Dear Melinda,

What an absolute load of bollocks.

Firstly, what is the problem? I think it's pretty obvious that men who actually do kill their wives and leave them in their car boots are not moved to do so the day after receiving the latest edition of their subscription to Hapaar's Bazaar. Equally, the women who've gotten killed and stuffed in car boots clearly did not willingly scramble in after realising how well the enterprise would set off their footwear.

You say that you think the image "glamourises" violence in general? Maybe. But we're grown ups, in this society. And violence has a critical role in culture and creativity and human experience. You may not like it, but thankfully we don't all have to modify our behaviour so that Melinda Tankard Reist likes it, or else we'd all be going to church on Sunday. Creativity can be black and difficult and it can also be commercial. If we don't like it, we can boycott the product and write letters to all and sundry about why. But the fact that you got it *banned* indicates that you have no faith in the intelligence and capability of either women or men, and that you are not in favour of their emancipation.

You are the killjoy throughout history who banned Lady Chatterly's Lover and Ulysses, and made Goya put clothes on his nude Maja.

You can protect women from actual violence, Melinda, but you cannot protect them from art, or culture, or the dark side of humanity. They simply do not need your protection.

The fact is that violence against women is NOT a major societal problem, but it IS a great tool with which to advance the anti-male agenda of some of the more radical feminists and their bandwagon-riders, such as the hilariously unbalanced Michael Flood. When a man can be prevented from seeing his children except under the supervision of a so-called "Contact Centre" merely because he shouted at his former partner, it is easy to see the sort of leverage that the claim of male violence can apply and all for no more than the cost of a visit to the police. No wonder the "grrls" are so keen to keep it on the front pages - regardless of reality.

Vanilla,

O.K., so the ad is a not-so-subtle visual code for the old "I wouldn't be seen dead in that.." dress/jacket etc. Perhaps, admittedly, in questionable taste but, I agree with you, not exactly ban-worthy. Personally, if I was about to put up with the discomfort of getting my knickers in a twist (which, you gotta admit, is a pretty uncomfortable predicament), I can think of a variety of issues I would do it for. This is not one of them.

The u-tube clip I found rather disturbing, but I admit to personal reasons for this. Admittedly I haven't found out if the reason for these images was as stated in the article - which sounds a little over the top. And as for the women being "terrorised" by security guards? To me they seemed to show no other emotion than the vacant and supercilious. A look that models, whether frolicking in the Spring sunshine or posing by active volcanoes, always wear.

The impact of viewing all three lots of images at once is not particularly pleasant, but I certainly don't feel that the fruits of some hard-up ad.team to come up with yet another way to sell clothes I wouldn't buy anyway disadvantage, threaten or mock me in any way.
p.s.
I wish there was some little flag one could attach to one's posts to indicate that one is open to rationally discussing the actual article and refuses to be baited or to engage with the same 'ole same 'ole from the US (Usual Suspect) brigade.

"Ginz,
I wouldn't like to call myself any "ist", but do you have an example of an ad for handbags and shoes that is "feminist".

Also, do you have any evidence of feminists wanting to stop violence against men.

All feminist propaganda seems to be directed against stopping any violence against women, but I can't remember any feminist propaganda being directed against stopping violence against men and women.

Next feminists will be saying that they believe in equality."
Posted by HRS, Friday, 14 March 2008 12:32:59 PM

________________________

You can't seriously believe you can cross-examine me on issues feminist or otherwise and I will dutifully follow your agenda....,do you? LOVE THAT!!

Take a look at Whitty's thread in General Discussions: The Homer-fication of Men.

Other than that I can't be bothered with you or anyone else who justifies the depiction of women OR men in,-(never mind demeaning here),- such stupid ways.

We COULD get into a discussion as to the male or female construct of advertising agencies??

Male OR female; they show a barren brain attitude if this is the best they can do.

To ridicule those who oppose this unimaginative nonsense, is equally unpalatable.

Very good points Vanilla.

Not bad Romany :))))

Ginx - I hope you don't feel that I was ridiculing your opinion? I don't share it, it in this instance, but I respect it.

I do think that advertising plays a large - and rather unappetising - role in society. Far too large a role. And I believe that it misuses the power it is well aware that it has to shape society. As you said, a discussion of mens' and womens' culpability within the industry would probably be a good one.

I think, however, if I were ever to involve myself in a movement to censor/ban anything it would rather be for the irresponsible advertising that is aimed at children.