2008 Woodie Awards
Vandy's Postfeminist Playboy Debate
Ellen McSweeney
Issue date: 3/27/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 3 next >
I'm sure many women on Vanderbilt's campus cringed when they saw the enormous ad Playboy placed in The Hustler just before Spring Break. I know I did. Playboy is auditioning applicants for its "Girls of the SEC" pictorial, and it's a bit unsettling to think of the cool, smart woman sitting next to me in class gracing the centerfold of Playboy in a Confederate flag bikini. Few people interested in gender equality really like what this magazine represents. In terms of the female image in pop culture, Playboy is a long-standing bastion of bad: fake breasts, airbrushed skin and the ever-present, slobbering male gaze.
Still, the ensuing editorials and students' comments surrounding Playboy's advertisement show us all too clearly that the virgin-whore dichotomy is not just a motif planted in men's magazines to help them get off. It's also an attitude that is alive and well on the Hustler editorial staff, and perhaps even in the ranks of Vandy Fems. The Hustler's "Our View" on the topic was stunning in its paternalism, pointing a "no-no" finger at Vanderbilt women and waxing Victorian about what posing for Playboy might do to our children, our careers and our fragile reputations. Vandy Fems circulated a petition that flatly condemned Playboy's "exploitation" of women without offering a word of further analysis. These two responses come from very different camps, but they share a common failure: They leap to unsophisticated, unconvincing moral judgment. In comparison, Michael Wilt's March 21 editorial reads like an introspective postfeminist exploration - until he gets in one last jab, and compares the Vandy Fems to al-Qaida.
Feminist leaders everywhere bear the heavy burden of "connecting the dots" between gender issues, of creating a clearer picture of sexual oppression which can be understood and dismantled. The Vandy Fems' petition represents a complete failure to illuminate these issues for their campus and community. The signers proclaimed, "I hereby publicly condemn Playboy Magazine's recruitment and exploitation of Vanderbilt University's women as well as women across the world." A one-sentence petition simply cannot connect the dots - particularly for someone who does not identify as a feminist - between harmless acts of sexual interest and debilitating acts of sexual violence. To those who don't yet see the connection, the Fems' response looks like a moralizing, knee-jerk reaction that rests on falsehoods.
Still, the ensuing editorials and students' comments surrounding Playboy's advertisement show us all too clearly that the virgin-whore dichotomy is not just a motif planted in men's magazines to help them get off. It's also an attitude that is alive and well on the Hustler editorial staff, and perhaps even in the ranks of Vandy Fems. The Hustler's "Our View" on the topic was stunning in its paternalism, pointing a "no-no" finger at Vanderbilt women and waxing Victorian about what posing for Playboy might do to our children, our careers and our fragile reputations. Vandy Fems circulated a petition that flatly condemned Playboy's "exploitation" of women without offering a word of further analysis. These two responses come from very different camps, but they share a common failure: They leap to unsophisticated, unconvincing moral judgment. In comparison, Michael Wilt's March 21 editorial reads like an introspective postfeminist exploration - until he gets in one last jab, and compares the Vandy Fems to al-Qaida.
Feminist leaders everywhere bear the heavy burden of "connecting the dots" between gender issues, of creating a clearer picture of sexual oppression which can be understood and dismantled. The Vandy Fems' petition represents a complete failure to illuminate these issues for their campus and community. The signers proclaimed, "I hereby publicly condemn Playboy Magazine's recruitment and exploitation of Vanderbilt University's women as well as women across the world." A one-sentence petition simply cannot connect the dots - particularly for someone who does not identify as a feminist - between harmless acts of sexual interest and debilitating acts of sexual violence. To those who don't yet see the connection, the Fems' response looks like a moralizing, knee-jerk reaction that rests on falsehoods.
Be the first to comment on this story