You Decide
I hate thin-skinned, whining, bitching babies who have nothing better to do with their lives than find things to be offended about.
But am I out of line here when I say that these people have gone way, way over the top with this? I see nothing wrong with this advertisement from Target Corp.
Yet, these fine people have this to say:
“The Target Corporation needs to acknowledge that this image is offensive and discontinue using it immediately. Is this so much to ask?”
And have gone on some sort of half-baked crusade to punish Target for apparently not being sensitive to feminism…
And digging a little deeper, they also have this to say in an open letter to Target’s CEO:
“You see, Mr. Ulrich and Mr. Francis, it’s hard enough to raise girls to become healthy adults these days. And you’re not helping.”
So apparently these people think the ad is all about sex, since they try to refer Mr. Ulrich to an article titled “Prude: How the Sex-Obsessed Culture Damages Girls (and America, Too!).”
But this is my favorite line:
“If I could, I would return the check for seven thousand-odd dollars that you gave to my daughter’s school last year, and give up all future donations, just to ensure that we’d never see an ad like this again.”
I’m going to make a wild assumption here, and just guess that this woman doesn’t enjoy the little things in life and is bound and determined to ruin everybody else’s lives.
While the rest of us are trying to steer the nation and keep us from falling off the edge, people like this are obsessed with finding something bad in everything and then raising a stink about it.
My advice?
Get a life. Take a nap. Take up drinking. Get laid. Do something to cheer up your unhappy existence and stop trying to punish the rest of us for enjoying ours.
I followed the link and checked out the comments. I like how the “prudes” find this image offensive and have looked hard enough to notice “a slight camel toe” The Target Co. is marketing for sure but my first impression was a Target snow angel kind of thing. NOT “nail me” !!!! It always kills me how the self proclaimed innocent and decent are the ones that envision camel toe, promiscuity and sexism.
I’m offended that this women has enough time in her day to examine every ad she can see. Way to see sex in the ad with a fully clothed woman. Sheesh.
ROFLOL, that ad rocks!
I guess gymnastics would be out of the question.
Bitch would probably shit down her leg if she went to the beach.
I ran into a holcaust denier that wished the Nazis killed my granma while she was in a concentration camp and he got all bent out of shape when I called him a toothless fag.
The article will be out soon
I’m offended that people were so stupid they thought it was about sex. Duh, she’s on a target. It means kill all the white women. sheesh, some people
Good grief, wish she had protested about something
important like how Target catered to their islam (practicing their faith) employees, but saw fit to fire a Christian pharmacist for practicing his faith.
This photo is nothing compared to what we see everyday.
Looks like snow angels and good fun..
The only thing I can agree on with them is the whole Bratz dolls thing. Yech.
The ad doesn’t seem sexual to me. Am I missing something? The girl is covered head to toe! Don’t let them look at an abercrombie catalogue, they’d shit a brick!!
Um, the girl’s crotch at the center of a target, with her legs spread-eagled. Yeah, “snow angels,” even though there’s no snow.
There is the chance that this wasn’t INTENDED, but sorry, it IS what it conveys to an average red-blooded American male.
I digress, guess it is how you look at it. However, my mind just was not there.
There are much worse ‘in your face’ ads that need to be removed imho.
Wait, what is wrong with this ad? Gosh, I don’t see a thing to object too. And I thought I was a prude.
Whoops, my second to has one too many o’s. HA!
Since these loons continue to wage war against Target over this ad, I thought that I would be a nice guy and render some advice to them. Here is what I had to say:
Ryan, I replied to your comments on the PEM site to which you refer above, then saw that you reprinted one of your comments here. So, if you don’t mind, I thought I’d copy my comments here where you’re more likely to see them. Thanks.
Ryan, you sound as though you’re a thoughtful person, “an activist” as you say, as well as a member of the mainstream. If so, you’re perfectly representative of why criticism of this ad is not “overzealous.” I agree: activists must pick their battles. If they choose the wrong thing, they risk alienating the mainstream. But isn’t this the very reason that advocacy of so called unpopular issues is necessary, to educate? At one time segregation was so mainstream, it was codified by law. That didn’t mean MLK shouldn’t have advocated for desegregation. It meant changing peoples’ minds.
You say that the Target Battle is too small, choose an ad like the D & G ad, but again, it is precisely that the Target ad is mainstream that it is relevant. Ads like the D & G ad have far less exposure. The mainstream, as you say, can express its distaste by simply not buying the magazine, etc. But the Target ad was displayed 20’ X 20’ in Times Square and more insidiously in the Sunday circulars that pervade nearly every household in the country. Its ubiquity made it the battleground.
This ad didn’t elicit a reaction from your peers probably because they’re—your peers. Most of my peers think like me too, so everyone I showed the ad to saw offense. This, however, didn’t prove its offensiveness any more than your experiment proved its innocuousness. To understand the offense, whether you see it immediately or not, admittedly takes a little effort, and PEM has provided some links that describe the process of deconstructing an ad. Are social critics like, Kilbourne, http://www.mediaed.org/videos/MediaGenderAndDiversity/KillingUsSoftly3, Lukas, http://www.genderads.com/, and Frith, http://www.amazon.com/Undressing-Ad-Reading-Culture-Advertising/dp/0820437557 going “overboard”? Are their minds in the gutter? Are they prudes? My only suggestion is, before you make this judgment, you should take a look at these critics as well as at the entire canon of media analysis out there. Then perhaps when you show ads like this one to your friends, you can exercise your penchant for activism and change someone’s mind.
As for taking the negative stigma out of sex, this is exactly what criticizing this ad is all about. Take a look at your dictionary. Despite the retailer’s attempt to co-opt the definition, mine has nothing to say about a corporate logo. It merely defines a Target as “an object marked with concentric circles, to be aimed at in shooting practice.” If placing a woman’s crotch, clothed or otherwise, in the bulls eye doesn’t create a negative stigma, what does? It’s not about nudity at all. Splash all the nude women and men around you want, as long as they’re not representing body images that have nothing to do with reality nor are the objects of violence.
Well, the most modest countries out there are generally the ones that are most violent and oppressive towards women… something to think about…
Research it for yourself (hint, Egypt…)
Maybe we should all just grow up…