Johanna Kruppa thinks feminists are too uptight in their denouncement of "nudey pics" in Playboy.
"I think they suffer from lack of knowledge and tunnel vision. How many of those self-important, so-called 'feminists' have been on the set when a celebrity shot a Playboy spread? There you go. What is feminist about discriminating a photo shoot just because it involves female (partial) nudity that happens to give men pleasure? Pathetic," Krupa told Tarts in an exclusive interview.
Well, let me unbunch my panties so I can effectively debunk this idea that feminists are too uptight to see how empowering posing for magazines like, Playboy and Maxim are for women.
Feminists have opposing view points on pornography and other forms of erotic art, that is not a new story, but suggesting that feminists don't get how "empowering" it is to fit into society's standards of able-bodied, white, cis-gendered, thinness, well let's just say we totally get that. I am not saying the act isn't empowering for her, like she said, I wasn't there, but the process that empowers her is embedded in a really specific idea of what a woman should look like and the kind of woman that "turns men on." It is not the function of turning men on that is the sexist part to me, but the unrealistic expectation put on women through the production and proliferation of images like Kruppa's and the corresponding value put on women's bodies through this very same process. And the corresponding sexist vitriol spread in magazines like Maxim. Put a big girl on the cover of Playboy. Just once. Prove me wrong.
What is interesting is that Kruppa combines her criticism of feminists with America's inability to embrace sexuality over violence. She has a point there, it is true that in many ways violence is more acceptable in popular culture than sexuality, but that is not a problem of feminism, that is a function of sexism. Feminism can only make that better.
Related:
Sex and the Simpsons: Marge's Playboy cover
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Why Won't Those Big Mean Feminists Let Me Have My Naked Playboy Fun?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16993
From the article:
“There are several great reasons why female celebs line up to shoot Playboy: finally a woman gets paid more than a man for comparable work, she gets to set the rules..."
Yes, as long as you're naked and objectified, you are equal and can 'set the rules'!
Pardon me if I don't break out the 'Feminism: Mission Accomplished' banner and the noisemakers.
This article is a great example of this watered-down version, even manipulation, of feminist ideas re-deployed to sell patriarchal capitalism's objectification of women's bodies. Its the whole "look how liberated I am CHOOSING to do ____" (fill in with some heinously objectifying activity).
I guess "choosing" isn't always so liberating.
If empowerment through showing your breasts in a sexual manner were real, you would think that women would have a lot more power than we do now. I mean, GGW is enough to start an army of sexually liberated and empowered women, yet nobody even knows any of their names (I assume).
very good point there. I never, ever, ever, felt empowered by the male gaze when I was semi-attractive. Felt more like devoured.
I think last time I asked this similar question it didn't make it past moderation, but I'm going to try again because it truly is in good faith.
What's the feminist vision here? No naked pictures of people? No porn? What is it? Is the solution a law outlawing nude photos? Is it an alternative Playboy featuring a greater variety of body types? I know there will be different answers but I'd take anything specific, because while I know pornography/erotic art makes a lot of feminists uncomfortable but I can't figure out what exactly is being suggested.
What's the feminist vision here?
Equality between men and women.
That way, women have different options for the work they'll be paid well for. Women will not, by default, be the objectified for the male gaze.
That way, women can pose nude (or however clothed they want) because they want to do that to the exclusion of all other ways to make money.
There's no really satisfactory course of action short of massive social readjustment or the dismantling of capitalism. imho. The problem is that the porn industry is, well, an industry, and so it produces material for a predominantly male audience with inset views of how women should look/behave/be treated. It couldn't exist any other way. And so, as long as your consumers have sexist preferences, your producers will make a sexist product.
One solution is to change the attitudes of the customers. It's not impossible, but there's over a century's worth of ingrained 'ideals of feminine beauty' to overcome. Another solution is to place the 'means of production,' so to speak, in the hands of women, rather than men. I still don't buy this as a useful solution, because porn that's produced will remain subject to mens' preferences. If porn still enforces society's "able-bodied, white, cis-gendered, thin" standards, then the gender of the producer doesn't really matter--the "unrealistic expectation" remains.
You could try to force a supply-side resolution (alt-Playboy) but the only way it will catch on is if men accept it. How do you get men to accept it? Back to solution one. Hearts and minds, all the way.
Except that you're assuming all porn-consumers are male.
Except that i'm not. See: "predominantly male audience."
The majority of porn consumers are male, so men will still drive the market.
No she's not. She said porn has a "predominantly male audience", not exclusively male.
"It is not the function of turning men on that is the sexist part to me, but the unrealistic expectation put on women through the production and proliferation of images like Kruppa's and the corresponding value put on women's bodies through this very same process."
Please tell me when the rest of the population will FINALLY understand that this is what is incompatible with feminism - the beauty standard, NOT the beauty? I love the female form (and the male). I think erotic art can be beautiful. I watch porn. I'm a member of a feminist burlesque troupe - I think burlesque is hot and love to participate in it. I'm very sex-positive, I'm for all things sexy and think our media is fucking starved of real sexuality.
What isn't hot is when pornography caters to the straight white male fatphobic ageist gaze, and THAT's what sucks about Playboy. Not the models. We have no problem with them. We support their right to get naked and yes, we understand why they do it and think they should be allowed.
We dislike the fucking INSTITUTION. Get it, already, people! It's not the models that piss us off, it's the producers of this art. The magazine publishers and editors and photographers; whoever it is that hires the models, I don't know who it is. But they are the ones who are unwilling to seek out alternative forms of beauty. They are the ones who perpetuate a static idea of sexuality. Fuck them. (But not literally.) Fuck the standard.
But if you wanna get naked - go nuts. No matter what you look like. (And no, I won't use the term "real women.")
“There are several great reasons why female celebs line up to shoot Playboy: finally a woman gets paid more than a man for comparable work, she gets to set the rules, gets to be in a real team work with other women, as many key positions at Playboy are in fact held by women!" Krupa adds. "She brings in her creative ideas, gets involved in the photo selection and ends up with something she co-created through and through."
Yeah, life would be *so* much more fun without those "so-called" "self-important" feminists.
'Cause those mean feminists haven't had any impact on workplace dynamics or pay gaps or equality or anything silly like that.
I'm sorry, but I just don't get this whole "empowerment through posing sexually" thing. Exactly what is being accomplished here? Let's see... men are reminded that thin white women with big breasts are the only women worth looking at... check. Women are turned into sexual objects existing for the purpose of pleasing the visual "needs" of men.. check. Women's "expression of sexuality" gets hijacked and turned into simply being a sexy object for men to stare at...check. Is the "empowring" part the part where she feels validated as a human being since she has officially achieved guy mag approved hotness?
I truly don't understand the empowerment behind it. I get why someone would feel that way, but to me it seems more like an illusion of power rather than actual empowerment.
I really hate when women badmouth feminists like it makes them somehow look good to guys or something. I really dislike catty women.
Feminism made it possible for you to show off your body like that, lady.
I don't think your last sentence is true. Women have always posed naked for money through-out the ages.
Whoa. Stop.
From the article: “There are several great reasons why female celebs line up to shoot Playboy: finally a woman gets paid more than a man for comparable work, she gets to set the rules, gets to be in a real team work with other women, as many key positions at Playboy are in fact held by women!" Krupa adds. "She brings in her creative ideas, gets involved in the photo selection and ends up with something she co-created through and through."
Women hold some of the key positions in Playboy?
THAT IS SO COOL AND FUTURISTIC. I bet Playboy thought of hiring women in senior positions all by themselves, too. No thanks to those mean feminists bitching about their job equality and workplace dynamics.
Read her quote again. She's not dissing feminism as a whole. She disagrees with certain flavors of feminism, and claims that she finds those flavors un-feminist.
At least, I think. She's not terribly articulate.
If everyone's hackles didn't instantly go up at the slight hint of EW FEMINISM EW!! I don't think we'd be so quick to jump on her.
First: Sorry for the double-ish post, I thought that my first comment got eaten so I re-typed it with double the snark. Slightly embarrassing.
Second: Good point about the "ew, feminist" attitude. The article is definitely framed...I don't know what the right word is, but I'm looking at the first two paragraphs and I'm thinking that "fox news" should really be its own state of mind.
I re-read Krupa's comments, and I still get the sense that she views feminism as a monolithic group that's out to get Playboy.
It's fine to disagree with certain aspects (or flavors, as you put it =) of feminism, but I don't think that's what she's saying. I agree with Samhita 100%. From Krupa's comments I get more of the attitude that if you don't feel empowered by Playboy, you just don't get it and thus are not on the cool train.
And that's dismissive. I definitely wouldn't expect Krupa to give a dissertation off the cuff, and her own experiences are valid, but she could at least acknowledge that it's more complicated than an "us vs. them" mentality.
And just because women participate in the industry (and I admit, Krupa's comments about that pissed me off on a lot of different levels) does not mean that that the industry can't still be problematic.
Also from the article: "So is it hypocritical that actresses like Kate Winslet and Halle Berry can win Oscars after having performed intense sex scenes, and yet nobody seems to attack them with the anti-feminist tag?"
This bothered me for a few reasons: one, Kate Winslet and Halle Berry are incredible actresses who have a great ability at doing a variety of roles. Yes, they've done sex scenes, they've done nudity, but that alone is not the reason they won Oscars. They are extraordinarily talented. How could you attack someone for being talented?
Second, look at other Academy Award winning actresses, or even nominees, and the roles they did: Catherine Zeta Jones danced and sang her ass off in "Chicago" and won the Oscar she rightfully deserved for an extraordinary display of talent. Nicole Kidman played Virgina Woolf. Meryl Streep (she doesn't need an explanation--she's Meryl Streep). Penelope Cruz's nomination for "Volver." Marion Cotillard's win for "La Vie En Rose."
The article implies that women who win Oscars do so because they did a sex scene. Which is completely untrue, looking at past winners and nominees.
Sorry, a little off topic, but that's what that statement made me think of.
Oh, don't you know? All forms of female nudity are exactly the same. There is absolutely no difference between a playboy centerfold, an Oscar winning actress, a breast feeding mother... They're all just showing off their sexy bits. Women only ever show their bodies to be 'teh hot chick' after all.
The 'hagging it up' tactic wins way more Oscars than the 'getting your tits out' one; witness, conventionally gorgeous women who won for roles in which they played older or 'uglier' than their real look - Helen Mirren, Nicole Kidman, Charlize Theron, etc. Stick on a big nose or a facial scar and you're halfway to the golden statuette. Doing a really sexy scene where you look svelte and hot definitely can undermine an actress' credibility. There's a reason aspiring or established stars line up to play interesting, complex characters on Broadway, it's because it's credible and proves their versatility and courage as a performer. Honestly it's the ones who can't go this road who are far more likely to end up in Playboy. I would distinguish a star from a celebrity, in the same way I would distinguish nude from naked. You can't always define either but you know it when you see it.
Yes, this news story must be about empowerment! Just look at the racy slideshow of "The Lovely And Talented Johana Krupa" that accompanies it!
But seriously, how does she not look at those photographs and say, "I don't look like that, no one looks like that." Playboy isn't representative of women--it's representative of men's fantasies of women, and a very limited number of men's fantasies at that. I love being sexy. I love sex. I have no problem with nudity, with porn, with any of that. What I DO have a problem with is excluding certain groups from that, because everyone is sexy in their own way. And making "sexy" some impossible standard is not helpful to men OR women. You can tell, looking at these photographs, that this woman has been airbrushed TO DEATH, and yet she still supports this system that doesn't even appreciate HER for HER natural beauty? What the hell?
Women make the rules when they pose, do they? So if I wanted to pose in my plaid, flannel jammy bottoms in my unmade bed with my cat, that would fly? Right-o. Sign me up.
@Nicole: you and I will have to disagree that burlesque resembles any form of real sexuality.
@Jeff: the suggestion is that you stop consuming anti-feminist productions, like Playboy (and burlesque *ducks*). Pointing out that something is problematic is not the same as wanting to ban it.
Agreed on the burlesque. I'm conflicted on the ethics of porn, but I don't get this mentality that burlesque gets a pass. Kitschy-olde-timey-hipster-porn still equals porn. Drop the burlesque and focus energies on other activities that allow you to show off your sparrow tattoos, like your roller derby team.
Ahh!! Samhita. Right on point. I love you so much. Keep on keeping on.
Mary from Omega
Wait, she's a celebrity? First I've heard of her!
Am I the only one who thinks that having a wider variety of body types in the _mainstream_ media will do a helluva lot more good than if they had a bigger chick on the cover of Playboy? I mean that would be subversive, sure, but I've been thinking for a while that the beauty standard becoming stricter and stricter is much more disturbing for mainstream shows and movies. I feel like it's one thing if there's just certain body types that get a guy off (and whatever body type it is, there WILL be specialty porn for it somewhere out there), but when people only see a certain type of blandly beautiful female lead, with anything even SLIGHTLY outside that deemed hideously ugly, well... isn't that a little more damaging?
I look at it like this- most guys can't help, on a base level what gets them hard, hell most people in general just have certain body type preferences. But in storytelling, when it is abundantly clear that only a certain kind of woman is worth empathizing with as a human being ("Fat Monica" from Friends... ugh), and men can be as out of shape as they like and still get the hot girl (who has no other personality traits than being hot), wellll I think the implications are much more disturbing than whatever Playboy is up to.
You can retrain a man's brain as to what is attractive. If a man is shown only fake images of women his whole life to be attracted to and sees no other women naked, he's going to only be attracted to those women most likely. But once he meets a woman who is interested in getting to a high level of sexuality with him, that can all change. Suddenly, small breasts that sag a little look better than the perky ones. It's totally possible. Ask any man on here (or in general) if he is attracted to the same women he is now as he was at 5, 11, 16, 20, 25 and any age beyond that. I guarantee at least one feminist man will tell you he changed what was sexually arousing to him after he embraced feminism, or even just rejected our misogynistic patriarchy.
If I sound like I' saying everyone can decide what it arousing to them, I don't mean it that way. I just think it's not set in stone for everyone.
I totally agree. Showing a bigger woman in Playboy would be a huge step--but perhaps it would be a little too idealistic to consider it a good FIRST step. The standard of beauty in the mainstream media needs to be changed first. Because I can just imagine it now--Playboy has a cover/centerfold of a bigger woman, and the whole commentary turns into a big, gross, objectifying, dehumanizing, fetishist mess.
They were all bigger in the 60s. Anna Nicole Smith was bigger. That's not progress that's just targeting a slightly different shape for objectification and unreal expectations.
The problem is porn as that it is f***ing everywhere and 99.9% of it is male fantasy. Now there's nothing wrong with males and our fantasies, but when it comes to dominate the scene so extensively it can cause confusion about what female fantasy is supposed to be. There is almost no mention of what a woman might want sexually. Thus many women substitute the ultra-readily availiable male fantasies from porn for their own.
Regardless of whether a piece is truly misogynistic or not, 99.9% of the time it is specifically MALE fantasy, and thus cannot lead to real FEMALE sexual empowerment, because it is not really about what women might want.
In addition that underlying dynamic is the fact that in an attempt to display sexier women mainstream porn has narrowed down to a specific "perfect" woman, and now they only use that.
There are those who want to see genuine sexuality. On porn sites with extensive commentary, people will readily compliment or complain based on whether the woman actually seemed to be enjoying it, or how realistic it was.
Websites like ifeelmyself.com or Abby Winters come as close to displaying true female sexuality as they can, and have experienced explosive growth. However they seem to continue to be specialty sites.
Meanwhile the big guys like Playboy prefer to stick with the formulaic perfect women and men and sexual acts. Relying on the appeal of real sex is probably just too risky in their money loaded eyes.
Uh, conversely, how the hell many Kruppa-style non- or anti-feminist women have ever sat down and read a goddamn 100-page book on what feminism actually is? Oh, there you go. None.
Seriously, though. Why the fuck are random skinny hot women always interviewed about "feminism" and then have their ideas put up on a pedestal as though they're somehow experts on the subject of gender studies? It's fucking weird to me.
Though we all know that's how the dumbshit-media feminism-distortion machine works.
""I think they suffer from lack of knowledge and tunnel vision. How many of those self-important, so-called 'feminists' have been on the set when a celebrity shot a Playboy spread? There you go.
Ummm...wasn't Gloria Steinem a playboy bunny? So there's one self-important so-called "feminist" that has worked for playboy. is it remarkably different when a real, live celebrity is posing? if so then maybe this indicates something about the way that non-celebrity naked-posing ladies are treated, yes?
What is feminist about discriminating a photo shoot just because it involves female (partial) nudity that happens to give men pleasure? Pathetic," Krupa told Tarts in an exclusive interview."
oh it HAPPENS to give men pleasure. i get it. so like...the nudity isn't the POINT of why it's in playboy, DUH! it just is this accident that men happen to be pleasured by it. i get it.
OK, I have never posed for Playboy.
I have been an artist's model. This paid way more than my work-study job at college. And being a dancer, I was very good at it.
Why did I quit? Because of the objectification by the males in the class. It did not matter that this was in a public place, that it was as artsy as it gets, that I had a real, nonairbrushed body, and I got to choose my poses. I was still a piece of meat to the guys in the class.
So I cannot believe that a shaven-to-look-like-a-child, made up, stillettoed female in a photo shoot __intended__ for porn is "in control."
Samhita, you make a good point but Maxim and American Playboy style photo shoots contribute to a sexist culture not just because they provide an unrealistic body image for women. I don't think Black Tail magazine is any better than Playboy or Maxim just because it features black women who are above size 6.
Goodpoint Samitha.