tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20186784.post113781167938698631..comments2023-10-25T04:40:48.556-07:00Comments on Angry for a Reason: American Apparel: Sweatshop free, but oh so sexistlost clownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02751161198550585778noreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20186784.post-5591148358462112212011-02-06T20:28:03.719-08:002011-02-06T20:28:03.719-08:00I understand how people can argue for sexual emanc...I understand how people can argue for sexual emancipation for women with AA; women taking complete control over their sexuality, woot! However, as soon as that sexuality is used to hock an item for the masses of consumers, not only does it turn these women into sexual objects - no longer free women exploring their sexuality - but it also perpetuates the notion that women should only be seen in as sexual objects. It is not only degrading but also promotes an ideal of what it is to be female. The media sucks ass, it will only change if we change it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20186784.post-12779855507384501002009-12-31T12:29:53.308-08:002009-12-31T12:29:53.308-08:00Re: the model in the socks ad. That's porn sta...Re: the model in the socks ad. That's porn star Lauren Phoenix. While AA is (rightly) concerned about exploitation of workers in third world sweatshops (at least they claim to be), they just can't seem to muster any concern when it comes to the sexual exploitation of women by the porn industry. In fact, by encouraging users of its web site to Google-search Ms. Phoenix, they're actively encouraging it. (WARNING: DO NOT perform this search if you don't want to see absolutely heart-breaking photos of a very young woman being sexually used - some would say abused - in the most degrading ways imaginable.) The sooner true progressives wise up and denounce this company to anyone who'll listen, the better.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20186784.post-89200534362609195912008-12-11T17:39:00.000-08:002008-12-11T17:39:00.000-08:00"I hope you all are proud of yourselves. You've ad..."I hope you all are proud of yourselves. You've added exactly nothing to the quality of the discourse. I mean seriously nothing at all.Doctor Slack brought up some important issues - had they been properly addressed it would have allowed us all to make far more compelling and logically rigorous cases against misogyny and sexism. Instead your reliance on bluster and self righteous indignation does a disservice to the cause. I am truly embarassed for you."<BR/><BR/>hey Miranda?<BR/><BR/>you're an intellectual male sympathist.<BR/><BR/>love,<BR/>SoniaDixiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15612848394908480285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20186784.post-1138210294676789392006-01-25T09:31:00.000-08:002006-01-25T09:31:00.000-08:00LindsayA- They (to the best of my knowledge) don't...LindsayA- They (to the best of my knowledge) don't even carry said socks. The point is to sell sex and objectification of women, not socks. (I know this because I saw some other AA ads that said, "we're thinking about carrying the socks" disgusting)lost clownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02751161198550585778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20186784.post-1138209900119218142006-01-25T09:25:00.000-08:002006-01-25T09:25:00.000-08:00way to make me spit out my breakfast!way to make me spit out my breakfast!lost clownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02751161198550585778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20186784.post-1138209029072861482006-01-25T09:10:00.000-08:002006-01-25T09:10:00.000-08:00I assumed that dr. slack was male for the same rea...I assumed that dr. slack was male for the same reason I assumed "miranda" was male - they both acted like, well, for lack of a better description, penis-swinging gorillas with chips on their shoulders.<BR/><BR/>I suppose women could do that too, but statistically speaking...Dubhehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10149981775243281723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20186784.post-1138208262476592832006-01-25T08:57:00.000-08:002006-01-25T08:57:00.000-08:00great comment Q-Grrl!!! Right on! (plus I'd like ...great comment Q-Grrl!!! Right on! <BR/><BR/>(plus I'd like to point out that I love my 70's gym teacher socks and have been wearing them for years. I've always thought that they were hot (but that's just me) To think someone will think of this ad when they see them..*shudder*..but mine are the 2 different colour stripes, i.e. better)lost clownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02751161198550585778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20186784.post-1138204453575837512006-01-25T07:54:00.000-08:002006-01-25T07:54:00.000-08:00Personally I don't need my cloathes to be "hot". ...Personally I don't need my cloathes to be "hot". Especially tube socks. The interesting thing about objectification is that something as simple as buying or wearing gym socks suddenly becomes a sexual act embued with a certain social/public morality of hotness/prudishness, virgin/whore, good/bad. Objectification isn't in the picture or in the model's simulated sex act. It's in the entire process of creating markets and consumers. It is essentially a message of "if you want or need to buy my product, you have to also buy my idea and portrayal of female sexuality, even if you know that portrayal to be abusive and antithetical to our own experience of female sexuality." No one is empowered by this type of portrayal of female sexuality because there is no choice in our consumption of it -- yes, we can choose to not purchase a product marketed in such a manner, but there is still a social price to pay for refusing to do so. Our own sexuality is called into play -- with hints at our prudishness or inexperience -- and our rational capacities are also denigrated. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Q-GrrlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20186784.post-1138202231918517572006-01-25T07:17:00.000-08:002006-01-25T07:17:00.000-08:00quite the interesting discussion here. Question th...quite the interesting discussion here. Question tho- I dont remember this "doctor slack" ever referencing "himself" as male. Are you assuming "he" is, because "he's" a doctor?<BR/>What kind of feminist does that?<BR/><BR/>Also - about those socks. Porn star or not, that ad made ugly knee high gym socks sexy. And that's frickin marketing genius. Who else had made tube socks seem so hot?<BR/><BR/>In any case, everybody seems so damn sure that they know who is and who is not getting "abused" and "exploited" that it the whole exercise seems a little futile. <BR/><BR/>I think that there is much more of a grey zone than is being presented here tho.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20186784.post-1138195654760366582006-01-25T05:27:00.000-08:002006-01-25T05:27:00.000-08:00Miranda, Here's an idea. Go Fuck yourself. If he b...Miranda, <BR/>Here's an idea. Go Fuck yourself. <BR/><BR/>If he brought up such great points then why couldn't he explain why he took THAT little line as an insult? Afterall, it's in the eye of the beholder...right? OBJECTIVELY something isn't degrading unless you CHOOSE to be degraded by it. <BR/><BR/>So what's wrong? You must be all sex negative if you don't want to go fuck yourself. <BR/><BR/>Quite frankly I've never understood why you bother. This is a pretty new blog and yet, you trolls are here to scream the loudest. <BR/><BR/>Here's the breakdown. Porn, prostitution and the sex industry is rampant with rape and abuse on women. *I* don't find that to be acceptable. In fact, *I* don't think that an orgasm is worth ANY life, not even one. <BR/><BR/>And, don't come bitching at the feminists about it. Don't you GET it? It's not OUR fault that men continue to abuse women in these industries. If you're so pissed off about abuse then take on the men instead of just stroking their egos and telling them (and yourself) that pictures that cause abuse and degradation are fine and dandy. <BR/><BR/>In short, go back to your own blog. Oh and for what it's worth, speaking for myself, I don't give a rats ass about what YOU feel I added to the discourse. <BR/><BR/>And, take your manipulative little whine fest back to your own site. You ain't gettin' no sympathy here.Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657292949609972791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20186784.post-1138195141784159212006-01-25T05:19:00.000-08:002006-01-25T05:19:00.000-08:00And see, insulting people on their own blogs is ex...And see, insulting people on their own blogs is exactly the problem that "banning" solves.<BR/><BR/>You say horrid, cutting things and tell the blog owner she's overreacting or projecting when she calls you out on them.<BR/><BR/>I will go ahead and call you out. You act just like every other male MRA asshole with a female screen name who hunts down brand new feminist blogs to troll and hopefulle silence. <BR/><BR/>You are nasty and vile, your posts are laden with presuppositions, insults, and downright viciousness. You also seem to think we're to illiterate to notice that you're insulting and demeaning everyone, because you don't say "fuck". <BR/><BR/>And no, it's not in "how we read it". Men get to say that to women all the time, to excuse hurtful and cutting words and make it the victim's fault she feels bad over them. To make the victim feel crazy for feeling bad over them. And I'm not going to let you act like an abusive husband to a woman whose blog I enjoy without putting you on the ground over it.<BR/><BR/>I'm truly embarassed for you, that you have nothing better to do with your time than troll feminist blogs and tell them how they're going about it all wrong, and that everything is peachy-keen-hunk-dory-stop-bitching-stupid-whore. <BR/><BR/>You're a coward and a misogynist.<BR/><BR/>In conclusion, I'd just like to say this: You have the capability to become self-empowered, and should exercise it.Dubhehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10149981775243281723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20186784.post-1138188517603380602006-01-25T03:28:00.000-08:002006-01-25T03:28:00.000-08:00I hope you all are proud of yourselves. You've add...I hope you all are proud of yourselves. You've added exactly nothing to the quality of the discourse. I mean seriously nothing at all.Doctor Slack brought up some important issues - had they been properly addressed it would have allowed us all to make far more compelling and logically rigorous cases against misogyny and sexism. Instead your reliance on bluster and self righteous indignation does a disservice to the cause. I am truly embarassed for you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20186784.post-1138146845826248702006-01-24T15:54:00.000-08:002006-01-24T15:54:00.000-08:00Lost Clown, Damn, looks like I missed it. It never...Lost Clown, <BR/>Damn, looks like I missed it. It never ceases to amaze me how these trolls show up in absolute DROVES, I swear, they're either the same person or they just distribute 2-ways and call each other as soon as a feminist begins to speak out in a way that frightens them. <BR/><BR/>Oh, and I simply have to laugh at how they all put up their guns and went home when pressed on the 'Go Fuck yourselves' issue. Of COURSE it's empowering for WOMEN to get fucked, but for MEN to be fucked? Puhleeease, what's wrong boys, can't see the 'empowerment' in the phrase when it's directed at you? <BR/><BR/>Cute. <BR/><BR/>Keep up the great work LC!Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657292949609972791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20186784.post-1138142824859576642006-01-24T14:47:00.000-08:002006-01-24T14:47:00.000-08:00Yes, this blog is about the NO COMPROMISE views on...Yes, this blog is about the NO COMPROMISE views on overthrowing misogyny and patriarchy. <BR/><BR/>Some people will compromise, I will not. Some people will say that AA ads are ok, I will not. This means I will attack all sexist/misogynist things I see including "ads that are better then Vogue ads" you see because they all have the same purpose. To keep women oppressed as a sex class. I don't care if one form of objectification is "better" then another. They're all bad and they're all destructive towards women and I won't stand for a single one of them.lost clownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02751161198550585778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20186784.post-1138142336296916272006-01-24T14:38:00.000-08:002006-01-24T14:38:00.000-08:00Good grief. No worries; if you've just demonstrate...Good grief. No worries; if you've just demonstrated "what this blog is about" I'm glad to go elsewhere. Have fun.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20186784.post-1138141676944930682006-01-24T14:27:00.000-08:002006-01-24T14:27:00.000-08:00Lost Clown:We decided that blogger comments just d...Lost Clown:<BR/><BR/>We decided that blogger comments just didn't give us enough control of the trolls, over at the Den. You may want to look in to Haloscan. <BR/>It lets you actually ban people, which is probably the best way a woman can say "no!" and see just how many men respect it.<BR/><BR/>Slack:<BR/>"...cheapens it and can reduce its effectiveness when it really counts."<BR/><BR/>But for you, it will never count unless someone is lying dead in a ditch. So why should anyone cater to your definitions again? Oh, that's right, you're MALE, and men have the privilege of defining all the words.<BR/><BR/>We see how testy you get when a woman challenges your definition. <BR/><BR/>And I'm still waiting for your concession on the "fuck yourself". You said you'd give me one if I could produce an alternate reading. I did. Conceed.Dubhehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10149981775243281723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20186784.post-1138141591191351702006-01-24T14:26:00.001-08:002006-01-24T14:26:00.001-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Dubhehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10149981775243281723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20186784.post-1138141564164334032006-01-24T14:26:00.000-08:002006-01-24T14:26:00.000-08:00*headdesk*Look, DS, you may find this a minor poin...*headdesk*<BR/><BR/>Look, DS, you may find this a minor point of objectification, but it leads to and encourages an environment where that direct personable objectification comes in. To deny the link between the two would be to bury ones head in the sand. Any objectification in this culture and ANY commodification of women's sexuality in this culture ON TOP OF the gross oversexualization of women in this culture leads to violence against women. <BR/><BR/>If you feel like redefining the terms away from their definitions I suggest you get your own blog to do it on becuase this is not a productive use of anyone's time. Play philosopher elsewhere please. The definitions that we have been using are pretty standard and if you don't like them, fine. This is not the place to redefine the words. Why? Because that's not what this blog is about.<BR/><BR/>And don't take the high road with invective. You've all ready demonstrated that you will use iton this blog and then say that it's my interpretation that's making it bad. I feel Dim is doing the same thing you did with the go fuck yourself comment.lost clownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02751161198550585778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20186784.post-1138141017876862452006-01-24T14:16:00.000-08:002006-01-24T14:16:00.000-08:00LC: But who knows, maybe I'll get called puritanic...LC: <I>But who knows, maybe I'll get called puritanical again because I hate exploitation! </I><BR/><BR/>I hope I'm not wasting my time trying to point this out, but seriously -- I was characterizing your <I>argument</I>, not you. It was not personal.<BR/><BR/>But, I see the "these people" wagons being circled, which probably means no further actual discussion will be forthcoming. So long, then. Up until this point, it's been genuinely interesting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20186784.post-1138140695254553562006-01-24T14:11:00.000-08:002006-01-24T14:11:00.000-08:00Well, work can wait for a minute more.DU: I'm a cr...Well, work can wait for a minute more.<BR/><BR/>DU: <I>I'm a crank for pointing out tha those photos are the textbook definition of "objectification"? </I><BR/><BR/>No, actually, it's just crankish to assume your conclusion, pretend you've said something incontrovertible, and then proceed to self-righteously flame others on that basis. This isn't just "academic chess;" stuff like that really hurts your credibility and makes it harder for others -- male and privileged or otherwise -- to take your statements seriously. So it's a good idea not to do it.<BR/> <BR/><I>You keep redefining all the words everyone's using to deny the reality of the situation. </I><BR/><BR/>IOW, it frustrates you that I'm not acknowledging what you believe the "reality of the situation" to be, because I keep questioning definitions. Well, sorry, but if political discourse is going to be useful and effective, we need to be prepared to question the definitions we're using and make sure we're using them wisely. I make no apologies for that.<BR/><BR/><I>You're basically saying: "First, the arrow must go halfway to the tree. [etc.] Which is all well and good, unless you're the tree.</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, I'm basically saying that using the term "objectification" too loosely cheapens it and can reduce its effectiveness when it really counts. (In fact, this has to a large extent already happened in much of our culture.) If you disagree, then fine, you disagree. But it should probably occur to you that there might be other reasons for insisting on this than "academic chess out in the airy stratosphere."<BR/><BR/>(Put another way, I've known women who have had their lives damaged by quite painful and direct forms of objectification, and I believe it does people in that position a severe disservice to treat cranking about American Apparel as a priority. Given that, you're going to have to forgive me if I'm unimpressed by attempts to shut off the discussion with anti-intellectual invective and invocations of "male privilege.")<BR/><BR/><I>As for other readings of "go fuck yourself", try this . . . Do you believe porn can be empowering? </I><BR/><BR/>In the current context, no. So, you've just demonstrated my point. Thank you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20186784.post-1138140218167933902006-01-24T14:03:00.000-08:002006-01-24T14:03:00.000-08:00lordy, lordy yes. I'm trying to keep away from th...lordy, lordy yes. I'm trying to keep away from the burlesque thread before my head explodes from such circular logic. But who knows, maybe I'll get called puritanical again because I hate exploitation! Oh Goody!<BR/><BR/>Blargh. It's like a train wreck, i can't pull away.lost clownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02751161198550585778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20186784.post-1138139671468459912006-01-24T13:54:00.000-08:002006-01-24T13:54:00.000-08:00Good point, Lost Clown! I'd forgotten to mention h...Good point, Lost Clown! I'd forgotten to mention how portraying women as SO hypersexual and SO ready to have sex with anyone or anything that they can orgasm from <I>putting on a pair of socks</I> is pretty damned misogynistic in and of itself.<BR/><BR/>Do you ever get tired of going round and round in circles with these people?Dubhehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10149981775243281723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20186784.post-1138139295621810262006-01-24T13:48:00.000-08:002006-01-24T13:48:00.000-08:00Dr. Slack:I'm a crank for pointing out tha those p...Dr. Slack:<BR/><BR/>I'm a crank for pointing out tha those photos are the textbook definition of "objectification"? Cute. Yeah, you're rational and objective. No, really. <BR/><BR/>You keep redefining all the words everyone's using to deny the reality of the situation. <BR/><BR/>You're basically saying: "First, the arrow must go halfway to the tree. Then it must go halfway from that point to the tree. Then it must go halway AGAIN from THAT point to the tree. And so forth and so on. Therefore, logically speaking, the arrow will never hit the tree." <BR/><BR/>Which is all well and good, unless you're the tree.<BR/><BR/>It might be some kind of academic chess out in the airy stratosphere for you, but that's only because you have the male privilege to think of it as such. <BR/><BR/>As for other readings of "go fuck yourself", try this: Much of pornography involves talking dirty, and much of talking dirty involves directives to "fuck me" or "let me fuck you". <BR/><BR/>Pornography is all about fucking women. Many "feminists", among other people, make the claim that pornography is empowering for women. Therefore, being fucked is empowering. So when I say "go fuck yourself", I could be saying, to someone who believes porn is empowering, "you have the capability to become self-empowered, and should exercise it."<BR/><BR/>Do you believe porn can be empowering? You must not, since you interpreted my statement as offensive and insulting.Dubhehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10149981775243281723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20186784.post-1138137235882197952006-01-24T13:13:00.000-08:002006-01-24T13:13:00.000-08:00You may notice on the Americaan Apparel site that ...<I>You may notice on the Americaan Apparel site that Dov Charney, the CEO of AA, posed with his butt cheeks exposed for an ad that appeared in the back of a gay magazine.</I><BR/><BR/>That image is not sexualized at all. It just looks like he's wandering around the house half naked. Now pose him in a sexually provacative postiion and we'll talk objectifcation. (Or better yet, let's post something about him having an orgasm cuz of a pair of socks)<BR/><BR/>And we all ready know he's a narcissist. So a narcissistic CEO is one who does that.lost clownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02751161198550585778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20186784.post-1138136102547390202006-01-24T12:55:00.000-08:002006-01-24T12:55:00.000-08:00Ah, and it looks like we've finally gotten to some...Ah, and it looks like we've finally gotten to some good invective at last. Pity I have to go and actually get some work done, but before I do:<BR/><BR/>Dim Undercellar says <I>If using a woman's orgasm to sell socks . . . is NOT turning her into a sexual object . . . then there's no such thing as objectification.</I><BR/><BR/>Just so you know, this is the kind of thing that really marks you out as a crank. Basically, what you've just said is "if I don't assume my conclusion, then there's no such thing as my conclusion!" Feminist discourse deserves better.<BR/><BR/><I>How dare you imply that YOUR reading of "go fuck yourself" is the only possible one!</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, "go fuck yourself" is fraught with a multiplicity of meanings in exactly the same way as a photographic image. If you can demonstrate that in all seriousness, I'll be happy to return a hearty "go fuck yourself" your way. In lieu of that, I'll simply say so long, and good luck with the anger management.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com