Putting the “Fair” in Vanity Fair: VF’s 2010 New Hollywood Issue is Lilywhite

By Deputy Editor Thea Lim


Reader Sanni sent us a link to this article by Joanna Douglas, “Vanity Fair’s “New Hollywood” issue completely lacks diversity“:

While we’d like to think celeb bible Vanity Fair puts a great deal of thought and planning into its annual “New Hollywood” issue, this year the editors really limited their scope when it came to choosing the next big stars. (Or perhaps they overemphasized the “Fair”? ) Every woman on its new cover is extremely thin and very, very white. Unless Vanity Fair considers one redhead to be diversity, we feel the need to cry foul.

Surprising? No. Depressing? Yes.

Douglas makes the excellent point there’s no lack of rising stars of colour for VF to choose from:

We can think of a slew of non-white, non-rail thin actors who made a splash this year (Gabourey Sidibe from “Precious” anyone?). In the accompanying article, Vanity Fair writer Evgenia Peretz calls out the young cover stars by their best attributes: “downy-soft cheeks,” “button nose,” “patrician looks and celebrated pedigree,” “dewy, wide-eyed loveliness,” “Ivory-soap-girl features.” Roles for black, Asian, and Latin actors are scarce in Hollywood, but surely Sidibe, Zoe Saldana of “Avatar” and “Star Trek,” and Freida Pinto of “Slumdog Millionaire” are having their moment.

Sigh.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Current
  • email
  • Print

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Would Warnings on Photoshopped Ads Fight Anorexia? « Feminist Looking Glass on 25 Feb 2010 at 1:17 pm

    [...] groups. Magazines like Vogue have an appallingly low rate of women of color on the cover. And even Vanity Fair has gotten heat for depicting the “new faces of Hollywood” as entirely white and thin (particularly [...]

Comments

  1. Kianna wrote:

    I read ten of the comments on that article and eight of them were the usual white privilege bingo. “Race doesn’t matter!” “We’ll never be a colorblind society until THEY stop being so demanding.” “Would Ebony have diversity? I think not.”

    This happens every year, every month, every day. I’m starting to wonder if it’s even worth our time collectively to point it out. The fashion elites are white supremacists – they won’t change. Why should they? The system works just fucking fine for them. I’m tired as hell of their racist vision, and I don’t think they’re ever going to change.

    The only thing that stops me from feeling hopeless is the admonition to become the change you want to see in the world. The solution has got to be to make our own media. Print mags like VF are dying – that’s a good thing. The media that replaces it won’t be nearly so lily-white and homogenous. We won’t let it be.

  2. CDF wrote:

    been there done that

    We should know by now these folks aren’t going to change anytime soon. I couldn’t name one person on that cover, let alone remember the last time I even browsed a VF.

  3. Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist wrote:

    I got in a fight with someone about this on Facebook (I just joined FB 3 weeks ago and am ENJOYING it). One of my friends, an Asian American, posted an article complaining about Vanity Fair. his WHITE friend chimed in and said it wasn’t a big deal and that we should “get over it.”

    I called her out and told her that “get over it” was a typical classic retort used by IGNORANT WHITE PEOPLE, that because she’s WHITE, she sees nothing wrong with it because of course, THESE GIRLS LOOK LIKE HER!!!, while we people of color have to constantly FIGHT for representation and recognition in Hollywood.

    that totally shut her up.

  4. Soirore wrote:

    I couldn’t even read more than a few of the comments on the original article they were so ignorant.

    I fail to believe how some of those actors were chosen over someone like Zoe Saldana who is in the biggest film of all time as well as another highly successful film in the last year. How many other young actors can say that?

    It is not just “coincidence” that all those white, slim girls were chosen. And the photos really fetishize their whiteness as well.

  5. Irene M. wrote:

    Zoe Saldana was in two movies that were both blockbuster smashes and Oscar nominated, but she’s not good enough to be on the cover of Vanity Fair? WTF

  6. octogalore wrote:

    Douglas nails the point about racial diversity. I’d include Rosario Dawson (although she’s been around awhile) and also Alicia Keys, who was in The Secret Life of Bees and has more films planned.

    Regarding the weight diversity, though, the definition of New Hollywood is, with very few exceptions, thin, as a reflection of our society’s value system (0r possibly a perpetuation of it). So it’s restrictive by definition. Sidibe’s role and opportunity, unfortunately, comes around rarely.

  7. elaina wrote:

    Yay! I’ve been waiting for you guys to future this after 30,800+ comments were featured on yahoo.com.
    Basically, its not the magazine’s fault, its Hollywood’s fault. They don’t cast people of color in any lead parts. The magazine is showing the truth about Hollywood.
    Thats why ebony and the like exist, to celebrate our actresses and actors that Hollywood conveniently shuts out. I really hope that this gets more attention so this can stop, If I can go and watch a movie with a white lead with no second thoughts, a white person should go and do the same. One comment on yahoo was like, ” U have a black prez, what more do u guys want??”—-lets see..equality by any chance?

  8. ladymourge wrote:

    I made this comment on Femmisting. You rarely see the media covering how great a Latina or Asian or Black actress is. You read how sexy and “exotic” they are. Many of these actress get typecasted into femme fatals.

  9. lodown wrote:

    http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/39/2010/02/841e626f796e7ee5541f3e04c19dfe23/original.jpg

    http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/39/2010/02/59435c113ce141dd5d3a345685ddffb8/original.jpg

    Some previous covers that have featured WOC. Notice where they are located, however.

  10. R-SON the Voice of R wrote:

    WOW!! I didn’t think it was going to be THAT bad on the board over there. Everyday I get more and more astounded at how little many white really understand about the concepts of race and racism in this society.

  11. Orchid wrote:

    what ticks me off is that I don`t even know who half those people on the cover are. ..

  12. Eva wrote:

    Vanity Fair is so full of crap. The only good place for it is at the bottom of a bird cage, along with the NY Post.

    Sometimes this issue is the kiss of death though. We won’t know the names of half these actresses in another year.

  13. Val wrote:

    For the last couple of years I’ve been reading a lot of posts by various Black bloggers saying that Ebony/ Jet and other Black magazines are not relevant anymore.

    So when I see this VF cover I’m reminded of those thoughts about Black magazines because this is evidence that they are not irrelevant. They are needed. And as long as we have them then when we are left out by VF, Vogue and others we can take comfort in knowing we have our own.

  14. Eva wrote:

    I put my comment in. Watch the heads explode, if they even allow the comment.

  15. Queen B wrote:

    I’m not surprised there are no women of color on the cover. These women were all chosen because they are not only white but fair skinned. I have no doubt that there are black and Latina actresses who are more successful who did not make this cover.

    A woman of color would clearly stand out and your eyes would immediately be fixated on her because in a group of white women she would clearly stand out.

    I’m also not surprised that when VF does put women of color on the cover it is on the side that folds out. I mean, do they think an image of black woman lead to decreased sales.

    A few years ago VF did a story about young women in Hollywood. Women like the Olsen twins, Amanda Bynes, Lindsay Lohan, Alexis Bleidel and Raven Symone were featured but of course Raven was on the inside cover so if you were just walking past a newstand, you would not have known she was featured.

    This is why we need magazine like Ebony/Essence/Latina otherwise, people of color would not get the recognition they deserve.

  16. Lola wrote:

    Re: the relevance of Ebony/Jet type black magazines

    I don’t know about those 2 titles but Essence has been owned by big corporate for a few years now which is why the quality has gone down and in some cases I’d say they are actually on the anti-black woman bandwagon, same thing happened to BET, sold to Viacom and all the positive shows disappeared

  17. Molly M wrote:

    Even if VF had diversified their spread, it would have been more akin to tokenization than any actual genuine incorporation of ethnic variation. Sure, why not Zoe Saldana or Freida Pinto? For racialized stars, they exhibit anglican features and perpetuate, in a multitude of ways, Western beauty ideals (which has undeniably contributed to their success in Hollywood.) This is not to discredit their potential or talent, but would a so-called diverse spread have made a difference? I agree, VF did not display even the slightest modicum of sensitivity in reference to racial representation, but it still would have been insulting if the acknowledgment were cursory, producing a sanitized version of the “Other” for Western consumption.

  18. Val wrote:

    @Lola

    Notice I did not mention Essence.

  19. Hapa wrote:

    Zoe is no longer considered young, and she was in the VF New Hollywood issue in 2008. However, there’s really no excuse for not including Sidibe and Pinto.

  20. Moviegirl wrote:

    I think some people in the media are catching on hence the article. A while ago I was watching The Soup with Joel McHale and he stated that the new crop of women on the bachelor were diverse and by diverse hes means, all white. I just had to crack up at that. That is one of the reasons why I can’t watch matchmaker shows like that. Once TV show hosts and the like start pointing these things out, others will surely follow and maybe some changes will be made.

  21. XB wrote:

    Shit like this makes me really hate hollywood & white america

    I might have to actually make that move back to africa on of these days

    I feel sad how blatantly racist cover is

  22. solacium wrote:

    Wow, I don’t even know 90% of the people on the cover…

    In any case, it is so very typical of many entertainment magazine to do something like this and it makes me so angry.

    What goes through these people’s minds?!

  23. Graph wrote:

    To Moviegirl’s comment. Doesn’t it make sense that for a show like The Bachelor that the crop of women would be all white since that is probably the personal preference of the bachelor himself.

  24. Athena wrote:

    I’m really not surprised by the cover or the racist comments left on the shine website. I learned a long time ago that know matter how beautiful and talented any actor of color might be, the latest “it” girls or rising stars of the moment that we must all pay attention to will always be skinny white girls. The way that the writer in the magazine fawns over how perfect their white features are is absolutely disgusting. I have never heard any of these “mainstream” magazines give the same treatment to any women of color but I guess that is because our beauty is not something to aspire to.

  25. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Graph –

    Sometimes. And sometimes it’s racism.

    Case in point – I have never seen a black girl make it to the “parties” on Millionaire Matchmaker as one of the chosen girls. It is infrequent to see black women on that show at all – but when it happens, there always something kind of weird about Stranger’s reaction to them. One of these days I’ll write it up, but reality tv is calibrated in many ways to reinforce racism, particularly racist beauty standards.

  26. Angel H. wrote:

    @Graph:
    Ever notice how there’s never been a Men of Color on “The Bachelor”?

  27. Mickey wrote:

    @ Graph & Moviegirl,

    I read an article that complained about the fact that there has never been a Black Bachelor or Bachelorette (or any POC) on the show doing the choosing. They are always the contestants and are usually eliminated by the second episode. Why don’t they just put up a sign that says “POCs need not apply” like they used to do in the old days?

    As for the VF cover, I can’t say that I’m surprised. I guess the way VF operates is that they put a POC on the cover every few years and this year ain’t it. Any bets on next year?

  28. Digital Coyote wrote:

    PoC can’t sell magazines or star in movies that “the mainstream” can relate to, so they can’t possibly be the future of Hollywood. Without these pallid ingenues, the film industry would cease to exist like it has in other places where they are not the norm!

    But seriously, are we really surprised? Like, honestly? I’m waiting for VF to issue the Leni Riefenstahl defense and say they didn’t know the cover would be received this way or that it wasn’t overtly racist.

    @Latoya: I’ve tried watching that matchmaker show a few times and couldn’t put my finger on why it was so disturbing. Me thinks you’ve hit the nail on the head with how she reacts to black women and WoC in general.

    (The other thing that gets me is that she’s quick to talk about a person’s looks while ignoring how busted her own face is from lip injections and the like.)

  29. SarahNicole wrote:

    Alexis Bledel is Mexican-American (and Danish-by-way-of-Argentinian-American), and her first language was Spanish. She’s certainly white-skinned though, and hasn’t, to my knowledge, portrayed anything but white characters, although her character in SotTP was marked as Greek-American…)

    (Geez. I’m not contributing anything of substance lately, except to note the complexities of Hispanic/Latin@ actors’ backgrounds and how they represent/are represented… I shall shut up now…)

  30. yolanda wrote:

    @Elaina:

    your point would be valid if they didn’t go out of their way to emphasize how pretty and white the covergirls are. vanity fair has been around for years and the people who run it know the ends and outs of the media and hollywood, and i don’t think for one second this was unintentional or just “reflects hollywood.” the whole point of racialicious as an anti-racist pop culture blog is to HIGHLIGHT that change starts from within, not by making excuses.
    ____

    as for the article/covergirls in general–it’s saddening, but i can’t even muster the energy to state why–it seems like that’s all i ever do as a woc, state why over and over and over again. however, i will say that i’ll take zoe saldana, america ferrara, and gabbey sidibe over effing evan rachel wood any day.

  31. Graph wrote:

    @ Mickey

    They don’t put up a sign that says POC need not apply because you can’t just come out and say that kind of thing in this politically correct society we live in unfortunately.
    Instead of being honest and cutting out the BS, we have to “pretend” and “fake” how we really feel about things for the sake of not offending. When in truth it’s doing far more harm than good being PC because you never know where a person is really coming from.

    As for a POC never being a bachelor or bachelorette is obvious because the producers feel it won’t generate ratings. TV is not about “nice” it’s about “numbers”.
    That’s why Conan got the boot and Leno is back.

    Mod Note – And that has nothing to do with racism, right? Thanks for stopping by, but do not comment again until you read a little more on this site. – LDP

  32. Graph wrote:

    @LDP

    I’ve read enough on this site to comment. And I’m starting to see that when it comes to race it quickly becomes a one sided issue. Where only POC are allowed to comment and anyone else remain silent.

    I’m expressing my valid point of view just like everyone else without being condescending or sarcastic or insulting to anyone.

    Mod Note

    1. Everything on this blog is about race. That’s why we called it “Racialicious” and not “Another Blog About Pop Culture.”
    2. See comment moderation policy. Anyone can comment here, provided they follow our guidelines and they do not dismiss the effects of racism on pop culture. You seem to have missed that. – LDP

  33. Ebony wrote:

    O/T @SarahNicole:
    I saw an interview with Alexis Bledel (on Leno/Letterman, can’t really remember who). She mentioned how she loved Argentina and observed how “European” people seemed. She then went on to note that there is also a large hispanic/latin population so “there wasn’t a lot of work happening”.

    I was floored, because I too am aware of her background. Youtube it.

  34. SarahNicole wrote:

    @Ebony: Gah. I beg to not expose myself to that clip today, and save it for a day when I am ready for more rage than I have room for this week. Gah.

  35. jaddadalos wrote:

    Queen B said: “I mean, do they think an image of black woman lead to decreased sales [?]”

    Quite frankly, yes.

  36. Dawn. wrote:

    Not surprising, but yes, depressing. It’s either 100% lily-white or blatant tokenism when it comes to mainstream fashion/pop culture publications.

    I feel sad just saying this, but if hell froze over and Gabourey Sidibe was featured on VF’s Young Hollywood cover, she would be the only actress of color and the only not-super-thin actress and it would become all about how “accepting” VF is for including her and they’d spend the next six months patting each other on the back for being so diverse and fat-accepting.

    On a related note, I don’t really like Chris Rock (sexist much?) but he brought up a good point in his most recent stand-up special. He lives in an extravagant mansion in a wealthy, mostly-white neighborhood. He is an award-winning, world-renowned comedian and his white neighbor is a dentist. Just a dentist. Chris Rock asked “what would a black dentist have to do to get in my neighborhood???” A hell of a lot more, basically. I think he was right. You have to work twice as hard and prove yourself twice as much and be acceptably thin and have acceptably “exotic” features and basically be the “right” woman of color to grace the cover of Vanity Fair et al. And you still might be passed over for a white girl. Thanks, white supremacy. You’re awesome.

  37. rosiecotton wrote:

    Vanity Fair made it clear with this cover that its staff does not measure success in Hollywood by any objective standards such as box office or award recognition. Continuing to chase a subjective dream of what young Hollywood should look like discredit’s the magazine before we even say the term “race.”

  38. A.D. Nix wrote:

    Lots of good and lots of not so good points made. Just wanted to quickly point out the composition of the image – perfectly pyramidal and symmetrical representation of HAIR COLORS even. 3 Brunettes, one at each point of the triangle, flowing blonds on each side leaning in, still blonds flanking middle brunette, 2 red heads flanking the center trinity. I don’t even think aforementioned Leni Riefenstahl managed that amount of precision.

    That amount of happenstance-free control suggests no one even pretended to make a list of every actress worthy of making this particular cover and “oh, what? They’re all white? How did that happen?” There are at least 5 women on here who will be lucky if they’re even Gretchen Mol’ed. I’d gather this shoot was imagined lily white from inception.

    This has fuck all to do with talent evidenced or potential.

    “Hollywood! 2010″ indeed.

  39. Michelle wrote:

    While I understand where folks are cominf from re: Zoe, it would be insulting to put her in with a crop of newcomers. Plus she has been there before.

    Re: Gabby. Sigh, I am on the fence about her. I would have wanted her on the cover if and only if she was handled with care. I question whether they would have had the sensitivity to allow her own natural beauty to shine.

    Yes, but where was Frida? Paula Patton? Jurnee Smollett? Ryan Michelle Bathe? Dude, I am REALLY racking my brain to come up with names. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps that is the real issue! There have to be more opportunities for Black women, for American women of color, for women of color to showcase what they have to offer the entertainment industry.

  40. jvansteppes wrote:

    Gabby Sidibe should be on there; her TV interviews alone are golden.
    Also, where’s Alia Shawkat?!

  41. octogalore wrote:

    The Bachelor/Bachelorette point is something that’s definitely glaring.

    I definitely think a black Bachelor(ette) would get ratings. I wonder whether they’ve even focus-grouped it?

    Or,why not pick a Bachelor(ette) of any race who is open to people of any race? Even if (as one commenter said above) the people they are picking are not openminded that way, why not choose someone who is?

    That would be much more interesting than the show as it currently stands, I would guess. You’d lose some racist viewers and gain many others who have gotten bored with the monotony (so to speak) of the show.

  42. RCHOUDH wrote:

    Thanks Racialicious for covering this. I was at first appalled at their audacity to fail at including Sidibe and Soldana but eventually resigned to the fact that VF is just a part of the racist white supremacist institution in this country. Someone tell me how logically it makes sense to include someone like Evan Rachel Wood who I recall is only known right now as being that douchebag Marilyn Manson’s girlfriend (not that it matters because she sure won’t be catapulted into A-list dating him)! I find it most insulting of them to perpetuate racist white beauty ideals with the way they fetishized these women’s whiteness to such a sickening degree! If they’re going fetishize a person’s race/ethnicity then maybe it’s best they didn’t include any WOC; imagine they way they would fetishize them too!

  43. MoonCat wrote:

    AD Nix~ you’re right. i totally didn’t even notice use of the ladies’ the hair color in the composition. weird. hahaha, maybe they thought that was good enough for a diverse, young hollywood.

  44. JenBen wrote:

    @Dawn You are so right. If Sidibe wins the Oscar, the magazines are going to freak, and then put her on the cover, and then make a massive deal about look! She’s fat! We took a photo of her! How good are we!

    I don’t particularly care that I don’t know who all the actors on this cover are, because it’s “young Hollywood” and hey, I don’t see every film that comes out, and they’re all up-and-comers. That’s fine. But the accompanying text seems to indicate they’ve been selected for their physical features more than anything else. Did they just decide all these white girls would look super pretty together? What’s also interesting is that past covers on this topic have been quite dynamic and strong, like the women featured could take you on. These ladies just look passive. Don’t worry, these actrines won’t challenge your patriarchy! (except having read a few interviews with Kristen Stewart and Amanda Seyfried, I suspect they’re rather misrepresenting them…)

    There’s something so creepy about this photo. You can almost imagine the POC maid standing out of shot, holding a tray full of gin and tonics.

  45. Heather wrote:

    So “New Hollywood” looks exactly like Old Hollywood. Same old story, nothing has changed.

    I am so glad I never had any ambitions in this area. I can’t imagine how heartbreaking being in that industry must be for women of color. Even if you have enough European features to be “acceptable” like Halle Berry you’ll always be reminded that these sort of women are the ideal. I can’t imagine facing that everyday.

  46. Molly P wrote:

    When I saw the cover I was immediately struck, as someone upthread notes, by the fetishization of whiteness (and by the fact that I don’t know who most of those people are)!

    The election of Barack Obama seems to be ricocheting in all kinds of ways. I can’t shake the feeling that we’re experiencing a persistent, insidious racial retrenchment. If the very presence of the Obamas in the White House disturbs the dominant visual order, covers like this one perform a certain kind of cultural work.
    There is something nostalgic about the photo–the 50s style dress and the hairstyles seem to promise the return of a new-old order. It’s all very reminiscent of the production of racial difference through visual mediums (photography, minstrel shows, silent films) in the late nineteenth/early twentieth century in the wake of Reconstruction.

    I suspect we’ll be seeing a lot more of this deliberately provocative, revaluation of whiteness–aesthetically, discursively and of course politically. Post-racial dontcha know!

  47. moth wrote:

    One argument I keep seeing is, “They have to appeal to their clientele.” So, fine, if they don’t think PoCs buy there magazine or whites who want to see diverse covers let’s not give them our money. If they only want to appeal to whites, let only whites support them.

  48. Richard Prince wrote:

    More on this, including Vanity Fair’s explanation:
    http://www.mije.org/richardprince/hollywood-or-vanity-fair-problem

  49. PPR_Scribe wrote:

    Zoe Kravitz would have been a natural for the cover. Couldn’t even use the excuse that she is not “young enough” or that she “doesn’t fit some image” (e.g., thin).

  50. PPR_Scribe wrote:

    There’s something so creepy about this photo. You can almost imagine the POC maid standing out of shot, holding a tray full of gin and tonics.

    LOL Bingo! Though I’d say, “mint juleps.”

  51. Kat wrote:

    This hit me like not just one, not two, not three, but four painful bricks:

    1. They’re all White!

    2. Amanda Seyfried and Kristen Stewart have toothpick legs!

    3. They’re all submissive/virginal looking!

    4. They’re all women!

  52. uu wrote:

    I often think about the future and sometimes I daydream about having a daughter. Because she is born from me, she will be black or at least seen as black. Because I me.

    When I see things like this it makes me question about how I would raise that dream daughte of mine. The main question of concern is media. Would I allow something as simple as a t.v in the same household I would raise my child. She WILL get the underlying message that she like other POC that she is somehow less than, than her white peers. She’ll get the message from her classmates, the people she encounters in life, from her academic career.

    Seeing something like VF blantantly either exclude WOC from their covers or hide them with ethnically ambiguous WOC, makes me worry if having a t.v. and access to media like t.v. shows, news reports that implicitly and explicitly focus on race, and movies act as a kind of weapon against her self-esteem development.

  53. shemari wrote:

    This cover is truly outrageous. All thin White women wearing light colored clothing. It was done on purpose to send the message to POC that, “Our vision of Hollywood doesn’t include you.”

    The bloggers and commenters who see absolutely nothing wrong with this cover make be sad. However, the apologists who come up with a bunch of “well reasoned” arguments why Zoe, Gabby, or Frieda weren’t worthy enough to be on the cover piss me off even more. It’s the same kind of covert racism that POC face in almost every other aspect of life. The goal post gets arbitrarily moved just in time for POC to fall short of advancing.

    It’s so tiring to have to continuously deal with this kind of shit.

  54. Irene M. wrote:

    You know if they wanted to put some of the Disney crowd up there (and they have freaking Kristen Stewart of Twilight, so I don’t see why Disney would be a problem) Brenda Song and Selena Gomez would both be good choices. Raven-Symone has also gotten a lot of work these past few years.

  55. Neecy wrote:

    UU

    Any Black woman today that allows her daugher (or herself) to view tv, listen to mainstream radio and go to mainstream movies, would seriously need to examine a lot of things and ask themselves why they would continue to contribute to this madness. There are so many other uplifting things and activities that young Black girls could be doing with thier time to help with self esteem. Sitting in front of the TV and listening to the hip hop radio stations aren’t going to contribute anything positive to a young Black girl or even an ADULT Black woman’s life.

    I think the simple answer to your questions is this: Would you allow your child to injest poison? Just b/c its not in liquid or powder form doesn’t mean it isn’t poison.

    I as an adult Black Woman have stopped watching TV for the most part. I have changed the radio stations I listen to (no longer mainstream hip/hop ) stations. I don’t support ANY FORM of media that excludes me or exploits me. I am good enough to give my money but not good enough to be represented? No way. I do buy a lot of womens mags. BUT I often see ads or articles with Black women and other women of color. Some mags are better than others. That’s pretty much it.

    I refuse to support and injest poison – that is the media today. I know many POC who voice concerns about this but really do nothing to change it.

  56. Paz wrote:

    @Richard Price – - Thanks for the link. As to whether it’s Hollywood or VF’s fault, it’s both. There are better parts available for white actresses. But seriously, VF cannot use the excuse “Oh there just didn’t happen to be any up and coming POC this year.” And for people claiming that Zoe Saldana was on the cover last year, many (white) actresses have graced the cover of their Young Hollywood Issue more than once.

    -Re: Millionaire Matchmaker
    There was one episode where a black girl who was in college majoring in math was chosen and I remember she was portrayed as intelligent and attractive. Also, one of the ex-members of Destiny’s Child was a millionaire who was set up. However, I do agree that there is definitely racism in the show. (I was floored when she asked a half Puerto Rican half German girl if she could look “less Puerto Rican.” )

  57. DomiX wrote:

    I was so heated about this one that I had to leave a comment on Yahoo. I doubt it will get read, but still, it’s shameful. Honestly, there was NOT ONE actress of color you could’ve put on the cover? NOT ONE? What does that say about the Hollywood machine? What does that say to me, an aspiring filmmaker who wants to put actors of color in her films without it being left in the “Urban” category? This is sickening, disgusting and all out wrong.

  58. moth wrote:

    @PPR Scribe and JenBen who said, “There’s something so creepy about this photo. You can almost imagine the POC maid standing out of shot, holding a tray full of gin and tonics.

    LOL Bingo! Though I’d say, “mint juleps.” ”

    The cover reminds me of the Richard Pryor joke that when you watched sci-fi movies that took place in the future and no black ppl were in them it meant that white people didn’t plan for them to be around at that point. This photo evokes an era where we weren’t around as starlets (with a few exceptions for light skinned or mixed race divas like Dorothy Dandrige/Lena Horne) – it says the future of Hollywood looks a lot like the past.

  59. ourname wrote:

    @Irene M.

    I’m consistently amazed at how TRULY diverse the Disney channel is. I just wonder when adult media will catch up.

  60. DivergentDana wrote:

    Everyone who claims that Zaldana’s been featured before/been around for a few years – so have about 2 or 3 women who are currently on the cover. For me, Sidibe’s inclusion would be more specious because her resume is so short in comparison to the rest, and they run the risk of falling for what very well may be a flash in the pan. There’s just no excuse for Saldana’s exclusion.

    “They are needed. And as long as we have them then when we are left out by VF, Vogue and others we can take comfort in knowing we have our own.”

    I don’t think we need those magazines in particular, and I think that the sales rates reflect that. I do think that we probably need the niche and hope for adequate replacements.

  61. Wintermute wrote:

    @Irene M: Neither Raven or Selena have done anything prestigious that would be counted for this cover (one TV movie about having an interracial prom is just a drop in the bucket on Raven’s part) and Selena’s starring in Princess Protection Program also didn’t cut it for VF, it seems. Also, wasn’t Raven on the cover of Vanity Fair in a similar article about young Hollywood a while back?

    That said, yeah, this issue was bogus and stupid for not having anybody of color be on its cover.

  62. PPR_Scribe wrote:

    Neither Raven or Selena have done anything prestigious that would be counted for this cover

    And that is EXACTLY how institutional racism perpetuates:

    You can’t get onto this cover because you haven’t been cast in prestigious roles…you can’t be cast in prestigious roles because you don’t get on mainstream covers….you can’t get on mainstream covers because you have only been in “little” movies…you will only get considered for “little” movies because you don’t have exposure on “big” covers….

  63. vcious wrote:

    The exclusion of Zoe Saldana is absolute preposterous, and confirms the blatant preference to white when choosing people for this photo shoot. She’s done major, BO-smashing films in the last year, in lead roles, and she’s thin and gorgeous and model-esque (ie. the kind of people VF usually feature). There is simply no reason not to include her, apart from the racist preference to white chicks.

    To see the knee-jerk denying-racial-bias comments on Yahoo! Shine is pretty depressing, too.

  64. Irene M. wrote:

    Wintermute, Raven’s cv is three times the length of any of the actresses on the vanity fair cover and just as prestigious as most of them. Amanda Seyfried’s big movie roles in the past two years have been Mama Mia and Boogie Woogie. Meanwhile, Mia Wasikowska’s big break is starring in Tim Burton’s “Alice in Wonderland” and it hasn’t even come out yet. Now, a few of the actresses on this list have have done quite a bit of prestigious work (Rebecca Hall), but most of them have either done crappy bad movies or very little work at all.

    Their careers are probably less prestigious at this point than Raven or Gomez, but these white actresses “show promise” (aka: they’re going to be hired in leading roles someday) and thus get the cover.

  65. islandgirl550 wrote:

    Let’s see… Jurnee Smolette, Reagan Preston-Gomez, Megan Good, Brenda Song, Keke Palmer, Jennifer Freeman, Tyler James Williams… and so many others.

    While their resume’s might not be considered quality like some others.. they have put in SOLID work and ARE part of young Hollywood.

  66. Kandeezie wrote:

    @Molly – I think you said it exactly.

    I think this is a replay of the feminist backlash – where the over-mothering/mommy-guilt emerged as a result of trying to recapture what was “lost” by women’s new found (not really) independence. Same here, where they’re not satisfied with regular whiteness, but lilly whiteness old-world style to remind the dominant culture of what was good and what needs to come back. Nostalgic. What disturbs me most is the message of not only whiteness, but female submission. The camera angle forces them to look up, almost like a puppy waiting to be adopted and trained. It’s like they’re trying to kill two birds with one stone – turn back the hands of time to erase both the gender and race movements of yesteryear.

  67. Brooke wrote:

    I have to disagree with an above comment that putting Zoe on with a bunch of newcomers would be an insult to Zoe – many of these women on the cover are just like her; have been around for a very long while but have just had a breakout year. And some have been around for a very long while and haven’t done anything noteworthy at ALL lately to warrant their inclusion (like Evan Rachel Wood – what is THAT all about?) . Not many of them are NEW, despite the title of the feature.

    I don’t like the idea of bashing any of the women who were included (”Gabby has more talent than any of them could ever hope to have,” type comments) – some of them have done quite a good job (I am fond of Amanda Seyfried and Mia Wasikowska absolutely kicks it on In Treatment) – the inclusion of POC should not hinge on the lack of talented white actresses. The point is that Gabby and Zoe and Freida are noteworthy and talented and are just as deserving of recognition for that as any of the women on the cover are.

  68. urbia wrote:

    @PPR_Scribe

    “And that is EXACTLY how institutional racism perpetuates”

    Yeah, it’s consistent with the pattern of workplace discrimination.

    You’re not qualified because you’ve been discriminated against in the past.

    The Catch-22 is generally recognized among young people of all races: “How do I get workplace experience if I have no experience to get a job with, being fresh out of college?”

    The answer:

    1. Write a ‘good’ resume

    2. Network (nepotism?)

    3. ???

    4. Profit

  69. urbia wrote:

    Forgot to add:

    And you know what happens at Step 3, depending on what your identity is.

  70. DivergentDana wrote:

    The two girls that were previously featured were Amanda Seyfried and Kristen Stewart – both of which are also well-established in Hollywood at this point – if we’re talking fresh new starlets, Seyfried was fresh in Mean Girls, back when LiLo was clean and promising = a long, long, long time ago in entertainment time. And if having several blockbuster hits of questionable artistic merit were a disqualifier (apparently, we’re in Bizarro Hollywood) – like some suggest in the case of Saldana, then Stewart should also be barred from the garden party on those grounds. But the problem’s a combination of a flawed pool, as well… even fairly evaluating the criteria and attempting to be inclusive, due to the dearth of decent roles given to WOC, they would’ve still had problems… but it’s no excuse for not trying at all.

    Hopefully, this isn’t a double post…

  71. Michelle wrote:

    Maybe I should be more specific….

    If Zoe Saldana were white, she would have her OWN cover. After two of the biggest movies this ever (one of which, EVER), Zoe should not be mixed in with the likes of young women who are still trying to get to her level.

    I think that Zoe being on the cover with them would be equivalent to the whole Chris Rock “the dentist lives in my neighborhood” joke.

  72. moth wrote:

    @Divergent – I do think we need magazines for WoCs – even ones like Essence sometimes fail. Love Latina though. We need to see ourselves when others can’t see us. I’ll always push to be on the stage they control – but we need to control a stage too. Institutional racism exists – so let’s develop our own institutions.

  73. uu wrote:

    @Neecy

    I understand where you are coming from. Though its a pressing concern for me because I’m afraid that not allowing a child to see such media would cause her to not relate with her peers.

    Personally, I would give up things like t.v and movies in a heart beat (I don’t read magazines for various racial and sexist reasonings) but I think I’m also concerned that should I prevent my child from those things and they are confronted with the black woman ™ media representation, she my not be able to cope with it, leading her to spiral into low self-esteem.

    I guess what I’m trying to convey is my insecurities that I would be able to raise a child that has the critical thinking skills to know that she is being presented with “visual poison” at an earlier age than me. For me, I didn’t realize the “black woman ™” representation until middle school. I would what my child to understand it much sooner.

    For everyone: The VF cover is woefully executed. We all here understand it. There are alot of people out there who just don’t “get it” and choose not to. My concerns is with the future. Maybe if we can change the thinking of a younger group, this recuring cycle doesn’t have to happen continuously.

  74. michelle wrote:

    I agree with brooke.
    im not going to lie, when I saw the cover it did disturb me for a minute. however knowing how hollywood works some deem zoe saldana as too old at 32. Also im also kind of glad they didnt put gabourey sudbe on the cover because i somehow feel she would have been made a mockery. Honestly there have not been that many high profile black actresses this year so I understand their picks because I know most of their works and they were good this year, but nicole beharie should have been included.

  75. Bagelsan wrote:

    I’m also concerned that should I prevent my child from those things and they are confronted with the black woman ™ media representation, she my not be able to cope with it, leading her to spiral into low self-esteem.

    While I can’t speak from the perspective of a WoC, I have kind of the opposite idea that if someone grows up with lots of self-esteem and no clue that people think of them as less-than, they might never absorb that message as fully as someone who hears it from day 1. While it might be more shocking to encounter unexpected -isms as a teenager or adult, I wonder if it might also allow a person to face them with indignation rather than resignation. I think a lot of little girls (of color or not) could use some more righteous outrage on their own behalves.

    I guess ideally a kid would be brought up aware of the challenges they’re going to face but not emotionally damaged by them in any way. If you figure out how to work *that* then let me know!

  76. chana wrote:

    @#70. michelle- YES!!!!! i can’t agree more with your comment. she is someone that absolutely deserves her own cover.

  77. Neecy wrote:

    UU,

    I see where you are coming from. However, do you think if more Black women rejected media and stopped supporting outlets that exploit, marginalize, ignore and/or support our degradation that their offspring fall in line naturally? There would already be a culture of young African American girls who UNDERSTAND why they are being raised to avoid such media, because their mothers explained to them why. Not only that they would see other young Black girls whose mothers told them THE SAME and are doing the same and it would be second nature for them to either ignore media or take with a grain of salt what they see.

    Its really about NON SUPPORT. If you explain to your child early on, that in this world YOU as their mother and they as a young Black girl should never SUPPORT, be apart of, watch, listen to, participate in anything that exploits, ignores or stereotypes you that they would get it?

    Think of how many Black mothers of this generation are raising their daughters to do this? Not very many. While African Americans make up a small minority in this country, an overwhelming majority of AA’s are TV watchers. What does this say? If H-Wood is exploiting and/or leaving out Blacks, then why are so many Blacks still watching and supporting?

    Many BW with low self esteem I feel are the ones who continue to watch and support the media waiting on it to change in our favor. Many also haven’t figured out the easiest way to deal with handling the poison being fed to us daily. And its simple. TURN IT OFF and STOP spending your money. Too many BW still support the various outlets that are exploiting them and stereotyping them and leaving them out and/or marginalizing them. I don’t think its that hard to raise a child to understand how society works. I also believe there are still many activities for a child to be involved in that they won’t really have a need or desire to watch TV. I know very many people (many middle upper-class like doctors etc.) who have raised their kids successfully this way. And their kids are very well versed in activities that are going to take them far in life.

  78. Mickey wrote:

    [i]While I can’t speak from the perspective of a WoC, I have kind of the opposite idea that if someone grows up with lots of self-esteem and no clue that people think of them as less-than, they might never absorb that message as fully as someone who hears it from day 1.[/i]

    I totally agree with this statement. Growing up as a child of color, I was always told that I was pretty, nice, special, etc. which contributed to my high self-esteem. I also watched a lot of tv growing up, and I noticed that there were not that many POCs on tv (until later), yet I never felt out of place due to the positive messages from other people always coming at me. And my mother had also let me know that television was not reality. So if a child is instilled with positive messages about themselves and explanations about how society operates, then said child would be aware and be able to combat the negativity.

  79. Michelle wrote:

    I don’t have children, but I am looking to embark upon that next phase of my life.

    However, this is the very issue that stops me. Do I raise my children with NO tv or media at all? Just a little? A “normal” amount and then blast them with self -esteem?

    I have a mixed-race (Blaxican, her term not mine) friend who has two children who have Black fathers. The oldest has very brown skin and curly hair. She was raised in all White communities with a variety of activities. Her mother is a doctor and started telling her how beautiful she is from day one. Yet, the girl is a girlie girl, loves her Disney and yes, the little girl often laments the fact that she is not white, not light, doesn’t have pretty eyes. So, for every Mickey there is a little girl like my friend’s child. I guess you have to take it case by case, child by child. And at the same time trying to build some solidarity with the Black female community so that we can effectively combat these media outlets who ignore and malign Black women.

  80. Megan wrote:

    I had to stop reading the comments after a certain point as well but I wonder how many of the people who were going off on a tangent about how “ppl that notice this type of thing are the racists!” or “but what about BET” etc bothered to notice that Joanne Douglas (the author of the article who NOTICED the inequity) is white?!

  81. violet wrote:

    Solidarity with the Black female community.
    I completely agree with you Michelle.
    WE need a Power Movement! So that WE can be heard-loud and clear-and taken very, very, very seriously!
    It is amazing how this entire country would grind to a stop if we all walked off and away. From stores, domestic services(Caribbean Black women are the other half of the Latina domestic service-as well as BLACK Latinas), organizations, etc.
    But the operative word is ’solidarity’. How do we draw that in…?

  82. DaniL wrote:

    The cover doesn’t anger me much. Not that I don’t see it as wrong; I just don’t expect any different from Vanity Fair. Read it and you can see what their targeted audience is; its full of advertisements touting $1,500 watches, travel features on the Hamptons and photographs with nary a POC to be seen.

    What really ticks me off are the comments. Some people really feel free to show their true colors with the anonymity of the Internet protecting them. The reason there are no white people in Ebony/Essence/Latina is because white people have plenty of opportunities to be seen in the main stream media. The Vanity Fair cover only goes to show why those magazines are so necessary.

    The color-blind comments are annoying, too. Just because I don’t want to be viewed as a color, doesn’t mean I don’t value my color. My black skin is a part of who I am; it dealt me experiences that have shaped who I am. I’m sure this is true for Latinos, Asians, Native Americans and other POC. I don’t want to be limited by my skin color; that doesn’t mean I want to forget it.

  83. Sophia wrote:

    Anyone who appears on a VF COVER, their career taken a nose dive. Look at all the past “starlets”.

    I only know of Kristen Stewart (Twilight) and Amanda Seyfried (Veronica Mars). Evan Rachel Wood is the only one who has acting creditability cause she worked some big stars.

    We won’t see or hear from any of these woman again and VF will just do another White issue next year.

  84. jilly5001 wrote:

    I’m not surprised by the cover. I’ve always thought that Vanity Fair was fairly notorious for being super-white, even by the low standards set by the mainstream magazine industry. You read the stories inside, which are often populated by the singular interests of the white, upper middle class baby boomer types they are and to a less extent by the younger readers they probably desire.

  85. reallyneat wrote:

    I think the REAL issue behind these images is the fact that we as a society and around the world have depended on the media and magazines to validate our lifestyles and who we are instead of knowing that it’s OUR lives that set what is real life.

    A good example is the entertainment industry. A singer is supposed to entertain US. Certainly some admiration for their talent is natural but now it’s like our existence is to idolize THEM!

    People who want to be actors/singers do it partly to act or sing and the other part is for self glorification. I don’t mean to derail the topic but that is what I truly believe is the heart of the problem.

  86. Westerly wrote:

    For me this just elicited a mild frown and a “who *are* these people” moment. Once upon a time, I think it would have irritated the hell out of me, but then again I’ve never bought VF so…

    Like Neecy, I’m all for discussion but when push comes to shove I find that I can’t be bothered invest time, energy, or money into an institution that couldn’t care less whether people of my shade or darker live or die, especially when they can’t begin to entertain the idea of accommodating us in their ‘imaginative’ vision. I know that Hollywood is extremely powerful, but everytime I glance over at them, I feel like I’m something in the grip of powerful death throes.

    That said, I’m surprised after reading the comments here, to realise that even I should be able to identify at least 2 of the actresses. (Kirstin Stewart, the Twilight girl, and Evan Rachel Wood.) Yet I didn’t pick them out from the bunch either and only know that they’re there because of the comments…

    The cover puts me in mind of a typical fashion shoot – thin, white, generic, unchallenging, anonymous and above all, dead boring.

    Or to quote Molly P who got in one:

    “There is something nostalgic about the photo–the 50s style dress and the hairstyles seem to promise the return of a new-old order. It’s all very reminiscent of the production of racial difference through visual mediums (photography, minstrel shows, silent films) in the late nineteenth/early twentieth century in the wake of Reconstruction.”

    And that, even more than the blatant, yet predictable exclusion of people of colour is what amuses me. I’m not sure that I’d want any WOC in a shoot like that anyway.

    I think what’s interested me isn’t that (shock, surprise!) they’re all white! But that, they’re white in a particularly highlighted and staged manner. White supremacy is the fuel that runs the Hollywood engine, but even in the past (say eighties or nineties) if you’d put young up-and-coming white actresses (or actresses that are ‘read’ as white) on the cover, it wouldn’t have been one white, soft focus blur.

    When I think about some of these actresses of yesteryear – Molly Ringwald, Ally Sheedy, Sean Young, Winona, Daryl Hannah, Michelle Pfeiffer, Geena Davies, Sharon Stone, Julia Roberts or heck – even Angelina Jolie – I would have at least been able to individually recognise them even in their youth. I’m not saying that they’re great actresses, but they didn’t have this soft, indistinct, interchangeable blandness about them that they’re projecting on to (or demanding) from this current generation.

    I’m not trying to deny that there is clearly a problem with race, but I think that it’s further complicated in terms of who is being hand-chosen to carry the representative banner of whiteness.

    It’s as if they’re deliberately aiming for the new crop of actresses to be as indistinct, ‘non-threatening’ and as uninteresting as possible these days. They’re not even permitted to emit any personality in the shoot. But it seems as if white female bodies are the cultural battleground for asserting a particular brand of whiteness.

    But I guess that the stakes are high and they have a bastion to defend.

  87. Little Bee wrote:

    The New York Times is reporting that an arrest is being made in regards to the racist threats against Joanna Douglas, who critiqued VF in a Yahoo! article. Apparently her article was a target on white supremist sites.

    I feel that even if VF unintentionally excluded more diverse actors on their cover (which I’m not saying is the case) this oversight on their part has certainly snowballed into a provocation of racism. Belligerent racists are coming out of the woodwork to defend white privilege and deny the lived experiences of coloured people in the process. If this cover didn’t upset you as an ally or POC, the reactions from many Americans to suggestions of racism and the comments on articles such as that of Douglas’ most definitely will.

    On that note, if any other Racialicious readers could offer me advice on how to best handle negative, ignorant, blatantly racist comments following articles, blog postings, etc. that would be much appreciated! I felt like I was going to have a meltdown skimming the comments section today b/c of all of the incredibly inappropriate and hateful sentiments expressed.