(This is too much of a discussion starter to leave in the sidebar. Pie, anyone? – promoted by kestrel9000)
Just wanted to say that despite being supportive of anything that is called “Anyone but Dubie” I find the ad posted on the GMD site and the way in general that ABD presents materials is demeaning to women. I would like to suggest that the ad be deleted and the organization be asked to provide something less demeaning to women.
…but I committed some time ago to being as hands off as possible on ad buys, because I don’t want to get into the position of being arbiter without an absolutely crystal clear set of standards that would not be open to interpretation.
The ad is mildly prurient. Mostly its fails to touch the originality scale more than successfully climb the demeaning scale.
It’s certainly not the pornographic fair displayed on magazine covers in, for instance, the “No Candy” check-out aisles at Shaws. Still what’s really on sale here, right? It’s prurient.
On the demeaning scale, however, it barely (barely!) registers in this particular gubernatorial race given the media pollution the Dubie campaign has been spewing. Relative to the Full-Frontal Demeaning & Insulting Dubie ad campaign of:
. . . It’s pretty clear that the Dubie campaign has hit bottom, with “insulting,” by setting the “demeaning” bar well above our collective heads.
I had to turn mine back on to check it out, expecting to find some scantily-clad gal in 6 inch heels with a chain around her neck or something. What’s demeaning about a good-looking gal wearing a t-shirt that’s not even revealing? It’s pretty tame.
Chicks jes gotta lighten up!
/snark
I am totally perplexed at what the intention is. Is this gal selling t-shirts? Is she looking for a date with “anyone but Dubie?” I got nothing from this ad; but being a 60-year old female I don’t expect it was targeted at my demographic.
I wish the advertiser would take a moment to explain what the hell he is trying to tell us. Every single mass media thing he’s posted to this site has been guaranteed to offend someone without shedding even the tiniest light on a point relevant to this election.
Message to the advertiser: rethink your strategy. Suspicion around here has been that maybe you aren’t even interested in defeating Dubie. Presumably, you’re a communications professional, and I’m talking total communication breakdown here! Perhaps you’e not aware that a political campaign is supposed to be predicated on ideas and support for someone or something. To take the position, “Anyone But Dubie” is completely thoughtless and counterproductive. Donald Duck and Joe the Plumber aren’t Dubie: so does that mean you would consider them for governor?
the text distracts from her boobs. i dunno.
i stare at mens’ butts, etc. bodies is bodies and they’re purty.
When I wrote the post I wasn’t even sure anyone would see it.
For the record, I would raise the same issue if the person objectified were a man.
I am actually surprised that on this blog I would see folks trying to defend the way this ad was done and to defend it by making fun of those of us who are made uncomfortable by it. Can those who have supported the use of what we used to call “cheesecake” to advertise opposition to Dubie provide a reasoned argument in support of your position instead of making fun of those who object to it?
looking for a Teletubbies mashup that didn’t have sexist lyrics for Kestrel’s dance thread.
I found some Rammstein, finally. Most of the rest was “chitch & ho”, etc. rap. Great stuff, actually, but not for here.
Now that Jill has got me to actually think about it, I don’t think the ad belongs here.
I find the “beefcake is the same as cheesecake argument, and I don’t mind” a red herring, kind of along the lines of the angry white folks that whine about reverse discrimination.
I can’t quantify it, but I feel safe in saying that the objectification of women leads to more negative outcomes than the objectification of men, generally, and it always has.
Having said that, I don’t think that the objectification of men belongs on this site, either, by the way.
I don’t believe much in censorship. I love rap music, and as my FB friends know, I do post rap stuff over there.
Like a picture of a busty monkey? To imply that even a monkey would do a better job? Or maybe that’s being to generous…
I’m not a fan of the ad, but mainly because it lacks originality.
I find the ad demeaning to people who find the portrayed woman sexy, in that the advertiser clearly felt that by putting the text “Anyone But Dubie” on a sexily portrayed woman would cause people to be in favor of anyone but Dubie. If it works, that is a sad commentary on how people choose who to vote for. (BTW – I presume the advertiser was aiming for men, but I didn’t want to preclude other people in my thinking)
On a more personal level, I’ve been wincing over the ad for some time. I feel it contributes to the objectifying of women, and indirectly portrays a view of what women are supposed to look like. This is the type of subtle messaging that affects many of our young teens — they are constantly bombarded with the view that women are supposed to dress this way in order to please people, and if your body shape doesn’t match, you are out of luck.
Lastly, however, the advertiser has the right to advertise within the bounds of acceptable. This ad clearly falls in today’s norms for advertising, so I don’t think it justifies being banned from the site. But, I darn well won’t click on it to see who “Anyone But Dubie” is (even though I’m curious) because I don’t want to reward this type of advertising. I think it is reasonable to give feedback to an advertiser (if the movers behind the site should choose to do so, and if it represented a clear consensus of users, neither which might be true in this case) that they ad is being poorly received.
Hi, everyone. Since I’m the guilty party, I suppose I should weigh in.
The Dubie Girl is not meant to offend, just get clicks at the lowest possible cost. With google adwords, she’s pulling almost 5% which is pretty darn good. If a cat worked better, I’d use the cat. (Indeed, if you have a better suggestion about who or what should replace the Dubie Girl, I’m all ears. We can test it and find out.)
My own informal research seems to be that some folks like her, some don’t, and most could care less. In general, it’s hard enough to get people to respond to any advertisement, so if you can get folks to have a reaction, any reaction, well, that’s usually a good thing.
Is politics an exercise in calm, rational discourse? Of course not. We know how dirty the Republicans can fight. Harris Media, Dubie’s Texas communications firm, has earned themselves several black belts for brutally attacking Democrats with emotion, not logic, and I have every confidence Dubie and his team of out-of-state political operatives will do whatever they can to win.
Should one out-of-work Vermonter armed with a Mac and a credit card be able to fight back and voice his disapproval of the Republican candidate … using the same tools?
I think so.
Maybe Peter Shumlin can’t come right out and say that Brian Dubie’s “Pure Vermont” is pure bullshit, but I can. And set it to music.
“They’re masters of smoke and mirrors because that’s all they’ve got to work with. The fact that they “brutally attack…with emotion, not logic” is not something to aspire to! They’re appealing to the lowest common denominator, beating the bushes for anyone who’ll respond to a scary soundbite, a dog whistle, or a shiny object.”
Sue, I’m not sure I agree with your statement above. I believe the Republicans do what they do because it’s effective, helps them win elections, and control the levers of power.
If you’re suggesting that Democrats shouldn’t engage in such behavior … hmmmm … take a look at what the professionals are doing over in Wisconsin to defend Russ Feingold. http://www.youtube.com/user/wi…
Should this kind of thing not go on? Should it not happen in Vermont? Should butterflies land on my face each morning and wake me with the flutter of their wings?
If you’re saying, I’m dumb and have created bad, unimaginative videos, yeah, you’re probably right. I will cheerfully step aside when someone better comes along. If you have suggestions, send them to me. (anyonebutdubie@gmail.com) Remember, we’re not creating a Ken Burns documentary. It’s a 60-second video on youtube.
The art form seems to require broad brush strokes.
So here we are 34 days before the General
amid predictions that we will get a historic ass-kicking
in a census year election which will nationally gerrymander congressional districts for the next ten years
and we are supposed to be competing against a repuglican party which is moving to align itself with a fired up base of Know-Nothings whose primary motivation is to shrink the federal government to nonexistence and eliminate the federal deficit as well as severely reduce taxes no matter the cost to the nation in federal programs.
and the Repugs have become the vessel of the Know-Nothings and promise to balance the budget and reduce taxes but offer no cogent plan to do so.
Meanwhile, the tax cuts, enacted as temporary nine years ago are due to expire. Our President has proposed extending tax cuts on income under $200/250,000 in income. That proposal should properly be called the Obama tax cuts.
The repugs intend to allow all tax cuts to expire unless they can also get a tax cut on all income above those limits as well, a cut will benefit only the richest 3% of our population!
Instead our congressional leadership has allowed the Democratic goals to be subverted and put the party on the defensive once again. Why are we talking about extending the “Bush tax cuts”? Why are the competing proposals not front and center in the upcoming elections?
How did we lose the high ground to the “Party of NO”, why are the Democrats in Congress being blamed for the slowness of the economic recovery when the Repugs fought at every opportunity to cause our Presidents policies to fail?
Why is the Democratic Congressional Leadership so silent and submissive? Why are they so scared of their own shadows? Why have they taken the cowardly tack of not bringing up the tax issue until AFTER the General? Are they so afraid of the voters that they have lost all backbone?
This thread has generated more comment than any other this week. Why are the leading activists in the Vermont Democratic Party more enthusiastic about commenting on a woman with fine looking cotton covered breasts than they are emailing Pelosi and Reed about a Congressional leadership that puts the leaders cowardice and personal ass covering before the good of party and country?
Democrats being Democrats. Sometimes the circular firing squad makes me sick!
…but the number of side issues that have cropped up from the original post are so numerous that I’m regarding threading my way through the labyrinth as an AM challenge. (I SO need a job!)
First, Odum is quite right about the difficulties of “policing” ads on site — most political blogs have ads from all over the political spectrum with varying degrees of offensiveness. Anyone who has ever tried to put together a comprehensive policy in this area — and then tried to IMPLEMENT it — knows it’s nearly an impossible task.
Second, since advertising — like campaign slogans — is “code” designed to reach under the rational mind and appeal to the (usually)unquestioned assumptions lurking in our collective subconscious, it’s generally a good thing to have someone take an ad apart and explain why it is offensive to him/her/members of a certain group, etc. As this discussion has shown, people often DON’T understand why the dog whistle they like hurts someone else’s ears.
Third, even when a person’s offense meter is so idiosyncratic as to be incomprehensible to most people (“yellow is a color that shows aggressive intent;”),why be nasty? It adds nothing to the discussion and it certainly doesn’t change any minds. When a member of a group KNOWN to have suffered attitudes of prejudice (and particularly when those biases have a long history of being encouraged by advertising)finds an ad offensive, a little exploration
of that concern with an open mind would seem to be appropriate.
Fourth, I’m disturbed by comments excoriating people for wasting time — or outrage — on a discussion, “when we have so many really IMPORTANT issues.” I wish we could all agree to nix this line of thought. It’s not as though we’re all allotted a certain amount of outrage and if we “waste” it on one issue we won’t have it when we really need it. Moreover, the idea that if we weren’t thinking about or commenting on this issue we’d be off doing great things for the campaign is pretty nonsensical, too. Everything is interconnected; discussion on a variety of subjects can help us build understanding and clarity, if not unanimity of opinion; and it’s a darned good thing that different people find different issues “important,” or we’d never be able to tackle the vast array of problems before us.
Now, as to this campaign in particular — I find an “Anyone but…” approach to be silly and pointless, no matter who is running for what. I haven’t been able to see it as a responsible approach to the reality of governance. Other people like it. C’est la vie. Furthermore, I have trained myself to be so “ad-blind” on the ‘net that I DIDN’T KNOW THERE WERE ADS ON THIS SITE AND HAD NEVER SEEN THE AD UNDER DISCUSSION. (In case, we ever need proof of how out of it supposedly intelligent people can be, I offer myself as Exhibit A!) When I went looking for it, it was the creepy one with the scared little girl. THAT one has, to my eyes, a weird pedophiilic subtext that I find way more disturbing than the irritating and worn-out use of women’s breasts as billboards. Excuse me — why should a public official be “loving” any little girl who is not a member of his/her own circle of family and devoted friends? Perhaps if one clicks through there is more info that somehow de-creeps it, but I’ll never know. It says to me that so far the dog whistles lie between stupidly obnoxious and creepily offensive. But it’s fair to say that I find a majority of advertising offensive or inept in one way or another.
I am amazed that this post has gotten such a strong reaction — but maybe I shouldn’t be. This is clearly an issue that has yet to be resolved for many, many people. And it has raised once more a second issue that has yet to be resolved which is what do those of us who are blogging here expect in terms of civil (or uncivil) discourse.
…might help Dubie more than it hurts him (maybe not in vote totals, but, at least, in a ‘moral high ground’ sense). Consider all the Vt. women voters having to consider what the subliminal message is in this ad (and there certainly IS a subliminal message–and it ain’t about a smile).
Ya know, there are lots and lots of single working mothers. There are battered women. There are gay women. Older women. 18 year-old women. And working poor women working at two jobs (…”the most vulnerable” to quote Dubie).
Why not an ad that reflects the true power of Vt. women? Or the true oppression of Vt. women under a Dubie administration? (Hell, even use Mother Jones)
If you don’t want more victims, in a social justice sense, you shouldn’t use victimization tools.
Save the sex scandals for their proper place. After people take office.
…the one with Dubie in the funny hat works, but I have to admit after all this discussion I kinda miss the t-shirt woman.
Is there any way to demote this back to the sidebar or lock the thread? Enough is enough, eh?
So pardon me if this has been said already.
I don’t find ads like this demeaning to women, I find them demeaning to men. Because that’s who they’re aimed at. That’s their opinion of our intellect. Advertisers have reduced us to our most basic animal instinct: sex.
And when I see beefcake ads, I don’t think it’s demeaning to men. Go ahead, write Anyone But Dubie across some guy’s ass, doesn’t bother me one bit. Because it’s not about me. That’s demeaning to women, because that’s marketers’ opinion of women’s intellect.
In either case, it all seems rather sad and pathetic to me.