The magazine’s cover story devotes significant column inches to talking about how historic OITNB is. It’s a show about women and, more importantly, women doing something other than being the token girlfriend or token best friend to some lame leading man. Not only are the show’s female characters great, but they’re played by traditionally marginalized and underrepresented actresses—the cast includes plenty of women of colour, Latina women and queer women, as well as transgender actress Laverne Cox playing a transgender woman.

Rolling Stone was so blown away by how ground breaking OITNB is that they decided to celebrate with this revolutionary cover treatment.

Seriously, Rolling Stone? While the article features interviews with several of the show’s diverse cast members, it’s the hot white lesbian characters that get the cover. Not only that, but the show’s hot white lesbian characters—played by Schilling and Prepon—received the predictable no bra, super sexualized, male fantasy Rolling Stone cover treatment. A white tank top, preferably with no bra, is the magazine’s go to look for women. I hope the company that manufactures women’s white tank tops has sent Rolling Stone an edible arrangement for keeping them in business all these years.

At least Schilling got to keep her nipples (maybe it’s a prison thing). Cover star Nicki Minaj was not so lucky. Minaj appeared on a January 2015 cover where she was given the Barbie boob treatment: her breasts smoothed out and not a nip in sight. “Mad Genius. Manic Diva,” reads the cover copy. Is she manic ’cause Rolling Stone stole her nipples? She should be.

Rolling Stone’s horrible treatment of women is certainly nothing new and, sadly, it only seems to be getting worse. A look at Rolling Stone covers for the five year period from 2013–2009 (the magazine’s online cover archive ends at 2013—maybe because someone became too depressed by the covers to update it), shows that men graced 94 covers while women were featured solo on just 20 covers and were part of six group covers (the cast of 30 Rock, the stars of Mad Men, The Black Eyed Peas).

Rolling Stone is more comfortable putting the Boston Marathon bomber on the cover than it is a woman. In 2013, only three of the magazine’s 24 issues featured women cover subjects; including Lena Dunham, Rihanna, and Miley Cyrus. Tina Fey also got a cover, but was featured alongside two male members of the 30 Rock cast. The magazine also tends to recycle their women cover subjects, suggesting that Lady Gaga and Katy Perry are the only women out there making music—or, at least, the only women making music with enough cover-friendly appeal.

It’s as if we’ve given up altogether on music magazines doing better when it comes to female representation. Well, maybe not all of us. The Stranger, a Seattle alternative weekly, recently published its second annual “Men Who Rock” parody issue designed to highlight the sexism and double standard female musicians face. The “Men Who Rock” issue mocks plenty of the tropes in music coverage, including: the idea that women making music is a trend; the ridiculous way women are posed on covers; interview questions for women musicians, and especially those that tend to focus on tabloid over talent.

So if you’re looking to follow The Stranger’s lead and do your own “Men Who Rock” parody issue (please do and send it to me) or simply want to publish a magazine that treats women as badly as Rolling Stone does, here are the top 10 tips for dealing with female cover subjects.

1. Putting an actual dick on the cover would be in poor taste (the closest Rolling Stone has come to a dick on the cover is Sean Penn). Instead you should use a series of dick stand-ins. These can include: a rocket, the neck of a guitar, Tasti D-Lite or a ball park frank (bonus points for squirting condiments).

2. If the female cover subject is over a certain age (25) or over a certain size (two), face only please. The tighter the photo crop the better. You don’t want viewers to have to imagine Adele as a sexual being with an actual body. Floating head is best.

3. Use woman of colour on as few covers as possible. In the five year period from 2013-2009 only three covers featured women of colour. Rihanna graced two of these covers. If a woman of colour wants to be on the cover she should be prepared to die for it. Whitney Houston got the third cover spot when she died in 2012.

4. The less clothing the better. If your subject does have to wear “lots” of clothing it should look like the clothing is just about to come off, or could easily be ripped off in under a minute. I am not sure why they’ve even bothered putting a skirt on Christina Aguilera. Maybe she’s layering up for a post photo shoot game of strip poker? Sadly, there’s not enough word count left for me to get into the “What Christina Wants” cover line. And then there’s Rihanna in a pair of shorts that look like they’re made of partially eaten Fruit Roll-Ups that are ready to dissolve at any moment.

5. No clothing is really the best option. If you are worried about that poor taste thing (see rule #1) just throw on a string of bullets. You’re welcome, NRA.

6. Ban the bra? Keep only the bra? Rolling Stone has a very conflicted relationship with the bra and watching them work out their feelings about this undergarment has become extremely tiresome. So very tiresome.

7. Jailbait is A-okay. I’m all for women appearing on the cover of music magazines on their own terms to announce they’re an adult and no longer a tween slave to the cult of Disney, but that’s rarely the Rolling Stone way. Britney Spears was only 17 (Teletubbie age: unknown) when she shot this famous cover—one with which she was reportedly uncomfortable. Rolling Stone didn’t super sexualize Lindsay Lohan or the Olsen twins with their cover image; they let the display copy do that job for them. “Hot, ready and legal!” reads Lohan’s cover while “America’s Favourite Fantasy” accompanies the Olsen twins. Let’s take a moment to remember this is supposed to be a respected music magazine.

8. Make sure you sex up those cover lines! The Go-Go’s put out! Shania Twain knows what you want! Nicole Kidman uncensored! SEX SELLS! SUBTLETY DOESN’T!

9. Make sure to pose women in ways you would never pose a man. Rolling Stone tends to pose male cover subjects in the exact same way. There’s the familiar head-on face shot. Dave Grohl, Dave Letterman, Dave Matthews—they all blur into one white male face on the cover. Not so for women. Poses should suggest sex and look as uncomfortable as possible. Megan Fox looks like the only thing missing is a sign between her legs that says “insert penis here” Bonus points if the pose is just “hot woman as prop.”

10. Keep the cover conversation light with women. Highlight male cover subjects’ accomplishments, success or stick to “the Rolling Stone interview,”—a standard cover line for men from Barack Obama to Bruce Springsteen. For the ladies focus on their love life, their sex life or their looks. What’s Angelina accomplished? She’s “hot & single.” Jennifer Aniston’s latest project? Her “love life.” What’s Brad Pitt got going for him? He’s got the serious, professional and intelligent sounding “Rolling Stone interview.”

Allen isn’t the first to be accused of doing this. The most popular example at the moment started back in August: Miley Cyrus’ VMA performance.

Amongst the slut-shaming nonsense came valid points about Cyrus’ use of black women as props. Her all-black group of back-up dancers seemed to be there more to authenticate Cyrus’ need to appear “urban” as opposed to the bubblegum wholesome image she started her career with. By now, we’ve probably all heard about her slapping a dancer’s bum as the rest of the crew admires her own as it twerks. Part of the former child star’s revamped image is to be more sexy, and playing on racist stereotypes that black women are more sexual, seems to be part of this revamping.

In a September 24 Rolling Stone article Cyrus says, “I don’t keep my producers or dancers around ’cause it makes me look cool. Those aren’t my ‘accessories.’ They’re my homies.” And yet the timing is all too convenient for her new  image. When she spoke with the songwriters behind her single, “We Can’t Stop”, she told them, as reported in a June 12 Vibe article, “I want urban, I just want something that just feels Black.” For her, that seems to mean gold teeth and twerking.

The question if Cyrus’ twerking was cultural appropriation was first posed on the blog Black Feminists on September 17. A commenter named Daria responded, “Within the mainstream conversation, there’s the implication that I somehow have [to] identify with twerking and its supposed place within ‘black culture’ to feel angry that’s it’s been appropriated. It bothers me that in order to understand the anger behind the Cyrus situation, people have to understand and equate this to being a ‘black’ thing that she is imitating which leads to all sorts of issues about supposed norms and stereotypes surrounding black female sexuality.”

Talk show host Wendy Williams responded to the VMA performance and Rolling Stone article on her show, “You can’t pick up black and put it down. Black is something that you are, and it is.” Her more thorough explanation includes, “When young white people do ‘the black thang’ these same young white people grow up to be middle-aged white people. They take off the whole black accessory thing and they become white again.”

There are obstacles out there that those of us with white privilege will never have to face. Maybe that’s why it seems so easy for some to reduce a race to a fashion statement. “Miley and the black actors in the video are all props on the stage of visual pleasure,” Akil Houston, professor of African American Studies at Ohio University tells Vice writer Wilbert L. Cooper. “I think it’s important to consider that these images function within the sphere of multinational corporate control so both the lead (Miley) and the accessories do not maintain a high level of autonomy in terms of imaging.”

Cyrus tells Rolling Stone that she doesn’t try to be black, her bum is too flat for that. But we all know women, of all colours, are more than their physical assets. We, all of us, are not props.

A former This intern, Hillary Di Menna writes Gender Block every week and maintains an online feminist resource directory, FIRE- Feminist Internet Resource Exchange.

huntermoore.tv

If you haven’t heard of Hunter Moore, here’s a quick debrief: The California-based guy in his late 20s has been often touted as the most hated man on the internet. Why? Because he ran a website, Is Anyone Up—a “revenge porn” site that lets people post embarrassing, exposed photos of their exes on the internet (including their names, home towns, oh, and links to their social media profiles).  And while Moore shut down Is Anyone Up in April (ironically selling it to an anti-bullying website), he hasn’t exactly changed his ways.

Moore’s already soliciting posts for his newest online venture, huntermoore.tv. He’s been planning it pretty much since Is Anyone Up shut down, telling The Daily in August that the new venture will be “‘Is Anyone Up’ on steroids.” The site, which started accepting submissions in November, currently has this message displayed for visitors to read:

huntermoore.tv

My name is Hunter Moore and I created Is Anyone Up.com when I was 24 years old. I was broke and sitting on my parents couch in Sacramento, California with -$124 in my bank account. It was for me and my friends to post pictures of girls we were fucking at the time & somehow someone found it and it became what it was. I sold it because i hated what the media turned it into and it could never be what i wanted it to be and always wanted to troll the lame and boring fad that soccer moms love and thats “bullying”. We had too many hackers too much overhead and way too many legal problems. This time I am doing it right. We are going to start off by launching with all the old IAU content and all new content. The submission page has only been up for five full days and we’ve done over 7,000 submission within that time. I am creating something that will question if you will ever want to have kids. I am making something very scary but yet fun. If you remember the old IAU you will have it back but with a mobile APP to go along with it and a very strong social networking site of our community. I hope you are all as excited as i am.

In early November, Moore tweeted that his new site’s posts would include people’s home information including Google Earth directions on how to get there. He also told the New York Observer’s Beta Beat that this feature was “so you can stalk people.” BUT hey, now, Moore was totes just buggin’, ya dig?

In an interview with Salon published this past weekend, Moore said that he’d been “drunk and coked out” and “really [doesn’t] remember” that Beta Beat interview. He also took to Twitter, saying that, “Everyone is freaking out about the ‘mapping’ on user submitted content on the new site. It won’t be apart of the site i was drunk & trollin.”

OH BUT WAITTTT he actually will post some people’s addresses—just only of those who have wronged him: “People that I troll personally, I’m gonna be taking it one step further and making you look like even more of an idiot,” he told Salon. “It’s going to be me doing it and when people troll me I’m just going to do it 10 times harder. It’s only going to be for certain cases, not for everybody. I don’t want people to kill each other.”

huntermoore.tv

But then he goes on to say, “I dunno, honestly, if someone fucking got killed over my site I’d make a shit ton of money, I’m not gonna lie.”

I’m really not sure what the worst part of all this is. Obviously Moore is pretty despicable as far as humans go, so everyone who reprimands him is, in my opinion, right to do so. And yet, there are so many media outlets (and I’m officially now guilty of this too) that have covered Moore: Rolling Stone and the Village Voice, for starters; he’s also been on TV talk shows like Anderson Cooper’s and been written about on websites like Gawker. Some of these media outlets even sort of glorify Moore, making him out to be fucked-up-experimental-dude more than monster. But is it either/or? I’m not sure. And I’m not sure how we combat people like Moore, either. If we don’t talk about him, he gets to go about his business under the radar, with little legal or social backlash. But if we write about him, if we give him the chance to explain himself, if we refuse to ignore the fact that he has over 99,000 followers on Twitter, are we not just giving him the attention he seeks, unintentionally adding fuel to the fire instead of stifling it?

On another level of disturbing altogether, Moore has become somewhat attractive to many women. He told the Village Voice that women come to him wanting to have sex with him, knowing full well that he was pretty much guaranteed to post something about their sexual escapades on his site the next day. There were also cases of underage kids (he wouldn’t post that on his site, come on, he has morals) saying they aspired to be on Is Anyone Up when they turned of age. The whole thing is messed up and makes me feel pretty sad for a lot of what the internet (of which I am a fan, too, don’t get me wrong) has done to us.

twitter.com/huntermoore

Moore gets off by pissing people off, revelling in the shock factor of his actions. He likes to make people mad, and he’s good at it. So what do we do? If it was up to him, we’d celebrate all the admirable deeds he’s done. Moore took to Twitter earlier this week to make that point clear: “All this press wants to focus on is me being the devil & none of the good things iv done.”

Vanity Fair, October 2010; Rolling Stone, June 21 2012

Oh god, not this joker again. These are the first words that enter my head when I see the new issue of Rolling Stone on the newsstand. The cover features a haggard Charlie Sheen. He looks like a cross between a chain-smoking bobble head and a contestant vying for first place in a Keith Richards look-alike contest. It’s certainly not pretty.

The story promises me “a week on the edge with Hollywood’s last wild man.” Haven’t we already been on the edge with this guy? For what felt like way, way longer than a week? Who can forget the wild man and all his tiger blood and torpedos of truth and goddesses and winning. Was he back? Please, no.

The story starts out with a lovely anecdote about Sheen drinking and hitting on a girl who previously auditioned for the role of his 15-year-old daughter on his new show. The classy train continues on to the station from there. The story updates us on what Sheen’s been doing since his much publicized warlock-themed meltdown in 2011, which started with Sheen taking on CBS and ended with him setting a Guinness world record for Twitter followers, and negotiating merchandising and licensing deals before embarking on a concert tour.

The Rolling Stone article doesn’t do Sheen an injustice, in fact quite the opposite. It mentions his failure to get a “conventional grip on his personal life” and downplays his many violent attacks on women. He’s referred to as a “ruthless negotiator” whose actions could be considered “heroic.” Someone who has never made excuses for what he’s doing. Seriously, Rolling Stone? The magazine even goes so far as to credit his crazy catch phrases like “tiger blood” and “warlock” to his love of films like Apocalypse Now and Jaws. Wait, he’s not crazy! He’s just a lover of film.

But it seems Rolling Stone couldn’t build their summer douche bag special issue around Sheen alone so they also included an interview where we get to go deep with John Mayer and his regrets. Referring to ex Jessica Simpson as “sexual napalm,” making really racist comments, breaking Taylor Swift’s heart, unleashing “Your Body is a Wonderland” on an unsuspecting world; it seems there’s a lot for Mayer to apologize for. Not to worry, Rolling Stone gives him ample column inches to apologize and talk about what a changed man he is.

The interview left me with the sense that I should feel sorry for Mayer and his shutdown Twitter account. So misunderstood. So remorseful. So changed. I half expected to turn the page and find a piece celebrating the wonder that is Chris Brown. Oh wait, that’s what the Grammys are for.

It’s certainly not news that there’s a double standard, especially in Hollywood, when it comes to men and women behaving badly. The same week the Rolling Stone issue hit newsstands Lindsay Lohan was all over the media again for crashing her car, allegedly attempting to cover up crashing her car, and for paramedics being called to her hotel room when it was feared she was unconscious. She was really just asleep and didn’t hear people knocking on her hotel room door. Thank god that in real life paramedics don’t show up every time someone hits the snooze button a few too many times. If that were the case, paramedics would be at my house every morning.

Was she unconscious from drugs? How long until she drops dead? Will she ever get her career back? Surely she can’t think a Lifetime movie about Elizabeth Taylor is going to resurrect her career? What happened to the cute girl from Mean Girls? What a mess Lohan is! How many different ways can we find to talk about what a mess Lohan is? It was the usual TMZ-style reporting which might as well have been sponsored by the Lindsay Lohan Celebrity Death Watch Commemorative Calendar.

When Sheen goes off the rails (cocaine or otherwise) he’s a rock star who is speaking the truth and sticking it to that evil Hollywood machine—the same machine that made him the highest paid sitcom actor for wearing ugly bowling shirts and playing a really, really, really thinly veiled version of himself.

When Lohan goes off the rails (cocaine or otherwise) she’s the little girl lost, the, pardon my French, fuck up, with no hope of ever getting her life or her career back on track.

The media delights in watching Lohan fall further and further—and helping her to do so—without ever giving her the same shot at redemption that a Sheen or a Mayer get. In October 2010 Vanity Fair ran a cover story on Lindsay Lohan—entitled “Adrift.” Nine months later they ran a profile on Charlie Sheen—entitled “Charlie Sheen’s War.” The Sheen story was newsworthy for several reasons, one of which being that Sheen wanted to be paid a million dollars and have final story approval. He didn’t get either, but he really didn’t need approval because he doesn’t come across all that bad in the piece. Sure it talks about his love of porn stars, his 1998 cocaine overdose and his role in the Heidi Fleiss trial, but it also talks about how he “redefined the internet,” how he helped actor Tom Sizemore with his addiction and manages to never delve too deep into Sheen’s history of misogyny and violence against women. Let’s not forget this is the man who once threatened to put his wife’s head in a box and send it to her mother. Oh, that zany Charlie! What antics!

Compare this to the Lohan cover story which spends the opening paragraphs describing how crappy Lohan looks before descending into questions of “what went wrong?” and “is it too late?” Again and again in the piece Lohan has to defend herself with the writer never seeming to believe her or offer a shot at redemption. It repeatedly mentions how her reputation is in tatters and tries to find answers to why Lohan is so, well, adrift. In Sheen’s war there’s still the prospect he could win. Lohan, well, she doesn’t stand a chance.