Lady Julia’s Entranced Realm

In my rant of yesterday, I mentioned my utter surprise that FOX News seemed to be silent on the issue of Playboy magazine’s reprehensible article.  While this appears to be accurate with regard to the FOX News website, the FOX News channel did have a response.

In case you do not have a spare 10 minutes to listen, allow me to share a few excerpts.   I’m pulling each snippet from a full conversation, so if you want the context, you’ll have to listen to the video.  I made every effort to be accurate, however since I am not a stenographer and am also a bit distracted by my temper, any quoted text in this post may contain one or two word errors.

• FOX News Commentator 1:   Now isn’t being on the list kind of a compliment because he’s saying that although he despises your ideology, he’s obviously still wants to be with you?  (he does laugh after this remark, but I believe he is laughing at what Mary Catherine Ham is saying in response to his question and not at the absurdity of what he said.)
• FOX News Commentator 1:   They could only do this list with conservatives, because they couldn’t come up with 10 on the other side.  It’s a fact.
• FOX News Commentator 2:  Who uses terms like this except serial rapists, and it’s classic Hef, and I don’t know if he’s a serial rapist but he surrounds himself with you know these brainless, boob-enhanced sycophants who are probably too stupid to consent.

Oh thank goodness FOX News took a stand against misogyny.  I’m not sure what women would have done if they hadn’t.

I hope that I am mistaken, but it seemed to me that the FOX commentators were not too disturbed this was said about women in general, but that it was said about conservative women.   Perhaps they were simply reacting because some of the women on the list were their friends, but this didn’t seem to be a “fair and balanced” report to me.

FOX was able to obtain a statement from Playboy.  Andy Levy reports:

I did speak to Theresa Hennessey, the Vice President of public relations for Playboy Enterprises, Inc. and she sent me the following statement:

“Playboy has a long and proud history of supporting women’s organizations and has been an advocate of equal rights for women since its inception more than 55 years ago.  The feature on Playboy.com was by no means intended to insinuate or encourage violence against women, something the organization adamantly abhors.”

She told me the article was pulled because of the insinuation of violence.  I asked her well how did this slip through the editing cracks, you know, and she said it actually didn’t, it’s just that nobody realized it would be misinterpreted.

So I asked her since it was being misinterpreted what was it intended to be, as you just asked, Greg.  Uh, and she said it was intended to be a tongue-in-cheek article like they do with sexiest women sportscasters, etc., but when they realized it wasn’t coming across like that to a lot of people, they took it down.

Well thank you Playboy for the apology (insert sarcastic tone here).  If this article had not been interpreted to insinuate violence, it would have been perfectly acceptable?

Sigh.

Yes, I know that there is a good chance this article was published strictly to create buzz – a tactic ala the radio shock jocks. After all, they distributed press releases about this trash to some conservative media sources. Some say by writing about it I’m giving them the attention they seek. Perhaps that’s true, but I really could not remain silent. I’m stepping away now, though. I fear if I do not my blood pressure just might cause the top of my head to explode. 

It would seem that Guy Cimbalo, a writer for Playboy magazine, has a true fondness for women.  He recently penned a list of the “Top 10 Conservative Women We Hate to Love”.   Of course, by “Hate to Love”, Cimbalo was actually referring to the “Hate Fuck” (a phrase some are saying is a euphemism for rape).   This is the most misogynistic piece of writing I’ve seen in a long time.  What is wrong with people??  Why on earth would Playboy think it was acceptable to publish such a piece??

For years I have heard the debate over Playboy and other “men’s” magazines.  They exploit women.  No, they serve to celebrate men’s appreciation of women.   As far as I am concerned, Playboy has clarified their position with this article.

I would link directly to the Playboy site, but they have pulled the article after what appears to be massive protest.  Fortunately once you put something out on the internet, it will never truly disappear.  You may see screen shots of the entire article here.  You really must see the article to appreciate the vileness of it all.

Aside from the obvious, a couple of things really bothered me about this.

First is the apparent absence of mainstream media attention.  If you do a search for “Playboy” on the sites for CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and FOX, you will find the following regarding this story:

• CNN – nothing
• MSNBC – nothing
• CBS – one mention, a editorial by Connie Erbe.  Ms. Erbe makes it clear she is writing her editorial because “Teri Christoph, whom I have never met, asked me to stand up for conservative women who were maligned by an online article on Playboy magazine’s website.”   Wow.  No one has to ask me to stand up for women.  She goes on to say, “I also want to note that at least one woman on the list is so venom-spewing, she unfortunately invites venom to be shot back at her: Michelle Malkin. Her posts and her ‘routine’ are so venomous and predictable, in fact, I stopped paying attention to her years ago.”  Ok… if I interpret her response correctly, it would seem Ms. Erbe thinks Ms Malkin was asking for it???   Unbelievable.
• ABC – Posted a video response from Elisabeth Hasselbeck, co-host of the View.  (Ms Hasselbeck was unfortunate enough to make this Top 10 list.)  If ABC, who employs Ms. Hasselbeck,  issued their own statement regarding this subject, I was unable to locate it.
• FOX – nothing

Why wasn’t there more outrage?  I cannot believe FOX news  wasn’t all over this.  Isn’t such a vicious, misogynistic attack worthy of mention?  Perhaps they don’t want to give Playboy the attention, however calling attention to negative issues seems to be a pastime for the media.

Can you imagine the media frenzy (and rightfully so) had these remarks been racist in nature?

I’m also disturbed that one liberal news site initially published only the headline from Playboy’s article and the names of the women who made this list.   The article, written by Politico.com’s Anne Schroeder, was taken so seriously by this female writer that it was filed under the category “antics“.    (Schroeder’s original article was also pulled.   The result of protest?  My guess would be yes.)

Imagine what you would have seen on Politico and other liberal news sites had this list contained the names of famous liberal women.  I can’t say for sure that the response would be any different, but one does have to wonder.   What difference does it make if the women listed are conservative or liberal?  They’re human beings who do not deserve to be treated this way by anyone, much less a magazine that is the largest selling men’s magazine, selling about three million copies a month in the U.S.

I believe when magazines promote opinions like this, they help perpetuate misogyny.   Hate quite often leads to violence.  In the US there are 4.8 million intimate partner-related physical assaults and rapes every year.

No, Playboy is not responsible for all these things, but every pebble dropped in the pool of misogyny contributes to the problem.   With a circulation of three million, they certainly have influence.  While they withdrew the article, as far as I can determine there has been no apology, no clarification that Playboy does not support hatred or violence against women.

Isn’t it time we stood up to things like this and said, “No more!”  I for one am composing my letter right now.