Slog - Comments on Sexist? Or Just Clueless?

Comment by M

Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:49:41 -0800

I'm confused. What's sexist about this? Is it because there's only an example of a woman and not a man?

Comment by Mr. Poe

Mr. Poe — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:52:34 -0800

You are the spitting definition of the easily offended whiny liberal douchebag.

Comment by Lake

Lake — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:52:37 -0800

It's a great method of getting you to click on something because you think you're going to be moving objects around (or, rearranging) rather than being redirected to a site.

It's not like a puddle of cum is one of the features to arrange on her face or something, EESEEBEE!

Comment by Hernandez

Hernandez — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:52:46 -0800

Just tacky. You can stay calm.

Comment by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me

You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:52:55 -0800

or just funny...

Comment by thehim

thehim — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:53:58 -0800

I think it's both tacky and bad advertising. Everyone knows that only women would be interested in such a silly activity like rearranging a person's face.

Comment by tabletop_joe

tabletop_joe — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:54:08 -0800

All of those ads are site user-made. A friend of mine made one and sold it for $8.00.

To answer your question ("Sexist or Just Clueless?"): I would say a little of each, with a pinch of misguided defiance thrown in to complicate matters.

Comment by Look for offense, you'll find it

Look for offense, you'll find it — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:56:41 -0800

It's about as offensive as this:
http://www.freakingnews.com/Inverted-Celebrities-Pictures--1754-0.asp

Comment by COMTE

COMTE — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:57:15 -0800

Ineffectual would be the first word that comes to my mind.

Unless of course the point is in fact to attract people who are so dumb they haven't figured out not to click one of these ads.

Comment by Bellevue Ave

Bellevue Ave — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:59:12 -0800

you're like the female chaz now.

you might as well have written this;

http://www.action-online.org/lbtrev.html

Comment by Brad

Brad — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:01:00 -0800

There's nothing to see here, people, please move along...

Comment by Mr. Poe

Mr. Poe — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:01:09 -0800

Spot on, BA. HOW WAS NY?!?!/1/1 I know EVERYTHING about you now!

Comment by thehim

thehim — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:01:12 -0800

@6
I kind of fucked that joke up...I probably should've said "ex-lover" rather than "person"...

Comment by Apocalypse Tom

Apocalypse Tom — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:01:21 -0800

ECB,

Are you interpreting "rearrange her face" as "beat her until she's unrecognizable"? That's the slang that I remember, although I can't say I've heard the phrase used in conversation.

I wonder if it's more common in old movies, or some similar media from a few years (or decades) back?

Comment by Julie

Julie — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:01:27 -0800

I have been in a feminist tizzy over here what with all the ridiculous comments about weak, emotional HRC not being equipped to be president.

However, I see this as insipid rather than offensive.

Comment by monkey

monkey — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:02:35 -0800

Not sexist, just dumb.

Comment by Bellevue Ave

Bellevue Ave — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:04:07 -0800

NYC was awesome. Music, Food, People, all in more quantity and quality. there are only 2 things NYC doesnt do better and thats coffee and microbrew beer. i've pretty much decided i'm going to move there now within the next 5 to 10 years. You would have a ball out there.

Comment by NapoleonXIV

NapoleonXIV — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:04:38 -0800

Yeah.

I'm thinking if it read something like Use her like an ashtray, it would be sexist.

This is just dumb. But you clicked on it didn't you? Maybe even actually played with it for a while?

Comment by MplsKid

MplsKid — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:04:54 -0800

Not sexist, just very dumb. Its not like you're asked to rearrange her face to make her "prettier" or "younger" or whatever.

Comment by Bellevue Ave

Bellevue Ave — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:05:41 -0800

is mrs. potato head sexist?

Comment by Julie

Julie — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:06:14 -0800

Hmm. Though, @14 makes a good point. I didn't think about "rearrange her face" as the slang for beating her up.

I didn't catch that reference, so, maybe 14 is right, it's so out of date that it's not offensive anymore.

Comment by tsm

tsm — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:06:15 -0800

If we argue that it's not sexist, and that it's just one of many ads designed to trick the user into clicking on something, are we misogynists who marginalize womens' issues? If there is only one version of the ad and it features a woman, is that sexist? If we found a similar ad featuring a male face, would that just be considered a smokescreen to give the illusion of non-sexism?

Comment by some dude

some dude — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:06:37 -0800

totally sexist. makes me sick.

Comment by Vasya

Vasya — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:06:50 -0800

I don't get how it's anything other than "another ad to ignore".

Comment by Mrs. Jarvie

Mrs. Jarvie — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:06:55 -0800

I think the ad is tacky, insipid, and a poor attempt at updating a webpage ad that's been around for a very long time.

Comment by NapoleonXIV

NapoleonXIV — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:07:51 -0800

@22. Yes. We must all be ashamed now.

Very, very ashamed.

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:09:15 -0800

Almost as bad as those makeup commercials.

Comment by lyn

lyn — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:16:44 -0800

@ 15 Do you even read the read the slog posts you respond to?

Comment by ddv

ddv — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:17:31 -0800

i can't deem this as sexist as it is just a new spin on an existing ad. the model in the ad (yes, a woman (gasp)) usually appears in the other banner ads, so this is just a continuation of that. they had a 50/50 chance of picking a female model, would it be offensive if it was a guy instead?

ddv

Comment by ECB

ECB — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:20:26 -0800

I assumed everyone would hear "rearrange her face" as "beat her up." I guess I'm a lot more of an old codger than I realized.

Comment by brandon

brandon — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:25:06 -0800

i guess if "rearrange her face" were interpretted as "beat the living shit out of her," and then you mouse-clicked all over her until she looks like a burnt pizza, then that would be pretty sexist. but that's not what you're doing - you're literally rearranging her face! i think it's supposed to be "ironic" or something.

Comment by Mr. Poe

Mr. Poe — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:25:42 -0800

I didn't get that. I'm slow.

@17

I have the same plan. Odd. Stop copying me!

Comment by some dude

some dude — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:25:43 -0800

p.s. i've always hated mrs potato head as an oppressive tool of the patriarchy as well. ECB, get on that. i mean, some people here don't seem to mind this injustice. I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man.

"alpha delphini" over on the "grrltalk forums" on pinksofa.com really speaks for my wounded heart when she said:

"I really feel Mrs Potato Head, Mr Potato Heads ex wife, had a big part to play in cosmetic surgury and deluded fashion statments. Why else would someone advertise being able to reaarange their face at whim and be constantly proping themselves up with European fashion lables?
Is Mrs Potato Head hiding her insecurity behind Fashion? I think so."

free mrs potato head, erica. only you can advocate for her. use your bully pulpit to show us the light. you're our only hope.

Comment by tsm

tsm — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:42:18 -0800

I missed it too. Perhaps I don't read enough Mickey Spillane novels. Now I'm gotta go put the screws on a wiseguy, if ya get my drift.

Comment by Fnarf

Fnarf — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:43:32 -0800

It's Classmates.com. By definition it is vacuous and evil. What's your point?

Comment by Irena

Irena — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:49:27 -0800

When I saw "rearrange her face" I assumed it was aimed at other females. You know, playing on that whole jealousy thing between girls. High school is so Heathers; isn't that what they're appealing to?

Comment by gnossos

gnossos — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:53:15 -0800

ECB @ 30, it may not be old codger so much as it is those Texas roots.

Comment by unPC

unPC — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:53:47 -0800

it's sexist. and tacky.

part of sexism is the notion that "we" or "guys" get to be tacky and offensive with regard to women's looks and bodies etc.

here the phrase rearrange her face also evokes violence.

mailnly: you just don't see shit like this about men.

this subordinates and objectifies, literally.

Comment by Wolf

Wolf — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:56:22 -0800

I think if you get worked up over this AT ALL, you really need a hobby like knitting or something calming. It's stupid, nothing more.

Comment by Jason Josephes

Jason Josephes — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 16:02:55 -0800

It's not sexist.

Comment by aiken

aiken — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 16:22:36 -0800

It is absolutely, positively sexist. As long as we can all agree that the same ad with a guy would also be sexist. And that most rocks and all breezes are, too.

Comment by Yeek

Yeek — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 16:25:15 -0800

Offensive merely means it 'hurts your feelings' or 'evokes anger.' Since emotion defines the offensiveness of an object or act (not the actual content) it simply depends on who you ask.

P.S. Erica, you are annoying.

Comment by Wolf

Wolf — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 16:43:06 -0800

It is absolutely, positively sexist. As long as we can all agree that the same ad with a guy would also be sexist.

The same ad with a guy would still be stupid. Nothing more. Not sexist, nothing...just stupid.

Comment by thegayrecluse

thegayrecluse — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:01:17 -0800

I vote for sexist, but in a very insidious (and demeaning) way that is pretty much on par with 98 percent of everything else is our stupid mainstream culture.

Comment by OR Matt

OR Matt — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:35:41 -0800

I vote that this discussion is catty and devalues what sexism COULD mean from a piss poor advertisement. I think it's supposed to play on those "people" in high school that were very superficial and vapid ... which since we have all hopefully outgrown. (Yet its still a sad/lot of fun to see the X cokehead girls blow up like balloons, and the high school quarterback be the school janitor)

Comment by josue

josue — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:37:16 -0800

Clueless.

What's wrong with sexy?

Comment by unPC

unPC — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:53:52 -0800

also not sexist:

the media elites, explaining why HRC is ahead in NH right now (3000 votes, 41% to 39% but about half counted) say it's because the women of NH saw HRC cry.

Obviously, it could not be because those women voters heard HRC and Bill say Obama has little experience, that Obama'd said he actually wouldn't have known how he'd have voted on the war resolution had he actually been in the US Senate at the time, or things like that.

Those kinds of things are facts/logic/positions and such; of course, those things move male voters.
Not the wymyn. They are moved by someone crying. And feeling hurt.

Move along.

Comment by also

also — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:06:52 -0800

Clearly sexist. This ad is clearly aimed at men, and the people behind it obviously assume that men like to at least mock and and worst beat women. This anti-male gender stereotype is very offensive and insulting, and was obviously put together by a woman who hates men. Oh, wait, am I being sexist now?

Comment by S.

S. — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 20:01:24 -0800

The ad is both tacky and incredibly sexist (not to mention ugly and poorly designed). And its sexist in particularly insidious and scary way, in that it's sexism is subtle and not easily detectable. It's disturbing to me that so many of the above comments deride Barnett for being whiny or reactionary. I congratulate her, as this ad represents the kind of sexism (or homophobia or racism for that matter) that needs to be addressed. As it becomes less and less acceptable in the mainstream to be blatantly offensive, we have to become more aware of the underlying sexism, etc. we see constantly in our everyday lives. Thanks for the post! @38-- I agree completely.

Comment by Papayas

Papayas — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:51:35 -0800

Sexist.

Comment by NapoleonXIV

NapoleonXIV — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 23:04:40 -0800

No one takes me seriously anymore.

You're all ASSHOLES! Sexist Assholes!

Comment by manic hispanic

manic hispanic — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 23:30:25 -0800

wow! that first one is totally my roommate!!!

Comment by susan kim

susan kim — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 07:22:37 -0800

I am the creative director on this ad. I'm a woman and a staunch feminist. The designer who did this is also a woman. This is just a fun, Mr. Potato take-off. Nothing sexist, just something to do when you get bored on a conference call at work.

Comment by LoserBlogger

LoserBlogger — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 07:31:43 -0800

This discussion is hilarious. Get a life, people.

Comment by more people that worked on this ad

more people that worked on this ad — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 07:34:23 -0800

hi --
so...I find it HA--larious that our silly ad with no cleavage or even skin showing is labeled as "sexism" by someone who posts on a site where you can click on links for "lust lab" with a picture of a partially nude woman, or a "men seeking women"
Ususally the people that preach the most about certain topics are the worst offenders.
SNAP.

Comment by one more thing

one more thing — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 07:46:31 -0800

forgot to also say, if people are talking about your ad (even if in a negative way) that means that it is even more effective...people are noticing it and talking about it.
Don't be so quick to judge "good design"-- in advertising and mainstream American Pop Culture--there is more to esthetics than might be obvious to consumers.
DOUBLE SNAP.

Comment by another ad grunt

another ad grunt — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 07:49:39 -0800

I wish I could write something trenchant and insightful, but I think it'd be completely out of place here. Besides, I can't stop laughing.

At this moment, all around the country, there are prescriptions for ritalin that desperately need to be filled.

Comment by Tlazolteotl

Tlazolteotl — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 08:32:44 -0800

Good lord, Erica. You have ads featuring half-clad women posed as sexual objects and further upline a Slog post comparing the hotness of Kucininch vs. Thompson's wives, and you focus on this? You need to grow the fuck up.

Comment by infrequent

infrequent — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 12:41:34 -0800

eh? accidents happen.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080109/sp_wl_afp/golfuspgawoods

Comment by Greg

Greg — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:17:29 -0800

The possibility of it being sexist never occurred to me.