Ali Campoverdi
I set off a firestorm of criticism this morning when I posted this picture of Ali Campoverde. Well, I’m really gonna piss ‘em off now.
The picture came from the article I linked to, and was published in Maxim magazine in 2004 and is available from multiple sources on the Internet.
Ms. Campoverde is a aide to a White House deputy chief of staff and is rumored to be the girlfriend of President Obama’s chief speechwriter Jon Favreau. She grew up in upper-middle class Santa Monica, graduated from the University of Southern California and from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. The picture was taken after she graduated from USC.
After she appeared in Maxim she appeared in the movies The Aviator and Constantine and the reality dating show For Love or Money (where she was a ‘million-dollar girl’) and she was a finalist for the The Apprentice.
As Gawker put it:
And does it say anything about the Millennial Generation’s take on feminism that she’s happily reconciled reality dating TV with an Ivy League education; lingerie photo spreads with a high-powered political job?
According to my critics, I am “slut shaming” Ms. Campoverde by publishing the picture she voluntarily posed for in her underwear. “Shaming” is the present participle of “shame” which Mirriam Webster defines as:
1 a: a painful emotion caused by consciousness of guilt, shortcoming, or impropriety b: the susceptibility to such emotion <have you no shame?>
2: a condition of humiliating disgrace or disrepute : ignominy <the shame of being arrested>
The last time I checked, it was the official feminist position that pornography and the objectification of women was a bad thing, something to be disapproved of. Some feminists seem to want to put all the blame for porn and the objectification of women on the “patriarchy” (men) and hold women blameless.
You can’t have it both ways. If porn and the objectification of women is bad, then it should be condemned, along with the people (male and female) who willingly participate. By “condemned” I don’t mean punished, I mean that we should disapprove of the conduct.
I’m not talking about expressing disapproval for a woman’s sexual behavior. This isn’t about who she has sex with, how many people she has sex with, or her marital status when she has sex. It’s not about her sexual orientation or the way she dresses either.
Maxim magazine is Playboy without nudity. Ms. Campoverde was not modeling ”intimate apparel” for a catalog. She was not helping to market lingerie to other women. She was posing in skimpy underwear for the sexual gratification of men.
One of my critics asked:
Are underwear models “bad”?
To which I responded:
Would it make a difference if she was a Playboy centerfold, a stripper, Nevada prostitute or a porn star?
All of those are legal occupations. Are we supposed to completely non-judgmental about such things? Or where is the line?
If someone wants to argue that Maxim magazine isn’t soft-core porn and/or doesn’t objectify women, I’m willing to listen.
The picture wasn’t taken without Ms. Campoverde’s knowledge, nor was it supposed to be kept private. She posed willingly, and probably received monetary compensation. While we often hear that many if not most women are compelled to participate in porn by economic or other circumstances, that is not the case here.
There is a basic fallacy in the idea that “women shouldn’t be blamed for trying to navigate the patriarchy the best way they can.” First of all, engaging in pornography (softcore or otherwise) isn’t an option for all women, it’s only an option for women who are considered sexually attractive.
Secondly, objectification affects all women, and men too. If a woman flirts and dresses provocatively to get a job, is that fair to the women (and men) who don’t? If some women are willing to trade sexual favors to get a promotion, doesn’t that put pressure on the others? If a man askes a woman for sex in exchange for a promotion we would call it sexual harassment. But what if it was her idea?
Was it called ”slut shaming” when we condemned Jon Favreau over the picture of him groping the cardboard cut-out of Hillary? Were we “slut shaming” Obama when we posted pictures and clips of him insulting and denigrating Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin? What about when we criticized Amber Lee Ettinger (aka “Obama Girl”) for shaking her booty in that notorious video?
Women must be held accountable for their conduct just like men. That’s part of the “equality” thingie. Bad conduct can be mitigated, excused or forgiven based on the circumstances, but it’s still bad conduct. We should express disapproval for conduct we disapprove of. If that causes the people doing it to feel shame, well, that’s the point, isn’t it?
————————————————————————————–
BTW – I can tell you ahead of time that the response of the PUMA-obsessed blogstalkers will be to dredge up some lame joke I made months ago and accuse me of hypocrisy. Those overflowing commodes of misogyny feel no cognitive dissonance lecturing me on feminism. They attack me personally because they have nothing else to offer, no substantive arguments. But then again what else can you expect from people whose sole purpose in the blogosphere is to stalk and harass PUMAs?
Filed under: General
Great post, myiq. Lots to think about. My own take is that I don’t have a problem with men or women doing what they need to do to make money legally. However, if this woman posed for reasons other than because she desperately needed the money, IMO she has deliberately cheapened herself.
MYIQ:
Very well put!
Maxim is a rag.
grayslady:
I have a little problem with condemning guys who look at porn but defending the women who pose for it.
Oh nooo! This debate again. Gave me a heartburn earlier today, and my stomach was just settling down. But if we must… Gotta go back and finish reading the comments on SM’s post. Be back..
I couldn’t care less if this woman posed for Maxim in practically nonexistent lingerie. My problem with her is that she apparently calls herself a “feminist” and then chooses to work for an employer (Barack Obama) who is a viscious misogynist who denigrates women and allows his employees to denigrate women without repercussions. And she chooses as her boyfriend another disgusting misogynist. Just because she’s a woman, I don’t have to refrain from that judgement. I respect her right to make her own choices, and I claim my right to comment on her choices, particularly because she is in the public eye and could influence other young women to follow her example.
http://gawker.com/5139883/ali-campoverdi-obama-hottie-feminist-paradox
Grayslady – she didn’t need the money, she’s smart & comes from a upper middle class family. She wanted to be famous, hence her stints in bit movie roles, her posing in Maxim and participation in reality shows before dating Favreau & her move to the White House Staff.
myiq….I have a friend who translates foriegn porn into english for the subtitles….
talk about a wast of time who watches foriegn porn for the subtitlled dialog?
52 yo female (feminist, PUMA), long time lurker here…
I am experiencing some cognitive dissonance after reading this post. So I have some questions…
How does this post support and promote feminism?
How does this post support and promote the PUMA movement?
The phrases.. “Ministry of Morals” and “Favreau Derangement Syndrome” come to mind. Also “catty” and not in a good way.
Normally I love what you write, miq2xu, but I don’t get the point of this diatribe.
It’s no wonder Frat Boy likes her. He probably bottle-feeds his beer to her.
it actually pays well Myiq! translating porn
Would the standard be the same for a male posing in a magazine geared to women’s or men’s sexual amusement?
*shrug* Ali is the same generation of people who thought Obie was “CHANGE” so I’m not that surprised she has a warped definition of “feminism,” in my opinion anyway.
dragoneyes, I’m experiencing some cognitive dissonance myself. HOW could you possibly LOVE what MyIQ writes but not get the point of “this diatribe”?
Geithner has named a Goldman-Sachs lobbyist as his chief of staff.
Change you can believe in, folks.
Grayslady,
In my opinion, anyone can do whatever they want to make a living as long as the behavior is legal. Anyone has the right embarrass themself if they want to. I just don’t think anyone has the right to tell me not to express my opinion about what a public person chooses to do.
“she didn’t need the money, she’s smart & comes from a upper middle class family. ”
You have no idea whether or not she needed the money. Many desperately poor people are smart. Many desperately poor people came from upper middle class families.
“I have a little problem with condemning guys who look at porn but defending the women who pose for it.”
This is, honestly, such a ridiculous thing to say that I have trouble believing that you really think this.
Dragon:
MYIQ is responding to the critics to his earlier post.
Some commenters had issue for him posting this picture – which is a picture that is being used everywhere covering the Favreau/Campoverdi romance.
I see her as the RiverDaughter example of the Female Obot who is a “Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Model with PhDs in Architecture.”
I’m not offended by the photo, but I can see how some could be offended by it.
What I’m offended at is Favreau using his office to hire his girlfriend as a White House Aide.
That is called Nepotism.
Great post, myiq! I completly agree. She knew what she was doing. I’ve said before that I don’t have any problem with pornography as long as women are in control of what they do. She probably posed because she needed the money. She’s not ashamed of it apparently although I wouldn’t have pocked an exclusively male mag to pose in because u think the readers of maxim were where most obamaphiles came from.
dragoneyes:
Didja read what I wrote?
purplefinn,
What is the standard here? I don’t agree with everything myiq said. I don’t necessarily think that posing nude or in underwear is incompatible with being a feminist. But I have certainly seen disrespectful comments made about men who appear naked or near naked in public.
I do think that dating Jon Favreau is incompatible with being a feminist. Let’s face it. Hillary is working for Obama too, and she didn’t make a scene about what Favreau did. Of course she isn’t romantically involved with Obama or Favreau either.
Being a feminist doesn’t take away the rights to freedom of thought and speech, does it?
I’m not sure what is so difficult about the concept. Using the patriarchy to get ahead in it means you’re playing that game. You’re supporting that system. Your choice.
But to then say you’re *not* supporting it (as in “Me? I’m a feminist!”) is IQ-below-freezing-point-of-water territory. Or lying. Or both.
In this gal’s case, my guess would be hypocrisy at the mega-levels needed to match the Administration and the Groper she works for.
WTH is “Favreau derangement syndrome?” Methinks “dragon eyes” is not really a long-time reader of TC.
I hate to blog from my iPhone. The keyboard sucks
This is, honestly, such a ridiculous thing to say that I have trouble believing that you really think this.
I guess you never heard of the concept of a “double standard?”
look I am not opposed to porn at all and make no moral judgement of those who partisipate in the porn industry….
I have several good friends who are “gay pornstars” both male and female…they are generally decent takx paying citizens its their body thay can market it as they see fit.
If I believe a woman has controll over her body in regards to reproductive rights, can I “shame that woman for chosing to market that body in a way that is financially benificial to her?
Look believe it or not making a porn video-at least a gay one is hard work-no pun intended.
Using the patriarchy to get ahead in it means you’re playing that game.
It means you’re supporting the patriarchy.
myiq–I don’t criticise men who want to look at porn, use a prostitute, go to a peep show, whatever. I admit that I’ve only seen one “pornographic” movie–and that was years ago, just to see what they were like–but if someone else wants to watch them, no big deal for me. Just as long as no one tries to tell me that it’s “art”.
sm–I read earlier that she posed without truly needing the money, but thanks for reminding me.
bb–Agree.
in moderation help~!
SM,
Alejandra Campoverdi doesn’t work for Favreau. All the articles say she works for a deputy chief of staff. There are only two of those. Therefore, she works for either Jim Messina or Mona Sutphen. I’m guessing it’s Sutphen, because she and Compoverdi are both from CA.
“I guess you never heard of the concept of a “double standard?””
I have. But a double standard would be treating male and female sex workers differently from each other, not treating female sex workers differently from the male consumers of the sex work. Obviously.
well know you know fuzzybear hangs out with pornstars….gay pornstars anyway….dont hate me!
Palin was going to work for a sexist asshole, too, and for a party that endorses sexist policies. But PUMA’s defended her feminism. Why’s it okay to attack Campoverdi for who she is working for?
And if you’re going to talk about her without actually hearing from her or knowing more about her than a little gossip and a one-time Maxim shoot, at least get her name spelled right.
I still can’t believe Geithner has the nerve to hire a lobbyist as his Chief of Staff.
Obviously
Why “obviously?” Is the seller morally superior to the buyer?
Grays – she did what many Hollywood starlets do, they pose for magazines like Stuff, Maxim, FHM, etc.
AGAIN, she wanted to be famous – and now thanks to Favreau’s Nepotism, she is.
I don’t think Nepotism works that way. Does it even count if they’re not married or blood-related?
I now more about gay male pornstars….and according to them the pay sucks…and not in a good way!
megankay:
Would you like to elaborate on that? I am clueless as to what you are getting at.
To post a photograph of a scantily-clad woman as proof of what a sexist asshole her boyfriend is IS MISOGNYIST. What is not clear about that? How have you turned this into people who love Obama, hate Hillary Clinton, hate PUMAs? And how is it your “joke from months ago” gets a pass? Do you never admit when you are wrong?
It is not loving Obama, hating Hillary Clinton, or being an anti-feminist to object to your using FAVREAU’S GIRLFRIEND as an example of what an asshole he is.
How do you not get this? HOW?
BB: Thanks for the Correction!
But regardless, Favreau’s the influence peddler here.
It’s nepotism.
obot at 658pm….speaking of obots its steaknight with the Obots wish me luck…
if you’re going to talk about her without actually hearing from her or knowing more about her
And you’ve talked to her?
to obats in 2 minutes its a tr0ll take over~
sm–Aaahh. “She wanted to be famous.” That’s a different kettle of fish. These are tough question myiq is asking. Does the purpose make a difference? Is she a feminist? Are we feminists if we denigrate her prior–or current–behavior? Lots to come to terms with here.
I don’t think McCain is sexist. I think he’s a republican. He loves his daughters and his wife. He respects his mother. He’s clearly very fond of Hillary and holds Sarah in incredibly high esteem. He may be many things but I don’t think he qualifies as sexist.
Are you sure he’s dating her and not just her pictorial? I was under the impression he liked his “dates” to be able to go into the cardboard recyclable bin at the end of the evening. My condolences to Ms C if she is dating this pig. Maybe we should nominate her for a Nobel for taking him off the market and taking one for the team of womenkind.
Regency – yes, nepotism is normally applied if you are married or related, but the word can certainly be used for platonic and or romantic relationships.
I think she just wanted to be famous which explains why she participated in those reality shows.
myiq you must be right the obots are attacking you!
Wow, this one’s going to be fun to moderate!
cwatlz:
LOL!!!!!!!
I don’t think the obots are attacking in this instance. They’re disagreeing, which I think is acceptable. Dissent is acceptable.
if you’re going to talk about her without actually hearing from her or knowing more about her
And you’ve talked to her?
You’re the one making assumptions about her and making her into a symbol of something, not me. I’m just telling you it’s sexist to do so.
“Why “obviously?” Is the seller morally superior to the buyer?”
“Obviously” because a double standard compares two things that are all the same but for one factor. Sellers and buyers are also OBVIOUSLY different (for many reasons).
“Would you like to elaborate on that? I am clueless as to what you are getting at.”
There is never a reason that people must look at porn. There are, at least, several reasons that people must become sex workers. Therefore, applying different moral codes to them is the only logical step. Moreover, that the consumers of sex work are of one gender and the sex workers themselves are of another gender further complicates the analysis. Consumers are not equal to sex workers at all, pretending they are only creates a false equivalency that leads to sexist creeps thinking that they are justified in mocking sex workers because they’ve been mocked for using porn.
That’s the point, Regency — that’s what makes it something of a challenge. For once.
Do you never admit when you are wrong?
I guess you’re new here.
A joke I made 10 months ago, taken out of context, and trotted out by a bunch of misogynists everytime I do a post on feminism. Have you read THEIR blog?
It’s a sewer.
So, do I have to answer to them for that joke every time?
BB: “Being a feminist doesn’t take away the rights to freedom of thought and speech, does it?”
I surely hope not. I haven’t seen much calling out of men for the “bad conduct” of posing provocatively in magazines. Nor have I seen much calling out of women or men for being consumers of same. I was just curious. It’s a way to find out whether something is sexist, r@cist etc.
I don’t presume to have the answer to my question. That’s why I asked it.
“There is never a reason that people must look at porn. There are, at least, several reasons that people must become sex workers.”
Oh, come on….. You can’t mean this.
at some point in all of this, her mother should have sat her down and said, is this what you want people to remember you for? is this the lasting impression you want to leave? every has a body that they can use for a bunch of different purposes, you can use your hands to pleasure yourself or to pick up a scalpal and do heart surgery or sit down to a piano and play a concerto. you make a big statement one way or another. i have no doubt this girl wanted the attention (for whatever reason) more than she needed the cash, but that’s besides the point. When you choice, as she did, to make yourself the object of base instincts, you’re right down there on that level. I hope she got her graduate degrees fully knowing that she can make a better place in the world but not getting down there on the most base level. If that’s what she’s trying to do more power to her, but by actively playing into the idea that women should be passive objects of men’s baser instincts, she does herself and other women no favors … the one thing i will say about gay porn is that it is usually not an act of objectification of one of the parties… i frankly prefer the slutty part of gay porn because if you’re a slut, you’re actively doing something, if your a cum object, you’re just a cum object…
pardonez-moi le mot francais, mes amies!
I don’t think the obots are attacking in this instance.
Go read the thread at TGW
She’s a very attractive woman with poor taste in men(using the term loosely since I believe REAL men aren’t threatened by intelligence and they certainly don’t mock it as Favreau did).
I posed in lingerie for one of my boyfriends. I see no shame in it whatsoever. If you are comfortable showing some skin, go for it. If not, don’t . Feminism is all about choice for me.
I’m not gonna judge this young woman anymore then to say that IMO she could probably do sooooomuch better(Mr “Piggy”Favreau is setting the bar pretty low though).
and also the grammar mistakes … it’s late in the day for me
Boy, Myiq, you really are getting some ridiculous heat for a non issue. Firstly, I think the main reason you’re taking so much heat is because you are a known male homo sapien Conflucian, a minority, at the least. My take is that you are not allowed to talk about the objectification of women, only us gals can do that. Secondly, we’re suffering from heightened sensitivity to any odor of mysogyny. Personally, I think people make choices and they need to live by their choices. Ms. Greenfield chose to expose herself in one of the more controversial publications, now she must live by this exposure. This is not your typical or unusual photo shoot, and she shouldn’t expect that people would not take her to task for her work.
Of course, we Conflucians don’t think twice about beating the crap out of Mr. Favreau for his stupid photo. Well, let’s take Ms. Greenfield to task for the same mistake.
To me this is a non issue and wasted time.
YES THERE IS, it’s called sexual gratification.
I’m not going to TGW. They don’t have anything I want. I mean, right here. I don’t look for conflict because it’ll find me regardless. That’s their haven. Let ‘em have it.
“Oh, come on….. You can’t mean this.”
I do.
Oh yes, I’m such an Obot. Such an Obot in fact that I’ve almost never said a good thing about him in my blog and had a big falling out with my formerly favorite blog because they were dipping too far into the Obama kool aid.
Purplefinn,
I don’t have the answer either. That’s why I asked you what the standard is. To me this has less to do with this woman choosing to post for these pictures than her choice of Obama and Favreau. To me Favreau is a thoroughly discredited human being, and the judgement of anyone–male or female–who associates him can be questioned. Including HIllary, btw.
Astraea: Do not provoke the mods. You will get banned if you do. You see that the thread is already volatile. Hostility won’t improve things. Please.
And BTW:
I don’t see Campoverdi’s photo as pornographic – AT ALL.
It could be a Victoria Secret’s or Frederick’s of Hollywood catalog photo as far as I’m concerned.
I subscribed to Playgirl and I’ve thumbed through Playboy. I think the human body is beautiful, I’m not even gonna pretend we had them for the articles.
Now I do have the problems with the depiction and simulation of rape or degradation.
Tin Foil Hattie:
Here’s the kind of stuff the people at that other blog leave for us:
and
Of course, we Conflucians don’t think twice about beating the crap out of Mr. Favreau for his stupid photo. Well, let’s take Ms. Greenfield to task for the same mistake.
You don’t see a difference between 1. mimicking sexual assault on a coworker and creating a hostile work environment for women and 2. posing in an almost-soft core porn magazine?
Wow.
Favreau didn’t get her her job. That is how they met. She worked for the California Agricultural Worker Health Initiative, then went to Harvard, then worked on the campaign. It is misogynist to aver in ignorance that the only reason she has a job is because her boyfriend got it for her. It was obnoxious when people said it about HRC and her husband and it is obnoxious now.
my, what was the point of your original article?
Who is Ms. Greenfield? Is that Ali?
Her photo does not have her ramming a beer down a males throat or have her groping someone. She’s an attractive young girl, I see no harm or foul in her picture.
I’m sorry, Astraea and tinfoilhattie (and myself) are being accused of being Obots now?
Seriously?
That’s their haven
No, it’s not. Tennessee Guerrilla Women is a feminist blog. The Obots go there to insult and denigrate women.
Anecdotal: The Kid is quite lovely, and she has related to me several times re women/girls in bars flashing their breasts to groups. She’s been called uptight, bitch, and worse for refusing to do so. The women consider themselves feminists who are in charge of their own bodies, and these were bars that cater to young professionals.
As for Ali Whatever, the Paris HIlton Syndrome of being smart, craving attention, looking like a slut, and making lots of money seems to thrive in DC as well as Hollywood. I guess it adds some kind of trophy girlfriend cred to Jon & similar boys.
One person’s porn is another person’s art.
No, it’s not. Tennessee Guerrilla Women is a feminist blog. The Obots go there to insult and denigrate women.
Well, bully for those bastards. That isn’t here. That’s what I was saying. You wanted me to go there and see what they had to say about you. I don’t see why I should. I know what they’re like. I don’t need to see it to believe it.
I’m sorry, Astraea and tinfoilhattie (and myself) are being accused of being Obots now?
No, you’re not. We’re talking about the PUMA-obsessed misogynists that stalk and harass us.
“There is never a reason that people must look at porn. There are, at least, several reasons that people must become sex workers. ”
What? That might be the dumbest thing I read so far in this tempest in a teapot. Your misuse of “must” to justify your slippery double standard is hilarious. There are several reasons that people MUST become sex workers!? Do tell….
While doing reality shows & small movie parts and trying to break into Hollywood?
It is misogynist to aver in ignorance that the only reason she has a job is because her boyfriend got it for her.
I never said that.
BB I thought this post was about the picture of Alejandra Campoverdi and what it implied (or not) about her.
No, you’re not. We’re talking about the PUMA-obsessed misogynists that stalk and harass us.
Sorry for that particular misunderstanding.
“There are several reasons that people MUST become sex workers!? Do tell….”
Seriously? Refer to Barbara Boxer and HRC’s testimony about the N. Kristof articles about sex work trafficking for one example.
SM; i think the photo in the context of Maxim is soft porn … i dont’ like the idea of women being displayed as passive objects of men desire … it’s wasn’t done to sell underwear … or to show women as actively sexual beings …she’s completely objectified in that context
and My, can I ask you again, what was the main point you were making in that earlier thread?
She chose to objectify herself. She wasn’t forced. She isn’t in chains. If there’s a gun to her head, we haven’t heard about it. Is the objection to her doing it to herself or to Maxim as a whole?
The sexualization of all aspects of our lives objectifies all women and makes many men really happy. I really don’t see the upside for women in it ever. She poses like this and it becomes about her sex not her brain and talents. And our young daughters get the idea that this is what you need to be to succeed. It’s not good enough to have brains and talent, you need to be a hottie, too.
Favreau didn’t get her her job. That is how they met. She worked for the California Agricultural Worker Health Initiative, then went to Harvard, then worked on the campaign.
While doing reality shows & small movie parts and trying to break into Hollywood?
1. Women can’t work for causes important to them while pursuing a career in show business?
and
2. She apparently stopped pursuing show business to go to school. Not that there are that many actual facts about her in between all the gossip and innuendo and talking about her like she’s a prop.
Regency, what point are you trying to make? She objectified herself. She probably freely chose to do it.
Does that mean a feminist blog should continue to objectify her? Does that mean a feminist blog should make assumptions about her intelligence, personality, and qualifications?
MeganKay: That’s what I just said. If you’d been paying attention to what I’ve said every time this has come up, you’d see that I was supporting her right to make whatever choice she wanted. She’s an adult. She’s allowed.
Back. Off.
Dakini –
If you look at the styling used, her hair, her pose, it could very well be a catalog ad.
But WHERE the photo was published makes it the difference.
Maybe I’m looking at it from an advertising point of view.
Anyway, she’s a beautiful girl, wish her the best & hope that she dumps Favreau for a hotter, richer, less assholish guy.
Regency: the discussion here isn’t about what choices she made, though. That’s a side issue. The discussion is about why a feminist blog thinks its OK to objectify her. Do you think MyIQ should have posted his earlier post? And posted this picture twice?
None of our visitors seem to want to answer this question:
Is there something wrong with a woman posing in her underwear for the sexual gratification of the readers of Maxim?
Is it a good or bad thing?
How does wearing lingerie in a picture equate to being a slut? I’m sure the guys wish though……
“Seriously? Refer to Barbara Boxer and HRC’s testimony about the N. Kristof articles about sex work trafficking for one example.”
HA! I knew you would go there… I didn’t realize that Ali Campoverde was forced to do the Maxim photoshoot just like those sex traffickers force young girls into prostitution. Why it’s the exact same thing! Silly me…
Your conflation of related but very different issues is so ridiculous but it remains hilarious.
okay, I have frequently run around in much less than that on mardi gras, halloween and other new orleans bachannalian parties. i don’t do it for men. as a matter of fact, when men want to take pictures of me or act as if i’m doing it to get their attention it pisses the hell out of me… but this is what porn does, it makes men think women are sexual for THEM period. It allows them to write off women as sexual beings and put them into the object of my attention category. women can’t be sexual just because … it has to be for something having to do with men … these kinds of spreads feed into that male narcissistic sexuality
“HA! I knew you would go there… I didn’t realize that Ali Campoverde was forced to do the Maxim photoshoot just like those sex traffickers force young girls into prostitution. Why it’s the exact same thing! Silly me…
Your conflation of related but very different issues is so ridiculous but it remains hilarious.”
You asked for a reason why someone would need to do sex work. I am not conflating any issues. I gave you a reason.
The discussion is about why a feminist blog thinks its OK to objectify her.
Does that picture objectify her?
sm77: yup, that’s my point
Is there something wrong with a woman posing in her underwear for the sexual gratification of the readers of Maxim?
Is it a good or bad thing?
Seriously, this is not the issue and it HAS been addressed.
Is there something wrong with a feminist site objectifying and belittling a woman to score political points? YES OR NO.
“There are several reasons that people MUST become sex workers!? Do tell….”
Well, hell, I could tell you about my best friend, who (besides being beautiful and brilliant) was raped by her uncle, repeatedly, when she was all of 12 years old, had a permanently sexualized worldview from then on, fought intense bouts of depression, was constantly self-loathing and self-destructive, and eventually turned to sex work when she was trying to get through school, because in the process of her working through what had happened to her, she’d rationalized that being abused by men “wasn’t that bad” and at least she’d be getting paid for it this time.
The patriarchy is a fucking vicious place, and we don’t need to be targetting other women with disdain and hatred for no goddamned reason. I have no doubt that Jon Favreau is a fratboy douchebag whose primary attraction to this woman is that she’s The Hawt and has posed in her underwear, but her degrees and other accomplishments are secondary to all that, but do we, generally, all have to sink to the same level? Aren’t we better than them?
MK: It’s a blog with contributors. Whatever a contributor decides to post becomes the subject of the blog for whatever amount of time it’s front paged. If he thinks it’s okay and RD doesn’t object, then it passes. I don’t consider it newsworthy but many clearly do. It has nothing to do with this blog being feminist (and frankly that’s a noose worth of a designation because there is not set def. of feminist) and everything to do with it being a Democratic blog. Not like the party but like the practice. Everyone contributes.
Is she being objectified? I don’t read Maxim but I would almost bet that they had a blurb about who she was, what she does, etc etc……..
okay, so megan, you say by using her as a poster child against objectification we objectify her? is that what you’re saying?
Seriously, this is not the issue and it HAS been addressed.
This is my post, so I decide what the issue is.
Answer the question
“Regency: the discussion here isn’t about what choices she made, though. That’s a side issue. The discussion is about why a feminist blog thinks its OK to objectify her. Do you think MyIQ should have posted his earlier post? And posted this picture twice?”
Excuse you but no, that’s not what the discussion is about though it is what you want the discussion to be about.
Myiq
I was under the impression that your picture went with a post. I’m still trying to get this objectifying thing down.
I guess I should go back and read.
Is there something wrong with a feminist site objectifying and belittling a woman to score political points? YES OR NO.
What political points are we winning exactly? Dude, that’s a ridiculous question. This isn’t Crossfire or Hardball.
And take a breath with the “feminist site” shpiel. Would it be better of DKos was doing it since they’re not an avowed “feminist site”? Would you be just as angry?
myiq2xu, on January 27th, 2009 at 7:28 pm Said:
None of our visitors seem to want to answer this question:
Is there something wrong with a woman posing in her underwear for the sexual gratification of the readers of Maxim?
Is it a good or bad thing?
That is the important question and as I said earlier, it is a bad thing. “She poses like this and it becomes about her sex not her brain and talents. And our young daughters get the idea that this is what you need to be to succeed. It’s not good enough to have brains and talent, you need to be a hottie, too.”
Why shouldn’t he post this pic?
Does being a feminist mean that I have to deny my sexuality?
The young woman voluntarily put her pic in a national magazine I daresay SHE has a problem with the pic. Why should others?
“Would it be better of DKos was doing it since they’re not an avowed “feminist site”? Would you be just as angry?”
I wouldn’t be as angry. It would have been expected.
“so megan, you say by using her as a poster child against objectification we objectify her? is that what you’re saying?”
Um, what? I’m saying that by posting that picture and implying that she got her job only because she’s good looking, the blog is further objectifying her.
What are you talking about “using her as the poster child against objectification?”
“Is there something wrong with a woman posing in her underwear for the sexual gratification of the readers of Maxim?
Is it a good or bad thing?”
It is a bad thing to claim you’re against objectifying women, for feminism, against pornography, and then to continue to post objectifying pictures of women implying they’re only good for one thing.
Oh, lord. Okay, I’ll bite.
Those kinds of pictures objectify women.
Women cannot objectify themselves any more than they can rape themselves.
Quoting from Wiki because I don’t have time to find an original source: “disregarding personal and intellectual abilities and capabilities, and women’s reduction to instruments of sexual pleasure for men.”*
This is what readers of Maxim do and this is what YOU are doing. You are disregarding everything but her one gig at modeling. You are posting a sexualized picture of her for the sake of discrediting her and reducing her to nothing more than an object. Your intent may not be to titillate, but that doesn’t change the fact that using the picture to represent her is a deliberately derogatory action.
So answer me this: why did you use that photo?
(citation is Barry, Kathleen, Female Sexual Slavery and Goldenberg, Jamie L., and Tomi-Ann Roberts, ‘The Beast within the Beauty: An Existential Perspective on the Objectification and Condemnation of Women’)
Is there something wrong with a woman posing in her underwear for the sexual gratification of the readers of Maxim?
Is it a good or bad thing?
The problem is that the question is too vague. “Is there something wrong with a woman posing in her underwear for a sexual gratification of the readers of Maxim?” Well, yes. In a broad societal context, the exploitation of women for men’s sexual gratification is a majorly bad thing, but I, personally, blame the patriarchy, not one woman.
Do we know why the young woman posed? Does she say why?
All I know is I wish someone would “slut shame” Obama for running around in his swimming trunks. That is something we just don’t need to see.
ks: so, even though this picture isn’t new, it was a voluntary act of self-promotion for pay, Ali’s a victim? is that what you’re saying?
gxm: roflmao
If there is nothing wrong with her posing for the picture then there is nothing wrong with me posting it here, looking at it, wanking off to it, whatever.
Or does somehow my use of the picture make it wrong?
If there is nothing wrong with her posing for the picture then there is nothing wrong with me posting it here, looking at it, wanking off to it, whatever.
There’s a guy I want lecturing me about feminism.
And did you think that we’d ever elect a man who shaves his chest?
If there is nothing wrong with her posing for the picture then there is nothing wrong with me posting it here, looking at it, wanking off to it, whatever.
This makes no logical sense. There’s this thing called context.
You didn’t just post the picture. You used it to accompany a post.
RKMK,
That’s a very sad and unfortunate tale but, it only explains why your BFF became a sex worker. It doesn’t explain that she must have become one.
megankay was trying to slick and ludicrously conflate several issues into one in order to justify a rather weak double standard.
Young girls who flash their boobs and get drunk and sleep with a different guy every night. Is this what we fought for in the early feminist movement? So that our daughters could be ‘pigs’ like our sons? I raised my boys to have more respect for themselves and women than that. Do I enjoy sex? Yes Do I get sexy for my partner and he/she for me? Yes Do I want my sons and nieces to have fulfilling sexual lives? Yes
But the ‘porning’ of our culture doesn’t foster that and only serves to hurt women.
The problem isn’t the picture. The problem is the insinuations that have come with the picture (not all from you). That she got her job because of this picture. That she’s only qualified because of her boyfriend. That she isn’t qualified or smart enough to get her job in the White House because she posed for Maxim.
I think we could all give a flying Federalist what you do with the picture. The insinuations are the concern.
The motivator for many young women to become “glamour models” as they are called in England is FAME and MEDIA EXPOSURE, the chance of being famous. It’s not so much the money.
it’s the opportunity to be in an international magazine and hopefully have a casting director call you saying, “hey, I’m casting the next Johnny Depp movie and you’d be perfect for the lead female role.”
Tampa just hosted a Maxim casting call here for Maxim’s Superbowl party.
Over 1,000 girls showed up to a night club to try out for party hostesses, promotion models and hopefully win a pictorial in Maxim. A Tampa morning show sent 2 of their interns undercover to report about it, and 1 of them got a call back to be a party hostess.
The girls who were auditioning weren’t forced, or doing it because it was the only chance they had to earn money. They did it because they want to participate in an event that could give them media exposure they want.
It’s about FAME.
I think Astraea poses a good question … i’d like to know the purpose of the original thread and what point it was trying to make …
i’m still having issues with the idea, however A, that women don’t voluntarily objectify themselves … cynic that I am, i think there are some women that do this simply to further their own interests, although I think the majority of women that fall into this trap are not in this category but have histories of abuse, addiction, etc.
“megankay was trying to slick and ludicrously conflate several issues into one in order to justify a rather weak double standard.”
No I wasnt. You can keep saying that, but it doesn’t make it true. Someone thought it was ludicrous that I said that people are forced to do sex work and asked for an example. That doesn’t mean I am conflating issues. I was providing an example when asked. Jesus fucking christ.
it’s the patriarchy stupid.
katie: once again, i find myself possesser of knowledge I DO NOT WANT …
(nodding) I sure didn’t want to know….
His shaved chest still doesn’t make him attractive, or sexy, or fantastic, or brilliant, or qualified.
Uh her boyfriend posed groping a cardboard cutout- I find it hysterical that myiq is the one being accused of objectifying the young woman. Based on Favreau’s track record, myiq “objectifying” her should be the least of this young woman’s worries. She’s dating a pig that specializes in “objectifying”.
Here’s to hoping he’s not two timing her with the Hilary cutout.
KB: Then why share? It’s so cruel. What has been learned cannot be unlearned.
*sobs for my lost innocence–and dinner*
Don’t look
myiq is conflating issues.
*doesn’t look*
She can do it, but she can’t control whether you wank off to it or not, or have less respect for her or more for it.
Get it myiq?
I think the battle of words was won by that Playboy photog [can't remember his name] who said 20 or so years ago:
1. There are only 2 kinds of women – those who pose for Playboy & those who wish they could.
2. If you’ve got it, flaunt it.
I don’t agree, and I personally hate these statements, but I think they were swallowed by many, many women.
i’d like to know the purpose of the original thread and what point it was trying to make.
The point was that Obama ran a sexist/misogynist campaign and has failed to appoint nearly enough women to his administration, but this young woman got hired, and now appears to be dating his misogynist speechwriter.
There were other points, but everyone stopped reading when the got to the picture
GXM & Regency -
That boxer shot was horrible.
Even Giorgio Armani, WHO IS 70 (and white), has a more even tan than Obama.
And I say this as a brown-skinned person, so I know what it’s like to be two toned.
megankay,
Please. You resorted to a silly litearlism when confronted with the absurdity of your original construction. You know damn well that it makes no sense to talk about people who “must become sex workers” in the context of this post about Ali Campoverde eventhough it was just a stupid parallel to your “no reason that people must view porn” nonsense.
katiebird, on January 27th, 2009 at 7:45 pm Said:
And did you think that we’d ever elect a man who shaves his chest?
And who flaunts his man boobs. Hmmmm, maybe Obama is more in touch with his feminine side than I’ve given him credit for…
Oh and thanks for temporarily blinding me!
Katie -
MY EYES!! MY EYES!!!!!!!!!
His face looks like a seal that just got released into the wild again.
dakinikat, women may pose for a sexy picture or participate in porn, but they can’t objectify themselves because it is the viewer who reduces a woman to nothing but an object for his pleasure. A woman can present herself as attractive and make money from it, but she isn’t the one who creates the misogynist context that erases her as a person and presents her as nothing but a personification of sex or an object to be used for the gratification of men. Women SHOULD be able to be sexual (including posing for sexy pictures) without being seen as objects.
myIQ has objectified her not by simply posting the picture but by reducing her to less than a full human being, using her for his own purposes, whether they are sexual or political. He presented this picture and implied: THIS is what she is. That’s objectification. That doesn’t come from her.. presumably she thinks of herself as much more, since she went on to Harvard and work in politics and cares about issues that come from her family background.
SHe has not objectified herself, others have.
Purplefinn,
I thought the point of the post was that both men and women have to take responsibility and can be criticized for the choices they make–in this case participating in soft porn.
My first comment was that I couldn’t care less that this woman posed for Maxim. My objection to her is that she is associating herself with Jon Favreau and Barack Obama. In that context (working for and dating misogynists), her history as a soft porn model takes on a little more significance.
1. Her claim to be a feminist is a transparent lie.
2. The misogyny of her employer leaves her open to people saying she was hired for her looks and her willingness to objectify herself for the pleasure of men.
Beyond that, I agree with Dakinikat that in posing for Maxim she chose to be seen as a sex object. She knew men would be masturbating to her picture. She had a good education and could have gotten another job. There isn’t any analogy between what she did and women who are forced into sexual slavery, as one of the commenters who have suddenly shown up to attack TC claimed. I don’t have time to look back and figure out which one of them it was.
My attitude toward these newcomers is if you don’t like it here, feel free to leave. No one is deleting your comments or censoring you.
I did not look, SM. I like to remember my Democratic Presidents as hefty but sexy. I have mine and I’m good with that. I will not corrupt my memories with that…ewness And my skin isn’t even either. From my legs to my shoulders, I’m am two different nationalities of brown.
So answer me this: why did you use that photo?
Because it was part of the article I linked to.
BB, I was just noticing how many passionate comments we’ve gotten from people I’ve never seen before. Either this post brought out the lurkers or it brought out the . . .
The point was that Obama ran a sexist/misogynist campaign and has failed to appoint nearly enough women to his administration, but this young woman got hired, and now appears to be dating his misogynist speechwriter.
Finally you admit that you WERE implying that she doesn’t deserve her job because she posed in Maxim once and that she only has her job because of her looks.
Oh, porn isn’t so bad. The problem is, Porn is degrading towards women because it is made for men with inferiority complexes.
I have watched porn before. Gay Porn isn’t so bad. But normal porn is…
It’s not the porn itself. Porn should be feminized. And there should be porn for women. Our culture is all about sexual gratification for men. What about us girls? We have needs too!
“ks: so, even though this picture isn’t new, it was a voluntary act of self-promotion for pay, Ali’s a victim? is that what you’re saying?”
dakinikat, Huh? That’s not what I’m saying at all. I don’t think Ali’s a victim.
She may very well have a brain- what are the odds that a guy who is proud of molesting a cardboard cutout would appreciate it though?
My condolences to Ms. C. There isn’t enough, money fame or power for me to date THAT(or fill in your favorite reason for their relationship). Blech. All I have to say is better her than me.
Sigh…
This thread is too much pf a downer for me. I’ll be back later.
He said no such thing Astr-awhatever.
Nice try though.
myiq2xu, on January 27th, 2009 at 8:00 pm Said:
So answer me this: why did you use that photo?
Because it was part of the article I linked to.
**************
End of discussion, IMO. New topic??
Regency – LOL!!!
I can’t lie, I am too! But wouldn’t Obama (as egotistical as he is) make sure his moobs matched his arms & face color?
I’m probably Obama’s same skin color, except I’m more the red-brown vs Obama’s ashy-brown (yes, I just called President Obama ashy!)
I know I’d be tanning for 15-20 minutes and voila, instant blend.
Question: How is this blog objectifying Ms. Campoverdi? No one here took the picture. Most of us don’t have any problem with the picture per se. The picture is something she posed for and is apparently comfortable with. We are talking about her as an adult who works for the POTUS, in a public position. We are acknowledging her resume and history. I don’t see that as “ojectifying” her.
Oh, and I didn’t realize that suddenly we are not allowed to discuss “side issues” at TC. Would someone tell me who made that rule. Because as one of the moderators, I should have been told about the rule change.
Astraea, i’m really trying to reach for that one, but I have to say again, if I run around naked at Mardi Gras, there are those that may objectify me which is damnable but part of living in a patriarchy. It’s a by product of my expression or participation or whatever. However, if all I do is pose nude, and put a picture in playboy knowing that is the sole purpose of it but I’m willing to do so for the benefits that come along with that–fame, money, a possible movie deal, I’m aware of the primary context and I’m part of the problem unless i have something in my background that has compelled me into that life over which I had no control.
Katie, can you shoot me a quick email?
I am going to put up a new thread for BJ’s show, give me a second or two.
Astraea,
Did you actually read the posts. You seem to be strangely stuck on trying to push your interpretation of what you think myiq2xu’s interpretation is. He has stated rather plainly what his position is and it doesn’t seem to match your insistent “interpretations”.
BB, thanks for your response.
I don’t know what to make of all this. I guess I don’t care who Favreau is dating.
I don’t like the constant sexualization of women pervasive in our society. I think equal pay for equal work would be helpful. And 51 Percent.
I found the comments in this thread to be very interesting, however.
Let’s see guy simulates plying girl with booze and groping her – but in the workplace he has impeccable standards and would never dream of hiring someone because of her looks?
Favreau opened this door. Myiq just walked through it.
Most pigs I know are pigs full time. Sure they hide it better during the day, but they are still pigs.
I feel for the poor girl.
taggles, It’s on the way. (and I’ll reschedule my post for some other time)
(before I leave)
Jon F is not even that attractive. I mean, I personally find him repulsive. Maxim girl can do better anyway.
*toddles off*
Women directors of porn tend to add more plot to the storyline–or you know any plot.
Our porn is apparently Harlequin romance novels, which suck.
Straight porn sucks. Gay porn is only fun when it looks like everyone is having fun. Otherwise, blah.
We all have the right to live our lives as we choose so long as no laws are broken. Posing in Maxim magazine in lingerie while trying to look seductively into the camera is Ms. Campoverdi’s right. She has broken no laws appearing in this fashion in Maxim magazine. But let’s not pretend that choosing to appear in this magazine in this type of pose has anything to do with advancing the cause of feminism. She is simply promoting herself by using sex. As a reminder the dictionary states that feminism is defined as the doctrine advocating the social, political and all other rights of women equal to those of men. I do not see how purposely portraying yourself as an anonymous object for sexual gratification in a men’s magazine promotes equality between men and women. She has a right to pose nude for all I care, but I do not confuse this with being a feminist and promoting feminist values. Objectification does not help women. You can own your sexuality without purposely portraying yourself as a sexual gratification object to countless men you do not know or will ever meet.
And I didn’t get the memo about this being a “feminist site” either. There are so many things I don’t know about this blog where I spend so much time….
And to be informed by all these people I’ve never heard of before makes it so much more embarrassing.
I remember a lot of Obama supporters peddling videos of Sarah Palin competing in beauty pageants as proof of her stupidity and sluttiness. They were absolutely giddy to have images of Palin in her bathing suit during competition. It was proof of just how much of a bimbo she was and how unprepared to be VP. Well, if it’s good enough for Palin, it’s good enough for an Oborg.
(giggling) So true, BostonBoomer — so True!
Astraea and her cronies arguments have been constructed by putting words in other folks’ mouths and then crying “slut!”
I posted this on TNG in response to megankay telling me that I “don’t get it” and it pretty much sums up the day:
From where I’m standing you don’t get it… despite some valiant attempts at intelligent and thoughtful discussion by other commenters.
When the Favreau cutout incident occurred, PUMAs registered their objections with the office of the President Elect and at the Obama website. True outrage over this “slut shaming” incident would be directed at those who perpetrate it. That would be Maxim.
It’s not that I don’t get what your selling. It’s that I don’t buy it. The day long “girl who cried slut” routine was somewhat amusing but not very convincing. That coupled with the myiq hate club chorus (membership: 1) only succeeded with diverting the attention away from the real issues of sexism and misogyny within the Obama administration. Which, IMO, appears to be the objective.
How about Obama dropping the family planning provisions from the stimulus package? Hey, look over there at the picture of the girl in her underwear!
Yeah, right, I just don’t get it.
One can be a feminist separate from posing for Maxim. You can do this one day and still picket for women’s rights on another. No one act can define your feminist cred just as no one act can relieve you of it.
Astraea,
Who are you?
I guess feminism means different things to different folks. My sexuality is a part of who I am. I see no reason to hide that part of myself. The fact that men objectify her has little to nothing to do with her and could occur regardless of how little or much worn(unless we are going to get the burkhas out). It’s more a reflection of them then her.
Finally you admit that you WERE implying that she doesn’t deserve her job because she posed in Maxim once and that she only has her job because of her looks.
Actually, if you had bothered to read the original article I linked to it doesn’t mention anything about Harvard or USC, just Maxim, acting and reality television.
Calling this a feminist site may just be wishful thinking. However, I am deeply grateful that many women and men here advocate for feminism and equal rights for all.
As I think Regency stated, we probably wouldn’t all agree on what feminism is. To me it’s the radical notion that women are people.
Our porn is apparently Harlequin romance novels, which suck.
Straight porn sucks. Gay porn is only fun when it looks like everyone is having fun. Otherwise, blah.
Bull SH*T! If there were women porn directors then they are simply trying to please their creepy male producers with that crap. Porn is porn regardless of whether it has a plot or not. Porn is about the porn. And I’m pretty sure that most women purchasing porn are not interested in “Harlequin Romance” Porn.
They are interested in Porn, EG: sexual/visual gratification. If they want Harlequin they can rent Titanic or the Notebook.
I’m sorry, but I just find that insulting.
Okay, I am seriously ditching this gloomy thread now.
I kid you not, some people think that Harlequin is female porn. Why would I make this shit up? I get nothing out of that. I don’t even like Harlequin because it’s cookie cutter literature.
I stand by the enjoyable porn bit though. If they look bored, I’m bored. Then again, I like to be entertained. Maybe I’m unique in that.
There’s a whole bunch of different questions being batted around, and some of the comments are running into each other.
Myiq isn’t asking about rights, here. He’s posing some questions:
1. Is it contra-feminist to pose in Maxim (of all the mags)?
2. Does his earlier post (which I haven’t had a chance to look at) constitute ‘slut-shaming’? (my answer: no, not as I understand the term). Alternate construction: Does posting her picture here and discussing it constitute ‘slut shaming’?
3. Is it ok to show moral disapprobation toward her (sorry, I just can’t be bothered to learn how to spell her name) or others who willingly contribute to the sexual objectification of women? (or put another way, why does she get a pass on contributing to the sexual objectification of women just because she’s female, again, assuming it is willing)?
The commenter arguing that myiq is himself objectifying her just by posting her picture and raising this issues simply doesn’t understand the meaning of the word ‘objectification.’ Just because you disagree with myiq does mean that his post fits the definition of whatever negative word is featured prominently in a discussion. You know, it almost makes me long for the days of hard-core Jesuit education, because despite all the things wrong with Catholic ideology, at least they freakin’ taught hard core logic.
new open thread up for a little bit anyway!
IQ, I bow to your courage.
I think she’s hot!
(Guess I just lost my “feminist” credentials despite what I do in my job on an everyday basis.)
Feminism is simple: If you fight for, hope for, believe in, and/or work for the social, political and economical equality of women with men (eg: if you actually believe women are human beings) than you are a feminist.
So, in effect, anyone on the Confluence who fits that definition is a feminist.
And I believe that is everyone on the Confluence.
It is really as simple as that. I don’t get why people have to get all up in arms over this sh*t.
The point I got from the original post was that it wasn’t surprising that Favreau chose this particular young woman to get involved with. Based upon what we know about him, he likes to objectify women. I didn’t get any other intimation from the original post. However, it is logical to wonder if she did get her job because of her beauty. That isn’t a judgment of her; it’s a judgment of Barack Obama.
Again, I have no problem with her posing for the picture. It was her free choice. It doesn’t make her a feminist though.
You can go to my webpage, bostonboomer. YOu can also find my comments at Shakesville under Acrimonious Astraea, where I was a mod for a little while. I haven’t posted there in quite a while because Melissa and some regulars decided some of us were putting a damper on their Hopefest and being too pessimistic about Obama.
I’m a progressive feminist with radical tendencies.
And an ADD’er who tends to hyperfocus and get too involved in arguments.
I don’t go to Maxim with complaints about what they do because it’s as effective as banging my head against the wall. (I did register my outrage about Favreau on change.org, thoug). But I do get very upset when I see sexism from feminists. Just like feminists spoke out at Pandagon about the sexism against Palin, we have to call out our friends and allies when they are wrong.
Okay my take is: I don’t care that she posed for this. It makes her neither qualified nor unqualified to do whatever job she does in the White House. I would hope she got hired for her skills, not because she’s dating Favreau or because of this photoshoot.
My objections to those who object to this post is that most of these folks had no objection to all the Obama supporters having a field day with Palin beauty pageant footage. They used those images as a weapon against Palin. Now the tables turned…and they find that these sort of things don’t matter after all… We’ve seen this kind of hypocrisy from Obama supporters before and we’ll see it again. R@cist! Sexist! They take everything that doesn’t reflect well on one of their own off the table. That act is getting old.
gxm
Pretty astute.
I already made my calls on family planning this morning if the game plan is distraction. I’m making a list and checking it twice.
Astraea,
I don’t care about your website or your comments elsewhere. I just think that when you come into someone else’s home, you should introduce yourself and be on your best behavior.
Actually, if you had bothered to read the original article I linked to it doesn’t mention anything about Harvard or USC, just Maxim, acting and reality television.
Yeah, that’s part of the problem you refuse to see.
Good night.
Can you imagine the uproar if this was say……Sarah Palin?
She would have been called every disgusting name in the book…Wait..she was called every name in the book!
She can’t be a feminist ever again because she posed for Maxim?
Please. Women need sex just as much as men do. And thgey also cheat just as much as men do. Sex has little to do with feminism.
If Harlequin is girl porn then why do the guys get to keep their clothes on? Why no naked guys on the cover? It could be done arty.
And I never understand why women who claim porn is liberating aren’t interested in objectifying the men. Seriously, as a straight woman, the boobs do nothing for me. (Not even when they’re on a man, as I’ve already mentioned.)
I think we’re still allowed to think things are “hot” and be feminist. I hope so. I’d hate to have to choose.
Said to my wife today, pointing at myself, this is what you call a feminist!! She said, “yeah, right..”
Shame is the burden on the individual, no? External applications of shame makes me think of flying rocks. And I’ve been hit by a few of those myself..
Astraea says: Just like feminists spoke out at Pandagon about the sexism against Palin, we have to call out our friends and allies when they are wrong.
Pandagon?! Dear God, give me patience! Pandagon?! You mean the place where they attacked, ridiculed, and misrepresented pumas in general and Riverdaughter in particular in the most offensive ways possible? And where they unmercifully denigrated Hillary and anyone who supported her?
That’s then end of our interactions, Astraea. I don’t forgive that kind of behavior easily.
Thank God you posted this:
Maxim magazine is Playboy without nudity.
Actually, I describe Maxim as Payboy with underwear — because while there isn’t FULL nudity in Maxim, it is semi-nude. For people decrying the women in this rag as “underwear models” is laughable– there is no buyer’s guide in Maxim (as you would find in, say, Victoria’s Secret). Maxim is a magazine aimed toward men that sells sex The women who pose for Maxim (unlike Victoria’s Secret or heck, even Playboy) are paid very little as the EXPOSURE is the real “payment.” That is why many C-list stars, reality show contestants and “wannabes” grace its pages (really, look at any issue — you will see). The shame here is that she feels no shame. The shame here is that she did NOT do this because she felt trapped by the circumstance of her life. The shame here is that this was a calculated move on this woman’s part to get parlay her 15 minutes from a reality show into a “movie” career. Anyone who feels compelled to defend her actions either misses the point completely OR is a deluded as this poor girl is.
Valhalla,
I love the way you think. You always manage to say things so clearly and succintly.
Here’s what I find strange:
I put up my original post which very clearly takes the position that sexism and misogyny are bad. I repeatedly state in that post, the one at TGW and this one that I thing sexism, misogyny, porn and the objectification of women are bad things.
Nevertheless these new visitors spend the entire day zigging and zagging in order to focus on me and my motive for posting a picture of a woman in her underwear that is now a WH aide.
They try to avoid answering direct questions as to whether there is anything wrong with porn in general or this particular picture, and they have no problem teaming up with some notorious misogynists to criticize me.
They also misstate what other people say, throw up straw man arguments and make insults.
So what’s their point?
Angie,
I love the way you think and write too. I’m going to be quiet now and listen to the clear thinkers.
Bleh. I’m cracking down on some of this.
barefoot — one has nothing to do with the other. So what is your point?
Again, I repeat for those slower ones among us — Maxim pays little to nothing to the women who pose in the magazine — the payment is the exposure in the “industry.”
How does barefoot make it thru moderation. F*ck you barefoot.
I haven’t had time to read comments yet so I may be
repeating what’s already been said.
Feminism is against the objectivication of women.
It’s not against pornography. That’s the province of the
corporate feminists like Steinem. And we all know what
they’re about.
Porn can be about anything that turns someone on.
Is that always objectivication – probably. But there can
be women’s porn, porn that worships women, gay porn with
no women at all, only women, porn that exploits animals, or
anything at all. Everyone has the right to be turned on
by whatever, although using and exploiting children, or
those not capable of choosing is wrong. Consenting and
adult are the operative words.
I’ve never been turned on by porn, although I’ve been
turned on by Erica Jong’s writings, have even written what
some consider porn, but I don’t. And I’m definitely a feminist.
Anyone who says I’m not, because it’s not their
definition, is prejudiced, even fascistic.
That’s why after reading fascinating comments upthread
I decided I agree with the position against slut-bashing.
Why, in two sentences – because it allows for freedom
of choice. Every woman has the right to choose, whether
it’s abortion or not, or posing however they want.
Three Wickets, you strike me as a feminist, but I will defer to your wife!
gxm,
I wonder how much of it has to do with the double standards on sex for males and females. Women who act overtly sexual are usually accused of being a slut.(negative connotation). Men? They are applauded for their prowess.
all I can say, is that I sense a major generation gap here
great post myiq, and I think this is the money quote (not like the money shot):
“Women must be held accountable for their conduct just like men. That’s part of the “equality” thingie. ”
Exactly what I was thinking when I read the first debate in the comments earlier today.
Thanks, Katiebird- I’ve been lurking and my head is starting to hurt.
bb– I love the way you think & write too! As I said, I hate that I know more about this pseudo-Playboy magazine then everyone here (and btw, I actually think Playboy is “better” than Maxim because 1. it doesn’t try to pretend it isn’t selling women and 2. Playboy actually pays the women who pose for it big $) but Maxim is not what a lot of people here seem to think — sub-celebs/reality show vets are regulars in Maxim trying to get more “fame.”
New thread up. atleast check it out. thanks!
“Women who act overtly sexual are usually accused of being a slut.(negative connotation). Men? They are applauded for their prowess.”
I agree. Consider Michael Jackson grabbing his crotch and Madonna grabbing hers. The reaction from the establishment is very different.
Not everyone values money. Some value power. Some fame……..I don’t really care why she did nor do I think she owes anyone an explanation. If the pic was done voluntarily I see nothing wrong with it.
this whole thread is just totally screwy. really it is.
justy sayin.
Astraea,
You’ve had your say. We’re done.
Acrimonious Astrea obviously doesnt like losing arguments
Here is the last paragraph about women:
The heart of a woman is what makes the world keep turning.
They bring joy, hope and love.
They have compassion and ideals.
They give moral support to their family and friends.
Women have vital things to say and everything to give.
HOWEVER, IF THERE IS ONE FLAW IN WOMEN,
IT IS THAT THEY FORGET THEIR WORTH
DYB, on January 27th, 2009 at 8:29 pm Said:
My objections to those who object to this post is that most of these folks had no objection to all the Obama supporters having a field day with Palin beauty pageant footage. They used those images as a weapon against Palin. Now the tables turned…and they find that these sort of things don’t matter after all… We’ve seen this kind of hypocrisy from Obama supporters before and we’ll see it again. R@cist! Sexist! They take everything that doesn’t reflect well on one of their own off the table. That act is getting old.
Amen DYB! And lets not forget: Hillary & Sarah did not pose in Maxim magazine for some fleeting fame & yet got tarred with the “bimbo/c*nt” brush. Yet these same people who had no problem wearing “Bros before H*s” & “Sarah Palin is a c*nt” t-shirt NOW want to pretend they see sexism here?
when we get the fuckin equality then start holding us accountable ok???
She can do it, but she can’t control whether you wank off to it or not, or have less respect for her or more for it.
Get it myiq?
Porn is in the eye of the beholder?
Some food for thought (long comment, apologizing in advance):
“The idea that women’s public sexuality can so precisely mirror traditional male fantasy while simultaneously existing in a kind of pro-woman, I-do-it-for-myself alternate universe is the cornerstone of funfeminist “thought.” The flaw in this reasoning is that all women must participate in patriarchy regardless of what they say motivates their participation; patriarchy is the dominant culture, and there is no opting out. Which means there is no opting in, either. Do it for me, do it for you, whatever; the primary beneficiaries of women’s participation — willing or unwilling, ironic or sincere — in patriarchy, are men.”
and
“American women overwhelmingly are invested to an enormous degree in patriarchy and . . . have no wish to confront the many ways in which this investment dehumanizes them. They would rather shoot the messenger. So they imagine that radical feminists hate them for wearing lipstick, or that we want them to castrate their husbands in their sleep, or that we want to turn them into dykes, or that we aspire to outlaw sex. And that all these things that they imagine we are makes us paternalistic Nazi sex cops who view all women as “brainwashed.” They all seem to be saying,”I don’t know if patriarchy even exists, but if it does, it doesn’t affect me, so fuck you.”
I don’t blame them. You kind of have to be in the mood to go mano a mano with patriarchy; it’s like getting hit with a piss balloon from a frat house window. But Holly’s view* reveals a certain lack of sophistication. Sexy feminists, there’s a lot more at stake with American feminism than exercising your right to bleach your asshole. Consider what Iranian feminist blogger Unitari had to say in a comment the other day at La Chola:
It is so important to understand that the condition of human and women’s rights in the US and Europe and the west indirectly affects what happens to human and women’s rights around the world. So it is important for American feminists to work on improving “their own” society while staying in solidarity with feminists in other countries.
[…]
I agree 100% with the assertion that many americans including feminists are blind to the problems in their own society and have a condescending attitude about the whole thing. In fact, strengthening human rights and women’s rights in this country helps all feminists globally.
In other words, even if you’re a rich white heterosexual American “privilegebunny” who luxuriates in what you imagine is an oppression-free bubble, feminism matters. ”
from the inimitable Twisty Faster:
http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2008/03/23/its-all-about-me/
when we get the fuckin equality then start holding us accountable ok???
It doesn’t work like that. We are all accountable for the choices we make.
Besides, I am already treating women as equals.
cwaltz, it’s interesting that wherever we turn in this debate, the porn power structure remains the same. Women are the the gratifiers, not the gratified. Funny how the walls never move, eh.
sorry taggles — I disagree — being part of the problem doesn’t help with the solution. When a woman degrades herself she degrades all women by proxy and makes it that much easier for women like Hillary to be dismissed as “h*s.” I could have easily posed for Maxim magazine in my 20s — heck, considering the airbrushing in that magazine, I could pose for it now. I resent the dismissal of others doing it as “ok” because it reflects on ME and directly impacts my life.
oh miq x2u says he treats women with equality and nothing else matters. not quite.
thanks but that just goes to show your true misunderstanding of women’s issues and misogyny and sexism and the patriarchy.
Myiq
You don’t think there are people out there that objected to David or Venus de Milo?
Thanks, Murphy. I’m going to have to read that blog more often. I bookmarked it after the last time you linked to it.
oh miq x2u says he treats women with equality and nothing else matters.
Where did I say that?
when you say this:
“It doesn’t work like that. We are all accountable for the choices we make.
Besides, I am already treating women as equals.”
It does not negate the argument I make. Just because you say you treat women equal doesn’t mean you can say what you want. Bad excuse for bad behavior.
You don’t think there are people out there that objected to David or Venus de Milo?
Are you referring to prudes? Sure, but I’m not one.
I’m talking about women posing for pictures that have the sole purpose of providing sexual gratification to men.
I’m agin that.
Taggles,
I don’t understand your point. Would you please elaborate? Do you think it was wrong for us to discuss this young woman’s involvement with Jon Favreau?
I think this is a gratuitious thread for the OP. I have read some of the things he has written with in it and I am offended.
Bad excuse for bad behavior.
What bad behavior is that?
Oh good lord, I just wanted to say that I’m sick to death of women who are always behaving like they have to attract a man. Stilletto heels in a sleet storm? Makeup? I wish Hillary Clinton would stop wearing makeup. (I know she can’t because the assholes would never stop deriding her.) Myiq, you are right, Alexandra is a “victim” of patriarchy. Scorn is her due.
some of your posts in this thread myiq.
What is OP?
I think this is a gratuitious thread for the OP. I have read some of the things he has written with in it and I am offended.
???
Original Poster.
Okay, I’m late to this party, but count me in as one who says a woman has a right to do whatever she wants to with her body as long as she’s not forced or coerced. It’s hers, she decides. Besides, do we really want to suggest that only stupid, or desperate, women have the right to choose to exhibit themselves or exploit their own sexuality? Isn’t that the classic good girl/bad girl thing?
Can you be more specific?
CWaltz — NO in the time the Venus & the David were made there were no people who objected to them — the human body is not vulgar nor is it “pornography” & those statutes were glorifying a goddess (Venus) and a biblical hero ( David). The prudishness of Americans (and it is a uniquely American prudishness) when viewing such objects came much later, but that doesn’t retroactively embody those statutes with sexual connotations. These photos — made for a soft-core magazine– is not the same thing at all. The analogy you are stretching to make simply does not work.
now we can continue with the woman bashing. see where this has gotten everyone.
We can all judge one another and think the other is right and the other is wrong and whatever.
Circumstances are what they are in this country. If woman never posed for another naked or partially nude picture ever again, does the patriarchy go away?
Does sexism or misogyny disappear from our lives?
Boy, myiq, I wish my IQ was half of yours! Very well put.
wdib,
What’s wrong with makeup? And I have to disagree that Alejandra is either a victim or should be scorned. The person I feel scorn toward is her boyfriend. For her I wish that she over the coming years, she will learn and grow and expand her awareness. But I don’t see her as a victim.
It’s hers, she decides.
Then if a woman can pose for porn, men can look at it?
If women want to sell sex, men can buy, right?
taggles — who is bashing women here? Bashing is not the same as criticizing. Calling Hillary a c*nt is bashing women. Saying this woman posed for a sexually explicit magazine is not. That is what she did. I don’t understand why you say this is bashing her.
I am so confused. I must be living in an alternate universe.
Something tell me wdib was being sarcastic. That or there was a typo in there somewhere.
Taggles: Nope, it’ll stick around regardless. Now, there are no pictures but there is still the real thing.
high heels, make up, women are the cause of sexism,
there has to be an understanding of the pervasiveness of it and how it gets us coming and going.
The sad thing is that women are just as mean and catty as men are on the subject of sexuality in women.
Myself? If this girl wants to pose nude for whatever motivation, more power to her.
Degrades? How is the picture degrading? She has a beautiful body. Would it be better if she were forced to cover herself in a burkha so that she couldn’t cause impure thoughts?
What is the hang up with men? Who is talking about men and porn? I have yet to see anyone who cares about men who buy porn.
myiq, yup. I don’t have the traditional “feminist” position on this issue. BTW, women can look, too.
I bet there isn’t one member on this board who is married to a sexist?
high heels, make up, women are the cause of sexism,
Who said that?
ok, BB, poor Alejandra is too stupid? to know that she is just a kog in the patriarchy machinery. She knew what she was doing. She was another woman who wanted to sell her body.
impure should be in quotes. I think sex is natural. I think thinking about sex is natural. I think being attracted to people is natural,etc,etc,…etc.
The part where it gets tricky is when choose to see that as the only aspect of a person that matters. That said, I’ve been objectified while wearing Navy dungarees. So evidently how much or how little you are wearing has little to do with it.
Cinie,
I feel the same way. I disagree with myiq that objectifying oneself is “bad.” I don’t think it’s “good” either. It’s a choice. But I didn’t think that was the point of the original post. I thought it was about Jon Favreau. I’m stupid that way, I guess….
No one (at least I’m not) is saying this woman does not have the RIGHT to pose for these pictures. Furthermore NO ONE (at least I’m not) is saying posing for these pictures makes her a “sl*t.”Personally, I feel sorry for this woman for having such low self-esteem that THIS is the way she gets attention. I don’t encourage this behavior in other women — I think women should be taught that exploiting themselves (just because they have the RIGHT to do so) is not a smart choice for herself or for her sisters.
In my post above, it should read: I agree with those against
slut shaming, not slaming.
To me issues of sexuality, morality, and everything else comes
down to: is it hurting someone? Which is same as standard
of “consenting adults.”
As soon as you try to determine someone else’s
morality, you are wrong. Isn’t what conservatives and
Republicans do. Some of the morally superior “feminist”
attacks remind me of condemnations of homosexuality.
And no, I’m obviously not obamabot and cannot
stand Favreau. Hillary was not consenting since she
wasn’t there, and the essence of their groping was that
they were doing this to her. Which is fine if that turns on,
but Hill wasn’t there to say. In addition to all the other
obvious problems. So whether I like Favreau or even his
girlfriend is not the point. The point is she was exercising
her right of choice. Which means we don’t have
to agree with it.
RIChris — go f*ck yourself — you were the only person here who called this woman a bimbo.
I don’t care about your website or your comments elsewhere.
Then why did you ask, “Astraea, who are you?”
You asked. She answered. You snarked at her.
cwaltz, it’s interesting that wherever we turn in this debate, the porn power structure remains the same. Women are the the gratifiers, not the gratified. Funny how the walls never move, eh.
Yes. Exactly. Funny how that works.
I second murphy — go spend about three weeks reading I Blame the Patriarchy, and then let’s talk.
murphy: did you read the NY Times magazine this weekend? they had a huge article entitled “what do women want?” that was based on studies of women’s sexuality and sexual response … i keep putting this converation in that context
The whole discussion of whether she needed the money
bothers me, too.
What if she did because it turned her on? Who is
anyone else to judge her reasons.
Women have right to choose.
Was she hurting anyone?
Cwaltz — respectfully, this is part of the problem:
Myself? If this girl wants to pose nude for whatever motivation, more power to her.
There is NO power for a woman who chooses to pose nude — thinking there is a lie created by the patriarchy. I admit this lie has become quite popular in our society, with the glorification of such people as Jenna Jameson & Paris Hilton but its popularity doesn’t make the lie the truth.
I can’t believe that I am the only one here defending the idea that porn is bad.
I’m either drinking too much or not enough.
I’m gonna go lay down.
I’m in moderation — release me!
release me from moderation!!
tinfoil,
I was trying to make a point, which I later spelled out: when you are a newcomer visiting someone else’s home, you should introduce yourself and be a little bit courteous. The same could be said about you. And I have no particular desire to talk to you again. I tend to avoid rude people when I can.
BB, maybe I don’t get it, but Favreau’s behavior is his own, as Ms. Campoverdi must own hers. The only thing I see that they have in common is that they’re dating. I’d be more upset if he refused to date her because she posed provocatively.
I’m still trying to figure out how enabling objectification isn’t a problem in itself and how that is equated to ‘she asked for it’ in a rape …
help me here tinfoil?
I’d be more upset if he refused to date her because she went to harvard.
I’m looking at you, Joe “My Wife’s PhD is problem” Biden.
because of the reasons for the porn in the first place dakini.
you have to start there.
I have nothing to say… but just wanted to say something…. kind of like Chris Matthews
We’re going to have to agree to disagree guys. I see absolutely nothing wrong with these magazines. Whether they existed or not men would still think about women and sex. I see no reason to chatise women for voluntarily choosing to pose for these magazines.
I will on Friday wag my fingers at those of you participating in “Fantasy Friday” unless you are planning on trying to convince me you have had a deep and meaningful relationship with those you are fantasizing about.
Seriously.
speakstruth — am I talking to myself here? why are people pretending as if the argument is whether she has the RIGHT to pose for these pictures? That isn’t AT ALL what this is about –what this is about is the lie that posing nude and exploiting yourself some how gives you power — it does not. Furthermore, it lessens the power of all women because we all are reduced to nothing more than sex toys.
Tinfoil hattie — are you Astraea’s attorney?
No one is saying this gives her power. Literally, no one is saying that.
It doesn’t lessen my power. I don’t look like that. I don’t dress like that. Men barely notice me regardless of Ali Comparverdi. I’m far less than a sex toy to them. I don’t exist. And that’s fine with me. I live my life, not Ali’s. She doesn’t live mine. I will not give my power to some girl in Washington, D.C.
porn exists for a myriad of reasons, taggles … what about lesbian porn… does that objectify women?
Wow. This site has really undergone a transformation in the last three months.
Porn is porn, regardless of its stars.
sorry Cinie — people seem to be arguing that Ms. Campoverdi does NOT have to “own her behavior” That is — the damage she does to all women by choosing to exploit herself is A-Ok because hey — she has the RIGHT to pose for these pictures. And that isn’t the case –I’m not bashing her, I’m saying exactly that: she must own her behavior. This behavior neither empowers her nor does it empower any woman. This behavior, in fact, damages all women.
IMO it’s refreshing to see a man take a stand against the degradation and objectification of women.
Until there is just as much porn objectifying men for a female audience, then there is no equality or liberation. And we can continue living under and accepting the assumption that men enjoy sex and women provide it.
Liberation isn’t achieved by feminists who embrace porn. Frankly, for someone not interested in looking at these women, and now soft porn is everywhere, it really becomes flashing. If what these women do is so liberating and acceptable then why is a male flasher thrown in the can? I agree that women shouldn’t be forced to wear burqas but at what point do we admit that neither should we be forced to “enjoy” and applaud someone else’s masturbation material?
Cinie,
I’m not *upset* about any of this. I have two opinions about these people. 1) Jon Favreau is a misogynist. He could change. I hope he does, but I’m not holding my breath. 2) Alejandra Campoverdi can do whatever she wants, but from my point of view, she is not a feminist–not because of the picture, but because of her relationship with Favreau.
Even though none of this is my personal business, I feel I have a right to comment on it for the simple reason that Favreau and his boss Barack Obama have damaged and are going to continue to damage the cause of women’s rights. Ms. Campoverdi is an intelligent woman and should be able to understand that. If she doesn’t understand it now, I hope she will figure it out.
If you have a problem with these opinions, that’s certainly your right. I don’t think I’m being terribly judgmental. My interest in women’s rights is partly because of my own self-interest, in fact.
Regency — you are incorrect — people here have explicitly says it gives her power — financial power, “celebrity” or “fame” (which is a kind of power) and that if she wants to pose for these pictures “more power to her.”
I haven’t heard that at all. It has been said repeatedly that Ali is responsible for the results of her own actions. Every woman and man is responsible for their own actions.
If I call Brad Pitt “hot” am I objectifying him?
if there weren’t a million men buying these magazines, this conversation would be for naught.
Angie, how does Campoverdi’s behavior damage me? Is there some single standard of acceptable female expression of sexuality? Isn’t it dangerous to suggest that?
oh, and lets not forget the “power” over her sexuality! HA — posing naked has nothing to do with sexuality. Good lord, people don’t even know what “sexuality” means anymore. That is how sad this world has gotten.
I was a lingerie model once
there are women that objectify men as wallets …
Because the men who subscribe to these magazines look at you, look at Hillary, look at me and think “f*ck toy.”
Whoa, BB, when did I jump on your opinion? If that’s what you took from anything I said, I apologize, but that’s certainly not where I was coming from.
Angie, blame the men who buy them to wank off to as myiq says.
Wow, the trolls are really having a party in the spam filter. They don’t seem to care if anyone reads their comments. They just keep typing and typing and typing until their little fingers are worn down to the bone…
My comment @ 9:33 is for Cinie. And let me add: posing to sexually turn on men has nothing to do with SEXUALITY — it is making sex a commodity and calling it sexuality.
afrocity — this is not modeling lingerie — this is selling sex.
As I mentioned this morning, the first time a man asked me to “pose for pictures,” I was almost 13. (Technically, it wasn’t the first, the first man actually asked my mom… who complied. Clothed of course.) So these attitudes and acceptance of the porn meme did affect me. It affected my whole life and endless episodes of harassment. It’s no fun, and simply not fair, to be defined by something one doesn’t even participate in. But, hey, that’s life.
Angie
What makes you think they can’t do that with your clothes on? The treatment of women as brood mares predates these magazines.
Sorry, Cinie. I didn’t mean to come across that way. I was agreeing with you before. I just wanted to explain how I actually feel about this situation.
They have said that she did the things she has done in pursuit of the things you’ve listed. They haven’t said she acquired it. She wanted her 15 minutes. She got them. She wanted celebrity and she found it. She made money. These things happened. “More power to her” is a figure of speech and I’m sure you know that already.
I can’t speak for anybody other than myself but I think she got what she came for.
My mother was a beauty queen in her younger days. I was in pageants when I was a child. When I stopped having fun, I stopped. She didn’t hurt me with that.
Angie, blame the men who buy them to wank off to as myiq says.
I think that’s not a good thing and you’re angry at me . . .why?
taggles — I blame the men who buy them TOO. Furthermore, I admit I blame the women less than I blame the men because I actually do feel sorry for them as victims of the patriarchy, as buying into the lie that this behavior empowers them sexually and all the other b.s. that is sold to women about this behavior. However, that does not mean I believe these women should be held completely innocent for their actions. They should be held accountable as well.
Regency — I don’t think beauty pageants are at all the same thing. But I do remember the days when “racy photos” caused Miss America to have to relinquish her crown –now it seems that “racy photos’ are a thing to be celebrated. This is not the right path for empowering women.
Cinie,
To elaborate, I guess I’m feeling a little defensive. I tend to be a very open-minded person, so I don’t care that this young woman posed for these pictures. But I can’t agree with taggles that somehow women (especially well educated women with lots of opportunities) are completely blameless if they particpate in porn and get romantically involved with misogynists. I think women have to be seen as adults who are responsible for their public behavior and can be criticized for it.
cwaltz –true, men do it to women who have their clothes on — I’ve experienced it myself on several occasions — but I don’t have to encourage it & I don’t have to praise other women who encourage it either.
I modeled the lingerie for a calendar of women over 35, to show that we still “had it”. It got me a lot of stalkers, including one with a lisp that carried around a ferret all the time. But anyway sometimes I regret doing the candidate.
It was like that movie where the British women did the calendar for the garden project.
bostonboomer, on January 27th, 2009 at 9:41 pm Said:
bb — well put!
Regency — one more thing — I’m, unfortunately, familiar with Maxim magazine — I know exactly the reasons c-list celebs pose in it for very little money. Furthermore, you said: They haven’t said she acquired it. That is completely irrelevant, imo.
The “patriarchy” is why we judge women for sexual behavior. In a matriarchy, posing nude would likely not raise eyebrows. If Maxim didn’t exist, men would whack off to National Geographic and Sears catalog like they used to. Victoria’s Secret’s catalog is soft porn too. And not always THAT darned soft.
The fact that an attitude predates these magazine does not justify perpetuating it.
bostonboomer, no one has to agree with me. so please do not feel defensive on my account. these are my opinions.
why do you think she posed for the pic, to bring down women?? I don’t think so. I think she probably did it to try and promote her career. it is indicative of the sexism and powerlessness women have in this thriving patriarchy.
secondly, millions of women are married to sexists in this country because most men in this country are sexists.
I do not judge that.
Regency
That is exactly what I meant. Her value set is her value set. it doesn’t have to be the same as mine. I don’t have to agree with her choices. She doesn’t have to agree with mine. I neither condemn nor condone her behavior.
why am I in moderation?
Because I said ferret?
Dances -
I musta missed that post too.
angie,
The original point of myiq’s post was not about
whether posing nude gives you power. His point was
that her behavior should be “condemned”.
The power issue is an entirely different issue, though
it is interesting. I could probably make a case that it
does, but really I think it depends on a lot of other factors,
such as who you’re posing nude for, and what you get for
it. But I don’t think it automatically disempowers you.
I feel a little like talking to myself here, too, because
no one has addressed my central point.
What matters, what is feminist, is what that particular
woman wants. Now if she tries to influence others that
her choice is right, that would be wrong too.
Individual choice. If she feels empowered by it, because
she makes money, or feels sexy, or loves being worshiped
or looked at, or whatever rings her bell, she’s
empowered. That’s it.
Consenting. Adults.
Oh, and it’s different from saying someone asked for
rape because in rape she didn’t ask for it.
Unless, it’s a mutual game played by two consenting
adults. And then it’s not really rape, just a game.
I ignored that post by MyIq way back when. I thought it was in bad taste and there were other posts up. There was no reason to comment. There’s no reason to comment now because that is NOT what’s up for discussion.
I don’t even know what is anymore.
gxm
Are you saying that if these magazines didn’t exist men wouldn’t fantasize about women? If folks like Ms c weren’t posing in their undies that men wouldn’t imagine women in their undies?
Cinie — posing nude is not pornography — and it isn’t sexual behavior, either. This is where we seem to be talking at cross-purposes. The fact that a man could be turned on by a nude doesn’t make it sexual behavior. However, when a woman poses for the sole object of “turning men on” that is selling herself as an object –and that, btw, is not “sexual behavior” that is commerce –no different from selling a car. Is that what women are? Cars? I don’t think so, and I don’t think we she be sold as such.
Thanks to the person who got me out of moderation
Speaktruth: I think a few of us have already repeatedly backed you up. Whatever her reasons are they are hers. That’s her business. You’re not alone.
Okay, I love the Confluence, but these two threads have been depressing and infuriating and exhausting.
Oh no, I meant doing the calendar. No “doing” the candidate. I am embarrassed .
How do you know why she posed? What if she posed because she thought it would get her exposure to get a part in a movie? Would it be okay for her to pose in her undies then because her “sole” purpose wasn’t to gratify men?
DanceswithPumas:
I don’t know why you have a problem with me but if you want to insult me you’re gonna have to do it somewhere else.
angie,
Just saw one of your comments. I’m way behind here,
working hard trying to catch up on comments and writing.
I disagree. Posing nude can be sexy. There is not
only one definition of sex.
Has this generation ever read Erica Jong. I
recommend it. A feminist with very unconventional
ideas about sex. Big influence on my generation.
Afrocity LOL!
afrocity, on January 27th, 2009 at 9:46 pm Said:
why am I in moderation?
Because I said ferret?
************
Ferret??
speakstruth — this is were we have a divergence of opinions.
But I don’t think it automatically disempowers you.
I feel a little like talking to myself here, too, because
no one has addressed my central point.
I think it does automatically disempowers you because once you sell yourself as a sex object — regardless of what you “get”out of it, there is very little chance of coming back from that. I don’t care what a woman gets from it — that is irrelevant to me — there are porn stars who are multiple-millionaires –is that what we want young women to emulate (and stop, don’t look now, that is exactly what they are emulating these days — that it is ok to sell yourself as a sex object if it gets you fame, money, etc.) I believe this attitude and actions makes the problem worse for all women.
My position is that the objectification of women is bad and that we should disapprove of anyone who willingly participates in it, and for that I am getting blasted by women.
Speaktruth: What has she written? If more than one work, which do you recommend?
No. Are you saying that women don’t fantasize about men? I’m saying that the patriarchal idea that women are always the sex objects and men are always the objectifiers will never result in liberation no matter how you try to paint it. Change the meme. If women are so sexually empowered then start demanding that the men take their clothes off and perform for the powerful ladies.
Taggles,
I don’t feel defensive about anything you said. I was feeling defensive about people who seemed to be reading something into my words that wasn’t there–not you. If you don’t want me to react to what you say, I won’t. But I like and respect you a lot, so it was important to me to take in and try to understand your point of view.
I don’t see any way in which this particular young woman, Alejandra Campoverdi, can be seen as powerless. She works in the White House, for heaven’s sake. She has access to the top advisors to the POTUS.
In my opinion to treat this young woman as powerless and unable to make different choices is to treat her as a child rather than an adult. But my real objection is to anything to do with Jon Favreau.
It’s all good afro.
I wouldn’t think any worse of you either way
Angie, you’re right, that probably is where we differ. I’m not sure that posing provocatively is ever all about the money. I’d be willing to bet that the woman modeling does get sexual pleasure from it. At least some of them, anyway. A woman who feels degraded is probably not going to be very good at it.
Speaktruth,
I’ve read Erica Jong. But she too attacked and lied about Sarah Palin. I’ve reached the point where I’m just thinking things out for myself these days.
My position is that no one gets to objectify me without my permission. And no one gets to take my power away. I’ll be damned if some co-ed determines what power I can and cannot have in my lifetime.
speakstruth — I never meant to imply that posing nude could not be “sexy” What I said is that a nude, in and of itself, is NOT sexual. There is a big difference in our philosophy if you think a nude in & of itself is sexual — and I will chalk that up to my European upbringing.
and just to make myself clear to head off any further misunderstanding: imo, a “sexy” nude is NOT per se pornography, either.
angie,
What if it turns her on to turn on men. Is she being
exploited then?
Sexuality is a strange thing. Unique and individual.
By deciding what is acceptable we are not any better
then gay bashers.
We don’t know what others’ motives are.
Can I clarify something? The original post was intended to point out the hypocrisy of the Obama camp and the extremity of their double-standards for women, right? I mean, the whole Swimsuit Models with PhDs in Architecture thing is a facetious comment about the incredibly high standards to which women are held, right?
Because see, I have no problem with pointing out this hypocrisy. But I do have a problem with the tone that the conversation quickly took, and that it seems still persists. We are making an awful lot of judgments and assumptions and condemnations without a lot of information. From both sides. I don’t care why she posed. I don’t care if she got paid. I don’t care if she was desperate, or if she regrets it, or if she “owns” her actions. I care that we’re spending hours of time judging a woman we don’t know and complaining about objectification. That strikes me as marginally ironic.
And while I’m at it, I like porn, I don’t think sexuality is in any way Base, low, or degrading, and I don’t think that its appropriate to blame women for expressing pornified sexuality. Sexuality is so close to the bone that it is exceptionally difficult to change, and in many cases cannot be changed at all. So YES, many women do get off on stuff that’s been shoved down our throats by the patriarchy, including heels, lipstick, being sexually objectified, and being sexually dominated. Do any of us honestly believe that a woman can simply flip a switch and alter her fundamental sexuality? So if this woman is, as many women are, sexually fulfilled by exhibitionism? I’m all for her posing in whatever way she prefers.
gxm
Perhaps you missed it earlier, I subscribed to playgirl. I love the male body. I love the broad shoulders and flat chest. I marvel in the differences between me and hubby.
I also feel pretty comfortable with the female body I was given both with or sans clothing.
Okay, when I saw the Maxim cover I had negative feelings about it. Then I realized I was hypocrite because I did the calendar. The calendar I did was in support of older women like myself who wanted to show women that we can still be sexy after 35. We were riding on the 40 is the new 30, thing. We wanted magazines to stop ignoring us as far as marketing is concerned. As soon as a model is 29 she is doing Revlon Age Defiance commercials. I admit it, I saw the pics the other day and since I will be 40 this year I look at them and think
But i had some boyfriends that found it hard to believe I had a masters after i was in the calendar. I thought that was unfair. All my life I was judged for my brains. I just wanted to see a different side of myself.
Afrocity you are some Brown Suga
BB it’s not about her. why is she the slut???
I know you didn’t call her a slut, but that is the basic implication of this thread.
It is the patriarchy. She is a victim of it just as every single other woman is! She is no different in that respect.
the root of the problem does not lie with her.
cwaltz, on January 27th, 2009 at 9:56 pm Said:
It’s all good afro.
I wouldn’t think any worse of you either way
_________________________________________
Can’t think any worse of a conservative right?
bb,
Yes, I was shocked and disappointed when I saw her
bash Palin. Not like her. Maybe it’s just old age. Or
Obama psychosis.
One of the many people who disappointed me this
election.
But I was referring to the way she educated and
opened my mind about sex way back when.
Regency: willl you just run to your mother and tell her she’s a goddess in my eyes! ty
I know you didn’t call her a slut, but that is the basic implication of this thread.
No
“Slut shaming” is the expression used by our visitors.
But you have persuaded me – I am now in favor of the right of women to pose naked and and nearly naked and to perform sexually in magazines and videos for the sexual gratification of others.
Afro
You should be allowed to have both. The idea that a woman can’t be attractive and intelligent is absurd. It’s horrible that you were made to feel bad about something that you did that initially made you feel good about an aspect of yourself you were exploring.