|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C'mon. Just like Oprah, she knows who her customers are, and so she knows who to suck up to. After a quick look at this site, I find the footnote the most offensive. Here's the original:
*The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that more than 90% of all relationship abuse victims are female and most abusers are male. Because of this, we use "she" when referring to victims and "he" when referring to abusers. Whether the victim is male or female, violence of any kind in relationships is unacceptable.
... and my translation:
*The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that more than 90% of all relationship abuse victims are female and most abusers are male. This gives us free license to ignore what we think are 10% of victims who are male and also to ignore what we think are a minority of female abusers, which is what we wanted to do anyway. Because, hey, men don't buy our clothes so we couldn't really give a rat's ass what happens to them, and women do buy our clothes so we're certainly not going to insult them on our corporate website, whether they beat their partners or not. A buck is a buck and we know who puts money in our pockets. Because of this, we use "she" when referring to victims and "he" when referring to abusers. Whether the victim is male or female, violence of any kind in relationships is unacceptable, but only one kind of violence merits our attention here, and now you know why.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C'mon. Just like Oprah, she knows who her customers are, and so she knows who to suck up to.
So what? Your apparently cynical view of the matter is, precisely because it is stated flatly and dismissively without much of an attempt at explanation, unproductive. Perhaps the effort to examine anti-male prejudice in advertising and in the corporate world is somehow off limits. Who could tell from your response.
Aren't men somewhere in the picture as consumers of these products, or else somehow financing at least some of the purchases of women's clothing?
Are you saying that we should let the market decide whether an unnuanced view of men as the sole perpetrators of domestic violence and women as the victums is appropriate for an organization that is ostensibly helping the victims of domestic violence?
A Liz Claiborne poster from the "love is not abuse" campaign hangs outside the Human Resources office of my research institution. The disclaimer isn't present, but the message that abusers are male and victims are female is. The context isn't one of capitalist enterprise, which you seem to suggest is outside the scope of criticism by men's activists. If it makes money, fine, that's what capitalists do--that's how your commentary comes across. But in this case, the context is that of the university promulgating false and demoralizing messages about being male to the university community by displaying this poster. How many men are actually abusers? The campaign seems to suggest that every man is.
Don't women routinely object to advertisements they deem demeaning to women? Do you see them making excuses for industrial enterprise?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50% of domestic violence involves women abusing men. This is well documented. Even the Department of Justice's Violence Against Women department has documented 835,000 men beaten last year. I realize the Department of Justice has been largely ignoring this fact for political reasons (Bush wants the women's vote) and I realize you only sell products to women, but an increasing population of women are growing tired of the women as helpless angels dogma and are demanding that their violent and abusive sisters and friends be held accountable just as men are. Please don't continue to ignore the male victims or deny their existence. They have no where to go, unlike the women. And they have no one to turn to at this point.
Please don't be a part of the problem. Ignoring the abusiveness of some women only allows the problem to continue growing, while making you look quite sexist in the light of increasing awareness of this problem.
Sincerely,
Steven Jones
Memphis, TN
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DrMatrix makes a good point. I don't think I'd have much luck trying to convince a feminist that pimping signifies no true hatred or ill-regard for women because, ultimately, pimps are just doing it for the money.
Ultimately, any social consciousness a business claims to have could be chalked up to a marketing ploy if you choose to see it that way. And it would not be a happy thought to think that the many noble causes which many major companies support are only being used to milk more dollars out of consumers. I do believe that somebody with pull in these businesses is a true believer in such causes. Oprah Winfrey, for example, doesn't play the woman-as-righteous-victim violin for purely mercenary reasons - it's obvious from her talk show topics and her "Book Club" selections and her choice of film productions that she truly believes in the woman-as-righteous-victim dogma.
Everybody has beliefs of some sort. And it only stands to reason that those of us with a lot of money and a lot of power to generate messages to the world through some medium would be inclined to use that power to preach what we believe in (especially if we are convinced that the whole world would benefit from sharing in those beliefs).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whether my "cynical view of the matter" is productive is a moot point. I thought about this afterward and recognized that there is an apparent inconsistency between my post to this topic and my posts to the "Hefty Gripper" discussion which in essence is the same issue.
The cynicism on my part was a bit complicated. It was a knee-jerk reaction, also an attempt at humour, but for all of this it does still have some merit. My message, if I may presume to have one, is to choose one's battles. I've never bothered writing Oprah, and I doubt I'll ever write Liz Claiborne, because I see them as lost causes. It's like arguing with those ubiquitous male feminists who have cast their lot with women and think that all things female are superior. I'm unlikely to offer them any alternative that they will see as more beneficial than what they've chosen.
Hefty trash bags, on the other hand, are a commodity product that everyone buys, and so they can ill afford to annoy half their potential customers. Even allowing for the fact that perhaps 75% of trash bag purchasers are women for one reason or another, Hefty is still looking at losing a lot of sales if they annoy men. Liz Claiborne, on the other hand, is going to lose very little, and Oprah stands to lose even less.
Should these companies be allowed to slag men? No, of course not. However, I prefer to engage in battles where I think my efforts will have some effect. Oprah and Liz will eventually eat crow, but IMHO it won't be for some time. In the meantime, I think that any letter I write to them will be written off as either irrelevant or the ravings of a lunatic, so I'd rather write to Hefty, who may listen to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for taking the time and effort to explain what was behind your comments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course everyone should choose their battles; you've been proscribing other people's battles--I mean you've been saying that--for a long time. There's no need to assume that one has to do battle directly with Liz Claiborne--you seem to know a lot about their mindset. One could do battle with the institutions that promulgate their slander.
At my research institution, posted on the bulletin board outside the department of Human Resources, there is a "love is not abuse" poster that helps to put men in their place for their role as the sole perpetrators of domestic violence. Employers display their posters, and they are supposed to be regulated by anti-discrimination laws, so it's particularly ironic to see a poster from the EEOC (Equal Employmnt Opportunity Commission) net to the Liz Claiborn poster.
It could be suicide to ask Human Resources to consider taking it down, or not. There are many possible battles one might wage on such fronts, with a little imagination. I'll run the possible battle scenarios by you for your approval ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, Liz is in a lot of things that are NOT women's clothing, including men's clothing and home decor. So, if we were to stop shopping in places that sold Liz For Men and let the dept. stores know that, then we might make some small amount of headway. As I recall, JC Penney's carries Liz for Men. I think I'll stop by the manager's office this afternoon...
Frank
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
