Why I’m Not Pleased, Sexual Objectification Edition

by Lauredhel on August 15, 2008

in Violence, consumerism, exploitation, gender & feminism

I had “Women should be pleased” [that men sexually objectify them] echoing in my ears when I visited Shakesville the other day. The first thing I saw was this Wrangler jeans ad.

[trigger warning]

“Women should be pleased”. “Women should be pleased”.

Fucking hell. Don’t tell me to suck it up like a goddamn lady and be dutifully polite and PLEASED. Not until this sort of thing goes away for good. There’s a reason there are feminist blogs called “Angry For A Reason“, “Screaming into the Void”, “Angry Black Bitch“, and “Bitch PhD“. There’s a reason we’re angry.

Similar Posts:

SUNDAY FEMINIST LINK-AROUND (now with crunchy Monday topping) by tigtog
Failing to see the wood for the trees by tigtog
A few questions for Hoydenizens by Guest Hoyden
New to the blogroll or other bits of the blog by tigtog
~~Typical MND misrepresentation: shame on you, Glenn Sacks~~ OK, his explanation does make sense after all by tigtog

Tagged as: angry for a reason, bitch, blogs, ears, hell, sexual objectification, wrangler jeans

Share this post: Tweet It | Facebook It | Stumble It | Digg It | Delicious It

This article was written by lauredhel

Lauredhel is a forty-something woman with a disability. She lives in her Western Australian family home where books, Lego, and soapmaking gear constantly compete for space. She blogs about feminism, reproductive justice, freedom from violence, the use and misuse of language, medical science, being disabled, her vegetable garden, and whatever else pops into her head. Lauredhel also blogs at FWD/Forward (feminists with disabilities), scribbles at her personal dreamwidth journal Selective and Arbitrary, and co-moderates Hollaback Australia. She joined Hoyden About Town in 2007.

lauredhel has written 1319 posts for Hoyden About Town. If you liked this post, you might like to subscribe to the feed via RSS or EMAIL to get instantly updated for more posts like this.

{ 17 comments }

1 fuckpoliteness August 15, 2008 at 7:18 pm: Oh Jeez Lou-fucking-ise!
Now first see I looked at the above pic and went “No…noooo…she’s…not DEAD, right???? She’s playing like a hippo…or sommat…cos dead’s way bad…”

And I still kinda maybe sorta think so in that pic, given the head *kinda* appears to be held up a bit…but I linked through to Shakesville and saw the other pic…where the connotation is those legs’ve been there for a while. And then…oh lord, and then…I linked to the vid. By Christ. Yeah. I feel REAL lucky. I LOVE knowing that it’s sexy for men to think of women as dehumanised nekkid animals bathing all nekkid like in the water, all tempting with their nekkidness…I’d love for men to think it’s super sexy to creep through the woods sneaking up on sleeping women/animals…cos if men are animals, it’s only *natural* right? To sneak up on unconscious women to satisfy animal urges. Gonna need to take a quick spew break.
2 Lauredhel August 15, 2008 at 7:29 pm: Playing like a Hippo

BAND NAME!!!

…yeah.

And (harking over to the Shakes discussion also), they don’t look like “low riding” jeans to me, they look like jeans that have been yanked down. Brr.

But “This is about as edgy as a sobbing clown.” cracked me up.
3 fuckpoliteness August 15, 2008 at 7:40 pm: And ew…even *if* we could leave aside the “ooh, yeah, but murder and rape are titillating” tones to the vid…PLEASE…the ad is allowed to tell us that women are animals and yet we’re STILL required to look all gazelle like, like Mischa Barton, while we’re lapping up the water we probably just pooped in???
4 Jha August 16, 2008 at 5:14 am: There’s a wicked article over at the Hathor Legacy about this whole “women should feel flattered” bullshit, directed at men.

“Playing Like A Hippo” sounds like such an edgy album title.
5 Helen August 16, 2008 at 8:36 am: Did you also see the WTF?!?!?! Orangina add which the Shakesville post also linked to? To the credit of the normally moronic Youtuba commenters, everyone was just as WTF?! as I was. As one commenter explained:

“Furries, sir. You have just witnessed furries.”
6 blue milk August 16, 2008 at 9:42 am: Just awful imagery. Good post though, I love a bit of anger in the morning.
7 Lauredhel August 16, 2008 at 12:50 pm: There’s a wicked article over at the Hathor Legacy about this whole “women should feel flattered” bullshit, directed at men.

For people who’d like to see the source material for comment 5 on the Hathor Legacy article, I’ve put it up here. Could be triggery.

Comment 5 (Kathleen) : There was an episode of 6 Feet Under in which this showed up (I don’t know which episode, I was wandering through when my housemates were watchin it) where a girl was walking alone. A group of guys started calling out to her and following her, she started running and was hit by a car. It turns out the guys were friends of hers who thought they were just teasing her – they said several times they didn’t think she would be so frightened and didn’t understand it.

Lauredhels last blog post..Saturday Links: “Ethnic” Food, Mother-Blaming, and more on sexy sports uniforms
8 Bri August 16, 2008 at 8:15 pm: I saw a new Jack Daniels ad the other night (I think it was JD) and it had this woman who was apparently a stalker on it. Totally trivialised the issue. Then I saw another one (it is obviously a series of new ads) that had the two stereotypical Swedish blondes. I was so angry I wanted to throw something at the TV. Even my husband thought they were in bad taste.
9 Lauredhel August 16, 2008 at 8:50 pm: Bri, I think you’re talking about the Jim Beam ads. I talked about them a few days ago, here –

Jim Beam demonstrates just how much men want to hate us

The four ads in the series are there, in case you can stand to see them again.
10 Helen August 17, 2008 at 9:42 am: There’s a sensational comment on IBTP by Izzy of Damage Control – wonderful.

I hate the “can’t you take a compliment” line. Street harassment isn’t a compliment; it’s an expression of “dear lord, that being has neither a Y chromosome nor a handler! I should remind it that this is my street.”
The goal is not to show respect for some positive attribute, but to make a woman feel uncomfortable and it works…
11 tigtog August 17, 2008 at 12:17 pm: I published a guest op-ed on FF101 yesterday: Why, if you think women should be flattered by your harassment, you are stupid .

It’s a crosspost from Jennifer Kesler, of The Hathor Legacy, and it’s wonderfully laid out.
12 Brian Dunbar August 18, 2008 at 1:50 am: Fucking hell. Don’t tell me to suck it up like a goddamn lady and be dutifully polite and PLEASED.

Far be it from me to tell you how to feel. You see sexual objectifying, I see hippies swimming in a muddy creek.

However .. if you’re again’ sexual objectifying you might wish to rethink the images in your header.

Brian Dunbars last blog post..Cooking with onions
13 Lauredhel August 18, 2008 at 2:20 am: Far be it from me to tell you how to feel. You see sexual objectifying, I see hippies swimming in a muddy creek.

Did you follow the link, view both pictures, read the whole thread?

However .. if you’re again’ sexual objectifying you might wish to rethink the images in your header.

I’m all ears, Brian. Care to elaborate?
14 Brian Dunbar August 18, 2008 at 3:47 am: Did you follow the link, view both pictures, read the whole thread?

Yes, yes, skimmed. I’ve also seen the video that goes along with the pictures. Less hippie-like, more of a horror movie/sci-fi vibe. But it is possible I watch more horror movies than most.

SciFi? Sure – I’ve read a few stories in that genre about ‘people going feral’.

I’m all ears, Brian. Care to elaborate?

Ah! The header graphics rotate.

When I last posted the header graphs had two pictures of Diana Rigg. On the left she was reclining. Fully clothed and in a library but the pose was clearly a come-hither look that any healthy male primate would respond to in a heartbeat.

Nothin’ says ’sexual objectifying’ like Diana Rigg stretched out on a couch, is what I’m saying.

Brian Dunbars last blog post..Cooking with onions
15 Lauredhel August 18, 2008 at 3:53 am: Ah! The header graphics rotate.

Nothing like spending a good amount of time lurking and learning before deciding you know all about it, eh?

Nothin’ says ’sexual objectifying’ like Diana Rigg stretched out on a couch, is what I’m saying.

Cheezus. She’s in a tracksuit, in a library.

I’m going to sleep.
16 Brian Dunbar August 18, 2008 at 4:09 am: I already plead guilty to the minor crime of assumption.

Cheezus. She’s in a tracksuit, in a library.

Setting and the amount or type of clothes determine what is sexy? Or at least objectifiable.

Got it – thanks for clarifying that.

I’m going to sleep.

Me, I’m going to paint my porch. Sleep tight.
17 tigtog August 18, 2008 at 10:02 am: When I last posted the header graphs had two pictures of Diana Rigg. On the left she was reclining. Fully clothed and in a library but the pose was clearly a come-hither look that any healthy male primate would respond to in a heartbeat.

Nothin’ says ’sexual objectifying’ like Diana Rigg stretched out on a couch, is what I’m saying.

What I see when I look at that picture is a woman in a tub chair (not a couch), the arm of which she has swung her legs over in a carefree pose, with a look that is sardonic, not come-hither.

Pure objectification is highly debatable, due not only to her wearing functional clothing in the sexually neutral location of a library, but also that it is a study of her facial expression, thus a study of her personality and not just her body. Rigg is a sexy woman, so it’s hard to find any photos of her, particularly from that time, in which she won’t look sexually appealing. That’s not the same as objectification.

It’s hard to find anything so debatable in images of a naked headless torso that conveys no aspects of personhood at all.