You are here

Feminists offended by Tom Ford perfume ad

The feminists at feministing.com are railing at the following perfume advertisement.

Tom Ford perfume ad.

The feministing thread is different from others of its kind since one commentator is aware of Tom Ford being a homosexual, but this person, signing off as “Thomas,” left the following comment:

I hate Tom Ford. He regularly depicts women as objects. This time, he reduced a women to surgically enlarged breasts and an open mouth. He whitened Scarlet Johansson and Kiera Knightly until they looked like china dolls.

Now, I don't accept some straight guy depicting women as sex toys for purchase; but at least that would admit of the excuse that the guy's erotic map was completely shaped by patriarchy and he's too thich to examine why those images resonate with him.

Tom Ford is gay. He can't just say, "well, I show women in the way that turns me on." Instead, he has made a conscious choice to replicate patriarchy and specifically the sexual consumption of female bodies.

Why? Because he has made a clear decision in how to market to men: entitlement. Think you deserve to use women as objects? Want to feel powerful the relate to others as peons? Want to reaffirm your status at the top of the hierarchy with every purchase? Tom Ford is the product line for you!

Patriarchy still gets blamed!  Why would patriarchy favor an apparently masculinized model (note fake breasts; woman likely close to being naturally flat-chested)?

Here is another such ad that ticked off feminists who apparently didn’t know that the designers, Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana, are both homosexual:

Dolce and Gabbana ad.

There are a lot of similar ads that homosexuals in the fashion business have come up with, and I think I should compile a bunch of these to educate feminists just who are the people behind these ads.

Consider the ads above in light of a comment that Danielle addressed to me elsewhere:

You have no real appreciation for artistic nuance and unusual beauty. Your aesthetic panders to the lowest common denominator. It is no wonder that you feel that some of the nudes on this site are artistic. It is also no wonder that you have no appreciation for high fashion and for some of the incredibly beautiful clothes and photographs that gay designers and photographers produce. A fashion editorial could have beautiful lighting, location and contrasts and you would look past this and past the styling and poses of the model. Your eyes would be critically drawn to the models physique and so called “masculine” features. You can’t appreciate art or true beauty because you are a narrow minded dullard.

Some fine artistic value in the two ads shown above, isn't there?

Categories: 

Comments

The Dolce & Gabbana ad IS of artistic value. The overall message/feeling may not be pleasing to some, but their skin, her face, the background, etc. etc. is beautifully done.

Oh and those men in that ad are obviously flaming homos.

Feminism concentrates on a wide array of issues and feminists and feminist theories are very diverse and sometimes conflicting. The title of your post should say "SOME feminists offended by Tom Ford" not all feminists have the same views and they aren't a monolith. You don’t seem to think that gay men can be “agents of the patriarchy” which means that you apparently have a very rudimentary grasp of prominent feminist theory. Gay men and straight, gay, and bisexual women can both actively and passively participate in the oppression of women. I hope you aren't serious when you say that you hope to "educate" feminists. I would bet a million dollars that loads of feminists would have serious issues with almost all of the articles on your site. I do agree with some feminist thinking but I have a lot of opinions that conflict with a lot of "feminist ideals" so don't try to paint as a militant feminist in any of your posts. I am sure that a lot of feminists would be offended by some of the stuff I have said about your nude "models".

Those two ads aren't particularly tasteful. I can see why some feminists would dislike them. The images are very vulgar especially the Tom Ford ad but these images aren't completely devoid of artistic merit. As the poster above me said, the styling and the photography in the D&G ad is quite professional at least it’s far more professional than any image you have placed on your site. I hope you aren't trying to convince anyone that these ads are representations of the typical high fashion ad. You may find many more raunchy ads especially by houses like D&G, who like to promote a raunchy highly sexual image of their products but these are by no means the standard fare for high fashion ads. Ads tend to be on the blander side of fashion photography. Fashion editorials are typically more creative and interesting than ads which blatantly try to push a brand name. I wouldn’t try to paint all of the high fashion as a pure world of art and beauty. No industry is like that and fashion houses often attempt to sell sex as part of the allure of their brand. Fashion designers aren’t all born equal and not all fashion houses are just about the beautiful clothes.

Sarah: Do you believe the D&G ad is about skin, make-up and background? Fashion photographs typically feature good looking skin and the photography is professional.

Danielle: LOL!

Quote:

"You don’t seem to think that gay men can be “agents of the patriarchy” which means that you apparently have a very rudimentary grasp of prominent feminist theory. Gay men and straight, gay, and bisexual women can both actively and passively participate in the oppression of women."

You got an F in Women’s Studies 101. Basic feminist premise: the oppressed cannot be oppressors. Read Thomas’ comment; heteropatriarchy is still blamed for a homosexual’s choice.

I have never portrayed you as a feminist, let alone a militant one. I have also not argued that feminists focus on a narrow range of issues or that there is not much diversity in feminist theorizing, but in order for someone to be designated a feminist, this person must either share some beliefs with other feminists but not with non-feminists or possess multiple beliefs disproportionately found in feminists such that the set of these beliefs separates very well the feminist cluster from the non-feminist one.

What kind of education do you think I am trying to impart to feminists? I am going to make it clear to them that none of their perspectives can blame heteropatriarchy for what the homosexuals in the fashion business are doing. They will hate this, but will not be able to argue against it.

Styling and photography are not what the D&G ad is about. You said that I am a narrow-minded dullard and hence can’t appreciate art or true beauty. So I decided to show some art samples from the fashion world. There are many other similar examples, which is not to say that such examples are the norm.

I haven't failed anything Eric. The term "oppressed" covers a very wide range of people. Poor people are oppressed but poor men can and do oppress poor women. People of color are oppressed but men of color can and do oppress women of color. Straight women can oppress gay women and they certainly have privilege over them. To say that the oppressed can't be oppressors is very simplistic and denies the layers of oppression and the existence of privilege with regards to race, class, gender, sexuality and sex in western society. There have been great rifts in feminist movement because of the reality that white, straight and middle to upper class people have privilege and many feminists who fit this description failed to recognize this or ignored the ways in which they may have used their privilege to oppress others. To say that the oppressed can't be oppressors is the kind of thinking that I expect from a narrow-minded dullard like you.

Tom Ford, Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana are gay but they are also WHITE, RICH and MALE. They have more power than a lot of people and they are quite capable of using this power to oppress others. We all have to live and survive in this society so in many ways we are complicit with hetero-patriarchy. We may comply or act as agents of the patriarchy for power or comfort or basic survival. One feminist's view does not deny the views of thousands of other feminists and no one theory has really been proven to be more right than the other so Thomas' comment changes nothing. YOU are the one who would have failed Women’s Studies.

What the hell is the D&G ad about? What are all ads about? They want to sell a product. The D&G ad is trying to sell a product by being vulgar and provocative. You mentioned artistry and I replied that the ad is not devoid of artistry regardless of the unsavory poses and message. There have been millions of fashion ads in print and video. Will you find many racy or even vulgar fashion advertisements? YES! Are all fashion ads vulgar? NO!! Are most fashion ads vulgar? I don't think so but vulgar ads are common. Once again, I never said that the high fashion industry was a pure world of art and beauty. Like every other business, the high fashion industry has a dark side or a down side.

While many fashion houses or designers rely on vulgar tricks to help sell their products, not all or even most houses and designers do this. A lot of designers have made and still make stunningly beautiful clothes. They also manage to sell their products without shocking or disgusting images. Dolce and Gabbana and Tom Ford have made some stunning clothes, if you can believe that, but they rely on a shocking and racy image to sell their products. In western society, advertisers are heavily reliant on sex and scandal to sell their products. It is marketing 101. The fashion industry is no different than any other industry in that regard. If your product can be sold with sex then advertisers will probably try to sell it that way at least once. Like every other industry there are many people who use more ethical means of getting their products out there. I wouldn't use two ads or twenty ads or even two hundred ads to broad brush MILLIONS of fashion ads but then again, I'm not a narrow-minded dullard like you.

Danielle: You have again shown why you got an F. Here is how the oppression stuff works according to feminism, which may not be clear to non-feminists in my previous terse statement. Colored men can oppress colored women, like you have said, but this is an example of male on female oppression, which is part of feminism; this is not an example of oppression involving ethnicity. In other words it isn’t that colored men are/were oppressed by colored women and have now turned out to be the oppressors of colored women.

More examples of what is acceptable and what isn’t within a feminist outlook:

Quote:

Acceptable: White homosexuals oppressing colored homosexuals (straightforward white on colored oppression; sexual orientation not a factor).
Unacceptable: White homosexuals oppressing white heterosexuals (ethnicity not a factor).

Acceptable: Rich African-Americans oppressing poor African-Americans (straightforward class issue; ethnicity not a factor).
Unacceptable: African-Americans oppressing whites.

Some examples of possible oppression can be complex. You mention D&G being rich, white and male. So can they oppress? Feminist theories allows them to oppress the poor, non-whites and women provided that sexual orientation does not matter because none of these acts would be an example of the oppressed being the oppressor, but feminist theories do not allow them to oppress heterosexuals. So when you have a possible case of white homosexual men oppressing white heterosexual women, feminists will either ignore it or address it like Thomas to show that this is not an example of oppression by the homosexuals, and you have expressed something similar (ultimately blaming heterosexual men):

Quote:

"We all have to live and survive in this society so in many ways we are complicit with hetero-patriarchy. We may comply or act as agents of the patriarchy for power or comfort or basic survival."

I see you are again trying to get out of your earlier portrayal of the artistic fashion industry. I have never implied that all fashion ads are equivalent to the two above, and have for long maintained that the homosexual designers dominate the business because they often design very good looking clothes. But the fact is that when you talk about advertisers in Western societies heavily relying on sex and scandal to sell products, you need to note that if the advertisement is a product of the fashion industry, then this industry is dominated by homosexual men. Don’t blame heterosexual men for what these homosexuals do.

Why the hell do you think that any form of oppression is acceptable within a feminist outlook? Feminists tend to focus on sex-based oppression or sexism but many feminists are sensitive to other forms of oppression and acknowledge that oppression is experienced simultaneously for many people. Are you aware that black and chicana feminists exist? Where in gods name did you get the idea that most feminists think that class based oppression or homosexual oppression of straights is ok? Which feminist theories are you referring to? I don't think any feminist could ever make such ridiculous, callous arguments and ever be respected or taken seriously by most prominent feminists and feminist groups. You are so fucking ignorant that it is mind-boggling. You live in a world of your own creation. You make up definitions and make outlandish assumptions and interpretations when they suit your stupid arguments.

Why don't you contact those offended feminists or try any feminist blog and ask them if they think that those forms of oppression are acceptable. Those forms of oppression are very uncommon in western societies so you are only including them to set up a straw man argument. There is really no one feminist outlook anyway so your points are useless.

How the hell did I try to get out of any portrayals? Did I make these ads Eric? What do I have to get out of? You gave two measly examples of nasty fashion ads and then you used them to try and refute my point that you have no appreciation of artistry. If you did not intend for these images to be examples of typical high fashion ads then why did you post them? What point where you trying to make? You still did nothing to defend yourself against my accusation of narrow-mindedness. You don't know what artistry is. You are a dullard. You have bad taste. You are also a racist, homophobic, sexist, ignorant asshat.

PS. No one uses the word "colored" to describe people of color anymore. Please try and describe people of color as coloreds within earshot of a black or Mexican gang.

PPS. You are a fucking moron!!!

A lot of very prominent feminist groups and feminist theory contradicts your bullshit statements about "acceptable oppression" Eric. Here are some sources that call bullshit on your dumbass, made up "feminist" theories.

NOW and Racial and Ethnic Diversity

NOW condemns the racism that inflicts a double burden of race and sex discrimination on women of color. Seeing human rights as indivisible, we are committed to identifying and fighting against those barriers to equality and justice that are imposed by racism. A leader in the struggle for civil rights since its inception in 1966, NOW is committed to diversifying our movement, and we continue to fight for equal opportunities for women of color in all areas including employment, education and reproductive rights.

source: National Organization for Women (NOW)
http://www.now.org/issues/diverse/

Feminist Perspectives on Class and Work

The relation of women as a social group to the analysis of economic class has spurred political debates within both Marxist and feminist circles as to whether women's movements challenging male domination can assume a common set of women's interests across race, ethnicity, and class. If there are no such interests, on what can a viable women's movement be based, and how can it evade promoting primarily the interests of white middle class and wealthy women?

source: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-class/

Danielle: Foolish woman, when I mentioned what is acceptable, I obviously implied what notion is acceptable, not what form of oppression is acceptable. In other words, feminists do not have a problem with the notion of men oppressing women, but obviously object to this form of oppression.

In a previous reply, I stated, “There are many other similar examples, which is not to say that such examples are the norm.” So don’t accuse me of using the two examples to illustrate ads typical of the fashion world. You have tried to get out of your portrayal of my lack of artistic appreciation by praising the fashion industry in a comment elsewhere, which I reproduced above. There are a lot more than mere “two measly examples of nasty fashion ads”; feast your eyes. Defend these fine examples of fashion world artistry. Anyone with sufficient money can afford a good photographer and a good artist to airbrush pictures, so don’t bother with these variables.

I don’t have to defend myself against your charge that I am narrow minded. This doesn’t follow from anything that I have posted. I wouldn’t try to suppress or outlaw these ads; my problem is with feminists blaming heteropatriarchy for it.

You have used the phrase “people of color” but say that “colored” is unacceptable. Very bright! But what does one expect from someone who uses profanity and insults galore to make her points?

Most people of color would be offended by the term "colored" but would not take issue with the term "people of color" Many people of color use that term to describe themselves. I have never heard modern black, latino, native or asian people describe themselves as "colored". "Colored" is an outdated term that was used to describe blacks during a period of heavy oppression. It is not used now, dickhead. What is the point of stating that feminists don't have a problem with the notion of female oppression? It should be very obvious that they don't have a problem with the notion since all of them feel that female oppresion exists and believe that it should be done away with. If it is the notions that they are fine with then how does that refute my earlier points that the oppressed can be oppressors. You just threw out some bullshit arguments. It is NOT clear that you were talking about which notions of oppression that feminists find "acceptable".

I have praised the artistry in the fashion industry becuase there is artistry there which you don't seem to appreciate. I have said over and over again that many designers use sex to sell their products, fool. READ some of my posts. I questioned why you put up these two images. Are they examples of how fashion ads can be vulgar and distasteful? I agree that many fashion ads are distasteful but how does that refute my point about you not appreciating the beauty in high fashion editorials and clothes? I have NEVER defended the subject matter or degrading poses in these ads. I HAVE stated that they are not deviod of artistry. Of course anyone with lots of money can hire a good photographer and stylist but do you actually appreciate the photography in high fashion editorials? Good photographers and stylists and designers don't fall out of sky. Can you actually appreciate the SOME of the work they create?

Every single image on your site is tacky and trashy. I can come up with so MANY beautiful, tasteful images from high fashion. Can you come up with one picture from your nude model sites that is artistic? Can you find any images of "feminine" beauty in classical western art? Your site is dominated by nasty soft porn models and even your art page is filled with sleaze. Are there any pictures you can find that weren't created as wank material for losers? I haven't seen any indication on your site that you appreciate beauty that is not sleazy or degrading. If you present your ideal of "femininity" in this context then it becomes very unappealing.

These ads can certainly be blamed on hetero-patriarchy. You think you understand feminism better than feminists. You are so full of shit that you have no place calling anyone foolish. These ads are sexually degrading. They could be created by and marketed by women but they would still be degrading to women. Homosexuality doesn't give anyone a free pass to degrade women. We all live in a hetero-patriarchal society. Tom Ford and Dolce and Gabbana are using degrading, gendered and sexualized imagery to sell their products. The images they are using are reinforcing harmful gender norms that are a staple of the patriarchy. Who do you think Tom Ford's ad is targeting? Straight men! I don't care how "masculinized" the models chest supposedly looks. It is a woman with a cologne bottle between her breasts. A lot of straight men respond favorably to sexualized images of women. If he wanted gay men to buy it he would have used homoerotic imagery. Designers have never been known to shy away from homoeroticism. Gay men would respond favorably to attractive men. You don't seem to understand that fundamentally gay men want the cock and they don't need to use "masculinized" pussy as a replacement.

Oh and the opressed becoming the opressor thing does not mean that women will turn around and oppress men and blacks will start oppressing whites. It means that white women can turn around and oppress people who are poorer, less educated and less anglo than they are. Oppressed groups will turn to the people lower on the totem pole and oppress them. gay men are oppressed but they can oppress other that have less power than they do. This was my entire point. No one oppresses rich, white, straight men. They have the power. The western world is built to keep them on top.

Danielle: So many non-whites refer to themselves as “people of color” but most will be offended if referred to as “colored”? This is ridiculous.

The point of stating that feminists don’t have a problem with the notion of female oppression...was to illustrate the difference between acceptability/acknowledgment of the existence of a form of oppression (what was implied) and the acceptability of the given oppression (what was not implied). When replying to people as bright as you, it is apparently necessary to elaborate like this.

None of your examples of the oppressed being oppressors go against the forms of oppression that feminists acknowledge. For instance, you implicitly refer to the oppression of non-whites by whites but give an example of non-white males engaging in oppression by oppressing non-white women, the possibility of which is acknowledged within the domain of feminist thought since this a simple case of male on female oppression. In other words, in your example, the oppressed are victims of ethnic oppression, but the oppressed oppress in the form of gender oppression against their co-ethnics, not oppress against other ethnicities, especially white. If, for instance, you acknowledge non-white males oppressing white males, then you are outside the domain of feminist theoretical underpinnings, and you have not provided any such example. So you have not even made a point about the oppressed being oppressors in reference to feminist thinking that needs to be refuted. You have acknowledged that “the opressed becoming the opressor thing does not mean that women will turn around and oppress men and blacks will start oppressing whites.”

Quote:

"No one oppresses rich, white, straight men. They have the power. The western world is built to keep them on top."

Tell this to John Rocker (white Baseball player), fined for making a politically insensitive comment whereas Shaquille O’Neal didn’t get into trouble after making a political insensitive comment about the Chinese language in reference to Yao Ming. Tell this to the Duke Lacrosse players. Also tell this to all the white men who have lost jobs to less qualified non-whites and women.

Where have I stated that all of fashion imagery is devoid of artistic merit? You have assumed that I don’t appreciate any of it and then ask me whether I can appreciate some of their work. Your assumption is groundless. I have seen well done fashion ads and have appreciated them.

There are plenty of pictures of artistic nudes within this site, but you either have no appreciation for them or will not acknowledge it. For instance, what is trashy about this? Why do you bring up Classical Western art? The Church ruled Europe for a long time, suppressed art and whatever little art was allowed by it had to deal with Biblical themes; art that could incite lust (feminine beauty) was forbidden. Before the advent of Christianity there was no paper so you wouldn’t see ultra-realistic female nudes on paper, and many paintings from such a long time ago would be lost anyway. The form of ancient art you would expect to survive the ravages of time would be sculptures, and it takes great skill to come up with very realistic human forms in stone if you are limited to using a chisel and hammer. There is sketchy evidence that the development of very sophisticated artistic skills requires that some parts of the brain be shaped by high amounts of androgens, and there is evidence that many homosexual men owe their homosexuality to excess prenatal testosterone exposure. Therefore, you would expect homosexual men to be sharply overrepresented among the great ancient artists as in Classical Greece. So these homosexuals would come up with masculinized female forms in their sculptures and an influential one could easily have established an art school where students had to produce art consistent with this individual’s taste. So don’t bring up the dearth of feminine beauty in Classical art.

So when the homosexuals use “degrading, gendered and sexualized imagery to sell their products,” it is still heterosexual men’s fault presumably because the imagery caters to heterosexual men’s interests/the staple of gendered norms they have created? Why the hell don’t the homosexuals then use feminine women as fashion models? What has made the homosexuals affected by heteropatriarchy when it comes to the imagery in fashion ads but not in the choice of the female models? Stop posting nonsense.

Exclusively homosexual men obviously want men, not masculinized women, but the great majority of self-identified homosexual men are not lifetime-exclusive homosexuals; most have gone through a bisexual phase. There are plenty of people with some level of bisexual interests in the fashion business. In addition, homosexual designers couldn’t get away with using boys in their early adolescence as male models and come up with the best substitute: masculinized thin teenage girls.

I would like to know what feminist theories and views that you are referencing Eric. You never implied anywhere in your post that you were talking about the acceptability of notions of oppression. You may have been thinking this in your stupid little head but you did not type it. I can't read your twisted mind through a computer screen Eric. I wonder where you learned all this surprising information about the views of feminists.

My point was that oppressed people (straight men of color) still have power over others and still have the ability to oppress others (women of color, gay people of color). Most feminists are quite comfortable with that notion. You said that feminists should not blame the patriarchy when gay men make these nasty ads and I say that EVERYONE lives under the patriarchy. We get our ideas about gender from the patriarchy. Many feminists argue that images like this could not EXIST or be CONCIEVED of it they weren't planted in our heads by the sexist patriarchy. What is so hard to understand? Are you thrown off by the supposedly "masculine" looks of the female models? "Masculine" women can still be sexualized and brutalized Eric. The ad wasn't made so that the world could appreciate feminine beauty Eric. The ad was made so that it could sell a product with shocking, sexually provocative imagery.

Rich, white men are at the top of the totem pole Eric. Minorities and white women couldn't "take" white male jobs if rich, white men didn't appoint them. Who made John Rocker pay the fines Eric? Who let Shaquille O’Neal off he hook Eric? Minorities? Wrong!!! It’s the rich white men that control Major league baseball and the NBA. Don’t try and pull any poor little rich, white guy bullshit.

You don't have any artistic pictures on your site Eric. There are no artistic nudes in your attractive women section. The picture of that girl isn't particularly vulgar. She isn't bending over to show her crotch or anything but the image was created to make men horny. What do you consider artistic Eric? Those are just pictures. Most of them are very vulgar. The others are just pictures of nude women. I can take pictures with a disposable camera Eric. It does not make my pictures artistic. There is no creative photography, use of lighting, color contrasting or story telling in these images. No impressive skill or talent was involved with the creation of any of those shots. None of these pictures have any shallow or complex messages to convey. They are just “sexy” pictures.

I brought up classical western art because way more skill is involved in the creation of these images than the pinups in your art section. A lot of the art on your page is as vulgar as your nude model pictures. I thought that including classical nude images would help remedy your sleaze problem. I also wondered if any of the widely praised classical nude images met your "feminine" standards. Maybe I should have clarified that when I said classical art I was not only referring to Greek and Greco-roman art. I was referring primarily to the female nude paintings, sculptures, drawings and engravings from the renaissance to the 19th century. Classical art was a bad label.

Everyone is affected by hetero-patriarchy you bozo. Yes, even the evil gays are affected by the gender roles and sexual roles created by the patriarchy. Try actually reading some feminist texts about the issue instead of pulling things out of your ass. I don't agree with your definition of feminine. I will never agree with you so don't ask me why gay men don't use feminine models. I think that they do. You wonder why the patriarchy would approve of the “masculine” models in these ads. The patriarchy approves of objectifying and degrading women no matter how they look. You may not think these high fashion models are attractive but unattractive women can be and are sexualized as well. All women can be degraded and sexually objectified under the patriarchy.

Erik asks, "Patriarchy still gets blamed! Why would patriarchy favor an apparently masculinized model (note fake breasts; woman likely close to being naturally flat-chested)?" Everything is patriarchy's fault. Patriarchy might not favor masculinized female models, but it supposedly indoctrinates Tom Ford to oppress women. Patriarchy moves in mysterious ways.

Within a feminist framework, virtually anything goes if it involves blaming heteropatriarchy, and by extension, straight men. However, that framework is not a rational or coherent one. As Erik argues, if gay fashion designers were trying to please straight men, they would use models that typical straight men find most attractive.

Although images used by gay fashion designers aren't optimal for pleasing heterosexual men, would it really be so wrong if they did? To say so would imply that by preferring feminine-looking and beautiful women, straight men are committing an injustice, or that the process that leads them to prefer such women is unjust. Yet a man's body is his property, and he has the right to use it to mate with or date women who fit whatever criteria he has. If men's preferences were "socially constructed," then it might be possible to blame "patriarchy" for the fact that most men prefer feminine women. Yet since femininity appearance is related to health and fertility, a more likely explanation is that men's preferences for femininity are hardwired. If there is nothing unjust about men's preferences in women, then there is nothing unjust about advertising catering to men's preferences in women.

Erik is correct about which oppressions are considered real in a feminist view. Feminists discuss a few of the possible examples of oppression (male-on-female, straight-on-gay, white-on- people of color), and deny the existence of other oppressions (female-on-male, gay-on-straight, and people of color on white). Yet feminists have provided no non-circular or non-obviously-self-serving definitions of "oppression" that justify that denial. Female-male oppression or gay-straight oppression are not mirror images of male-female oppression and straight-gay oppression, but they do exist.

As Erik has observed, one of the most striking examples of gay-on-straight oppression is the oppression of straight women by gay male fashion designers. However, such oppression is difficult to conceptualize with a feminist framework which denies that gays can oppress straights.

Danielle: You have asked me what feminist theories am I referring to. What is the point of answering this question for a person who tells me that I didn’t imply anywhere that I was talking about what notions of oppression are acceptable when I first mentioned examples of oppression that are consistent with a feminist outlook and those that are not? Discussions presuppose some background knowledge, and those lacking it shouldn’t bother discussing the issue. Just consider Hugh Ristik, who is a blogger that focuses on feminism. He had no problems understanding what I was conveying. I wasn’t talking about specific feminist theories, but of a basic premise underlying diverse feminist theories.

Quote:

“My point was that oppressed people (straight men of color) still have power over others and still have the ability to oppress others (women of color, gay people of color).”

I have gotten your point; no need to repeat it. You, on the other hand, have ignored my point, namely that you have yet to acknowledge one example of oppression that goes against feminist premises. I made a clear point that a non-white male victim of white oppression who oppresses a non-white woman of his ethnic background is engaging in male-on-female oppression, the possibility of which feminists acknowledge, but this isn’t an example of the oppressed becoming an oppressor by oppressing in a manner that he suffered under, i.e., ethnicity-based oppression, especially against whites.

So many feminists argue that “images like this could not EXIST or be CONCIEVED of it they weren’t planted in our heads by the sexist patriarchy”? Of course! But the question is why has "sexist heteropatriarchy" completely failed to plant heteropatriarchy’s preference for feminine women into the minds of male homosexuals? Your answer is that you don’t agree with “my definition of feminine” and that homosexual designers use feminine women. If this is the kind of response you are going to come up with, then you need to stop commenting here. If citing anthropological literature and displaying numerous side by side comparisons is not going to convince you that high-fashion models typically have above average masculinization compared to women in general and, on average, to an extent beyond what heterosexual men prefer, then no meaningful discussion is possible between you and me. You need to leave.

You tell me that even gays are affected by the gender and sexual roles created by patriarchy. Do you believe heteropatriarchy favors the sexual role comprising of men accommodating other men’s members in their rectum? Do you believe that heteropatriarchy has a favorable view of effeminate mannerisms, which are much more prevalent among homosexual men than in heterosexual men?

If, according to you, “patriarchy approves of objectifying and degrading women no matter how they look,” then one should observe a wide variety of female looks in the sexist ads, but the variation among the models is narrow and on the masculine side of average, often leaning toward the looks of adolescent boys. Why is this so? Why does the heteropatriarchal influence behind the output of the fashion industry focus on degrading and objectifying primarily masculinized women?

You say that minorities/women wouldn’t be unfairly taking up the jobs of some white men if powerful white men weren’t appointing them. Think about what you are saying. On the one hand, you have powerful white men oppressing others, but on the other hand, they are taking jobs away from white men and giving them to people belonging to the groups that they are oppressing. Makes great sense! Worse, as the adversity.net link shows, hiring less qualified workers results in reduced productivity and sometimes disaster. Are these powerful white men insane? The fact is that employers, rich white men if you prefer, wish to avoid a multi-million dollar class action lawsuit brought up by minorities (anyone who isn’t an able-bodied white heterosexual male) for systematic discrimination against minorities as inferred from their underrepresentation in the workforce, and the employers couldn’t use test scores as a defense since any test that shows minorities to have lesser aptitude will automatically be inferred to be biased against minorities. So it is minority pressure, aided by corrupt lawyers looking to make a killing from class action lawsuits, that sometimes forces a number of powerful white men to hire less qualified minorities over white men. Similarly, minority pressure forced people to fine John Rocker. Powerful white men who are supposedly involved in oppressing minorities are not expected to go after white men who have offended minorities.

Speaking of rich, white, men, wasn't it them who were influential in bankrolling Women's Studies in the first place? How come feminists never mention this?

Hetero-patriarchy does not favor sodomy or "effeminate" behavior in men but it DOES affect the way that gay men view gender. It is preposterous to believe that gay men are unaffected by the social beliefs of the society that they live, work and grow up in. Why don't you tell the gay men who have been bashed because of their "effeminate" mannerisms that hetero-patriarchy does not affect them? Why do you think that so many men fear coming out of the closet? Hetero-patriarchy does not favor homosexuality but it definitely influences the feelings and behavior of many homosexuals. Why is it hard to believe that some gay men might present images of women being brutalized or sexually objectified? They grow up in a society that supports misogynistic attitudes and behaviors. Some feminists even argue that these gay designers are agents of the patriarchy because they aggressively market ridiculously expensive beauty and clothing items to women, which reinforces the patriarchal idea that a woman's looks are incredibly important. Some gay men can and do support the hetero-patriarchy.

I get more convinced that you live in a world of fantasy when I read the stupid bullshit you write. These rich white men aren't getting their arms twisted by TEH EVIL MINORITIES Eric. The reason that these rich, white men may, in rare instances, hire under qualified minorities is because they don't want to appear racist. The reason they hire under qualified minorities is the same reason that some clothing brands affirm that they don't use child labor or canned tuna companies say that dolphins don't get caught in their fishing nets or makeup and shampoo companies say that they don't test their products on animals. No company wants accusations of labor violations, racism or animal cruelty to tarnish their company image and negatively affect profit.

It would more economical to use child labor and regular tuna nets but these companies obviously weighed the pros and cons of adopting these measures and decided that it is better to spend more money on the product than to loose consumers. It is purely business driven but people like you like to think that TEH EVIL MINORITIES are the ones who are being unfair. You want to believe that some greedy lawyer is going to corral all TEH EVIL MIONRITIES together to sue these companies. Even if these lawyers find all the minorities who might have viable claims against the company they are going to have to convince the WHITE, MALE judge that they have a case and then they go to trial with a WHITE, MALE judge presiding. White men are on top in this society. The richest and most powerful people in the western world are white men. They are in the position to oppress everyone else. They are the money and the law. Nice try Eric but no dice.

Danielle said:
Why is it hard to believe that some gay men might present images of women being brutalized or sexually objectified? They grow up in a society that supports misogynistic attitudes and behaviors.

Yes, gay men are influenced by the larger culture, and create sexualized images of women in some cases. However, the common images of women that gay fashion designers create are not images that are most attractive to typical straight men, which appears to be gay fashion designers acting against the goals of "hetero-patriarchy." For example, the skinniness of fashion models is NOT an example of gay men catering to the preferences of straight men, but rather a function of their own aesthetics. Neither straight men nor hetero-patriarchy can be blamed for those aesthetics.

Even if these lawyers find all the minorities who might have viable claims against the company they are going to have to convince the WHITE, MALE judge that they have a case and then they go to trial with a WHITE, MALE judge presiding. White men are on top in this society. The richest and most powerful people in the western world are white men. They are in the position to oppress everyone else.

Yes, the people who are on top are disproportionately straight white men. However, it is a mistake to assume that powerful white men always act in their "class interests;" that's merely a feminist article of faith. Consequently, it cannot be assumed that white male judges are going to rule in the interests of their class.

Above, I gave another example of rich white men acting against their "class interests:" the Ford Foundation and other male philanthropists bankrolling Women's Studies programs. The gender system that feminists call "patriarchy" never has been just about oppressing women and privileging men; some masculinities mandate that men provide for and protect women at a cost to themselves.

If rich, white men were so self-serving, then the movement that serves their interests, the Men's Rights Movement, would be a lot more powerful. Instead, it is relatively obscure.

White men "are the money and the law?" Well, except for the laws that discriminate against them, such as affirmative action and sexual harassment law.

Why do you two keep harping on aesthetics? Try focusing on something other than the looks of the models for a second. Hetero-patriarchy CAN be blamed for the brutalization and objectification in these images. Of course, hetero-patriarchy does not favor the aesthetics of gay men. They are men who sleep with and are attracted to other men for pete’s sake but they are still affected by the hetero-patriarchy views of women. Whether these women are "masculine" or not is a non-issue. The gay designers didn’t invent these misogynistic ideas on their own. I hope you are not using the very small minority that gay designers represent as an indicator of what all gay men find attractive in women.

I don't think that tokenism should be represented as white men not acting in the interests of their class. It is in their interests to not appear to be racist, sexist or classist. They may bankroll some women's studies programs but that does not mean that they don't enact racist, sexist or classist policies. The idea that men must protect and provide for women is just as sexist as the idea that they should brutalize them. Many feminists argue that seeing women as helpless fawns that should be provided for is as problematic as the idea that they are evil and need to controlled and dominated.

Why would rich, white men be in need of a movement that protects them? Their wealth, whiteness and maleness already gives them all the protection they need.

Affirmative action and sexual harassment laws discriminate against white men? I thought sexual harassment laws discriminate people who make repeated unwanted sexual advances toward others. If white men are disproportionately convicted under these laws then that may be a result of their disproportionate power in this society. The men who have enough power in the workforce to pressure others into sexual activity tend to white men. The goal of affirmative action is to give historically oppressed or underprivileged people more access to employment and education opportunities. If you have a problem with affirmative action then take it to the white men who enforce and create these policies.

Dianne, I think we actually agree of some points. I agree that the system that feminists call "hetero-patriarchy" can be blamed for the "objectification in these images." As for "brutalization," I don't see any in these particular images. I also agree with you that the preferences of gay fashion designers in men might not be the same as the preferences of gay men in general.

You say "Whether these women are “masculine” or not is a non-issue. The gay designers didn’t invent these misogynistic ideas on their own."

The high level of masculine features in fashion models is not a "non-issue." It shows that gay fashion designers are oppressing women in a way that is unsanctioned by the heterosexual men who supposedly support "hetero-patriarchy." It also shows that it's possible for gay people to oppress straight people.

I don’t think that tokenism should be represented as white men not acting in the interests of their class. It is in their interests to not appear to be racist, sexist or classist.

I have two problems with your explanation here. First, if rich, straight white men are really so powerful as you say, powerful enough that they don't need the men's rights movement, they why do they even have to care about being racist, sexist, or classist? Why can't they just continue in their evil, oppressive ways?

The second problem is that you are assuming that all actions by rich straight white men in the favor of minorities must be putting on an act. You have supplied no evidence for this explanation, and you can use it to dismiss any positive rich straight white male behavior as self-serving.

The idea that men must protect and provide for women is just as sexist as the idea that they should brutalize them.

Let me get this straight: when men work, and sacrifice their time with their children, their health, and sometimes even their lives, for women... it is not only sexist, but just as sexist as brutalizing them? In your wacky worldview, it is "just as sexist" for the men about the HMS Birkenhead to stay on a sinking ship while loading the women and children onto the lifeboats, as it would be for a group of men to gang-rape women. It's sexist to someone, certainly, but that someone is not women.

Many feminists argue that seeing women as helpless fawns that should be provided for is as problematic as the idea that they are evil and need to controlled and dominated.

That's because feminists can't comprehend any situation in which men are disadvantaged to women's benefit. Do you really think that it's just as bad for women to be seen as helpless as it is for them to be seen as evil? Come on.

Yes, it is misogynistic to view women as helpless and perpetually in need of protection. But let's not pretend that in many circumstances, this view doesn't benefit women at the cost of men. (Which would mean that it's possible to be sexist to both men and women at the same time, another notion that feminists have a lot of trouble comprehending.)

Another example is that in the context of genocide, women (though sometimes brutalized and raped) are often spared, while the men are simply murdered in large numbers. In the Srebrenica massacre in Kosovo where 7-8 thousand were killed, the U.N. peacekeepers had evacuated as many women as possible, while leaving the men behind to die at the hands of the Serbs. Were the U.N. peacekeepers being sexist to the women of Srebrenica, or to the men?

Affirmative action and sexual harassment laws discriminate against white men? I thought sexual harassment laws discriminate people who make repeated unwanted sexual advances toward others.

Sexual harassment is a real phenomenon, and it is a problem. However, laws and education on the subject are too broad and vague.

The goal of affirmative action is to give historically oppressed or underprivileged people more access to employment and education opportunities. If you have a problem with affirmative action then take it to the white men who enforce and create these policies.

The point is that the existence of affirmative action is counter-evidence to the claim that white men are "the money and the law." If Joe White Guy gets denied a job in favor of a less qualified minority, how is he "the money and the law?" I think what you mean to argue is that the people who are "the money and the law" are disproportionately white and male, which is true (though that law isn't always used to the advantage of their class, such as with sexual harassment law). It is not rich white men who have to pay the price of affirmative action: poor and middle-class whites pay it for them.

As for "brutalization," I don't see any in these particular images.

When I say brutalization I am referring to the Dolce & Gabbana ad. The poses suggest that a rape or a gang rape is about to take place.

The high level of masculine features in fashion models is not a “non-issue.” It shows that gay fashion designers are oppressing women in a way that is unsanctioned by the heterosexual men who supposedly support “hetero-patriarchy.” It also shows that it’s possible for gay people to oppress straight people.

These images aren't soley sponsered by gay men and they are certainly sanctioned by straight men. Straight, white men own most of the major fashion labels. Christian Dior and Louis Vuitton are owned by rich, straight, white male Bernard Arnault. Straight, white male Francois Pinault owns Gucci, Yves Saint Laurent, Bogetta Veneta, Alexander Mcqueen and Stella McCartney. Tom Ford partnered up with straight, white male Domenico De Sole in order to start the Tom Ford label. I gaurentee that most of the designers' financial backers are straight, white men.

These men have the power to hire and fire or withdraw their support from these prominent gay designers and appoint designers who promote "feminine" beauty. They provide the resources that these designers use to "promote their aesthetic." They are just as responsible for the message high fashion gives to women as the designers are. It would be incorrect for you or Eric to suggest that straight men have no hand in this.

I have two problems with your explanation here. First, if rich, straight white men are really so powerful as you say, powerful enough that they don’t need the men’s rights movement, they why do they even have to care about being racist, sexist, or classist? Why can’t they just continue in their evil, oppressive ways?

The richest men in the world are business men not dictators. They are much more powerful than 99.99% of individuals but they still rely on consumers to buy their products and make them richer. They don't want to be perceived in a way that may hurt their ability to make money.

The second problem is that you are assuming that all actions by rich straight white men in the favor of minorities must be putting on an act. You have supplied no evidence for this explanation, and you can use it to dismiss any positive rich straight white male behavior as self-serving.

I never assumed that all the actions by straight, rich white men were self serving. I am sure that some of the actions were carried out with pure intentions. I just think it is ridiculous to suggest that these men are being oppressed by feminists or minorities in any way. I was pointing out some reasons why some of these men institute quotas.

Let me get this straight: when men work, and sacrifice their time with their children, their health, and sometimes even their lives, for women… it is not only sexist, but just as sexist as brutalizing them? In your wacky worldview, it is “just as sexist” for the men about the HMS Birkenhead to stay on a sinking ship while loading the women and children onto the lifeboats, as it would be for a group of men to gang-rape women. It’s sexist to someone, certainly, but that someone is not women.

Wow you are certainly using some extreme examples there. HMS Birkenhead situations don't occur everyday and I certainly don't think that giving yur life for a woman is on par with gang rape.

Yes, it is misogynistic to view women as helpless and perpetually in need of protection. But let’s not pretend that in many circumstances, this view doesn’t benefit women at the cost of men. (Which would mean that it’s possible to be sexist to both men and women at the same time, another notion that feminists have a lot of trouble comprehending.)

I have read a few feminist passages that state that the patriarchy hurts both men and women and limits the potential of both groups. Its annoying to see people treat feminists like a monolith when they are anything but. People who call themselves feminists have widely differing views and it is foolish of you to act like you know what they all have trouble comprehending.

Another example is that in the context of genocide, women (though sometimes brutalized and raped) are often spared, while the men are simply murdered in large numbers. In the Srebrenica massacre in Kosovo where 7-8 thousand were killed, the U.N. peacekeepers had evacuated as many women as possible, while leaving the men behind to die at the hands of the Serbs. Were the U.N. peacekeepers being sexist to the women of Srebrenica, or to the men?

Another extreme example! I don't see how this contradicts my statement that seeing women as helpless fawns is just as problamatic as seeing them as evil. These men, who were the sons, fathers and brothers of these women were left to die because they were men and that isnt problamatic?

The point is that the existence of affirmative action is counter-evidence to the claim that white men are “the money and the law.” If Joe White Guy gets denied a job in favor of a less qualified minority, how is he “the money and the law?” I think what you mean to argue is that the people who are “the money and the law” are disproportionately white and male, which is true (though that law isn’t always used to the advantage of their class, such as with sexual harassment law). It is not rich white men who have to pay the price of affirmative action: poor and middle-class whites pay it for them.

This isnt counter-evidence at all. You agreed that white men are overrepresented among the wealty and politically powerful. I was not suggesting that all white men are equally powerful or all have equal status. The average white male isnt as powerful as the average billionaire and I never suggested nor do I believe that they have to "pay the price" of affirative action.

Gentlemen ... you are waisting your time with this Danielle ... thing.
Feminism is a transparent Hoax and she's a True Believer.

Racial/Gender/Sexual proletarians can't oppress each other.

Period.

No matter the amount of counterevidence

They are class pals against The Big Patriarchal Rich-White-Male Conspiracy (BPRWMC)

You see ... that's not sexual harrassment, cause:

- The teachers are Gender Proletarians (women)
- The kids are Age Proletarians (underaged)

And Dog doesn't eat Dog
How can anybody argue against a mentality like that?

For the same reason...
Gays can't be oppressive against Women, cause:

- Gays are Sexual Proletarians
- Women are Gender Proletarians

And Dog ... (etc.)

The blame must lie with The BPRWMC

Somehow ...
Somewhat...

It Follows By Definition.

Der Führer, I know you are upset because you were pwned on Eric's body fat page but that doesn't mean that you should write rubbish under every post I make. I never argued any of those things. Your reading comprehension is so pathetically subpar that I wonder if you managed to graduate middle school. I know that in your twisted little brain you feel some solidarity with Eric but I suspect that Eric doesn't share your fantasies of circle jerking around a bonfire made with Victoria's Secret catalogues. He is not your lover. He doens't need your assistance in taking on my arguments. You can't tackle my posts because you cannot read. Go away, Mighty Mouse.

Whip me... whip me

You're so hardcore ... =)

I luv it.

Der Führer, those angry, sad men just need to get in touch with their feminine sides. They would feel better so would you. I think it would therapeutic and it may help you understand why you feel the need to be Eric's Prince Valiant.

sad men just need to get in touch with their feminine sides

And how could I achieve that?

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/5142N9DYW2L._SS500_.jpg

Forget it, I don't want to know.

Overthrowing the Patriarchy, huh?
And in a place like this, no less.
What a tool...

Get some anger management: kick yourself in the cunt until it feels good
You might get in touch with your bitch side

Erik:

Your answer is that you don’t agree with “my definition of feminine”

No True Scotswoman !

What a genius, this Danielle...

Uh...

Entity.

Let me first say this. Danielle I completely agree with your point of view with these sexist advertisments. you have been faced with an uneducated and uncaring audience.

We are bombarded every day with images of female objectification and the justification of women as sexual objects. what terrifies me the most is that women themselves defend these images as works of art. If this industry was celebrating sex and making art as they claim to be TOM FORD would have no problem opening his mouth like a whore, oiling up his waxed naked body and pushing a bottle of perfume between his balls.

Tom Ford claims that he is an 'equal opportunity objectifier' where are the images of women fully dressed in control with naked men wrapped around them? They dont exist ladies and gentlemen. I'm not saying I want this in the media, what I want is for people to understand the impact of these images and what they are really selling us. It doesnt matter that these designers are homosexual it has nothing to DO with these images. These images are offensive for their content not because of who designed or commisioned them. Being gay doesnt make it ok to produce sexist work. D&Gs advertisment is widely criticed in Universities as an example of sexist advertisment, regardless of the sexual orientation of the models or designers.

Its not just the fact the women shown are naked you ignorant fucks. Its the fact that they are positioned to be consumed to be looked onto as an object- they arent just naked, they are naked and waxed so theyre hairless, oiled up, with painted nails and painted red lips, theyre sprawled across men like garments and now tom ford thinks they should do the laundry naked to. If D&G shows us anything it is that these 'works' thrive off of the idea of male power and entitlement. That is woman in complete submission. What you further forget is that these ads arent criticing sex, they arent criticing form, THEY ARE SELLING YOU SOMETHING. THEY ARE SELLING YOU YOUR FANTASY. AND THAT GENTLEMAN IS WHY YOU GET SO FUCKING OFFENDED WHEN WOMEN REJECT THESE IMAGES.

Danielle doesnt need an anger management class, she like all women needs to be met with equality and RESPECT. Danielle could lead a revolution because she is not alone in the way she thinks.

Danielle is simply a misandrist.

I note that the attack is against 'rich White Men'...yet the vast majority of us are anthing but rich. I also note that nowhere does Danielle acknowledge that white men (not simply rich...but middle class, lower class, 'trailer trash' - a term that is applied exclusively to whites) can be victimized by non-whites, women and homosexuals.

Obvious examples include women who refuse fathers access to their children (the fact fathers are not automatically granted equal access to their children in the first place is an obvious example of sexism and discrimination towards men). Quotas for everything from government jobs to universities to the private sector are a clear example of discrimination. I have yet to hear any woman complain about the obvious bias against boys in school...they are expelled, disciplined and fail at far greater rates than girls...and the vast majority of teachers are women. In one panel discussion (in Toronto) regarding the plight of boys in school, it was mentioned that many boys had no role models in school (esp. at the primary level where over 90% of teachers are women). Not one woman thought that hiring more males was important. The issue was hiring 'qualified teachers' regardless of gender. I wonder how many of these same women would have had the same opinion about 'qualified' people in Senior Management, Politics or in Universities?

In terms of the nonsense about the 'hetero patriarchy' and the oppression of women...how does one compare women in the West vs. genuine patriarchies such as the Islamic world (to criticize how women are oppressed there would be racist. Many feminists claim women are more valued there since they are not on display - nevermind they can't vote - in some cases - can't walk alone, etc). 'Rich white men' own many of the labels...but so do rich white homosexuals. the case for the oppression of women by the 'Heteropatriarchy' clearly loses meaning here when the types of women featured are generally unattractive to men. Wouldn't 'rich white men' want to feature feminine women?

In terms of feminism being a very broad term that encompasses a wide range of diverse views...what is this diversity? Does this include REAL women? Obviously not. This is a standard position held when feminist views are held up to scrutiny. No one is contesting women's right to vote, to run for public office, to start a business, to apply to university, etc. What is being contested is the theorizing and politics.

Christina Hoff Sommers was vilified for daring to question the legitimacy of many of the feminist claims. She too, is a feminist...but has been blacklisted by the so-called 'broad based feminists of diverse opinions' for daring to go against the prevailing gynocracy prevalent in Universities.

Lets get this strait. There is no such thing as gender equality, and the issue at hand here is sexist advertisement against women. The thing that always seems to amaze me is that people assume whenever a woman says 'thats sexist' and reacts against it people seem to feel the urge to justify the action with a counter attack of unrelated facts.

I for one never mentioned white rich men, how much you earn has nothing to do with the sexist nature of the advertisement and again I repeat this is about the sexist nature of advertsiment. Let me put this together for you, just because we have an education crisis that is no doubt global and women are horribly oppressed in many countries around the world does not justify or make ok the production of SEXIST OR OFFENSIVE ADVERTISMENT, that is the long and the short of it. Your sexual orientation is not of any consequence nor is the 'attractiveness' of the models pictured, which by the way is your personal oppinion not that of fact its about the message and intent of the image; it depicts women in submissive poistions and creates sexist unrelistic, offensive messages that go out to men AND women and have huge affects on the masses of impresionable teens that are bombarded with them. This creates disortions in body image and behaviour. It is distressing and it is completely unnecessary but if youd like to talk facts- its was researched and found in Australia that one in five women have experienced sexual violence and one in THREE have experinced physical violence against them. 82% of sexual assult victims in Australia are women and are of an average age between 10 and 19 and 78% of them knew their attackers. This study was carried out by the Australian Government. In an environment where studies have shown the sexualisation of children and young women in the media and an idea that 'womens subservience is sexy' where men are shown in a position of sexual and physical power; there is no doubt these images have an affect. And not just on women- men read these just as women do- destorting their self image and expectations, not only of themselves but of the people around them. This state of consern is not imagined- regardless of the other issues the Converstation at hand is the production of sexist advertisment and this without a doubt creats wide scale problems.

On your comment on feminism, you obviously have no concept of what they are contesting because unfortunately a wide majority of women in our everyday community are given the unfavourable term 'feminist' for wanting things like equal pay to their male co-workers. In Britian it was found that Women recieve 48% less pay than that of their male coworkers doing excatly the same job under the same title, this is below par of such muslim countries as Egypt- and feminists are there because people like you dont understand that equality is more than the right to vote.

I call bullsh*t.

First of all, don't compare the treatment of women from non-Western countries with Western countries: night and day.

Secondly, the study in Australia: post it. What is the definition of 'sexual violence' and how do they know it occurred? Similarly with physical violence.

As for the 'subservience of the women' in the ad...the point was that the individuals who designed it and defended it were homosexuals...which has zero to do with the imaginary 'heteropatriarchy'.

As for your claim about women earning 48% less pay than their male co-workers doing exactly the same job: bullsh*t. Post the study. Here are some facts:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/paygap1109.pdf

Stop spewing the same unsubstantiated claims. Facts speak otherwise.

lets get this sorted you asshole. Youre time wasting and trying to pick a fight. You ahvent addressed the original issue at all- you appear the sort of person who feels threatend by the fact that inequality in first world countries means things have to change and you might have to deal with it; which is sad.

As for you! You presented absolutely no factual information WHATSOEVER, your information was opinion based with no substance and HOW DARE YOU assume that women who claim assult are lying! "how can they prove it happened?" how fucking disgusting can you get- you want your god damned facts here they are- and there is much more where they came from- not written by feminists adn you know what half of them not even written by women, but since you seem to think its such a conspiracy I'm sure theyre secretly women... does that make you feel better? since your so damned sure your right I'm sure it will mean nothing to you any way, beacuse according to you the only facts that exist are ones that support your claims- which I'm yet to see myself.

The point of the matter is you have no concept of the what is wrong with the situation of sexist advertisment, or the topic of concern here- your actually yet to reference it at all; except for the point that tom ford is gay which is again- irrelevent. It is about the CONTENT of the image NOT about who created it- why is that so hard for you to grasp? The long and the short of this situation is when someone is exposed to these images theyre not sitting there thinking 'oh well a gay man made this ad so its ok'- they are reading it as series of expectations. Its selling them there ideals and if you dont believe that read the bottom link thats FuLL of facts that support the distortion of the image of women and how that affects BOTH men and women. SO get off your high horse and talk about the topic. Stop trying to turn it into gender wars because its old and completely beside the point which is SEXIST MEDIA.

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/SP/ViolenceAgainstWomen.htm

http://www.tuc.org.uk/equality/tuc-14435-f0.pdf

http://ezinearticles.com/?Poor-Body-Image-and-Media-Advertising&id=3592554

http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/25/8/1049

Have you watched the film 'The Accused'? Just watch it and you'll see straight away what is wrong with this image.

I don't understand why feminists and that "Thomas" are so angry with Tom Ford. They act as if those women are mere babies who don't think. I remind them that this was their choice and their body. If I saw some promotional items with an "outrageous" ad, I wouldn't care, I would buy that object only if I needed it.

Click here to post a new comment