Image Credit: Miranda Penn Turin/FoxThe always lovely, effortlessly cool Jane Lynch was asked over the weekend to weigh in on the whole GQ kneesock/lollipop flap. She started off talking sense, tactfully noting that impressionable young girls had no business flipping through a men’s magazine and that ultimately it was a parent’s responsibility to monitor what his or her children are exposed to in the house. Check and check. But then the record scratched, as Lynch was prodded by the Extra reporter to discuss how the Glee spread might effect young girls and their vulnerable body image: “I think whenever you put a woman scantily clad in underwear,” said Lynch, “it makes a lot of other girls and women feel badly about themselves, so it should be done with great consciousness.”
Oh for the love of … and women who don’t support Sarah Palin’s politics are just jealous of the woman’s pretty chestnut hair and natural curves. The reason the GQ photo shoot was a bust was not because it was too sexy, or too scandalous. Those pictures of soft-porn locker-room fun didn’t make me feel bad about my thighs. Or the fact that I don’t wear pigtails and scallop-edged baby pink training bras.
The main reason the shoot failed was that it was uninteresting, which is the opposite takeaway of the beloved show that celebrates eccentricity and verve. Lea Michelle sucking on a blow pop was the equivalent of the smartest, raddest girl in school — the Tina Fey of the junior class — dressing up as a sexy nurse or a sexy teacher or a sexy panda bear for Halloween. It was unoriginal. It made Dianna Agron and Lea Michele look silly and common, though Agron did a beautiful job reminding all of us that her GQ persona bears little resemblance to her real-world self. Let’s please not turn this whole mess into a statement of priggish American parents and insecure girls and women. Instead let’s expect more from the women we love, and the magazines, including Entertainment Weekly, who cover them.
What do you think PopWatchers? Did Lynch make a rare misstep in this interview? Has the whole controversy missed the point? Does a crucial part of you die when the girls in your neighborhood dress as a sexy _____ for Halloween?
Read more:
Dianna Agron on Glee‘s GQ controversy
Glee goes provocative, and we ask, Why?
She got hot looking at them too.
You need something productive to do.
Great idea.
I guess I could go back and look at the pictures one more time.
Before I read this article, I thought Karen Valby was going to pounce on Lynch for not seeing the borderline, implied “child porn” that so many are complaining about. Instead, Karen doesnt hark on that aspect at all, and just falls into the same ole tail of women not liking to see other women exploited. The problem with this argument, is that everyone (men and women), constantly sell themselves in some way. This is just another way of the Glee cast selling themselves to the mass audience and media, who eat it up. What about the pages of other models in GQ that look like they’re 14, with jeans around their ankles touting CK or Levis? I don’t see complaints about those? Perhaps no attention to this spread would have given it far less attention. As it is, I don’t see many men complaining about it.
the models in those ads probably are 14
Ah did you actually read the article? Or just project what you wanted it to say onto it so you could post that reply? The author said the shoot was boring, which is was. Your rant is off the point.
Wait, is this a Glee themed article. In EW? WOW!
Jane messed up. Surprising because she is usually so sharp.
Jane Lynch didn’t mess up. The author of this article messed up. Jane is simply advocating for young girls and their sense of self-worth and for responsible media. The author of the article tries to twist Lynch’s words so she can justify a controversial headline and a substance-less article, which is only about how confident the author is. As if we care.. Why did the editor let this get posted? It sounds like it was written by a 15-year old: “I don’t feel this so neither should anybody else!” Where are the grown ups?
All the power these two young women have in Hollywood today (next week might be a different story, who knows) and this is the side of themselves that they want to show the world- how sexy they can be. Yeah, I’m with you. Unoriginal and common, yes. But if I want to look and dress like them? That’s just pathetic.
Diana and Lea did not enter the photo shoot and say bring me your skimpiest underwear. There is someone at GQ who came up with this idea and the girls (and Cory) went along with it. This really isn’t a scandal. It just shows how silly art direction can be at GQ.
I don’t think Jane Lynch’s point was whether adult women would feel bad about themselves looking at those pictures, but whether the young teen/tween fans of Glee might, since that’s the question she was asked. Your reaction to seeing yet another superskinny Hollywood girl in her underwear and a 12-year-old’s reaction to seeing her quirky role model in her underwear are likely two different things.
I completely agree.
I agree, too. Why are these adult women, including the writer of the article so insensitive to the pressures to be thin and overtly sexual on teen girls. I think it’s great that Jane Lynch cares about them.
I think it’s time to get over it and move on. GQ is an adult, men’s magazine that children should not be permitted to read. If a parent is allowing their child access to the magazine, they are at fault — not the participants in the photo shoot. EW really needs to stop bringing this up, it’s really over.
But they won’t, because it’s Glee. Any chance EW has of giving Glee press, they will.
I know seriously EW, lets move on. Jane actually gave a slightly better comment on this 2 weeks ago, when it was still relevant news.
She could’ve at least taken the gum out of her mouth, no?
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with what Jane Lynch said. When young kids spot their favorite actresses dressed in their underwear on magazine covers, a part of them may feel like “Gee, I wish I could look like that.” That’s also not to say that the writer of the article doesn’t have a point too. I think when “scandals” like this arise, it will create all kinds of reactions from apathy to outrage.
Wait, why is what Jane Lynch said a “misstep”? I don’t agree that body image is an issue in this situation, but it’s her opinion, and I’m not sure she’s wrong to say that scantily clad women might make other women feel bad about their own looks. That’s not the fault of the scantily clad women, obviously, but I didn’t think Jane Lynch was blaming Lea Michele and Dianna Agron for making girls insecure. “With great consciousness” could just mean “I hope women in photos like these insist that they aren’t photoshopped skinnier and with bigger boobs.” I don’t know, maybe I’m just not understanding the full and nefarious import in what she said, but…I don’t get this article. It feels like EW is making the freaking Himalayas out of a molehill.
I agree with you Katja. Also, the reporter specifically asked in her question about how the ad will affect girls’ body image. And Jane answered as she saw fit. While this may not be what sparked all of the GQ controversy, when the question is geared towards body image, that’s what you answer…
Yes… how is this a misstep if she was simply stating her opinion, which a pretty large amount of people agree with. And on another note, what does Sarah Palin have to do with anything? Liberal bias is annoying on EW’s political articles… and it’s just plain idiotic regarding this topic.
I agree. I don’t see what the big deal is. A bunch of 20-something actors in a not-that-racy photo shoot. And Jane Lynch had a point about the whole body-image thing. Big whoop.
Just because you don’t agree with Jane’s opinion doesn’t make it WRONG. It’s an opinion, and so is the author’s. But it makes for a snappier headline, doesn’t it?
Agreed. Just because it wasn’t what EW thought about the shoot doesn’t make her opinion wrong. Also, if it’s so uninteresting, why are you still writing articles about it? And finally, it’s “AFFECT young girls.” Not EFFECT. AFFECT.
ITA. The line “Lynch was prodded by the Extra reporter to discuss how the Glee spread might effect young girls” is criminal grammar.
I agree completely with you, Katja.
I completely agree. What the hell makes Karen’s opinion so much more correct then anyone elses?
Agreed – not a misstep, just her honest opinion. And Jane is right – she’s not saying don’t do it, she’s just saying, think about what you’re doing. And clearly Karen thinks they didn’t think hard enough since the shoot is so inspired.
I actually agree with Jane and Karen…I don’t think this is a case of one versus the other.
Katja, you are absolutely right. The blogger can’t tell the difference between prudish parents and an actress who cares about how media affects girls and woomen. The blogger is so busy bragging about how SHE isn’t personally insecure that she doesn’t bother to think about how media images might affect others. Jane Lynch is being thoughtful and responsible. She is simply saying that the media can impact how girls and young women perceive themselves and that media creators should be conscious of that. She’s absolutely right, but the blogger didn’t understand what Lynch was saying. She condemns Lynch out of narcissism and ignorance.
Karen,
Who cares? This GQ photo story was interesting for about 1/2 a day. Let it go!!!
Amen. Why is this even still a story? Let it go!
Um, I’m confused. The reporter specifically asked about how such images may affect young girls’ views on body image, and Jane said some girls may feel insecure about their own bodies looking at those pictures. What was “wrong” about that? She wasn’t asked about whether or not the shoot was a bust or not overall. I don’t get what is “wrong” with what she said, because of course it’s true that some girls will get upset seeing someone else with a better body, especially teens. I should state that though I don’t really like the pics, I thought there was nothing wrong with the shoot overall being that they were in a men’s magazine.
I didn’t watch the clip so I had no idea that that was how the reporter phrased it based on the article. Seems like this website is just hard up for some Glee news today and twisted this one around.
Hmm…Jane Lynch gave her opinion. It’s not a fact….just her opinion. This writer can say she disagrees, but not stating that Lynch “got it wrong”. What determines that Lynch’s remarks were wrong? Just her opinion, that is all.
Looks like EW has serious problems with other people’s opinions if they don’t match their own. I didn’t care for the photos at all — does that make me “priggish” and “insecure”? Maybe I’m not the kind of hip person EW wants associated with their magazine? Would they like me to cancel my subscription?
Lynch stating that young girls can be impressionable and that women feel badly about themselves when looking at images like these IS NOT WRONG. It is her opinion and for many women out there is also a fact. Just because it may not apply to you does not mean that it is “wrong”. Karen Valby is poor journalist with even poorer writing skills and a keen inability to keep an open mind and observe and respect the opinions of others.
Wait. What? You think the only thing wrong with this photo shoot is that it was unoriginal? I mean…yeah, but there are so many other problems. Like, maybe that it simultaneously infantilized two adult women, while sexualizing their characters. Or that Cory was fully clothed while two half-naked women hung off him. Or that the only actresses from the cast deemed sexy enough to be featured in this shoot were the skinny, white, able-bodied ones.
Or maybe by unoriginal you meant played into tired sexual stereotypes that feature thin white women as passive, infantilized subjects of the male gaze. If so then yeah. It was unoriginal.
You got it right,Sara, along with Lynch. This reporter accomplished what was intended: getting you off the real reason this GQ cover shot made headlines. It was due to the use of sexy teenage/underage girl images in a high school setting, posing in a men’s magazine. It has nothing to do with kids looking through it. Nothing even remotely related to parents having to guard their tender tots from eying the soft-kid-porn issue. Using the image of minors is the problem.
And to answer your question about Halloween costumes, yes. Girls under 18 shouldn’t dress as ___.
The problem with the shoot was that it was uninteresting? Um, no. Think again.
Never looked at a picture of Brad Pitt and said ‘Damn, that makes me feel insecure’. By definition, these people are there because of their looks, talents, and luck, but WE suddenly expect them to be Emmeline Pankhurst. Here’s what I EXPECT celebrities to do… live their life.
Too bad Glee (or whoever was in charge) agreed to this shoot. For a show that is about diversity and acceptance of those different, these pics are boring and aiming for the easiest and cheesiest.
Glee can do better than this.
“For a show that is about diversity and acceptance of those different, these pics are boring and aiming for the easiest and cheesiest.”
You realize that those two things have nothing in common, right? How does a photoshoot that is boring/easy/cheesy somehow conflict with a show about diversity and acceptance?
And they’re not that boring–the men reading the magazine probably love them.
Dear Jane,
Your opinion is wrong!
Love,
EW
How did the shoot fail. Seems like it’s been in the news for a couple of weeks now. Lots of attention to them. Sounds pretty successful to me
Exactly.
Haha thats what I was thinking too.