Mary Louise Parker Makes Pie, Shows Booty

After last week’s video of was-it-or-wasn’t-it booty ogling, I’d love to watch Sarkozy flip through these bare-assed Mary Louise Parker photos in Esquire with that same unashamed delight. And then I’d like to watch someone else, someone who was part of the feminist movement, perhaps, take it all in. The glossy photos of Mary, butt peeking out from her floral apron, pie poised over her shoulder or kneading dough in black lacy underwear, the red of exposed areola balanced by the single cherry on the counter. I’d like to watch that woman’s face crumple as she reads Mary’s ode to men who "can fix my front door, my sink, and open most jars," or Esquire’s returned affection for what Mary delivered in this photo spread: "That pie. The crust, so flaky. The fruit, so sweet. The little apron."

What is this, exactly? Do we not get to call it sexist, because Parker is clearly such a willing participant? My friend and colleague Tony Dokoupil (on the “man beat” for Newsweek), who alerted me to the spread, argues in an e-mail that the entire package is "a giant leap back for man and woman kind ... Isn’t this a classic example of, er, tit-for-tat sexual harassment? It belongs in a law school textbook."

What do others think? A reason to cry harassment, or "if you’ve got it, flaunt it"?

Tags: esquire, mary louise parker

VIEW THIS CONVERSATION

Samantha Henig is the associate editor of Double X, and can be reached at samantha.henig@doublex.com.

Comments

She shows off her booty

By: Kamil | Tue, 07/28/2009 - 07:14

She shows off her booty hopefully she's wearing a good seamless bra

If you've got it and wanna

By: Kamil | Fri, 07/24/2009 - 02:56

If you've got it and wanna flaunt it then lingerie is a great way to wear sexy clothes and yet not reveal everything. Freya Lingerie

nudity is one thing

By: buggie | Mon, 07/20/2009 - 12:21

and if she's got it and wants to flaunt it, fine, even though I tend to see this sort of thing as sexist, I can buy the justifications that it's not.

The context of the photos, combined with the nudity, is in fact, blatantly sexist. The photos to me say "slave." Just when women might think that men have higher opinions of them, one of them comes out and puts together this photo theme. Naked woman and lacy lingerie baking pies in the kitchen. Um yeah, did these Esquire guys not see what's wrong with this? Did MLP not see what's wrong with this? I don't get why a woman would do that.

@ Murasaki et al

By: cheek | Thu, 07/16/2009 - 16:17

From what you've written here, it appears to me that you have something valuable to say on this issue, and I sincerely hope that neither the content of my comments nor their tone has discouraged you or anyone else from sharing it. I realize all to well through my experiences as a teacher, husband, uncle and godfather to intelligent young women how systematically our culture discourages women from voicing their ideas, and I for one believe that we continue to do devastating damage not only to women but to our very society when we press the mute button in advance on half the ideas our gene pool might provide.

@cheek, @murasaki

By: P Starling | Thu, 07/16/2009 - 15:55

@ cheek: My mother was once featured in a church-related lifestyle magazine as Mrs. Starling, mother of nine, amazing baker of pies. The photo showed her and fourteen pies of various types, all of which had been prepared for a potluck or church function. (She was, natch, completely clothed.) So I've seen the serious as well as the tongue-in-cheek, which is one reason the tongue-in-cheek kinda riles me. It's an "Et tu, MLP?" moment. Not a serious outrage, just a snort of disgust. And yeah, you're right, the total impact on the population I describe is minimal, which makes it a mini-disgust.

@ murasaki: You know, if my tombstone says, "Strident feminist," I'm okay with that. I'll stop being annoyed by the little stuff when the big stuff is taken care of--when there is no wage gap, when women are represented in management proportional to their presence in the workforce, when no one thinks to make nutcracker dolls of the female candidate for president. Then this sort of crap will be harmless and amusing, and I'll enjoy it or ignore it. Until then, someone's got to be the oversensitive biddy, and I'm okay with volunteering. Thanks for the shout-out. And hey, pass me a drink.

@P Starling

By: Murasaki | Thu, 07/16/2009 - 15:15

See? See? This is why I sit in the dark corner drinking and watch the train wrecks now instead of wearing the shiny yellow vest and waving flares.

That aside, your personal account rocked. And you rock. Knowing there's another woman out there that "gets it," that sees what deadly, life-ending traps seemingly tiny cultural particulars are, makes me smile (just a little, when no one's looking).

@ P Starling

By: cheek | Thu, 07/16/2009 - 12:58

I appreciate the gravity of this discussion having myself come from a sub-culture similar to the one you describe. I also don't mean to suggest you lack the right to find anything offensive that offends you. My objection (and looking back, I'm sure I did not express this clearly enough) is to attacking the sexual or domestic actions of women solely on a feminist basis.

I may very well agree that such photographs were offensive if they appeared in Southern Living or the Baptist Messenger, or even had they appeared on the cover of Esquire (where it could easily be extricated from its context within the feature and magazine as a whole), but it is impossible to overstate the importance of context in this and all issues of oppression. I share your dismay at and personal stake in the very real demands certain sub-cultures impose on young women to conform to a certain understanding of femininity. My wife and I met while attending a Baptist college where it was normal for female students to proudly affirm the were attending only for the sake of an "MRS degree." Together my wife and I (though I freely admit her experience is fundamentally sharper than mine) have faced much resistance from family, friends, and colleagues to our choice of a lifestyle of sexual equality. We grew in and subsequently abandoned a faith whose current leaders are obsessed with demanding "male headship" in the family. If I had the remotest suspicion that this magazine feature would add to the weight of oppression on young women coming out of such communities, then I would passionately join your criticism of it. However, I believe the full context of the feature is not only harmless but actually affirmative of personal, sexual and professional independence for women.

Thanks for your thoughts and sentiments. I appreciate the merit and tenor of your response.

Objections cheapen "real" sexism

By: massagebytom | Wed, 07/15/2009 - 07:16

While I understand that some women (and men) will find offense in almost anything, classifying these photos as sexist cheapens real sexism and makes it easier for people to dismiss femimism as just a bunch of overly-sensitive biddies.

We are free to find anything photo objectionable but should pick out battles more carefully.

not the nudity, the pies

By: P Starling | Wed, 07/15/2009 - 07:25

Nah, you're misunderstanding me. I don't give a damn about the butt. It's the apron that has me up in arms. And I do trust (or is that the right word?) that the male readers of Esquire would as happily admire photos of MLP wearing nothing but a lab coat, or looking through a microscope wearing cute black lace undies. Or perhaps writing her brilliant commentary for the magazine in the altogether. The men are not a concern. It's the women who worry me.

I was raised in a subculture in which it was very common for women to be married at 19 or 20, drop out of school and have a bunch of children. In which my church youth group taught the teenaged girls how to bake pies and keep a clean home. In which I was repeatedly urged by family members not to pursue any career that might hamper my ability to stay home raising my children. In which women are frequently reminded that the higher a woman's educational level, the less likely she is to marry. I saw several women marry abusive men significantly older than they were because marriage was the RIGHT thing to do and they were getting old, pushing 21.

So the 1950's cheesecake is no harmless fantasy in the world in which I grew up. It was an oppressive ideal of femininity that has made my life more difficult. Throwing the weight of pop culture sex appeal onto an already-powerful collection of influences is no favor to the women who are pushed into this stereotype, and no favor for those of us who have more or less broken free of it. And yes, MLP owes me no favors. Gotcha. I'm not challenging her right to do this, or Esquire's right to print it. I'm saying I think it's not harmless, and I have the right to find it offensive.

@ Murasaki: Well, I can't say you didn't warn me . . . .

@cheek

By: guerillacropolis | Tue, 07/14/2009 - 21:12

Cheek, wonderful comment. You made a well-nuanced, more informed critique of the article. I read the note too, and it does add a new dimension to the article and pics.

I think that's the key to this Esquire piece: reading/viewing on 2 levels; one visual and immediate, and one that considers the note, and the expanded context of the magazine, MLP, and feminism(s) as people choose to define them.