their names). Otherwise, I completely agree with you. The cover photo creeps me out, like did they photoshop him into the photo??? Something just looks odd.

  4. When I read here that you were a fan of Cave I thought…”interesting” .Not smth I expected in a feminist blog. Nick Cave’s fascination with murdering women spans his whole career.One of his most notorious songs (from the 80s) is the “Six Inch Gold Blade” You can read the lyrics here
    http://www.lyricsfreak.com/n/nick+cave+and+the+bad+seeds/six+inch+gold+blade_20100285.html

    And then there is his most well known song “Where the Wild Roses Grow” with Kylie Minogue .In the lyrics he murdered her.

    I believe his misogyny is the result of a combination of admiration and envy. I mean that he sees females as “superior” or “pure” . That’s why he has been writing songs about the murder (or rape) of women all his life.Cave is a big Kylie fan-which is exactly why he wrote a song where he kills her.

  5. Guys will be guys.It is GQ. Men think women are attractive when they are naked. Conservative people get a life. It is not sexism. It is GQ magazine not Christian Daily. Try running a business Magazine for men, see what clever idea can you come up with your conservative idea. I bet your magazine will be shut down like in an hour

  6. I read the same article and came away feeling a little less love for Fallon, thinking he could have insisted on more detail being published. Thank God it was at an office and I didn’t need to purchase it.

    • Same here. Continued sexism. And, what’s interesting is how these photo shoots continue to follow the same patterns. So, women are still viewed as something to drape around men? Accessories? Adornments, to later be taken off and cast aside. Truly appalling.

Leave a Reply to apleasanthouse Cancel reply