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.
Categories: gender & feminism, violence
Grabbing somebody is Assault, and sexual touch makes it Sexual Assault. Stop minimising this. #rapeculture101 
Quicklink of the Day #2: #DestroyTheJoint excludes voices of women with disabilities 
Quicklink Of The Day #1: Transgender Day of Remembrance 
Friday Hoyden: Gillian Triggs 
Hoyden About Town 
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.
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.
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???
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.
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.”
Just awful imagery. Good post though, I love a bit of anger in the morning.
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.
Lauredhels last blog post..Saturday Links: “Ethnic” Food, Mother-Blaming, and more on sexy sports uniforms
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.
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.
There’s a sensational comment on IBTP by Izzy of Damage Control – wonderful.
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.
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
Did you follow the link, view both pictures, read the whole thread?
I’m all ears, Brian. Care to elaborate?
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
Nothing like spending a good amount of time lurking and learning before deciding you know all about it, eh?
Cheezus. She’s in a tracksuit, in a library.
I’m going to sleep.
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.
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.