I don't think who is in the chair matters. The point is that Cheney and his buds have defiled the Constitution and the country. They have curtailed freedom of speech (the hood) and left everyone powerless (tied to chair) and they do it in the name of patriotism (the flag as a hood).

I think the fact that it is a woman in a fitted shirt is coincidental, not some sort of message. I mean come on - it's a pair of jeans and a t-shirt. A nice t-shirt. A nicely fitted t-shirt.

I didn't watch the video, btw. I got all that from a quick glance. It made perfect sense to me.

Is it just me, or has every other moment for the past year been a WTF moment?

I'm actually agreeing with 21stCenturyMom on this one-- the image is not sexualized, she's merely wearing a fitted t-shirt. I'm wearing a tanktop about that fitted right now.

Also, women have been disproportionately affected by the policies of these fundies (see this year's SCOTUS decisions). So I almost think that it makes sense to have a female in the chair.

21stCM: Maybe I'm sensitive today, I don't know, but the graphic really just rubs me the wrong way.

Could it also possibly be due to the fact one of the reasons that people are calling for him impeachment has to do with war crimes, and, though I've not heard it cited by anyone as a reason to impeach, because of the huge assault that Cheney and Bush have launched on women with SCOTUS appointees like Roberts and Scalia, calling for reversal of Roe, etc?

I disagree, 21stCenturyMom. I think it matters a hell of a lot. I find it an exploitation of the female body with overtones of a bind-and-torture fetish. Women don't profit from such images. Any of the other photos from the video would be more appropriate to use.
This one is totally unrelated to the content of the video, so it has nothing to do with impeaching Cheney. I support the cause, but not the use of the woman. I wrote and told them what I thought. I hope all those who agree with me will too.

I think it might also be an allusion to what happened in the Abu Ghraib prison -- am I the only one reminded of that by this image? Maybe that's what its supposed to invoke at first glimpse. It did for me, anyway.

Mashi: I agree with you that it invokes visions of Abu Ghraib. I think there is also an allusion to his stances on same-sex marriage, with the woman in the chair being a surrogate for his daughter, whom he does not want to extend legal marriage rights to.

Not only is she wearing a tight white T, but also MOM JEANS!

I too was reminded of Abu Ghraib, except that THOSE photos were of men...

Could she possibly represent a modern day ‘lady justice’?

Not a justification, just an interpretation.

hmm...upon closer examination, her left nipple is also clearly visible. I swear this is a parody site, since the artwork looks very right-wing.

I think it's meant to be a commentary on what Dick Cheney wants for and is promoting for women...

I think it is suppose to be lady liberty.

This bothers me, too - I agree that it reminds me of "lady liberty" and all of the language/imagery of America - and all nations - as female. Just leads to really tasteless metaphor like this.

I recall a political cartoon depicting the U.S. and Britain as two cat-fighting women during the fight for independence...Britain was an aristocrat and the U.S. was a Native American. (Sexism with racism sprinkles, mmm bad.) Can't find it; Google is letting me down. But here's an even better one, about the "rape of Boston" by Britain's intolerable acts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RAPEBOSTON.JPG (sorry if links aren't allowed...)

There is one thing that I would really apreciate if someone can clear up:

Everyone can pretty much agree that the woman in the tight t-shirt is being objectified and used as a sex symbol which we can all also agree is a BAD thing.

However, a lot of people have expressed criticism over the idea of dressing modestly being equated with femininity. Many people said that what you wear is your choice (im referring to many of the posts regarding Wendy Shalit's new book)

I dont understand where one draws the line. Many woman dress like the woman in the photo and dont see a problem with it. Do they not perpetuate an image of woman being nothing more than a tight tshirt?

I hope i do not come off as argumentative because I am genuinly asking for someone to clarify.

There is one thing that I would really apreciate if someone can clear up:

Everyone can pretty much agree that the woman in the tight t-shirt is being objectified and used as a sex symbol which we can all also agree is a BAD thing.

However, a lot of people have expressed criticism over the idea of dressing modestly being equated with femininity. Many people said that what you wear is your choice (im referring to many of the posts regarding Wendy Shalit's new book)

I dont understand where one draws the line. Many woman dress like the woman in the photo and dont see a problem with it. Do they not perpetuate an image of woman being nothing more than a tight tshirt?

I hope i do not come off as argumentative because I am genuinly asking for someone to clarify.

Well, actually I still don't think that the woman is necessarily being objectified or sexualized. I don't think that wearing a tight tee-shirt makes one a sexual object.

I think the main argument here, from those who think that this is an objectifying image, is that the bondage aspects sexualizes it, NOT the clothing. Someone on the other side please correct me if I'm wrong, though.

It just looks like something the web founder's sexually frustrated 15 year old nephew would create with limited Photoshop skills after gaming for half the day. It has nothing to do with how women choose to dress.

And now it's gone! Talk about the power of the internet.

There is just a picture of Dick Cheney standing up.

I just clicked the link at 6:07pm EDT, and the graphic's not there anymore. It's a photo of Cheney standing in a suit looking imposing shot from a low angle so he looks more imposing and, you know, evil. Which he is.

Maybe there's just a couple images they rotate for the front page? I don't know, I agree that women shouldn't be exploited in advertising, but I think that women SHOULD be represented as people who suffered under Cheney. So... tricky.

Echoing what many are saying, the problem with this image is the decision to fall back on the use of a female body as metaphor for the nationstate--the female body employed as something that can be written on, objectified, sexualized, etc. etc. etc. The graphics are clearly relying a traditional male-female power binary, and they suggest that the best way to visually represent a passive, abused nation state is to use a faceless, female body as visual stand in. But women are not bodies, women are people with agency--and the use of this type of imagery only works to obscure that. The degree of modesty of implied by casting the body in a t-shirt and jeans ensemble is irrelevant; sex & the passive, sexualized female body is implicitly and inextractably tied up in the depicted binary--as it was in the Abu Ghraib images, and people here are correct to see these graphics as part of the same continuum as those of Abu Ghraib.
Anyway, its hard to imagine a better idea than impeaching Cheney (and not stopping with him!), its just a shame to see such sympathies expressed by using problematic visual cues that replicate the oppressive, cruel, misogynistic values Cheney & co. have demonstratedly, consistently stood for.

Echoing what many are saying, the problem with this image is the decision to fall back on the use of a female body as metaphor for the nationstate--the female body employed as something that can be written on, objectified, sexualized, etc. etc. etc. The graphics are clearly relying a traditional male-female power binary, and they suggest that the best way to visually represent a passive, abused nation state is to use a faceless, female body as visual stand in. But women are not bodies, women are people with agency--and the use of this type of imagery only works to obscure that. The degree of modesty of implied by casting the body in a t-shirt and jeans ensemble is irrelevant; sex & the passive, sexualized female body is implicitly and inextractably tied up in the depicted binary--as it was in the Abu Ghraib images, and people here are correct to see these graphics as part of the same continuum as those of Abu Ghraib.
Anyway, its hard to imagine a better idea than impeaching Cheney (and not stopping with him!), its just a shame to see such sympathies expressed by using problematic visual cues that replicate the oppressive, cruel, misogynistic values Cheney & co. have demonstratedly, consistently stood for.

For what it's worth:

I work for an organization that works with Brave New Films, so I have access to them, as it were. I just called their executive director to commend/thank him for taking the woman out of the image. He thanked me for calling, said that the image should never have been there in the first place and it was an oversight.

So, kudos to those of you who voiced your concerns and further kudos to BNF for listening and responding.

It may be down, but moveon.org just emailed it to their whole list.

the pic may be taken down and misogyny and sexism are still going full force- but you can sign a petition with CODEPINK to impeach dick cheney. just in case you completely forgot the initial reason for the ad because it was so bombastically misguided... http://www.codepinkalert.org/article.php?id=3186

I guess after years of these images being forced on us some may see it as just business as usual but I saw it differently.
I feel that in no way can this ad logically be explained as acceptable and do not understand how the "progressive" left still seems unable to grasp its own sexism, whether it come from males or females.
Just becasue Cheney has defiled people politically does not make it "ok" to graphically represent said defilement by making psuedo torture/rape porn pictures.

I think some of the explanations are really reaching and the brush off are a bit frightening,

As a member of the Board of IVAW (Iraq Veterans Against the War) I was asked to look over the site for IVAW's signing on as an endorsing organization. I'll just repost what I wrote:
Hello everyone,
I hate to be the one who always notices these things but it needs to be said.
I have not viewed the video clip in entirety and am willing to talk about discussing IVAW's involvement (from past films from this company alone I would be willing to support) but I feel VERY uncomfortable with the ad on the front page where Cheney is standing next to a hooded woman with her legs spread directly at the viewers face by way of duct tape restaining her legs and arms. The person is obviously a woman being that she has a womens cut shirt on and visable breast. I am not sure if the image was a conscience descion to copy sado-masochistic rape pornography or not but in either situation I believe it is one of the most disturbing ad's I have seen from the "Pro-Peace" movement. I do not mean disturbing in a way that is going to catch viewers imaginations, I mean it in the way that I find it sickening and once again a sign of sexism in the movement.

In all of the downloadable banners the same image is used. In some parts of the image are cut off but in every one the spead legs are visable. I find this image to be dehumanizing and explotative in nature.

I do not see how a picture implying sexual torture is needed or effective in impeaching Cheney. If it is I would suggest your case is not that strong. However knowing the case IS that strong, I cannot support this film with this ad.
---------------------
With the ad change I do however support this film and the Impeachement of Cheney. There are more than enough reasons.

I guess after years of these images being forced on us some may see it as just business as usual but I saw it differently.
I feel that in no way can this ad logically be explained as acceptable and do not understand how the "progressive" left still seems unable to grasp its own sexism, whether it come from males or females.
Just becasue Cheney has defiled people politically does not make it "ok" to graphically represent said defilement by making psuedo torture/rape porn pictures.

I think some of the explanations are really reaching and the brush off are a bit frightening,

As a member of the Board of IVAW (Iraq Veterans Against the War) I was asked to look over the site for IVAW's signing on as an endorsing organization. I'll just repost what I wrote:
Hello everyone,
I hate to be the one who always notices these things but it needs to be said.
I have not viewed the video clip in entirety and am willing to talk about discussing IVAW's involvement (from past films from this company alone I would be willing to support) but I feel VERY uncomfortable with the ad on the front page where Cheney is standing next to a hooded woman with her legs spread directly at the viewers face by way of duct tape restaining her legs and arms. The person is obviously a woman being that she has a womens cut shirt on and visable breast. I am not sure if the image was a conscience descion to copy sado-masochistic rape pornography or not but in either situation I believe it is one of the most disturbing ad's I have seen from the "Pro-Peace" movement. I do not mean disturbing in a way that is going to catch viewers imaginations, I mean it in the way that I find it sickening and once again a sign of sexism in the movement.

In all of the downloadable banners the same image is used. In some parts of the image are cut off but in every one the spead legs are visable. I find this image to be dehumanizing and explotative in nature.

I do not see how a picture implying sexual torture is needed or effective in impeaching Cheney. If it is I would suggest your case is not that strong. However knowing the case IS that strong, I cannot support this film with this ad.
---------------------
With the ad change I do however support this film and the Impeachement of Cheney. There are more than enough reasons.

I received the following from Brave New Films:

Dear Grace,

We apologize for the image that was used on the email. It was supposed to represent Cheney taking America hostage, and the woman was intended to be Lady Liberty as a symbol of America. However, clearly the image could be interpreted in ways other than what was intended. This is why we chose to remove it. We again apologize for causing offense.

Sincerely,

Madison

As I am on their mailing list, I emailed them about the image, and linked them to your post. I received the following reply today:
We apologize for the image and have already removed it. It was intended to represent Cheney taking America hostage, and America is historically represented as Lady Liberty. We understand how this image could be easily misunderstood and seem to represent something misogynistic. Please accept our sincerest apologies and know that it was not intended to represent what it was commonly viewed as.