A victory for "Feminism"?
I blogged waaaay back in February defending the decision for a Dunedin steak house to choose to put a photo of a woman on a leaflet of theirs which obscurred her boobs and advertised their restaurant. As an ex Otago student and veteran of 7 years of hard living down there I was shocked that a private restaurant would be attacked for having a sense of humour at a University Orientation week.
There are more women (58%) at Otago university, which I always enjoyed - and of them there would be 5% MAX who would find this offensive. This might have been exhibited when not one went down to the Huntsman bar and grill to protest their excellent steak deal. My argument was mainly at the backwards feminists over at the Hand Mirror who seem to think that a woman displaying herself (or not in this instance) was not in anybodys best interests. This coming from a blog that proudly or ironically displays on their blog the "My body - my choice" logo.
"My body my choice" - unless it goes against their ultra conservative view that no woman can do it to - turn on men publically - or in magazines - or on leaflets - because a womans choice should be dictated by other women, presumably from the irrelevant Ministry of Womens affairs, something that if National had the balls, would have removed within their first 100 days.
Back to the Huntsman Grill. The story out today, a mere 3 months later reveals the the woman on the leaflet was the restaurant MANAGER, who had agreed with the owner that this was a good idea and in fact came up with the idea with her manager. So not some poor oppressed naive exploited girl, but a women in management who was totally comfortable in her skin to have a laugh. Good on her. The advertisment got complained about and the Advertising Standards Authority have ruled that the advertisement "was likely to cause serious offence" and "it used sexual appeal to draw attention and degraded women in general, thus breaching advertising standards.
It also said the ad crossed the threshold to likely cause serious offence in prevailing community standards. So it was upheld.
The people who complained said that "the ad was offensive and socially unacceptable as it portrayed women as pieces of meat" which every non cannibal knows is a frankly stupid remark. I bet anybody stuck in the snow with a fat woman amongst them would WISH she was made of sirloins, tender-ribs, rib-eye and other assorted steaks and cuts, but we all know this isn't the case.
It is sad that once again a womans right to express herself in a company what she manages has been denied by a bunch of kill-joys, angry manhaters and ultra conservative femimists.
Could this be that I value a womans right to display oneself in any way she chooses MORE than the Hand Mirror? That I care about a womans free right to put on or take off clothes when she sees fit? That ANY woman DOES have the choice to do what they want with their body?
Absolutely. As do the majority of the male and female blogosphere.
Evidence one
Evidence two
There are more women (58%) at Otago university, which I always enjoyed - and of them there would be 5% MAX who would find this offensive. This might have been exhibited when not one went down to the Huntsman bar and grill to protest their excellent steak deal. My argument was mainly at the backwards feminists over at the Hand Mirror who seem to think that a woman displaying herself (or not in this instance) was not in anybodys best interests. This coming from a blog that proudly or ironically displays on their blog the "My body - my choice" logo.
"My body my choice" - unless it goes against their ultra conservative view that no woman can do it to - turn on men publically - or in magazines - or on leaflets - because a womans choice should be dictated by other women, presumably from the irrelevant Ministry of Womens affairs, something that if National had the balls, would have removed within their first 100 days.
Back to the Huntsman Grill. The story out today, a mere 3 months later reveals the the woman on the leaflet was the restaurant MANAGER, who had agreed with the owner that this was a good idea and in fact came up with the idea with her manager. So not some poor oppressed naive exploited girl, but a women in management who was totally comfortable in her skin to have a laugh. Good on her. The advertisment got complained about and the Advertising Standards Authority have ruled that the advertisement "was likely to cause serious offence" and "it used sexual appeal to draw attention and degraded women in general, thus breaching advertising standards.
It also said the ad crossed the threshold to likely cause serious offence in prevailing community standards. So it was upheld.
The people who complained said that "the ad was offensive and socially unacceptable as it portrayed women as pieces of meat" which every non cannibal knows is a frankly stupid remark. I bet anybody stuck in the snow with a fat woman amongst them would WISH she was made of sirloins, tender-ribs, rib-eye and other assorted steaks and cuts, but we all know this isn't the case.
It is sad that once again a womans right to express herself in a company what she manages has been denied by a bunch of kill-joys, angry manhaters and ultra conservative femimists.
Could this be that I value a womans right to display oneself in any way she chooses MORE than the Hand Mirror? That I care about a womans free right to put on or take off clothes when she sees fit? That ANY woman DOES have the choice to do what they want with their body?
Absolutely. As do the majority of the male and female blogosphere.
Evidence one
Evidence two
posted by Clint H at
Saturday, May 23, 2009
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home