twiss@stolaf.UUCP (Thomas S. Twiss) (08/09/84)
>References: > > >> So far, I have only seen one comment on this subject that really >> addresses the issue and that was by Sherry Marts. Both these organizations >> are in the business of exploiting women and I think it is kind of >> pointless to argue over which one has the right to exploit V Williams. > >The Miss America Pageant paid Miss Williams for the privilege of >exploiting her in a manner that was acceptable to her. > >Penthouse is exploiting her in a way that she claims is unacceptable >and embarassing to her. Whether we are considering the "Women's >exploitation" business, the ad business, the moving van business, >Cosa Nostra or personal computers, I think we should still try to >distinguish between companies that ride roughshod over the >considerations of people they deal with, and companies that do not. > >The Miss America Pageant was widely criticized for their handling of >Vanessa Williams, but it's hard to believe that anything they did to >her will mark her for life in the way that those pictures, published >against her will, may. > >I'm not arguing about who has the right to exploit Vanessa Williams; >I'm concerned about what we can do to companies as insensitive >and (I hope) illegally-acting as Penthouse. > >- Toby Robison (not Robinson!) >allegra!eosp1!robison >decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison I do agree with you, Toby, but I think it is important for people to realize that the Pageant is just as pornographic (in principle) as Penthouse. The Pageant is trying to create certain images of what their concept of the perfect woman is. It causes women to feel that they must somehow live up to this image (and they can feel inadequate of they can't) and it causes men to think that the Pageant's image is the only acceptable one. Both organizations serve to objectify women, they differ only in degree of effect. You are entirely correct when you say that Williams was consenting to being a part of the Pageant and not the Penthouse publication and I won't argue with that. My point is that many people seem to have defended the Pageant as something that is totally in the right, and I don't agree with that. Tom Twiss {decvax|ihnp4}!stolaf!twiss
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (08/16/84)
All this reminds me of two cartoons I've seen dealing with beauty pageants:
1. MC says, "For her portion of the talent section, Miss <state> will recite
a list of titles of books she has read."
2. MC says, "For her portion of the talent section, Miss <state> [who is
scantily clad] will require a volunteer from the audience [consisting of
numerous eager men]....."
Needless to say, the second one appeared quite recently.
--
-- Jeff Sargent
{decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq
"We can build a beautiful city, yes we can, yes we can...."stank@uiucdcs.UUCP (08/18/84)
#R:stolaf:-184100:uiucdcs:31600083:000:844
uiucdcs!stank Aug 17 16:29:00 1984
What on earth does it mean to say that both the M.A.P. and
P.H.M. are both "pornographic in principle". Maybe my
sexual appetite is jaded, but I find the presentation of
the women in the M.A.P. to be totally asexual. Indeed,
I think that this is the intention of the organizers.
P.H.M. is, on the other hand, definitely pornographic.
Now, I'm no fan of the M.A.P. I believe that it attempts to
present an vapid picture of the "ideal woman". However, not
likeing somthing (even hating it) is no excuse for calling it
something other than it is.
Let's call a spade a spade, and pornography, pornography. But
let's not call everything, which is degrading and/or distasteful to
women, pornographic.
Stanley J. Krolikoski
U of Illinois at UC
..!pur-ee!uiucdcs!stankaeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (08/18/84)
It has been rightly remarked that beauty pageants such as Miss America give a
false idea of the optimal woman, by emphasizing the pulchritude of the physical
body (well, all right, the face too), with only a token glance at the mind.
But what about the men's pageants, Mr. America and the like? As far as I
know, they don't even pretend to consider the guy's intelligence. They hold
up as the ideal man a guy with 200 pounds of rock-hard muscle and zero ounces
of fat -- despite the fact that the guy may be (in the traditional phrase) a
macho asshole, or even (in the traditional semi-joke) a homosexual. This is
not nice to those of us who do not boast a 60-inch chest measure and who do
have a tough time keeping a few superfluous pounds from accumulating around
the waistline, but who at least try to be considerate and sensitive (not that
I always succeed) despite being heterosexual....
Then, of course, in recent years magazines have come out giving men just as
much -- er, exposure -- as Playboy at least (I don't know if any mags depicting
men are yet as raunchy as Penthouse). Again (at least so I infer; I've never
examined Playgirl) the ideal man is held out as one with a beautiful body.
It seems to me that the trend is in the wrong direction; no matter how much
talk there is about personhood, dignity, intelligence, and what not, now both
sexes are being subjected to objectification more and more. I will give
Playboy this much credit: Rarely, if ever, does it present parts of a
woman's body without her face also in the picture; and I will give myself
the credit for [when I yield to the temptation to buy it] actually looking
at the facial expressions of the women pictured, and evaluating their
attractiveness to a great extent on the person they seem to be, not only
on the body they obviously have. I wonder how many purchasers of Playboy
et al. do that? Do not many readers fall in with the objectification?
Struggling to be a real person, to be treated as such, and to treat others
likewise,
--
-- Jeff Sargent
{decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq
"We can build a beautiful city, yes we can, yes we can...."twiss@stolaf.UUCP (Thomas S. Twiss) (08/19/84)
>What on earth does it mean to say that both the M.A.P. and >P.H.M. are both "pornographic in principle". Maybe my >sexual appetite is jaded, but I find the presentation of >the women in the M.A.P. to be totally asexual. What?!?!?!!?!?!? The pageant is asexual?!?!!? What do you mean? They pick out one sex of humanity, parade them in front of a huge tv audience, show them in bathing siuts to show off their bodies, and choose them in the first place for their feminine qualities. You tell me that's asexual????? >Indeed, >I think that this is the intention of the organizers. >P.H.M. is, on the other hand, definitely pornographic. > >Now, I'm no fan of the M.A.P. I believe that it attempts to >present an vapid picture of the "ideal woman". However, not >likeing somthing (even hating it) is no excuse for calling it >something other than it is. I'm curious as to how you can accuse me of this. In my article, I gave my reasons for asserting that the MAP is degrading, you are just doing exactly what you accuse me of: assuming something about my nature just because you didn't like what I say. > >Let's call a spade a spade, and pornography, pornography. But >let's not call everything, which is degrading and/or distasteful to >women, pornographic. > > Stanley J. Krolikoski > U of Illinois at UC > ..!pur-ee!uiucdcs!stank Why not? Maybe it's not pornographic in the traditional sense (exposing naked bodies in compromising positions), but the effect of the pageant and of Penthouse is fundamentally the same: use women for certain appeals and qualities that are wholly estranged from human nature to create images that will supposedly be the ideal person (woman). The effect of this is to make women feel they have an image (an unrealistic one) to live up to, and to make men feel like they can only acept certain women that fill that image. If you don't believe me, how would you feel if you walked into a woman's room and saw a poster of Lou Ferrigno on her wall? I sure as hell don't look like Lou, and if this woman expects me to, then I'm out of luck. Now transpose this to pornography and you get the gist. Also, watch the movie "Not a love story" and I'll bet you would agree with me. Although it is a very oppinionated and extremely unobjective film, it is excellent at getting one to examine ALL forms of societally imposed role images.
stank@uiucdcs.UUCP (08/19/84)
#R:stolaf:-185000:uiucdcs:31600084:000:1219
uiucdcs!stank Aug 19 15:29:00 1984
<>
pornography: Written, graphic or other forms of communication intended
to excite lascivious feelings.
lascivious: 1. Of or characterized by lust; lewd; lecherous.
2. Exciting sexual desires
both from The American Heritage Dictionary, which claims to report
on the English Language as it is *acutally* spoken by Americans.
Of course the M.A.P. degrades women, and presents them with a false
ideal, etc. Perhaps I wasn't strong enough: not only am I no fan
of the M.A.P., but I positively detest it. However, it is NOT, as
far as I can see, pornographic. Is there anyone out there in net.land
for whom the M.A.P. excites lascivious feelings? If so, I wonder what
you do during, say, an episode of "Three's Company".
Probably this discussion dosen't belong in net.women. Net.grammar, if
it exists, looks like a better choice. We both seem to agree on the nature
of the M.A.P. and P.H.M. I just do like like to see the English language
bent out of shape, no matter how noble the cause such bending serves.
So. "lets call a spade a spade..."
S. Krolikoski
U. of Illinois
..!pur-ee!uiucdcs!stanktwiss@stolaf.UUCP (Thomas S. Twiss) (08/20/84)
Ok, ok, I stand corrected. So I used the wrong word. The point is that
the MAP and PHM are maybe not like in degree, but certainly in kind.
They both do basically the same thing - degrade women. The reason that
the Am. Heritage did not include this is because this is a fairly
progressive idea and one that is not generally held to be fact by all
(unfortunately). Remember: one cannot accept a dictionary as word and
law because frequently connotive definitions are far more meaningful.
Tom Twiss
{decvax|ihnp4}!stolaf!twisshutch@shark.UUCP (08/20/84)
< beauty is only skin deep; ugly goes clean to the bone > | But what about the men's pageants, Mr. America and the like? As far as | I know, they don't even pretend to consider the guy's intelligence. | They hold up as the ideal man a guy with 200 pounds of rock-hard muscle | and zero ounces of fat -- despite the fact that the guy may be (in the | traditional phrase) a macho asshole, or even (in the traditional | semi-joke) a homosexual. This is not nice to those of us who do not | boast a 60-inch chest measure and who do have a tough time keeping a | few superfluous pounds from accumulating around the waistline, but who | at least try to be considerate and sensitive (not that I always | succeed) despite being heterosexual.... | --- Jeff Sargent Uh, not to dispute your assertion that our society has screwy values where "beauty" is concerned, but I can't take the above without any comment. Jeff, the "mens pageants" are completely different things from the physique contests you refer to. There are men's "beauty pageants" that are just as repulsive, sexist, insipid, and degrading as any that women participate in. They aren't particularly popular because they tend to cause too much discomfort in the audience - most folks can't or won't handle the (assumed) role-reversal that occurs in such an event. On the other hand, physique contests are more of an athletic event. The bodybuilder (male OR female, and there are a LOT of female bodybuilders) has spent years building and honing a physique that is rather beyond what most people consider "beautiful". The number of "macho assholes" and "semi-joke homosexuals" is not particularly greater in this area than anywhere else. Note that there are a lot of bodybuilding "groupies" and that a number of these are homosexuals. However, most bodybuilders are avowed and active homophobes. (I speak from experience, having been present when a Michael Jackson song triggers a bout of "fag jokes".) On the other hand, most bodybuilders are very nice people. They do tend to have one unusual trait. The competitive bodybuilder has a deliberately hypertrophied ego. In order to keep the edge of competitive drive sharp, they build an image of themselves that is rather inflated from the reality, and a lot of bodybuilders haven't got the self-understanding to separate themselves from this image. Anyway, the bodybuilder, male or female, has a personal idea of what PHYSICAL beauty is, and pursues it actively and effectively. So, if they are able to make themselves conform to their ideals, then I can't fault them, even if my own efforts are less of a success. (Yes, those "few extra pounds" still hang in there despite diet and incredibly intense exercise. Gotta get more aerobics, that's it, right, uh huh. . . Oh, excuse me, I was rambling.) In fact, I would recommend bodybuilding to anyone who wants to improve their self-image. It requires a lot of self-discipline, which is also a good thing to develop, and the increased strength and confidence are quite useful to women who want to reduce the number of harrassment attacks they get. It also works a LOT better than "diets" for getting rid of fat. Hutch (\_____/) \*\ /*/ |\_=_/| \`_'/