See, the underlying principle of feminism is equality. As things stand here in the country that produces Playboy, women and men are not equal. Men, for instance, are favored for all sorts of powerful, high-paying jobs, and often respected more as they get older and better at those jobs. Women, on the other hand, can sometimes make a bunch of money by taking off all their clothes when they're young and most attractive to a large number of heterosexual men, but then they are less respected in that profession as they get older, no matter how much valuable information they've learned about posing naked by that point. Do you see the difference?

If, by equality, you are speaking of equality of opportunity, and not equality of outcome, than this, my dear, is a completely apples-to-oranges comparison, because there is no similar nude modeling industry available in our society for men. Even if I wanted to, I could never "make a bunch of money by taking off all (my) clothes" while I was young and attractive, simply because of my gender. That opportunity is not equal - it is available to women only. And what she does with that opportunity, should she choose to take it, is entirely up to her - by no means is she confined to make a career out of it and be confined to a fate of rejection and failure as she ages. However, it is only "she" that can take that opportunity: it is something not even available to "he."

And speaking of your contention that not all women are "wankworthy" enough, and that those that are are fated to rejection and failure as they age: are you at all familiar with pornography these days? If not, what you must know is that it has diversified. There are niches - popular niches - available for women of all ages, shapes and sizes. The MILF genre, featuring older, maternal women, is one of the most popular in the whole industry. Take a look at the rack at your local news stand some time. You'll probably be surprised by what you see.

If, however, you are speaking of equality of outcome, than you are speaking of an impossibility. Actual, tangible equality of wealth is simply not possible under a market exchange: and the market always wins, in the end.

If, by equality, you are speaking of equality of opportunity, and not equality of outcome, than this, my dear, is a completely apples-to-oranges comparison

I just read over my previous post, and it occurred to me that my use of the words "my dear" in the sentence above, is quite condescending, and one can argue, sexist. Wish I had noticed that before I hit the publish button. At any rate, Mrs. Harding, my apologies for addressing you in that fashion.

How does Joanna Krupa in Playboy decrease the power of the mass of ordinary women? Simple. Because she devalues their sexual power as a matter of comparison. Sexual attractiveness is one form of power in our society. A woman’s attractiveness is also subjectively determined by frames of reference.

If this is true, than Joanna Krupa, and every other woman that looks similar to her, disempower women collectively by their mere existence, irregardless of what magazine they do or don't choose to pose for. Beautiful women like her exist in Milwaukee as well as Los Angeles, and if beauty really is something that can be objectively determined and graded on a curve, as you seem to be suggesting, then there will always be someone, in every town, city and community, who will screw up the curve for everyone else.

For evidence that it isn't true anywhere but in the minds of the women who insist that it is, all you need to look to is, as I have previously mentioned in this thread, the diversity of niches in pornography today.