Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jarthur!ucivax!gateway From: uunet!infmx!robert@ncar.ucar.EDU (robert coleman) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: does healthy, mutual erotica exist? Message-ID: <1991Apr27.003606.21700@informix.com> Date: 28 Apr 91 23:52:52 GMT References: <1991Apr24.010420.18829@informix.com> Organization: Informix Software, Inc. Lines: 139 Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: zola.ics.uci.edu In article muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes: > >In article <1991Apr24.010420.18829@informix.com> uunet!infmx!robert@ncar.ucar.EDU (robert coleman) writes: > In article muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes: - -[...] 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. - -I must admit that when I have looked at the magazine, I have found the -text accompanying the pictures rather uninteresting, so I don't know -much about what is included there. This would certainly be a way of -including the motives of the person posing. Of course, this, by -itself, isn't enough, since if people either don't read the text or -don't really think about it, it may not have an effect on them. Whether or not people read the text, it is part of Playboy's representation of women. Whether or not this method of representation works is another question altogether. -1. What sort of information is included in the text? Interests, job descriptions, life experiences, viewpoints, why-I-posed-and-how-I-felt-about-it, pretty much the sort of things one would expect of any interview. -2. Do people generally read the text? Well, obviously, I do. The material is included for a reason; it gives the person pictured the added dimensionality of life and personality. Do others? I dunno. I don't know too many people who read Playboy (or admit to it, at least ;-) ). I have read stories about Playmates who were recognized on the street, and the recognizer could recite much of the information, but this might reflect obsession more than the norm. However: it isn't really necessary to read much of the text to achieve a feminist goal, as you've defined it. For instance, when a pictorial was on a policewoman, she was pictured on the cover in uniform. The title of the pictorial, which is hard to avoid reading, implied her career. I suspect most people read the titles (such as "Women of Wall Street") whether they read the rest of the text at all. Lastly, Playboy doesn't just produce a magazine. They also produce videos, where the voiceover has the woman talking. One can't exactly avoid "reading the text" in this environment. -3. What sort of information/statement in the text would be likely to - "further a feminist objective?" (I'll define this, for the purposes - of this question, as changing the way someone views women in some - positive way.) I think the original example was a good one: a computer programmer might wish to dispel stereotypes. Pictorials of women in the Armed Forces would do much to dispel the typical stereotype of an armed-forces woman. A Women of Wall Street pictorial is an excellent back-door approach to show men who otherwise might not believe it that there *are* women is such previously male-dominated positions as stock-brokers. -4. Would the effect of this be affected (particularly lessened) by the - pictures themselves? (I've always thought they looked more like ads - than like pictures of "real people" - you know, lucite ice cubes, - gelatin instead of drops of water...everything a little more perfect - than I've ever seen in "real life.") ???? Because someone appears nude, they can't really work on Wall Street? Because they appear in the nude, they have less credibility? Because they're in the nude, they couldn't be an effective police officer in real life? Most professional photographers, including family portrait takers, etc. touch-up their photos. It doesn't reduce the credibility in my eyes of the people who are pictured. -5. Does anyone know of anyone who has changed their opinions due to - these pictures? (I was once told, on meeting someone, "you're a - triple contradiction - an attractive female programmer." Sometimes, - people will just decide that there are one or two exceptions to their - stereotype, rather than deciding that the stereotype is wrong.) No. I've long ago done away with these kind of prejudices, and, well, frankly, they subject doesn't come up much with other men. ("Wow, Robert, I've just had an eye-opening experience! Check out this Playboy! *There are women on wall street*! ;-) ) -As a side note to all this, I read a story recently in the SF -Chronicle about how Playboy was trying to do a "women from women's -colleges" layout. Another one of those "stereotype-dispelling" -things. The particular articles I read discussed two women from Mills -College. One (who had graduated some years ago) had posed for this -layout. The other went to the recruiting session. She described her -experience there, saying she felt that she had been somewhat-subtly -pressured into posing, even though she had not wanted to. She seemed -to be concluding that this was what always happened, but I doubt that, -since I'm sure that most people who go to Playboy are ready to pose, -although they could certainly be drawn into more than they planned. -Anyway, she called the other woman, who felt she was furthering -feminism by trying to dispell the stereotype, and convinced her to -withdraw her pictures. Well, there's pressure, and then there's pressure. Was it OK for woman #1 to pressure woman #2 into not posing? Would it be OK for Playboy's representatives to pressure woman #2 into posing? Both woman #1 and Playboy are pushing their own agenda, using the same techniques...is one bad and the other good? But more than that, unless Playboy attempted to force anyone, or blackmail someone, the "pressure" they encountered was salesmanship, which most people wouldn't object to outside this context. Would it be different if, say, Playboy had offered to buy land, and these women went in to check it out, and got "pressure" to sell their land? - - (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.) - -I certainly don't think that posing for Playboy is the only way, or -even a particularly good way, of dispelling stereotypes. A better, -and more productive, way might be to actually get more women into CS. I would also agree that posing for Playboy for the express purpose of destroying a stereotype may not be the best approach. There's even some (very small) evidence that Playboy readers may be the wrong target group (already are open to the message); I remember reading about a survey that uncovered, as an unexpected result, that men who frequent peep-hole sex shows were *more* receptive to feminist ideas than college women. :-) Robert C. -- ---------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.