[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I can’t get worked up over it, personally. But I like seeing men advertising underpants, so maybe I’m part of the perv market. In answer to Representative Fiola’s question about how one responds to children asking about it, I would simply label it a dumb joke. If that didn’t answer the question I would explain, no big deal: “Some people think legs are sexy, and ‘turned on is another word for sexy’ and it’s also what you do with power, see? A joke.” Ba da bum.
One thing I do get worked up about is the photoshopping of virtually every photo of women we see. Eyes widened, legs lengthened, waist/hip ratio increased, etc. . . I think this stuff is incredibly damaging to young girls and women generally. Truly an impossible ideal.[/quote]
As far as kids, people worry way too much about these sorts of things for kids. This is the kind of joke that either you get it or completely don’t get it but don’t realize you’re missing something.
Could you explain why idealized images of women are damaging to girls but idealized images of men are not damaging to boys?[/quote]
I would say the actions of one Miley Cyrus, Lindsey Lohan, and / or _________ (insert young female celebrity that acts like an idiot) are much damaging to girls / young women than a billboard with a leg on it.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I can’t get worked up over it, personally. But I like seeing men advertising underpants, so maybe I’m part of the perv market. In answer to Representative Fiola’s question about how one responds to children asking about it, I would simply label it a dumb joke. If that didn’t answer the question I would explain, no big deal: “Some people think legs are sexy, and ‘turned on is another word for sexy’ and it’s also what you do with power, see? A joke.” Ba da bum.[/quote]
I have no issue explaining that “sex sells” and what advertising is to my kids. I also have no issue explaining what objectifying is, and that they (I have both a boy and a girl) can “opt out” if they so choose.
When it comes down to it, if the woman consents to having the photo taken, knowing what it will be used for, it’s hard for me to claim it hurts her in any way. Same for a man.
One walk down the hair and makeup isles at CVS shows that advertising prays on the insecurity that comes along with this. Which is something else I don’t have a problem explaining to my kids.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I can’t get worked up over it, personally. But I like seeing men advertising underpants, so maybe I’m part of the perv market. In answer to Representative Fiola’s question about how one responds to children asking about it, I would simply label it a dumb joke. If that didn’t answer the question I would explain, no big deal: “Some people think legs are sexy, and ‘turned on is another word for sexy’ and it’s also what you do with power, see? A joke.” Ba da bum.[/quote]
I have no issue explaining that “sex sells” and what advertising is to my kids. I also have no issue explaining what objectifying is, and that they (I have both a boy and a girl) can “opt out” if they so choose.
When it comes down to it, if the woman consents to having the photo taken, knowing what it will be used for, it’s hard for me to claim it hurts her in any way. Same for a man.
One walk down the hair and makeup isles at CVS shows that advertising prays on the insecurity that comes along with this. Which is something else I don’t have a problem explaining to my kids. [/quote]
Whoa whoa whoa … you explain things to your kids? What are you? A time traveler from the mid-20th century? That’s one of the best arguments easily offended people have: “What do I tell my kids??”
[quote]marrot wrote:
That ad reminds me of Idiocracy where every ad in that movie is a sexual innuendo. It also does nothing to inform about the business or its industry. That billboard would be just as relevant if they put a bare ass next to the light switch.
Other ideas:
“When others are pulling out, we’re still plugged in”
“We know how to flip your switches”
“We discharge into your wall”
“We can handle your load”
“Effective high-current solutions for residential and commercial applications” - ok that one wasn’t sexy:/[/quote]
I work for a power company. I will pass these along to the PR lady.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
One thing I do get worked up about is the photoshopping of virtually every photo of women we see. Eyes widened, legs lengthened, waist/hip ratio increased, etc. . . I think this stuff is incredibly damaging to young girls and women generally. Truly an impossible ideal.[/quote]
A bit of a tangent, but to riff off of this.
Rant Alert -
The hourglass shape is the classic beauty ideal, sure. But I dislike the message that small breasted women are DISFIGURED and require surgery to fix the “problem.” I have many friends who have had their boobs done. People want to pursue the beauty ideal. They make choices. It can look pretty. I get it. BUT I don’t want my daughter to feel like she’s somehow messed up/ disfigured if she isn’t really thin with big boobs, a shape rarely seen in nature…
It’s one of the things I dislike about the media, and this much smaller BBing culture, where women are concerned. I like to focus more on fitness and athleticism, and yes aesthetics but there are limits, at least for me.
Related, I recently went to a big BBing trade show. With all the stage makeup, fake tans, fake blondes, and fake boobs…fake, fake, fake… You start to wonder if you took a wrong turn and ended up in a porn convention. Honestly, that part of it was a huge turn off for me. Also, if you flip it around where you tell men that they need to surgically insert some implants in their pecs, delts, biceps… Most would be HORRIFIED. I think.
As for the ad - Pretty women are used to sell stuff all the time, but it seems pretty dumb for a public utility to go there in 2015. My .02
Hopefully I didn’t offend anybody. I often come at things from “the mom” perspective. Can’t help it. I absolutely see why women who lean out for competitions don’t want to look like a 12-year-old boy in the chest. Physical attractiveness in women is a big deal. And it’s a landmine of a topic. Just making the point that our culture can be pretty messed up when it comes to women and body image.
[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
Sorry for the threadjack, Beans.
Hopefully I didn’t offend anybody. I often come at things from “the mom” perspective. Can’t help it. I absolutely see why women who lean out for competitions don’t want to look like a 12-year-old boy in the chest. Physical attractiveness in women is a big deal. And it’s a landmine of a topic. Just making the point that our culture can be pretty messed up when it comes to women and body image. [/quote]
I am of course deeply offended.
Dont know why, but that does not seem to stop anyone else, so, shame on you.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Maybe Ms.Fiola should just chill-the-fuck-out and choose her battles more carefully.
In response to her little campaign, maybe Gulf Electricity should change their ad and really give her something to bitch about.[/quote]
LOL[/quote]
That was pretty funny, Steely. I mean, that was really hurtful in a Feminist Bookstore/ Portlandia episode kind of way.
BTW, that leg wouldn’t get any attention at all if it were selling beer, or pretty much anything but a public utility. I’m thinking of the Carl’s Jr. ads with the bikini babes eating hamburgers. If you want to point out something that’s over the top, or not for kids.
[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
Sorry for the threadjack, Beans.
Hopefully I didn’t offend anybody. I often come at things from “the mom” perspective. Can’t help it. I absolutely see why women who lean out for competitions don’t want to look like a 12-year-old boy in the chest. Physical attractiveness in women is a big deal. And it’s a landmine of a topic. Just making the point that our culture can be pretty messed up when it comes to women and body image. [/quote]
To be fair, we are still better than places like Brazil and South Korea.
Oh, and welcome back?[/quote]
Probably true. And Thanks. Mostly just keeping a log here, Chushin. Nice to see ya.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I can’t get worked up over it, personally. But I like seeing men advertising underpants, so maybe I’m part of the perv market. In answer to Representative Fiola’s question about how one responds to children asking about it, I would simply label it a dumb joke. If that didn’t answer the question I would explain, no big deal: “Some people think legs are sexy, and ‘turned on is another word for sexy’ and it’s also what you do with power, see? A joke.” Ba da bum.
One thing I do get worked up about is the photoshopping of virtually every photo of women we see. Eyes widened, legs lengthened, waist/hip ratio increased, etc. . . I think this stuff is incredibly damaging to young girls and women generally. Truly an impossible ideal.[/quote]
As far as kids, people worry way too much about these sorts of things for kids. This is the kind of joke that either you get it or completely don’t get it but don’t realize you’re missing something.
Could you explain why idealized images of women are damaging to girls but idealized images of men are not damaging to boys?[/quote]
Idealized are fine, wildly falsified are damaging. The same would be true of boys, I suppose. I think there hasn’t been an industry previously that was centered on altering men to fit impossible standards, but same applies to an extent. However, there are plenty of unattractive men in the spotlight for boys to admire. Romantic leading men can be a 7 on a 1-10 scale, for example, where you almost never see a female romantic lead who is not a 9 or 10.
Could you explain why idealized images of women are damaging to girls but idealized images of men are not damaging to boys?[/quote]
Idealized are fine, wildly falsified are damaging. The same would be true of boys, I suppose. I think there hasn’t been an industry previously that was centered on altering men to fit impossible standards, but same applies to an extent.
[/quote]
Well, my first thought to this is, there certainly is “unobtainable standards” thrust on boys throughout childhood. Look at HeMan toys, or any comic book directed towards boys. Professional athletes loaded up on any PED they can. If I cared enough I could come up with a 1000 things marketed to boys that is a similar idea.
The difference is, boys and girls are different. Not better or worse different, just different. And that is good.
Youthful male insecurity is an entirely different beast than female insecurity. Female insecurity seems to be much more, devastating, for lack of a better word, and male tend to just accept it, and power through, instead focusing on other things like making money, hanging with your boys and smoking weed.
EDIT: in short because it isn’t damaging to boys. And even if it makes me sexist, boys need to suck it the fuck up and get over it already if they feel “inadequate” because some ideal they will never reach is on TV. Turn off the fuckign TV. And no, I’d never tell my daughter this in these words. I would try and comfort her, and then tell her to turn off the fuckign TV
