I Think This Ad Is Funny: 11 Out Of 10 Feminists Disagree
Did the Borg come swallow the sense of humor of much of the western world?
A bus company had this ad:
I'm amused. Then again, I can afford to be amused, since I'm not a shell of a person whose only source of attention is being outraged.
Not surprisingly, however, USA Today's Lori Grisham reports that panties were bunched [annoying autoplay video]:
"The slogan of 'ride me all day for £3' whilst being a little tongue in cheek was in no way intended to cause offense to either men or women and, if the advert has done so then we apologize unreservedly," the company wrote in a statement that they tweeted. "There has certainly been no intention to objectify either men or women."The posters were removed from the buses within 24 hours because of complaints, according to reports.
Can someone explain why this is offensive to "either men or women"?
As for this -- "There has certainly been no intention to objectify either men or women" -- how totally pathetic that we can't "objectify" for a laugh. Men or women -- or hermaphrodites.
Oh, and from Wikipedia (link just above), I like this guy:
Alan Soble questions the widely held Kantian view according to which human dignity is something that people have. He argues that objectification is not inappropriate. Everyone is already only an object and being only an object is not necessarily a bad thing. ...He writes (quoted from his book, Pornography, Sex, and Feminism:The claim that we should treat people as 'persons' and not dehumanise them is to reify, is to anthropomorphise humans and consider them more than they are. Do not treat people as objects, we are told. Why not? Because, goes the answer, people qua persons deserve not to be treated as objects. What a nice bit of illusory chauvinism. People are not as grand as we make them out to be, would like them to be, or hope them to be.
Hear fucking hear.
P.S. Welcome to France! (It's an ad for a dining guide.)
Oh, and my version of the ad with a hot guy: "Ride me like a pony, all day, for £3."
What...you mean feminists are humorless stains on the collective soul of humanity? Who'dathunkit?
Robert at May 16, 2015 2:14 AM
Just another reason why the old joke rings true.
A man walks in to a bookstore, looks around for a few minutes, and asks the clerk at the desk where the humor books are.
And, of course, the reply is: "There IS no humor section here, this is a feminist bookstore. . . "
Keith Glass at May 16, 2015 9:00 AM
In the French ad: "On est heureux de vous..." What does that mean?
Back in the late 70s, we took a family trip to the UK. While there, my mother (who was a little prudish then, a little less so now), was offended by a billboard advertising tires. The ad featured a woman wearing a tee shirt, but no pants (everything below mid-hip was out of view), holding the tire in question. The sell line: "Can take a beating!"
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at May 16, 2015 10:19 AM
"Everyone is already only an object and being only an object is not necessarily a bad thing."
It definitely is when you're a kid.
If we can understand why children - and the few genteel teens left, for that matter - should not be forced to hear or see four-letter words, in public or not, what's the difference between those and other vulgarities?
What's to stop those kids from internalizing messages like that and having trouble realizing, when they're older, that they can't treat people like commodities?
I have to wonder how PARENTS who use four-letter words with every sentence with their kids expect them to pass an employer's interview when they're older...but those parents who don't talk like that still have a very heavy burden these days, considering the behavior of so many strangers - and friends. (Parents can, of course, choose to have little or no TV or other screens in the house and keep their kids so heavily occupied that they don't have much chance to watch porn online at friends' houses - but they still have to take their kids OUT of the house regularly.)
lenona at May 16, 2015 10:37 AM
"What's to stop those kids from internalizing messages like that and having trouble realizing, when they're older, that they can't treat people like commodities?"
That would be called PARENTING. If you can't explain that ad to your kids, then you probably shouldn't have any.
Daghain at May 16, 2015 11:16 AM
What I really don't understand is this: The people who created and those who approved that ad had to know that it was edgy. They surely cannot be so stupid as to create such an ad and not realize that.
So why do they back down at the first protest? The right thing to do is to make fun of the protesters, to name them for the humorless twerps they are. That would at least win them kudos from people who have a sense of humor.
As it is, all they have done is piss everyone off. The humorless will be annoyed with them for having created such an ad. And the rest of us are now annoyed at them for being spineless slugs.
a_random_guy at May 16, 2015 12:20 PM
@Old RPM: "On est heureux de vous..."
According to the all-knowing internet, that means that they look forward to greeting you, or perhaps that they look forward to your visit.
a_random_guy at May 16, 2015 12:24 PM
@ARG: According to the all-knowing internet, that means that they look forward to greeting you, or perhaps that they look forward to your visit.
Well, they look all ready to meet us, whoever they are...
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at May 16, 2015 1:24 PM
Thanks, that's a great ad!
jerry at May 16, 2015 4:06 PM
That would be called PARENTING. If you can't explain that ad to your kids, then you probably shouldn't have any.
Posted by: Daghain at May 16, 2015 11:16 AM
If the kids are too young to get the subtext, the parent can get away with not talking about it, of course.
But when they're teens and being bombarded constantly with porno-type messages and imagery even when they're NOT in front of a screen, the effect is bound to build up in their psyches over time, despite what their parents try to teach them. You become jaded to what you see every day, just as you are what you eat and what you do. Again, why not use freedom of speech as an excuse to use four-letter words on billboards everywhere, since there are plenty of "adults" who would find that hilarious, too? Not to mention blatantly racist "funny" ads? (I admit I don't know how bad the problem already is, in that area.)
lenona at May 17, 2015 11:50 AM
"apologize unreservedly"????
Surely that should be 'undeservedly'?
Gary at May 17, 2015 1:01 PM
It should be, in a sane or semi-sane world. In which we no longer live.
Amy Alkon at May 17, 2015 1:50 PM
@Old RPM Daddy: Google translate renders it "We are happy (or pleased) to put water in his mouth for 18 years." It's possible that it's some sort of idiom with an entirely different meaning than the literal word by word translation. Also, one of the few things I know about the French language is that "l'eau" is literally "water", but it's used for all sorts of liquids, so together with a phallic picture ... let's not go there.
markm at May 17, 2015 7:29 PM
If I remember my high-school French, it is ideomatic; "to give you water" means to nourish or feed you. Think of watering plants.
Cousin Dave at May 18, 2015 9:46 AM
That said, I don't know that I find the bus ad humorous. I think it's kind of trite.
Cousin Dave at May 18, 2015 9:48 AM
From 1991, by columnist Ellen Goodman:
"...Mothers and fathers are expected to screen virtually every aspect of their children's lives. To check the ratings on the movies, to read the labels on the CDs, to find out if there's MTV in the house next door. All the while keeping in touch with school and in their free time, earning a living...
"...It isn't that they can't say no. It's that there's so much more to say no to. Without wallowing in false nostalgia, there has been a fundamental shift. Americans once expected parents to raise their children in accordance with the dominant cultural messages. Today they are expected to raise their children in opposition."
More:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1129&dat=19910820&id=SNc0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=aW4DAAAAIBAJ&pg=2346,5288568&hl=en
lenona at May 18, 2015 9:52 AM
I encourage anyone who doesn't think he/she is an object to test the hypothesis by jumping off a cliff.
Robert Franklin at May 19, 2015 4:25 PM
Leave a comment