This ad has been up at LGM since before the election. It bothers me. A lot. The ad bothers me, but it also bothers me that the LGM guys and gals have let it be up, but I haven't said anything about it, so I'll let them slide for the moment.What is the purpose of this ad? Well to get me to click on the link, of course, but what is the fucking connection between scantily clad women who would be slightly more likely to sleep with me because I am a Democrat and the progressive agenda? The only connection I can figure out is that they are the exact fucking opposite of each other.
We have a lot of work to do in this country. We have a fucked up health care system. We have a fucked up education system. We have a fucked up tax system. We are currently engaged in more military conflicts than the government sees fit to tell us about. What we don't need to have to do is remind our ostensible allies that treating women as sex objects to sell products is bad for everyone. You can't sell progress with retrograde means. You cannot uplift while you degrade.
In short, we are not the party of sexism. Our tent cannot be big enough for this. Sexists find comfort in the Republican party. If this is how you reach out to people, we don't want you.
Now, to write to the LGMers.
16 comments:
I don't think the LGM guys have any control over the comment. I think that one of the "progressive/blue" internet ad companies (the url for the ad indicates it's called "clicktoblue") pays them for the prominent space, and they're the ones responsible for the ad content. All of which is to say your strongly worded missive would best be directed to the ad broker.
Other than that, right on.
I know, because capitalism is just capitalism and no one has any control over what gets published on their blog.
Do you really buy that as an excuse, Wobs?
I want to believe that if we had ads on our blog, then we'd politely decline this particular ad partner's business. We might make a little less bread, but for fuck sake, we're not supposed to be in it for the bread. Either, I suppose, is LGM.
The ad links to a page that features a film called "Blue Balled" (she said warily), but also features a gallery of different versions of the ad some of which I like a lot better, and which makes me see the original ad slightly differently:
http://truththroughaction.org/blue-balled/
As of the moment of this post, the front image is of a lesbian couple in which one of the women is actually normal-size. There are also some dorks and some family photos in there.
Frankly, from the party that expected to me receive with equanimity a president who wanted women my age to suck him off in the Oval Office, this seems par for the course.
AP
Yeah, actually I do buy that they don't control the content that comes through the ad service. My understanding of these services is that they pay for a space on your blog, and then advertisers go to them to place advertising content.
Your point that they could drop the ad service entirely is well taken, but you know what? In terms of who I'm angry at for the ad, LGM is pretty low on the totem pole. At the top is the allegedly progressive web site that thought it would be a good idea to use sexism to promote progressive values, followed by the allegedly progressive ad service that accepted the ad. But I suppose expressing your displeasure to the end user who stands to make beer money from click-throughs is easier than going after the people who made the ad in the first place.
In the meantime, I'll be anxiously awaiting the EW LOTW featuring your contribution to the venerable genre of chastising EW for accepting ads from escort services.
Semi-touche, as the EW actually needs money to print and distribute their resource, while the LGM guys, all deserving of more money, are not using ad revenue to distribute their alterna-press.
Perhaps this is why we won't be having ads any time soon.
We won't have ads any time soon because for internet ads to generate any revenue we'd need, how do you call them, an audience. ;-)
we _definitely_ won't have internet ads anytime soon if dave keeps offending Southerners and Sociologists hand over fist.
(just kidding. i plan a full post on this "development," actually. it pains me to see my uncle misunderstood so thoroughly.)
Southerners, sociologists, and sexists. The big three.
Looking forward to it, Lips. Sometimes blogs don't carry the necessary background to contextualize everything. That's no one's fault. Apologies if I've contributed to stirring up something unnecessary.
How 'bout I just say this: I've been in many northern college cities and towns over the last five years or so, because in the north, state governments tend to recognize the right to form a union and bargain collectively for wages and benefits, and I have not been in a bar a smokey as the bars I was in when I was in Raleigh. Sorry if my "we're in the south" comment should have been
"we're in the heart of tobacco country, which just happens to be in the south, so there's a lot of smokers, although I am sure there is also lots of smoking in locations in the north, even though I don't think I've experienced it as much as this, so I shouldn't generalize from the goddamn particular."
Thank Jeebus I didn't comment on the monuments to those that died in defense of slavery while committing treason, I'd hate to cause any further damage the southern pride felt by so many readers of this here blog.
Apologize away, Lex.
I think Dave is being unfairly criticized here. Go back and re-read the post: The vast majority of the post critiques the ad for being objectifying and degrading; then he laments the fact that an ad like this links sexism and the Democratic party; and finally, he devotes one line to reporting that he plans to "write to the LGMers." That this will be a "strongly worded missive" is strictly speculation.
Then Dave asserts that, in similar circumstances, he believes the OG would "politely decline" such an ad. He never suggests that LGM should "drop the ad service," just that they could (and should) express their displeasure about this particular version of the ad and try not to participate.
Wobs, I totally agree with your point that LGM should be relatively low on our anger totem pole. But I actually don't think that Dave disagrees with that, nor do I think that the two strategies are mutually exclusive. You're right--it is easier to approach LGM than it would be to go after the people who made the ad in the first place. So what? It's not like one can't do both. It seems to me that responding on multiple levels could be the most effective strategy.
So, if you ask me (which I do, of course realize that no one did), the only thing "wrong" with Dave's post is that it strongly implies, but does not explicitly state, that it might be a good idea to forward his critique to the ad's creator.
also, could we let the southern thing go? apologies to our "audience"--all three or four of you who aren't OG contributors--if we sometimes forget we aren't just talking among ourselves. as a result, we sometimes omit context that might be helpful in understanding our posts (or do little things like link to our previous posts where we, for instance, talk about our experiences with/in the south in a more detailed and nuanced way). if any of you need that from us now as "proof" that we don't hate the south/southerners, i suppose we could do that (or at the very least point you to places in the archives where we've already done that)...or we could just drop it and move on.
"I don't hate the South" - Quentin Compson
wow.
i had a clever, conciliatory post re: the "Southern" and "Sociologist" questions half-done, but i'm scrapping it, cuz the reactions and the reactions to the reactions have gone way off the rails, imho. r+b is right that the web is a bad place for distinguishing btw irony and earnestness, and god knows i've dug myself (and dave) plenty of holes by identifying that potential for disaster but piling on more wise-assed retorts anyway. this should stop here.
i'm with ash. it takes either selective reading or a lot of suspended disbelief to infer some sort of regionalist (?) bias from these authors, on this blog. however, i wish dave hadn't resorted to "going nuclear" and evoking right-to-work and slavery in such an ad hoc manner, because the former, at least, is something i hope to address in a more, uh, collegial way, on the blog.
have at it Lex. I'll go ahead and keep all thoughts to myself, so as not to give anyone the fucking vapors.
Fair enough, I s'pose. Just as any context of the writers' have been misunderstood, I think the perceived "Southern pride" has been been misread as well. "Monuments to those that died in defense of slavery while committing treason"... I don't know. I think we're a bit far afield here.
okay, so dave is now "on sabbatical" in deference to the hurt feelings of 3-4 people who otherwise never see fit to add to the conversation we had going on here.
'looking forward to the blog's gaping, dave-shaped cavity being filled by y'all.
Post a Comment