Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero-c!nadel From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: does healthy, mutual erotica exist? Message-ID: Date: 23 Apr 91 19:14:31 GMT References: <9104220218.AA18024@rutgers.edu> Sender: root@agate.berkeley.edu (Charlie Root) Organization: Natural Language Incorporated Lines: 67 Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org In-Reply-To: jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu's message of 23 Apr 91 17: 33:17 GMT Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org In article <9104220218.AA18024@rutgers.edu> jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) writes: In article muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes: >In article jeffb.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu (Jeffrey Boser) writes: > > 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. >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." So far as I know there is no single group called "feminist" or "feminism" and certainly no single, accepted "feminist agenda". This is still not what I was saying. I agree with this statement. However, my real point (which you cut off) was that the representation which is the result of the feminist posing for Playboy for her feminist reasons is no different from the representations of the women who posed for Playboy for other reasons. Therefore, the representation (which is what Jeanne was referring to in her original article) will not further *any* feminist agenda, unless you claim that all of the pictures in Playboy do. A large part of most brands of feminism urge the politicization of the personal as part of the effort of exposing the value of personal experience in the face of formalist "objective" studies of their positions. So, in keeping with that spirit, there's no real way to critisize the woman who poses for Playboy except in the way that it interfers with your _own_ agenda, not theirs. I am not criticizing the woman who poses for Playboy, nor claiming that anyone is interfering with *my* agenda. All I was doing was pointing out that the example given, that a woman might pose for Playboy from feminist motives, will not change the end product, the magazine and the pictures in it. So, that woman may have done something for her agenda, but she has not affected *Playboy's representation of women* in any way. What this means is, that if the representation of women who pose for non-feminist motives does not future any feminist objectives, then neither does the representation of women who pose for feminist motives. Please notice that there is a difference between the motives, the posing, and the pictures. Indeed, it is my understanding that the pictures which are published are often altered, such that they are rather different from the original shots (I don't have any proof of this, it's one of those "common knowledge" things that I don't know where it came from). It amounts to about the same thing as saying Democrat A is not furthering the "Democratic agenda" because she does not agree with Democrat B. No, it is not. Indeed, your statement here is more similar to the poster who questioned Jeanne's statement, who seemed to be saying that the motives of the people in posing made some difference in the effect of the representation. Since the motives do not alter the pictures in any way, this cannot be true. As far as posing for Playboy goes, I think that if anyone wants to, they should. I do not personally want to, because I don't like the idea of a lot of people who I don't know looking at nude pictures of me. I also don't object to anyone reading Playboy (or looking at the pictures!), including the people I'm dating. Indeed, if one of them happens to have one, I like to read it, myself. I haven't found the pictures particularly exciting, but I do like many of the cartoons...*smile*.