Message to Melinda Tankard Reist

I think the point you are missing Ms Tankard Reist, is that no one is forcing the girls to do this job. In a near full employment economy most of them will have other options. They have CHOSEN this line of work.

Now do I personally think it is a wise choice? Nope.

Would I be upset if, say, my daughter chose this line of work? Yep.

What do I think of men who would frequent "Lynx Lodge"? I think they're twerps.

But in the end the men and the girls have the right to ignore my opinions. And yours.

On the other hand why not organise a boycott of Unilever products? If enought women stopped buying Bertolli pasta or Omo my guess is that Unilever would drop "Lynx Lodge" like a hot potato.

No Steven I do not think you understand the article. The horrible sexism that Melinda describes is making some men into leering idiots and creating a really offensive public space for many women (and probably men too).

There has been a massive increase in really horrible and dismissive portrayals of women and the rise of the violent porn culture makes me wonder what is really going on. Are men feeling trapped or under stress at work or something and that is why they need to have this weird and violent bolster to their "masculinity"?

I am really glad that the article says that people are fighting back against this.

Melinda, I look forward to your next article, in which you fulminate against ads that portray men as either clueless idiots or super-buffed Adonises.

Women are genetically and hormonally wired to infinite consumption on a finite planet. Women sexualise themselves to get onto "EASY-STREET" with or WITHOUT any assistance from men or anyone else.

Both men and women of intelligence will not raise a finger to save them from their own selfishness & excesses. Governments and corporations who encourage this excess (breeding for profit and consumption for pleasure) in women as a way to get more votes, bigger nations and more profits are equally guilty and equally prone to debasement and destruction.

This is a matter of survival, not sexism. Survival is and must be our prime concern as this planet approaches 9 billion souls with not enough fuel and food to sustain us all at our desired standard of living. RESPONSIBILITY for the lifetime of environmental destruction caused by YOUR children is the ISSUE, not sexism. And the cry that it takes two to make a child does not wash anymore for men now KNOW that ONLY ONE person (a woman) ever really decides to have a child because

"You don't have to make love to have a child and you don't have to have a child to make love"

The Author needs to get her mind above her navel & think about the extinction of lesser species with every child women have that is just a token of their supremacy as some god-damned self proclaimed separate species!.

Doesn't this woman have anything else to do, preferable something worthwhile.

If she is going to continue to squirt out these pieces, it would be nice if someone would take her in hand, & turn her mind onto something worth writing about.

I'm a horseman. I used to travel quite a bit towing horse floats of my, or my kids horses. One of my greatest hates is poor drivers towing horse floats, holding up streams of cars, with no thought of courtesy for other road users, or the ill will they were creating for other horse float users.

If I were a lady, I would be most annoyed at the ill will towards women in general, these pointlessly bitching articles of this woman generate for the gender.

Egad Melinda.

There are so many worthwhile examples of sexism in society.

You could be talking about the fact that women still do the majority of the housework.

You could be talking about the fact that women still comprise a small minority of board positions, and the number of female CEOs is smaller still.

You could talk about the difficulties of obtaining affordable childcare in Australia.

Instead, you continually focus on the issue of sex, with the prevailing attitude that any hint of sexuality is wrong.

Women are sex objects - as are men. The key is that they are not 'only' sex objects.
But people have the right to show that side of themselves if they wish. Whilst this kind of advertising isn't the most sophisticated kind, these people do have the right to do it.

And if you were attempting to strip away that right, I'd argue you're no feminist at all, quite the opposite.

The implications in the article are generally aimed at anti-female exploitation. We can all agree with that ethic. Where I am left to wonder is at this point:

Quote:
“The Lynx Lodge appears to be parent company Unilever's foray into the sex industry, with all the trappings of a brothel without identifying it as such”.

Well is it a brothel? There appears no evidence presented in the article as proof: And it is a very important point, for example, To openly promote a brothel in Martin Place, Sydney, on Thursday morning could actually be the real issue here, not the continuing exploitation of Women by Women or Men for that matter; already an incurable entrenchment in todays culture.

I think Melinda’s article is aimed in the right direction but lacks the vital necessity of truth and proof. Sad really, that makes for a wasted space

JamesH posted a link earlier to an interesting blog which makes a valuable read as a counter to MTR's writings.

http://www.worldchangecafe.com/2010/10/02/why-do-we-demonize-men-who-are-honest-about-their-sexual-needs/

Those who think MTR is spot on probably should not bother but otherwise it's well worth a read.

R0bert

Open Letter to Woolworths

Regarding the recent promotion of Lynx Lodge:

I was very disappointed to find that Woolworths even began to be associated with a promotion that objectifies women so blatently. It seems an extremely adverse judgement call by people who have responsibility for such matters at Woolworths.

All those involved with the promotion are in desperate need of retraining with positive results in attitudes and respect for women, or have their contracts terminated. It would be greatly appreciated if the general public were reassured by further action on the part of Woolworths to address employment of people with such poor decision-making skills.

2-3,000 years of theo-political sexism takes a while to shake off, Melinda.

I found an interesting piece on MTR at http://unbelief.org/articles/melinda-tankard-reist/ which readers may find interesting. I don't know how good it is but the tone of it gave the impression of trying to be fair.

R0bert

Contrary to the gasps of breath and faux self-righteous indignation at the advertisement, it is clever and funny and the women in it are all having a good time. It is nowhere near pornographic and nor does it belittle women, it creatively plays on what young men's (and young women's) sexual fantasies are like to appeal to its audience. Sexual fantasies are usual and normal and no-one confuses them with real life. I wonder what they could do a similar advertisement representing young women's fantasies? It would be fun to see.

On the other hand, what is really disgusting and limiting is the sexual wowerism of the author and her supporters. Such dangerous whingers for censorship are having some effect too by milking the very odd attitudes to men found in the deep recesses of the women's movement and specifically by the radical and gender feminists.

A return to the Fifties? I hope not!

Shiek what's his name got into trouble over using the uncovered meat analogy.

Yet Melindas example of uncovered flesh and sexism would seem to add more weight to the shieks analogy.

I have a theory that heterosexual male attraction to the female form is hard wired by evolution and genetics. Apart from performing lobectomies on the male population, I doubt if there is any real answer to the vexing questions Melinda proposes.

But then Melinda could always change her perspective. then problem solved.

I know that, as a feminist, the venerable Melinda would scarcely be interested in this. But surely such a campaign is as demeaning - if not more demeaning - to men? The implication of the campaign is that men are driven entirely by their sexual needs. Something as innocuous as deodorant - arguably less important to one's sex appeal than toothpaste or shampoo - is marketed entirely around sex. A bunch of women willingly take most of their clothes off for the campaign, and men are expected to come running.

Ultimately, the fact that such campaigns work indicates that plenty of men and women don't care about these matters. The women participate and DON'T boycott Unilever, the men lap it up and Unilever makes a profit. Until one or more of these things changes, I suggest that Melinda is out of touch with the concerns of our society.

There is a trend that is emerging in articles by Melinda, Helen and Nina just to name a few.

Basically it comes down to demonizing male or more specifically hetero male sexuality.

Helen wrote that even the most upstanding respectful man can be a rapist, Melinda writes that there is something wrong about appealing to male sexual desire, and that women are subservient sexual slaves.

Melinda is right about sexism being alive and well, but then in psychological and psychiatry terms, projection and transference would seem to be strongly at play here.

Not to mention promotion of anti-choice feminism.

The radical feminist anti-male slant was embarrassing to the mainstream of feminism decades ago, resulting in angry protests and it still is.

'While I frequently write about the objectification of women and girls, this issue has been unrelenting of late. Sexism is alive and well.'

No, you've been unrelenting of late Melinda.

Seriously, why is it someone can continue to be published when they have no new ideas, and just continue to spew out the same rubbish article after article? Does anyone here know how to build a career in order to do this?

I agree though that 'sexism is alive and well', as evidenced by the sexism displayed by Miranda in this article.

I think a quote from r0berts links (Which I may add, are 10 times better than anything MTR has written on the subject of sex and porn in umpteen articles) sums it up...

'many condemnations of mainstream porn incorporate a “view of masculinity itself as inherently hostile and dangerous” and a tacit claim that male sexuality “needs to be kept on a short leash, where men’s viewing of violent or pornographic media is restricted, either through community pressure or state action, lest the dumb beast of a man get the wrong ideas.”'

The 'dumb beast' seems to sum up MTR's general view of men.

'No qualms about sending men off to work all aroused?'

How dangerous! They may not be able to control themselves and rape every woman in the office!

'Everywhere they look, women and girls get the message that they exist for male gratification and pleasure. Their reason for being is to serve men and meet their every need.'

Everywhere you look Miranda. Does it ever occur to you that the rest of society gets the message that women don't 'exist' for male 'gratification', just that men find women attractive, and can be attracted to women without thinking that is the sole purpose of women.

I think you better turn down the hyperbole meter.

Speaking of which, that picture does not depict gang rape! I suppose in Miranda's world, any group sexual activity must of course be instigated by a man and be rape.

It's looking more and more like MTR really fears male desire.

It is about degree.

This article is not about diminishing men's or women's sexuality it is about the continuous sexually objectification of women in the media and its effects on socialisation. If you think media and advertising have no effect on consumers or on reinforcing/establishing a particular mindset then you will no doubt disagree. (Shades of the tobacco industry denying that advertising encouraged smoking despite spending millions on the exercise.)

Also, this article is not about demonising the sexuality of men - where on earth did that come from. If anything this Ad makes men look foolish as if they are led purely by their sexuality and have nothing else to recommend them which is of course untrue. We are all sexual beings.

My simplistic take on this is that it is about manners and respect for each other. Sexual advertising is inevitable to some extent but it is about how far you take the sexual angle. I agree with MTR that this Ad seems to be advertising a brothel - maybe done tongue-in-cheek. At first I thought maybe this Ad was a bit of a spoof, almost making fun of overt sexual advertising - maybe it is.

As the first poster wrote, the consumers can show their response one way or the other by voting with their feet.

pelican,

Do you think the Calvin Klein billboard depicts gang rape? Do you think it is 'violent'?

Do you have concerns about sending men to work aroused?

Do you think the adverts depict women as 'subservient sexual *slaves*'?

Houlley
Let me ask you if you think there is a line to be drawn in sexually overt advertising and where should that line be drawn. I know not all will agree where the line sits but we have IMO gone too far the other way where sexually overt public billboards are on display for all to see - children included.

You might think MTR is a bit OTT at times but she makes valid points and her view counterbalances the other end of the spectrum - the anything goes for a buck end.

If you read the Collective Shout website Melinda linked to there are men who are also sick of being treated like sexual fools in advertising - it is not just a female issue. It looks like Woolworths has withdrawn its support - see consumer power does work, we just don't use it enough.

I agree with Pelican that the Calvin Klein advertisment was too sexual to be in a public area.

However, MTR sees a picture of a woman and a few men with sexually suggestive body-language and instantly assumes that it depicts pack-rape. The mesh and the imbalance in numbers don't provide enough evidence to support that assumption. It is this same distrustful attitude towards male sexuality that MTR often seems to display.

One needs a really over active imagination to think that the picture of one woman and 3 males clothed depicts gang rape.

I know of more than a few women who love to be in that female models position.

Maybe it is someones fantasy?

The picture could equally represent female power at attracting a number of males.

The over use of words like rape, objectification, harassement etc will mean that like the boy who cried wolf too many times. People will begin to ignore those words.

Gentlemen & Ladies, i will pose some questions for you.

1, Does anybody remember those "scared straight" campaign's on TV? Where troubled teens are taken into jails and told scary stories about life in jail to straighten them out, get them back on the right track to a better life.

2, Don't Lesbian & Bisexual Loony, Left, Faux"Man"istas, have a vested interest in scaring straight women & girls "Queer" with "Big, Bad, Barstard" stories?

3, Hasn't the incidence of all sexual abnormalities/extremes, like Gay, Lesbian, Tranny, Frigid, Nymphomaniac, etc, lifestyle been increasing ever since the sexual revolution of the 1960's?

4, Are these emotional extremes, not all "symptoms" of serious mental illness, usually caused by serious, abuse as children?

5, "Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics & Surveys" Doesn't the women's infolink stuff differ radically from the science, every time an unbiased man or conservative woman, looks at the real information about all "Gender Issues"?

6, Wouldn't cutting all funding for women's issues, provide a lot of money for public transport?

7, Given that the entire Radical, Extreme, Loony, Left, Fe"Man"Nazi, Paedophile Movement has been publicly demonising men for 50 years now, shouldn't we be protecting children from these devil worshipping communist's?

8, Isn't everything MTR has been complaining about been caused by Faux"Man"istas from the "Frankfurt school" in the first place?

Oh & hears the proof, well documented, easily verified.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236#

Battler
Against
Reactionary
Stereo
Typing
And
Retarded
Dykes

One woman who was taking hormonal treatment for IVF, said whilst she was taking the hormones, she was absolutely convinced, that she was always right and the rest of the world was wrong and stark raving mad.

You guys are heaps funny.

I loved the bit about devil worshipping communists.

James,

'One needs a really over active imagination to think that the picture of one woman and 3 males clothed depicts gang rape.'

Either that or too much time in gender studies at university.

'Maybe it is someones fantasy?'
Rape fantasies are very common amongst women. Ever read Nancy Friday? A history of sexual repression makes the fantasy of rape a convenient way to be slutty and not feel guilty about it.

Of course MTR thinks rape is the universal male fantasy.

Actually I think the whole concept of fantasy is foreign to MTR, and sexual depiction is always an incitement to action and a representation of the norm.

Just like with the lynx adverts, she thinks appealing to mens supposed fantasies is an incitement, and effectively she wants to censor the available scope of fantasies to romantic candlelight dinners.

I get the impression she thinks men shouldn't be allowed to be 'gratified' without permission. Maybe she's into domination.

"I get the impression she thinks men shouldn't be allowed to be 'gratified' without permission. Maybe she's into domination."

I think almost all feminist condemation of male heterosexuality, they paint a picture of the sexually aggressive male and the passive female(which is in it self sexist).

Much is written about male pleasure or gratification. Perhaps I should add if the ladies aren't getting any pleasure, then they are going to bed with the wrong type of bloke.

The old victorian idea that the woman, must be lying back thinking of england and that women did not want or like to have sex.

Rather emotive statements like 'willing participant in her own subordination'

There was talk and wish I could remember where I read it about, female partners, deliberately delaying intercourse, to increase male arousal.

I have some thoughts on this which perhaps would get me burned at the stake, drawn and quartered, tarred and feathered, neuterd, decapitated, boiled in oil, skinned alive, and not necessarily in that order.

Oh I for got 'keel hauled'and buried alive and worst of all, get labelled as a mysognist, just for daring to try and explore a topic which may produce some rather interesting discussions and insights.

'willing participant in her own subordination'

Hahaha! Like a guy who stands up for a woman on public transport:-)

Who has first dibs on a seat?

It starts from the highest ranked human, to lowest.

The ruling monarch, then the ruling family, followed by the elected Prime Minister, and cabinet ministers etc, all the way down the hierachial line.

Basically us blokes are on the lowest point, on the ranking scale, otherwise why would you give up a comfortable seat, willingly.

We have to stand back to let the monarchs and royal family and politicans to enter a doorway before we do or stand up as they enter.

CEO's of companies get first dibs, over the lowerly factory floor worker.

If I didn't get up to offer my seat, my grandmother would clip my ears. She was the ruling monarch and nobody, I mean nobody crossed her.

Well I am a woman and I have often given up my seat for an elderly person of either gender, a pregnant woman, or a person who is clearly disabled in some way.

It is no big deal. Give up your seat or don't it is your choice. It used to be called manners.

Thats very gentlemanly of you pelican.

(sorry just stirring xxxxxxxooooooo)

Yes but pelican all those people had some ailment or were in greater need of a seat. As a feminist, I don't believe women to be inferior or that being female makes one less able to stand. Girls can do anything!

My feminist beliefs over-ride my belief in good manners. I cant believe you want to perpetuate the patronising of women in society in such a paternalistic way?

Ah you feminists, it's all about manners and romance when women gain an advantage from societal constructs, but it's oppression and sexism when women are disadvantaged. Patriarchy is a job lot.

Men of course, are never disadvantaged, they have choice rather than societal expectations.

Yes it is a dilemma Houlley.

Perhaps us middle aged types are the wrong people to ask about the dichotomy of manners and feminism. It will be up to the younger generations to determine what constitutes manners in line with social changes.

I still appreciate a man (or a woman) opening a door or giving up a seat but I don't expect it and I don't feel demeaned. Equality will probably mean some of those old fashioned courtesies will go - which is a shame. I don't pretend I am not a product of my generation nor conditioning.

JamesH - very droll. Gentleman are in short supply. :)