"The Playboy Club"

[erg923]

---

Members don't see this ad.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44335313/ns/today-entertainment/

Interesting article about some upcoming shows this fall. Obviously, an attempt to take advantage of the runaway success of Mad Men. My wife (more so than me, actually) is very anxious to check out "The Playboy Club" and "Pan-Am." She sent me this article this morning due to her outrage over the following quote in the article.

"Christine Baranski, co-star of "The Good Wife," has similarly chimed in, telling New York Magazine, I'm rather appalled that they're now making television shows about Playboy bunnies and stewardesses ... I think, 'Really?

Below is the the email message my wife sent me. What do people think?

This woman probably has a good heart, but as usual, I find her neofeminist views to be more demeaning than empowering. I guess she thinks models and stewardesses are a little beneath her, huh?

Ok, if you dont want to jump into that minefield, I understand. Below is another quote from the article that I thought was interesting. Anyone care to discuss?

Martha M. Lauzen, Ph.D., the executive director for Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film, suggests that, particularly in dour financial times, male viewers — not to mention the overwhelmingly male decision-makers at the networks — might be looking to retreat into less complicated, more comforting times.
"In times of economic and social upheaval and difficulty, nostalgia and a longing for an era when life seemed simpler tend to bloom," Lauzen said. "That could be especially true in an era when men — at least the ones not on TV, anyway — find themselves losing economic and social ground to the fairer sex."

 

[cara susanna]

I hope the Playboy Club fails because I hate Playboy and everything it stands for, but I am excited about Pan-Am.

 

[erg923]

Fair enough. However, given that view, I'm curious why you dont equally despise the industry that trained "stewardesses" back in the 50s and 60s? Did it not really "stand for" and represent the same thing/attitude? Sexily clad beautiful women serving you drinks and here for your pleasure, no?

 

[cara susanna]

Well, the concept of stewardesses in itself does not boil down to sexually objectifying women. It's basically people who are supposed to assist and wait on passengers, as well as help organize things in emergencies. I also don't really think the old flight attendant uniforms were that revealing. Even if there are sexist aspects to it, it's not an inherently sexist concept in itself--if so, then waiting tables is sexist as well.

That said, if Pan-Am plays up the objectification aspect I will not watch it and hope for its failure as well.

 

[erg923]

That said, if Pan-Am plays up the objectification aspect I will not watch it and hope for its failure as well.

So, if it portrays a realistic historical picture of the enviorment that women worked in during that time, in that industry, you will not watch it?

 

[cara susanna]

Well, it depends. I'm not against realistic depictions of history, I don't always think characters should have modern viewpoints that would be unlikely in said time. The issue comes down to glamorization and romanticism. Playboy Club is being criticized because it supposedly makes the lifestyle look great with no subtext or indication that maybe it's not. If Pan-Am does the same, I will not be happy with it either.

Like I said though, it probably all boils down to my hating Playboy with a passion. The airlines have reformed a lot, Playboy has not. And in fact, Playboy's very concept prevents it from being reformed because it would destroy it. If the women got to dress however they wanted and men could also be bunnies, it would lose its appeal. That's not really true for stewards.

 

[roubs]

The following is from an Atlantic article about women in media, and while it obviously has a POV I think we can still take these facts as facts:

This year, the number of women in Congress dropped for the first time since 1978. Last year, women held only 15.7 percent of board seats and 14.4 percent of executive officer positions in Fortune 500 companies. A new study shows that the number of women working as writers and directors on prime-time television programs dropped significantly in the 2010-11 season. Women now account for only 15 percent of writers on the major television networks' prime-time dramas, comedies, and reality shows, down from 29 percent in the 2009-10 season. Only 11 percent of directors in this year's television season were women, compared with 16 percent last season, and only 25 percent of series creators, producers, executive producers, directors, writers, editors and directors of photography were women, representing a decline of two percentage points from last season. By every significant measure of social, political, and cultural power, today's women are losing ground.

I don't really know what neofeminist means, but given that women are as much consumers of media as men are, is it inappropriate to think there should be more parity in who is pulling the levers?

The article also brings up this: http://bechdeltest.com/ -- though with TV I'd assume they have enough air to fill that they'll HAVE to eventually talk about something that isn't about a man or getting ready to look good for a man.

 

[erg923]

Well, it depends. I'm not against realistic depictions of history, I don't always think characters should have modern viewpoints that would be unlikely in said time. The issue comes down to glamorization and romanticism. Playboy Club is being criticized because it supposedly makes the lifestyle look great with no subtext or indication that maybe it's not.

I respect that view, but I would have to argue that almost all vice industries have a natural element of glamour and romanticism. And I think it OK to acknowlege that. The mafia for example. I doubt you boycotted "The Sopranos" because it (to some extent) glamorized, popularized, and celebrated the Mafia lifestyle? I didn't see anyone boycott the "The Wire" because it used Baltimore's illegal drug trade and decaying urban ghettos as entertainment?

Similarly, I would argue that the sexism and traditional gender roles depicted in Mad Men are not explicity glamorized at all. There are indeed some small subplots that deal with how the women struggle with their identities and careers in the face of this enviorment. However, what is so beautiful about the show is that is generally doesn't dumb itself down for its audience. It leaves it up to the audience to see the inherent "wrongness" of some of the acts and attitudes it depicts. I think they expect us to see that pretty plainly. Thus, I think with shows like Mad Men, the educated viewer probably "gets it" more than the passive, uneducated viewer.

 

[cara susanna]

Yeah, like I said, it's probably just because I hate Playboy so I am super biased. 😉 I also find the "golden age" of the airlines interesting, and I'm willing to put up with the objectification and watch Pan-Am for that reason.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Yeah, like I said, it's probably just because I hate Playboy so I am super biased. 😉 I also find the "golden age" of the airlines interesting, and I'm willing to put up with the objectification and watch Pan-Am for that reason.

Heh. My brother is always going on about how much more awesome flying was in the 1980's, and I usually remind him that he was four when that decade ended, so...

Judging from the one commercial I've seen, Playboy looks pretty awful in every way, including entertainment value, so I probably won't be watching.

 

[cara susanna]

Yeah, the pilots I know say that show will just depress them because it will remind them of how bad things are now vs. how they used to be. 😉

Right, I think Playboy is going to be more sex-focused because it's on a network that is known for that. Pan-Am is on ABC so I think it will probably be a lot tamer.

 

[stigmata]

The real "feminist" view is that women should have the right to knowingly engage in the objectification of their gender if they so choose.

 

[PerhapsMaybeOk]

I'd be dying to know what you three think about the upsurge (no pun intended) of gay culture into the mainstream. I think I saw a study that stated pornography is dominated by gay porn now; so this begs the question: who is being objectified and what does this say about gender?

 

[cara susanna]

There are a lot of studies about sex differences in objectification. For instance, men are uncomfortable upon seeing other men objectified, but women are not at all uncomfortable upon seeing other women objectified. The proposed reason behind these results is that women are used to constantly seeing themselves objectified, whereas men are not.

Disclaimer: This isn't actually my research area, though, so I'm no expert.

 

[erg923]

I'd be dying to know what you three think about the upsurge (no pun intended) of gay culture into the mainstream. I think I saw a study that stated pornography is dominated by gay porn now; so this begs the question: who is being objectified and what does this say about gender?

I don't know nothin about no gay porn...but Will & Grace is the funniest show ever, IMHO.

 

[DrGachet]

There are a lot of studies about sex differences in objectification. For instance, men are uncomfortable upon seeing other men objectified, but women are not at all uncomfortable upon seeing other women objectified. The proposed reason behind these results is that women are used to constantly seeing themselves objectified, whereas men are not.

Disclaimer: This isn't actually my research area, though, so I'm no expert.

Yeah, god forbid anybody should come up with any biological reasons for preference for domination/submission. Not saying upbringing/culture plays no role, but that the truth is somewhere in between.

 

[DrGachet]

The real "feminist" view is that women should have the right to knowingly engage in the objectification of their gender if they so choose.

That always pisses me off. In our postmodern world, everything is about rights and empowering minus any values or morals. Heck, I think it's my right..and also empowering to walk around naked...if certain something was all that it could be and should be when exposed to cold air.

I really should not have said that. I feel very disempowered now.

 

[roubs]

The problem with objectification is that there is an international slave trade in women. Somehow millions of men think its alright to pay for sex and evade the question "Is this person a slave?". I'm not moralizing about prostitution, what the Germans are doing seems alright. I'm saying there is a reason women need to be empowered, and there is clear evidence that there is not full equality between the sexes. I don't think pan-am or Playboy causes human trafficking, but it is legitimate to ask: what contributes to this demand, what can be done to eliminate it?

 

[FadedC]

Out of curiosity though, when they say that men are uncomfortable seeing other men objectified, do they mean objectified by women or by gay men? It seems to me that there are likely to be two very different processes in play for why they might object to each type of objectification.

There are a lot of studies about sex differences in objectification. For instance, men are uncomfortable upon seeing other men objectified, but women are not at all uncomfortable upon seeing other women objectified. The proposed reason behind these results is that women are used to constantly seeing themselves objectified, whereas men are not.

Disclaimer: This isn't actually my research area, though, so I'm no expert.

 

[thepug]

Yeah, like I said, it's probably just because I hate Playboy so I am super biased. 😉 I also find the "golden age" of the airlines interesting, and I'm willing to put up with the objectification and watch Pan-Am for that reason.

I can only see Playboy as artistic expression. The body is the canvass and our (us males) base reaction to the material is the interpretation. What is beautiful about it is there is no snobbery.

You don't have to be some kind of porn expert to appreciate or not appreciate the material on the page. It is your primal instinct that informs you as to the quality of the pictorial and I find that fascinating.

Who says the women on the page are supposed to be female role models? That is like asking the very paint on a Degas or Picasso to be a role model. I just don't understand your qualm with Playboy.

Now teenage girls that have t-shirts or earrings with the bunny symbol...OK fine, but to dislike the magazine I wish to understand further your attitude.

Now, I expect this is not your reasoning, but I would only hate a porn magazine if it featured a male that was more attractive and endowed than myself WHICH the mainstream opposite sex actually paid attention to (purchased). Honestly, I think if porn only featured unattractive females nobody would be griping aside from the male audience 😱😱😱😱

Look, I feel sorry for you gals. I can almost begin to feel where you are coming from in your absolute hate for...well skanks.

 

[wigflip]

Similarly, I would argue that the sexism and traditional gender roles depicted in Mad Men are not explicity glamorized at all. There are indeed some small subplots that deal with how the women struggle with their identities and careers in the face of this enviorment. However, what is so beautiful about the show is that is generally doesn't dumb itself down for its audience. It leaves it up to the audience to see the inherent "wrongness" of some of the acts and attitudes it depicts. I think they expect us to see that pretty plainly. Thus, I think with shows like Mad Men, the educated viewer probably "gets it" more than the passive, uneducated viewer.

I don't watch Madmen, but I think erg might be on the right track here (though I'll add that cultural studies folks would assert that all shows, dumbed down or not, offer the opportunity for an audience to read the text "subversively"--read/watch "The Celluloid Closet" for great analysis of representations and readings of queerness in film.)

I'm guessing that neither of the shows under discussion are going to have a genuinely critical take on women's employment in these sexualized/gendered work environments (note Christina Ricci's idiotic quote). But we'll really only know more once these shows get off the ground, unless anyone has an inside wo/man who can get ahold of the show bible (sets forth the arc of the season, rules for the show and for particular characters).

Erg, your wife might like "Swingtown"--it was a summer replacement series a few summers back (only a single season, and available on netflix). Really interesting show set in 1976 (note--after Roe vs Wade), that on the face of it, looked like it was going to be sleazy/titillating pap. Promoted as cheesecake/soft core show about "the [swinging] lifestyle", but as the season wore on, it turns out it was really much more about the women, their perspectives, and the constraints as well as opportunities afforded women as gender roles, sexuality, and the dynamics of relationships shifted in the wake of second wave feminism. In the fifth or sixth episode, some of the women organize around the Harry Reems Deep Throat obscenity trial. I think part of the reason the show may have been cancelled was the apparent mismatch between it's promotion and the actual POV of the show.

Someone else brought up the LGB (or perhaps just G?) factor in programming. I've heard some assert that episodic TV is actually the best venue for exploring and representing bisexuality. In a typical 90 minute film, bisexuals mostly get represented via tired stereotypes: cheating, fence-sitting, indecision. Otherwise, the character's bisexuality isn't "visible." But episodic TV provides the time for more nuanced exploration of bisexual attraction and identity over the course of the season.

 

[cara susanna]

I can only see Playboy as artistic expression. The body is the canvass and our (us males) base reaction to the material is the interpretation. What is beautiful about it is there is no snobbery.

You don't have to be some kind of porn expert to appreciate or not appreciate the material on the page. It is your primal instinct that informs you as to the quality of the pictorial and I find that fascinating.

Who says the women on the page are supposed to be female role models? That is like asking the very paint on a Degas or Picasso to be a role model. I just don't understand your qualm with Playboy.

Now teenage girls that have t-shirts or earrings with the bunny symbol...OK fine, but to dislike the magazine I wish to understand further your attitude.

Now, I expect this is not your reasoning, but I would only hate a porn magazine if it featured a male that was more attractive and endowed than myself WHICH the mainstream opposite sex actually paid attention to (purchased). Honestly, I think if porn only featured unattractive females nobody would be griping aside from the male audience 😱😱😱😱

Look, I feel sorry for you gals. I can almost begin to feel where you are coming from in your absolute hate for...well skanks.

Honestly, it's really hard for men to understand what the everyday experience of women is like, the messages we are constantly bombarded with. The fact that you assume that we hate porn because it shows women who are prettier than us basically shows your lack of understanding. I recommend that you look into the feminist theory behind porn and objectification, there are many blogs that explain it far better than I will. Keep in mind that I don't speak for all women, either.

Porn portrays us as nothing but mere sex objects. We are told that posing naked in Playboy is empowering. If that is the case, then why aren't Donald Trump and Obama doing it? When people objectify women, they send us the message that we are only bodies, pretty things to look at and nothing else. And if we're not pretty, which is set by the ideal of that photoshopped pinup, what do we have to offer? Nothing. And the difference is that when men pose, they are often shown in positions of power and authority. Women are shown in as little clothing as possible and doing something seductive.

Men can be ugly or fat in mainstream media and do fine. The nerdy or overweight guy in movies gets the hot girl without having to change a thing about himself. When you see a nerdy girl in a movie, she has to be made over to look hot enough before anything good can happen to her. When you see a fat girl in a movie, she's usually the best friend who doesn't get to have romance, her weight is constantly brought up, and if she gets a guy it's "despite" her body shape. When a female celebrity gains a few lbs, numerous photos are taken and pregnancy rumors are spread. When a male celebrity gains a few lbs, no one says anything.

However, despite my views on porn in general, I hate Playboy for other reasons. First off, Hugh Hefner is a misogynist who wants a flock of pretty women around him to always look good. He promotes only a certain type of woman (thin, big breasts, usually blonde) as worthy of his or the male gaze. If one of his girls gains weight, he says something about it. His girls are expected to service him sexually--does he do anything with their pleasure in mind? Nope. He also doesn't use any form of protection, exposing these ladies to all sorts of diseases. Also, Playboy cartoons have been known to have very sexist and outright offensive content, such as making jokes about rape.

I feel the same way about Playboy as I do about pole dancing classes: we told that they're empowering, but seriously? I don't know how anyone can think that they are. We're not encouraging women to find their own sexuality, we're encouraging them to conform to men's version of sexuality, what men want in women, as portrayed by popular culture.

 

[wigflip]

We're not encouraging women to find their own sexuality, we're encouraging them to conform to men's version of sexuality, what men want in women, as portrayed by popular culture.

Nicely said.

 

[wigflip]

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44335313/ns/today-entertainment/
"Christine Baranski, co-star of "The Good Wife," has similarly chimed in, telling New York Magazine, I'm rather appalled that they're now making television shows about Playboy bunnies and stewardesses ... I think, 'Really?

Below is the the email message my wife sent me. What do people think?

This woman probably has a good heart, but as usual, I find her neofeminist views to be more demeaning than empowering. I guess she thinks models and stewardesses are a little beneath her, huh?

Given the context of Baranski's quote within the article, I think the point was not that the working women depicted in these shows are occupationally "beneath her." Rather that this is the state of TV, networks are most comfortable portraying women in this particular light--as sexy and servile. Contrast the "travel is fun!" message (granted--it's Ricci's attempt to promote the show) with the reality that flight attendants then and now have to smile and be pleasant while being insulted, ogled, and sometimes actually assaulted in the course of their daily work. Also compare the concept of the new shows as well with the representation of women in self-identified feminist Joss Whedon's shows over the course of the last decade (Buffy, Firefly, Dollhouse). There are alternative ways of representing women, as Baranski's own show, "The Good Wife" indicates

 

[roubs]

...We're not encouraging women to find their own sexuality, we're encouraging them to conform to men's version of sexuality, what men want in women, as portrayed by popular culture.

Nail, meet head. Boom.

 

[erg923]

I feel the same way about Playboy as I do about pole dancing classes: we told that they're empowering, but seriously? I don't know how anyone can think that they are. We're not encouraging women to find their own sexuality, we're encouraging them to conform to men's version of sexuality, what men want in women, as portrayed by popular culture.

...OMG they were just promoting this last week (had a table with a rep) at my VA intenship at the employee health fare. I was kinda shocked. My wife would actually probably like that kind of thing, although I found it to be a little trashy. 🙄

 

[FadedC]

I feel the same way about Playboy as I do about pole dancing classes: we told that they're empowering, but seriously? I don't know how anyone can think that they are. We're not encouraging women to find their own sexuality, we're encouraging them to conform to men's version of sexuality, what men want in women, as portrayed by popular culture.

I'm kind of reminded of this article in the onion

http://www.theonion.com/articles/women-now-empowered-by-everything-a-woman-does,1398/

In more serious terms, I find that different women have vastly different views of feminism and what it means to be empowered. People use it to describe such a wide range of contradictory behaviors that you could say that the term empowerment has lost any real meaning.

 

[wigflip]

Men can be ugly or fat in mainstream media and do fine. The nerdy or overweight guy in movies gets the hot girl without having to change a thing about himself. When you see a nerdy girl in a movie, she has to be made over to look hot enough before anything good can happen to her. When you see a fat girl in a movie, she's usually the best friend who doesn't get to have romance, her weight is constantly brought up, and if she gets a guy it's "despite" her body shape. When a female celebrity gains a few lbs, numerous photos are taken and pregnancy rumors are spread. When a male celebrity gains a few lbs, no one says anything.

Un besote, cara susana. Love you for bringing in weight/body size.

On that note, you're sure to love this horror just as much as I do. I strongly recommend reading the entire article because there are some real doozies at the end.

http://www.rr.com/entertainment/top...age_explodes_over_rhyming_diet_picture_book/1

 

[wigflip]

In more serious terms, I find that different women have vastly different views of feminism and what it means to be empowered. People use it to describe such a wide range of contradictory behaviors that you could say that the term empowerment has lost any real meaning.

Great Onion link, Faded C.

There have always been multiple branches of feminism--even the early suffragist organizations had major ideological splits. That's not necessarily a problem for women or feminism. You hint at the problem: in popular parlance, "empowerment" has come to signify personal empowerment. I don't see a lot of solidarity amongst young, third-wave feminists. It's "rights-for-me" oriented. There's also the Raunch Culture/Female Chauvinist Pigs argument:

http://www.wiretapmag.org/stories/35566/

 

[cara susanna]

Ughh, that's terrible. The Onion article is funny because the Simpsons touched on that, too (Lisa: "Well, as a feminist, I believe that virtually anything a woman does is empowering!")

I've had a LOT of people argue with me about pole dancing classes as something that in itself is good, clean exercise, it's just been associated with sex. I argue that as it was explicitly developed within the context of objectification, it cannot be neutral. That article just supports my belief. Even the professional pole-dancing competitors have to wear relatively minimal clothing (they argue you have to in order to stay on the pole or something Not sure if that's true or not).

I own a copy of Female Chauvenistic Pigs. Loooove it because it articulated something that I had been thinking all along. It all started when Bridesmaids became popular because it was a "female version of The Hangover." I saw it and while it was funny, I also felt like it was trying really hard to have gross-out humor and be like those male-oriented raunchy comedies. That also contributed to my belief that a lot of people equate being "gender-neutral" with being more like a man.

 

[stigmata]

Rights are essentially granted to individuals not to those who identify with a specefic group. That is where things get murky and you start seeing comments such as "she needs to be a role model for women's rights" etc...

 

[cara susanna]

Well, most feminist writings that I've read state that you shouldn't get angry with a woman for acting in ways that you think are harmful to women's rights. She's just trying to "play the game" that she's been taught.

For instance, if a woman uses her sexuality to get ahead in life, can we really blame her? She's just using the best and most successful method that she knows to obtain more power. It's the patriarchy that's to blame, not her, she's just making the best that she can of her own individual situation.

 

[wigflip]

Rights are essentially granted to individuals not to those who identify with a specefic group. That is where things get murky and you start seeing comments such as "she needs to be a role model for women's rights" etc...

Actually, from a legal standpoint rights are granted to categories/groups of people, not individuals. Example: when you are applying for asylum you have to prove that your persecution is based upon your membership in one of the five enumerated groups (FYI, none is gender).

From Cornell Law Review (Harivandi, 2010)
http://legalworkshop.org/2010/04/21/cornell-law-review-post

"Membership in a particular social group is the most appropriate and most common category for applicants seeking asylum based on FGM. Essentially, a particular social group is "a group of persons all of whom share a common, immutable characteristic."8 A characteristic is immutable if "members of the group either cannot change [the characteristic], or should not be required to change [it] because it is fundamental to their individual identities or consciences."9 An immutable characteristic can be "innate or experiential."10 Notably, some courts have balked at defining any "particular social group" too broadly."

 

[stigmata]

Actually that is the problem. The constitution gives rights to individuals, natural law does the same. Case law is PC BS gone wrong.

 

[paramour]

That always pisses me off. In our postmodern world, everything is about rights and empowering minus any values or morals. Heck, I think it's my right..and also empowering to walk around naked...if certain something was all that it could be and should be when exposed to cold air.

I really should not have said that. I feel very disempowered now.

Right there with you. If I desire to walk around sans clothing, it's my damned right to do so (although I'm not sure if I would go so far as to say that I believe it feels empowering--or that I feel empowered by it--it's simply natural). You're not in my house when it's happening, and if you're peeking over my privacy fence and see something you'd rather not... well, that's your own damned problem. I hope you (don't really) have a heart attack, old man.

I can only see Playboy as artistic expression. The body is the canvass and our (us males) base reaction to the material is the interpretation. What is beautiful about it is there is no snobbery.

You don't have to be some kind of porn expert to appreciate or not appreciate the material on the page. It is your primal instinct that informs you as to the quality of the pictorial and I find that fascinating.

Who says the women on the page are supposed to be female role models? That is like asking the very paint on a Degas or Picasso to be a role model. I just don't understand your qualm with Playboy.

Now teenage girls that have t-shirts or earrings with the bunny symbol...OK fine, but to dislike the magazine I wish to understand further your attitude.

Now, I expect this is not your reasoning, but I would only hate a porn magazine if it featured a male that was more attractive and endowed than myself WHICH the mainstream opposite sex actually paid attention to (purchased). Honestly, I think if porn only featured unattractive females nobody would be griping aside from the male audience 😱😱😱😱

Look, I feel sorry for you gals. I can almost begin to feel where you are coming from in your absolute hate for...well skanks.

As a female consumer of porn, I actually do gripe when the models/actors (male/female) do not meet my personal perception of attractiveness. It has absolutely nothing to do with me thinking that they're more attractive than myself. And I certainly do not "hate" them. They're simply ruining or limiting my viewing selection because someone's ideal of an overly done (if not surgically enhanced) big chested, beach blonde female with overdone make-up as the model of perfection tends to make into entirely too many of these mags/videos.

I'm kind of reminded of this article in the onion

http://www.theonion.com/articles/women-now-empowered-by-everything-a-woman-does,1398/

In more serious terms, I find that different women have vastly different views of feminism and what it means to be empowered. People use it to describe such a wide range of contradictory behaviors that you could say that the term empowerment has lost any real meaning.

Thanks for the link to the Onion article. Amusing.

 

[roubs]

Actually that is the problem. The constitution gives rights to individuals, natural law does the same. Case law is PC BS gone wrong.

Actually both the constitution and many statutory laws have a lot to say about groups. Groups of individuals :/

 

[stigmata]

like?

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Most all deal with individual rights.

 

[roubs]

like?

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Most all deal with individual rights.

Most do. Did you click through to Amendments 11-27? 🙂

I mean using modifiers like "most" is kinda a red herring. You could argue most things in this world affect groups like the sexes equally, so it would be silly in many areas to invoke groups. Clearly there are some areas where groups do matter, and in those areas the law does address groups. For example, when prior law addressed groups and excluded certain ones from certain rights.

 

[wigflip]

A few examples of where law confers/denies or historically denied rights upon categories of people:

1. anti-misegenation laws
2. abortion laws
3. consent laws
4. sodomy laws
5. property laws (women lacked property rights--in some states couldn't own their own business into the 1970s)
6. marital rape laws (well into the latter part of the twentieth century, in many states a man could rape "his" wife without fear of legal recourse because marital rape was an oxymoron)
7. sorry gay folks, no marriage for you
8. need I remind you about slavery?
9. rapes laws which don't acknowledge man-on-man rape
10. there are articles in respectable legal journals regarding how membership in multiple groups (women of color, lesbian women) can impede seeking legal recourse for discrimination because the law bases rights on the model of dominant group members (men of color or white women, or gay men and straight women, respectively). See Crenshaw, Littleton.

Individuals apply for recourse when their rights have been infringed upon. These and other types of rights are granted or withheld based on group membership.

 

[stigmata]

That's a bit of a stretch...we all accept that people have been discriminated against via laws and still are. The point is that "rights" are essentially individual and should be. Creating new "rights" for people who identify with a group that has historically been denied rights may win the battle but ultimately loses the war. Equal rights for all does not equal special rights for some such as affirmative action or selection preferences of any kind. People who believe these practices are just are not for equal rights at all, but are for bettering their own situation, alleviating guilt or pandering. At my office we employ a fulltime lesbian psych assistant, a fulltime female psychologist born in India, a fulltime female muslim receptionist, someone with a disability and the only other employees are myself and the senior partner (white males). This is the case not because we employed any preferential hiring, strove for diversity or even tried, but because these people were the best candidates.

 

[roubs]

That's a bit of a stretch...we all accept that people have been discriminated against via laws and still are. The point is that "rights" are essentially individual and should be. Creating new "rights" for people who identify with a group that has historically been denied rights may win the battle but ultimately loses the war. Equal rights for all does not equal special rights for some such as affirmative action or selection preferences of any kind. People who believe these practices are just are not for equal rights at all, but are for bettering their own situation, alleviating guilt or pandering. At my office we employ a fulltime lesbian psych assistant, a fulltime female psychologist born in India, a fulltime female muslim receptionist, someone with a disability and the only other employees are myself and the senior partner (white males). This is the case not because we employed any preferential hiring, strove for diversity or even tried, but because these people were the best candidates.

You say "we all accept that people have been discriminated against via laws and still are." but really it is people's group membership which formed the basis for such discrimination against individuals. Clearly you don't engage in it, but some do. I'll resist the temptation to turn this into a full fledged affirmative action debate 😛

 

[wigflip]

You say "we all accept that people have been discriminated against via laws and still are." but really it is people's group membership which formed the basis for such discrimination against individuals. Clearly you don't engage in it, but some do. I'll resist the temptation to turn this into a full fledged affirmative action debate 😛

Yes. Yes. Yes.

 

[DrGachet]

That's a bit of a stretch...we all accept that people have been discriminated against via laws and still are. The point is that "rights" are essentially individual and should be. Creating new "rights" for people who identify with a group that has historically been denied rights may win the battle but ultimately loses the war. Equal rights for all does not equal special rights for some such as affirmative action or selection preferences of any kind. People who believe these practices are just are not for equal rights at all, but are for bettering their own situation, alleviating guilt or pandering. At my office we employ a fulltime lesbian psych assistant, a fulltime female psychologist born in India, a fulltime female muslim receptionist, someone with a disability and the only other employees are myself and the senior partner (white males). This is the case not because we employed any preferential hiring, strove for diversity or even tried, but because these people were the best candidates.

A classmate of mine, a member of a minority--in more than one way, has lived a better life than a number of people who are considered the majority. This person came from a wealthy family. Both parents were surgeons. Born and raised in a very nice neighborhood in Florida. Came to school in a Mercedes AMG. I took the bus.

In my mind, that is different than, say, the case of a recent refugee from a war-torn village in Iraq or Sudan.

But I hate to be the one making the decision. I would need to do it on a case by case basis as opposed to solely focusing on group membership. But to be fair to the person, I would need to do a thorough assessment (social/family/medical history, the whole thing) as opposed to just a quick interview. Of course, we can't because for one thing, it's too time consuming. So we're left with these rules of thumb, these quick, dirty, and necessarily inaccurate, ways of determining which average candidate needs to be given the benefit of a doubt. Doing so, in some cases, is both the rational and compassionate thing. In some cases, it's neither.

 

[paramour]

Thought about this thread when I went to court for work yesterday morning. The Playboy Club was filming inside the local courthouse (and apparently has been all week). Everyone is most definitely not enthused or impressed with the entire ordeal--at least in the legal arena. 😛

 

[aventurine]

Erg, your wife might like "Swingtown"--it was a summer replacement series a few summers back (only a single season, and available on netflix). Really interesting show set in 1976 (note--after Roe vs Wade), that on the face of it, looked like it was going to be sleazy/titillating pap. Promoted as cheesecake/soft core show about "the [swinging] lifestyle", but as the season wore on, it turns out it was really much more about the women, their perspectives, and the constraints as well as opportunities afforded women as gender roles, sexuality, and the dynamics of relationships shifted in the wake of second wave feminism. In the fifth or sixth episode, some of the women organize around the Harry Reems Deep Throat obscenity trial. I think part of the reason the show may have been cancelled was the apparent mismatch between it's promotion and the actual POV of the show.

I really enjoyed this show and was disappointed when it was canceled. Like Freaks and Geeks, it was promising, but wasn't given a chance.

 

[wigflip]

I hope the Playboy Club fails because I hate Playboy and everything it stands for

You got your wish, Cara. Playboy Club--CANCELLED after 3 episodes.

Looks like Gloria Steinem got her wish as well. As you probably know, she went undercover as a bunny. I was flipping through the channels and saw a snippet of what was probably the last episode--appeared to be exploring a fictionalized Steinem undercover plot, which grabbed my attention. It's all moot now.

http://www.thewrap.com/tv/article/gloria-steinem-says-viewers-should-boycott-playboy-club-29955

 

[cara susanna]

Haha, I'm happy it was cancelled but I do feel sorry for the actors.

Jon: Reread the thread, I explain myself more fully 😛

 

[erg923]

Haha, I'm happy it was cancelled but I do feel sorry for the actors.

Jon: Reread the thread, I explain myself more fully 😛

Well, I apologize guys. The show was indeed awful. Poor writing and couldn't have cared less about the characters. Yawn...

 

[Jeina]

Is that true? You don't think Christie would get huge flak for his weight if he ran for president? There are many examples of the same type of bias with men. Appearance matters in our society, for better for for worse, regardless of gender.]



Actually, there's some evidence to suggest that greater body weight is an asset to men in politics, oddly enough. Check this out: http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v18/n4/full/oby2009492a.html

 

[wigflip]

There are certainly many examples of the nerdy guy not getting the hot girl in media and most definitely in real life! Nerds tend to get picked up mercilessly.

You mean "picked on," right?
I'd think some nerds would like to get picked up mercilessly.