Loading ...Let me first say, I am not against feminism. I think women standing up for their rights is a great thing. However, it has been taken much too far, to a point where some of those very same women are giving women less rights, or criticizing others for exercising these rights (and usually, blaming it on men…WHAT?!).
I’m sure it’s not uncommon to see, but two times this year I have come across articles in the school newspapers about how certain materials “objectify”, “demean”, and “disgust” the majority of women.
But does it really? No. It’s likely majority isn’t disgusted, just the majority of the outspoken. I find it offensive for women to be generalized as closed minded and hypocritical. (On a side note, girls who wear such revealing clothing and get angry when men look at them should be slapped. If you don’t want to be looked at, stop drawing attention to your body with such clothing! Cover up! Put on a sweater and shut up! I’m sick of hearing you complain.
I thought about writing on this topic months ago when it came up at Olympic College over a full page color advertisement run on the back of several issues of The Olympian. It was an advertisement for Toys Topless, a local, legal, alcohol-free strip club. The ad depicted five so called “scantily clad” women in “provocative poses.” It was directed toward women, saying that working there was a great way to pay for college.
One of the main arguments against the ad was that it had women in little clothing, and there are minors that attend the college as Running Start students. My problem with this is that these women were in no less clothing than in advertisements in magazines or on TV, things that surely a 16-17 year old see on a daily basis. You even see worse at the beach or swimming pool.
Sandy Bradley, a Running Start student, writes:
Of course it’s not okay! And if a 17 year old applied, they would be turned down until they were 18. The ad was not directed towards minors. The majority of students at the college are adults! Just like how the Planned Parenthood, Pied Pipers smoke shop, and military advertisements aren’t directed toward minors but are still in the paper. It’s surprising those ads haven’t been protested because of their content. “Kill your unborn child because you were irresponsible!”; “Join the military! You can kill or be killed!”; “Smoke your lungs to death!”…. Oh right, they don’t “demean” women so nobody cares enough. My bad.
What if your child sticks a fork in an open socket? There’s worse things than seeing an advertisement. Oh, and it’s called parenting. A college newspaper probably isn’t something a child should be looking at anyway. I’ve seen articles with content a 12 year old shouldn’t be reading about. Not to mention young kids see worse in school. Ah, if only their parents knew…. If you don’t want your child to see it, don’t put it somewhere where it can be picked up! If they really want to read the paper, black out the back page or tell them to read it on the website (even with parent supervision if you find it necessary…which you probably should if you’re worried about an advertisement).
Another concerned reader, Renee Bradley, writes:
Girls that choose to dance/strip for a living are not trashy, they are not dumb, and hey…they aren’t necessarily poor either! Not everyone has rich parents or can get grants and scholarships. So then what is your choice? Pay out of your pocket, or get loans which you have to pay back later anyway. These girls are smart for choosing to make money to pay for college. Not to mention, when you are comfortable with your body and can make $4500 a month, why not? It’s a case of “if you’ve got it, flaunt it.”
The truth is, the girls that work there do it because they chose to, not because they are forced. If they felt it was degrading I very much doubt they’d be there. I’m sure they all feel good about their bodies. Heck, there’s even a 3-foot rule at the club, so it’s not like they get “all up ons” the guys. It’s no different than being a model when it comes to “selling your body.” It is their right and choice to work there, and they are criticized for it! They are told they are “uneducated” or “trashy.” Again, a case of women demeaning their own kind. You’ll never see me up on a pole, but it is because I choose not to, not because I think it is a garbage job for trashy sluts.
A quote from Chris Marlow:
A distraction for men? Hardly. If it’s distracting you, turn the paper to the front and read the articles instead of staring at the girls. It’s what we call self control and choices. Also, an advertisement in a newspaper is hardly more distracting than the girl in a short skirt and low cut shirt that sits near you in class. If an ad is so distracting, and you think it should be pulled, then are you saying you’d like to see a dress code? In a college mostly full of mature adults, I hardly find this necessary.
As for irony when it comes to the values of the school and education (another complaint letter writers had), there as protest on the issue. I am positive people skipped classes to attend. Priorities, priorities. I wouldn’t say skipping classes over something so trivial is good for the image of education either. I also found it amusing that one of the protesters was holding a sign that had the full ad pasted to it. If you feel the ad is demeaning, then should you be showing it off in a public demonstration? Probably not.
The editor of the newspaper at the time made great points. An advertisement in a small local newspaper cannot make an entire college of 10,000 look trashy. As for advertising, no one ever said that the publication agrees with the content of the advertising. Money is money, when it’s legal, and this advertisement brought in $3500.
It’s too bad I wasn’t there to see the reaction to the parody advertisement done by a few students depicting men in their skivvies. I don’t recall what the message was, but the idea of the ad in itself had a great message. If it were men in the ad, would it be the same outcry? I think not.
The more recent hubub was over the “Women of Western” swimsuit calendar that was banned from Vendors Row at Viking Union at WWU. Apparently, this was also degrading to women. Let’s look at the facts here:
- The calendar was a swimsuit calendar, not a nude calendar. You see the same sort of thing all over the place. We’re adults!
- The women in the calendar, again, chose to model. One of the models, Amy Braden, stated she does not feel it’s a bad thing to be sexy.
- The women in the calendar were not only chosen for their looks, but for their intellect as well. From freshman to seniors. A small biography was included for each girl. These girls are students in the college, they are getting an education. They are not shown as just objects.
- The calendar included all important WWU dates and deadlines. It was useful.
- The calendar was not just shot in some studio. It was shot in the scenery around Bellingham and on campus…even the Chemistry Lab! If I remember correctly each girl was shot in a place of their own interest…something important to them.
- The company who produced the calendar, Notorious Productions, is run by a Western graduate. They hosted a sunset cruise for the graduates last year and donated to the Boys & Girls Club. Their company promotes local bars and companies, and provides students with entertainment.
It is just sickening to think that just because a woman is comfortable with herself, she is contributing to the downfall of women-kind. If a woman decides she is comfortable with men looking at her, then let it happen. I find it sad that even just for modeling for a calendar, they are criticized. I somewhat understand it being removed from Vendor’s Row, though the AS Bookstore right next to Vendor’s Row sells magazines like Maxim. The University had the right to pull it, as said in the article. But I do not agree it is objectifying women.
It’s great that the same women who are against such things are those who want women to have the right to kill an unborn baby whenever they want (of course within the certain time frame that the procedure can be done). The priorities of some feminists seem twisted.
If certain women want to be what they call “objectified,” let them because it id their right to choose that. Instead feminists should be promoting the fact that all women are not the same, therefore women as a whole should not be objectified.
I’m getting too tired to write any more. Edits may come, or even later posts. But for now, I’m done.
0 Responses to “The "Degradation" of Women”
Leave a Reply
You must login to post a comment.