The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > S*xualised bre*st cancer campaign sending the wrong message > Comments

S*xualised bre*st cancer campaign sending the wrong message : Comments

By Melinda Tankard Reist, published 10/9/2010

Many of the slogans used in bre*st awareness campaigns are about saving boobies, hooters or jugs.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All
Totally agree with this. I have noticed this for some time now, how the focus is on breasts, not on the lives of women. It seems as though you can get away with objectifying women as long as it's for a good cause (PETA does similar things). We need an approach that is respectful to women, while raising funds to save their lives! I don't buy the line 'anything that raises awareness.' No, if raising awareness for one important issue, causes harm in a number of other areas for women (such as women's equality, body image etc.) then we need to think of something different.
Posted by Elka, Friday, 10 September 2010 8:59:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Haha thanks for the Friday funnies.

'I do have an issue with the kind of language used in these campaigns because it emphasises the sexual desirability of breasts'
Breasts are desirable. As are backs, necks, shoulders, and some guys even have a real thing for feet.

'especially as objects for male sexual gratification - and not a woman’s health and wellbeing.'

So they cant be both huh?

I see a trend here. It's almost as if you resent men having sexual gratification Melinda. Men happen to find women attractive. Advertisers use sex to sell stuff. It is possible Melinda, for a man to find a woman sexually attractive, even to look at her breasts, and still respect her as a woman. That happens a lot you know. You seem to you find male sexual desire to be something dirty and perverted, and something not to be displayed or discussed in public.

'The phrase is linked with and suggestive of adolescent males groping girls.'
How disgusting. Does it every occur to you, that many many girls wish to be groped, and in return grope their partners. This stuff is happening all the time. The vast majority of the time it is consensual and enjoyed.

'Using these words in mainstream breast cancer awareness campaigns normalises them and makes them OK'

Good. They are normal, and OK.
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 10 September 2010 10:01:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good points Houellebecq,
Posted by JamesH, Friday, 10 September 2010 10:08:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
you guys are confused; appealing to male sexual gratification has no place in women's health campaigns
Posted by nelle, Friday, 10 September 2010 10:25:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
completely agree Houellebecq, we need to be completely open and frank, this is the 21st century after all!
Posted by Amicus, Friday, 10 September 2010 10:32:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm not sure if mens sexual gratification has any place anywhere in Miranda's world.

Sex sells. The women involved in the campaign don't seem to mind. They're independent mature adult women, and they have decided how they would like to appeal to men in order to get more funding for their cause than others who don't use sex.

Just as men in Movember are happy enough to mock themselves with ridiculous moustaches. Maybe a case could be made in that case that men are appealing to women by appropriating the common stereotype of men as idiots and fools so prevalent in society.

It's advertising.
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 10 September 2010 10:42:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hollywood along the porn industry has desensitized people to anything decent. No wonder we have young girls wanting boob jobs and then slicing their risks when they don't match up. More fruit of our increasing secular society. You are right Melinda but dont expect support from people who have little to no idea of any morality except their own made up kind.
Posted by runner, Friday, 10 September 2010 11:28:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah I really enjoy your posts runner. I love the passion.
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 10 September 2010 11:50:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nelle

Maybe the advertising is appealing to women's sense of humor. It appealed to mine. C'mon, many feminists have worked hard to move beyond the old stereotype of joyless bores looking for opportunities to get offended.
Posted by benk, Friday, 10 September 2010 11:55:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"You would never hear the sentence “She felt him up in the back of the car”.)"

Melinda obviously didn't live in the southern suburbs of Adelaide in the 1970s. This article makes a refreshing change from her anti-abortion rants. It's silly as a hatful of loons but that's OK.

Two points: why the asterisks in the headline?

Why can't authors post their articles first on OLO before they blog them? It seems a common courtesy that if you have something to say, say it first hand here and then reproduce it.
Posted by Cheryl, Friday, 10 September 2010 12:53:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whilst it may get peoples blood boiling talking about the sexualisation of breasts and mens interest in them.

There is also the effect that having a mastectomy may have on a womans feelings about her body.

this a very touchy topic, to discuss, where some women it has little or no effect, and others where it can be very traumatic.

Really concentrating on the sexualisation of breasts is little more than a red herring and a distraction.
Posted by JamesH, Friday, 10 September 2010 1:12:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
so it seems the usual misogynists are at it again today - let's see-

Houellebecq, JamesH, benk... surprised the Shadow Minister isn't on here to blast the article yet.

i just want to say i think this is a fabulous piece, there is no doubt that "cop a feel" is certainly the language of sexual harrassment and we cannot afford to trivialise such matters.

as a young woman i also find it repulsive that what is a normal medical check i give myself and have done to me by my regular doctor (who happens to be a really love male) - is now being sexualised. I have no problem with sex but i also don't expect to have sex thrust upon me.

imagine if this campaign took off (thank goodness it hasn't) - it could actually deter women from getting breast exams because the slogan "cop a feel" implies she's inviting the doctor to "feel her up" etc. how awkward for the doctor as well.

are we really so uncreative as a society that we can't think of other ways to make things matter?
Posted by Sylvie28, Friday, 10 September 2010 1:50:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
it is also devaluing women ... save the breasts because it's male gratification that counts, who cares about the woman attached to them.

girls & women are bombarded again and again with images that teach them that their self worth is measured only by how sexually desirable they are. this merely bleats out that same equation.
Posted by Sylvie28, Friday, 10 September 2010 1:52:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sylvie28,

misogynistis? That's a pretty harsh accusation. I think that says a lot about you. You seem to subscribe to the theory that anyone who doesn't agree with every feminist deconstruction of society hates women. Quite a few women obviously don't agree as evidenced by their participation in the event.

Maybe, just maybe, others aren't as strung up and have confidence in men and women maturely navigating attraction and sex and the body in a mature adult way, rather than feeling the need to view all male sexual desire through a prism of 'objectification', violence, disrespect and perversion.

In short, people confident in their lives and without a chip on their shoulder don't need to read anything into the making light of mens attraction to women's breasts to raise awareness for a good cause. Certainly many women don't feel they are being objectified by a portrayal of men desiring a very sensual part of their body, and happily play an assertive part in the wonderful dance of attraction and desire between men and women.

You may think it out of place in this context, but your tone and flippant use of words like misogyny betrays deep anger that is well out of proportion. I'd love to see your campaign full of morbid music and denying the real loss some women may feel about a part of their body THEY feel is sensual and attractive independent of men's 'gratification'.
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 10 September 2010 2:21:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houellebecq

"misogynistis? That's a pretty harsh accusation. I think that says a lot about you. You seem to subscribe to the theory that anyone who doesn't agree with every feminist deconstruction of society hates women."

actually i'd say it's a pretty accurate accusation. it's based on countless comments you have previously on articles that question gender inequalities in any form. but i'll leave it up to the viewers of these comments to look up your comment history themselves.

i reject your assertion entirely re my supposed belief that anyone who disagrees with "every feminist deconstruction of society" hates women.
Posted by Sylvie28, Friday, 10 September 2010 2:47:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sylvie28, I agree with Houellebecq.

I cant remember who wrote it originally, but basically when women label men misogynists, they are saying "How dare you disagree with me!"

It is a form of manipulation, similar to the socalled negging technique used by socalled pick up artists.

It does appear that anyone who wishes to explore a different point and not be supportive does get labeled as being misogynistic rather frequently and by labeling Houellebecq and myself as being misogynistic it is easier for you to dismiss anything we might be trying to say as being invalid.

And it is a great way for some women to hide their feelings of resentment towards men.
Posted by JamesH, Friday, 10 September 2010 3:20:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
James

Constant claims of sexism reminds me more of the way that accusations of racism used to be thrown around at the height of political correctness. There used to be a limited range of opinions on racial issues that were allowed. Anything else predictably led to accusations of racism. Our society has only recently reached the point where we can have a mature discussion of these racial issues, where a range of viewpoints are respected.

We are still way of reaching that point discussing gendered issues.
Posted by benk, Friday, 10 September 2010 3:50:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a man who has been deeply affected by the impact of breast cancer on several women close to me, I have to agree with everything Melinda Tankard Reist says here. It's saddening that so many respondents here make so little effort to understand her arguments.

The phenomena she describes trivialise breast cancer and marginalise many women who suffer from it. The argument that 'it's advertising' is no argument at all. It may well be 'advertising' - but it's bad advertising, and just as likely to alienate those who most need to hear its message.
Posted by DNB, Friday, 10 September 2010 4:16:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Hollywood along the porn industry has desensitized people to anything decent." @ runner (Friday, 10 September 11:28:02 AM)

Exactly, yet what is the basis of the ethics of those in Hollywood? (hint - it is the same ethic you support)
............................

"that many many girls wish to be groped", Houellebecq, Friday, 10 September 2010 10:01:00 AM

I can appreciate some tongue-in-cheek aspects to your first post (your tongue in your cheek), but that is over-stepping a mark, particularly when it is ambiguous as to whether you mean strangers or possibly the girls partners you allude to separately after the comma.

Then you slide off on a tangent with these strawman fallacies -

"Maybe, just maybe, others aren't as strung up and have confidence in men and women maturely navigating attraction and sex and the body in a mature adult way"

"people confident in their lives and without a chip on their shoulder don't need to read anything into the making light of mens attraction to women's breasts"

@ Houellebecq, Friday, 10 September 2010 2:21:26 PM

Maybe you should have a think about "your tone and flippant use of words"
....................

Talking about manipulative, James, this takes the cake

" it is a great way for some women to hide their feelings of resentment towards men."
Posted by JamesH, Friday, 10 September 2010 3:20:49 PM

As a male, I agree with the general premise that a "S*xualised bre*st cancer campaign sending the wrong message", and you guys support that.
Posted by McReal, Friday, 10 September 2010 4:29:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Siren sounds, Blaaaaah. Yikes, it is another MTR alert - this time featuring boobs!
Worse still, boobs and interested men!!

Oh My God, call Hungry Beast:
http://wn.com/Hungry_Beast_Gullible_Australia?_Gullible_Media

Still, things aren't so bad, at least there hasn't been a body image alert (shudder, shudder), yet.

Next they will be outlawing bottoms.
Posted by Cornflower, Friday, 10 September 2010 5:04:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Really, chaps, breast cancer campaigns are nothing to do with your sexual desires and gratifications. They aren't about you. That's the point of the article.

Just imagine a testicular or prostate cancer campaign that was run along similar lines. I don't think you'd like attention being drawn to your difficulties in getting it up while you are "under reconstruction."

Or would you wear t-shirts proudly proclaiming your "one ball" status?
SOS : Save Our Stones
And I can think of much more, but I doubt OLO would like it.

There's nothing wrong with raunchy sexy language, but there's a time and place and it's not in a breast cancer awareness campaign.
Posted by briar rose, Friday, 10 September 2010 5:42:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
James said: 'I cant remember who wrote it originally, but basically when women label men misogynists, they are saying "How dare you disagree with me!"'

Interesting. Matches my observation that when men label women 'feminists', they are saying, "How dare you disagree with me!"

As for those who don't think there's anything wrong with "Feel them up Friday"...get real. "Feel them up" is not an innocent phrase, nor is "cop a feel". And you think they lend a bit of humour to the cause, you're sadly mistaken.

I'm with Briar Rose - let's sell rubber gloves for a prostate cancer awareness "Feel them up Friday" and see how much fun the boys think that is.
Posted by InTownsville, Friday, 10 September 2010 8:18:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While I think the article was a little over the top as far as protesting about using the sexualisation of breasts in a breast cancer campaign, I can understand why many people would not like those sort of 'advertisements'.

At the end of the day, some women and many men think of breasts in a sexual way, so maybe using these sort of 'out there' campaigns will reach some women that the usual doom and gloom anti-breast cancer campaigns don't reach?

I am sure that most men these days know of at least one woman personally who has suffered breast cancer, and the terrible effect it can have on all family and friends of the victim.

Most men will support any way of educating the women in their lives to the need for checking for breast cancer every month, just as women will support their men checking testes for lumps or having tests for prostate cancer regularly.

I would hate to see a subject as serious as this reduced to a gender argument on this forum.
Posted by suzeonline, Saturday, 11 September 2010 12:56:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not to mention men checking themselves for breast cancer, especially where it runs in their family:

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1675538,00.html

With apologies to the easily offended for the bare breast therein. Sexualisation of males, goodness gracious!
Posted by Cornflower, Saturday, 11 September 2010 1:25:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How is 'breast' a word worth censoring in the title?.
Posted by StG, Saturday, 11 September 2010 7:17:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Firstly health awareness programs have in the past appealed to a persons sense of responsibility. Just look at the worksafe ads for dads, whilst the breast cancer program takes a different angle.

<When we place women’s value in the maintenance of their sexualised body parts,>

there is a truckload of research on how women feel about their self image after having a mastectomy and this research was done prior to the current campaign that the author finds so objectionable.

Secondly surgeons, in the past tried their best to preserve the breast where possible, and women have reconstructive surgery.

Many women themselves place a big value on keeping their own body parts intact.

In fact the loss of any body part(not just breasts) or scaring can have an affect a persons sense of selfworth.

Talk to paralegics or quads, amputees.

<rather than their subjectivity, we license insidious forms of physical, structural and mental violence.”>

With out actually saying it Melinda, implies that male sexual gratification or desire is a bad thing, her own subjective bias is showing as she herself licenses insidious structural and mental violence.

<One of the most ironic effects of boob-centric breast cancer campaigns is their complete exclusion of breast cancer survivors who have had mastectomies.> This is a lie.

There has been a breast cancer campaigns in the past that did feature women who had had mastectomies. I remember seeing the pictures of women with one or both breasts removed, and thinking how brave and courageous they were to do this.
Posted by JamesH, Saturday, 11 September 2010 7:56:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Myrna Blythe author of Spin Sisters, wrotes about how women of the media sell unhappiness to women.

“Believe me, I know the formula: disease and diets, sob stories and social issues, and stress, stress, stress. And I know the impact such a formula can have on one's ideas.."
http://www.bookreporter.com/reviews2/0312312873.asp

<“Women’s magazines can be like bad boyfriends. They’ll tear you down, then spend pages trying to build you back up.”>

Is this not, as Melinda says, <we license insidious forms of physical, structural and mental violence.”>

Depending on words or phrases used different meanings or connotations can be implied. For example Melinda uses ‘groping’ instead of “touching tenderly” so by using the word groping she insidiously implies violence. Then she progresses to fear mongering and generalisation <Thousands of violent acts against women, including battery, rape and murder, are committed because the perpetrator views his victim as nothing more than an object created for his pleasure.> Please note that she follows the formula as set out above.

According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, on the physiological level, sex shares, the same space and food, water, breathing, sleeping and excretion. On the level of Loving/belonging sexual intimacy, it is equal with family and friends.

Without doubt, heterosexual men are attracted to women’s bodies, and there is a huge industry that exploits this attraction, and some or a lot of women both desire and resent this. One can find comments made by women, that if their partner does not try to have sex with them, they feel that they are unattractive or rejected.

Sexual attraction (objectification) is part of the formula for developing relationships and maintaining them. It wasn’t that long ago that feminists, claimed that marriage was a patriarchal construct designed to keep women oppressed, yet it is amazing how many of the oppressed, today, still want to marry an oppressor.

Melinda wrote, “men use women’s bodies for their pleasure”, and yet often the feminist literature, seems to take the view that women do not ever receive pleasure or enjoyment from such acts. Sounds a bit like the old Victorian oppressive morality
Posted by JamesH, Saturday, 11 September 2010 10:35:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Frankly I find it irritating that this author prattles on about the sexualisation of an advertisment about breast cancer.

Any advertisement that draws attention to any cancer is worthwhile if it encourages donations to cure or prevent cancer, be it breast or other. If they highlighted the fact that prostate cancer makes men impotent,so much the better if more donations are forthcoming.

Pity she would not spend her time highlighting some real issues such as forced marriages and FGM. Surely she must realize that little girls, here in Aus, are held down while pieces are cut off their genitals and those a few years older are forced to marry some old bloke because that is what her father wants.

The politicians have made themselves feel good by making both against the law, but have never enforced the law.

We as a society turn a blind eye to these activities because they are cultural. How about some critisism and action here.
Posted by Banjo, Saturday, 11 September 2010 11:31:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah well, A few years ago I had a testicle removed as a result of prostrate cancer, vain enough to have a falsie implanted to keep the boys looking equal, but never noticed any sexualised advertising of men's dicks - not sure how I'd feel about it if we were subjected to dick pics the way we are to hooter snaps.

While I find Melinda T-R a tired old bore on many subjects - my girlfriend hates her, I don't see how pandering to us men helps to create concern and sympathy for cancer sufferers. We see cleavage and breasts used for advertising every from shaving cream to cars, so using a sexualised approach to cancer awareness not really getting the message across - who thought this campaign up? Hugh Hefner?

I am in remission, have been for years am grateful for every single day, would love to see a campaign sexualising dicks for prostrate cancer awareness.

Aaaah, but that will never happen. To other men who think it is all a bit of a 'hoot' try to consider how women might feel - sh^t, strike that, just imagine if it is your sister or daughter - think about her breasts for while.
Posted by Johnny Rotten, Saturday, 11 September 2010 11:53:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well I thought the video offensive. All the men in the ad were portrayed as being stupid. This occurs so often in the media that I am certain that portraying men in this way must be taught to media students at university.

Something overlooked by the author are the ads for Girls Night In run by the Cancer Council, which are often offensive. A series of these ads had a man tied by the hands and feet and gagged and left in a cupboard.

This appeared in full page advertisements in a number of women’s magazines, but it is an illegal act displaying domestic violence carried out on a male.

After all has been said regards domestic violence, not one academic feminist in any Australian university complained about this ad, which only goes to show.
Posted by vanna, Saturday, 11 September 2010 1:44:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sylvie28,

'i reject your assertion entirely re my supposed belief that anyone who disagrees with "every feminist deconstruction of society" hates women.'

but,

'it's based on countless comments you have previously on articles that question gender inequalities in any form.'

So then, it's not when anyone disagrees, it's just when I disagree.

I would say questioning gender inequalities as presented by feminists has nothing to do with misogyny. One can very easily disagree with assertions of inequality by feminists while not hating women. Many women actually do just that.

McReal,

'but that is over-stepping a mark, particularly when it is ambiguous as to whether you mean strangers or possibly the girls partners you allude to separately after the comma.'

You are splitting hairs to make a point. Perhaps my grammar isn't up to your standards, but my meaning is hardly ambiguous. Is it so offensive to use the word grope without connotations of sexual asault? I think your reading of my post demonstrates the biassed representation of sexual dynamics the author wants us all to accept as a given. Part of my point here is a rejection of this assumed predatory dynamic that is overlayed whenever male sexual desire is discussed. I make no apologies for rejecting this landscape and refusing to see male sexual desire exclusively in terms of 'objectification', violence, disrespect and perversion.

'Maybe you should have a think about "your tone and flippant use of words"'

In response to being personally and directly labelled a misogynist without provocation; I don't think so.
Posted by Houellebecq, Saturday, 11 September 2010 2:02:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Melinda is saying that the breast cancer foundation only wants money from those who are pure of heart?

Irrespective of how good a message is, if it is continually repeated people stop listening. Sometimes advertisers deliberately put up something slightly off message and spicy to re capture people's attention. This ad was a prime example.

God forbid that anyone should forget that breasts are only for suckling infants and should feel that they are any part of a woman's sexual identity. Likewise sex is for reproduction and only those doomed to hell pursue it for pleasure.

MTR is an advocate of the religious right masquerading in feminist's clothing.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Sunday, 12 September 2010 5:39:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vanna, I never saw those ads, but they sound pretty interesting.

I'm not sure why you expect feminist academics to be the ones to speak out against them. Why don't men make a noise about them if they are offensive?

The fact that not one man apparently complained about the ad also goes to show, but exactly what it shows, I'm not sure yet.

Bound and gagged and left in a cupboard - ambiguous imagery. Can understand why not everyone would take to it.
Posted by briar rose, Sunday, 12 September 2010 7:16:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
briar rose:"Why don't men make a noise about them if they are offensive?"

Men have made a noise, but there is no cause for action under siscrimination legislation, simply because the legislation doesn't recognise that it is possible for men to be offended in this way. If it was a female being tied up, the Anti-Discrimination Commission would be all over it.

I normally can't be bothered with Melinda's puff-pieces. She's a bandwagon-rider and little more. What she does do well is draw attention to the uncritical way some women respond to any story about women that casrs women as victims.

The "damsel in distress" seems to be alive and well and looking for a heroic prince...(as long as he doesn't expect a kiss for his trouble).
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 12 September 2010 7:56:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anti
A heroic prince would not expect a kiss otherwise it would not be a heroic act (ie. expecting something in return).

I agree heartily with the comments by briar rose and Johnny Rotten. It seems anytime anyone mentions sexualisation the outrage committee come out in droves.

There is a time and a place for sexuality and a time for health/medical concerns. I suspect the advertiser's intention was well meant and perhaps some advertising guru suggested highlighting the sexual nature and attraction of breasts, and how this is important to women, would be a way of bringing attention to breast cancer.

It just isn't appropriate I reckon in this context. Would men feel the same way if the same strategy was used for the pen*s? I don't know - maybe they wouldn't but I doubt it would make it to the cutting room floor.
Posted by pelican, Sunday, 12 September 2010 10:46:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
briar rose, "I'm not sure why you expect feminist academics to be the ones to speak out against them."

Which is the very point that vanna has argued in a number of threads. He was asking for some academic independence and balance, which is not unreasonable. Or are others right in presuming that the qualifier 'feminist' automatically rules that out?

It would have been easier and more credible for you to acknowledge the point made rather than struggle with weasel words as you have done, "Bound and gagged and left in a cupboard - ambiguous imagery. Can understand why not everyone would take to it". Not much ambiguous about being confined against one's will one would have thought and yes, had it been a woman not a man there would have been a outcry from those with your 'take' of feminism given your knee-jerk reaction to the subject advertisement, which is what some are saying.

Where vanna is wrong is that he shouldn't judge all academics, female and male, by the few.
Posted by Cornflower, Sunday, 12 September 2010 11:52:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'It seems anytime anyone mentions sexualisation the outrage committee come out in droves.'

The *misogynist* outrage committee that is.

I think the most telling thing about the piece is the distaste Miranda has with 'male gratification'. Ooh how vulgar and disgusting and depraved. How dare they!

Whenever 'male gratification', or the word 'objectifying', or 'sexualising' is used, the main game is really to portray men's sexual desire is a perversion, and that how dare men be 'gratified' without permission or at least in private by their wife. It's as if women are asexual, and the only dynamic for sale is male predators corrupting the pure females. Even women assertively and happily going along with the prevalent games of flirting, attraction and seduction all are victims, they just don't understand they're being 'used'.

Any time a man is attracted to a woman he doesn't know personally he is objectifying her. He doesn't know any of her other qualities, so if he dares to be attracted first, before getting to know her as a person (if he ever meets her), he is by definition objectifying her and sexualising her.

So getting 'gratification' from a picture or video of a woman is reducing that woman to an object, or a just pair of breasts or a piece of flesh. But it always amuses me that this critique is never applied to female sex aids like dildos and vibes, which by the same logic is reducing a man to just a penis. Or a woman enjoying the fantasy of being taken to Paris for dinner, is that reducing a man to a wallet?

So here we have in this article, that men being portrayed as being attracted to women's breasts is objectification that leads to "insidious forms of physical, structural and mental violence.” "Thousands of violent acts against women, including battery, rape and murder, are committed because the perpetrator views his victim as nothing more than an object created for his pleasure. "

Ipso facto, all men, by their attraction to women before getting to know them personally, are guilty of all this.
Posted by Houellebecq, Sunday, 12 September 2010 2:14:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Deleted for profanity.]
Posted by Houellebecq, Sunday, 12 September 2010 2:33:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic has written "can't be bothered with Melinda's puff-pieces. She's a bandwagon-rider and little more".

So your response is to play the "person" and sarcastically attack someone who writes an article you don't agree with.
Posted by petej, Sunday, 12 September 2010 3:06:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Briar rose,
“The fact that not one man apparently complained about the ad also goes to show, but exactly what it shows, I'm not sure yet.”

They did complain. Complaints were made to ASB.

I don’t think the Cancer Council will have an ad in the future featuring a man tied by the hands and feet and left in a cupboard so the girls can have a night in.

Cornflower,

“ Where vanna is wrong is that he shouldn't judge all academics, female and male, by the few.”

Well---

I’m not too sure about that.

There have been many instances where obvious injustices or types of discrimination have occurred to men, and not one academic anywhere in Australia has publicly made any comment about it.

Yet, they all seem to say that education helps to reduce injustices.

I tend to think that the media, (both commercial and non-commercial) is getting worse in time, but I find it intriguing if a university academic complains about the media, when so many in the media were originally trained in universities.
Posted by vanna, Sunday, 12 September 2010 3:47:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Briar Rose I have not seen the ad.

Secondly it speaks volumes, when socalled acedemics and feminists, claim to be wanting things like equality, and to end sexism and domestic violence. Ignore the situation where a male is on the receiving end.

But then one of the guilt trips that is attempted to lay on us blokes, is that if we don't speak out about violence against women, then by default we must be supporting it.

So one can safely assume that if not one single women, protested against this ad, then by default they do not care about men who experience domestic violence, and may in actual fact be supportive of women who do use domestic violence against men.

When Tony Abbott said "No means NO!" didn't some get their knickers in a knot.

To me the idea of equality means men and women being supportive of each other, so to make the assertion that it up to us blokes only to make the noise, shows a significant level of sexism and gender bias on the part of a significant number of women.
Posted by JamesH, Sunday, 12 September 2010 8:54:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bound and gagged and tied to a lamp post - one man's experience at his bucks party. Oh, he was naked as well. His best mates did it to him.

Nevertheless, if I'd seen those Cancer Council ads, I'm pretty sure I would have sent off an email complaining about them.

My experience of feminist academics is not one that suggests to me that they are the most likely people to take up an issue like this on behalf of men. Which is why I asked Vanna why he expected them to do that.

And I don't think there is anything wrong with suggesting that men take responsibility for initiating action against ads or anything else that discriminates against them. Taking initial responsibility doesn't mean women won't be supportive.

Women had to take the responsibility for getting issues of discrimination on the table in the first place. It was very, very difficult and it isn't over yet.

I don't much like the sexualisation of breast cancer campaigns, but I'm not very taken by the author's article either.
Posted by briar rose, Sunday, 12 September 2010 9:31:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<The claim came after an ombudsman's report found bureaucrats guilty of "unreasonable and wrong administrative action" after failing to correct false and misleading information that promoted the idea men were overwhelmingly responsible for domestic violence.

South Australia's Office for Women presented erroneous statistics, such as 95 per cent of domestic violence involves a male perpetrator and a female victim, the ombudsman found. Raw data show that, overall, at least one in three victims are male.>

I did see this article, but it appears to have disappeared from the web except for this site.


http://blog.fathers4equality-australia.org/equalparenting/fidblog.nsf/dx/feminists-tilt-figures
Posted by JamesH, Sunday, 12 September 2010 10:32:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Briar rose,
I tend to think, that you are now starting to think, outside of a closed circle.

"My experience of feminist academics is not one that suggests to me that they are the most likely people to take up an issue like this on behalf of men."

This is the point. These people live in a closed circle.

The author seems to plough through a lot of media (forever looking for oppression of women), and must have seen the Girls Night In ads, but didn’t mentioned them.

The author lives in a closed circle also.

Ill give you the full story regards the Girl’s Night In ads from what I know of it.

The ads portrayed men as being cancer (IE Tie up their man and lock them in a cupboard, and a women can get rid of her cancer.)

So complaints were made to the ASB, and the Girl’s Night In organisation maintained that the ads were funny, but obviously they were only funny to someone who thinks tieing men up and leaving them in a cupboard is funny.

Even though the ads portrayed an illegal act, the ASB dismissed the complaints, (and the as they do 90% of all complaints).

However, the Cancer Council was accredited with an international organisation for ethics in medical advertising.

Approaches were made to that organisation to have the Cancer Council lose their accreditation because of their ads.

I don’t know the outcome of it all, but I have seen that the Cancer Council no longer has a link to that international organisation on their web site, so maybe they did lose their accreditation.

Who knows, but feminist academics may have to be careful, or they could also lose whatever accreditations they may have.
Posted by vanna, Sunday, 12 September 2010 11:15:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
briar rose:"I don't think there is anything wrong with suggesting that men take responsibility for initiating action against ads or anything else that discriminates against them."

Unfortunately, the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner agrees with you but can't do anything because the Act doesn't recognise that men are able to suffer discrimination of this form. Only women can be offended by such things, according to the Act.
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 13 September 2010 4:52:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican:"A heroic prince would not expect a kiss otherwise it would not be a heroic act (ie. expecting something in return)."

So heroes must be unthanked or they're not heroes?

I guess the next time a fireman races into a burning building looking for the missing child we can ignore it: after all he expects to get paid on Friday, doesn't he?

Expecting minimal thanks for doing something noble doesn't reduce the nobility of the act. Most beneficiaries of someone else's assistance see nothing wrong with saying thanks either.

Those "princesses" who think their prince is going to put up with fighting the dragon out of nothing but the goodness of his heart forever are inevitably disappointed. That's why so much feminist effort has been aimed at replacing human "heroes" with a far more predictable State "hero", which will never expect a kiss and will never ask "how did you manage to get yourself into that situation" while helping you out of it.

After all, victims can't be questioned...
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 13 September 2010 6:14:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vanna, Antiseptic, JamesH et al

Have you breast cancer? Men do suffer from this illness as well.

Do you care if other people, the majority women, suffer from breast cancer?

If your answers are no - then you are simply trolling.

If, in fact, you can answer yes to either question then post on topic.

Has Melissa Tank-whatever overreacted to breast cancer campaign - probably - end of story.

If you have a sincere grievance about sex discrimination then start a topic about it.

There are quidelines for setting up your own discussion thread on OLO.
Posted by Johnny Rotten, Monday, 13 September 2010 7:19:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Johnny Rotten:"Have you breast cancer?"

No, have you?

Johnny Rotten:"Do you care if other people, the majority women, suffer from breast cancer?"

Of course. I also like small furry puppies and teddy bears in the arms of small children. I think there should be free teddies for all small children, whether they have breast cancer or not

Glad we got that important discussion out of the way, it was obviously something that needed to be said. Thanks for bringing it up, Johnny.
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 13 September 2010 7:54:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Johnny

The distrustful attitude that Melinda and others have towards male sexuality is a key issue arising from the original article. It is quite proper that Houllie and others discuss it.

The predictable complaints about DV and claims about skewing statistics are irrelevant to this article and probably should have been left for another of the many threads about that issue.
Posted by benk, Monday, 13 September 2010 8:11:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, I agree with you Johnny Rotten that:

**The distrustful attitude that Melinda and others have towards male sexuality is a key issue arising from the original article.**

And yes, sexual objectification of a women's body in media advertising is an issue which should be raised. But ... objectifying the woman's breasts was the POINT of this breast campaign advertisement! As it is clearly written at the end of the ad, women between the ages of 20 and 49 are at the highest risk of death from breast cancer. So, the focus of the ad was a beautiful young woman with beautiful breasts. Breasts ARE sexual, they are beautiful and they ARE part of being a woman. The ad, as it was intended to do, drew our attention to her breasts, objectified her breasts representative of her sexual,youthful, ALIVE being. Who would ever think that someone so healthy young and beautiful could ever get breast cancer and DIE from it? It was about breast cancer awareness, and the message was that it even attacks young women. Can't believe all the high-horse male-sexuality-phobic dribble I've been reading.
Posted by dotto, Monday, 13 September 2010 8:42:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Deleted for abuse.]
Posted by Johnny Rotten, Monday, 13 September 2010 10:05:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Re heroism - that is not what I am saying Anti. I am speaking of definition - a heroic act is one that is done without expectation of a reward. In real life most people usually show their appreciation and give thanks even when it is not expected.

This reminds me of the Ad about erectile dysfunction and the two men playing the piano without using their hands. My husband hates that Ad, yet he has never been accused of being a prude. He and I both hate the safe driving Ads targetted at young boys implying a small pen*s with a tilt of the little finger.

You can disapprove of an Ad for various reasons without accusations of misogyny or misandry
Posted by pelican, Monday, 13 September 2010 10:15:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Deleted for abuse.]
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 13 September 2010 10:31:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry Johnny Rotten, no it was Benk who said it. My apologies for misquoting you Johnny Rotten.
Posted by dotto, Monday, 13 September 2010 12:06:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh FFS who cares who has and hasn't had cancer or who has or hasn't known someone like that. If your points don't stand up unless you have cancer it's getting ridiculous.

Why must one be a big bundle of empathy to debate the logical (or non-logical as it were) assertions of the author or other posters?

Sex is used in this campaign to get attention, but it needn't and doesn't override the true purpose of the campaign. ie saving women form cancer.

To assert that a bunch of guys are encouraged to mourn the possible death of mammary glands over the death of women is bu11shit. To think you could encourage men like this is laughable, and to assert that this advert leads to "insidious forms of physical, structural and mental violence.” is even more laughable.

Then, that "Thousands of violent acts against women, including battery, rape and murder, are committed because the perpetrator views his victim as nothing more than an object created for his pleasure. " is at best speculation. Unless you ask thousands of murderers how they view their victims and find they have al depersonalised their victims to this degree.

In the end, as benk said, 'The distrustful attitude that Melinda and others have towards male sexuality is a key issue arising from the original article.'

I would say it is THE issue. Just look at the whole second page. The campaign is just an ACA standard segue to the main purpose of MTR's article; To explain that mens sexual desire is predatory, perverted and abusive, and cannot be expressed without reducing women to an object. This campaign is just example used to further that hypothesis.

The article can be summed up as "Men who are attracted to women they don't know personally (ie all heterosexual men) are guilty of objectifying women, so are the cause of 'Thousands of violent acts against women, including battery, rape and murder'.".

The author cares no more for breast cancer survivors than a politician using the death of a pink batts installer to further their political aims.
Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 13 September 2010 12:09:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In our culture breasts are treated as sexual objects. Ad's don't sexualise them, they are already well and truly sexualised.

If Melinda want's breasts to be less sexualised she should be working to make the sight of them so common place that they are no bigger deal than a male chest (only really notable in exceptional circumstances).

There is plenty of debate about the reasons why many women dress in way's which draw attention to their breasts - to attract men, to impress other women, because they like the look etc and that probably varies from individual to individual but I suspect that a percentage of women will respond better to ad's about the appeal of their breasts than yet another health message.

Those who respond to messages based just on the health issues have probably already got the message.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 13 September 2010 12:34:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houie,
Well said old son!

The author could spend her time far better writing about things that really matter to women.

To whinge about an advertisment is really pathetic. Women go out of their way to enhance their attractivness to men. It is an inbuilt 'desire to be desired'
Posted by Banjo, Monday, 13 September 2010 12:47:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
R0bert

Excellent post, you forgot to mention that human females are the only primates to always have breasts - other mammals don't develop breasts until they are feeding young. Thank god for evolution.

Melinda Tank-whatever is Catholic is she not? One of the most sexually repressed of the Christian faiths.

Antiseptic

You're quite correct about the spelling - I guess it is the position I have had to assume so many times for examination.

OK, you have sisters, and if I remember correctly an ex-wife and a daughter, yet still on OLO you never express any respect for women - particularly on a topic which would surely evince compassion from even a self-confessed mistreated male like yourself.

Instead you continue to rabbit on about how men are downtrodden and blah, blah, blah.
Posted by Johnny Rotten, Monday, 13 September 2010 1:00:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Re Antiseptic's post on Johnny Rotten's prostate cancer -

This is the kind of post that makes me think I'm going to give up reading and engaging with the forum.

I thought this was a place for debate, even robust debate, as long as it's debate.

You might not be using bad language, but your post is abusive.
Posted by briar rose, Monday, 13 September 2010 4:59:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Johnny rotton,
If you look back through the author's articles, I don't think they have ever made a single positive comment about men. Every comment has been negative.

This is another one of those articles, and she uses any excuse to portray men as being abusers or oppressors of women.

She is free to do that and indulge in that type of bigotry and prejudice, although it would be a different matter if she was being paid with taxpayer’s dollars.

Come to think of it, it reminds me of some individuals being employed at taxpayer’s expense in universities.

Briar rose,

Don’t say your bailing out. Why is it that when the going gets tough, so many women give up or claim oppression.

Considering the language Johhny rotton and other such as the one and only C J Morgan have used in the past, you must have a prejudice against Antiseptic.

Don’t say your prejudiced and unwilling to listen to all sides of a debate.
Posted by vanna, Monday, 13 September 2010 5:38:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Johnny "you forgot to mention that human females are the only primates to always have breasts" - no not forgotten, I'd never realised that.

It's my impression that Melinda works for a catholic organisation.
Someone I love very much is catholic and there is no way I'd want to get into a generalised bagging of catholics.

I do though have my doubts about men who have sworn off sex, intimate relationships etc and who in our culture wear dresses to work giving advice to others about relationships and sexuality or for that matter the views of a feminist who does appear to have a dislike of sexuality who also works for an organisation run by those men.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 13 September 2010 6:16:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No Vanna, I'm not prejudiced against Antiseptic, or against genuine debate.

I really didn't like those comments about Johnny Rotten's battle with cancer. I know everyone lets rip now and again, and that's all right, but you have to draw some lines in the sand.
Posted by briar rose, Monday, 13 September 2010 9:44:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Briar rose,

Glad to hear you are still on board.

These types of forums may be one of the few places left where someone can hear the other side of the story.

For example, you have spent considerable time in a university, yet you never knew about Tony Miller or the Girls Night In ads.

In the closed, narrow, femminist and bigoted environment of a university, you will only hear part of the story.
Posted by vanna, Tuesday, 14 September 2010 6:32:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houellebecq, Monday, 13 September 2010 12:09:54 PM

I agree totally with what you wrote.

Tankard, is always on message, promoting negative stereotypes, women as victims and men as perpetrators. Whilst she is critical about media stereotyping, she herself reinforces the very same stereotypes that she is sooo critical of.

<"The justification for political involvement and military force was framed in gender specific imagery with sexually violent overtones. “Playing on the allegorical representation of Liberty as a woman, Allied artists repeatedly depicted a female Belgium stripped to the waist, bound and violated . . .” (Gullace, Sexual Violence 16). It was this kind of propagandized imagery that stimulated and popularized the war effort. Many of the very same negative characterizations (of men) which had been waged in the “sex war” by the suffragists>

<The idea carries all the way back to ancient times and is evidenced by the comical yet poignant depiction put forth by Aristophanes in Lysistrata.>

So there is nothing new in Tankards tactic of negative stereotyping of men. This form of manipulation has been around for a long long time.
Posted by JamesH, Tuesday, 14 September 2010 8:09:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mi·sog·y·ny
[mi-soj-uh-nee, mahy-]
–noun
hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.

Emotional projections. You am l.
Posted by hm2, Thursday, 23 September 2010 4:54:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<Projection can also be established as a means of obtaining or justifying certain actions that would normally be found atrocious or heinous. This often means projecting false accusations, information, etc. onto an individual for the sole purpose of maintaining a self-created illusion.>

Projection and transference often occur together.

<Transference is common. Only in a personally or socially harmful context can transference be described as a pathological issue. A modern, social-cognitive perspective on transference, uncovered by Dr. Susan Andersen at New York University, explains how it occurs in everyday life. When we encounter a person who reminds us of someone whom we do or did like and who is or was important to us, we infer, unconsciously, that this person is indeed like our significant other (whether a lover, friend, relative, or other person). Myriad effects arise from this, including inferring that traits belong to the new person that in fact belong to our significant other>

Misandry

is hatred (or contempt) of men or boys. Misandry comes from Greek misos "hatred") and andros "man").

Red herring is an idiomatic expression referring to a rhetorical tactic of diverting attention away from an item of significance.

thus labelling someone as being a misogynist, who tries to produce a counterarguement could be classified as a red herring.
Posted by JamesH, Saturday, 25 September 2010 4:40:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy