The American Spectator

p> EYE CANDY br> Re: Jeff G. Dufour’s You Are What You Read : br> I just wanted to comment on Jeff Dufour’s article — which seems to blame feminism, at least in part, for the way that men’s magazines have gone downhill, or should I say down women’s blouses and up their pants? In my eyes, this trend does not come from the “feminization” of men — or from the erosion of the traditional model of what a man should be. Rather, it panders to the fundamental ideal of typical masculinity — but in a very lowbrow, and apparently low-IQ way — based on the idea that real men are defined by their willingness to desire and in many cases, dare I use the word, degrade (see the countless women bent over, leaning down, and the oh-so-witty cartoons with jokes promoting the flattening of women’s heads to better hold a beer can during fellatio) women. I would counter his argument by saying that this new breed of magazines geared toward men is actually part of a larger backlash against what feminism’s initial aims were — and that was overall respect for women — despite the word’s often negative connotation nowadays. As women move more and more into positions of power in areas of male prowess, these magazines serve to put women back in their “place.” I rank women’s magazines like Cosmo, which advise women to be the “cool girlfriend” and host a porn party for your man’s cronies, in a similar arena. /p>

I agree with Mr. Dufour that these magazines reduce their expectations of their male audience to animals who gravitate toward the largest breasts and the most provocative pose (and sadly their #1 spot in Adweek upholds this premise), but I would continue by saying that these magazines and the women who pose for them (Playboy included) also reduce women from human beings, with minds and capabilities, to mere eye candy for male pleasure, and often worse.

p>Thanks for listening, br> — Carrie Sue Casey /p> p> TED’S BEARS br> Re: Bill Croke’s