User:NrmMGA5108/sandbox: Difference between revisions

flamboyant ‘’Playboy’’ empire and this exchange of praise reveals how integral cultural myths can be for the success of a mass produced, glossy magazine. ‘’Playboy’’ commissioned Mailer to support its agenda as a with-the-times magazine and to “further gentrif[y]” its heterosexual perception (Schuchardt). In the first ‘’Playboy’’ “Panel” on “Censorship in Literature and the Arts,” editors introduced Mailer as “among the forefront of individualistic, iconoclastically outspoken American author” (27, July 1961). Throughout the panel exchanges, Mailer lived up to that introduction: he “polemicized against masturbation and argued that open labeling of pornographic literature as such was vital for ‘the health and life of the republic,’ but that pleading its socially redeeming values was not” (Weyr 92). Mailer’s insights on censorship shine amidst the jumbled thinking presented by the other panelists and he was asked to return for the next year’s panel on “The Womanization of America” (June 1962). The panel, which was Spectorsky’s idea, was intended to respond to Philip Wylie’s scathing arguments regarding a supposed power shift between the genders—and Mailer’s career and personal life made him well-suited for the discussion. By 1962 Mailer had published three bestsellers and married three different women.

In the introduction to the seventeen-page panel, ‘’Playboy’’ editors once again refer to Mailer’s iconoclastic status and, throughout the panel discussion, Mailer endorsed Spectorsky’s claim that men are in need of re-masculination. Mailer contended that “women are becoming more selfish, more greedy, less romantic, less warm, more lusty, and more filled with hate” (44, June 1962). However, Mailer did go on to state that male collaboration needed to be accounted for in the gender-role demise. Pinpointing the Cold War as the “certain historical phenomenon” that “allowed penis envy to develop,” Mailer eloquently stated that during these “renaissance” moments in history, there is a tendency for “this coming together of sexes” (134, 139, June 1962). Aware of his audience and the magazine’s heterosexual bias, Mailer immediately reaffirmed his heterosexuality by stating that the increasing numbers of homosexuals during the Cold War can be attributed to a “general loss of faith in the country, faith in the notion of one’s self as a man” (142). Mailer had obviously not lost any faith in himself as a man, so his sexuality and commitment to phallocentric concerns remained intact.

After Mailer’s discerning comments on gender and sexuality, the conversation degraded until Mailer, once again, culturally contextualized the is- sues. According to Carrie Pitzulo’s study, ‘’Bachelors and Bunnies: The Sexual’’

‘’Politics of Playboy’’, panelists “primarily fixated on inane debates” (Pitzulo 31). For example, in response to ‘’Playboy’s’’ concerns about some females refusing to complete household chores, three of the panelists debate the cost of aprons and the difference between drying and washing dishes. Mailer then stated that “there’s been a shift in the social and biological function of the woman, where she expected . . . not so much to create a home as she is to be an aide-de-camp or staff general to an ambitious opportunist” (49, June 1962). Mailer’s comments, regarding the change in duties for postwar women, hints at the supposed mid-century masculinity crisis—being a blue-collar worker was no longer sufficient for most men. Rather, the stresses of the Cold War and the evolving capitalistic economy forced men to adapt to domineering images of hyper-masculinity. Readers’ responses to the panel, as published in the “Dear ‘’Playboy’’” letters, suggest that Mailer’s statements eclipsed the other panelists. Out of the four published “Dear ‘’Playboy’’” letters that mention the womanization panel, three praise Mailer and the letter from John T. Gosset exclaims that Mailer’s insights “astounded” him (9, September 1962).

At the panel’s conclusion, Mailer reminded ‘’Playboy’’ readers that “masculinity is not something one is born with, but something one gains. And one gains it by winning small battles with honor” (142, June 1962). He warned those American men who fear the destruction of their masculinity to be wary of mass media because it gives an unrealistic view of life. Mailer claimed that the majority of mass media is out to “destroy virility slowly and steadily” (142, June 1962). This argument directly reinforced Spectorsky’s thoughts on the fundamental malaise about masculinity in America, as well as supported his argument that ‘’Playboy’’ is a necessity for American males. American men needed magazines like ‘’Playboy’’ to help combat the insipid depictions of masculinity in the mass media. And ‘’Playboy’’ needed Mailer’s contributions to do so. Mailer’s presence on both panels reinforced his machismo status and added to ‘’Playboy’s’’ cultural currency.

Mailer’s machismo reputation further aligned the author with the ‘’Playboy’’ empire, especially during the battle of the sexes. Both Mailer and the ‘’Playboy’’ enterprise received intense criticism from second-wave feminists. Mailer’s fiction often sparked deserved critique for its objectification of female characters or depiction of sexual violence. In the classic ‘’Sexual Politics’’, Kate Millet analyzes Mailer’s fiction and claims that he was long ago designated a “prisoner of the virility cult.” Mailer’s response to her literary