Cover saga continues

In response to Karina Manet's "Cover defended" letter [[e]Mail, Dec. 21], how can anybody describe themselves as a slutty feminist? I mean really! Open your eyes for a second: the objectification of women has gotten worse, not better. Practically every magazine on news-stands is using "hot people to get us to read" them. And in 95 per cent of the cases, both on women's mags and men's, those people are women.

Images of waifish models have now been replaced with images of waifish models with huge breasts. On what grounds, then, can so many so-called feminists claim that it is passé to decry the objectification of women? This is the same attitude that has led to the disgusting return of fur into the good books of fashion. Just because a social/ethical concern is not brand new doesn't mean that it's no longer relevant. Some point to the growing objectification of men as a promising sign. As if the prospect of a society where men are also doomed to be perennially unsatisfied with their bodies and judged by their physical appearance is something to look forward to. Perhaps I'm an idealist, but I don't see why people don't rise above their base biological instincts and social conditioning, the same ones that cause racial intolerance and war, to produce a truly modern society in which physical appearance is irrelevant. This will not become possible unless sex and "good looks" cease to be used for the marketing of products. As a self-proclaimed alternative publication, the Mirror should be encouraging this, rather than playing the same exploitative game as the mainstream media, under a thin pretext of tongue-in-cheekness.

As to the slutty feminist, I offer my congratulations: you've found a way to feel self-righteous without actually doing anything at all, while falling into the market's and mainstream society's grateful hands.

--J.P.

I can only assume that the writers of the "Objectifying women?" letter [[e]Mail, Dec. 14] are first-year university students, flush with the earnest political correctness of one's early 20s. I know--I used to be like that too.

"We just wanted to comment on the tasteless [Dec. 7] cover," they wrote. Well, taste is a matter of... taste. While a bikini might be a bit skimpy, [local musician Annie Dufresne] certainly wasn't in a cleavage-flaunting pose and most of her body was hidden by the boom box or under water. "The cover photo was blatantly objectifying women," they wrote. To objectify the woman would entail removing her identity as a person. She was clearly identified on the cover, so this wasn't some random model in a bikini. Indeed, she's using the Mirror as a platform to advance her singing career.

Would these letter writers, in their Taliban-esque zeal, have us all wear shapeless coveralls, unadorned but for the bright red sash of the Junior Anti-Sex League?

I suppose they have no complaint with the Dec. 14 cover star, the whippet-skinny, toned, shirtless DJ Tiga--double standards reign supreme in ideological skirmishes. There are a lot of damaging, sexist, stereotypical visual representations of women (and men) out there, but I can't agree that the Dec. 7 Mirror cover is one of them. "We mistakenly thought that the Mirror had more respect for its women readers," they close. Maybe the Mirror respects the fact that its women readers have a sense of humour and can understand the context of a cover picture.

--AJ Kandy

IMAX warning!

I just thought you might want to warn your readers about going to see any screening of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon showing on the IMAX screen at the Paramount Theatre. When projected on this screen, the film is out of focus. And not picky, film-critic slighty-out-of-focus, but noticeably out of focus for everyone. Apparently the problem lies in projecting a 35mm film on an IMAX screen. Management is well aware of the problem and will refund your money if you complain but otherwise have no problem with continuing to charge people $12 to watch a film that is quite clearly unclear. The film is okay on other screens, but on the IMAX screen it's totally unacceptable for public exhibition. People should be warned.

-- Terence Bowman