New Playboy TV show makes ‘women’s empowerment’ claims
Comment on and summary of story from indieWIRE, August 2, 2011
Melissa Silverstein, a writer, blogger and social media marketing consultant, takes issue in this article with a new TV show about Playboy.
It can’t really be summarised so here are the first few paras to give you a flavour of it:
“I am so not buying the shit being shoveled out about how the new NBC show The Playboy Club is about women’s empowerment.
“I wish I were a good enough writer at this moment to pen one of the “really” segments that Amy Poehler and Seth Myers did on SNL’s Weekend Update, because that is how I feel about this.
“I know that they have to get women interested in watching the show because women are a prime TV demographic, but really, the Playboy Club about women’s empowerment? Not in my universe.
“There are many things that I can buy as women’s empowerment—a sports show (like we’ll ever see that), a show about lawyers, a show about doctors, etc. But a show about play bunnies? That’s pushing it.
“I just don’t see how a show that shows women being groped and working as bunnies—even if some amazing women did it in their time including Gloria Steinem— is about women’s empowerment.
“The way they have framed it, I’m not buying it. And that’s the key here. How you frame it. It’s a show about a certain time in this country.”
Definitely worth a read.
A whole generation of girls that have grown up with no knowledge of feminism bar what they have read in the tabloids and their brother’s lad’s mags. Social engineering is a type of job description and the right to self determination rather than being born for a purpose defined by others means squeezing yourself into a very tight bodice with a tail on your bum in order to win the affection and validation of others. It would be funny if it wasn’t so bloody sad … most people are really in their very own version of that BBC drama where that guy wakes up in the sixties and women’s human rights are still being debased.
…you girls are ridiculous.
Have you ever actually read a playboy magazine? Have you?
In addition to celebrating the female form, the (well written) articles actually aim to bring out the qualities of women. It’s far from pornographic. It’s simply an artistic, informative, and fun celebration of the female form, which , in my opinion, truly does EMPOWER us. The only thing this magazine degrades in any way, is men, by advocating the stereotype that they are so POWERLESS to women’s beauty and figure that they will go to great lengths, purchase subscriptions, and go to all other lengths just to get a glimpse of it.
Playboy has always promoted the act of being a Gentleman. A true Esquire. I know this, because, as a woman with an open mind, I enjoy and APPRECIATE the articles.
And additionally, while I’m not as aware of the television / video side of Playboy, I have found all of the female photography in the publication to be very, VERY tasteful. The women are healthy -not anorexic, though not obese. Most of all, they look powerful, and independent.
It’s truly sad that there are still women who write anything with nudity off as “objectification” and taboo.
Its also pretty funny that the women I know who think Playboy “objectifies” women are all to eager to go see Brad Pitt rip his shirt off and show his impossibly chiseled abs in the next big movie. …interesting how that is considered appreciation rather than objectification.
Additionally, I did some research. …real research
“Beggan and Allison (2003) conducted an analysis of many issues and found that the magazine did not objectify women. He states that the study, “found that Playboy provided Playmates with complex identities that, in many cases, contained a number of traditionally masculine abilities (e.g., kickboxing, karate), occupations (e.g., police officer, truck salesperson), and goals (e.g., ambitious careers in business and elsewhere, post-graduate training in law).” The Beggan and Allison (2003) article also discussed how the playmates were never exposed to harmful or aggressive situations in photographs. Instead, the photographs of the playmates portrayed them with respect and awe. The article also found no effect between consumption of Playboy and rape rates, as reported in the Uniform Crime Reports. An article also written by Beggan and Allison (2001) stated that, “We have found that the magazine did not relegate women to a subordinate status. Rather, it actually gave them a significant amount of authority by advocating their values, by suggesting that men incorporate key feminine attributes into their own identities, and by implying that men should conform to women’s preferences.” Some believe that the magazine is very supportive of women’s wants and needs and tries to convey an image men should strive for. “
Vikki, I’m not a girl, I’m a woman who has seen many issues of Playboy that my dad used to bring home and hide under the bed. I also had to place client PR stuff in it whilst working in PR. Hugh Hefner is well known for his antiquaited views on women and the reason he chose a bunny as the outfit for his hostesses. I don’t have a problem with nudity per se, just the fact that the only coverage of women in men’s media is invariably with their clothes off, as if our sexual attraction is the only interesting and valid thing about us as humans. If Playboy respected women in all their diversity and interest, they would feature them with their clothes on, not off. We can battle it out quoting studies that show the link between rape and pornography or disprove it equally, but in the end if the only coverage of women in men’s media is with their clothes off, then the message that is given out to young girls and boys is that this is the only interesting thing about women. By the way, why would you start your post ‘you girls’ if you are one yourself?