rlynnm

Oh my goodness, I have to admit that commercial was a little disturbing...It glorifies the woman's lack of control for the exact same things only she should have a say in.. then again, she did sign up for the ad campaign right...

__________________
The hardest thing is to be honest with yourself, especially if that means completely redefining the world you've come to know.

Don't look too hard, I'm right in front of you.

Sho Nuff

Many, many thanks for that link.

I admit, that one pushes the limits. It definitely objectifies women, but I dont see the degradation. Why is an appreciation for the female body and acting out a fantasy the lowest common denominator?

__________________
I know Nietzsche doesnt rhyme with peachy, but you sound like a pretentious prick when you correct me.

highthief

Agreed. 100%

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

flamingdog

College newspaper or no, I could scratch my arse and come up with something more worthy of the front page than this.

Bedraggled Cat

The main problem with that commercial is that it was obviously against the character's will and she seemed embarressed distressed by it - it made me feel very uncomfortable. The degredation is that control over her clothing and basically her body was taken away from her and in no way is that an acceptable portrayal of anyone, man or woman. I had a similar problem with the beer advert that had a woman controlling what her boyfriend did with by dripping beer everywhere.

It becomes a lot more disturbing when you consider that there are men that think they do have a right to invade a woman's personal space whenever they choose. This sort of advert is prompted by the exact same mentality that allows certain men to think they have to right to make sexual comments to a woman that they don't know.

Menoman

Perhaps degrading and definatly objectifying HER, but it was her choice, so it's not objectifying 'women' as a whole in my opinion.

__________________

DonovanDuVal

Degarding? Not really. If it is degrading it could be argued that it is degrading to the readers to as much as it is to the girls involved.

Crap? Well yeah there I am with flammingdog it does seem a bit cack.

__________________
"I've been Donovan DuVal. Take care of yourselves, and each other."

rlynnm

Bedraggled, you took the words right out of my mouth. I knew what I wanted to say but wasn't quite sure how to put it.

__________________
The hardest thing is to be honest with yourself, especially if that means completely redefining the world you've come to know.

Don't look too hard, I'm right in front of you.

shakran

I'm not real forgiving of college newspapers that sink to this bullshit. This is when it's time for a professor to get involved. There's nothing worse than being a journalism student who really wants to be a journalist, and who needs clips from his newspaper in order to show potential employers that he knows what he's doing, and then having some jackass turn your paper into a crap rag that makes it hard for employers to take him seriously.

cellophanedeity

Is this degrading to women? No. Is this poor journalism? Definitely.

If these women knew that their picture was being taken (which they obviously did) and they expressed concent for it to be used (which they apparently did) then it's not degrading. They're having fun, showing off their bras. The paper used cheesy lines, and a poor choice of news, but whatever. I mean, at least it'll probably get some attention for the women's soccer team, which I'm sure it needs more spectators (as most womens sports do.)

If this is degrading, then what are we to make of our own site? I post pictures of myself naked here. Is that self degrading? I don't think so. If anything, it made me feel good about myself, and I've only had one comment that's made me ever question it. (don't worry mods, I'll be talking to the person about it soon.) And then there's the titty board. Look! Women! Boobs! Imperfections are pointed out! Objectification of women!

I'm a feminist. There's no way around it, I am. (Perhaps a humanist would be a better term though..?) But, I think once in a while it's okay to objectify people. It's okay to want to look at one part of a person, or look at a person for one reason. As long as that person is concenting and understands the purposes, and most importantly the person "objectifying" understands the person's rights and that they are a PERSON I see no problems with it on a temporary basis.

That's just my opinion, of course.

analog

Short answer: Yay! Boobies!!!

Long answer:

It's "against the will" of a fictional character, a non-existent person. The actress herself is not being taken advantage of, it's acting.

If you're trying to say that the fictional degradation of fictional characters somehow mirrors or enhances issues of actual, real people, I would argue that connection as extremely specious. That is the same type of argument that drives conversations like "guns kill people". Rather than put the blame on the individuals of diminished moral or legal character as it should be, the "fault" is ascribed to an outside, intangible source and touted as "cause and effect"- have a gun and you will shoot people, or play this videogame and become violent (GTA), or listen to this music and kill yourself (ozzy).

While I can see the point you think you're making, I'd also remind you that there is curently a large staple of advertising that actively degrades and humiliates males to curry favor with women, through the use of harsh stereotypes and ridicule. Men are constantly the butt of jokes now, because women used to be viewed as second-class citizens, and now women are taking some revenge. Now that we (thankfully) have equality, women see this as payback time, and know they can say or do whatever they want to make fun of men, because they figure finalyl getting equality means being able to make fun of your former dominators (if you would call it that). You can't make jokes about women without getting ripped to shreds by women's (or is it womyn's? ) groups, and you can't make jokes about anyone in any minority (and I mean this all in America) because of our past issues with race relations.

So, now, we have this entire media advertising culture where the only person we can make fun of are white males. Does the past justify current trends like that? Can you say, in a time of better equality, that the healthiest viewpoint is one of "we are going to hold this over your heads and use it as a scapegoat to make fun of you whenever we want"? It's several new generations of men past those times- so where's the cutoff? That'd be like making fun of EVERY subsequent generation of Germans for the holocaust, or EVERY subsequent generation of Catholics for the Crusades.

At what point do we admit that healthy growth and mutual respect are better served by not using the past to make excuses for poor behavior in the present?

cellophanedeity

Analog, I don't disagree with a good deal of what you've said. People should treat each other justly, and advertising shouldn't exploit groups of people, not even white males, but I don't really see how that corresponds to what Bedraggled Cat said.

I agree with your "Yay boobies" comment (much better than the non-edited comment) for most situations. I like boobs a lot myself, but not in this scenario. I'm not even particularly sensitive, but I watched this advertisment and it made me feel gross. That this character obviously did not want her clothing removed and that the guys did it anyway, just 'cause they could, felt sort of like watching softcore rape. Very disturbing.

Bedraggled Cat

It's not the character, or even the actress herself - she's a big girl she can make her own decisions, that I'm concerned with it's the attitude BEHIND the ad. As I said before it's the same attitude that means strange men feel entitled to make sexual comments to women on the street or grope them in bars, the attitude that their pleasure/wants are worth more then the woman's right to her body.

I have absolutley no problem with the news story, I don't think that showing the naked female body is inherently degrading and I don't think anyone, anywhere should infantilize women by suggesting that they are not responsible enough to decide if they want to take their clothes off for money or fun.

And I specifically gave an example of what I thought was a pointless and not very funny ad involving a MAN (and a white male at that) being humiliated. I happen to think that such ads are lazy and appeal to the lowest common denominator.

And do you really think that no one makes racist or sexist jokes anymore? If that was the case then that commercial would certainly have never been made. There's a difference between being funny and that ad, as cellophanedeity said it was like softcore rape.

You say that it's a time of better equality and it is but let me put this in perspective for you, last month Amnesty International released the results of a poll regarding attitudes in Britain to rape victims.

This is people (yes, not just men) second guessing rape victims. This is all part of the same worrying attitude displayed in the advert. Not only does it degrade women but it infantilizes men by effectively saying that they don't have any control over their sexual desires.

So it maybe a time of "better" equality but it's not total equality, women are still primarily seen as sexual objects. This in and of itself is not a bad thing if it is in the correct context, if I've dressed up to go to a club then I know that I'm going to be viewed as a sexual object by strangers, that's ok - I do it too (this still doesn't mean it's alright to grope me). If I'm at a lecture then I don't appreciate comments or leering by my classmates - time and place.