Wasn’t Play Boy rather progressive at all times? What’s the broken clock?
I really hate peoples’ misconstruing of attraction with objectification. The presence of nudity doesn’t make something bad, exploitative, or wrong. The presence of someone attractive does not mean that is the entire point.
I won’t defend Hefner, but the articles genuinely were (and are) as far to the left as you’ll see in any widely circulated publication. Being associated with porn gave them cover to write whatever they wanted.
The hilarious part is that as the number and availability of nude photos has increased geometrically, buying old vintage Playboys for the articles is legitimately a thing now.
He wanted Playboy to be progressive (on abortion, weed, euthanasia, sexuality, etc), and he wanted equality for women, but he personally didn’t live by those same rules. Rules for thee, not for me, etc.
That’s just my opinion, though.
Dude, Maragret Atwood wrote for Playboy. Hefner was a misogynist. The magazine’s porn was sexist. The articles and interviews were so incredible that it was an honor for a lot of writers to be featured in Playboy.
For sure but that doesn’t mean he couldn’t be progressive especially for the time. Know nothing about him tbh but many historical progressive figures are pretty problematic
There is definitely something to be said of context. Any learned feminist should know that. First and second wave feminism would be (and are) downright toxic by today’s standards, but back then, that veneer of vicious independence was absolutely necessary when pitted against that very ingrained patriarchy of the time.
Not to say the patriarchy is solved by any means, just that fewer and fewer positions of power are gendered by expectation.
Yeah and it should be noted that second and third wave feminism weren’t happening separately, most of their existence was simultaneous, it was thesis and antithesis, call and response. Second did things and third called it out. Anti porn feminism came about criticizing men taking sexual advantage of women and then the third responded with shit like all women porn collectives creating porn by women for women and presenting the statement that porn isn’t inherently exploitative, men use porn to exploit women for sexual pleasure and financial gain.
Criticism of playboy from a feminist perspective is deeply rooted in the second wave. It was Steinem who led it and she was as many iconic second wave theorists were, not wrong but incomplete. (Side note, I’m mentioning her a lot and need to point out her role in the satanic panic, she’d 1000% be into Qanon today). But Steinem wouldn’t care that playboy published everything from Hunter S. Thompson to Margaret Atwood to a frank discussion about her transition with Wendy Carlos.
They absolutely exploited women’s bodies to sell good journalism, but it was damn good journalism, so in the end it’s just kinda weird
While Hefner was a bit of an enigma, he was definitely chauvinistic in his private life in my opinion, but Playboy and even Hefner himself was pretty left on social issues including being sex positive and equality for women.
It was a mix. Hefner was an absolute pig, and Steinem’s famous expose must be acknowledged here. But also it was the main magazine of counterculture. They would publish feminists. They would publish anyone interesting.
Wendy Carlos actually had an iconic interview with them talking about her transition and it was in part because their articles were willing to treat her like a person and take her seriously. Their porn on the other hand, once again, super fucking misogynistic.
Wasn’t Play Boy rather progressive at all times? What’s the broken clock?
I really hate peoples’ misconstruing of attraction with objectification. The presence of nudity doesn’t make something bad, exploitative, or wrong. The presence of someone attractive does not mean that is the entire point.
deleted by creator
Good lord no, playboy was always super misogynistic. Hugh Hefner was MASSIVELY problematic lol.
I won’t defend Hefner, but the articles genuinely were (and are) as far to the left as you’ll see in any widely circulated publication. Being associated with porn gave them cover to write whatever they wanted.
Penn Jillette was a writer for playboy, and Margret Atwood, Kurt Vonnegut, Roald Dahl
Like tons of famous autrhors.
Don’t forget your favorite kids poet, Shel Silverstein
Thanks, I knew I was forgetting one, my wife actually told me most of the list and I think she said him too.
Ok, but Penn Jillette is a libertarian.
Sure, but that means on social issues (like the trans rights) he is very “progressive”.
The hilarious part is that as the number and availability of nude photos has increased geometrically, buying old vintage Playboys for the articles is legitimately a thing now.
It doesn’t hurt that their articles were actually iconic.
Seriously though. My straight mom apparently used to subscribe to playboy.
I just got the magazine for the ads I swear!
He wanted Playboy to be progressive (on abortion, weed, euthanasia, sexuality, etc), and he wanted equality for women, but he personally didn’t live by those same rules. Rules for thee, not for me, etc.
That’s just my opinion, though.
Dude, Maragret Atwood wrote for Playboy. Hefner was a misogynist. The magazine’s porn was sexist. The articles and interviews were so incredible that it was an honor for a lot of writers to be featured in Playboy.
For sure but that doesn’t mean he couldn’t be progressive especially for the time. Know nothing about him tbh but many historical progressive figures are pretty problematic
There is definitely something to be said of context. Any learned feminist should know that. First and second wave feminism would be (and are) downright toxic by today’s standards, but back then, that veneer of vicious independence was absolutely necessary when pitted against that very ingrained patriarchy of the time.
Not to say the patriarchy is solved by any means, just that fewer and fewer positions of power are gendered by expectation.
Yeah and it should be noted that second and third wave feminism weren’t happening separately, most of their existence was simultaneous, it was thesis and antithesis, call and response. Second did things and third called it out. Anti porn feminism came about criticizing men taking sexual advantage of women and then the third responded with shit like all women porn collectives creating porn by women for women and presenting the statement that porn isn’t inherently exploitative, men use porn to exploit women for sexual pleasure and financial gain.
Criticism of playboy from a feminist perspective is deeply rooted in the second wave. It was Steinem who led it and she was as many iconic second wave theorists were, not wrong but incomplete. (Side note, I’m mentioning her a lot and need to point out her role in the satanic panic, she’d 1000% be into Qanon today). But Steinem wouldn’t care that playboy published everything from Hunter S. Thompson to Margaret Atwood to a frank discussion about her transition with Wendy Carlos.
They absolutely exploited women’s bodies to sell good journalism, but it was damn good journalism, so in the end it’s just kinda weird
While Hefner was a bit of an enigma, he was definitely chauvinistic in his private life in my opinion, but Playboy and even Hefner himself was pretty left on social issues including being sex positive and equality for women.
It was a mix. Hefner was an absolute pig, and Steinem’s famous expose must be acknowledged here. But also it was the main magazine of counterculture. They would publish feminists. They would publish anyone interesting.
Wendy Carlos actually had an iconic interview with them talking about her transition and it was in part because their articles were willing to treat her like a person and take her seriously. Their porn on the other hand, once again, super fucking misogynistic.
I also recall that they would publish academics arguing for gay rights in the letters to the editors
That’s the joke, yeah