Martha Burk, the chairwoman of the National Council of Women’s Organizations, said she intends to write letters of protest to the league and to U.S. TV network NBC over the NHL’s new advertising campaign, which is set to debut next week.
Burk called offensive a 30-second ad the NHL produced to trumpet its return to the ice.
[...]
Burk said the ad “is offensive on several levels.”
“The woman is dressed provocatively and when she asks the player if he’s ready, it’s a double-entendre in my view,” Burk said in an interview. “She’s in the ad as a groomer, a sex object.
“The commercial is clearly selling sex and violence and the last image in that commercial is a young boy watching this, so he’s clearly the customer they’re after, or it’s a misguided attempt to draw in families,” Burk said. “The ad is just gratuitous.”
You can see the ad here. It is neither offensive or sexist. Yes, the woman is attractive, but hell — so is the guy suiting up to play hockey. In case Ms. Burk hasn’t been paying attention, television is a pretty people’s medium. Methinks somebody needs a freaking hobby.
I couldn’t agree more.
But I would also add that it is kind of lame as well. The guy in the ad looked more like a male model than a hockey player (for all I know it could be a hockey player). The Sun Tzu quote was stupid as well.
I think we should launch a campaign against the NHL for making such a lame commercial!
Gotta love the morality police. After a season-long strike, I doubt too many people will be watching the NHL anyway. Somebody doesn’t just need a hobby, they need a life.
I didn’t find anything on the blog about Iraq, so I’ll share it here if you’ll forgive me for being off topic.
According to CNN/USA Today, most Americans don’t think the Iraq War is winnable. Seems like nobody trusts POTUS anymore.
Poll: Can the U.S. Win In Iraq?
Burk said the ad is offensive on several levels.
So don’t watch it. How hard is that?
Jebus, can we please come up with some sort of common sense test that everyone is required to take before breeding?
Kudos to Oliver for calling out a militant feminist on her bullshit.
Jeepers, someone needs a hobby. I don’t see how anyone could possibly find that offensive.
I got one question: how many of you are women here?
Wonder why Martha didn’t say anything about the TO commercial? Must not like Hockey.
Dugger, Go Thrashers!
Yes, there are two Americas: In one America, if you can throw jabs at the morally conservative, you can ignore your feminist allies (right, Mouse?)
Remember when the entire feminist movement buttoned their lips for 8 years, while Clinton was shown to be a hormone driven man – child even when he was Governor of Arkansas?
2000 illicit blowjobs=1900 unnecessary war dead.
Frank, I think I can see why you’re morally outraged.
I find it interesting that some of the same people who defended OW when he took offense at the word “articulate” being used to describe a black man are outraged at someone being offended by images of a woman dressed in a negligee, in a men’s locker room, whispering softly into the ear of a pretend strong/determined/resolute warrior before he goes to fight a pretend battle.
Frank: Why are you changing the subject again? You really need to get over Clinton’s sex life. It’s not healthy.
Leo: When are you going to get off my case, and actually say something intelligent?
Frank, you seem to be confusing sex with sexism.
If you’re referring to the sexual harrassment charge, it was so politicized and twisted, it’s impossible to have an informed opinion about it. So I chose/choose to withold comment and opinion.
Frank, since you have no idea who it is you’re talking to, I’d highly recommend that you shut it when it comes to who is the true feminist here. Considering that an estimated 2 thirds of women are sexually assaulted, you really don’t know who you’re accusing of being a traitor to their sex. So I say this as nicely and as forcefully as I can: shut it.
Oh, one last thing Frank: the subject matter under discussion is an advert about hockey.
Thanks for totally missing my point, Mouse. And I thought you would appreciate the support.
Apparently, you fall into the category of women who kept their mouths shut.
I’m sure a sentence in a thread doesn’t represent an obsession, except to people who are obsessed with covering it up.
2/3 of women are sexually assaulted? You might be confusing harassment with assault. here are the CDC statistics:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/svfacts.htm
Additionally, I would think that if you’re concerned about women being viewed as sex objects and ultimately harassed/assaulted in high numbers nationwide, then I’m not sure why you’d be ridiculing someone who finds this commercial offensive. Are women just sexual play things for powerful men?
Mouse: Hell will freeze over before you decide what I can say. If you were not offended by the ad, then I misinterpreted your comment.
If you were offended by my comment, then I don’t know what to tell you, but I certainly don’t have any intention of allowing you to guide my responses.
Given the lightning – like speed with which you insult me, mostly without provocation, you should save your demands for someone who gives a sh*t.
JWG: I sit corrected; I misread the statistic. However, the statistic according to Canadian studies (where I’m from) is 50%.
I’m not sure if Frank finds this commercial offensive; what I do know is that he has taken this topic and twisted it to suit his anti-Clinton tendencies:
Remember when the entire feminist movement buttoned their lips for 8 years, while Clinton was shown to be a hormone driven man – child even when he was Governor of Arkansas?
First, Clinton has nothing to do with this thread. This was about how women are portrayed in media in general, and more specifically, how they are portrayed in one advert. If anything, this is a discussion about image and interpretation. That Frank brought up Clinton (yet again) is a typical diversionary tactic (and it seems like it’s worked).
Second, Clinton’s sexual escapades, although extramarital, were consensual. I for one do not consider all male cheaters to be sexist nor chauvinistic. Cheating on one’s spouse is far from rare and is not limited to men.
It’s classic bait and switch: bring up Clinton as an example of sexism then manage to insult the entire women’s movement by implying it somehow failed the women’s rights cause because feminists didn’t speak out against him.
The one sentence that truly encapsulates the context of Frank’s “support” is his ad-hominem attack: “Apparently, you fall into the category of women who kept their mouths shut. Thus linking me with the aforementioned feminists who allegedly failed to support women’s rights. And why this attack? Because I didn’t agree with him.
Men like Frank are a dime a dozen; they will support women’s rights as long as women toe the line. The minute we step outside of it, we’re suddenly traitors to our sex and our cause.
So, instead of having a potentially uncomfortable discussion about why it’s ok to be offended about racist code-words but not about sexist code-images, we’re talking about why poor Frank is victimized. See how that works?
Mouse, you’re either being obtuse or being stupid — unless you are stupid.
My point was that Oliver claimed the ad was not offensive. I think it is on more than one level, including the objectification of women. While I’m not on fire about it, I don’t like it when, as Ms. Burk suggests, it is gratuitous.
Now as far as women “towing (not ‘toe’) the line”, I really don’t know what you mean, so I will not plead guilty.
As far as changing the subject to Clinton, I was not — try as you might to convince yourself and others that that was the case.
I refer you to the first sentence of my first comment: In one America, if you can throw jabs at the morally conservative, you can ignore your feminist allies
If you don’t consider “all male cheaters to be sexist nor chauvinistic”, then I would say, to be charitable, that you and I significantly disagree about the meaning of sexism and chauvinism.
As to my being victimized, you have manufactured that charge out of whole cloth. I neither said nor implied any such thing. You’re the one who seems to be holding on to the idea that I feel I am victimized, even when I don’t even hint that I might be.
As to why I said you “fall into the category of women who kept their mouths shut”, it was because you accused me of being obsessed with Clinton’s sexual behavior, when that was only incidental to point. which I reiterate:
In one America, if you can throw jabs at the morally conservative, you can ignore your feminist allies
See how that works?
Leo: Do you really think I could take you seriously?
When was the last time you posted a comment that wasn’t about me?
You are pathetic.
Mouse;
Understand. Frank is like a mouse who wants the government cheese, but thinks it’s attached to some trap that he cannot escape from. Fear is a terrible thing to hoard.
Frank;
You may have noticed the comment was for Mouse, so I wonder which of us needs sympathetic reassurance?
Does anyone have any Calvin Coolidge drivel to cling to?
How about Herbert Hoover?
Oliver,
It’s not often I disagree with you but I will here.
The issue is not about people’s attractiveness. It’s about the image of a woman dressed in a negligee-type outfit, whispering into the ear of a so-called warrior as he prepares to go out into the arena:
Although I don’t agree with the sex object comment, I do agree that the image itself is the stereotypical role of woman as helpmate to the successful man. In the advert, she even stands behind him.
Just as you found the use of the word “articulate” to describe a black politician indicative of racist tendencies, we women find images such as this one to be indicative of sexist tendencies. I don’t find it offensive as much as I find it regrettable that these images are so ingrained that any challenge is deemed as risible.
Telling us that we need a hobby does not help advance understanding or discussion on the matter. It serves to silence dissent.
BTW;
I finally got around to the Phyllis Schafly and Barry Goldwater crap. Should have known better.
I’m with Mouse on this. The ad obviously positions the woman as a sexualized servant of the man, completely excluded from the “arena” of “action” except for her supporting role in his, implied, future victory. Forget subtext, this is the TEXT of the ad: Men act, women serve. This is exaclty what far-right idiots like Rick Santorum actually believe and it is the message Santorum struggles to send out everyday. But we’re supposed to let it pass here because it’s only a hockey ad? Be that as it may, I’m saying the NHL should pull the ad — just I never intended to suggest that Cap’n Ed can’t say whatever the hell he wants. I actually think the ad is quite instructive. After a damaging strike and a cancelled season the NHL must be afraid for the outlook of its future profits. It’s absolutely fascinating that at just such a moment they turned to such conservative imagery to draw back its fans. The entire ad is swathed in the mystique and allure of an ancient empire (Sun Tzu meets Gladiator) when men were men and women knew their place. When the wolves are at the door, it is the hour of the reactionary.
That should read: “be that as it may I’m NOT saying the NHL should pull the ad …” They should be ashamed of themselves but that’s a different thing. Corporations do shameful shit all the time …
frameone and mouse;
Is there a danger that dialogue is being stripped of all impact and verve when sensitivities run so raw?
I just ask the question. Perhaps thicker skin is needed for both race and gender issues. This PC talk is taking the lead out of the pencil of spontaneity.
Yes? No?
There is an obvious difference between the two situations: In the first case (the use of the word “articulate” to describe a black person) there was dispute as to the author’s intention, Oliver’s objections notwithstanding; in the second case, the woman’s role is indisputably subservient, at best, the woman herself objectified, if not exploited, at worst.
In view of the fact that the author in the first instance favored the candidate by comparing him favorably to Ronald Reagan, it was obvious (to me, anyway) that he meant him no disrespect.
In the NHL commercial, can anyone seriously point to a positive role being played by the woman in the ad? I can’t. She is there to “sex up” the ad, to associate the ‘manliness’ of a professional sport with attractiveness to women. I don’t think anyone can disagree with me that that is the intention of the ad. You may. if wish, disagree with the point that it is offensive, but you would then have to assert that the gratuitous placement of a scantily clad women in a hockey player’s locker room is appropriate.
I don’t think of it in terms of sensitivity or feelings. It’s about power. Brute, fucking power. I don’t know why Oliver dismissed the complaints about the ad. This ad is Rick Santorum’s wet dream.
Obviously, I swear alot. I try to keep it in check in around my nephew and the children of my friends and in various different social situations, but a lot of the time — like now — I could give a fuck if my language offends somebody. If I’m writing an article and the word “cock” suits the tone I’m aiming for but it offends you, I’m not changing it to “penis.” Situations might arise where a racial epithet serves the same puprose or some other, in my mind, valid point and so I might use it. But rest assured I will think it through from all angles first and then be prepared to face the consequences with my reasons which, in my book, better damn well be more thoughtful than “I refuse to bow to the speech police.” The reason why is exactly what I’ve been trying to get across in my contributions to what we may as well now just name: “The Articulate Wars.” From my vantage point it is not about sensitivity or feelings it is about power: who has it, how they got it, how they keep it, who doesn’t have it, how they get it and how they keep it. Conservatives know that these kind of discussions are about power too because it is their power being threatened. What hilarious is that, as Mouse alludes to, to even suggest that conservative have power these is enough to raise the hackles of conservatives who will bitch and moan forever that they are indeed powerless — and that’s why the world is so fucked up. If only they could get back in power …
For example, conservatives drone on and on about the liberal influences of popular culture. Think about that while you watch the NHL ad again and think about all the other images out there that it conforms to and feeds on. Popular culture can be radically conservative in the messages it sends about gender, race etc. For the whining of conservatives it’s obvious that when the NHL needed to rally its base it turned to the most reactionary, conservative imagery it could muster because it knows that this kind of imagery still has cache and appeal to straight white men who otherwise feel victmized by modern world. And let’s get one thing clear: Straight white men have always felt victimized by the modern world going back centuries and they’ve always sought out the sources of their fear in women, people of color, other religions, ethnicities, etc. Language — including visual imagery here — is an important tool in this constant identifying and disenfranchising of those others, perceived as a threat. Some era’s it may be the Jews, some eras it’s women, some eras it’s blacks or gays, a lot of eras it’s everyone at once. I know you and everyone else has heard this all before. It’s pratically a cliche. But that doesn’t mean what I’m describing isn’t a very real force in the world with a lot of deeply rooted, hard wired clout with vast segments of America. That’s why the ad company pitched this ad to the NHL, that’s why the NHL bought it: Feel victimized by the modern world? Come back to hockey where we really know the score. The ad doesn’t even have to articulate the question here, the answer it supplies implies the question, one that white men everywhere feel plagued by even if they themselves can’t put it into words.
The point is, people can say, think, write, film whatever they want. They can disseminate wherever and however they want. But it’s ridicuous to suggest that this ad doesn’t present a challenge to progressive ideals It does. And again that isn’t a question of hurt feelings, it’s a question of cultural and political power. Which is why its perfectly reasonable that it be met with a progressive critique and counter-argument.
How do you see the dialogue being stripped of impact and verve? Do you mean the dialogue on this thread or the greater dialogue as represented in the advert?
Mouse;
First, I am a white male and, as such, cannot view the world through the same prism as those of other race or gender.
That being said, although I understand the sensitivities that surface on issues such as the portrayal of females in the media, it seems to have a ‘chilling’ effect on conversation when every word must be measured carefully before expression occurs.
I am not defending or mitigating the exploitation of people via advertising . That seems to be another discussion based on your clarifying question. You asked correctly about the subordiinate matter; dialogue being stripped of impact and verve. I am suggesting a little more tolerance for ‘buzz’ words that push certain buttons. They reveal a sub-conscious predilection of thought on the part of the offender, which, in a perfect world might be overlooked without compromising one’s principles. Obviously, if it is a conscious expression of sexism, it needs to be addressed.
Most of the time, however, it is unconsious. I know because I am a man and several hundred thousand years of socialization is not going to change overnight. We’ve only been working on this for about 30 years. In the meantime, honest and spontaneus interaction is going to facilitate that change more quickly when there is a free- flowing conversation
Semanticleo,
I don’t usually react to buzz words, nor do I react to images I see on television. The NHL spot is neither the first nor most egregious example of sexism on television or any other medium.
Nor am I a proponent for censorship. What I object to is the knee-jerk reaction of “of course it’s not sexist!” and ridiculing of anyone who disagrees, particularly in light of an earlier, similar discussion on race. The answer to sexism is not to develop a thicker skin (if that is what you are suggesting), it’s to become more aware of the mechanisms that drive it.
It sounds to me that you don’t think the spot was/is sexist. If that’s the case, then say it and let’s get on with why you think that is.
No, frameone, there is a difference. It is not a “fact” that the “word ‘articulate’ has been used historically in reference to blacks exactly in the manner that Oliver described”. If anything, the opposite is true. It is the ability of blacks to manipulate language, and use words that is legendary.
It is stereotypical often, and perjorative at times, but even when it is, it is by no means meant to suggest that only a few blacks are inarticulate.
How many years has it been since you’ve seen characters portrayed like James Best, Eddie “Rochester” Anderson, or Amos, Andy and the Kingfish? Who represents black people now? Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Condoleezza Rice, J.C. Watts, Colin Powell, one more articulate than the next.
Who represents blacks in entertainment? Russell Simmons, Denzel Washington, Halle Berry, Oprah Winfrey — not a “wuzzup” or “I’m down wit’ dat” in the bunch.
Finally, Cap n Ed’s post was not “all about race”; it was all about a candidate.
But wait a second Frank — you’re ascribing motivations and intentions to the ad agency and the NHL that they would, I bet, deny, deny, deny till the end of their corporate days. I don’t disagree with you about the ad’s intentions but do you think anyone at the NHL would say, “Yes, we set out to objectify women and reduce them to a subservient position in order to make hockey look sexier to men”? Um, doubtful. While I lay out what I think are the obvious motivations for the ad’s imagery above, I don’t think the ad agency said directly: “If you want to get back your core audience you have to play on their cultural fears and anxieties about an immasculinating feminism.” Far from it. They probably went in said, “Let’s make hockey sexy” without ever thinking once — or at least not long — about the negative implications of the imagery they chose to do that.
It’s the same thing with Cap’n Ed. The Cap’n may not have set out or intended to offend anyone. I’ve already said as much. The fact of the matter is, however, that the word “articulate” has been used historically in reference to blacks exactly in the manner that Oliver described and Cap’n Ed used it to refer to a black person in a post that was all about race, politics and language. Like the NHL, he may deny ever wanting to offend anyone but his very denial reveals the naivete of his political sophistication.
The NHL, for its part, may be naive, but I doubt it.
Aaah, let me clarify: I’m not discussing the exploitative nature of the ad. I’m discussing its use of sexist imagery to sell a sport to its audience. Again, let’s not confuse this with sex imagery. There is a difference.
Sorry I missed the directions. You wanted to talk about the idea that sexist language is used reflexively, rather than consciously? And you suggested that PC thinking would stifle spontaneity. I don’t agree that it’s spontaneity that is being stifled. A person thinking twice about they’re about to say is not such a bad thing. It’s one of the reasons I prefer blogs, for example. Although I have to admit that even the act of writing doesn’t seem to help some people think first.
A person thinking twice about they re about to say is not such a bad thing
That’s what I asked you to look at, and you did. You do not elaborate on why you feel this has no ‘chilling’ effect on conversation. I understand you prefer not to hear some things said in a conversation. But if the other person cannot find what he thinks is an acceptable way for Her/him to say it, often nothing is said at all. How does that help?
“Finally, Cap n Ed s post was not all about race ; it was all about a
candidate.”
Come on Frank. I give you Cap’n Ed:
“As one of a handful of prominent black conservatives coming up through the ranks, any election involving Michael Steele will have a high priority for Democratic opposition.”
Steele’s race is what the whole post was about. Ed’s implying that the Democrats went so far as to violate the law and pry into Steele’s credit reports because the defeating a black conservative is the highest priority for the Dems. Ed is saying that Steele’s race, and his race alone, is what pushed the Dems to break the law in trying to beat him. His post is all about Steele as a BLACK candidate. But not just a black conservative, an “articulate” black conservative. If you can sit there and say that Ed wasn’t even thinking about race when he wrote the post you’re kidding yourself.
And let me add one more thing and then I am seriously moving on:
Frank, if you and Ed have never heard about the problem with “articulate” before you either don’t know any black people or, if you do, you’ve never spoken with them about race, racism and what it’s really like to black in America.
“I am not defending or mitigating the exploitation of people via advertising . That seems to be another discussion based on your clarifying question.”
Mouse;
It was my intent to take the discussion in another direction
That having failed I will say the ad is sexist, presumably all ads are exploitative of someone or something.
And BTW, did anyone notice the face of the little boy at the end of the ad? This ad is communicating its chilling message not just to women and girls but to men and boys. Boys who may grow up believing in the ad’s message that women should serve and never do.
and BTW, fuck it here’s the post from above edited:
I don t think of it in terms of sensitivity or feelings. It s about power. Brute, fucking power. I don t know why Oliver dismissed the complaints about the ad. This ad is Rick Santorum s wet dream.
Obviously, I swear alot. I try to keep it in check in around my nephew and the children of my friends and in various different social situations, but a lot of the time like now I could give a fuck if my language offends somebody. If I m writing an article and the word cock suits the tone I m aiming for but it offends you, I m not changing it to penis. Situations might arise where a racial epithet serves the same puprose or some other, in my mind, valid point and so I might use it. But rest assured I will think it through from all angles first and then be prepared to face the consequences with my reasons which, in my book, better damn well be more thoughtful than I refuse to bow to the speech police. The reason why is exactly what I ve been trying to get across in my contributions to what we may as well now just name: The Articulate Wars. From my vantage point it is not about sensitivity or feelings it is about power: who has it, how they got it, how they keep it, who doesn t have it, how they get it and how they keep it.
Conservatives drone on and on about the liberal influences of popular culture. Think about that while you watch the NHL ad again and think about all the other images out there that it conforms to and feeds on. Popular culture can be radically conservative in the messages it sends about gender, race etc. For the whining of conservatives it s obvious that when the NHL needed to rally its base it turned to the most reactionary, conservative imagery it could muster because it knows that this kind of imagery still has cache and appeal to straight white men who otherwise feel victmized by modern world. That s why the ad company pitched this ad to the NHL, that s why the NHL bought it: Feel victimized by the modern world? Come back to hockey where we really know the score. The ad doesn t even have to articulate the question here, the answer it supplies implies the question, one that white men everywhere feel plagued by even if they themselves can t put it into words.
The point is, people can say, think, write, film whatever they want. They can disseminate wherever and however they want. But it s ridicuous to suggest that this ad doesn t present a challenge to progressive ideals It does. And again that isn t a question of hurt feelings, it s a question of cultural and political power. Which is why its perfectly reasonable that it be met with a progressive critique and counter-argument.
Sorry I had to check back in.
Semanticleo –
I posted a long comment above in response to your question that’s awaiting approval which I won’t rehash here but I want to respond briefly to this notion of a “chilling effect.”
Let ask you why are we are not considering the fact that the NHL ad itself has a chilling effect? What it says to women is know your place. Serve your man. That’s where you belong. That’s what a real woman is.
I think that’s a damn sad and depressing message to be broadcasting just to sell seats at a hockey game and it can have a serious chilling effect on the hopes, dreams and lives of American women.
I don’t know if you read the linked article but here’s the NHL’s response:
“This ad shows no disrespect for women,” Mansur said. “On the contrary, the woman is the spiritual and physical trainer for the `Warrior’ and is his mentor, preparing him for the competition.”
At best, the NHL is saying that this woman is some kind of “sports muse.” It’s an interesting image to evoke given that for centuries the closest women were allowed to get to writing and literature was in the figure of the muse who inspired men to write but never wrote herself.
Again, the ad says: Men act, women serve. I find that chilling.
And BTW, did anyone notice the face of the little boy at the end of the ad? This ad is communicating its chilling message not just to women and girls but to men and boys. Boys who may grow up believing in the ad s message that women should serve and never do.
And I tried to repost my comment “awaiting moderation” above and I would wager that the reason it’s being held up is not because of length (as I initially thought) but because I use a few words to make my point that some may find offensive. That’s hilarious given the subject at hand. At any rate, the gist is I would never change a word or idea in my writing because it might offend someone because it isn’t about sensitivity or feelings for me. It’s about power. This NHL ad is about power: It plays on the anxieties of straight white men in America by reducing women to servants in a space — the hockey arena — where men can be real men. That isn’t about senstitivity, that’s about power. I don’t care if the NHL pulls the ad — or even thinks twice the next time it produces one.
The point is, people can say, think, write, film whatever they want. They can disseminate wherever and however they want. But it s ridicuous to suggest that this ad doesn t present a challenge to progressive ideals. It does. And again that isn t a question of hurt feelings, it s a question of cultural and political power. Which is why its perfectly reasonable that it be met with a progressive critique and counter-argument.
That hasn’t been my experience with men that I know. Perhaps it’s been the experience of men that I don’t know and I can’t speak for them.
I understand you prefer not to hear some things said in a conversation.
I’m not sure what you mean by this.
Perhaps the issue isn’t that he can’t find an acceptable way of saying what he thinks; maybe the issue is that what he thinks is not acceptable. Cognitive dissonance usually results in avoidance, whether it be in the form of silence or changing the subject (jokes are a common outlet).
But what you’re describing is the process of change, which is rarely comfortable or smooth. And the uncomfortable bits are temporary; we do get over them.
But don’t think I haven’t noticed that all the previous posters who pooh poohed this issue at the beginning are all strangely silent now. I don’t think they would have held their tongues had the subject been about partisan politics. I would have been flamed in 2 seconds flat. In a way, I would have preferred that; but just because someone has a penis, it doesn’t mean he has balls. But on the bright side, it appears that there are some things that both liberals and conservatives agree on.
I saw that advertisement and felt the immediate urge to rape, humiliate and kill women.
Seriously though, as a honky, I was emotionally injured by the movie White Men Can’t Jump. REPARATIONS!!!!!!!!
Frank anyone who deals in this kind of racial essentialism — “It is the ability of blacks to manipulate language, and use words that is legendary” — isn’t bringing any kind of real understanding or experience to the table.
Frank, if you … have never heard about the problem with articulate before you either don t know any black people or, if you do, you ve never spoken with them about race, racism and what it s really like to black in America.
::BUZZ:: Wrong
The idea that I might not know any black people is laughable, the idea that you might even suggest it, more so.
The idea that you are so certain of the content of my conversations with black people is just typical left wing arrogance — a complicated way of saying, “Some of my best friends are black.”
BTW, about 99% of the black people I know are articulate; if not 99%, then certainly a higher percentage of the white people I know.
Wait a minute, did I just insult somebody?
Please, don’t tell Oliver…
Frameone;
Maybe I don’t get it but you, myself and mouse are not disagreeing from my perspective.
I should be addressing this directly to mouse but she said:
“let me clarify: I m not discussing the exploitative nature of the ad. I m discussing its use of sexist imagery to sell a slport to its audience.”
I just don’t get the distinction between ‘exploitive nature’ and ’sexist imagery’
To me they are one and the same. The point is; a very powerful image of woman as ’sex object’ is harmful because it invariably dehumanizes her and makes it easier to abuse her. This message is carried throughout our culture and has, as it’s ultimately evil fruit,; violence itself. But it is still exploitative because it requires the woman who wishes to further her career, to participate in the furtherance of the stereotype. That is the only distinction I can see between your idea and mine.
My previous comment is awaiting moderation.
You’ve got it.
There is another aspect of “exploitive” that isn’t necessarily related to sex/gender issues, one that you mentioned previously, which is the expoitation of the viewer; for example, using 15 year old models to sell wrinkle cream or atheletes selling…well, anything. This is an exploitation of our emotions and I do see it as separate from sexist imagery. Although sexism and sexist imagery are tools of exploitation.
Well, I’m done for the night…thanks for the discussion.
Thanks mouse and frameone.
It becomes clearer when you put it in print
Mouse/frameone;
In case you missed it.
http://crookedtimber.org/2005/09/24/stopping-the-trafficking/
frameone: And you don’t? Get over yourself.
frameone — let me put it this way: I used the words “sterotypical,” “legendary” and “perjorative,” each for a particular reason.
In your haste to criticize me, you failed to notice that. This is not, for me, anyway, a game of “gotcha”. The point I was trying to make is that in my world, the stereotypical black man is more than articulate.
You see, I come from exurbia (look it up), where lots of races and ethnic groups live together, sharing only the fact that we live in a “gray area” beyween the city and suburbs. There truly is very little bigotry and prejudice here — Not because there are no minorities, but because there are so many.
Here, all kinds of races and ethnic groups do all kinds of things: repair and restore furniture or make keys and repair shoes (two different black men); repair TVs and VCRs (a Mexican man); sell jewelry and drive Ambulettes (south Asians); manage cigarette stores that sell stuff from underwear to bandanas and run “Mom and Pop” grocery stores (Asians); run all night delis and small supermarkets (Arabs and Armenians); go to Graduate school and bust chops on left wing ‘blogs (that’s me).
Get the picture? It is expected that we’re all articulate — if you want to stay in business.
So you’re saying that all the only people of color that you know are the people on the otherside of the counter in a variety of service and retail industries? You’re in grad school and the only people of color you think of are the people who serve your consumer needs? Any people of color of campus, Frank? Anyone in your classes? Let me ponder the reasons why you might have omitted them …
Hell, even I left out the faculty. Any people of color on your faculty?
And, yes, I readily admit that a subconscious racism played a part in my failing to ask you about the faculty. This is actually a good example of what I’m talking about. In taking you to task the picture in my mind of your campus did not include any faculty of color. There’s a reason for that and I can quite frankly admit that it’s because of a subconscious racism on my part. That’s the difference between me and you. I’m not afraid to admit it and deal with it. You live in la la land (it is, apparently, the first right after exurbia).
So you re saying that all the only people of color that you know are the people on the otherside of the counter in a variety of service and retail industries?
The answer is no — I won’t spar with an idiot. My comment had to with roles played in the community. There are only about 7 or 8 people on my “Faculty”, i.e., teaching my courses, and, yes, although it is of no importance to me, the Director of Field Placement (also an instructor) is black. And, yes, I attend school with black people. For a minute there I thought you might disapprove, Heaven forbid.
It doesn t strike you as odd? No, it strikes me as stupid… The people I described don’t ’serve’ me. What are they, servants, for cripes’ sakes?
They’re business people! Maybe you need to look at yourself. When I go into a store, I don’t see a servant, I see a businessman. Did you notice that I mentioned independent businessmen, not clerks or burger flippers? Why would you consider them servants? What’s your problem?
Maybe, you think other people see minorities as you do. I see people as people.
Plain and simple.
I mentioned before that I have lots of friends who are ex – offenders and recovering substance abusers. Of course, some of them are black. You know how I relate to them? Like anybody else. My language doesn’t change; my posture doesn’t change; my attitude doesn’t change, and you know what? We get along just fine. Some people don’t like me. If they are black, is it rcially motivated? Do I need to know?
You are attempting to see the world through a black person’s eyes. If you’re not black, it can’t be done. You will never imagine what it’s like to wake up and be black, be black all day, be black the rest of your life.
Never.
If you’re not Italian – American, I could never explain it to you, and you will never understand it. Does that make you prejudiced against Italians?
In itself, of course not.
But Frank that’s my point. When it came to describing the people of color you knew or came into contact with in your community, you failed to mention any of the people of color in your community who don’t serve you in one way or another. Aren’t you interested at all in why that is? It doesn’t strike you as odd?
Frank –
Yes, Frank, businesspersons there to appease and appeal to you to make a living. Businesspersons with whom your interactions are entirely shaped by their need to satisfy you as a customer. You didn’t mention a single person who wasn’t your peer, entirely unbeholden to you and your largess for their well being — even though you know many of these people and interact with them.
Oh and Frank, which is it, do I only see minorities or am I trying to see through their eyes?
Holy fuck. You’re studying to be a therapist? God help us.
Stop it, frameone, now your ideology is showing. They’re not sniveling toadies, kissing my ass to make a buck. I don’t live in a Dickens novel, I live in a city of 65,000 plus people in the 21st Century…
You must live in “la la land”, if where you live, a “businessperson’s interactions are entirely shaped by their need to satisfy you as a customer” Where the hell do you live?
And I already mentioned that I was referring to people playing community roles: The list of people, and types, and groups I didn’t mention is quite large — in – laws, Puerto Rican; relatives by marriage, black; other relatives by marriage, Irish – , Greek – and Polish – American; civil servants, my childrens’ teachers, my neighbors, Vinny, on braces and Bill (black) who sit on the bench outside the Senior citizens’ apartments across from me a lot of mornings. Do you want more?
You’re trying to push a point that just isn’t working out too well. The real world is not that simple.
As to whether you think everyone else sees minorities as you do, or you are trying to see through their eyes; all I can say is, from a psychological point of view (not that I’m an expert, but therapy is my graduate area of study) you may be doing both: Seeing yourself as a victim, embodied in the black man. I have a friend (white) who exhibits the very same symptom. He perceives himself as a victim and, thus, empathizes and sympathizes with other people and groups he perceives as society’s victims. Oh, and guess what, he’s liberal, too.
Good answer, frameone, as I expected. I am surprised you believe in God… Don’t worry, you’re the type who will never seek therapy. You’re too good to be true…
Hehe