Curtsy: Objectify This.
When capitalized, "Sie" is the formal way to address adults of either gender in polite German. I majored in the…
-
If one assumes that a person is making their money, including enough money to have no incentive to "work", by…
Ob sie wirklich Deutsch spricht. Normalweise, kommt die US Soldaten nicht ins Stadt und spricht nicht so oft mit denn…
As for being a Nazi, ich spreche fliessend deutsch und wohnte in Deutschland fuer drei Jahre mit der americanishe Luftwaffe…
And of course this "incentive" only applies to poor people: Rich people who already have enough to live off of…
-
LOL!
Ahh, that makes me so happy.
Overreaction and a half. Violence doesn’t seem like the best solution to the problem outlined in the ad.
oh for heaven’s sake, Chris-AV.
i liked this photo; it reminded me of Ms. Magazine [which my mom subscribed to when i was a kid] and the classic “No Comment” section in the back, which i remember always looking forward to. it also reminds me of the “billboard liberation front” in th bay area which had its heyday during the reagan era.
Nice!
Suggesting violence in a situation that doesn’t merit it is morally wrong in my opinion. I could assault people for insults, I could assault people for brushing me in the street but I don’t, violence is not the right level of response to the threat at hand. The sentiments of this poster may be wrong however that does not in any way justify a violent, life threatening response. As I recall recently the blogsphere was in an uproar about violent comments, feeding this doesn’t help.
Great, Chris.
And when you can turn into a car, I expect you to refrain from running people over.
Meanwhile, in order to support the hypothesis that this is a real threat of violence, we’ll need to watch the graffiti artist turn into a car so she can carry it out.
Any time now.
Any time.
Or, to be more blunt, shorter Chris: The threat of an impossible action by a chick is way, way worse than actual objectification made by a corporation in support of sexual violence that happens every day.
Also, the original billboard is actually normalizing violence, but apparently that doesn’t bother Chris enough for him to mention it.
What is it with people named Chris on Alas lately, anyway?
I just keep finding more things wrong with this comment.
“I could assault people for insults, I could assault people for brushing me in the street but I don’t”
So, being sexually harrassed is like someone calling you a “butthead” or accidentally sweeping her arm across your chest?
” As I recall recently the blogsphere was in an uproar about violent comments, feeding this doesn’t help.”
He’s referring to Kathy Sierra. I can’t even wrap my mind around the hubris necessary to make this comparison — sexualized violence made against a specific woman with credibility enough to involve the police, versus a fanciful spray-painted remark metaphorically flipping the meaning of a statement of support for sexual violence?
So. Many. Things. Wrong.
Levels of violence, I have been stroked, caressed, pinched, slapped, punched etc, the former are much less worrying than the later. If the ad talked about rape, violence or something then perhaps this would be justified, but would you honestly threaten to kill someone over a pinch on the rear end?
Since the threat itself is impossible so is the car turning into a woman… making the whole thing impossible.
Poutine anyone?
Q Grrl: YES.
“Since the threat itself is impossible so is the car turning into a woman”
The behavior spoken about on the ad happens all the god damn time. The ad just confirms that its normal and hunky dorey fine to do. The ad makes sexual assault a compliment.
”
but would you honestly threaten to kill someone over a pinch on the rear end?”
Yes. Dont fucking touch my body unless explicity invited to do so. Any and all attempts at touching my body without consent will be viewed as an attack. (minus true accidents and non sexual contact). I will respond in defense. Its not “no big deal” because its MY ass and *I* say it isnt. I define whats ok, whats no big deal and whats a very big deal when MY body is involved.
Got it?
Well, I think the original message is by far the more problematic- the second can be seen as making the violent nature of the first one clear; the casual misogynist may not notice the threat.
But any country that allowed a lethal response to a pinch has some messed up self defense laws.
Wow. I never expected anyone to interpret what the woman spraypainted as a threat of violence or murder.
She was expressing her anger and disgust in a way that a lot of people do when they say things like, “I’m gonna kick your ass,” “I wish I could get my hands on the guy who did X,” etc., not to be construed as a serious threat.
Plus, consider the meaning of “you” in the woman’s sentence. She isn’t directing her statement towards one particular person. She’s angry at the person who came up with the idea of having that statement used in advertising, she’s angry at the car company that went along with it, and all the people who would condone a thing like that. What’s she going to do, run them all down?
No, I interpreted the “running down” part as an expression of her anger, not as a statement of her literal intent towards anyone.
Jesus, doesn’t anyone have a sense of humor these days?
I thought it was a pretty funny commentary on a rather ridiculous ad. Representing that as advocating running over people is farther than I can stretch.
“But any country that allowed a lethal response to a pinch has some messed up self defense laws”
Tell that to countries full of people who believe if the one pinched didnt fight back until they were killed that they werent really pinched, and now can be stoned to death for commiting adultery.
Unless I violently respond, then its seen as consent.
So my choices are get pinched and just accept it or get pinched and defend myself until theres no question it was unwanted.
Yup. The defense laws *are* pretty messed up.
Oh for god’s sake, can’t we just ignore or ridicule the troll?
On the other hand, it’s fantastic that a bit of grafitti done around 10-15 years ago still has the power to incite hysteria in the misogynists.
Pheeno, what you originally said doesn’t need any ‘special’ justification (imo). Remove the particulars and you described:
“I was physically touched without invitation. This reasonably made me fear that further assault was imminent so I acted appropriately to defend myself.”
It doesn’t matter if it’s your genitals being grabbed as a prelude to further sexual assault or your collar being grabbed as a prelude to a blow to the face. A reasonable and appropriate response is justified.
yeah, because we all know that the guy pinching our ass is being reasonable.
Ladies, you must always protect the menz from themselves. Always.
And yet, in both cases, the entire goddamn situation could have been avoided by the simple method of ‘not grabbing at someone else’s body.’
If you find their reactions to be unreasonable . . . gosh, maybe you shouldn’t instigate shit, huh?
—Myca
Once again, there is no bottom-pincher in sight. How does a lady/car go about “getting her bottom pinched” as though she commits the action? It’s just like “she was raped” instead of “someone raped her.”
At least the spray-painter gave the action to the appropriate actor (there was just no better way to phrase that) instead of painting “If this lady was a car, the bottom pincher would get himself run down.”
I also think it’s worth rewriting the original ad to be more plain:
“If it were a lady, it would be sexually assaulted.”
Ah-ha-ha-ha! Ho, ho, ho. Funny, funny sexual assault.
That’s why people are reacting the way they are, Joe. It’s a reaction to a threat of sexual assault, and sexual assault is not a big funny joke, no matter what words you use.
And yet, in both cases, the entire goddamn situation could have been avoided by the simple method of ‘not grabbing at someone else’s body.’ If you find their reactions to be unreasonable . . . gosh, maybe you shouldn’t instigate shit, huh?
True. Very, very true. Which has led me to question one of the themes I’ve seen on this blog. There is strong support for the idea that “Men need to do something about their actions and thoughts, and it’s not up to women to do that for them.” I agree. I think that’s entirely valid. But when I have proposed that women should avoid problematic situations and also consider arming themselves (where legal), people have reacted quite negatively. It’s been viewed as an attempt to push the solution to a problem off the person who caused it and onto the victim.
But I execute such strategies myself every day. There are areas in the city I don’t go. I should be able to go there. If I go there and get mugged, it’s the mugger’s fault, not mine. But the smart move is to not go there; while’s it’s the mugger’s fault, it would be irresponsible behavior on my part to put myself in such a position. If I did so my ability to meet the various obligations and duties of my life would be put in jeopardy, not to mention the various joys and pleasures of life.
But here there seems to be strong support for the viewpoint that changing men is the sole solution, that women should not arm themselves or otherwise be ready, able and willing to either avoid a problematic situation or, finding themselves in one, take active control of a situation with whatever force is necessary and sufficient (I don’t think killing someone over a pinch on the ass is reasonable, but a punch in the mouth might be).
That, I don’t understand. It seems to me that depending on men to be willing to act in a certain way so that women can be safe and have equal opportunity is anti-feminist. It still cedes control to men; as long as they refuse to change, the present condition continues, regardless of what women do.
Now, I don’t mean to present myself as an expert on feminism. And this may be blatant hijacking of this thread, so if Amp decides to delete this post I’ll fully understand. But it seems to me that women should be both willing and able to take control of a situation, whether it requires rhetoric or force. They should not have to do so; it would be ideal if people “didn’t instigate shit”. But shit abounds. People are mugged, robbed (with a pen as well as with a gun, or even some redirected electrons) and otherwise victimized every minute of the day with no regard to sex. So I heartily endorse being ready, willing and able to defend oneself if someone “instigates shit” with them. Be strong, be self-aware, and don’t cede dependency to anyone.
Hey Ron,
The feminism101 blog has a compilation of ideas on that here: http://finallyfeminism101.blogspot.com/2007/03/faq-whats-wrong-with-suggesting-that.html.
If you still have questions after that, I feel like there was a comprehensive blog post on it recently which maybe someone can remember where it appeared. (Am I deluding myself? Didnt’ someone write about how it was okay for women to do self-defense classes and whatever, but we’re deluding ourselves if we think that will actually be a remedy for victim-blaming? …I want to say Belledame wrote it? Meh.)
But when I have proposed that women should avoid problematic situations and also consider arming themselves (where legal), people have reacted quite negatively. It’s been viewed as an attempt to push the solution to a problem off the person who caused it and onto the victim.
Because it is. ALL SITUSATIONS ARE POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS TO WOMEN. Women get their butts pinched on the street, getfelt up in public transportation, get raped by boyfriends and acquaintances and husbands. The “dark street, raped by a stranger” assault is the exception, not the rule.
So what would you have us do? stay at home? husbands boyfriends etc. Only stay on well-lit public streets? well, aside from the fact that that’s q drastic limitation on the freedom of movement of half the population – as I mentioned before, women get groped and harassed in broad daylight among throngs of people. All a woman has to do to be in danger is to exist while female.
So how about we concentrate on the one thing that CAN stop sexual harassment – and direct our attention to those who actually harass?
I’d also add to what Mandolin and Tefnut have said that the focus on self-defense and behavior-restrictions often serves as a distraction from the vast majority of rapes, which are acquaintance or date rapes . . . situations in which avoiding ‘that part of town’ would be of little use anyway.
Areas of a city= easy to avoid.
The man most likely to rape/injure/assault me is my husband. Pray tell, HOW do I avoid that? The problematic situation exists most often in my own home and not on the bad side of town.
Anger is an appropriate response to condoning sexual assault.
It’s hard for me to understand how relatively little anger is openly expressed, given how much provocation there is.
I also think it’s telling that the ad and graffiti are 10 or 15 years old.
Has anyone seen anything similar that’s of more recent vintage? Not that advertisers have stopped condoning sexual assualt, but what has the response been lately?
I like Golda Meir’s solution – if men are the ones perpetrating the crimes, impose a curfew on the men. Women’s freedom and agency are not the things that should be curtailed.
I was going to point out the alarming naivete of suggesting that women just avoid dangerous “areas” but everyone else beat me to it. I will comment that Ron’s post is a perfect illustration of what’s wrong with a lot male thinking about violence against women. He really believes that it’s a matter of strangers attacking women at random, as his comparison to mugging indicates. Would that it were so. As Tefnot points out, women can never be certain what direction a threat will come from but they can be sure that it almost certainly will come in the form of a man.
A cartoonish conception leads to a cartoonish solution. Women should join him in his cowboy fantasy by packing heat and drilling the bad guys. All of whom, presumably, will be easily identified by their large black hats.
As for Chris’ conniption. What a maroon.
If I knew what the heck a maroon was I might be offended.
My point isn’t that sexual assault is good, or that a response to it is appropriate. The response should however be appropriate to the situation, a slap, a scolding lecture or something in that vein is much more appropriate to the action. I would also argue that its fairly easy to determine motive in touch, I know when a guy is going to punch me or when he is going to rub me, both feel different and the reaction to each should be right.
To put it in a similar vein, “if this car was a man I would nag him” + “if this man was a car I would kill you”, seems rather out of proportion (though nagging is not a good comparison to butt pinching however its early and I can’t think of a better representation).
Chris, it seems like you’ve had ample opportunity to make your point, and you’re not saying anything new, so I’d like to ask you to please stop posting this particular line of discussion.
Feel free to post comments on why an automaker felt linking their car to sexual assault was a winning strategy, though. I think there’s a lot of fertile ground there.
—Myca
you misunderstood me.
My point was not that the attacker is reasonable. Or that assault is funny.
My point was that the fear of further assault needs to be reasonable. For example, if someone bumps you on a crowded street it’s probably not reasonable to assume they were trying to knock you down and kick you to death. So shooting them isn’t likely to be considered an appropriate response by the courts.
My comment fell under the easy definition of feminism that women are people too. People have a right to defend themselves from assault. Just as having your collar grabbed can be a prelude to further more damaging attack having your genitals ‘pinched’ could lead to further more damaging assault. The reasonable and appropriate response will depend on the particulars of the situation. I can easily envision scenarios where everything from nicely saying “no” to shooting and killing someone was appropriate and reasonable.
Joe, I don’t think that the billboard-graffiti was meant to be taken literally. It was an expression of anger at a misogynistic ad and the behavior it condoned and encouraged.
To argue about ‘whether running someone down with a car is or is not a reasonable response to them pinching your ass’ is to miss the whole point. Sure, were this a court case, it would be relevant, but it’s not. It’s a clever commentary on a stupid ad campaign.
Relax.
—Myca
Yeah, i get that. I originally commented on pheeno’s response. It seemed like the person she was arguing with didn’t get the basic point. This was before I realized he was a troll.
Hm, it seems like my comment has disappeared altogether, rather than just sitting in moderation, so I’ll try again, and hope this doesn’t show up twice:
Do you all know the brilliant feminist and fat-positive cartoonist Jackie Fleming? She has some fantastic billboard defacing jokes. My favourite is a rail-thin, bikini-clad model in a submissive pose, with the tagline “get slimmer for summer”, and a smiling fat woman is spray-painting the ad with “no thanks”.
(If comments mysteriously disappear, sometimes they end up in the spam filter, which I don’t check regularly, and which I don’t get the impression anyone else routinely checks either. It’s perfectly reasonable to let a moderator know if you’re losing comments to the greedy spamatador.
Comments that are really in moderation will show up as Your comment is currently in moderation. rather than disappearing altogether.
Your original comment is in the spam filter — but I didn’t pull it out because then it would be a double post. :) )
In addition to all the brilliant responses already made to RonF — all of which make extremely important points — I’d like to add this:
RonF — your whole theory there is based on a hell of a lot of privilege. You have the privilege to be able to avoid said bad neighborhood. But there are a hell of a lot of people who can’t avoid it. People who live there. People who work there. They simply don’t have the option of “avoiding” such neighborhoods.
Similarly, women don’t have the privilege of “avoiding” such situations that could induce rape. To do so would mean never leaving the house and never allowing anyone in or near the house.
And to add to Eliza’s comment and repeat pheeno’s comment…
If we avoided male relatives and close associates as well as avoiding all supposed “dangerous” neighborhoods/situations (good luck with that if you’re poor, poc, old, ad infinitum), we’d completely free of risk, and completely isolated. NO THANKS! Curfewing men seems a much better idea!
P.S. thanks for the Jackie Fleming link.
Obviously you’re no fan of Bugs Bunny, the most famous cross-dresser in cartoondom. Sorry if you’re offended but frankly, overstatement is an accepted form of satire and criticism. Apparently, you object to the violent imagery. However, I think the suggestion that this graffitti was meant to do anything other than underline the violence explict in the original ad is a bit of overstatement itself. That’s why I used a cartoon reference. I suppose the tagger could have said ” If this woman were a car she would backfire in your general direction.” but what was being addressed was not rudeness or bad manners, rather the casual acceptance of violence against women. More specifically, violence portrayed as a natural compliment to attraction.
I think that Myca is correct in suggesting that the more compelling question is why this sort of ad campaign would be considered effective.
Since the car is a Fiat, I wonder whether the ad is also meant to play into the stereotype of Italian men as “bottom pinchers.” As for the spray painted retort, I’m not too wild about the medium because it involves vandalizing the billboard, which presumably is not the author’s property, but it’s a good message (although it would have been even better if the author had used the subjunctive instead of the indicative in the first part of the sentence).
“Oh for god’s sake, can’t we just ignore or ridicule the troll?
On the other hand, it’s fantastic that a bit of grafitti done around 10-15 years ago still has the power to incite hysteria in the misogynists.”
LOL, though it’s certainly true.
Oh my goddess!!! That’s wonderful :) Feminist power woohoo!!!
So how about we concentrate on the one thing that CAN stop sexual harassment – and direct our attention to those who actually harass?
Because I challenge your statement that there is only one thing that can stop sexual harassment.
Efforts to educate people on what sexual harassment is are necessary, but (as all here will agree, I would guess) hardly sufficient. Human nature is such that I seriously doubt that it will ever be sufficient. So, means must also be employed to ensure that sexual harassers suffer a penalty. Generally it is proposed by many people that these penalties be imposed either on a societal basis (men and women should not tolerate other people who sexually harass, etc.) or a legal basis, by providing legal means to penalize sexual harassers.
I am not proposing to shut down any of these. I am simply advocating adding individual action to this. One such individual action would be to avoid situations that add risk if one can.
Having said that, I see what I’ve seen before – assertions that I speak out of privilege and a lack of awareness that women are in danger of rape anywhere they go. It makes it sound as if any husband or any boyfriend is a potential rapist. I well imagine that rape statistics would show that while a husband or boyfriend commit a great many rapes, it would also show that overall, few husbands or boyfriends actually do rape anyone. The fact that the proportion of rapes by a given group is higher than others does not mean that a high proportion of such people rape.
But the overall point is that, for whatever reason, people cannot always avoid risk. No one can, male or female, regardless of whether the risk is rape, mugging. Even non-violent crime. My identity can be stolen – do I then stop buying stuff on-line? No. I arm myself with the knowledge I need to minimize the risk. Similarly, people who find themselves in a situation where they are unavoidably at risk of violent crime should arm themselves. A number of husbands or dates have been shot when they’ve tried to rape someone; if such threat was greater than it is, I expect that the incidence of such things would go down.
This keeps getting painted as an either/or proposition. The premise seems to be that advocating adopting risk avoidance behavior and the means to defend oneself against superior strength automatically means that one also advocates that the failure to do so means that the victim is to blame for having been assaulted, and that other means of stopping such things should be dropped. Not so. Violent crime needs to stop. I’m saying that there is more than one means of doing so. I’m saying that all such means should be employed. And, finally, I’m saying that preventing or discouraging people from taking advantage of such means that are under their direct control as opposed to depending on means that are solely under someone else’s control makes for the creation/maintenance of a dependent class, which I think is wrong.
At the risk of sounding snarky, might I just say
DUUUUUUUUH
For gods sake. Seriously, women already know all the common sense ways to avoid stranger rape. When you say things like this, my reaction is about the same to someone who’d say ” dont stick your finger into a light socket”
Well, thank you captain obvious. No shit. Ya think?
Im ever so glad people think Im so fucking brainless I actually need to have this rape advice repeated about a billion times a freakin day. Im also ever so grateful it then gets used as a checklist to make sure I didnt ask for it.
But the plain facts are
1) Im not a fucking moron, thanks.
2) it must be obvious day at camp stupid
3) Im at greater risk from someone I know
And women are saying can we finally actually start addressing the other half of the equation that happens to commit over 90% of said problem?
my comment got eaten
[Rescued it! Thanks for letting us know. –Amp]
Ronf, Good point about using every means possible, but don’t you think there’s a huge problem in that most rapes are committed by people the victim assumed they could trust?
Think about it like this, how would you change your life if you needed to assume that every man you thought was trustworthy might pull out a gun and mug you? Most of them are trustworthy but if you want to assume that mugging follows the same pattern as rape than that’s what your looking at. Also, you need to assume that (statistically speaking) your wife/girlfriend is the most likely person to get you drunk and clean out your checking account. You’d better not let your guard down around her because if she does take you to the cleaner’s one night a lot of people will assume that there’s something wrong with you. A lot more will assume that she has every right to take your stuff since you’re married or dating.
If you go out to the bar and get really drunk there’s a better chance that the person drinking with you (your friend) will walk you home and take your TV, Stereo and all of your DVD’s than some stranger will. If you meet a new friend they might steal your car. The fact that you were drinking and friendly with them will make it very hard for you prove that you didn’t in fact give them your car.
I’m not arguing that women shouldn’t defend themselves. I think it would be great if there were some way for women to reliably cause injury or death to would be rapists. But it doesn’t seem like a very good solution to the majority of the problem.
Picture is still hilarious though.
but don’t you think there’s a huge problem in that most rapes are committed by people the victim assumed they could trust?
Yes, it’s a problem alright. OTOH, it stands to reason from a logistical viewpoint; people you don’t trust are much less likely to have the access necessary to afford the opportunity to rape.
Think about it like this, how would you change your life if you needed to assume that every man you thought was trustworthy might pull out a gun and mug you?
So are you saying that women have to assume that every man they thought was trustworthy might rape them? See, I find that hard to believe. I accept the concept that women are more likely to be raped by someone they know rather than a stranger (see, I have been paying attention, folks!). But that’s not the same thing as saying that every woman has to assume that every man they know might rape them.
RonF,
Until I know a guy VERY well I am on my guard.
In college, I was playing around with a very good male friend who happened to be gay. We were wrestling/tickling and at one point he was on top, and had me pinned down by my arms. I had a panic attack.
I’ve never been raped or assaulted, and the moment my face went white, he got off, but it was awkward. I wasn’t worried he would rape me, but the sheer physical/gutteral fear that creeped through my entire body was uncontrollable. Even though I knew and trusted HIM, I was still constantly on my guard. Even my husband has to be careful sometimes and I trust him implicitly.
i have never been assaulted, but the social conditioning of FEARING that assault is so strong I sometimes can’t control it even if my brain and logic know better.
I’m not saying I’m worried about every man I know being a rapist, but I am telling you that the fear of rape is very much a part of my life and influences what I am comfortable with and not.
I literally celebrated my 25th birthday because statistically I was at much lower risk for rape from now on (that and better car insurance rates!).
I don’t think I’m all that unusual, just more willing to admit it than some women are.
I’ll second that.
And it wasn’t until I was raped that I realised this. Until then I would have been one of those women who scoffed at the notion that the fear of rape shaped my life.
After being raped and consciously, actively trying to minimise the risk of a recurrance, I realised that I had already been doing everything I could to protect myself. Hearing other people pontificate how women should do X Y Z to ‘take care’ of themselves made the healing so much harder.
I had a girlfriend for a while in college who told me she had been raped. She told me at a time when we were starting to get intimate and then the signals changed, so to speak. I couldn’t figure out what was going on, said so, and she told me. I should think it was difficult for her to tell me, but at least that way I understood what was going on.
However, I would not think that this would be the norm among all women. I have to wonder how many women would celebrate their 25th birthday because it meant that they were statistically less likely to get raped. That seems unusual to me.
Hearing other people pontificate how women should do X Y Z to ‘take care’ of themselves made the healing so much harder.
I have said that risk-avoidance and self-defense are valid options to include among the things that women can do to deal with rape, and that they have an important place in the discussion because they are options that make women less dependent on men’s decisions. However, except under very limited circumstances I would not presume to tell women how to evaluate the risk that a particular man or a particular situation presents, or whether they should adopt particular self-defense techniques. For example, I’m in favor of shall-issue concealed carry legislation, which means that the civil authorities would be required to issue any law-abiding citizen above a certain age a permit to carry a concealed weapon unless the authority can show a specific reason why they should not. But I would not say that a woman should therefore definitely own a gun and carry it; only that she have the right to make that decision to do so if she thinks its appropriate. Should she not do so and end up getting raped, it’s the fault of the rapist, not her fault for deciding not to carry.
I understand that failure to adopt risk-avoidance or self-defense measures have been used in the past in courts (and the court of public opinion) to play the “blame-the-victim” game. That’s invalid. And, outrageous. And and, it make you wonder just who the hell is on a jury that would accept such a thing. But such a practice is separate from considering the validity and usefulness of such measures.
I understand from the BBC that this was not a feminist who wrote the graffitti, but instead a man who wanted to point out female aggression. In other words, if the car was a woman (actually written the other way around), she is so nasty that she would just run you down.
I don’t know if that changes the perspective.
Nemo, do you have a source for that?
Pingback: Toy Soldiers Reveling in Violence Against Males «
My God, men are touchy.
Well, they wouldn’t want to be subjected to hate and violence because of their gender.
They’re men. They don’t deserve it. Even the hypothetical, unreal suggestion offered as rhetoric to highlight real violence levied against women is cruel and unfair.
What do we think they are, girls?
It’s not funny, I tell you !!!11!!one
As a man, I know that the terrifying specter of being run down by the killer cars can be a heavy weight to bear. Personally, I blame monty python.