I've found a few excellent online articles this week, and thought I'd share.
First,
check out this article in The Atlantic. It's about Playboy Magazine, Lad Mags, and more generally about feminism's effect on and reaction to men of the Playboy era, vs. what the Lad Mags of today represent. There's some interesting talk about Playboy back in the culturally-relevant days, before Hef became a "human bellbottom." Playboy was always an airbrushed fantasy, but it had some worth as well, largely thanks to the no-nonsense Playboy Advisor column, which imparted (to the article's author, at least) a sense of the changes a boy made as he became a man and began dallying with women -- real women, who were rather unlike the ones lolling on silk sheets through the rest of the magazine.
But over time these exchanges left me with the distinct impression that love--or even just good sex--was often quite complicated, requiring of its participants an almost unnerving degree of trust and vulnerability, patience and negotiation, all of which could lead to unimaginable thrills or horrible disappointment. Or anything in between. It was here, in the Advisor, where Playboy willfully undercut the silken ease and bachelor suavity it projected elsewhere in the magazine. It was here where bodily matters went unairbrushed, where seduction proved beyond one’s skillful way with imported vodka, where men would not infrequently be scolded for treating their girlfriends or wives shabbily.
The lengthy article quotes some typical exchanges, talks more about the cultural relevance of Playboy and the author's own maturity, and then gets to a compare/contrast to the content and attitude presented by today's "Lad Mags."
There’s hardly a trace of the old journalism, and no fiction, but there are the numerous girlie pictorials, in this case teasingly non-nude; the gadgetry and the spiffy autos; the obligatory fashion spreads. However, where the sexes are concerned in lad land, it’s almost completely separate but equal, which is to say equally puerile. These mags are full of bravado (not limited to the guys) about hooking up, but otherwise, basically, the twain never meet: you might score with the opposite sex, but you hang out with your own—which perfectly captures a sensibility people my age (fortyish) tended to ditch before they left their teens, and which indicates that the average lad finds girlfriend scary...
Aside from the C-list starlets, who come off like well-bred dames in this context, the majority of laddie girls profess exactly the interests of the lads themselves: roughhousing, football, beer chugging, NASCAR, girl-on-girl, muscle cars and motorcycles, pro wrestling, video games, burping, and being as dumb as humanly possible. In short, these women are but lads with tits, making all the leering that presumably goes on among readers of these mags curiously akin to looking across the table at your poker buddy, imagining him as a woman, and wanting to get nice.
The author ties things up nicely with a return to feminism vs. men's magazine psychology. He points out (not in these words) that while men of the Playboy era were sometimes seen as rough-edged, it was in a Hemingway or Sean Connery as James Bond kind of way. They were men's men, but they were men, not boys, and they had plenty of attributes that made them appealing to women. They weren't afraid of the battle of the sexes, they surrounded themselves with women, and they gave as good as they got. Unlike today's Lad Mag culture, which is basically a Peter Pan existence, where girls burp, fart, join you in playing poker and watching sports, and never tell you to grow up or learn to cook an omelet.
The laddie burlesque of male chauvinism is almost purely a reaction to feminism’s ascendancy, which people of both sexes have long taken for granted. And feminists are quite right to feel unthreatened by the lads’ rebellion. Because in fact, it isn’t a rebellion at all but, rather, a capitulation. It’s as if American masculinity has finally surrendered to decades of feminist criticism, criticism the lads have assimilated fully, because—unlike the Playboy men of yore—they’ve known no other world. One can wish that the lad shtick were subversive minstrelsy of a sort, an absurdist attack on unflattering male stereotypes, but more likely, and all pretend insensitivity aside, the laddies are sadly sincere in their embrace of buffoonery. They’re adopting—before the fact, and with the cold comfort of intent—the very characteristics that would most ensure further criticism, further rejection, which is essentially to take control of defeat by forfeiting the game rather than risk another losing effort. It is, in short, to take control by running away.
I've quoted extensively, but it's a long, three-page article, and well worth a read. I especially enjoyed the allusion to George Orwell's analysis of the penny postcards of his day, and their parallels to and differences from today's Lad Mags.
On an entirely different front, this long, and at times impenetrably-scholarly,
medically-themed biography of Abraham Lincoln is a demanding but fascinating read. It explores the fact that Lincoln was kicked in the head and nearly killed by a horse when he was 9, and that that event and the brain trauma that resulted from it profoundly affected his psyche and adult personality. As well as giving him that iconic, famously bilaterally-asymmetrical face. The article includes a number of high quality photos of The Great Emancipator at different ages, and when you block off one half of the other and compare it's startling how different the right and left sides of his face were.
It wasn't just appearance either; Lincoln suffered from diplopia (double vision) his whole life, a condition that came on when he was tired or anxious, and was exacerbated by reading, of which he did a great deal.
Most people with diplopia learn how to disregard the dimmer visual image by concentrating mentally on the image of the dominant eye. When both eyes are used in focal coordination, volitional effort is necessary, and this eventually produces mental visual fatigue and organic eyestrain tending to cause headache. Under mental or physical fatigue or emotional excitement, visual decoordination increases (as noticed at times in Lincoln by his contemporaries) and the stronger image is underlapped by more or less of a shadowy, weaker image, increasing mental confusion and uneasiness. Lincoln learned in boyhood to cultivate a calm, humorous, patient, kindly attitude and friendly interpersonal assurances, and a common-sense philosophy of life that generally protected him from emotional provocation and increase of this distress. However, he had a singularly impressive mystifying experience with more persistent diplopia after a fatiguing day upon the evening of his election as President. His description and interpretation of this experience to Ward Lamon and Noah Brooks is given in Chapter XLII. The strange mystery of his double vision and its superstitious meaning for him has been cited by many biographers as an indication that Lincoln had clairvoyant sensitivity. It seems evident now that it was the simple result of an old injury of his brain in childhood.
Through his adult years Lincoln had many nervous attacks, characterized by eyestrain and headache with nausea and indigestion, so severe that often he became unable to work and had to lie down with a cold compress over his eyes. He had couches in his law office, at home, and in the White House, for this purpose.
His medical conditions combined with his temperment to give him a predisposition to thoughtfulness, self-analysis, and pauses before speaking. It also gave him a very unusual, memorable appearance.
"Lincoln was a sad looking man whose melancholy dripped from him as he walked." "The look of sadness was more or less accentuated by a peculiarity of one eye [left], the pupil of which had a tendency to turn or roll slightly toward the upper lid, whereas the other one maintained its normal position equidistant between the upper and lower lids." He also noticed that the tip of his nose and mouth turned toward the right. "Mr. Lincoln was a peculiar, mysterious man . . . had a double consciousness, a double life." He "quickly passed from one state of consciousness to another and different state."(Letter to J. Weik, February 21, 1891; Hertz, 1938.)The articles are not biographies, but are medical discussions of Lincoln's life and behavior, based on his chidhood injuries and adult maladies. It's a long read, but a very interesting one, though I must confess to reading it the way Lincoln did when his vision was bothering him, by skimming pages quickly for important points.
Finally,
this long piece in the New Yorker about the TV show
24, the self-described "right wing nut" who writers/produces it, and its perpetual "we must torture bad guys to save 'Murica!" mindset is a good read. I only made it through the first (of three) pages since I've never seen the show and am kind of depressed by the right wing's, much-desired fantasy of being able to mutilate people in order to save the world, but you might get more from it than I did. As others have pointed out, remember when torture was something only bad guys like Russians and Nazis did in movies? 9/11 really did change everything, if we can look back nostalgically at quality entertainment such as
Rambo II for lessons in humane ethics.
Labels: misc, playboy