In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Category: Advertising

When is an ill-fitting bra like domestic violence? When you ask Amante. (Or Jezebel.)

[Warning for references to domestic violence.]

The ad says, “Suffocation is the worst kind of abuse.” Is it really the worst kind of abuse? I don’t know, frankly; considering the range of horrible things done to women by partners and family, it’s kind of hard to rank them all. But I feel comfortable saying that suffocating one’s breasts with an overly tight bra ranks so far down the list as to not warrant even joking comparison.

A Simple Saturday Post: Leave Me Out of Your “Everyone,” Mr. Apatow.

I just wanted to quickly mention the trailer for the new Judd Apatow movie, “This is 40.”

Of course, we all know that Hollywood is guilty of all sorts of offenses all of the time, but it seems rare even today to find one that is quite so up front with its surface-level exclusion. The tagline at the end of the trailer reads: “This is not just their story. This is everyone’s story.”

Please, watch, if you’re so inclined:

(Trigger warnings regarding this trailer: man on a toilet, Megan Fox in underwear, humor about spousal death, anti-aging, inherent anti-lotsa-stuff…)

The trouble, of course, is with the assumption that “everyone” will see some aspect of themselves in this story… a story which appears to be about a wildly wealthy (do you KNOW how much a house like that costs in LA?), white, American-born, middle-aged, thin, conventionally attractive, cissexual, child-rearing, married couple. I’m going to give Mr. Apatow and his corporate marketeers the benefit of the doubt and assume they know not “everyone” will conform to all of those attributes at once, and are trying to make a more general point about the basic similarity of human experience, but even I—a white, cissexual, American-born woman raising a daughter—feel thoroughly alienated and offended by this at just a core level. My heart and stomach clench to wonder how other “everyones” must feel when watching this trailer and getting smacked by that tagline.

It’s obviously impossible to cast aspersions on Mr. Apatow’s film itself– at least until the movie premieres, this will remain a marketing problem– but he is a hugely powerful filmmaker in this town, and I believe it’s fair to say that the tagline came down to him. It represents at the very least a myopic and embarrassing perspective on the world. At worst, it suggests that those with the most privilege in this country are unwilling to even bother extending an invitation to see their new movie to those that aren’t adequately “like them.”

And frankly, in order to chalk up a box office success, they will presumably need more than middle-aged rich white people (traditionally not the most movie-friendly audience out there) to go see their film… So couldn’t they have come up with a slightly less exclusionary pitch?? (I’m kind of seriously asking this, and also leaving the comments section wide open here for complaints, suggestions and heavy-duty snark.)

I am very lenient about humor, and I know what Judd Apatow’s movies are like. Some of his stuff has made me laugh, some has made me cringe, some has made me cringe through laughter or laugh through cringing. In addition, I believe he has every right to tell this story—clearly a personal one—if he chooses to do so. But if his marketing is going to display a level of ignorance this enormous, and work to exclude us so egregiously, then “everyone” can certainly choose not to see it.

Tarot! Get your tarot!

Hi guys. As some of you, but not most of you, know – I read tarot. Not because I’m a creepy “let me tell you your future, child… oh yes, a tall, handsome man approaches…” – type (Jesus, at least I hope so), but because I have found that tarot is good for predicting the present. As opposed to the future.

The rules are simple:

I do most of my readings via essay form in e-mail nowadays.

Readings are also available via Skype. Sometimes, they can be harder to schedule, due to time differences (I’m in Moscow), but I’ve had some success with North American and UK people recently, so it can be done. Sometimes, an adorable infant will coo in the background, adding to your general reading experience.

Prices range from $30 to $100 per reading, depending on your preferences and how we decide to approach your question.

Different spreads suit different lines of inquiry.

No, I’m not going to try to convince you to get the most expensive reading possible. Only if you prefer to go in really deep will I offer the 21-card spread, which takes a while to complete but is usually worth it.

I accept PayPal.

I try to get a good sense of why you’re approaching me for a reading first, so some back-and-forth banter via e-mail is usually required to proceed.

I can be slow (work, play, baby, husband) – in part because I try to give the best reading possible, and need my wits about me for that.

Very rarely, I will reject a possible customer, but only if they’re being super-weird and/or rude. Like, “So I think this stuff is bullshit and a waste of time, but how about you impress me?” Sorry, I have roughly two billion better things I could be doing.

Unfortunately, time constraints and financial constraints mean that I cannot offer readings for free at this time – or even on a barter basis. I hope that will change eventually.

I have this hope that tarot reading among expats will catch on in Moscow. Probably because I think that tarot is good for your emotional health, and expats tend to lack it. I even have my eyes on a cozy future space where to occasionally gather – but all of that is in the distant future.

I don’t really think that tarot is magic in that whole supernatural woo-woo sense. If you’re into the supernatural woo-woo stuff – that’s perfectly cool. But I closely tie tarot to a type of therapy that can occur via interpreting symbols. NO, it has NOTHING to do with traditional therapy. But it can help people have fun and relax.

I think I’ve said it all – if you’re interested, please leave a comment here indicating this. Please include your real e-mail address. I will be in touch with more information, including a rough price list.

Belvedere apologizes, but what do we want?

Belvedere has officially apologized for their rapey ad, and made a donation to RAINN. Which is… fine. But kind of always how these things go, right? Someone fucks up big time, and the fuck-up appears to be an institutional problem and not just one idiot running their mouth off, and then Outrage, and then a Statement that the fuck-up is Not What We Stand For, and then a donation to X organization. Here’s Belvedere’s statement:

Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta shames fat kids to save them

It was surveys of two towns in Georgia that convinced Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta that the nation’s relentless campaign against childhood obesity wasn’t hitting hard enough: Georgia has the second highest rate of childhood obesity in the U.S., and parents in the towns surveyed seemed unaware of their kids’ obesity. So to promote their Strong4Life campaign, Children’s decided that a painfully blunt approach was necessary, and damn the consequences–even if those consequences involved putting sad, overweight children on billboards and TV ads to shame their parents into action.

Pete Hoekstra is super racist, doesn’t understand the word “satire”

If you’ve gotten someone’s attention by giving them policies to challenge and facts to debate, you’re doing something right. You’re putting yourself out there as a contender. You’re making yourself part of the conversation. Good for you! If you’ve gotten someone’s attention by putting a young Asian woman on a bicycle to pedal through rice fields in a sedge hat to the tune of a gong and a pentatonic scale, so she can smilingly criticize your opponent in broken English, it’s not because you’re a contender–it’s because you’re a racist asshole.

The Annual Post About Sexist Super Bowl Commercials 2012

Last year, safe estimates were that 46 percent of Super Bowl viewers were women. With market research indicating that 1 in 5 watch just for the commercials, that’s more than 10 million women who have your undivided attention (not to mention of millions of men who actually, you know, like and respect women) as, once again, you devote millions of advertising dollars to naked chicks in front of wind machines.

Welcome to 2012’s Insulting, Demeaning, and Frankly Not- Terribly-Creative Super Bowl Ads (Tittys! Edition)