Hey Psychology Today, This Magazine Cover Is Pretty Fucked Up!

Photo Credit: Leigha McReynolds
Photo Credit: Leigha McReynolds

Today I received a text from my best friend, who had just received the latest print issue of Psychology Today. She was put off by the cover image—it promotes an article on toxic behavior—and wanted a second opinion. So without further ado, here it is: wow, Psychology Today, this photograph is repugnantly sexist! So much so that when I read the word “toxic” on the cover, it seems like a self-referential move.

Advertisement

You can see the cover photograph in its entirety here, but the above image gives you the basic gist. The camera hugs a woman’s visage: her eyes are bright blue, and her features precisely symmetrical. From what we can see, this nameless woman embodies idealized Western beauty.

Her face is somewhat obscured, of course, because it has been painted, and appears as if it has been wrapped in “caution” tape. A yellow stripe clings to her lips, which just barely emerge frombeneath the paint, revealing their plump fullness. A warning—“CAUTION”—silences her, and asserts its grasp by snaking around her neck.

Advertisement

If you read the cover story, you’ll notice that the article, “Poison People,” also incorporates one photograph of a man, his mouth covered by a small yellow sign with the word “TOXIC” inscribed in black. The aesthetic is the same, but it’s far less severe and overwhelming. One could imagine the male subject plucking the sign from his lips. On the contrary, the woman’s body has quite literally been marked as a site of toxicity. And the latter image is the one Psychology Today chose for their cover.

Ultimately, the photograph doesn’t suggest anything we haven’t seen before. A woman’s enforced silence is fetishized, even eroticized. The strip across her neck extends suggestively—aggressively—across her windpipe. This woman has not only been muffled; she is clutched by the neck, too.

And the image’s pernicious significance deepens when we consider the context. Women have been stigmatized as emotionally toxic since the nineteenth century, when the gendered diagnosis of hysteria became all the rage. By confronting readers with this close-up, the magazine implicates women as the ones most guilty of “toxic” behavior. One would think that, given its purview, Psychology Today would be attuned to the power of images—particularly those broadcasting regressive messages. And yet, their May 2017 cover greets us boldly with eroticized misogyny and dated implications regarding women’s mental health.

Share This Story

Get our newsletter

DISCUSSION

rachelvoronacote
Rachel Vorona Cote

Hello everyone—As always I’ve been glad to read and consider the various thoughtful perspectives on this blog post, and on all of my previous ones. I’d also like to remind you that the comment section should host a productive and friendly dialogue. So please be thoughtful and considerate as you engage with one another. For my part, I by no means expect everyone to agree with my every interpretation, opinion, or analysis. And I’m no stranger to harsh critique; no internet writer is. But I would ask you to consider what you gain by calling someone “fanatical” or by recounting how you performed a dramatic reading of my blog post for laughs or by telling me I need a boyfriend and a hobby (I’m good, but thanks for the concern!). I don’t know you, you don’t know me, and many of you are conversing amongst yourselves anonymously. But it’s worth considering that there is always a human on the other end reading your remarks, and if what you have to say serves no other purpose than to be hurtful, then perhaps reconsider expressing it. Because no, I don’t lose sleep over nasty comments, but I’d be lying if I said I enjoyed them. I expect commenters who have been targeted feel similarly. At its best, the Jezebel comment section is one of my favorite spaces on the internet—yes, even when you all think I’m off my rocker for close-reading a photograph. We need forums like this more than ever, so please, let’s make them the very best they can be.

Take care, Rachel