Comments

1. mireille wrote:

   Christie Hefner is a successful business woman who has revitalized a brand that many people by the mid to late 80s saw as and old fashioned strong hold of male chauvinism and has turned it into the world head quarters of “girl power”, which is a distinctly different animal than feminism. Girl power, as it were, is the bleach blond consumerist version of feminism, where women use their strength as consumers (both material and sexual) to create superficial social change. If she self identifies as a feminist, so be it. Her money will help keep abortion legal. I, however, don’t have to like her money-beats-all brand of, ahem, feminism.

   As for the above quote, I wouldn’t necessarily disagree. It is, however, a very strange thing coming from a women who is in charge of a multimedia company that helps reinforce some of the most racist-ass beauty standards and sexual expectations I can think of. As an anti racist feminist, I find nothing to love about Playboy. The fact that playboy could be used as code for “black man is having sex with white women” in the Harold Ford senate race ad debacle says something not only about the state of Tennessee but about the content of the magazine.

   Both feminism and anti-racist activism has a degree of intellectual rigor that is discouraged by lifestyle brands like Playboy. I don’t care how many masters degrees Bridget (one of hugh’s girlfriends) has because that isn’t what’s being paraded for millions here. Christie Hefner’s endorsement of a (literally) 2D female sexuality experiance has made her rich. It has also robbed her of the chance to speak authoritatively on feminism, much less race relations.

   Posted 28 Aug 2007 at 3:22 pm ¶

2. derek wrote:

   It depends on how you define feminism. If you define feminism as the belief that women and men are equal and we, as humans, are obligated to treat them as equal members of the human family (which is how I feel about feminism) then yes, being against that would be pretty much on par with being a racist. Because, according to www-m-w.com, racism is a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. Replace gender with race and it sounds like the direct opposite of what I believe feminism to be.

   As far as porn being feminist, I don’t think that can happen until we netralize the oversexualization of nudity, especially female nudity, and that won’t happen until companies stop using sex to sell every damn thing!

   Posted 28 Aug 2007 at 3:28 pm ¶

3. Jeff wrote:

   It depends on what she means by feminism because a lot of things fall under that name. There’s the school of thought in Literary Theory that goes by the name Feminism and there’s the ethical theory that goes by the name Feminism. Heck, Wikipedia says that there’s even a Feminist branch of Economics. If she’s talking about equal rights for women then yes, I think there’s a parallel to be drawn between that and racism, but I think that the word she used has so many meanings that it isn’t really clear.

   Posted 28 Aug 2007 at 5:39 pm ¶

4. Bitchinvegankitchen wrote:

   Ms. Hefner and the feminist politics aside, I think this come down to an issue of language. Carmen has talked on the podcast about how people hear “racist” and think “evil, Hitler, KKK.” Therefore people who actually do racist things all the time would never call themselves racist since they think only think racism is that kind of extemity rather than everyday prejudice and socialized behaviors.

   Meanwhile the f-word has been demonized by people from just about every political stripe at one time or another. It’s been a convenient scapegoat for everything from sexually active teens, boys not doing well in school, divorce and rape. It’s has a reputation more like Black Power than Civil Rights for the average person: extreme, angry, society changing. This is not to say this is an accurate representation so much as a stereotype though.

   I think the more analogous thing to ask the average person would be “are you a sexist?” I think you’d get a similar response there: no one says they’re sexist– even if they are.

   As for people who “know better” such as academics or activists and still refuse to acknowledge feminism and its central role in progressive and leftist politics as well as the myriad ways women and men’s lives have changed because of it (for the better), well that just makes me angry…

   Posted 28 Aug 2007 at 6:09 pm ¶

5. SeelaMae wrote:

   I too think Playboy sucks on many levels, for everyone but white males, really. I agree with this quote - not saying you are a feminist is a form of self-hating for women. There is the stigma that has so deftly been attached to the word “feminist” which keeps women shying away from it. You could equate it with a black person not identifying with the Black Power movement I suppose but it’s more accurate to say it’s like a black person saying “I don’t believe in racial equality” - because feminism is the belief in equality of the sexes. Feel free to take this discussion into the use of the word “bitch” vs. the n word. See? One’s not OK to even type.

   Posted 28 Aug 2007 at 6:37 pm ¶

6. Jeremy Pierce wrote:

   The parallel of racism in terms of gender/sex would be misogyny. One can fail to be a feminist without actively hating women or wishing bad for women. One cannot be a racist without some negative attitude toward someone because of their race (or at least their perceived race). One can be racially insensitive. One can partake in racist structures in society. One can have racist beliefs. But being a racist is more than any of those things. It requires a negative attitude that one might not have merely because one doesn’t sign on to a feminist view. Someone can do that merely out of ignorance, for instance, and that would be at most gender insensitivity, not misogyny.

   Posted 28 Aug 2007 at 6:52 pm ¶

7. Yolanda Carrington wrote:

   I understand the spirit of the quote, but yet again why is racism used as a comparative point to anti-feminism, instead of sexism itself? Doesn’t the concept of sexism as a social/moral wrong carry weight on its own merits? But yeah, I agree with the spirit of the quote: making anti-feminist statements is tacit support of sexism and the status quo.

   Now the fact that it’s Christine Hefner who has uttered these words is what makes me choke. What the hell has she or her father ever done for antiracism or feminism? (And no, woman of color centerfolds don’t count.)

   Posted 28 Aug 2007 at 7:50 pm ¶

8. georgia wrote:

   Companies will never stop using sex to sell anything because it works. We are emotional beings that respond to sexual imagery along with many other images that we see.

   Is Hefner a bad person who is purposely trying to make women and girls who don’t fit the Playboy mold feel bad about themselves. Of course not. And to say she isn’t a feminist because you don’t agree with her business it uncalled for.

   There has always been a standard of beauty (although it changes) and there will continue to be a standard of beauty that most people can’t reach. Because the fact is that most people are not great beauties. And since whites are a majority in the US they dominate the media and what is fashionable.

   If the girls in Playboy are not for you then you can find what you like somewhere else, the internet has allowed people to find exactly what gets them going no matter how obscure.

   Posted 28 Aug 2007 at 10:46 pm ¶

9. benny wrote:

   Dictionary definitions aside, we all know that “racist” is already a much more loaded term than “sexist”, to speak nothing of “not a feminist”. It’s probably more comparable in tone to “misogynist”.

   Sexist men still desire the company of women on some level, while racist people would be perfectly happy to live in a world without minorities. That makes a big difference in how these terms play out.

   Posted 29 Aug 2007 at 2:09 am ¶

10. latinamericanprinces wrote:

    I am not familiar with Ms. Hefner or her work, but I have to stand up a little for the material consumption side here. Consumption is a dirty word in society today, but in fact it can be a very powerful tool. It empowers the consumers rather than the producers.

    I did a small ethnographic study and wrote a paper on the topic, in which I concluded that:

    “Social change is effectively introduced through behavior and consumption (the agency of the individual) in support of ideologies and individual identities, not through blaming the media or for that matter marketing.”

    That said, I do agree that the bleached-blond Barbie look is old and tired, but I do not agree with the quote from Hefner. Feminism has many strains and variations, many meanings, while racism although it can take many forms is rather clear. Saying you are “not a feminist” is not really the same as “anti-feminist”. Racism is the anti whereas feminism is a movement/ideology against sexism.

    Posted 29 Aug 2007 at 3:50 am ¶

11. Jess McCabe wrote:

    It does sound shocking, but I really do agree with this. A feminist is a person who believes that men and women are equal, period. Feminism is a broad school, but that’s the basic premise of all versions of it.

    To be honest, there has been so much misinformation put out there about feminism, that I think a good number of people who claim not to be feminists probably do subscribe to this basic belief, but don’t identify with it because of not really understanding what it’s about.

    But still. To say you’re not a feminist is actually a very reactionary statement - you’re stating that one half of the population is worth less than the other half. It’s not that far removed from happily declaring yourself to be a racist.

    Posted 29 Aug 2007 at 9:07 am ¶

12. Versai wrote:

    “while racist people would be perfectly happy to live in a world without minorities. ”

    I don’t think that’s really true. Racist people would be happy to live in a world where minorities “knew their place”. Just as men who are sexist don’t mind “good” women aka women who know their place.

    Posted 29 Aug 2007 at 9:58 am ¶

13. tasha wrote:

    Georgia wrote:

    “Is Hefner a bad person who is purposely trying to make women and girls who don’t fit the Playboy mold feel bad about themselves. Of course not. And to say she isn’t a feminist because you don’t agree with her business it uncalled for.”

    perhaps, I’m old fashioned, conservative or what have you, but I was always brought up not to put too much stock in the opinions of pornographers, no matter how prolific their business savvy may be. Christy Hefner’s brand of “feminism” is analogous to the third wave kind, the Girls Gone Wild, Paris Hilton guide to fame and notoriety (make a sex tape), “being asked to pose in a men’s magazine is the highest honor a woman can attain”, kind of “feminism” which is steeped in moral relativism and the sort of female objectification that the second wave feminists fought tooth and nail against; the same brand of third wave feminism that has cast away modesty in favor of things such as hook-up culture and women choosing to degrade themselves in music videos, magazine etc., and then turning around and calling it empowerment. Ever think there was a reason why parents aren’t rushing out to the stores to consume Playboy bunny paraphernalia for their daughters or venerating Christy Hefner as role model?

    You know, I shutter to think what the reaction to Hefner’s remarks would have been like had she been Joe Francis (man who founded Girls Gone Wild) and not a woman. I really don’t think we would be discussing Joe Francis in any type of favorable regard. Maybe that has something to do with the fact that unlike “Girls”, people read Playboy for the articles?

    Posted 29 Aug 2007 at 10:51 am ¶

14. benny wrote:

    True, Versai. But my statement doesn’t negate your statement. The point was to show a contrast between racism and sexism.

    Posted 29 Aug 2007 at 12:38 pm ¶

15. donna darko wrote:

    “To say you’re not a feminist is virtually the same thing as saying you’re a racist.”

    I would take anything Christine Hefner says with a grain of salt and prefer Beverly Tatum’s model in her book Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?

    There’s anti-racism or walking in the opposite direction on a moving walkway so that you’re actually moving backwards.

    There’s the status quo or standing still on a moving walkway so you are moving at the speed of the walkway in the direction of the walkway.

    And there’s racism or walking in the direction of the walkway at a speed faster than the walkway.

    So more accurate statements would have been “To say you’re not a feminist is virtually the same thing as saying you’re not an anti-racist” or “To say you’re not a sexist is virtually the same thing as saying you’re a racist.”

    Posted 29 Aug 2007 at 4:47 pm ¶

16. Lisa wrote:

    I’m no fan of Playboy’s, but I think the message implicit is that misogyny is as bad as, and should be as socially unacceptable, as racism.

    Anti-feminism=sexism=misogyny.

    I would even venture that America is more sexist then it is racist, overtly at least. Public airing of racist “jokes” and comments get a well-deserved smack-down, but sexism (and homophobia) remain quite acceptable.

    It is sad that the term Feminist has been so villianized in popular culture, along with liberal. But look at who’s doing the villianizing - Rush Limbaugh and that ilk - and it says a lot.

    Posted 30 Aug 2007 at 11:44 pm ¶

17. Tarah Sweeney wrote:

    I think it’s great that someone came out and said something about feminism. And does it matter that it is Ms Hefner?

    Why do we not applaud her for stating the obvious?

    Posted 22 Jan 2008 at 9:55 am ¶

Post a Comment