Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!jarthur!ucivax!gateway From: uunet!infmx!robert@ncar.ucar.EDU (robert coleman) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: does healthy, mutual erotica exist? Message-ID: <1991Apr24.010420.18829@informix.com> Date: 24 Apr 91 16:29:47 GMT References: Organization: Informix Software, Inc. Lines: 54 Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: blanche.ics.uci.edu In article muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes: >In article jeffb.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu (Jeffrey Boser) writes: - - jeanne@mica.berkeley.edu (Jeanne Dusseault) writes: - - > Read the statement again. I said "PLAYBOY'S" REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN - > does not further a feminist objective. This has nothing to do with - > women posing nude to further their own feminist agenda. - - come again? "their own feminist agenda" certainly qualifies as "a - feminist objective" As far as I know, there is no official feminist - organizations, only various organizations with little linking them - other than general attitudes. - - .....jeff - -If a woman poses for Playboy because she feels that it will futher her -"feminist agenda," that does not imply that the representation itself -(the pictures, as published in the magazine and seen by men) will -further a "feminist objective." That is, suppose that I want to pose -for a spread on female computer programmers, because I want to show that -intelligent, technical women are not necessarily unattractive (i.e. -bashing a stereotype). So, I pose, and I'm pleased with having done -what I wanted to do, etc. Now, are the pictures of me any different -from the pictures of other women in there? Probably not, since Playboy -has a reasonably consistent style, from what I've seen. So, regardless -of my motives in posing, the published pictures are just like all the -other pictures. My motives are not visible in the picture. Actually, the text that accompanies each picture almost always gives details about the profession of the woman being pictured. The text *is* part of Playboy's representation of women. In fact, Playboy seems to give active support to their models for the kind of point you've mentioned. For instance, within the last year or so, one woman who was a mortician had a pictorial; one of the printed reasons (I believe) for her deciding to pose was to dispell some of the stereotypical ways she was viewed. Playboy often does theme pictorials on particular professions that bash stereotypes, such as women in the armed forces, women on wall street, women police officers, etc. In this sense, Playboy's representations can very well be said to "further a feminist objective". I previously agreed that this was unlikely, but after thinking it over, I've changed my mind. (Incidentally, a few years back Playboy tried to do a "Women of the Silicon Valley" pictorial; my understanding is that they did not get enough applicants, for whatever reason. Too bad; I guess the stereotype still stands unchallenged.) Robert C. -- ---------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.