Monday, April 15, 2013

Playboy and the Sexual Revolution


            The sexual revolution of the 1950s and 60s conjures images of the rise of feminism, the decline of traditional Middle class American values of the nuclear family. But, maybe the one thing that should be thought about when referring to sexual liberation is Hugh Hefner and the role of Playboy. Playboy was not he first magazine to capitalize off of the women’s body, what Playboy did however was overtly sell sex like no magazine had before. Playboy, as one reader commented made “old issues of Esquire, in its most uninhibited days, look like trade bulletins from the W.C.T.U.”[1]. Playboy did more then just sell naked women, they “rejected any limits on sexual expression” and was overly critical of marriage[2]. Marriage for Playboy was nothing more than a “financial trap” that men found themselves in men in this “woman-dominated land”[3]. Playboy encouraged the idea of no strings attached sex, that one does not have be emotionally committed to a person to have sex. 
courtesy of www.bunnydeana.com
Hugh Hefner with Playboy Playmates


courtesy of www.chicagoarchitecture.info
The Palmolive building in Chicago formerly the Playboy Skyscrapper
          














Huge Hefner’s rising wealth throughout the 1960s made it clear that his ideas of sexuality were striking a cord somewhere with someone. For Huge, the idea of the naked female figure was more than just sexual, it was “ a symbol of disobedience” it was “an end of Puritanism”[4]. For Huge it was no surprise when people like Martin Luther King Jr. and Jesse Jackson showed up at his Chicago skyscraper. He attributed their presence to a larger revolution that was happening in the country during this, not just a sexual revolution but also a social one. In the 1950s and 60s all of Americas social values where being tested, attacked, and turned on their heads, from race, to sex, women, and even the church no group in this era was left untouched. In a 2010 interview to the New York Post, Huge Hefner told interviewer Reed Tucker, “it was a time of real revolution in the social scene in America, and the church was very much involved in that. So the same kind of re-evaluation in terms of values was going on inside religion, as well.”[5]
            The end of all of these social revolutions came at the same time, the election of President Reagan and the rising influence of the Bible belt and the Christian conservatives. “The 1980s, the arrival of Reagan, was really the beginning of the religious right being involved in politics, and it was the religious right that helped get Reagan elected, and he paid them back by establishing the Meese Commission, which for the first time wound up labeling Playboy porn”[6] It was then that Playboy was termed porn and a social stigma was for ever attached to it.
            Whether or not Playboy had as large of an social impact as Huge would like to believe is up for debate, but what can not be argued is the fact that Playboy has become apart of American society and it has grown far beyond the pages it was first printed on. Playboy is now more than just a magazine; it is a part of pop culture; with a channel, a mansion, legendary parties, and a bunny that has become ingrained in American culture.


[1] John D’Emilio, and Estelle B. Freedman. Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America. P. 302.

[2] John D’Emilio, and Estelle B. Freedman. Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America. P. 302.

[3] John D’Emilio, and Estelle B. Freedman. Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America. P. 302.
[4] John D’Emilio, and Estelle B. Freedman. Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America. P. 302.
[5] “Q&A: Hugh Hefner.” New York Post.

[6] “Q&A: Hugh Hefner.” New York Post.

Sunday, April 7, 2013

Feminism Then and Now


            Hidden beneath such events as the Vietnam War and all the movements it sparked as well as the Civil Rights movement, was the new feminist movement of the 1960s and 70s. This “Second Wave” of feminism received it spark from a book written by Betty Friedan entitled The Feminine Mystique. Even though women’s struggle for equality continues to this day the social revolution that begun in the 60s basically ended with the rise of the social conservatives of the 1980s[1]. So how has the ideas of Friedan been embraced and effect women of today.
            Friedan in her book proclaimed that women of her era would ask themselves what she referred to as “the silent question” about their lives “is this all?”[2] The women of the 1950s and 60s, those whom Friedan was referring to in her book, was told, “their role was to seek fulfillment as wives and mothers”[3], to pity those “neurotic, unfeminine, unhappy women” who sought careers, and life outside of that a housewife and mother[4]. Women of this era would forgo education and a career for that they were told was their version of The American Dream, to become a suburban housewife. But what if this wasn’t enough for some women what if they got had all that society told them they wanted and needed and yet they still felt inadequate, what then? Who would women turn to and tell that there is a problem with this ideal existence when they didn’t even know what was wrong? “The Problem”[5], as Friedan calls it is when a woman knew something was wrong but didn’t know what, when they unsatisfied were others would be. However, these were problems for women prior to the “Second Wave” of feminism and the revolution would change all of these things.



courtesy of cognoscenti.wbur.org  


            In todays world, where inequality is frowned upon and women at least on paper are equal to their male counterparts the world in which Friedan talks about no longer applies. In a recent article from The Washington Post entitled “Once again, feminists take up fight we shouldn’t have” columnists Sally Quinn takes up the argument. Quinn in her article talks about how feminists now fight among themselves about what the progress for women really look like, the issue of “work v. home”.[6] Quinn talks about the stance Sheryl Sandberg, chief operating officer at Facebook, takes in her new book “Lean In” and how this differs from what traditional feminist taught. Sandberg feels as though men and women should split home responsibility 50/50 so that women can pursue their own careers outside the house. This line of thinking goes against what more traditional feminist preached, the sacrificing of a home life for a career. Quinn looks at how feminist such as Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan have argued over and struggled with this issue during their lives. Steinem and Friedan went different direction in their social life; Steinem “made it clear she wasn’t interested in marriage and children”[7] while Friedan married and had children. This issue seeped into the lives of middle class women in America as the struggled over whether to give “up chances to marry and have children” to pursue a career or not.[8]
            The feminist of the 1960s and 70s opened many doors to women of later generation and because of their revolution women of today have opportunities that those women only dreamt of. But there is a new struggle an internal fight that all women must confront, which is how to combine a home life with a career. Quinn says it best in the conclusion of her article when she proclaims, “Women should live our own lives the way we want to and respect those who live their lives differently.”[9]


[1] Robert Griffith, and Paula Baker, eds. Major Problems in American History Since 1945. p. 280

[2]  Betty Friedan. The Feminine Mystique. Major Problems in American History Since 1945. p. 281

[3] Betty Friedan. The Feminine Mystique. Major Problems in American History Since 1945. P. 281

[4] Betty Friedan. The Feminine Mystique. Major Problems in American History Since 1945. P. 282

[5] Betty Friedan. The Feminine Mystique. Major Problems in American History Since 1945. P. 283

[6] Sally Quinn. “Once Again, Feminists Take up Fight We Shouldn’t Have.” The Washington Post, March 15, 2013

[7] Quinn. “Once Again, Feminists Take up Fight We Shouldn’t Have.”

[8] Quinn. “Once Again, Feminists Take up Fight We Shouldn’t Have.”

[9] Quinn. “Once Again, Feminists Take up Fight We Shouldn’t Have.”

Sunday, March 24, 2013

Conditions at the V.A.


            In Oliver Stone’s Born on the Fourth of July, one particular scene stood out more than any other. After the main character sustains serious injuries while deployed in Vietnam, he is taken to a V.A. hospital back in America to recover. The conditions at the hospital are not what you would expect to find in America especially for wounded returning soldiers during a major war in the 21st century. The hospital over all was filthy and on one occasion a patient even commented on the amount and size of the rats, the hospital was understaffed and those who were on staff were rude impatient of just plane indifferent about the patients and the conditions. At one point a group of orderlies were more interested in finishing their card game than looking after the patients. Much of the equipment did not work and the one doctor who showed up revealed how unimportant the Veteran Hospitals were in the war effort. That hospital scene, which can be seen here, was a good depiction of many V.A. hospitals throughout the country.
            Surely though, this was what the hospitals were like during the late 60s and early 70s and when these problems came to light the federal government gave them the funding necessary to be ran properly. In recent years with 2 wars being fought and a massive amount being spent on them, there should be no doubt that the necessary amount of money was being spent on these hospitals, so that the wounded soldiers received the medical treatment required and owed to them.  However, if Robert Burns’ Washington Post article, “Workers at VA hospital in Mississippi raise concerns about improper care” were anything to go by, one would have to believe otherwise. The article talk about how in 2009 a group of whistleblowers employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs hospital in Mississippi, revealed “’serious wrongdoing,’ including improperly sterilized instruments and missed diagnoses of fatal illnesses”[1] at Veteran hospitals within the state. Just over two weeks ago in Tampa Florida, a local V.A. hospital reported rat dropping in a supply closet[2]. Alone this might not seem like an issue but the Tampa Times reports that this is one in a string of sanitary problems at this particular Veterans hospital. In 2010 “A Cape Coral soldier's family complained about the lack of cleanliness at Haley” and in “In 2006, Haley officials canceled several surgeries after flies were seen in the hospital operating-room suite”.[3] Why are the Veteran Hospitals having these issues, what is the root cause here and how far does it reach?




[1] Robert Burns. “Workers at VA Hospital in Mississippi Raise Concerns About Improper Care.” Washington Post.

[2] William R. Levesque. “Rat Droppings Found in James A. Haley VA Medical Center.” Tampa Bay Times. A

[3] Levesque. “Rat Droppings Found in James A. Haley VA Medical Center.”