Do you think this is degrading?
 

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/...38/detail.html

The link is a news story. My school paper had two soccer players on the front of an issue lifting up their tops a la Girls Gone Wild, revealing sports bras. There has been an outcry from some saying that this degrades women and was inappropriate for a paper cover.

Do you think this is degrading to women? Do you think it was inappropriate for the paper cover?

http://images.ibsys.com/2005/1130/5432899_400X300.jpg

And the link for the clicking impaired :)

IMO the photo by itself with the simple tag Goals Gone Wild is good parody.

the caption of 4 good reasons is plain lowest common denominator pandering.

When the headline reads - 4 good reasons -- picturing only two soccer players.. they are going for the tawdry headline... it's cheap. These women are athletes... and the paper is reducing them to just their breasts.

Do they have a problem with it? No.

Should I have a problem with it, if they don't have a problem with it? No.

Some people want to be objects, and it is not my place to pass judgement otherwise.

oh there's even yet ONE more good pandering part...

the BIG JOHNSON SOCCER....

I assume it's like the Big Johnson t-shirts.

We're not seeing that image in context... was there an original story attached -- besides the outcry story... Why was the picture published to begin with?

Now see this is one of those things I really don't understand about the PC crowd. If something is said about someone, and that someone is "OK" with it.. why should we care? So two college (I'm presuming) girls decided that they wanted to show their bras, and they were okay with it being on the newspaper cover. They're okay with it -- what the hell is it my business to say "oh nooo that's not okay..." If my homosexual friend doesn't mind being called a "fag," its certainly not my business to Stand Up For All that is Right and tell that person to not use "fag" because it is offensive...

People are fully capable of defending themselves. If they'd objected to this being in the newspaper and it was still shown, sure, I could see a problem. But now? It seems like PC-nazi's are trying to make something out of nothing. (Not that any of you are)

Aww cmon. Its just harmless fun. I like it :thumbsup:

We cant see the rest of the page clearly, but they probabaly got away with the double entendre because there are 4 pictures on the page...

no but if another homosexual is offended by the fag comment?

/me puts on her really annoying feminazi cap...

Any time women are objectified, it takes away from other accomplishments that they have achieved, they are being known for their breasts, or butt, or other body part rather than what they have achieved. Maybe these two women are the high scorers on the team, or have scored more goals than anyone in the state, or have broken some long standing school record, but instead of celebrating their accomplishments.. all they get is a cheesey shot of their breasts in a very unflattering bra.

Our entire entertainment industry is based on objectifying people. Brad Pitt is no less objectified buffed out and oiled up in Troy than those women posing for the newspaper. Its not just women, its a sign of the times.

I don't disagree..
but
brad pitt - -ewwwww

however....
But these are athletes... college athletes... not movie stars... they are not professional anything...

In the context of the newspaper ads they are models. Its the same as Jordan wearing nothing but Hanes and a smile. Even college football players pose for local calendars and promotions.

That's why I asked about context of the original picture.. .Was there a story attached? If it's on the front page, it'd be safe to assume there was a story... If there's a story, they are not modelling... same as if you had a picture taken for a man on the street interview...

Good. They let themselves be represented this way by (a) lifting their shirts and (b) letting it be printed. If they ALLOW this "degradation" to occur, its their own damn fault! If they didn't want to be objectified, its simple to refuse to lift your shirt, or refuse to allow the pictures to be published. Their own damn fault.

Once again -- they CHOSE to be known for their breasts rather than their athletic skill. This is no fault of society, but of their own.

It keeps the bases covered, just in case.

I agree with Jinn...


also note that I don't KNOW them any more based on their breasts than their athletic achievements. From the picture I know two things:

a) They have breasts
b) They play soccer

Why do I know more about one of those, or think more of one of those than the other? I don't. *shrug*

Also, Mal, I noticed you say "unflattering bra". Not that you would, with your feminazi cap on :cool: think it'd have been better had they been wearing the latest from Victoria's Secret... but you DID say it. That right there throws the feminism hat out the window. Just an observation...

It's like this, if you ask me.

When you try to say what those 2 girls should be allowed to do with themselves, you're trying to tell them how to live their life.

The same applies, if you want to up the 'level' of this type of thing, to pornstars, strippers, anything. You can't tell them not to do what they are doing, otherwise, it is telling them how to live their life.

Nobody has a right to tell someone how to live their life.

Menoman-

I agree... and one of the issues with feministic views of such things is that, by saying one thing ir right and another is wrong, you are, as you said, telling them how to live their lives. That, to me, is degrading.

Feminism != Feminism

Please note that I did not tell anyone how to live their life. I don't want someone to do it to me and try my best to not do it to someone else.

I only stated that the comment of 4 reasons was pandering to the lowest common denominator.

I didn't even comment on if it was degrading... just that the comment was pandering

I dont think anyone has a right to tell someone else how to live their life, but do know that any action you take will and unfortunately be used to judge character and this may either be correct or misconstrued with the message you are actually trying to put out.

The original question was whether the ad promoted demoralization of women, well, with the innuendos, and the blatant lack of clothing, it does appear, well degrading. Regardless of what great soccer players these girls may be, the initial thought, I'm sure drives away from that fact.

I think it is funny as hell especially with the caption "Goals Gone Wild" and if I was from Johnson County I would probably read the story and maybe give more support to the soccer program. :thumbsup:

Unfortunately, mal, just the very fact that we were born with well...certain assets (are they even really assets anymore?) immediately we are regarded differently than males are. Isn't this almost innate? Certain (physical) aspects of us women, override other potentially more pivotal aspects. It's one of those things that is unfortunate, but has been socially/culturally constructed for who knows how long. I think I just went off on another tangent, anyways...

I disagree.

See, what you're essentially saying here is that they are objectified (by men) and this takes away from their accomplishments (in the eyes of men). I have to assume that is the general intent being conveyed because a) men are the predominant group interested in their breasts and butts and therefore the predominant group to fixate on that and b) you say 'any time women are objectified' without specifying and subgroups of women. Since you're classifying the entire gender and it's very difficult for the gender to objectify itself I have to assume that it's men who are partaking in this behaviour.

My problem with this is that it doesn't give me and my fellow man a whole hell of a lot of credit. You're essentially saying that I'm going to see her tits and fixate, without even bothering to read the article. Completely ignoring the fact that while thse two young women are very pretty the piture is hardly sexual at all and quite chaste in my opinion, I don't see my entire gender as the sort to see it, say 'hey, boobs!' and forget how to use our frontal lobes. There are very probably men who do this, sure, but it's not all men. And just as you don't want to be objectified due to the ations of these two women I don't want to be penalized due to the actions of those men among us who can't look past a little T&A.

This, IMO, is a major issue with the feminist movement in general. It seems that the feminist movement attempts to deny sexuality in favour of other merits. The reality is there's no reason why they can't be successfully integrated. Why can't I pick up that paper because of the two pretty girls in (what I consider to be) a humourous spoof and then read about how one of them scored the game winning goal when I open it?

As for the headline, four good reasons... well, yeah, it's a double-entendre and therefore indirectly refers to their breasts. That's how double-entendres work. That doesn't necessarily diminish from the accomplishments of the two girls involved. Such a statement can't accurately be made without reading the referenced article.

The comment of "four reasons to support blah blah" was explained on the inside cover.

"Note: The four reasons to support Cav's sports are strong finishes to fall sports, encouraging starts for winter sports, star athletes, and [sports editor]'s superb coverage."

There are indeed four pictures on the front cover, but the other three are not sports related.

The article focuses on the soccer team itself, not the girls.

Thanks Mal for posting the article\pic. I forgot some were link-shy.

I don't know, in my small town where I grew up there is a newspaper called the Picture Post. It had pictures of various things happening around my town and special events and stuff. But, the cover page was always some women posing in a bikini top and bottom swimsuit.

I think it is just a dumb local thing...

theres so little to do that we have time to get worked up over this?


this seems like something REALLY trivial to be going to the matresses over...

I don't think it is a local thing. The sun newspaper has been quite successful over many years having a topless page 3 girl.

Further, there is an Oz sports magazine, which I used to subscribe to (Inside Sport), that is actually a good sports magazine (though I think it has headed south, which is why I don't subscribe anymore). Of course, the cover picture is a "sports model" and there is obviously a "fashion" pictorial inside. FWIW, the worst selling edition they ever had was the one where there was a sportsman on the cover (Kieran Perkins - swimmer - no shirt on - at the time he was the world record holder in the 1500m). Personally, I bought the magazine for the articles, though the scantilly clad chick in the middle was definitely an added bonus.

Everyone knows that sex sells. While this particular local paper hasn't taken that the nth degree, they probably realise that cute soccer chicks might raise their circulation - and frankly the "negative" press is probably also a bonus.

This, my friends, is a storm in a <strike>dee</strike> tea cup ;)

If the girls are upset about it, they're idiots. If you don't want people to see pictures of you in your bra, don't let people take pictures of you in your bra.

But the newspaper was also stupid. This is journalism, not playboy. If you want to post stupid headlines like that, and if your only goal is to titilate, then you should be working for Hefner, not for the paper.

I wasn't speaking directly to you, of course. Just throwing out my opinion of the title post.

I think people need to start thnking about their own actions more than the actions of others. If you want to lift up your shirt.. go for it. if you don't, then don't. If i were those girls i would be lifting up my shirt all the time, cuz my body would be smokin'. Yummy.

Why is this even on the front page? Lead story, at that. There was no better news to report?

With the 'Goals Gone Wild' headline, it deserved maybe a picture story on page seven or something, but it would still be a pretty tawdry approach to take with it. I suppose it might increase circulation though.

I agree but since the whole Janet Jackson thingy at the superbowl, thing like these have started to offend people .I personally, find this thing ridiculous. I mean, I would understand the outcry if they were nude but come on, they have bras on!

I personally would also like to see more of those girls, if you know what I mean.
:cool:

it's on the front page because it's a college newspaper. but i guess it was also a slow news day nationally, because here we are talking about it.

Those girls have balls to do that.

But seriously... they lifted their shirts for a photo-op, they didn't object, and they have the "big johnson soccer" sports bras. I mean hello, they are just having fun and enjoying their sport. How do you call "exploitation" on an adult who asks for it and encourages it?

If this isn't degrading and objectifying women then I don't know what is...

Juiced commercial

for some reason when I saw this I thought of this thread...

Well, if that photo was degrading, those girls did it to themselves.

If yall are upset that things like that objectify women, you should probably tell other women to stop letting themselves be objectified.

BEST

COMMERCIAL

EVER

!

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...

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?

Agreed. 100%

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.