PUTNAM-L@osu-20.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Lee Putnam) (09/15/90)
Last weekend, I went home to visit my parents and to relax. On one of the evenings, I worked for four hours at a small store that sells 1000s of magazines. Most of the items that were bought while I was working were either "adult" magazine or baseball cards. The older men bought the magazines and the small kids concentrated on the cards. As I sat, I thought about the comparisons between the two. Kids buy these cards so that they can "own" a certain person - say Pete Rose. By possessing a Pete Rose card the kid feels he knows everything about the person (from the info on the back) and also has ownership of the said person. If the kid feels like it, he can trade the card, trade the person, for someone else if a deal can be worked out with another card owner. They learn that people are commodities. Later in life, they will treat women the same way, as commodities. Traded with friends, valued highly (sometimes), and thrown out (if it's "worthless"). Does any of this make sense??? -L.p.P. -------------------------------------------- .."...I've heard the mermaids singing..."
dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross) (09/16/90)
according to PUTNAM-L@osu-20.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Lee Putnam): >The older men >bought the magazines and the small kids concentrated on the cards. As >I sat, I thought about the comparisons between the two. Kids buy >these cards so that they can "own" a certain person - say Pete Rose. >By possessing a Pete Rose card the kid feels he knows everything about >the person (from the info on the back) and also has ownership of the >said person. If the kid feels like it, he can trade the card, trade >the person, for someone else if a deal can be worked out with another >card owner. They learn that people are commodities. Later in life, >they will treat women the same way, as commodities. Traded with >friends, valued highly (sometimes), and thrown out (if it's >"worthless"). >Does any of this make sense??? Well... I think it goes a bit overboard, actually. My own interpretation, which may also go overboard, is that in "adult" magazines, women and men who meet a fairly common standard of "beauty" or "sexiness" are collected by people who enjoy these qualities. The people in the pictures are valued according to how well they meet those standards, and not on much else (brains, for instance). Baseball cards depict men who meet a fairly rigid standard of physical talent and success, and are collected by people who enjoy these qualities (or by those who wish to vicariously participate in these qualities). The people on the baseball cards are valued according to how well they meet those standards, and not on much else (for instance, Pete Rose cards are still worth a lot of money, regardless of the fact that he is now a convicted felon and has fallen from public grace). Treating pictures and baseball cards as commodities is not the same as treating people as commodities; something has to bridge that gap. If you see a whole lot of beautiful women depicted as commodities; and not many beautiful women depicted as people in their own right, you are going to start treating beautiful women as commodities until you are educated as to their personhood. Similarly, if I were to meet Davey Lopes (Dodger 2nd baseman, hero of my childhood), I would think of him as a hero and as a baseball player, and probably wouldn't treat him like just a fellow human being. I might even be struck speechless with awe. I'd feel like a groupie. Which reminds me of the good discussion in Warren Farrell's most recent book: "She's a genetic celebrity; He's a genetic groupie" about how inadequate men feel around good looking women because of how they've been brought up to see these women as hard-to-pursue ideals. But I'll let you look that up on your own if you're interested... -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- "We're the same fathers today as we were yesterday... The term `visitation' implies that the father becomes a second-class citizen. He's no longer the father. He's the visitor." -- Lamont Williamson
gmc@wisvr.att.com (Glenn M Cooley) (09/16/90)
> Kids buy these cards so that they can "own" a certain person - say Pete Rose. > Later in life, they will treat women the same way, as commodities. Well, I was once a kid and bought baseball cards for the following reasons (in order of importance): 1) for the bubble gum 2) the enjoyment of buying something 3) to use the cards in card tossing contests, card house building, etc. 4) for the gambling rush (did I win - Mickey Mantle or loose - Bob Euker) 5) because the other kids did > Does any of this make sense??? "'Own' a certain person", is this some sort of test or are you serious?
gcf@hombre.masa.COM (09/19/90)
}... "adult" magazine or baseball cards. The older men }bought the magazines and the small kids concentrated on the cards. As }I sat, I thought about the comparisons between the two. Kids buy }these cards so that they can "own" a certain person - say Pete Rose. } ... They learn that people are commodities. Later in life, }they will treat women the same way, as commodities.... } }Does any of this make sense??? It makes sense, but I think it's wrong. First, the function of a baseball card is to serve as a kind of religious or moral icon. The card depicts a hero, one who overcomes ordinary human limitations and achieves victory in a difficult, very competitive, and yet easily understood art. Some of the very highest ideals are incarnated in sports, and they are there far more available to small boys than the spiritual, mental, and commercial icons of their elders. The card does not confer possession of the hero, only a small part of his _mana_. One doesn't get to own Pete Rose, one gets to own _a_ Pete Rose. Ask any collector of baseball cards. The skin mag, on the other hand, does not portray a religious ideal, at least not as far as I know. The images of unclad women confer pleasure directly. Many men, in fact, come to appreciate the pictures more than the women depicted; real women are people, after all, and people are always problematical. And for many men who are undesirable because of age, physical appearance, or other involuntary conditions, these picture may be the only possibility in this world of experiencing women sexually. A bitter desert, in which even a mirage is to be treasured! It's true that _sex_ is a commodity in the second case, just as _mana_ is in the first case, but for the small-time purchasers, the beings in whom these goods arise are not themselves commodities; the buying and selling of whole human beings is the pastime of only a very few. We may wonder why sex and _mana_ are commodities, instead of bursting forth in the public squares like fountains; but the world is as it is, for now. Besides, there's no particular evidence that those who buy baseball cards grow up to buy skin mags, is there? -- Gordon Fitch | uunet!hombre!mydog!gcf
ed@ncar.ucar.EDU (Ed Gould) (09/21/90)
>>... "adult" magazine or baseball cards. The older men >>bought the magazines and the small kids concentrated on the cards. As >>I sat, I thought about the comparisons between the two. Kids buy >>these cards so that they can "own" a certain person - say Pete Rose. >> ... They learn that people are commodities. Later in life, >>they will treat women the same way, as commodities.... >>Does any of this make sense??? >It makes sense, but I think it's wrong. I'm not so sure it is wrong. Several men have written in defence of (at least) collecting baseball cards. If this were done in the context of true equality between the sexes - including a true power balance - then I might agree. But the world we live in is not, in fact, an egalatarian one. I think the observation of ownership - both of baseball cards and girlie magazines - is quite inciteful. Collecting and trading images of people *does* give one a sense of power over them. Especially within the context of professional atheletes, whose lives are, to a *very* large extent, contractually owned by the teams for which they play. People (not necessarily youngsters) make up fantasy baseball and football teams, comprised of players from the professional leagues, and win "games" against other fantasy team owners, based on the real performance of the players on each fantasy team. There is, to my mind, a definite power relationship involved in this practice. (As well as gambling. That's the usual purpose of these fantasy teams in my experience.) -- Ed Gould mt Xinu, 2560 Ninth St., Berkeley, CA 94710 USA ed@mtxinu.COM +1 415 644 0146 "I'll fight them as a woman, not a lady. I'll fight them as an engineer."
sharring@cssun.tamu.EDU (Steven L Harrington) (09/21/90)
[Please trim the quoted material in your articles, it does make them much easier to read. I have trimmed some of quoted material in this article. The summary so far is that it was originally asserted that ownership of baseball trading cards is symptomatic of "owning people" -- an assertion that has triggered agreement & disagreement -- CLT] In article <1357@mtxinu.UUCP> Ed Gould <uunet!mtxinu!ed@ncar.ucar.EDU> writes: >I'm not so sure it is wrong. Several men have written in defence >of (at least) collecting baseball cards. If this were done in the >context of true equality between the sexes - including a true power >balance - then I might agree. But the world we live in is not, in >fact, an egalatarian one. > >I think the observation of ownership - both of baseball cards and >girlie magazines - is quite inciteful. Collecting and trading >images of people *does* give one a sense of power over them. >Especially within the context of professional atheletes, whose >lives are, to a *very* large extent, contractually owned by the >teams for which they play. People (not necessarily youngsters) >make up fantasy baseball and football teams, comprised of players >from the professional leagues, and win "games" against other fantasy >team owners, based on the real performance of the players on each >fantasy team. There is, to my mind, a definite power relationship >involved in this practice. (As well as gambling. That's the >usual purpose of these fantasy teams in my experience.) Although this idea is inciteful and interesting, I think the claim that some relationship exists between baseball card collectors and girlie magazine readers is incorrect. Young males often collect things, this seems to be a common behaviour in many boys. The items that are collected range from the aforementioned baseball cards to comic books, coins, toys, bugs, etc. Many boys grow up to read porno magazines, some of them may have collected comic books when they were boys while others may have collected baseball cards. There is no causal relationship betwixt the baseball cards and the magazines nor is there one between the comic books. The crux of the child's activities center on *collecting* not on the ownership of some person. While this collecting may make some social statement in its own right (i.e. the materialistic nature of it), it certainly cannot be directly realated to pornography. The adult males' fixation with the magazines is much more likely to be interpreted as symbolizing ownership, but I would even question this. I would tend to disagree w/ the concept that fantasy sports teams are in some way related to sexual frustration &/or a generally poor attitude towards women. I have been a fantasy sports team owner and have found that most of the participants are representative of men as a whole. Some have healthy attitudes towards women; others don't. Gambling has not been involved in the fantasy leagues that I have played in, but I am aware that it is occasionally. I tend to view sports fantasy team participants as a collection of people who appreciate the competition involved as it relates to the knowledge of sports. I don't think they view the games as ownership either consciously or subconssciously. The participants merely want to see how their understanding of the nuances of a sport compares to other afficianados. [I haven't quite decided if "inciteful" is a mispelling or a deliberately used word. "Incite" == to enrage, "insight" == thoughtful observation. If inciteful is deliberate, it is a cute pun. If the other meaning was intended, "insightful" is the word. --CLT] Steve Harrington