for old farts

[kokosbolla.livejournal.com]

Comments

awesomeness

[(Anonymous)]

wow, that is probably the shortest commercial i have ever seen. are they selling the airline or the girls? no doubt it's both. genius. evil genius.

[seasaidh78.livejournal.com]

wow. that is all i can think of! when did they go from hotpants to cheap tickets?

Evil! Evil!

[baron-waste.livejournal.com]

It amuses many, to see how “Women's Liberation” has evolved into Neo-Victorianism. Women being feminine - women displaying their bodies to men - it's shameful! It's sinful! - er, I mean, it's demeaning! It's objectifying!

- and not surprisingly, the spokespersons who trumpet this creed all seem to resemble Carrie Nation.

All men are rapists, and that's all they are!

Re: Evil! Evil!

[elizabeth-rv.livejournal.com]

Translation of above comment:
It amuses many, to see how Baron Waste is cranky because he can't get laid.
But it's not his fault. It's what "Women's Liberation" has done to women, *that's* the problem.
;)

Re: Evil! Evil!

[dessieoctavia.livejournal.com]

You know, if you believe that "Women's Liberation" is not neo-Victorian and anti-sex, you might say so, and perhaps offer some supporting evidence.

Conversely, if you believe that the neo-Victorian attitude Women's Lib has towards sex is a good thing, you might say that, and maybe share your reasoning with us. Who knows, some of us may join you on the path of the righteous.

But I guess it's easier, and more fun, to just launch an ad hominem attack on a total stranger about whom you know nothing. Why bother with reasoned debate when you can just say nasty things to those who disagree with you?

Re: Evil! Evil!

[elizabeth-rv.livejournal.com]

lolz This is the internet: if baron_waste is going to dish out some sexist, generalizing *ad hominem* nonsense, he has to be prepared for the probability of mockery and pure pwnage to ensue.

Re: Evil! Evil!

[dessieoctavia.livejournal.com]

I hope you thanked whoever helped you find all those big words in the dictionary!

Pfft.

[elizabeth-rv.livejournal.com]

Oh, I see, you want to pick a fight. Not interested, I don't feel challenged by anything you're saying. Maybe you can troll around for someone else to get irked by you, and get them to engage in it with you.

Re: Evil! Evil!

[kokosbolla.livejournal.com]

what makes people so angry towards those who want equal rights? Loss of power maybe??

Re: Evil! Evil!

[velvet-tipping.livejournal.com]

Well, I don't really understand the term neo-Victorian, and I don't know if "women's lib" is necessarily a useful term to use to describe the feminist movement today. But I think that it is hard to say that all feminists have the same attitude toward sex, you know? There is so-called "radical" feminism and then there is lesbian feminism and so on and so forth. My own opinion is that in an ideal world, it would be really nice if women could own their sexuality, i.e. be in charge of how they presented themselves and live in a society where they would not be subject to sexual violence or to an uninvited and/or proprietary male gaze. I don't know that that is an uncommon attitude, and I don't know that I would call it neo-Victorian.

I also do think that there is such a thing as the objectification of women in our society, that it leads to a lot of awful consequences, and that we should think about its effects as a society. Ads like this are not the most helpful :/

Re: Evil! Evil!

[elizabeth-rv.livejournal.com]

"I don't know if 'women's lib' is necessarily a useful term to use to describe the feminist movement today."

I agree. I was repeating the use of it in quotation marks, and was tempted to follow it with "[sic]," just on general principles.

Ads like this, presented in this context, are potentially useful for us as women, to contemplate how far we've come, and, by bringing to light where sexist attitudes persist (QED in this very thread, by the presentation of feminist and sex-positive attitudes as mutually exclusive, plus the generalized ad hominem slur), to contemplate how far a road we have ahead.

Re: Evil! Evil!

[velvet-tipping.livejournal.com]

i don't, actually, like the use of the term "sex-positive" as it implies "sex-negativity," but otherwise yes, i think what you say makes sense.

Re: Evil! Evil!

[elizabeth-rv.livejournal.com]

I didn't invent the term, and I agree with you and for the same reason, but it's what's out there so far, maybe you will be the one to invent the new catch phrase :)

Re: Evil! Evil!

[dessieoctavia.livejournal.com]

And once again, it is demonstrated that I am the only person who uses the internet who knows the definition of "ad hominem". Apparently everybody else just likes the sound and they heard somewhere that it's derogatory, so they drag it out. It's like a case study in irony.

Re: Evil! Evil!

[velvet-tipping.livejournal.com]

oh, i didn't notice that. heh.

Re: Evil! Evil!

[velvet-tipping.livejournal.com]

Well--see my comment to mosellegreen below.

[misstia]

back in the days of 'coffee, tea or me?'...

[asher63.livejournal.com]

I'm not going to get into the feminism debate generally, but it is interesting to note that the 18th and 19th Amendments were passed within about a year of each other; I think both were products of the early-20th-century "progressive" movement, the forerunner of modern liberalism. To my mind, this suggests both the positive and negative aspects of liberalism. Just a thought.

[salenelle.livejournal.com]

it sounds to me like she said "We didn't have hostages in hot pants."