posted
I just read a CNN article (got it through AOL, so I'm pretty sure a link would be useless) about the new "Women of Wal-Mart" pictorial on Playboy.com. One of the women said that Wal-Mart wasn't thrilled about it, but that she was confident they would come around once they saw how "empowered" their female employees were by the whole deal.
"Empowered"? How is having your n00die pictures distributed around the world "empowering" for your gender?
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've yet to figure that out. If you ask me, they are just part of the continued objectification of women and make me sick. If they want to "empower" women, they ought to get real jobs and start taking over the power structure of major corperations. However, I find that women are far too catty and back stabbing to ever stick togther as a group to rise to power. And to prove my point, about half the women that post here will disagree with me. Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
I don't see anything empowering about taking nude pictures of women for the explicit purpose of selling them to men who buy the pictures only to see them naked.
But where was that thread a while back that had a while back about the middle-aged women who posed partially nude for a calendar to raise money for cancer research or something? There are better ways to empower yourself, in my opinion, but I think this example at least is better than the Walmart shots.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
perhaps what they meant was that posing for playboy made them feel confident, proud of their bodies, and beautiful.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I fail to see how selling your body just to contribute to masterbatory fantasies of men is in any way empowering.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Let me preempt the response that's sure to come--"You gotta take off your clothes to feel...?!"
Yeah. Think of it as a glamour shot for your whole body instead of just your face. Think of it as wearing a really beautiful dress, or a great piece of jewelry, or someone giving you a compliment for having really nice eyes. In all cases, you feel great because you are being appreciated and feel beautiful, either by yourself or someone else.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose I can imagine an individual feeling empowered by the fact that people want to see them naked. But should women collectively feel empowered by this practice? I think on the whole, it's pretty insulting ...
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
SS, that might work as an argument for boudoir poses for a spouse or SO.
I am empowered because I keep my beauty for someone special, rather than showering it profligately on the masses. Would you use the Mona Lisa as a bath mat?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Empowered is probably the wrong word, but I won't fault them seeing how overused it is. The reality is pretty simple, methinks: Walmart is a relatively prudish establishment (as is their right) -> these women don't feel comfortable expressing their disagreement through normal channels -> Playboy offers them the chance to effectively show their bosses the finger, and get paid while doing so. Not empowering, really, but probably makes them feel a bit smug, a feeling they're probably not used to.
This isn't the only factor in play, of course. Women tend to have all sorts of body-image issues that I won't pretend to understand (or at least, be able to explain here). Suneun hit on some good reasons why public nudity could lessen any feelings of inadequacy they have.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I don't exactly condone skin magazines and their affect on society as a whole, I can understand the appeal as explained in Suneun's post.
Posts: 7600 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The feeling of empowerment and actual empowerment are two things that rarely have much to do with each other.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
How they feel posing and what the pictures are used for are two separate things.
I saw a photographer's gallery once that had four woman posing nude. Each woman had written out all her body issues beforehand, and then they had used a marker to write those issues on each other's bodies. It made for a very powerful image, average-looking woman defiantly looking at the camera, flaunting their inner fears. And I love the Ladies of Rylstone and their calendar (here's an excellent article about them).
I grant you that Playboy doesn't even begin to approach that level, especially since every image they have is so Photoshopped I feel like I'm looking at pictures of Barbies. But how is it different from someone who wants to expose their deepest emotions (actors), their insecurities and hopes (authors) or their hidden yearnings and fears (artists) for millions of people to see? Every single person who puts part of themselves out in public does so for a reason. It might be "I need money" or it might be "I want people to like me" or "I need people to admire me" or "it excites me to expose myself" or it might even be "I need to express something and I don't really care what you think of it."
Ultimately I believe that every aspect of human life has a curve, and trying to force everyone to stay in the same place is impossible. For some people posing nude is an unbelievable act of courage and self-acceptance. For some it is self-indulgent, for others it's a way to pay the bills. For some it may be because they have such low self-esteem it's all they think they have to offer or the privacy of their bodies means nothing to them so why not sell it. Some people are just proud of their bodies and it pleases them to know that other people like looking at them. I'll bet that the women in the WalMart pictorial hit every one of those, along with a couple of "take that, WalMart"s in there.
If you don't think that nudity is solely a private thing then there's no reason not to. If you think that your body isn't worth being seen and you pose anyway, or if by posing you can affect some public change, it can be very empowering. If you think that nudity is something to be shared only with your lover, then nothing I say could convince you otherwise, nor should it.
[ November 14, 2003, 07:47 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My first thought was to make some stupid joke. Then my brain kicked in and told me to stay as far away from this one as possible, but then I read C Bridges post. Wow, well done. This is a topic that will always be argued by men and women alike because it is a opinion and not an all encompasing fact. Like Chris said its a bell curve, most people probably fall in the middle along the lines of, it doesn't really effect me and its their decision so what harm is really done. But then there are the two extreme ends of that curve. empowering vs. degrading. Who's right? Who's wrong? I really don't think there is a right and wrong. Have convictions one way or the other, stick to them, pass then on to your children and continue to live your life in a way that empowers you.
Posts: 1294 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
While Suneun was perhaps close to these women's motivations, I don't think that posing for Playboy is what made them feel confident, beautiful and proud of their bodies. They would have already had to feel that way in order to pose for Playboy.
And yes, I have often wondered why women would feel "empowered" by deliberately making themselves the object of lust. I think that appearing in Playboy (and the like) is very different from the senario sm described (say a mastectomy victim appearing partially nude in a calendar to fund breast cancer research). The first is calling attention to her body to "show herself off" and make guys says "Dude, check out the **** on that one!" while the second is drawing attention to her body as a means of drawing attention to a common and deadly women's health issue.
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As some of you know, I'm brazilian. In my country, once a female artist (singer, actress, dancer, etc.) who has a beautiful body becomes famous, it is almost guaranteed that she will pose naked for brazilian Playboy or other similar magazines. If she doesn't it is 100% guaranteed that she suffered enormous media pressure to say "yes". It is almost a requirement if one wants to be "sucessful".
One of our prime-time soap-opera is called "Celebridades" (Celebrities), and is about crazy things people do because they want to be "famous". One of such things is posing nude, and its one of the show's prime subjects (yes...unfortunatelly it IS prime-time here).
One of our prime entretainer, Xuxa, whose show entretains brazilian children for more than one decade, used to appear in borderline porn movies.
A foreign friend joked once, saying that the most famous brazilian export was its naked women. Well...I don't know if women should be empowered for that, but for myself, I do not fell empowered for my country.
Posts: 1785 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It IS sort of weird being a girl in this society. On the one hand you'd like for guys to think you are hot. On the other hand, when you DO look hot (and posing nude in playboy would be a sort of extreme version of ordinary girl-looking-good-ness like wearing makeup, fixing your hair, wearing nice clothes, etc.), guys tend to respond only to your hot-chick aspects and again not see that there is a person here, who may be smart or funny or kind or stupid or whatever. Who may get sad or need to be sheltered or comforted from time to time.
I've never figured out if this is societal conditioning or just the playing out of male sexual programming or what. All I know is for some women it might be hard to choose between attracting no attention at all from the opposite sex or attracting the wrong sort of attention. And that if anyone knew how to attract the right sort they could get rich teaching girls how.
[ November 14, 2003, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's interesting. Playboy sent out a call, and hundreds of women wanted to be in it. Often people have problems with the sex industry because they feel the women are forced into it, and only do it for the money. Many women choose to be a part of the sex industry willingly.
Different things make people feel different ways. You might think it's cheap to show off your body too strangers. But not everyone feels that way, and they don't have to feel that way. These women wanted to do it. Sure, there's _always_ the possibility they'll regret it when they're 60. But you can regret anything. And it's not your job to wave fingers at them.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm curious as to how hatrackers feel about beauty pageants? I find them appalling. About like posing for girlie magazines. I expect to see the brands on their hips, you know? "Wow, Jim, the Circle M farm has been breeding some nice ones lately." "How many hands tall is this one?" <laughs> It totally reminds me of showing dogs or horses or something. I can't believe such a tradition has ever taken hold. Yet they seem fairly acceptable to mainstream America. What's up with that? I nearly had a fit when my nieces were in one. I thought my sister of all people would never have allowed this or let it come to pass. <laughs> How can people think it's okay? <shudders>
Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm way more comfortable with nude modeling than being in a beauty pageant, personally. What I admit I'm completely clueless about is why people would ever want to appear on a reality show or one of the game shows based on publicly humiliating the contestants.
And I simply don't get what the drive is that makes people try for years to do something bizarre and sustained enough to get into the Guinness Book of World Records.
But the important thing to note is that it doesn't matter a bit what I understand. I might not find any of that empowering, but they weren't doing it to empower me.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe one of the reasons is that's because what we call "beauty" goes away after a few years, but we get to keep intelligence during most our lives. Not that it is wrong wanting to be beautiful, mind you. To tell you the truth, I have a very beautiful and intelligent girlfiend. She could very well survive without me telling her she's intelligent for a long time, but if I do not notice when she get a new hairdo or is using a new blouse...sheesh...I'm in for it.
posted
Intelligence is active - you must do something for it to be manifest - while beauty is passive - just sit there and smile, sweetheart. One only works with a voice, and one works better when nothing interferes with the view.
(Of course real beauty is combination of both disclaimer disclaimer.)
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good question... its kind of hypocritical for our society to bombard us with afterschool specials that say "what matters is what's on the inside," while at the same time when it comes to actions beauty seems to rule.
What I mean is, intelectually we are atracted to intelectual beauty, physicaly we are attracted to physical beauty.
I think the internet has changed us forever because it opens a world where (in general) first impressions are of the intelect. Even friends met in "real life" can become closer in the net-world, where social boundaries are crossed more easily.
Posts: 8 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Intelligence is a seed for creation. Beauty is a result of creation. To be intelligent you may be able to create beautiful things. To be Beautiful is to be a thing, a result, a creation of others or of yourself. The woman who is beautiful because of her own hard work and skill is to be appreciated, but by glancing at the finished product, we do not know who created this beauty (other than God of course).
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott- most women don't think their intelligence is more important than their physical beauty. And perhaps especially because they are women. Can you imagine the female equivalent of Dennis Franz carrying a network show for over 10 years? Kayla- I disagree about women being catty. I think they are too agreeable and nice at their own expense.
I actually have this elaborate theory that women are keyed into a physical paragon and allow themselves psychological diversity, wherease men are keyed into a psychological paragon and allow themselves physical diversity. There are many exceptions, obviously. I read in this funny little book called "What's the Difference" that the more intelligent people are, the less they adhere to gender stereotypes.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think beauty has always been, and will always be, a factor that is considered worthy because it denotes health. Now, this isn't always true, but that's the impression we are given.
If a man or woman has straight white teeth, clean shiny and soft hair, nearly flawlessly smooth skin and a face with no blotches or spots, our mind tells us that that person is healthy.
Darwin would probably say (and I don't necessarily agree with him, but this does seem to make sense) that we've been conditioned to appreciate beauty because it implies health, and a healthy person will bring you the most and the healthiest children.
Putting Darwin aside, we will always like beauty more than brains because we tend to see beauty first. When I'm walking down the street I can't tell when a girl passes me what her personality is like. I wish I could some times.
But there is one saving grace. Some people get better looking the more you talk to them and know them, and others just get uglier and uglier. There are many girls I know who are not, by the standards crammed down our throats by magazines and tv, not beautiful. But I've talked to them...I know these women. And now my brain tells me that they're absolutely gorgeous, and I believe them.
I think thats what I love about Hatrack...because here you CAN see someone's personality before you see what they look like. And I can honestly say, I haven't met an ugly person here yet. Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katharina... I guess I have to dissagree with you. I can see how you'd reach the conclusion that intelegence takes effort and beauty is easy.
But think of the people in highschool who were sooo smart but failed because they just didn't care. And I'm sure that there are models out there who work very hard trying to keep up with the expectations of the media.
Of course, these examples aren't very attractive in reality... so maybe I just proved your point.
Posts: 8 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I read in this funny little book called "What's the Difference" that the more intelligent people are, the less they adhere to gender stereotypes.
Cool... I must be brilliant!
:: belches and wanders off to troubleshoot computers and lift heavy objects while showing off sparkly new engagement ring ::
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:beauty is passive - just sit there and smile, sweetheart.
No, it isn't. Most people have to work very hard to remain physically beautiful.
I know, because I see 'em jogging, cycling, biking, running out my window every day. I also see the devotion given to perfecting the look, the physique. . . and it is JUST as strenuous as that given to any intellectual task.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You could say that most women think that beauty is more important than intellect based on the popularity of fashion magazines, beauty products, expensive clothes, and manicure stores compared to extra-curricular classes, puzzle/games parties, logic/puzzle magazines, 'intellectual' books, and such.
Seventeen outsells Godel Escher Bach, I bet.
It's argued a lot at Brown, actually. Do the atheletes "deserve" to be at Brown as much as the intellectuals? I don't have an easy answer, but it probably lies in diversity. Intellect is not absolutely superior to athleticism or beauty. Perhaps what you do with your skills is what matters. Maybe we just need a little of everything for this species to survive.
posted
Can we really say these women have been empowered just because they met an arbitrary standard for beauty that magazines like Playboy perpetuate in the first place?
(Oh, what a relief. Playboy accepts me for who I am. I feel so good about myself.)
Huh?
And then, meanwhile, millions of women who don't make that cut are still left to fret, and men are still taught the wonderful lesson that a woman's value is still meaured in three numbers seperated by dashes.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can we really say these women have been empowered just because they met an arbitrary standard for beauty that magazines like Playboy perpetuate in the first place?
(Oh, what a relief. Playboy accepts me for who I am. I feel so good about myself.)
This is just because it's 'Beauty.' Afterall, I got into an Ivy League college because of my grades, my SAT score, and a few flippant comments on a piece of paper. Imagine how many people are considered for the Marshall Scholarship. But only a handful get it. Should the winners feel unsatisfied because they were arbitrarily chosen for their intelligence (which is probably matched by hundreds of other applicants?)? Oh right, Intelligence is more important than Beauty.
I want to feel proud that I go to Brown. But you know what? There are a lot of people who put up a wall when you say you went to an ivy league school. Is that right? Should I avoid putting a "Brown" sticker on my car because I'll look pretentious? How about the Harvard kids? What do you think when someone says they went to Harvard?
Beauty has just as important a niche in society as intelligence. It's like the entertainment business as a whole. Sure, actors can make millions and millions of dollars, but that's because we watch them. We want to watch them. It makes us happy, helps fill a bit of void in our hearts, and connects us to the rest of our species.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey Sunen, this is completely off topic, but I have a question. Do they still have the giant tetris game setup on campus?
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
Heh. I was involved in that, so I can tell you about it =). Tetris was created over several months, but only was in place for a short while. We had it going every night for two weeks (two? one? I think two) my sophomore year, in the springtime. Then we kept it up but not on until Alumni Weekend right before graduation. We had it going one evening that weekend for alumni to see. Then we took it down the next day. We had to for two reasons: it was kinda junky and woulda gotten destroyed over time, and the fire department of Providence was thoroughly unhappy with us.
So, I think it's actually sitting in bags in the basement of Techhouse, though in such disrepair that it would be easier to remake the thing than to try and untangle it all.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
People who read for an hour everyday or otherwise be smart do it as effortlessly as those people who don't have enough time in their day to do all the jogging that they would if they could.
About women not valuing their own intelligence- this is just my experience.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
One more time. "Can we really say these women have been empowered just because they met an arbitrary standard for beauty that magazines like Playboy perpetuate in the first place?"
Doesn't matter if you can say it, not a bit, not a jot. Makes no difference whatsoever. The important question is, can they say it? And mean it? Then it worked for them.
The question for everyone else is, can you understand it? Or, if you feel it is wrong or misguided, what can you do about it? Anything?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why could it be considered empowering? In pretty much the same way that a woman from a fundamentalist Muslim country having pcitures taken with her face and hair visible could be empowering.
Patriarchical societies often attach a strong stigma to the female body and female sexuality. This can be seen in the virgin double standard, or, in this case in placing the blame for male lust on the objects of that lust. It seems that many people think that these women should feel degraded because they posed nude. That is exactly the point and the reason for why it can be empowering. Just like they wouldn't be degraded by being raped, they are not degraded because people masturbate to these pictures. Posing nude can be a way of saying that they are women and sexual beings who don't have a problem with being sexual beings despite what society might say. Breaking any of society's rules or taboos can be empowering, in that it breaks boundaries put on the individual.
That is not to say that posing nude is intrinsically either empowering or degrading or something else. My argument is that the act itself is almost irrelevant to the state of the person. The person who poses nude because she doesn't feel constrained or who at least wants to fight against social strictures is already empowered, just as the person who poses nude for degrdaing reasons is already degraded.
Of course, all this is not to say that empowerment is always a good thing.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
For the first 15 years of my life or so, I made absolutely no effort to be smart. None. I aced my classes, sailed through the grades, breezed through the gifted programs. I read through everything I could get my hands on - still do - but there was never any actual effort involved. It just happened for me. The shock was when I reached high school and suddenly everyone caught up to me. That's when I realized that I had no clue how to really study. I'd never had to before, you see. Then it became an effort to maintain the grades.
The point here, if there is one, is that being smart was not something I tried hard to do. It was just there. Even now, if I seem knowledgeable about something it's almost always because I was interested enough to find out about it for its own sake, not because I am consciously trying to stretch my brain. I have certainly used my brains to my advantage, advancing in jobs and finally getting a job I truly enjoy because I was smart enough to do it.
So how does that compare with someone who was born pretty and uses that to advance in life? Why is my success laudable but a nude model's is not?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:if you feel it is wrong or misguided, what can you do about it? Anything?
Got this mag-lite. . .
The pornography industry does not aim to uplift women. While these individual women may feel empowered, they have done nothing to help society see them as anything but pieces of flesh.
In other words, they are deceiving themselves. There is no transfer of power, here.
Incidentally, if Joe the stockboy sees the magazine featuring Wal-Mart's Whoppers, and then sees one of his co-workers featured in it, how do you really think this will improve her situation?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Now, personally, I wouldn't want to be in a nudie magazine. Ron has taken lots of pictures of me, though, in or out of lingerie, roller skates, bicycling saftey gear, etc. I feel no shame about that (Though I almost had a heart attack when I found out some of them were on a hard drive he was about to loan out-- he found them and wiped it, but sheesh, that was close). It was private, and special... and honestly, I DO feel powerful when I realize I have inspired lust in my lover. That look that comes over him-- open lips, a hitch in his breath-- there's nothing better.
So, though I can't say I'd want to be in a girlie mag, I CAN say that I understand the feeling of power. Feminine power has long been seen as the 'power to cloud men's minds', etc. Cliches don't spring from nothing, and the term 'p-whipped' is no exception. That's one thing I've been exploring in my novel-- putting a guy in the position of having to use that passive power. It's been interesting.
It's also worth mentioning that the most powerful I've ever felt has been after an accomplishment of wit and cunning, not realated to (but not entirely divorced(which I think is impossible) from) my existence as a sexual being.
And I do not feel personally empowered by the fact that other women pose nude. That's just silly.
-Olivet, former Art Class model, and One-Man Woman
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why does the approval of society or the respect of Joe the stock boy have anything to do with her opinion of herself? Wy does empowerment have to be defined by outside opinion?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: It seems that many people think that these women should feel degraded because they posed nude. That is exactly the point and the reason for why it can be empowering.
Like the be-rebellious-for-the-sake-of-being-rebellious kick? But doing something just because society looks down on it can make someone feel empowered, but there are better ways to do this.
quote: Just like they wouldn't be degraded by being raped, they are not degraded because people masturbate to these pictures.
How do you know Playboy models wouldn't feel degraded if they were raped?
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But doing something just because society looks down on it can make someone feel empowered, but there are better ways to do this.
Isn't that another issue entirely? I thought this was just about whether or not it can be empowering, not whether it's the best way to gain empowerment.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
Chris
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
Javert ![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
Olivet.
