A Calendar of Hope, 1969
In January 1969, this “calendar of hope” was included in the Improvement Era and was “especially dedicated to servicemen and missionaries.” Here is the cover shot:
Note the editors. At the time, Marion D. Hanks served as an Assistant to the Quorum of the 12 Apostles, and Elaine Cannon was the Associate Editor of the Improvement Era.
This page introduces the calendar and details its purposes:
I admit I find the text somewhat confusing; from what I can discern, the purposes of the calendar are to 1) mark the seasons, 2) remind us of the time and people that are good in our lives, and 3) convey hope and good wishes (with an emphasis toward servicemen and missionaries).
Opposite the page with the written message is a preview of the young women of the 1969 calendar, our messages of hope and season demarcation personified. They are identified as Sue Grendell, Ann Clayton, Helen Leonard, and Becky Sharp, with Ilene Clark as the cover girl sitting on the trunk:
I think I can pick out Helen as Winter, and Ann as Autumn. That leaves Sue and Becky as Spring and Summer possibilities. I’m guessing the Spring shot is Sue’s, since I doubt even the most self-flaggelating Utah Mormon would wear a sweater in July. That leaves pastel-colored, long-sleeved Becky in the indoor studio as our message of summer hope. I wasn’t expecting a bikini shot, but wearing semi-transparent long sleeves and a skirt while sitting on the loam of a forest floor isn’t very summery, even if you’re a hiker. (My first thought when I saw the scene she is in, was “First Vision diorama in the Visitor’s Center on Temple Square!” If my hunch is correct, we’ve got April, a spring month. Hmm. )
In contrast to a typical calendar format, this insert reduces the calendar chart itself to one page, while devoting the rest of the pages to photos:
(In May of this very calendar year, the eldest of the future permas of fMh would be born, but she didn’t get a photo as a marker of hope. Oh well.)
Becky Sharp again. A couple of observations: 1) the leaves and their shadows create one of the more interesting bust-obscuring devices employed by photographer Eldon Linschoten in the various shots; 2) I wish those were fig leaves; their color and juxtaposition with the white long-sleeved shirt resonated immediately with my not-so-subconscious; 3) was this the best shot of her face the editors ended up with, or was this expression deliberately chosen? 4)I think the green “leaves,” shot with glaring lighting between the viewer and Becky, are supposed to be our overt clue (absent any other) that this is our Summer image. Or maybe it means “keep an arm’s length, Elder Hopeful–the fig leaves will always be between us.”
Sue Grundell. I was thinking that in our marking of the seasons, Sue was Spring–but that was more by the process of elimination than context clues. There’s the sunny yellow clue and the sunglasses clue, but the sweater clue and ski poles clue seem to cancel out the first two. Maybe the message of hope here is that you’ll get some spring skiing in? Or, maybe I’m being too literal in my interpretation of the calendar’s purpose as a seasonal marker–perhaps these aren’t actual seasons in the actual year. Perhaps this is “a special calendar to mark the seasons” of Long Sleeve Wearing, or of Things Both Literal and Metaphorical Between You and Women Besides Your Missionary or Military Status. And the bust obscuration subliminal message? “Sharp and pointy, PFC Hopeful. This ain’t your season.”
Ann Clayton, in a classic Autumn shot: layered clothing, schoolbook in hand, indoors. Coupled with her previous photo with the fallen leaves, I’d say it’s a cinch. However, if my theory of this being a TBLAMBYAWBYMOMS (see above) calendar holds, Ann is saying “Our History and my Protective Layers are formidable barriers. Do you hope to overcome?” Bust obscuration: ditto.
The final calendar shot suggests all kinds of message possiblities besides the obvious Winter. The multilayered total body coverage below the chin, the not-mussed-by-hat-nor-snowmobile-riding hair, the white driven snow, the recreational machinery, those eyes . . . what does it all mean? What season of TBLAMBYAWBYMOMS does it represent? And bust obscuration? Complete.
Elder, are you hopeful?
**What are your reactions, both serious and funny, to the existence of this calendar, its stated purpose, and its effect?
**Many thanks to Michael Burt, New Zealand native and attendee of the Idanaclesnacker who discovered this treasure on his Melbourne mission and shared it with us.
I want a calender of lovely young men!
Comment by jddaughter — June 15, 2009 @ 12:23 am
calendar that is.
Comment by jddaughter — June 15, 2009 @ 12:24 am
Calendar of hope….Covergirl is sitting on her hope chest…. Coincidence? I think not!
To me this clearly says: “Elders, start counting down to the cute and wholesome girls who await you at home. Play your cards right, and you’ll get to unwrap (one of) these pretty, fresh, untouched–yea, very nearly unseen–packages. They’re dreaming (chastely) of you, you know.”
Good girls collect dishes and pack hope chests. Good missionaries, apparently, gaze at hope calendars and think pure thoughts (whether a girl has her hand wrapped around a pole or not… ahem) about what happens when they get home.
Comment by EmilyS — June 15, 2009 @ 12:30 am
My. That’s quite a collection. I especially love the bright orange jumper-ish thing our covergirl is wearing. And how it can be pulled down to cover even her ankles. Those blasted, dratted, enticingly sensual ankles. Could have been torment for a young man, if they weren’t covered by that lovely orange jumper-ish thing.
Comment by Lorian — June 15, 2009 @ 1:11 am
I was born a month before this came out. So this is likely similar to what my mom would have looked like…if my mom had had any fashion sense.
i’m not sure i’d have noticed the breast obstruction if you hadn’t pointed it out, but it sure doesn’t look accidental once you mention it. so weird!
do we have comparable things today, that we (rather, I) are just oblivious to?
Comment by blue — June 15, 2009 @ 1:16 am
Maybe that is where the guy from BYU got his calender idea for the 12 shirtless missionaries - “hope” for all those girls saving themselves for their RMs?
Comment by Elise — June 15, 2009 @ 1:19 am
Damn, I love this! Although I have a sneaking suspicion the cover girl is actually a cover boy - why else would she need all the extra room in the crotch?
Comment by Quimby — June 15, 2009 @ 1:28 am
Oh my!!!!!!!!!!!!
why??!!!
Comment by debrauk — June 15, 2009 @ 4:17 am
I would love to know where these girls are now.
Comment by ESO — June 15, 2009 @ 7:24 am
Absolutely hilarious!
Comment by ZD Eve — June 15, 2009 @ 7:37 am
Elise, I was thinking the same thing!
This was oh so funny! A great way to start my Monday for sure.
Comment by Roxanna — June 15, 2009 @ 8:16 am
We need to reimplement this immediately. Who needs an advent calendar when you’ve got a “Countdown to Temple Marriage and Nookie” calendar?
Comment by Bro. Jones — June 15, 2009 @ 8:23 am
Do you know what the best part of this calendar is?? The first two photos were taken at Officer’s Circle dorms at the University of Utah. I smell a scandal a brewin’….
Comment by lemondrop — June 15, 2009 @ 8:28 am
oh my. No words.
Comment by sare — June 15, 2009 @ 8:57 am
Wow, this was hilarious!
Comment by Other Bridget — June 15, 2009 @ 9:11 am
A USO pinup calendar for missionaries? What, Brigitte Bardot and Betty Page were unavailable? Reminds me of (and I could be creating false memories here) the Weird Al video for “Amish Paradise” where the Amish boys are caught looking at pictures of ankles. I wonder if the recipients of this kind gesture are still hopelessly aroused by women in bulky knits with obscured goodies. I feel like flooding the New Era office with shirtless missionary calendars in retaliation.
Comment by Moniker Challenged — June 15, 2009 @ 9:23 am
I find this to be really creepy. Talk about objectifying women. The only difference between this and a Playboy calendar are the amount of clothes on the girls, but the concept is essentially the same. It makes me really uncomfortable. (For all the enjoyment some of the rest of you are getting from it, I might be overreacting).
Comment by Stephanie — June 15, 2009 @ 9:56 am
re: 17
I think you’re essentially right, Stephanie. I think it’s funny that the production wanted to show that women can be objectified chastely.
Comment by Derek — June 15, 2009 @ 10:08 am
You need to pickup the “Men on a mission” calendar.
Has their mission photo, along with a very hot model shot after they got back.
I know we are discouraged from having them, but I had to snag one for my Mom.
Comment by Zanthess — June 15, 2009 @ 10:40 am
Maybe they are objectified discreetly, but the come hither expressions on all of them invite the imagination to explore the possibilites. Especially the last woman- between her expression and her pose on the snowmobile…well, she does look ready for a ride, but not on the snowmobile. The high necks and layers of clothing all are suggestive of them waiting to be unwrapped by the onlooker. The shadows of the leaves invite the onlooker to imagine her only covered by leaves-I had the impression of a cheesy representation of Eve in the garden.
In some ways, I think it’s worse than overt porn…at least porn is straightforward. This is more insidious. It still involved sending pictures of pretty women to be slathered over by hundreds of men they don’t know. Yeah, I think I’d put a book over my breasts too.
Comment by Kimberly — June 15, 2009 @ 10:44 am
Ha ha ha.
After just reading a post about women and sexuality in ads (then and now) it is hilarious to open up a post about women and, well whatever this calendar was supposed to mean, in Mormondom.
Nothing marks the seasons like beautiful Mormon women
(would be so curious to hear the thoughts of these women on this calendar now!!)
Comment by Shelly — June 15, 2009 @ 10:49 am
I’m with you Stephanie. This gets right at the heart of “modesty.” Sure these women are fully (over) dressed but there is nothing modest about it- it is a pinup calendar meant to make men think of women in a sexual way.
Without sexual motivations, looking at pictures of women would be no more or less pleasurable than looking at pictures of people.
The in your face chasteness of the models only serves to emphasize the actual intent. They may as well have titled it “The 12 Virgins of 1969: they’ll be ready when the Bridegroom Cometh.” It is only so funny because it is so transparent.
Comment by Starfoxy — June 15, 2009 @ 10:52 am
I’ve never really understood what it means to “objectify” women. I thought it just meant wanting them for their bodies, instead of their person. In this case, wanting them for their happy smiles, instead of their person?
I loved spring at BYU — the winter coats came off, and the girls looked great in their happy smiles! Created quite a longing, must say.
It didn’t feel unwholesome, though….
Did my graduate work elsewhere, and the girls wore halter tops and short shorts. Don’t remember their smiles…
This calendar is silly. Just another example of the church leadership giving into societal trends.
Comment by Martin — June 15, 2009 @ 10:58 am
And the pump, centered right at her crotch? Puhlease. The photographer was very clever.
Comment by Kimberly — June 15, 2009 @ 10:59 am
Hilarious, and creepy! The flirty tilt of the head, the ‘come hither’ smile, the elegantly trailing leg. This is no different from any other pinup, that I can see. The clothes don’t really change the focus, do they?
Comment by Tatiana — June 15, 2009 @ 11:00 am
Martin (22)
This is a good summary from the Feminism 101 blog, emphasis mine.
The women in these pictures weren’t selected for this honor by getting the best grades, running the fastest, writing the best essay, or being the nicest they were selected first for their looks- most specifically for how much men would enjoy looking at them. It may be true that their values were also considered when selecting the models, but I think it is clear that an ugly yet virtuous women would never have been included in this no matter how happy she looks when she smiles.
Comment by Starfoxy — June 15, 2009 @ 11:25 am
This post made my day.
Comment by mmiles — June 15, 2009 @ 11:36 am
It also reminds me of a poster girl from some poster or New Era that the Elders in my mission lovingly called, “Jen”. She was cute and perky and sat reading her scriptures.
Comment by mmiles — June 15, 2009 @ 11:38 am
Ah, come on, it’s just silly but not that bad.
What do Betty Paige and Brigitte Bardot pin-ups do? Provide a distraction from boredom, loneliness, death, and destruction, by arousing lust. Soldiers were eating, drinking, and fornicating like there was no tomorrow, because there might not be. Betty and Brigitte were good for morale, just not morality.
On the other hand, the ERA pin-up creates a longing more than a lusting. A longing for a future, a girl you could date and take home to mom. In Starfoxy’s #21 terms, the bridegroom doesn’t visit the whorehouse if he knows his virgin awaits him. Brigitte and Betty don’t create an illusion of anything that could last, but these girls do.
Though I can’t imagine any serviceman actually putting it up — his buddies would give him all kinds of grief.
Comment by Martin — June 15, 2009 @ 12:26 pm
Let me state the obvious …. there are no women of color. Clearly, the only desirable women are white?
Make it a great one.
Comment by Mary Magdalene — June 15, 2009 @ 12:35 pm
Mary Magdalene it was 1969. You have to give it a few years.
Comment by mmiles — June 15, 2009 @ 12:40 pm
Nice! Now I have ammo to use next time my LDS friends start demonizing the “Men on a Mission” calendar.
Seriously though, why all the bust obscuration? What’s wrong with our breasts? What’s wrong with wearing “tight” clothing which shows that we have breasts?
I’m decidedly pro-tight-clothing.
Comment by Bridget Jack Meyers — June 15, 2009 @ 12:43 pm
Hilarious. Someone has GOT to know one of these lovely ladies. It reminds me a bit of an email my brother forwarded me of a 1960s’/70’s JCPenney catalog.
What I want to know is, by listing their presumed real names, were these ladies inundated with RM’s who they had “inspired” throughout their missions?
This is a great beginning to the whole story…
Comment by Lupita — June 15, 2009 @ 1:07 pm
Completely creepy and gross, as are Martin’s comments.
Comment by Chandelle — June 15, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
re: 32
You might say that nothing whatsoever is wrong with breasts–and that’s exactly why they were intentionally obscured here.
Comment by Derek — June 15, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
re: 29
Please, Martin. Are you saying that the missionaries and servicemen who saw this were being inspired by their testimonies? Of so, why are they all perky little lasses? The wholesome aspect was simply a thin veneer of gloss over the fact that they were appealing to the exact same thing that mainstream pin-ups did.
Comment by Derek — June 15, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
#36 I disagree. Somewhat. While I don’t think this pin-up was a good idea, I don’t think it was appealing to the exact same thing as the others. I was jokingly trying to point that out with #23, though I guess Chandelle #34 somehow interpreted that as a leer.
Young men long for young women, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Lust is only a part of that. I found the BYU girls a lot more attractive than the halter top girls because the attraction was different. The BYU girls had a light in their eyes and cleanness about them. I found the attraction sweet, and I’ve used this example for my daughters who like boys and whose friends dress differently that what we’ve taught them.
My point is that I think ERA was reaching for that difference. You can’t get there by giving men pictures to stare at, but that’s where they were trying to go.
Comment by Martin — June 15, 2009 @ 2:25 pm
This was “dedicated” to the missionaries? To the 19 year old sexually repressed boys on missions? Wow…talk about DISTRACTION! These are beautiful women. They don’t have to be in bikinis to NOT fantasize about them.
Comment by Dan — June 15, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
#34 Sorry Chandelle, I re-read #23 and I obviously left too much out for my thoughts to come through.
Comment by Martin — June 15, 2009 @ 2:34 pm
re: 37
You’re on the right track when you say “you can’t get there by giving men pictures to stare at.” The editors should have understood that this path ultimately is still taking guys in the same direction as typical pin ups. They should have had a better understanding of chastity and respect for women–it means a whole lot more than more clothes. The result of trying to create chaste objectification is just silly.
Comment by Derek — June 15, 2009 @ 2:43 pm
Martin, that’s still “using” the YW, even if it is done to “help” YM. It reminds me of how YW are told that they are responsible for keeping the young men virtuous. I can maybe, maybe, maybe see doing it for servicemen in war to give them hope to keep them alive (but still recognizing that it is using the young women, and that gives me the creeps), but no way on missionaries.
Comment by Stephanie — June 15, 2009 @ 2:43 pm
No, I’m not sure I could even condone this for servicemen. The whole idea just makes me really uncomfortable. I am sure there are other ways to inspire hope that objectifying women.
Comment by Stephanie — June 15, 2009 @ 2:47 pm
*than* objectifying women
Comment by Stephanie — June 15, 2009 @ 2:48 pm
I don’t think ERA was trying to give servicemen “hope” to stay alive, I think they were just trying to counteract the “pernicious influence” of the mainstream pin-ups.
I was even going to argue that the servicemen wouldn’t even be staring at these girls, just be reminded of their goals (to keep them morally clean), but Dan pretty much shot my argument all to pieces. Thanks Dan.
It does kind of boggle the mind to think they would dedicate it to the missionaries, though.
You see, that’s why the church needed correlation. The apostles were constantly getting shocked when they read things published by the church. You get these progressive types in there willing to compromise with societies standards and bad things happen. Bad, bad, bad.
Comment by Martin — June 15, 2009 @ 3:05 pm
Martin,
Sorry man, but seriously, whether intended or not, giving 19 year old boys who have been told to not think about beautiful women, pictures of four hot women is jarringly distracting on a mission.
What would be good to know is how the missionaries of the time responded and reacted to seeing this. Anyone know those missionaries and wish to ask them?
Comment by Dan — June 15, 2009 @ 3:36 pm
Derek #18 - ” I think it’s funny that the production wanted to show that women can be objectified chastely.”
Precisely. Objectification is objectification, whether those objectified wear bunny puffs on their bottoms or ugly orange jumper-ish things.
Candid shots of young people playing in the snow or picking apples or something along those lines which would remind missionaries of home might have been a better choice.
Comment by Lorian — June 15, 2009 @ 3:41 pm
Then why not show pictures of what their goals should actually be? How about pictures of families, temples, children, Jesus and other things.
I still maintain- without a sexual focus, pictures of women are no more entrancing for men than pictures of people in general.
Comment by Starfoxy — June 15, 2009 @ 3:41 pm
Let us hope that, 40 years from now, we’re not judged this harshly.
Creepy? Don’t make me name a dozen other products of ‘69 that are far worse. So, this one took a nose dive. Remember, its still 9 more years til the right skin color is removed as a qualification for priesthood ordination. I’m not terribly shocked by this.
Comment by CJ Douglass — June 15, 2009 @ 4:01 pm
And before I read any further I thought - What? Show them pictures of VIetnamese villages on fire?
Comment by Quimby — June 15, 2009 @ 4:14 pm
Quimby #49 - I hope your comment is a reflection of military leadership and “goals” and not of the soldiers themselves. The first draft for the Vietnam war was in 1969. It would break my heart to have my sons drafted into a war and forced to engage in atrocities and then have it portrayed as something they wanted to do.
Comment by Stephanie — June 15, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
#44 Martin RE Correlation: What’s interesting is that Elaine Cannon, one of the editors of this calendar, was on the correlation committee. And then, of course, was YW president 1978-84.
When I first wrote this post, it was at least twice as long as it is now, dissecting all the ways the calendar objectified these young women and could have the opposite effect it intended. I ended up cutting out most of the serious stuff and went for humor instead, hoping that my concerns would be read between the lines and you all could have fun with the dissection. Derek (#18) and Starfoxy (#26) pretty much nailed my take on it, and much more succintly.
It may not be fair, 40 years later, to judge the intents of the creators and editors of this calendar as anything other than honorable, but I think it’s plenty fair to argue that the effects of the publication could have done more harm than good to both the young men and the young women.
I wish I knew if this were the only calendar attempt by the Improvement Era, but issues of the IE don’t exist on lds.org. Ardis???
Comment by Idahospud — June 15, 2009 @ 4:48 pm
Stephanie, it was an attempt at dark humour.
I hope my children will choose to live in the US for at least a few years when they are adults. But if there is an active draft, I hope they will choose to live elsewhere.
I agree with your #17 - and I’m just trying to wrap my head around this “chaste” objectification of women, since it flies in the face of everything we’re always taught about modesty
Comment by Quimby — June 15, 2009 @ 5:41 pm
The snow machine shot is a little racy. Her legs are parted!
I am shaking my head…this must have been in response to pinup calendars. Rather than objectifying women in skimpy clothes, why not objectify modestly dressed women?
Comment by Calidaho — June 15, 2009 @ 5:52 pm
I just read everyone’s comments and maybe this will help Martin understand why so many of us see this as objectifying women. Anything that is “For Your Enjoyment” is objectifying. I don’t know if that explains it well at all but I just feel like these pictures are treating the women like a nice candy or a warm towel. “Here is an item that will give you some pleasure.”
I have a feeling this comment could turn into a discussion about art…
Comment by Calidaho — June 15, 2009 @ 6:14 pm
And now I’m reminded of “My last duchess” by Robert Browning.
Comment by Quimby — June 15, 2009 @ 6:39 pm
Sorry, Quimby. One of my major personality flaws is a lack of a sense of humor.
Comment by Stephanie — June 15, 2009 @ 6:44 pm
Or, you could say that one of my major personality flaws is that I’m just not funny!
Comment by Quimby — June 15, 2009 @ 6:48 pm
It’s just a little creepy..and it did immediately remind me of Pin-Up’s.Although , personally I don’t find anything offensive about pretty people,things,materials…etc. I feel like it’s more the intent of the viewer and the image itself. However, I do agree that it does smack of objectification..and chaste clothing or not..lusting is lusting..
Comment by Jillian — June 15, 2009 @ 7:04 pm
I’m also confused by the introduction - “We should live our lives as though they will continue forever . . . ‘Ye shall labor while it is called today’” If my life is going to continue forever, why should I work today? After all, isn’t that what a lifetime of tomorrows is for? In the immortal words of Mark Twain, never do today what you can put off until tomorrow. (Which explains why I comment so much here.)
Comment by Quimby — June 15, 2009 @ 7:12 pm
I got my Mormon pinup calendar
Bought it at the five-and-dime
Thumbed it ’til my fingers bled
It was summer of ‘69
Comment by Bryan Adams — June 15, 2009 @ 7:26 pm
Comment by Lorian — June 15, 2009 @ 8:11 pm
Ilene Clark is my mother. She thinks that it was a great service that she engaged in and she especially got a crack out of Quimby’s comment that she looked like a boy.
Actually I made it all up. Just thought that it would get a rise out of some of you. Much love Quim.
I think that it was probably not intentional, yet not excusable.
Comment by Sam Sneed — June 15, 2009 @ 9:13 pm
For a moment there I thought I was going to have to apologise big-time!
They are all very attractive women - I was more commenting on the fashion than anything with that comment. Actually Ilene Clark reminds me very much of a good friend of mine.
Comment by Quimby — June 15, 2009 @ 9:18 pm
Love it! I just watched a great Russell Brand routine talking about the Jonas Brothers “purity pledge.” He reckons that the people promoting the band as virgins have in mind the same thing Foucault did when he conjectured that Victorians touted sexual repression as a virtue not because they believed in sublimating sexuality, rather it kept it at the forefront of your mind. So the PR folks for the Jonas Brothers claim moral motivation for marketing the sexual purity of their clients as a selling point, knowing that every time you say, “they don’t have sex,” we all think, “sex! sex! sex!”
Comment by crazywomancreek — June 15, 2009 @ 9:19 pm
I think the reference to the Jonas Brothers is apt. “Modesty” is simply a way of assembling a set of visible symbols that, together, mean something to a group. I think modesty has nothing to do with an absolute idea of virtue and everything to do with encoding an abdication of personal sexual autonomy to a group’s behavioral standards. “Modest” clothes say, “I behave in the way we agree I should behave.”
This calendar is engaged in an erotics every bit as real as a more conventional pinup calendar; the women are a sexual commodity bearing a very Mormon erotic code that attempts to sublimate sexy to modest. It tries to erase breasts and other conventionally erotic symbols, but can in no way minimize its participation in the conventional erotics of woman as sexual reward for the good soldier (missionary). She’s an object to be earned, a capitalist/religious fantasy, just as “sex”-y as a nudie pic.
Comment by phenomenaladjustment — June 15, 2009 @ 9:39 pm
hmm i am torn about this. i can definitely see the objectification point, especially in light of historical depictions of women.
but i feel sympathetic to martin too (even though he seems to have given up his point). is it a crime for men to find women attractive, or be inspired by their beauty? don’t even we modest (maybe) women of the church want to be found attractive? who wants a husband who respects us too much to appreciate our womanly curves?
i understand that its different when you are being paraded in front of strangers, but man i love me the movies with handsome movie stars in them. is it a crime to appreciate masculine beauty, even if i dont know the people behind it? i can’t deny its partially sexual, but its partially aesthetic too. should any titillating art be banished? when did we feminists get so prudey? isn’t feminine beauty something we should embrace and claim, the power of our sexuality and its affect on men?
finally, its a valid point that art for missionaries SHOULD be somewhat censured, but personally i am pleased to see that sexuality is not ENTIRELY vilified on the mish. enough men struggle with that when they get back.
Comment by nobodyputsbabyinacorner — June 15, 2009 @ 9:53 pm
Starfoxy—Hhehehe. You rock.
Comment by Motion de Smiths — June 15, 2009 @ 9:54 pm
I guess I should have been more clear. I think sexy is great. So is sex and a healthy desire for it, for that matter. I think what bugs me is the obfuscation in wrapping everything and everyone in ostensible modesty. I guess I’d prefer more honest sexiness: a more robust, healthy acceptance of desire. I find the veneer of modesty, its lie about not being about sex when it absolutely is, a little lame and a little disturbing.
Comment by phenomenaladjustment — June 15, 2009 @ 9:57 pm
i am with you on that phenomenaladjustment. to me there is something to modesty, but it is not what we paint it out to be. i think its about veiling what is sacred, because we dont fully comprehend it yet…i can’t explain it better than that.
but it DOES become this good/bad taboo fetish sex thing, the brunt of which is felt by women. im not a fan of that.
Comment by nobodyputsbabyinacorner — June 15, 2009 @ 10:03 pm
I agree with you nobodyputsababyinacorner (hope I got that right). I like what you say about the sacred as well. I think that’s what we (many of us) hope to somehow find in all of this: the sacred and the meaningful in sexuality, desire, and connection with other human beings — even if they are just images, images we use to imagine and build our fantasies, which end up becoming the overseers of our actions. That’s why, I think, we cover and hide and describe sexuality in such strange ways…the sacredness is there, after all, but we often fall into feinting and contriving and believing that just making something a taboo will solve the problems. Then, as you say, we usually have a “brunt” to deal with.
Comment by phenomenaladjustment — June 15, 2009 @ 10:13 pm
I like the snowmobile.
Comment by greenskinnedhippo — June 15, 2009 @ 10:50 pm
re: 65
Nicely said, Pheno.
re: 66
We could definitely have a great and complex discussion on aesthetics, beauty, and art, and I would agree there would be a lot of nuance and ambivalence in that discussion. But for me, this is more an issue of hypocrisy and exploitation. The editors of IE, who I presume would denounce objectification, are conceding the issue of objectification by providing a more seemingly innocuous version. This isn’t a new exploration of art or of attraction, it’s just a modest girly calendar with which to replace your more scandalous girly calendars.
Comment by Derek — June 16, 2009 @ 12:12 am
ACK!! The first one is showing some ankle!!
Comment by Mike H. — June 16, 2009 @ 1:14 am
Can I just say I have seen women on this site objectify a certain recently called apostle?
Yes the thing is campy based on are changing perspectives.
But come on can’t a person every appreciate an attractive woman or man without being accused of objectifying?
Comment by cyclingred — June 16, 2009 @ 6:58 am
Absolutely. It would be ridiculous to say otherwise- the perpetuation of our species depends upon it. What is disturbing to me about the calendar is that it is presented, presumably, as the antithesis to the lewd girly calendars that were so popular with the soldiers. But it isn’t. It’s the exactly the same thing with more clothes on, and in my mind, worse, because it’s claiming not to be.
I think the point it struck with me is that our LDS culture preaches the value of women…but, what is it we are supposed to value, exactly? If the intro touted returning to all the things that were good in life, why did it only show attractive women with expressions and poses designed to evoke lust? Why not a woman in a rocking chair, in the first light of dawn, holding an infant? Someone sitting peacefully on the stone wall of the temple, reading scripture? Or pictures of a group of people dancing (all shapes and sizes, men and women together). Bringing in the harvest. Mixed groups playing sports. No, this calendar intentionally framed each shot to imply that this particular woman was all eyes for whichever strange man chose to look at her picture. That’s not a flattering assumption about either sex.
I’m a realist, especially since I was in the Army, I know full well how much men enjoy looking at women and yes, they sure do care about sex- and they aren’t usually looking upon us wondering how well we knit. But in a publication that I’m assuming, was an answer to the lustful images of the pinup calendar and a supposed redirection of thoughts to longing for the good things in life…well, basically, all it proved is that people of our own faith have the same limited understanding of women as the people producing pinup calendars. We just put more clothes on it.
Comment by Kimberly — June 16, 2009 @ 7:25 am
Objectification hits women at our core. Not because we don’t wish to be attractive to prospective or actual partners but because when it comes to our intrinsic value, most of us don’t want attractiveness to be the sole determinant- or even the most important. Most of us would like to mean a lot more than that to men. (And of course, I know that the majority of men would agree that we do mean a lot more than that, it just would be really nice if that were represented as much as the sex appeal aspect.)
It gives a lot of us great pain when the things that go deeper than surface attractiveness are not given more credence. Intellect, humor, ambition, talents, education, kindness…to name a few. A man who isn’t deeply appreciative of these things in a woman will usually find that the woman is less likely to look at him with the come-hither expression these pinups are modelling.
Comment by Kimberly — June 16, 2009 @ 8:26 am
cyclingred #74 -
But that’s kind of the definition of objectification, red. Looking at someone as a physical object of beauty (or ugliness) rather than as a whole being. Focusing on their body and not their humanity, personality, intellect, spirit.
I suppose you could speak in defense of objectification as, perhaps, a healthy, normal activity, if you like. But to deny that it IS objectification is kind of pointless, IMO.
Comment by Lorian — June 16, 2009 @ 9:35 am
Kimberly… “all it proved is that people of our own faith have the same limited understanding of women as the people producing pinup calendars. We just put more clothes on it.”
Good post.
Comment by Lorian — June 16, 2009 @ 9:38 am
62 Sam, if you were wondering why the filter threw your comment in moderation (I’m guessing here) check here. And even if Quimby is flattered by being called a vagina, I have to beg you to stop; it wreaks havoc on my day to snort coffee out my nose first thing in the morning!
Comment by crazywomancreek — June 16, 2009 @ 9:47 am
I musta missed something…
Comment by Lorian — June 16, 2009 @ 10:22 am
Maybe you have to be old enough to remember 1969 to understand it. I’m guessing the editors were jumping, chastely, on the summer of love band wagon, showing the world that mormons can be groovy and we don’t have to throw out what they saw as modesty to do it.
In other words, they were chasing the fashion of the day in order to fit in, in order to gain some street cred, in order to appear with it.
The lesson of this calendar isn’t how unsettling it is in 2009, most things from the past are unsettling or at least funny 2 generations removed. The lesson is how stupid we all eventually will appear when we chase the zeitgeist of whatever age we live in.
Comment by KLC — June 16, 2009 @ 10:30 am
There are lots of assets that get us mileage in this life: beauty, brains, money, church calling, employment status, education level, etc. Don’t we all objecify each other?
This calendar was a bit hoaky, but not offensive. Men will always appreciate beautiful women. It’s a fact of life. Accept it.
I don’t believe modesty is meant to suggest a-sexual. Modesty’s message is — sexual, but only after you marry me.
Comment by Andrea — June 16, 2009 @ 10:47 am
Again, I don’t think I completely understand the “objectivation” complained about here. I understand the concept of men objectifying women into sexual objects. I understand the concept of men objectifying women into societal stereotypes (of happy homemaker, for example). Both techniques are used to sell product, and risk having men treat women as less than they are, especially in the work place. I can see how objectification is a huge enemy of feminism.
I don’t accept the argument about reducing women to the physical beauty. Beauty, intellect, athleticism,… They’re all the same. We’re born with varying amounts of each, and each can be improved (to some extent) with effort. We use what we’ve got, and if we’ve got a lot in one area, we can end up in magazines or winning awards. Are we objectifying Lebron James on the cover of SI? Of course. We’re reducing him to one aspect of his person, and its really the only one we care about.
In terms of this calendar, are these women being objectified? Yes. But they’re being objectified as a man’s potential future, a goal to strive for and be worthy of. They’re assumed to be virtuous and faithful or they wouldn’t be there. Is there an element of sexuality? Yes. But the sexuality is only a part of the objectification, and the de-emphasis with the over-the-top clothing was probably meant to be obvious. The message? Soldier, we know you like pretty girls — remember what you’re striving for. Stay away from the temptations your buddies are pursuing.
So, does the objectification above lead to men viewing/treating women as less than full people? Hmm… Does it lead women to think of themselves as less than they are? Hmm…
I’m sorry, but Dan’s comments not withstanding, I still don’t see soldiers staring at these girls as sexual objects. Sure, they’re pretty, but if you’re a soldier and feel like staring, your buddy’ll give you something far more fixating.
I almost checked out, but nobodyputsbabyinthecorner #66 threw me a bone.
Comment by Martin — June 16, 2009 @ 11:18 am
A comment by someone else on another blog, upon seeing something outrageously funny there:”You owe me a new keyboard! I just covered this one in Pepsi!”
Comment by Mike H. — June 16, 2009 @ 12:08 pm
#79…
that little rhyme is now stuck in my mind. Irrevocably.
Comment by sare — June 16, 2009 @ 12:15 pm
KLC #81, that’s a good point.
Martin #83, I don’t like the idea of a pretty woman being a prize or a reward for a job well done.
I don’t mind being appreciated. I don’t mind my husband having a picture of me on his desk. (Weird sidenote - one day he got to work and the picture was gone. Frame was still there, but someone took the picture out and put frame back together. Weird. We thought it was a joke, but it never showed up). But, this calendar (and the idea of pin-ups) reduces women to one thing: a beautiful object to look at. A treat. A prize.
Take President Uchtdorf for example. A beautiful man, and I don’t mind looking at him. But, I wouldn’t hang a picture of him on the wall to oogle over all day, even dressed in his church suit. (Plus, he looks like my FIL - everytime we watch conference, my kids say, “Look grandpa!” Then again, the fact that he looks like grandpa means I might get away with hanging a picture of him on the wall after all . . . J/K!)
Comment by Stephanie — June 16, 2009 @ 12:40 pm
The shortening of Quimby’s name was not in any way to refer to anyhting else other than I like to shorten names.
I had no idea that the word “Quim” was in any way related to what the definition declared.
My honest mistake.
But taken in context, I hope you can see that it was not intentional.
Comment by Sam Sneed — June 16, 2009 @ 12:50 pm
Martin, the difference is that we appreciate Lebron for his ability, for his skill and artistry, for things he does for his own sake. The women’s beauty is not for their own sake but so that men will get the most pleasure out of them. Does that explain it better?
Comment by Tatiana — June 16, 2009 @ 1:08 pm
Sam- I don’t think the word vagina or quim is a grievous insult. I was SURE you didn’t know the meaning of the word, that’s why I linked the definition. Please don’t be afraid that I took offense, I thought it was hilarious.
Your friend,
Regina
(or Gy-nah for short)
Comment by crazywomancreek — June 16, 2009 @ 1:16 pm
thats not funny. I think I will call you CWC unless there is something wrong with it.
Comment by Sam Sneed — June 16, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
Martin, I agree with Stephanie (lots of common ground, lately, Stephanie!). Your thoughts about them as a reward reminds me of the “motivation” that went around my mission which claimed the harder you work, the hotter your future wife would be. This sort of motivation strengthens the wrong perception of beauty and of woman.
CWC, thanks for reminding me about that British slang. I can’t believe I didn’t make the connection! I’m getting less dirty in my old age…
re: 81
Why did groovy have to be conventionally perky (not to mention nordic) young women?
Then again, in what perhaps might argue the other way, I think it was silly for the Church to bring the hammer down so hard on that “Men on a Mission” calendar. It was silly, but did it really justify excommunication? Am I being hypocritical here?
Comment by Derek — June 16, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
Oh Sam! I’m sorry - so hard to read tone on the internet. I really was just goodnaturedly teasing you. And no, to my knowledge, CWC is not short hand for any body part, north or south of the equator.
Comment by crazywomancreek — June 16, 2009 @ 2:03 pm
Well put.
Comment by Stephanie — June 16, 2009 @ 2:09 pm
Yes and yes. This calendar is just another item from a long and thriving history that tells everyone that women live primarily to be beautiful for men.
That men appreciate beauty in women is fine, great even. But when that’s all we ever seem to hear about then it becomes distorted in importance to both men and women and that is highly problematic.
Comment by Starfoxy — June 16, 2009 @ 2:36 pm
I have a story I’ll share, since it relates to the direction of all this:
Some years ago, a played a little April Fools trick on an automotive board’s off topic area. I labeled the thread “HOT WOMEN WEARING THONGS! NWS!” Yes, the page I made had pictures of women wearing thongs, but foot type thongs! I explained: “April fools! Hey, these women have to be hot to wear those, you can’t really wear them when its snowing. What were you horn dogs expecting?” I had a number of disgusted & disgusting replies to that.
Starfoxy: There was an Ad that showed the chest of a woman after she had a double mastectomy. It was about breast cancer awareness, but many felt it was too graphic.
Comment by Mike H. — June 16, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
Tatiana, #88, I’m not sure I buy this. We admire Lebron’s skill and artistry, and Naomi Campbell’s beauty and grace. Lebron may love what he does, but he’s on the cover of SI because we like to watch him, and he sells product. Naomi may love attention, but she’s on the cover of, well… whatever she’s on the cover of… because we like to look at her and she sells product. In both cases, they’re there for the consumer’s visual enjoyment.
You could argue that the objectification of each hurts a segment of the population — women should be beautiful, and black men should be athletes, therefore neither should be scientists.
There is something about the calendar that feels wrong to me, but the objectification argument doesn’t seem completely solid.
And #94, I didn’t feel those girls were reduced to sexual objects, or even just beautiful objects. To me they were supposed to be symbols. But that is just the reaction of my one male in the test audience — me. Dan and Derek disagree, so the larger sample size makes me wrong.
Comment by Martin — June 16, 2009 @ 3:41 pm
re: 95
I have gotten in trouble many times due to the fact that I grew up calling those loose sandles “thongs”…
Comment by Derek — June 16, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
Uh, the only people in my life who routinely shorten my name to “Quim” are 80 and 90 year old women. Now you know I’ll never be able to look them in the eye again. I had no idea, CWC, and my education really did not need to include that!
Comment by Quimby — June 16, 2009 @ 5:50 pm
re: 97
yep. My teenaged daughters were mortified when their to-bring list for YW Camp included “rubber thongs for the shower.”
Comment by Idahospud — June 16, 2009 @ 6:39 pm
LOVED #64 and #65 posts!
Comment by anon — June 16, 2009 @ 7:50 pm
Someone REALLY needs to update those camp lists. My daughter’s also said “no walkmans”
Comment by claire — June 16, 2009 @ 9:47 pm
Martin, I think a central part of the objectification issue is that women are only ever objectified based on one characteristic–how they look. Men, on the other hand, while we may be objectified, at least have more alternatives. We can put our looks out as our best characteristic, or our ability to tell jokes, or our earning power, or our education, or whatever. But for women, it’s difficult to get past looks.
I know I’m not saying anything you haven’t already heard–sorry if it sounds like I’m piling it on. I was just hoping another phrasing might make it clearer. (Although I realize that in #96 you said you don’t buy that the women were being reduced to how they look.)
Comment by Ziff — June 17, 2009 @ 12:33 am
Wow, Claire, that’s pretty funny! Besides, everyone knows they’re called “walkwomans” these days.
Comment by Ziff — June 17, 2009 @ 12:34 am
Wow, Martin, thank you for being the voice of the “traditional” LDS male, the one who chastely objectifies women and justifies himself for so doing based on church standards of acceptability. Thank you for reminding the women (and more enlightened men) of how much farther we (the women, that is) have to go in the church to become “people,” rather than “chaste rewards” for the men who’ve done well.
I’d like to think you were making such comments to be a devil’s advocate…..
Comment by A Paperback Writer — June 17, 2009 @ 9:02 am
CWC. Yeah tone is hard in writing,and I was laughing as i typed that is not funny.
if only I was better at written expression.
No hard feelings here.
Comment by Sam Sneed — June 17, 2009 @ 12:46 pm
I feel sorry for Quimby now. There are other examples of shortened names meaning much different things, but I’ll hold off telling those. There is a Quimby Road here in San Jose
Regina: I never know with your name when written if it’s a long e, or a long i in the middle.
To stir the pot even more: What about nudes paintings & sculptures? It’s OK in Baroque era paintings, but not OK in other styles? How does objectifying work with them? They had some nude drawings on display at BYU around 1983 for a while, but they were removed after some complaints. They were not really that good of drawings, in an art sense, I heard.
Comment by Mike H. — June 17, 2009 @ 3:13 pm
Oh well, in a weird way it actually works since a version of DH’s name can be used as slang for penis in some countries.
Comment by Quimby — June 17, 2009 @ 4:20 pm
LOL Quim(by).
Comment by Stephanie — June 17, 2009 @ 4:32 pm
Too funny…
Comment by Lorian — June 17, 2009 @ 6:30 pm
So is it ok to objectify in retrospect because these people are long dead, or is it that we have a profound respect for the ability of these antiquated artist’s even if they were perves in their own time?
It is not like these photos are being admired for the photgraphers great craft and skill.
Comment by Sam Sneed — June 18, 2009 @ 8:50 am
I was referring to the old sculptor’s and their subjects, not the photographers that took these pics.
Sorry for any confusion.
Comment by Sam Sneed — June 18, 2009 @ 3:58 pm
for what its worth i treid to look at this again today at work and my school internet wotsit kept blocking me and flitering it out!!!!
Comment by debrauk — June 18, 2009 @ 5:17 pm
I knew that bare ankle would be trouble!
Ah, maybe it’s that.
Comment by Mike H. — June 18, 2009 @ 11:39 pm
lovely girrrrrls to be sure
Comment by father jack — June 19, 2009 @ 10:02 am
My FIL is visiting. He served his mission in 1969, but he said he didn’t get one of these Mormon pin-up calendars. Bummer for him, I guess!
Comment by Stephanie — June 21, 2009 @ 2:58 pm
To this particular oberserver, (who had just hit puberty in 1969, but whose views you should rightly take witht a grain of salt), I think the calendar effectively extolled certain aspects of conservative style and manners.
Sure, to do so requires that women — including their faces and bodies — be displayed.
Pretty people, in general, in magazines, circa 1969.
That these bodies and faces were close to the societal ideal, I think, was sort of unremarkable, for the times. Nowadays Church magazines tend to be illustrated moreso by “normal” people, but in 1969 ALL magazine illustrations and ads still featured people who approached what was considered the ideal. The advent of generally slightly more “normal” looking people in illustrations and ads to illustrate things or advertise products not specifically having to do with beauty, etc., didn’t dawn until the 1970s. So, through the prism of the times, the calendar was NOT saying, “Hey! Look at these pretty girls!” so much… (I know, I know: It IS a calendar inviting viewers to look at pretty girls…..but try to follow along with what I’m sayin’ here!) …as it is trying to show the models’ comportment/dress. So, IMO, what the calendar was really saying was, “Hey, people! You can be with-the-times (hip) and still be LDS!” What would be noticed about it wouldn’t be that the models were pretty (which would be expected) but that they are successfully contemporary looking and stylish.
- - - - - - - - -
- Busts were particularly eroticized… (nothing new here, but, for example, note the short fad of the monokini introduced in ‘64(?)) …so, the images on the calendar simply don’t emphasize/showcase breasts; ’nuff said!
- Women’s legs were very much in style, too: as bared. But the calendar models wear appropriately legs-covering styles, besides the calves. (I recall that a lot of young ladies would certainly wore skirts above the knee to church then — or in general. The adults would say things such as how knees aren’t really all that pretty, so why show them? Which, at the time, I thought a weird tack to take. Instead of “Be modest” they were saying, “Hide ugly knees!”)
Sometimes the calendar young women are in pants, in appropriate settings. Pants on women as a fashion thing was new. Conservatively, women should use pants for outdoorsy, more casual type of activies. (Yet none of the models are wearing jeans…. Maybe if one had been gardening? This was before the era of “fashion” jeans; jeans then were anti-syle, as representative of unisex “work pants.”)
- Body consciousness. That the clothes were not form-fitting was also an important feature. A young woman’s wearing tight clothing in 1969 was not yet the sylistic norm (the fact of the Summer of Love’s having recently past in 1967, notwithstanding); so tight clothes on a young woman would stand out as being particularly body conscious/self-confident, at the time, such a look considered more sophisticat/worldly/”adult.” So the calendar shows young women who are wearing “well-(enough)-fitted” but not form-fitting clothing.
Comment by Justmeherenow — July 17, 2009 @ 11:09 am
Actually the snowmobile babe probably is wearing jeans — but this supports my argument that the editors are trying to emphasize the snowmobiling aspect of such attire’s being appropriate. (She’s also wearing boots….but I’d reeally be stretching things to observe that go-go boots were then all the rage.)
Comment by Justmeherenow — July 17, 2009 @ 11:31 am