Any other women embarrassed by this?

[Glamrocker]

I think that public's overreaction to this issue is indicative of how what is considered to be trivial objectification of women is normalised and harmless. I cannot see how an image depicting a woman in a bikini, replete with bunny ears (resonant of Playboy) is remotely positive, nor appropriate, especially in the House of Commons.

 

I use the term 'pro-women' as that is what feminism is about, the equality and fair treatment of women. If you wish to use other terms then you are free do so.

 

 

See:

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, only when I'm in a 'rolling eyes' mood.

 

 

 

Why does it make a difference?

 

 

 

Letting 'small' things go invariably results in 'culture creep' where by process of stealth, you end up regressing.

 

Objecting to anything damages the cause. The default position seems to be to brand women as ugly, sad, mad, lezzers, whenever we object to anything.

So the "Juan Sheet" advertisement where the women are leering at his behind should be removed as being offensive to men..Im a man Im not offended ,I think its vaguely humorous,perhaps some women ought to climb down off their high horse and take a humour check them selves.

[Suffragette1]

So the "Juan Sheet" advertisement where the women are leering at his behind should be removed as being offensive to men..Im a man Im not offended ,I think its vaguely humorous,perhaps some women ought to climb down off their high horse and take a humour check them selves.

 

Case in point, sense of humour bypass accuastions.

 

I have no idea which advert you mean, however, we've already been here before with 'other way round arguments', Jessica addressed it this post.

 

True to form as ever, Glamrocker, eh? Condemning any women's issue, unless it pertains to Islam when you suddenly come over all feminist.

[rubydazzler]

I realise its not a big study but how do you feel about the poll statistics? I would say they seem accurate to me!

I don't dispute that the figures on this poll are accurate, given that this is SF, hardly a bastion of enlightenment. I haven't been able to vote because none of the options provided conveys my opinion.

 

I don't find it 'offensive'. I find it a bad choice of image/name, and totally inappropriate in a lad's mag sort of way. The people who think it's too trivial to be concerned about are obviously missing the whole point.

[mj.scuba]

I hope nowhere in Parliament sells Yorkies (Not for girls) or Riveta (For ladies that crunch).

 

They could do with stocking a lot more Snickers (Get some nuts).

[Cyclone]

I think that public's overreaction to this issue is indicative of how what is considered to be trivial objectification of women is normalised and harmless.

Given that there are equivalent male images, it's still equal isn't it?

I cannot see how an image depicting a woman in a bikini, replete with bunny ears (resonant of Playboy) is remotely positive, nor appropriate, especially in the House of Commons.

Are only positive images allowed now? Anything not positively positive is to be deemed offensive?

 

I use the term 'pro-women' as that is what feminism is about, the equality and fair treatment of women. If you wish to use other terms then you are free do so.

I can't see how that cartoon was unequal or unfair, can you explain?

 

Letting 'small' things go invariably results in 'culture creep' where by process of stealth, you end up regressing.

But both men and women appear on beer taps, so what creep is it going to allow?

 

Objecting to anything damages the cause. The default position seems to be to brand women as ugly, sad, mad, lezzers, whenever we object to anything.

In this case mad seems to apply, at least it's mad to object about this.

[Cyclone]

Case in point, sense of humour bypass accuastions.

 

I have no idea which advert you mean, however, we've already been here before with 'other way round arguments', Jessica addressed it this post.

 

True to form as ever, Glamrocker, eh? Condemning any women's issue, unless it pertains to Islam when you suddenly come over all feminist.

 

So Jessicas argument is that because men aren't normally objectified by women (at least in advertising) that it's okay to do so... So long as you call it parody.

 

It's either acceptable or it isn't. Attempting to justify double standards will make it clear that you aren't actually interested in equality at all.

[llamatron]

I don't dispute that the figures on this poll are accurate, given that this is SF, hardly a bastion of enlightenment. I haven't been able to vote because none of the options provided conveys my opinion.

 

I don't find it 'offensive'. I find it a bad choice of image/name, and totally inappropriate in a lad's mag sort of way. The people who think it's too trivial to be concerned about are obviously missing the whole point.

 

then you are not offended

 

....although it sounds to me like you are offended.

 

There is however no need for another option, you either find it offensive or you don't. Its binary!

[llamatron]

Given that there are equivalent male images, it's still equal isn't it?

Are only positive images allowed now? Anything not positively positive is to be deemed offensive?

I can't see how that cartoon was unequal or unfair, can you explain?

But both men and women appear on beer taps, so what creep is it going to allow?

In this case mad seems to apply, at least it's mad to object about this.

 

I was going to write this pretty much but you have done it already!

[llamatron]

I think that public's overreaction to this issue is indicative of how what is considered to be trivial objectification of women is normalised and harmless. I cannot see how an image depicting a woman in a bikini, replete with bunny ears (resonant of Playboy) is remotely positive, nor appropriate, especially in the House of Commons.

 

I use the term 'pro-women' as that is what feminism is about, the equality and fair treatment of women. If you wish to use other terms then you are free do so.

 

 

See:

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, only when I'm in a 'rolling eyes' mood.

 

 

 

Why does it make a difference?

 

 

 

Letting 'small' things go invariably results in 'culture creep' where by process of stealth, you end up regressing.

 

Objecting to anything damages the cause. The default position seems to be to brand women as ugly, sad, mad, lezzers, whenever we object to anything.

 

This requires extra commenting though as it is not true:loopy:

 

When I have objected to things in the past I have never been labelled any of these things. At least I have never noticed being labelled this way!

 

I suspect most of the people who have said they do not find it offensive would find the idea that "dressing like a slut means you deserve to be raped" offensive. They would not call you ugly lezzer etc for saying that!

[Suffragette1]

Given that there are equivalent male images, it's still equal isn't it?

Are only positive images allowed now? Anything not positively positive is to be deemed offensive?

I can't see how that cartoon was unequal or unfair, can you explain?

But both men and women appear on beer taps, so what creep is it going to allow?

In this case mad seems to apply, at least it's mad to object about this.

 

So Jessicas argument is that because men aren't normally objectified by women (at least in advertising) that it's okay to do so... So long as you call it parody.

 

It's either acceptable or it isn't. Attempting to justify double standards will make it clear that you aren't actually interested in equality at all.

 

I don't consider it to be double standards at all if it is parody, subverting the norm etc. It cannot be comparable because we do not live in a matriarchal society where men are objectified thus and sexual violence against them from women is a threat. It is not equal because all things on this matter are not equal. I have no idea which ad Glamrocker, refers to. If he, you or anyone found it offensive then you would be entitled to feel and express your view. I am sure, however, that you/they were not be belittled in such a cheap manner nor labelled as 'queer', 'ugly', 'sad' or mad for feeling thus.

 

The 'creep' refers to sexism on a wider scale, beyond the beer tap.

 

I have no idea what kind of images are on beer taps, I never pay attention to them. Positve images of women in my view does not include one dressed as a bunny rabbit in a bikini.