Apropos of actually nothing

[conuly]

this is the song that's been running in my head nonstop the past few days. I'm pretty sure it's not some sort of sad subconscious commentary on the state of the world, I think it's just stuck on a loop.

That time Robert E. Howard, fellow pulp writer, trolled the hell out of Lovecraft

Man Spends 23 Years Carving Sprawling Underground Temple Under His House

Controversial copyright law rejected by EU parliament

The deep roots of writing

Why Are There Palm Trees in Los Angeles?

Racy ad campaign featuring naked men called out for being ‘sexist’

Ordinary Person, Wild Radical

How Facebook’s Rise Fueled Chaos and Confusion in Myanmar

US Army quietly discharging immigrant recruits

How Horrific Things Come To Seem Normal

Comments

[adrian_turtle]

Yeah, the naked men are pretty. And if a clothing company did something like "isn't this man pretty? He'd look even better in one of our suits!" it might be ok. But I think it's a fair point that vengeance is not justice. I don't want to set an example to anyone, boys or girls, that sexual objectification is ok. I want to keep up the pressure that it's wrong wrong wrongity-wrong.

[wpadmirer]

Yeah, I understand that. I know objectification is wrong, even when it's finally something I'm interested in looking at.

[stardreamer]

This is called "mirroring", and sometimes it's the only thing that works. No amount of setting a good example will do anything about people who don't think they're doing anything wrong; I learned this from dealing with my parents. Example: when I was in college, my mother used to go thru my checkbook regularly and demand explanations for anything she had questions about. No matter how much I said, "I don't go thru YOUR financial information!", it bounced -- because she was one of those parents who believes that they own their children. Finally I went thru HER checkbook and started drilling her on things in it! She hit the roof, and at that point I was able to negotiate from a position of "Okay, I won't do it if you won't."

Remember the aphorism about the farmer, the mule, and the 2x4? You have to get the mule's attention first. Also, I disagree with your interpretation of the message being sent here. It's "If this is wrong for US to do, why is it okay for YOU to do?"

[conuly]

This is called "mirroring", and sometimes it's the only thing that works.

My mother tells a story about waaaaaay back when, when Anita Hill was in the news. One of her (male) coworkers was talking about it and insisting that if somebody grabbed his ass he'd "consider it a compliment". She was standing behind him. He didn't know she was there.

Well, what would you have done!?

Also: We should impeach Clarence fucking Thomas.

[ioplokon]

idk if mirroring is an ultimately effective technique for promoting societal change when used as a part of an advertising campaign, though? what works fine for inter-personal interactions where the goal is to change someone's way of thinking doesn't really translate in an ad campaign whose goal is to get everyone spending more money on suits.

which honestly is why I think this tactic is risky with objectification since there's already so much general pressure on everyone in our society to commodify their selves and desires? so what you end up getting, from my anecdotal observations, instead of people going, "wow - this is wrong!" is plenty of people - regardless of gender - going "what we need is freer sexual markets" which........ is not my preferred outcome.

[siderea]

I don't agree that sexual objectification is wrong.

I think that using sexual objectification to advertise goods and services that aren't sex or sexual is wrong. It would be cool if we could get rid of that.

Also, it would be awesome if "fomenting controversy in the service of promoting commerce" were criminalized.