Nostalgia & History > Suntan Advertising

One of my favorite covers for an SP Bulletin .    Virgil Staff would be proud !     (Nice HAT, huh ?)

KRK



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/15 09:42 by KeyRouteKen.

---

There's a hat?

All I see is a train.

John Webb
Trinidad, CA

what a big ... hat she has.

Jamie Yeager
Santa Fe, NM

2015 minus 1957...she's somebody's grandma now!

rank30

I wish my company magazine looked this "interesting"
That's one smokin.... er... uh.... train.

So tell me . . .

Back in 1957 were people as highly offended by such a sexist photo as they undoubtedly would be today?

Would the female model have to be a racial minority, a member of the LGBT community, a single mother, borderline obese and in a motorized wheelchair so that most all of the "special interest groups" would be represented by her in the photo and would not feel excluded?  

We've been indoctrinated into believing that the "Barbie Doll" representation shown in the 1957 photo is not a "realistic" role model of what a female is all about.  It sends the "wrong message" to impressionable young teenage girls that their physical attributes should be acknowledged.

Am I interpreting all the propaganda from the National Organization for Women correctly?   ** SARCASM KEY ENGAGED **

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As I've said in a few other posts, as soon as they can invent a time machine that can send me back to 1957, reserve me a seat!  



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/15 04:55 by CA_Sou_MA_Agent.

Here's your hat; what's your hurry?

~ Steinem

PC-ism has come very close to indoctoranating our nation into mind-numbed, unisex borgs afraid to express any sentiments once considered compliments in a former time of true diversity in this nation. The only demographic group left that can be freely jeered, prodded, or ridiculed is the caucasian hetrosexual male and to a lesser extent the other minority males. Nation is becoming about as humorless as the former communist Soviet Union which is a miserable place to be. It is bad when comedians such as Seinfeld, Chris Rock, and others refuse to perform at universities anymore because of the PC indoctrinated students.

Irony is that the more diverse our nation becomes racially, the less diverse PC-ism allows use to become.

**Sarcasm not intended**


CA_Sou_MA_Agent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So tell me . . .
>
> Back in 1957 were people as highly offended by
> such a sexist photo as they undoubtedly would be
> today?
>
> Would the female model have to be a racial
> minority, a member of the LGBT community, a single
> mother, borderline obese and in a motorized
> wheelchair so that most all of the "special
> interest groups" would be represented by her in
> the photo and would not feel excluded?  
>
> We've been indoctrinated into believing that the
> "Barbie Doll" representation shown in the 1957
> photo is not a "realistic" role model of what a
> female is all about.  It sends the "wrong
> message" to impressionable young teenage girls
> that their physical attributes should be
> acknowledged.
>
> Am I interpreting all the propaganda from the
> National Organization for Women correctly?   **
> SARCASM KEY ENGAGED **
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> As I've said in a few other posts, as soon as they
> can invent a time machine that can send me back to
> 1957, reserve me a seat!  

Posted from Android

KRK, Thanks for your reposting of this very nice photo.  Plus, bonus points to me for marrying a woman who looks very much like that beautiful model.  So, members think there is/may be some kind of problem with this photo, or others like it?  It may be that the members are the ones with the "problem", not the photographer, the publisher, or those of us who appreciate it.  Sexist?   In what way?  Offensive?  In what way?  Let us remember that the model is wearing appropriate beach attire, even for that much more socially conservative era.  And, what are they promoting here?  Oh yes, a nice trip to the BEACH.  Some in our membership complain about PC-ness taking over our land.....well that PC-psychosis appears to have affected our own membership.  Sad.  Very sad, indeed.  There is a reason why Jane Russell got far more photo exposure than, say, Eleanor Roosevelt.  AA

Stanford White
Carmel Valley, CA



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/15 15:17 by agentatascadero.

Well said, agentatascadero.  

I hope we can return to a place where a photo of a woman in a bathing suit is not considered a crime of the century.

Someone dictating to me what I can and cannot view, whether it's a radical feminist or a member of ISIS, is STILL contrary to what America is all about.

I look forward to a resumption of the publication of the Ryanair annual calendar where their flight attendants were adorned in swimwear.  The 2015 edition was axed due to political pressures.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/ryanair/11134009/Ryanair-scraps-its-bikini-clad-cabin-crew-calendar.html   

CA_Sou_MA_Agent Wrote:

> As I've said in a few other posts, as soon as they
> can invent a time machine that can send me back to
> 1957, reserve me a seat!  

You have a time machine, any year you want, and you choose 1957???  You'll just miss SP steam in regular service, but you'll be just in time to catch the economy sliding into recession.  In October, the USSR will launch Sputnik and give us a serious wake-up call on our presumed technological advantage (they already have the H-bomb).  Minorities are already protesting for and getting equal protection under the law - Brown v. Board of Education is three years old and Congress is about to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 despite Strom Thurmond's filibuster.  Oh, and for the first time, the number of women voting roughly equals the number of men voting...

Meanwhile, cruise past any grocery check-out in 2015 and you're sure to find magazine covers far racier than that one from 1957, and "adult content" has never been more readily available.  There were people who objected to such "scandalous" photos back then, and there are people who object to racy covers now, but if that's "indoctrination," "mind numbing," "PC-ism," etc., it sure hasn't put a much of a damper on the supply.  You sure you want to go back?

Evan_Werkema Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You have a time machine, any year you want, and
> you choose 1957???  You'll just miss SP steam in
> regular service, but you'll be just in time to
> catch the economy sliding into recession.  In
> October, the USSR will launch Sputnik and give us
> a serious wake-up call on our presumed
> technological advantage (they already have the
> H-bomb).  Minorities are already protesting for
> and getting equal protection under the law - Brown
> v. Board of Education is three years old and
> Congress is about to pass the Civil Rights Act of
> 1957 despite Strom Thurmond's filibuster.  Oh,
> and for the first time, the number of women voting
> roughly equals the number of men voting...
>
> Meanwhile, cruise past any grocery check-out in
> 2015 and you're sure to find magazine covers far
> racier than that one from 1957, and "adult
> content" has never been more readily available. 
> There were people who objected to such
> "scandalous" photos back then, and there are
> people who object to racy covers now, but if
> that's "indoctrination," "mind numbing," "PC-ism,"
> etc., it sure hasn't put a much of a damper on the
> supply.  You sure you want to go back?

1957 would be plenty good enough for me.  

By then, all of the western streamliners would be equipped with domes.  All of the "current events" and other non-rail-related details you cite would, in my opinion, be much more palatable than what were being subjected to today. What atrocities does ISIS have in store for us this week?  In 1957, Mexico was a warm, friendly place with lots of steam and passenger service on pratically every line.  Compare and contrast that with the Mexico of today.  The drug cartels now run the country.

Fire up that time machine.  I'm ready!     

Evan_Werkema Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CA_Sou_MA_Agent Wrote:
>
> > As I've said in a few other posts, as soon as
> they
> > can invent a time machine that can send me back
> to
> > 1957, reserve me a seat!  
>
> You have a time machine, any year you want, and
> you choose 1957???  You'll just miss SP steam in
> regular service, but you'll be just in time to
> catch the economy sliding into recession.  In
> October, the USSR will launch Sputnik and give us
> a serious wake-up call on our presumed
> technological advantage (they already have the
> H-bomb).  Minorities are already protesting for
> and getting equal protection under the law - Brown
> v. Board of Education is three years old and
> Congress is about to pass the Civil Rights Act of
> 1957 despite Strom Thurmond's filibuster.  Oh,
> and for the first time, the number of women voting
> roughly equals the number of men voting...
>
> Meanwhile, cruise past any grocery check-out in
> 2015 and you're sure to find magazine covers far
> racier than that one from 1957, and "adult
> content" has never been more readily available. 
> There were people who objected to such
> "scandalous" photos back then, and there are
> people who object to racy covers now, but if
> that's "indoctrination," "mind numbing," "PC-ism,"
> etc., it sure hasn't put a much of a damper on the
> supply.  You sure you want to go back?                                                                                                                                Evan, I'm with you on this one, I, too, would have chosen an earlier year.  In the recent Oakland Pier painting John Bromley did for me, I chose 1948.....one of the last years before those darn diesels decimated the national steam fleet, and prior to the depressing string of train discontinuances that would soon begin..  A time of railroading in the classic manner is where I would go.  AA

Stanford White
Carmel Valley, CA

1950-1951 saw a major coal strike in the midst of the Korean conflict, saw Harry Truman threaten to draft the striking coal miners, and saw diesels invade previous steam strong holds.

Beginning of the end for steam.  John L. Lewis was portrayed as a crazy man, one who would expose the US to the Red menace. Those Commies who stole our atomic bomb, and had inflitrated the US government. Definitely caused some re-thinking in the executive board rooms of a few railroads, that's for sure.