Site Meter Reflections on Playboy: Left-wing puritanism in <i>Ms.</i> magazine’s “No Comment” section

December 26, 2006

Left-wing puritanism in Ms. magazine’s “No Comment” section

“A number of companies have removed offensive ads in response to your feedback. Keep writing and calling the offending advertisers at their contact information above.”—Ms., Fall 2006, p. 80

The editors of Ms. would certainly deny having anything important in common with the boycott-happy Christianists of the American Family Association. But consider the damning evidence on the back page of every issue. “No Comment” shows miniature reprints of newspaper and magazine ads that supposedly degrade women enough to require angry letters and phone calls. With a few remotely possible exceptions, the outrage reinforces the stereotype of the humorless feminist. An ad can offend merely by associating a product with the sensual appeal of the female form or laughing at the foibles of human sexuality. Some might seem to glorify violence against women—if you’re determined to see that message in them. Does this ad for Royal Elastics shoes, blacklisted in the summer 2005 Ms., encourage men to kick women in the head? Was the “crushed flower” sniffed on one occasion by animated superhero Mighty Mouse actually cocaine, as AFA chairman Rev. Donald Wildmon alleged with about as much plausibility?

In some cases, the offensiveness is as hard to discern as the subliminal dirty pictures Wilson Bryan Key finds in the ice cubes of liquor ads (Key makes Wildmon look like an amateur). In fall 2006, Ms. wagged its finger at American Apparel’s ad with a photograph of an attractive young woman of Indian and Pakistani heritage under the caption “India meets Pakistan.” I wondered and wondered why anyone but the Church Lady would take offense at the very mildly titillating image. It turns out that it contains racism and pedophilia detectable only with specialized lab equipment. AA’s website seems to have deleted its photos of that particular model in response to the controversy. But as I write, it still has the guts to post a similar ad. Kudos.

“No Comment” is not unusual in its “progressive” prudery. The “liberal” battles against tobacco, fast food, and breast implants are waged under the same banner. For further explanation of how moralists (like mystics) all speak the same language, try this article by Radley Balko for the very unpuritanical Reason.

Update, December 29, 2006, 12:26 p.m.: I have answered Pandagon.net’s criticism of this post.

A related earlier post:
Playboy is more feminist than some feminists

Posted by Brian Sorgatz at 9:46 PM

  • Blogger Will left this comment at December 27, 2006 6:54 AM  
    So... a few questions:

    1) Do you believe we live in a patriarchal society?

    2) For those of us that do, what are methods that you approve of from which to fight against the imbalance of a patriarchal society?

  • Blogger Brian Sorgatz left this comment at December 27, 2006 9:45 AM  
    Will,
    I’m glad you asked. No, I do not believe that the United States is patriarchal in any significant way. The last nail was driven into patriarchy’s coffin with ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920. A group that makes up the majority of the voting population need never worry about being oppressed. Disparities in income and representation in various occupations are not necessarily civil-rights issues at all; they may only reflect differing career choices that men and women tend to make of their own free will.

    • Post a Comment

    « Home

    Create a Link