Sad that if you printed stickers saying "This Objectifies Women" you would not want for opportunities to use them.

While I don't disagree that the images can be read as sexist and insulting to women, I am not sure that the stickers are a good way of encouraging people to think critically about what they see. The stickers don't provide "commentary;" they provide an aggressive, one-dimensional interpretation.

I think there's a false binary being created. There's got to be some kind of middle ground between blind acceptance and righteous indignation. We're already constantly being told by the mainstream media what to think and how to interpret what we see. The goal should be to encourage dialogue, not simply offer a single alternative reading of an image.

Ditto on Kate. The righteous indignation line is generally the worst way to go about changing minds as it pushes away people on the verge. This is shaming, not eye-opening, not inviting people to think critically about sex/nudity/sexuality as sale and as a barrier to thinking of ladies as full human beings. And a perfect example of the kind of feminist public intervention that just comes off as humorless, one-dimensional, without nuance... Ech.

I carry a black perm. marker in my purse to add commentary to ads in public bathroom stalls (usually, on campuses). There, people have a moment to two to contemplate it, and sometimes add their own comments!

How is providing a "dissent" against sexist media messages "one-dimensional?" One picture asks "women or objects?" Looks like an invitation to think critically to me. What alternative method of consciousness-raising would you recommend?

"One picture asks “women or objects?” Looks like an invitation to think critically to me."

The question posits a false dilemma. The reader either approves of the ad, and is therefor sexist (seeing the woman as an object), or disapproves of the ad and is therfor not sexist.

There is no other alternative which doesn't fit the worldview of the person who wrote the question.

I don't understand why an ad which includes a beautiful woman is defacto sexist. Why is it assumed that because I appreciate her beauty I assume that's all she is?

The obvious answer, Dan, is whether you would find a picture of a male in the same pose in the same ad appropriate. Are you able to appreciate his beauty? Would you find it an effective ad campaign? Or would it make you feel weird and uncomfortable?

I have to agree with SarahMC here - while I understand Kate and Caitlin's points, I don't see how else one could clear the way for critical analysis of women in adverts in such a casual and high-traffic way. The next step for me would be physically destroying the offending sign or poster. And while that may not be such a horrible thing, it still leaves no room for social commentary - someone passing by a billboard with holes in it doesn't make them think about how sexist the image behind it was, they just think "vandalism".

Those stickers critically analyze the hard evidence behind them, giving everyone who sees them a common point of reference from which everyone can come to their own conclusions. And even if they ARE one-dimensional, their disrupting presence within the pervasive advertising culture we're drowning in is still louder than doing nothing.

SarahMC-- I was referring to the stickers, not the handwritten comments. Each of the handwritten comments did something the stickers failed to do. The first personalized it-- tied it to an emotional response on the part of the author. The second posed a question, as opposed to making a disembodied, decontextualized statement.

"Are you able to appreciate his beauty? Would you find it an effective ad campaign? Or would it make you feel weird and uncomfortable?"

I can appreciate his beauty. It wouldn't be an effective ad campaign for me, but I'm sure it would work well on my wife, and I would have no problem with that.

I have been happy to sit with her through numerous shirtless Hugh Jackman movies.

Dan, an ad featuring a nearly naked woman is not necessarily sexist in a vacuum. But the fact that the vast majority of naked people in ads are women is sexist. The fact that viewers are almost always assumed to be heterosexual men (lesbians are attracted to women too, but the copy is often reflective of the male gaze) is sexist. That women's naked bodies are just another marketing tool is sexist.

I *love* it. I want to go out and put stickers on things myself. While you may be right that it doesn't necessarily invite the viewer to think critically about it, it definitely expresses (in a very public forum) the viewer's anger at seeing insulting image upon insulting image. I, for one, share this anger, and I feel that it's important to get the message out that not everyone buys into objectification, and actively express our dissent. Also, we can't know that it doesn't spark some critical thinking about how women are portrayed in the media. It may do that, for some.

I really like this. If I find sexist, objectifying ads I'm either writing on them or putting a sticker on it. I don't see it as aggressive, I see it as concerned.

"...the fact that the vast majority of naked people in ads are women is sexist. The fact that viewers are almost always assumed to be heterosexual men (lesbians are attracted to women too, but the copy is often reflective of the male gaze) is sexist. That women’s naked bodies are just another marketing tool is sexist."

This, a thousand times over. Also, Dan, if you grew up in a society where you were inundated with images of scantily clad, youthful, physically ideal men in provocative poses, it would have a profound psychological impact on you, it would negatively shape your self-image and worldview. You have not been raised in such a society, ergo, you cannot relate.

What you don't get is that this type of imagery in poplular media is emotional terrorism. Little girls are indoctrinated with harmful, soul-destorying messages: The kind of women men admire most are impossibly beautiful (as compared to the average woman). The kind of women men admire most sexually flaunt themselves for male approval and attention. The kind of women men admire most are physically ideal, sexually available, and femininity compliant. This is really the kind of message you can get behind fully, with no reservations, is it?

Beauty, sexiness, youth, and hyper-feminine characteristics are lauded and held up as the pinnacle of female achievement in our society... Is this really the message you would want your daughter to internalize and the ideal you would want her to devote herself to attaining? Because this is the shit girls are bombarded with on a daily basis, this is why researchers have found that even the most secure and happy little girls suffer self-esteem issues (that boys don't) once they reach adolescence and become serious consumers of pop culture. This is why most women are caught in a pernicious cycle of feeling physically inadequate and fearing the loss of those traits that ensure their status as an "admirable woman". It's why women feel compelled to spend tons of money on beauty products, cosmetic surgery, botox, fillers. It's why women starve themselves. It's why women fixate on their "flaws" and are constantly running at full tilt in this rat race to prove themselves worthy of the male gaze.

You can want little girls to develop healthy self-esteem and self-perception, or you can support female objectification in popular media. But you can't have both.

Also, and this comment is directed at Dan and other hetero male readers, do you really appreciate being treated like nothing more than a sentient cock? Doesn't it insult you? If I were a guy, I'd be more than a little offended that this type of adverstising revolves around the notion that all it takes to get men to buy a product is to shove an image of a beautiful, sexy woman in their face. The product could be inferior to others on the market, or even logically preposterous, but just show a guy a sexy woman and, BAM!, you've got him. Marketing departments everywhere are treating you like a shallow, gullible idiot. Appeal to your intellect? Nah. Appeal to your interests? Forget it. Appeal to your social conscience? What's that?

They appeal to that aspect of your personhood they believe makes all the important decisions for you.

I don't know, maybe most men ARE shallow, gullible idiots at heart. Are they? I challenge you to prove that you aren't.

It is hard to argue that the messages people put on these types of ads are any more aggressive, one-dimensional, or 'commentary-restricting' than the messages conveyed in the ads themselves--I see it as taking the "two can play at this game" approach (Plus, since vandalism is technically illegal, time is of the essence and therefore it might be best not to be too wordy).

Also, billboards and urban advertisements are unique in that they can't be turned off or otherwise avoided the way that T.V. or print/magazine ads can be avoided. But billboards literally line our routes to work, school, etc. and for the most part, they have blended in to the environment almost to the point where we expect to be sold something every second of the day.

A large part of me is glad that these people snap me out of that and keep me on my toes.

I think, regardless of whether the stickers provide a substantial critique of the ads, it can be a very positive thing for a lot of women simply to see them being questioned. Part of why these images can be so damaging is that they are seen as normal. If the criticism of sexist ads were as ubiquitous as the ads are, it would enable more critical thinking about them.

I carry a red dry-erase marker in my purse, for slightly friendlier graffiti on the go. I also enjoy seeing ads defaced this way—it turns the one-way medium of advertising into a two-way conversation (even if the conversation is shouty).

"It is hard to argue that the messages people put on these types of ads are any more aggressive, one-dimensional, or ‘commentary-restricting’ than the messages conveyed in the ads themselves"

Amen. I find it insulting that, when trying to combat widespread sexism in our society, we women are told we must craft the "perfect" rebuttal. We must have the right "tone" when we voice our objections. We mustn't get "angry." We must, at all times, take the "high road" when dealing with our oppressors. Fuck that noise, is all I have to say.

"Amen. I find it insulting that, when trying to combat widespread sexism in our society, we women are told we must craft the “perfect” rebuttal. We must have the right “tone” when we voice our objections. We mustn’t get “angry.” We must, at all times, take the “high road” when dealing with our oppressors. Fuck that noise, is all I have to say."

It takes an awful lot of energy to be so very insulted all the time, doesn't it?

Not AS WOMEN. As people. You're welcome to get angry, you don't have to take the high road, it doesn't have to be perfect. It's just that, you know, if you take a marker to it and dash off an embittered phrase that takes the add so very seriously, I and many others will TUNE OUT. Because it's awfully, awfully dull.

many of these comments support the case that a false binary has been created. soooooo strident and filled with certitude; you brook no denial! even the parts i agree with are so self-righteous it makes me roll my eyes.

I have to wonder how many of these imaginary passers-by who might be turned off or offended when confronted with these kinds of stickers would actually be open to even-handed discussion about sexism and power of the type advocated by those who seem to be so concerned about the tone of the message.

In other words, concerned cat is concerned...just how different are the messages, "please watch your tone and ask politely" and "please don't bring this up at all"?

You're right, it's dull - not new or exciting or innovative like airbrushed female bodies shilling vodka or hamburgers. I'd love to hear some suggestions from those who dislike the stickers. Would you approve if I took a bullhorn onto the subway and educated passengers about train ads that way?

You're only a couple spots away from winning anti-feminist Bingo, Caitlin! I mean, the "insulted all the time" silencing tactic? Really?

Hmm. The thing is, I'm not sure if those stickers are actually intended to be an invite to constructive thought. They may simply be a personal expression of anger or frustration on the part of the sticker-maker. Does that make them bad? I don't think so. I certainly don't think they're any worse than the advertisement as it was, and I don't really think it's a big deal if you ignore it because you don't think it's constructive. Some people would be caused to think some things by its existence. Isn't that enough? It is only a sticker, after all, it can't do everything.

I'm also confused by the conflicting points on whether men are capable of understanding the issue at hand here. I mean, we want them to understand, yes? Doesn't that mean we shouldn't yell at them about how they can't? In any case, although one may not as keenly feel an injustice against someone other than oneself, one can definitely understand it, if one has a decent brain. One one one. That was a lot of ones.

I don't know, I just think it's generally better to say something and maybe have not everyone interpret it the way you meant - rather than saying nothing and having no one know you had something to say.

Also I like the way it makes the outside world more interactive. I think that's always pretty cool.

It is proven that when males are confronted with imagery of an attractive woman, they respond on a biological "fight or flight" level shaped from millions of years of evolution. For advertising agencies to ignore this would be silly... it may be considered non PC, but its a biological fact. As a result, attractive women (and men) are used prominently in advertising of all sorts. (shirtless guy at abercrombie, hot girls in the pictures above). This absolutely IS objectification, but not of women or men. It is objectification of an idea. The object has no real face or name or gender, it is nothing more than a queue for an emotional response.

There are certainly valid examples where women are objectified in our modern culture and there are definite issues with our society which I hope we will overcome. Nonetheless, I fear that the overzealous reaction to the imadry above will simply create more friction among those who might otherwise be perceptive. Simply labeling things does not promote change or education, it just provides an outlet for disapproval.

Please go ahead and disagree with me, but try not to disregard everything said. There is probably a middle ground somewhere.

Overkill, evolutionary psychology doesn't carry the same amount of cred in all circles. "Biological facts" about human behaviour are hard to come by given the difficulty of generalizing across cultures, and the difficulty of separating social from biological influences.

Overkill, what do you mean when you say "the object has no real face, or name, or gender?" Yes, many of the ads don't show faces, and very few of them have names attached, but how can you claim that those are not women's (or men's) bodies (or body parts) on the billboard? What "idea" is being objectified when you show a leg to sell a sheet, or a mostly-naked ass to promote your band, or cleavage and hair to sell jewelry? From here, it looks like pretty people (mostly women) and their body parts are being used to shill stuff; if that's not objectification, what is?

Which doesn't begin to address the question of why, if it's a "biological fact" that men react a certain way, some of the ads above (and so many other ads and images with naked/scantily clothed/dismembered or only partially pictured women) are aimed at women.

"You’re right, it’s dull - not new or exciting or innovative like airbrushed female bodies shilling vodka or hamburgers."

My point exactly. The ads are dull too. Both the ads and the response insult the viewers' intelligence in similar ways.

"I have to wonder how many of these imaginary passers-by who might be turned off or offended when confronted with these kinds of stickers would actually be open to even-handed discussion about sexism and power of the type advocated by those who seem to be so concerned about the tone of the message."

Exactly. On a related topic, I recently had a discussion with two 18-year-old girls, one of whom said twice that "All Asian men are ugly." After the second comment, I felt I had to say something. I may have made a slight dent after 30 minutes, but it was hard work.

If I at least impressed upon them that an extremely broad statement like that will draw a negative comment that's better than nothing.

Similarly, notes on these ads may provoke thought or they may provoke caution about sexist assumptions, I don't care. Even if they provoke derision, at least the viewer's thought process still has been interrupted and that's a plus in my book.

I think this is wodnerful.

"You’re only a couple spots away from winning anti-feminist Bingo, Caitlin! I mean, the “insulted all the time” silencing tactic? Really?"

And you're right -- that's my frustration, poorly packaged, and apologies. It's born out of an abiding sense that there are more interesting, complex, human responses to have to these ads than simple insult and outrage and a frustration that this so simplifies the discussion. Do I have a PROBLEM with you writing whatever you damned well please on the advertisements? Of course not. Go for it. People need space to say these things, there's space for outrage, etc.

But when outrage and disdain seems to be the only or primary response, much of me suspects that the responders are allowing themselves have a simplified opinion about the whole thing. Outrage is easy. This is what I mean by one-dimensional. And it always sits poorly with my genuine native feminist instincts. And - ah, gods - the false binary as commented upon widely above.

"Silencing tactic" grates on me. Debate need not be so enormously heavy as to call such things silencing tactics. And the continued impulse to accuse those who disagree with you on this board as telling you to "ask politely," also heralded as a silencing act, feels very ingenuine. No one said to ask politely, nicely. It's not the not-niceness of the ad-responses that seems to bother anyone that's dissenting here, certainly not me. But if I disagree with you, if I think you're finding these ads falsely misogynistic, or giving them too much creedence, and I find this kind of response not very interesting and counterproductive, no need to level loaded accusations of 'silencing.'

Look. Knowing one complex, interesting, intelligent, capable, questioning and lovely woman makes vastly more difference to growing or grown people's minds and behavior, men or women, than millions of these hasty scribbled responses. And there are many ways to help girls be that, and I'd focus my energies there, and my hope.

If you think these ad responses are a way to do that -- especially if you think it would have helped you sort yourself out and grow and become someone -- then go for it. I don't. I tend to find it somewhat oppressive and a bit too insistent about what my 'proper' response as a woman should be to naked chick advertising, a bit too reductionistly assumptive that I might not enjoy the advertisements for the eye candy without remotely endangering a very deeply lived feminism. And insulting to the male intelligence to assume they can't live out the same more complex response.

As is pointed out by both the pros and cons above, the ads are ridiculous. The makers know they are, the viewers know they are, and people have all sorts of interesting and complex responses to the objectified beauty objects they rely on. But, hell, humans are complex and can do two things at once -- appreciate and respond to and lust after objects while still taking actual women people-types seriously. I do it every day!

“You’re right, it’s dull - not new or exciting or innovative like airbrushed female bodies shilling vodka or hamburgers.”

My point exactly. The ads are dull too. Both the ads and the response insult the viewers’ intelligence in similar ways.

--I don't think the notes are dull. And apart from going through the regular channels and complaining directly to the ad agencies and product companies (which often enjoy the controversy) and which I already do, I don't see you offering a more effective suggestion.

"As is pointed out by both the pros and cons above, the ads are ridiculous. The makers know they are, the viewers know they are...."

Clearly the agencies don't, or they wouldn't keep running them. Or, more likely their objective is to provoke and insult. Pretty easy in a culture that disrespects women.

–I don’t think the notes are dull. And apart from going through the regular channels and complaining directly to the ad agencies and product companies (which often enjoy the controversy) and which I already do, I don’t see you offering a more effective suggestion.

Well, as you might guess, I'm feeling much less urgent about responding to the ads themselves than do some people on this board. See comments about complex responses to ridiculous advertisements and placing energies elsewhere, above.

But if push came to shove? If I was more bothered? Writing on the ads is great - it's direct, it changes the game about who gets to speak, etc. It's not the writing on the ads I find dull, it's what's written on them! Loaded 'Object' accusations, etc.

Off the top of my head, if you want to remind people that it's silly to let themselves stop thinking about women as complex awesome things and that -- insert that! A gasping naked woman selling perfume or burgers or something with a comment from the girl markered over -- "If you think these titties are hot you should see my critical theory collection," or "I can't wait to finish this goddamn photo shoot - the body paint is killing me" or "It's times like these I wish I'd stuck with the statistics degree" or pretty much ANY penciled in statement that added flesh to the fleshy girl would have made me chuckle and smile. Others are funnier than me so I challenge the board to think of better, but you get the point. Expose the ridiculousness of the image! Take it down by not taking it so goddamned seriously! Call attention to the production and airbrushing and the fact that even the tortured primped up suctioned up model has other shit going on in life to think about?

“As is pointed out by both the pros and cons above, the ads are ridiculous. The makers know they are, the viewers know they are….”

"Clearly the agencies don’t, or they wouldn’t keep running them. Or, more likely their objective is to provoke and insult. Pretty easy in a culture that disrespects women."

Sure, they run them because they are effective. But of course they also mostly know they are ridiculous. And most of the reasonably intelligent audience does too, despite their effectiveness. Your a bit out on a limb to say that their INTENTION is to provoke and insult just because that is their effect, at least to some viewers.

Just rereading -- hear hear to kate's comment! The handwritten comments are much more effective.

#
kate
Posted June 29, 2009 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

SarahMC– I was referring to the stickers, not the handwritten comments. Each of the handwritten comments did something the stickers failed to do. The first personalized it– tied it to an emotional response on the part of the author. The second posed a question, as opposed to making a disembodied, decontextualized statement.

I love them.

They're not dictating what people must think, anymore than advertising forces us to believe its messages without question. It's just offering another interpretation of what is usually termed 'reality' for observers to consider. That it's unapologetic in its delivery is not a valid reason to discredit it.

As much as the handwritten grafiti may be more interesting or clever, any sign that shows that the norm can and should be questioned and isn't just accepted by everybody makes me feel better and more valued as a human being.

No matter how ridiculous anyone thinks the mass of sexualised images is they are still there, and anyone who doesn't question them, whether with stickers, complaints or debates, is condoning them. There is no originality test for activism, and discouraging people from taking part because their protest isn't clever enough weakens the grassroots resistance to the massive corporations that perpetuate these images and ideals.

Sue - What was covered in your talk? I've been working with a lot of different ethnicities and have found myself becoming more sensitized to the use of "Asian," in that the user generally means someone with "slanty eyes," to put it in a crude way. It's really startling how many grown, educated Americans don't realize that Russia and the -stans and India and the Middle East, all of which have varied physical characteristics in their people, are considered part of "Asia."

Just something your comment made me think of.

What bothers me most about the stickers is that they all have scratch marks on them. If these stickers were in different places, they were likely scratched by different people. Assuming that that's true, there's something really unsettling to me about the fact that these stickers seem to elicit the same response. I know that scratching a sticker isn't violent per se, but the motions one uses to scratch suggest a strong antagonistic feeling.

"It is proven that when males are confronted with imagery of an attractive woman, they respond on a biological “fight or flight” level shaped from millions of years of evolution."

So these ads evoke anger or a desire to run away quickly? It sounds to me like they completely defeat the purpose then.

Evolutionary psychology is a highly controversial field and given about as much credence as Intelligent Design in scientific circles, so I wouldn't go around flinging junk science theories to support my arguments unless you want critical-thinking people to laugh at you.

Way to miss the point, by the way.

"What bothers me most about the stickers is that they all have scratch marks on them. If these stickers were in different places, they were likely scratched by different people. Assuming that that’s true, there’s something really unsettling to me about the fact that these stickers seem to elicit the same response. I know that scratching a sticker isn’t violent per se, but the motions one uses to scratch suggest a strong antagonistic feeling."

Just look at the pro-sexist advertising comments in this thread and how hostile and self-righteously resistant people are. They come up with every excuse in the book for refusing to even try to understand the emotions and motivations of those who make bold anti-sexism statements. "You must use this tone when addressing me or I won't listen to you." "Your certainty offends me, therefore I refuse to listen to you." "You aren't being nice enough, you aren't kissing my ass, you aren't couching your argument in soft, fluffy language that doesn't challenge me, therefore I refuse to listen to you."

They're all merely excuses to tune out. People don't like having their worldview challenged, it makes them uncomfortable. Sometimes the reaction is silence, sometimes it's violence.

you seem to overlook or misinterpret anything you disagree with.

"you seem to overlook or misinterpret anything you disagree with."

Overlook how? Misinterpret how? Throwing vague accusations at people is nonconducive to creating a dialogue, which is what you seem to think, if I'm interpreting your accusations correctly, I have failed to do. Again, I'm not going to mollycoddle sexism denialists. I have witnessed, time and time again, the way denialists browbeat feminists into submission by placing restrictive, manipulative conditions on the discussion at hand, effectively dominating the conversation in a way that disallows honest dissension. I'm not going to allow you to manipulate me into saying, "Golly gee, maybe you've got a valid point", when I know damn well that you don't.

I'm making a new anti-feminist bingo card to incorporate the silencing tactics I've learned in this thread:

Look, I'm a Feminist, so my argument can't be anti-feminist!

The False Binary! diversionary tactic. Or trying to discredit feminists by accusing them of committing logical fallacies.

These are the only new ones I see, but lots of oldies 'n goodies making the rounds, from Men Are Hardwired To Be Objectifying Sleazebots to the classic chastisement chestnut, If Only You Were Nicer, People Might Take You Seriously.

Keep it up, folks, I need to fill more squares.

I love these, all of them. Not that it is actually relevant, but for what it's worth, I am a straight male.

The stickers ("THIS INSULTS WOMEN" and "SEXIST SEXIST SEXIST") are often the exact responses I have to ads like that. I've been meaning to get off my tail and start stickering, and I think I'm going to add something like these to my repertoire.

Mind (and this might just be because I don't like the idea of being a bore), I don't think having a response like that is necessarily dull, nor does it mean one's taking an ad "too seriously." They are ridiculous, yes, and the designers obviously know that, but the effect that their ubiquity has on society _is_ a serious one and deserves a serious and direct response now and again. ... And frankly, if I make someone feel uncomfortable by shouting in their face from a sticker, then I am okay with that. Shaming may not be the most positive way to respond to something, but it can definitely work.

Having said that, I think little voice bubbles with something like "This body paint is killing me" is also a good detournement and a fine idea. I think it depends on the situation. (Maybe I'll make up some blank voice bubbles, too.)

Or trying to discredit feminists by accusing them of committing logical fallacies.

Huh. If I accuse someone of committing a logical fallacy, might I not be -- you know, arguing with them -- rather than "trying to discredit feminists"? Is attention to logic only acceptable in non-feminist debate?

If attention to logic is a 'silencing tactic' this debate is in far worse shape than I thought.

Who cares if the notes are dull? Every moment of life doesn't have to be filled with excitement and awe. The responses submitted by these individuals are just that, commentary. I doubt they have access to the resources advertising agencies possess, and hence the conversation is limited. These stickers aren't the be-all end-all of the discussion; they are part of the resistance. Just because something isn't a complete solution doesn't mean it needs to be disregarded all together. How can progress be made?

"Sure, they run them because they are effective. But of course they also mostly know they are ridiculous. And most of the reasonably intelligent audience does too, despite their effectiveness."

I truly doubt that most people recognize the vast majority of sexist marketing. This type of material has been so completely engrained within our society, it often goes unnoticed. These responses help to bring this issue to viewer’s attention.

Caitlin, when people accuse others of committing a fallacy, it detracts from the conversation, it does not contribute to it. It's an intentional distraction. The sole reason a person would have for invoking "false binary" is to wield academic terminology like a weapon in the hopes that it would lend their argument the illusion of intellectual superiority while discrediting their opponent's (for lack of a better word) argument as intellectually inferior.

What exactly qualifies you to judge others' arguments on their logical merits, anyway? Do you have a PhD in philosophy? Saying that someone has committed a fallacy does not necessarily make it so, but it does obfuscate whatever point you were trying to make, which, in this case, is that you don't actually have one.

What is up with "false binary", anyway? I understand what you're referring to, conceptually speaking, but the proper term is "false dichotomy". It's more complex than what it's been made out to be in this thread, but that's what happens when armchair philosophers get it into their heads that they're engaging in formal debate instead a heated internet scrap.

It's a heated internet scrap. If you're going to "debate", please stick to the point.

"Identifying and defining sexism is not...a speculative chore. There is an existing framework for recognizing and characterizing expressed sexism—and those who have made it their business to become fluent in it are the closest thing to objective experts as exist in any discipline.

If you find yourself inclined to react to the identification of something as expressed sexism with “I don’t see it,” consider that your “blindness” has been carefully cultivated by the very system that is dependent on your (and everyone else’s) not seeing it." --Melissa McEwan, the "Feminism 101" blog

If you're even semi-schooled in feminist theory, you already know that women are historically the sex class, and if you have the slightest grasp of how significant that is, then you understand why female objectification within the context of a patriarchal society is sexism.

If you're among the uneducated, if you are willfully oblivious, if you're heavily invested in your role in patriarchy, then it really isn't going to make any sense to you and no one is going to be able to explain it.

RE: 'false binary/false dichotomy/faulty dilemma':

Enjay, I think what you were trying to say, is that evoking a false dichotomy (in this case) is a red herring/straw man. :-]

It's also the fallacy of Middle Ground. ;-)

On topic: Huzzah! to those brave souls who dare to shock the masses out of their complacency.

For edification on the subject of sexual objectification, please see: http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/faq-what-is-sexual-objectification/

Toban: You've stolen my Femme Ou Objects, hardly a feminist ideal: theft.
My flickr account clearly states that every photo is copyrighted. They are not creative commons--they are not for anyone's personal or professional use without my express permission.
Take my photo down immediately before I'm forced to take legal action.
It's a shame you couldn't do something simple like just *ask*.
Thank you,
Sfrances

2nd request: remove within 24 hours or this will be reported as a Violation of Terms and Services within Flickr and Yahoo and from there,legal action.

Perhaps Toban is such a frequent contributor because s/he rips off so many of other people's photos on Flickr and elsewhere.

For correctness's sake, I feel compelled to add that the Dutch comment says "I'm sick of sexist images" rather than "I'm sick of sexually tinted images."

I saw somebody do this with a set of posters outside a clothing store in Ghent, Belgium, but the store removed it within hours. Still, I was glad to have seen it. I'm very grateful to whoever put up the messages - as has been shown, it is easier for people to refuse to conform when even one other person refuses as well (cfr. Solomon's experiments).

*Thank you* for removing my photo.

i work in a hair salon in madison, wisconsin, and am i struck by how often people ask for the difference in price between men's and women's cuts. a haircut is a haircut - if there is a significant time savings in styling short hair, we offer a discount regardless of gender. but i know we sometimes lose business from men who expect a lower price because they are men.

Wow at that last one; up until very recently, my hair was pretty short (not close cut, but shorter than the average guy who I hang out with, honestly), and most of the women in my family have shortish hair.  On the other hand, plenty of guys I know have hair that, at the very least, is my length or longer.  The salon I go to doesn't charge by male or female, but all the same, aside from very long hair, which is an extra couple of dollars.

Also, not only are the men's haircuts cheaper, they get a bigger discount: 5.01 to a woman's 4 dollars.

Ah, yes, because good anger has no sense of property rights or defacement. Buy your own billboard.

I walked by a Transformers 3 advertisement the other day and I had the sudden urge to write "misogynistic crap" on it. If I'd had the necessary implements on me at the time, I would have. Sexism is really wearing me out.

These little culture jams make me smile. I think instead of writing "insulting to women" I would write "Embarrassingly insulting to humanity"

I'm Dutch, and the writing on the Rotterdam billboard does not say "sexually tinted", it says "sexist".

why is the special k note mad at the model? its not like shes the corporation trying to sell cardboard cereal as a remedy for fatness. unless maybe shes a spokeswoman or something? i dont watch many special k commercials

I wish it was possible to write across a website, because I'd sure as heck like someone to write across this beer one: http://www.tui.co.nz/default.asp?s1=Beer&s2=Tui%20Blond%20Lager

I saw some anti-abortion posters around university the other day. They were nicely defaced, with some good questions. And I may or may not have added a cartoon of the baby from Eraserhead....

You do realize the average woman's head of hair takes a different amount of time and more complicated skill set than cutting a man's head of hair.

Since it seems o.k. to go around and put stickers on other people's property in order to express one's reaction to it does anyone know where I can get some "Nice tits, great curves, you're looking good lady" stickers printed for those of us who also agree that Special K does indeed taste like cardboard but nevertheless the lady looks good?
That should get the rats a-fizzin somewhat!

Well, its certainly better to act than simply complain, so this is a step i the right direction. But to really hit them where they live DON'T BUY THE PRODUCTS THEY'RE SELLING AND WRITE THE MANUFACTURER TO TELL THEY WHY.

last one about hair cut cost is bs;

my hair cut: 10min 'them' 25min 'me' min (free I cut it my self cause I'm a man)

girlfriend's hair cut: 25-40min ($22+tip'3-5')

ps: The Music awards = an example of what people want//expect.. what does that say about women and double standards..

all ads, sexist or not, are assaulting and patronizing toward men and women, however i do love sexy american apparel ads :D

Men are objectified - just not in the same way women are. Men are expected to be tough not vulnerable; they are expected to objectify women, tongues hanging out, etc., they are expected to 'cop a feel' or get a peek at 'panties' without the female's consent and that defines them as men. They're expected to love sports, know all about sports and talk about sports. They're expected to be good at fixing things, killing spiders, etc.; they're expected to be the 'breadwinners'; If they don't participate in this stuff or, heaven forbid, actually stand up to it - they are ridiculed. They are ridiculed for wanting to take time off work to care for children, brush their little girl's hair, etc. God forbid a man cries or talks about his feelings, enjoys a non-sexual love story, likes musicals, etc.. He is mocked & ridiculed, called either 'pu**y' or 'gay'.

I'm not dismissing the objectification of women at all. Just pointing out to the men here that if you could identify with your own objectification a little more, you might begin to understand in general how we feel.