From: Gregory Parkinson (glp@panix.com)
Date: 09/13/00-10:26:50 PM Z
At 9:10 PM -0400 9/13/00, Sandy King wrote:
>>On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Judy Seigel wrote:
>>
>
>>What's harmful to "women" generally is the
>>consistent portrayal of women in this eroticized role. The intro to
>>my P-F #2 review of Bill Jay's "Occam's Razor" may suggest the gist:
>
>I read that. So it is portrayal of women as symbols of eroticism
>that you find harmful to women?
I don't think it's the portrayal of woman as symbols of eroticism per se, but
two facets of it: in our lifetimes it's been almost always the women who are
nude, and once the clothes are off, there's a limited subset of body
types and erotic
portrayals that are acceptable.
>>
>>Meanwhile, I had occasion to walk into Soho this afternoon (a fruitless
>>quest, Staples is pure nightmare, but that's a different rant) and passed
>>a bookstore with some Helmut Newtons in the window. Now THOSE are naked
>babes. Power babes !
>
>Newton's naked women are power babes? Sure they are, as are all
>those naked babes having sex on leather covered back seats of the
>master's Rolls Royce!! And is not Newton's work truly the ultimate
>stereotype of erotic woman, stripped of all attributes of what is a
>woman but the requirement that she yield to male power? And of
>course in this case, a perversion ordered and arranged by the person
>that is Newton's wife.
I have to agree - I don't get Newton's women as empowered in any way.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 10/01/00-12:08:59 PM Z CDT