A note on Tough Bunnies and Feminism

Jessica at Feministing posts about this Washington Post article: Tough Bunnies.  Apparently, the language used to describe Playboy centerfolds has changed in recent years, or so claim James Beggan and Scott Allison in a recent issue of the Journal of Popular Culture (not available online). Jessica quotes from the Post:

Beggan and Allison...found a pattern to the way that Playboy's wordsmiths described the women who graced the magazine's centerfold. They were typically strong, career-oriented, aggressive and, in a surprising number of instances, downright "tough." Adjectives suggesting vulnerability, submissiveness or passivity appeared less frequently.

Jessica summarizes her reaction:

OK, but is the text describing the Playboy models really what men are paying attention to? If a woman is posed in a vulnerable an submissive position in her picture, I think that’s going to trump any “aggressive” text descriptions.  (Bold in the original).

I've never been a fan of Playboy, though Lord knows, I've given many a lecture on the magazine.  I'll assume that Beggan and Allison are right, and that in recent years Playboy has begun to use new and more "empowered" language to describe the Playmates.  But it's hardly news that pornographers have appropriated feminist language, of course.   The question is, why are they doing it?

Presenting an image of Playmates as tough, independent,and ambitious serves several purposes.  For one, it can be part of (feeble) attempt to suggest that feminists should be untroubled by Playboy, as it's clearly possible for the educated, the articulate, and the powerful to pose.  The tougher the models are made out to be, the more difficult (presumably) for those of us who loathe Playboy to argue effectively that the magazine exploits the young and the vulnerable.

More importantly, I think, it is a very subtle and very clever way of co-opting male anger at the feminist movement.   It's no secret that there are a heck of a lot of guys in this country who are befuddled by what they see as rapidly changing gender norms.  Many of them (see the MRAs who troll here) are enraged at the modest success that the feminist movement has had in integrating women into business, politics, academia, and the traditional male trades.    When I talk to many guys about gender issues, I find a troubling undercurrent of deep anger at women and the feminist movement that is extraordinarily strong.  And of course, that rage is directed not at the vulnerable and powerless, but at the women whom these guys perceive to be the source of the problem: the ambitious, the career-oriented, the "tough" gals who have muscled their way into traditional male-only areas of public and private life.

But as Jessica suggests, stripping the Playmates naked and having them recline submissively niftily and deliberately undercuts the very power that the text trumpets to the "reader." Men who are angry at beautiful women for not allowing them access to their bodies, and men who are angry at powerful women for their successes, can gain a kind of revenge by seeing the beautiful and the powerful stripped, exposed,and prone for their enjoyment.  For most men, that's the payoff of porn -- the opportunity to reclaim power over women by focusing on them as submissive, pleasing bodies rather than autonomous human beings.  Playboy always suggests that the Playmate is just like the "girl next door" whom young (and not so young) men fantasize about.   Today, the "girl next door" may make more money than you, Playboy says, but underneath her clothes, she's still an object for you to lust after and (if only in your dreams) control and bend to your will.

One of the most tired and misogynistic narratives in heterosexual porn is of the seemingly uptight, powerful "career woman" who initially rejects the protagonist.  When he takes her by force, her powerful veneer is literally stripped away, and she ends up revealed as a sexually insatiable submissive who just needed "a good hard fuck" to find her true femininity.    Playboy doesn't explicitly include the rape narrative, but by stripping the apparently powerful and professional, they cleverly play on the dark male fantasy of "getting even" with those "uppity women" who in the modern world seem to be increasingly overstepping their bounds.

Yuck.

Comments

[mythago]

They are showing off to men they think are desireable while trying to intimidate men they feel are weaker.

Weaker than the woman or weaker than the other men? This sentence doesn't make a lot of sense.

[brian423]

As the author of the blog Reflections on Playboy, I have to speak up here. I don't appreciate the conclusions you jump to about why I love Playboy. Although Beggan and Allison defend Playboy as ardently as you condemn it, the three of you seem to agree that I'm a passive receptacle for images of gender in the media rather than a media consumer with a mind of his own. I find this notion not only personally insulting but politically misguided, as I've explained in this post:
http://reflectionsonplayboy.com/2006/05/prince-regent-hypothesis.html
Don't worry, Hugo; it's totally safe for work, all words and no pictures.

[brian423]

Don't ask me why my above comment is italicized from beginning to end.

[Hugo]

Brian, I've got a ton of topics to wade through. I'll get to ya.

[brian423]

No problem. I'll wait.

[RadioGnome]

Perhaps coming from a younger angle I could shed some light on the "women dressing provocatively for men" thing.

Most females as I know dress for fashion, titilating men doesn't come in to the decision making for what to wear that day (unless it's on a night out). As most know fashion changes like the weather. Fads come and go. And when a young woman is wearing clothing considered sexually provocative eg. midriffs, hipster jeans it's more likely to be because that's what's in fashion magazines and what her friends are wearing. It's also what she's seen being considered feminine and womanlike (I don't need to give examples, just look anywhere and you'll see them). She may or may not be aware men consider the outfit attractive. As it has been mentioned here, preteens who've yet to even complete puberty often find dressing that way as method of "trying on womanhood" as this is what those type of clothes represent to them. I'm not saying this is a good thing, I think it completely fails at trying to separate a female's identity from a her ability to be sexually attractive (as in: it is dependent on it). Notice how many girls as soon as they hit puperty drop the hobbies born from sexless childhood for make-up and bimbo fashion? And as that consumes the next 7 years of their adolescence, what are they left with at the end of it? Eating disorders and poor self-esteem* (as I've witnessed).

*admitedly simplistic answer, but sadly often quite true.

[biagra]

For your needs --
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]biagra[/url]