Ann, you are the shit.

I think you did a fantastic job and hit your points quite clearly and concisely. One thing this also made me think of is the Israeli consulate's very limiting role for men in this country. As this was targeted to men 18-35, who are heterosexual I might add, in the US I find it sad that this was the only way they could think up to appeal to this demographic. Again, just another reproduction of the current state of "appropriate" and "traditional" masculinity in this country. It is already ever so difficult to challenge the strict and rigid gender roles for masculinity and things like this are not only a disservice to women, but to men as well.

I second Vanessa. Ann, you are the shit. I loved your points and you seemed so comfortable once you got warmed up. I look forward to seeing what you will do in the future.

Did anyone else watch the rest of that video? It was quite disturbing.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: You're poised to become the multimedia feminist. This interview just proves the point.

Excellent debut, Ann! You did a really fine job.

Great job, Ann! And sojourner, yeah I watched the rest of the video too. Disturbing is an understatement....

This robot says: way to go, Ann! Nice work!

Well done!

The whole army girl tits-and ass-thing makes a nasty, nasty juxtaposition with the Moshe Katsav rape allegations and the way they've been handled.

Great interview! The rest of that video was appalling; thanks for including it too...

Good job, Ann! I thought you were very well poised. I was on the radio once, and I thought my heart was actually going to explode. I don't think I could handle TV.

G'uh. It's so lame that to get American men to care about politics or other countries, the issue has to be presented in a "sexy" way. Then when breasts are presented in any other context, they're "gross" (i.e. when Hillary Clinton wears a low cut shirt or when a woman is breastfeeding).

"G'uh. It's so lame that to get American men to care about politics or other countries, the issue has to be presented in a "sexy" way."

Please tell me you're joking. Could you possibly paint with broader strokes? That's like me saying "It's so hard to get American women to care about politics because they're all so busy with gossip rags and buying shoes." Give me a freakin' break!

Second, what exactly is so offensive about these ads? It's a tourism bureau advertising in Maxim magazine. The target demographic loves pictures of girls dressed in revealing clothing. Is it because these women represent "unattainable standards"? First of all, they aren't unattainable; I see women who look like that every day. Second, men DON'T EXPECT or want every woman to look like that, just as women don't expect every man to have 6-pack abs like the guys in Calvin Klein ads or on soap operas. I think this huffing and puffing over the ad simply serves to cover insecurities raised when looking at pictures of beautiful women. If somebody here can explain to me why I'm wrong (and I'd love to be wrong in this case), please help.

Ann - though I don't agree with you, good job; you didn't look nervous at all.

I think you did a fantastic job and hit your points quite clearly and concisely. One thing this also made me think of is the Israeli consulate's very limiting role for men in this country. As this was targeted to men 18-35, who are heterosexual I might add, in the US I find it sad that this was the only way they could think up to appeal to this demographic. Again, just another reproduction of the current state of "appropriate" and "traditional" masculinity in this country. It is already ever so difficult to challenge the strict and rigid gender roles for masculinity and things like this are not only a disservice to women, but to men as well.
--007femme

Oh please! I'm about as much a male feminist as you're likely to meet, but I like looking at naked or near naked women. It's fun.

Steve said it best:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qje83fShvkg

As far as the Israeli government is concerned, what else can they do to appeal to young American males? Hockey and football aren't very big in that country, and the U.S. beer market is oversaturated. What does the Israeli government have to offer them? "Come see our new Apartheid Wall"? "Watch us ethnicly cleanse Palestinians and steal their land"? "Take the deluxe 'drop bombs on Lebanese children' tour"? Not likely, since any young man who is really hankerin' to kill Arabs can sign up for the Marines or Army (and from recruiting reports, those are getting harder to come by), the babes in bathing suits are about the only thing the government over there can come up with to appeal to the kinds of people who read Maxim.

On a side note, I think a woman who can handle firearms is incredibly HOT!

You did an awesome. Seemed very poised to me.

Hey, badinfluence. What your post boils down to is this: you're telling us we're jealous. So, any time a woman has something negative to say about the way "attractive" women are portrayed in a medium, that automatically means she's jealous of the women in question? Geez. Ya kind of box of us in when you put everything in that context, don't you?

FTR, I rarely feel jealous of other women for a myriad of reasons I really SHOULDN'T have to get into on a feminist blog.

"On a side note, I think a woman who can handle firearms is incredibly HOT!"
Right, so why the fuck does she need to be scantily clad, oiled up, and appear as though she's trying to seduce you?

Could you possibly paint with broader strokes?

Did you even watch the video? The woman said that "Israel mattered little to men aged 18-38". So their obvious solution? Not a thoughtful article about the politics of the Middle East. Just a bikini photo spread of female Israeli soldiers. It's enough that these women have to fight for their country, but now they have to strip down to get American males to care about what's going on over there?

Second, what exactly is so offensive about these ads? It's a tourism bureau advertising in Maxim magazine. The target demographic loves pictures of girls dressed in revealing clothing.

These ads are not offensive. What is offensive is the fact that they couldn't think of another way for men to care about the conflict without T&A. I am not faulting the women.

Is it because these women represent "unattainable standards"? First of all, they aren't unattainable; I see women who look like that every day.

So do I. In movies, TV, magazines, and every other form of media. However, in my real life I rarely see women who look like this. Besides, do you honestly think the photos are not airbrushed? Even "unattainably" beautiful women have flaws as far as the male gaze is concerned.

I think this huffing and puffing over the ad simply serves to cover insecurities raised when looking at pictures of beautiful women.

Ah, the classic "you're just jealous" argument. Looking at pictures of skinny, conventionally attractive, airbrushed women used to make me insecure, but that was when my looks defined who I was as a person. I've come to realize that I'm just fine with the way I look, and I've never felt better.

If you think my feminist views are just a bunch of "huffing and puffing" over pictures of beautiful women because it allegedly makes me insecure, you are wrong on so many levels. If I have to explain more, I might as well start my blog up again, because that would be one lengthy post.

Well said, Mary. My thoughts exactly. Can you believe that even here on a feminist blog we're being asked to defend our looks? Good god.

WOW!!
I love how you presented yourself, and let me tell you, even before I saw the video, I liked you becuz you inspired me to be more strong about my deciosion in majoring in a different subject from Women's Studies -Spanish Literature- but still follow my feministing ;)

"What is offensive is the fact that they couldn't think of another way for men to care about the conflict without T&A."

Did you even watch the video? It's a TOURISM campaign. They're trying to DISTRACT people from the conflict, not draw attention to it. If the ads were intended to generate interest in tourism in the 18-35 male demographic, how could you designate the campaign anything but a success? The magazine went out to hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of subscribers. If I'm the boss at the Israeli consulate, whoever came up with that idea is getting a big freakin' raise. Your fundamental reason for disliking the ads is invalid. No one has yet provided a legitimate reason for the disapproval.

"Could you possibly paint with broader strokes?
Did you even watch the video? ..."

Yes I watched the video, and what you said about American males not caring about politics or other countries is still an incorrect generalization. I care about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (as do many of my male friends), even though that is not the issue here.

"Can you believe that even here on a feminist blog we're being asked to defend our looks? Good god."

I suppose you'd prefer a nice quiet blog where everybody agrees with everyone else. I'm not asking you to defend your looks, but to simply provide a justification for your disapproval of the ads, which so far, you have not.

Did you even watch the video? It's a TOURISM campaign. They're trying to DISTRACT people from the conflict, not draw attention to it.

Yeah! Come to Israel! Where you can see hot chicks in the army! That's one helluva campaign. I'm sure when the men were busy looking at the Israeli bikini babes, all they could think about was how much they wanted to go to Israel.

Your fundamental reason for disliking the ads is invalid. No one has yet provided a legitimate reason for the disapproval.

Are you sure a feminist blog is the right place for you?

I suppose you'd prefer a nice quiet blog where everybody agrees with everyone else.

Do such things even exist? But it would certainly be nice to leave a remark on a feminist blog without having to explain basic feminist beliefs.

I'm not asking you to defend your looks, but to simply provide a justification for your disapproval of the ads, which so far, you have not.

I don't have to justify anything to you. I'm still waiting for an acceptable explanation for why someone would troll a feminist blog and act surprised that the feminists weren't thrilled that women's bodies are being used yet again to promote something to dudely men.

----

Well said, Mary. My thoughts exactly. Can you believe that even here on a feminist blog we're being asked to defend our looks? Good god.

I know exactly what you mean. I think I should start a drinking game for every time I see a troll on a feminist blog giving the "you're jealous" excuse or using the word "empowered" in a non-ironic sense. Hehe.

"On a side note, I think a woman who can handle firearms is incredibly HOT!"
Right, so why the fuck does she need to be scantily clad, oiled up, and appear as though she's trying to seduce you?
--Rock Star

Because straight men like to look at scantily clad women, perhaps?
See the YouTube link. Scantily clad women with guns are even sexier.

Yeah! Come to Israel! Where you can see hot chicks in the army! That's one helluva campaign. I'm sure when the men were busy looking at the Israeli bikini babes, all they could think about was how much they wanted to go to Israel.
--Mary B

Why not, it's how every other tourist trap advertises: "Come visit our beaches, where all these pretty people hang out!"

The Israeli government, knowing that the beaches in that country have nothing on say, Hawaii try to use as a selling point, something that makes Israel different: "Sure those other beaches have hot chicks in bikinis, but our hot chicks have GUNS!"

"I'm not asking you to defend your looks, but to simply provide a justification for your disapproval of the ads, which so far, you have not."

I don't have to justify anything to you. I'm still waiting for an acceptable explanation for why someone would troll a feminist blog and act surprised that the feminists weren't thrilled that women's bodies are being used yet again to promote something to dudely men.

So throwing around opinions without logic or facts to support them is what passes for argument on your part? I don't think the person is trolling at all, but looking for an explanation other than "because I say so".

By the way, what's wrong with trying to appeal to "dudely men"? Or sissies, or nerds, or any other type of male?

"Yeah! Come to Israel! Where you can see hot chicks in the army! That's one helluva campaign. I'm sure when the men were busy looking at the Israeli bikini babes, all they could think about was how much they wanted to go to Israel."

You have yet to explain clearly why you feel such disapproval for the campaign. Whether you like it or not, this effort certainly brought attention to Israel in the target demographic . Mission accomplished for the tourism bureau.

"I'm still waiting for an acceptable explanation for why someone would troll a feminist blog ..."

Ah yes, call me a troll. The ad hominem attack--often the last refuge of someone who can find no more justification for her/his position. I am an agnostic, and am constantly prepared to defend my postion aginst Holy Rollers that challenge me. If you aren't prepared to adequately defend your "basic feminist beliefs" against somebody who posts on your blog, I feel sorry for you. Enlighten me! Tell me why this ad campaign was so freakin' offensive to you! Otherwise, I will go with Occam's Razor and assume the obvious: the reason is your own insecurities.

Lee, I'm with ya. Everyone seems to be gliding over your comment, but Ann went on friggin Al Jazeera!!! I agree with what she said all the way, but the fact that it's being said on a network that, among other things, promotes hatred of Jews is just so upsetting.

So, to sum up: Ann, good job on the interview, but WRONG network. I would expect much more of an American feminist.

Um, guys?

Going on Al-Jazeera is not equivalent to saying Israel is a BAD BAD PLACE THAT SHOULD BE WIPED OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH. Saying that Ann is being a bad American feminist and that she isn't supporting the Jews by going on the network is like saying everyone that ever goes on Fox News completely supports the Republican agenda, and is a traitor to the Democratic party and everything it stands for (or would like to stand for). Which we know is not true.

Considering the fact that the original Al Jazeera is one of the largest news outlets in the part of the world where Israel is actually located, I think that Al Jazeera English, in choosing to discuss an issue which is very much related to this region, is not attempting so much to say something about religion so much as something about the fact that American culture, in general, cares so little for what is going on in that part of the world, THEIR part of the world, that the Israeli consulate thought a bikini spread of female soldiers in Maxim was a good way to gain awareness. I wasn't getting a, "look how terrible Israel is" message so much as a "look how little Americans care" one.

"Way to play into the hands of the Islamists."
Lee- way to malign an entire religion and all its denominations. Honestly. Do you listen to yourself?

And for the record, Qatar is one of the (relatively) more liberal Arab states- it was the first country on the Persian Gulf to grant women the right to vote, for example. And Al Jazeera is not merely a puppet for the governments of the region to brainwash people with. It actually provides a larger worldview and greater variation of ideas than was ever before found in many of the countries in the region. The network has experienced some smearing, especially in the U.S., for not supporting the war in Iraq. Because apparently what they SHOULD be telling the world is that the Middle East, as a whole, absolutely LOVES the fact that America wants to give them the great gift of democracy. Cause that's not brainwashing, surely.

Ann- you are the shit.

@ badnfluence:
I'm not as offended as many people are on this one, but I do understand where this is coming from. Here we have a huge conflict about land, life, democracy and the rights of the refugee (whether Jewish or Arab), and the only thing that crosses one's mind to spark interest and involvement in young men is, essentially, to reach into their pants and play with their dicks rather than engage their minds. It's offensive because, on the one hand, we have here young veterans just home from serving their country, their home and their right to exist, and then, they have to show their tits in order to get anyone on the outside to give a shit. That is disgusting on a level that is just mindblowing.

I'm all for girls with guns. It's sexy as hell. Hell, I'm ok with a photospread of hot female IDF vets. (More than ok, but that's another discussion) It's not about that. I know sex sells. Sex sells clothes, sex sells shampoo, sex sells friggin' cereal. But when someone has to resort to the use of sex to sell something this important--or even feels this is the way to sell something this important--I think that says something really sad about the level of discussion.

Besides that, it's massively insulting to young American men. Sure, getting a poll together, they'll admit they love gorgeous naked women. But they're not Pavlov's dogs, just because they drool doesn't mean you can use tits for mind control powers. "Support Israel -- Home of the Hawt Nekkid Chix" gives a low estimate of their intelligence that is simply unfair.

These women have just completed their (extremely fucking demanding) military service, where they were expected to lay their lives on the line for their country.

The reward?

Being pimped as hot pieces of ass to men overseas.

That's my issue with it.

And it happens at the same time that the former President gets to wriggle out of a rape charge after admitting to 'a long series of sex offences, including harassment and indecent acts.'

Lee- way to malign an entire religion and all its denominations. Honestly. Do you listen to yourself?

Not to mention the gross inaccuracies characteristic of Lee's trolling. Without giving him more ink than he deserves, the destruction of Israel is not a majority position amongst Arab states. Al-Jazeera is basically the only bastion of independent journalism in the entire Arab world, and routinely directs a critical eye toward the states of the region in a way that puts the US media to shame. The only thing off limits to Al-Jazeera is the Qatari royal family, which leaves them quite a bit of latitude, much more than is available to most other media outlets in the region, which are subject to heavy censorship. And, lastly, Israel doesn't need any help making itself look bad; it's doing a good enough job itself with its long history of preferring military over diplomatic means, expansionism, violations of every one of the Geneva Conventions, endorsement of torture, open espousement of second-class citizenship for non-Jewish citizens (the Israeli High Court is at great pains to make clear that "Israel is not the state of its citizens, but that of the Jewish people in Israel and the diaspora"), amongst so many other things.

Ann, you rock! Great job, and very poised, especially as you warmed up.

As for the troll in this discussion: WTF? What could possibly confuse you about "We don't think the best way to represent a country and its women is as scantily-clad plastic sex dolls"? Do you really believe that all Israel has to offer is a brutal war of occupation and hot girls with guns? Is there nothing else? And why do you lack enough basic empathy to comprehend that women might be tired of being used as bait?

Bah, I've fallen into the troller's trap, I know (they only want attention), but I couldn't help it.

Oh, and Al-Jazeera is a first-rate news source, certainly much better on middle eastern issues than US cable "news."

Ann - great job.. doing TV is HARD - I've been interviewed on radio and it's 10,000 times easier, there's something about that unblinking eye staring at you that's kinda scary.

But you didn't look nervous AT ALL - I only know you were nervous because you said you were!!!

On the subject - I can totally see why Israel's Tourism Ministry has turned to T & A advertising consideiring that Israel's traditional tourist base, pro Zionist Jewish people, have been scared away by the war and the bombings - and, for the dual citizens among them, fear that they might visit the country during a crisis, get called up and get shot (that actually happened to one of my former carpenter school instructors - he went to Israel for a family wedding, got called up and lost a kidney to a sniper in Lebanon).

Now, if you feel Maxim style softcore pictorials are offensive (I don't, but I know a lot of women do), I could see why you'd find these pics just as objectionable.

But, if you don't have a problem with Maxim-style girlie pics in general, what's the beef with these photos? Just because they're government sanctioned?

So, if the Jerusalem Post or El Al Airlines or some Israeli hotel chain, or some other private sector corporate entity in Israel sponsored these pics, they'd be OK?

In any case - the second segment, about the Vietnamese mail order brides auctioning themselves off in Singapore, was creepy as hell - trafficking in women is bad enough, but having them 'self-traffic" is even worse (things must be really awful in Vietnam these days for that kind of thing to go on!)

It's offensive because, on the one hand, we have here young veterans just home from serving their country...and they have to show their tits in order to get anyone on the outside to give a shit.

These women have just completed their... military service...
The reward?
Being pimped as hot pieces of ass to men overseas.

Give me a break...you make it sounds like these ladies were forced at knife point to pose for free. I'm sure they were handsomely paid for their time. Do you have some sort of savior complex?--you need to save those poor, innocent models from the horrors of paid photoshoots? Also, Bowleserised, I think many feminists would be quite offended at your idiotic comparison of modeling with the very real horror of forced prostitution.

And why do you lack enough basic empathy to comprehend that women might be tired of being used as bait?

Oh, so you've done some modeling for advertisements? If not, then what is your basis for this blanket statement? Obviously the women in the ads aren't "tired of being used as bait". They probably love that people will pay them big bucks for a couple hours of time and some photos in a bikini. Not to mention the attention. In fact, thousands of women send in their pictures to Maxim each year, FOR FREE, just to say they've been in Maxim.

Besides that, it's massively insulting to young American men.

This is true. It is sad that T&A is the best way to draw attention, and it's sad that so many people in our country don't understand or care about the conflict. However, this is simply a regrettable commentary on the state of the world, not a valid reason why the ads are wrong or immoral.

Umm...you realize that Al Jazeera--even the one in America--is at least run by people who stone women to death for showing too much skin...right?

The people who are complaining about these ads need to get a life. It's completely normal for het men to want to look at scantily clad women. If you think that an ad campaign is shameful and immoral for recognizing this basic fact, then maybe you need to join Pat Robertson and all the other holy rollers on the religious right.

As for the complaints about "unrealistic ideals of beauty"- well, that's true for both genders. How many fat, balding leading men in hollywood do you see? Not many.

Er for anyone who can't see why the ads are a bad idea maybe you should check out the facts on sex tourism. Women don't come out of it all too well I think you'll find....

They just shout out "come to Isreal for sex". Most travel places use attractive people in swimwear doing fun holiday things to sell a destination, but this is very different.

Why Isreal would want more men coming over for sex is beyond me but this would be the wat to go about it.

bad[i]nfluence – I'm saying military service is a serious business, so why degrade these women who have served their country by turning it into girly mag wanker material? They deserve more respect.

They weren't forced to do it, but I bet if any of them wants to continue having a career in the army, they'll find they get a bunch of crap from their colleagues who might have difficulty taking them seriously after they've been on thousands of locker room walls.

Minga – where's your evidence for that?

Qwertster, are you joking? You seriously don't think there are any famous fat or balding men? Have you never heard of John Candy, Chris Farley or Biggie Smalls/Notorious BIG? They were all fat and people LOVED them. Donald Trump and Bruce Willis are balding. Do you think they're not famous, or have you simply never heard of them? Bill Murray has had a receding hairline for most of his career. Fat Albert used to be the FUCKING FATTEST MAN ALIVE and he was the inspiration for the Bill Cosby character, and was depicted as a wise, fat, likable man in Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids cartoon. Seriously, could you have asked a question that was any easier to disprove? For fuck's sake, educate yourself before you spew your ignorance all over the Internet.

Also, I second what chem_fem said. At a workplace meeting yesterday we had a presentation on human trafficking, and it was just about the saddest thing ever. The issue is so unknown to most people, and even though I thought I knew something about it, I was surprised at just how little I knew. Trafficking in human beings is the world's fastest-growing international crime, and it's not just Asian women being trafficked around Asia. Here in the US, American women are kidnapped, forced, and coerced into sexual slavery every day, and the presenter said that what we know about human trafficking right now is just the very tip of the iceberg. Encouraging sex tourism is only going to exacerbate that problem.

Also, these tactics remind me of PETA, and Israel's campaign is going to fail for the same reason that PETA has failed to make animal rights an issue that people take seriously. When you get people interested in an issue in a way that has nothing to do with what the issue actually is, they're not going to stick with it. In other words, if people decide to care about Israel and/or the Middle East because they saw some pictures of a hot Israeli military chick, they might care about the region for a week or so, but they're not going to develop any type of significant concern for Israel, but what they probably will take with them is the idea that powerful women are sex objects rather than people to be taken seriously. I mean, think about it. The civil rights movement didn't succeed by arguing that we should give black people voting rights because ZOMG, black women are HAWT! It succeeded by arguing that black people are FUCKING HUMAN BEINGS and should be treated as such. Women didn't get the right to vote by arguing that we're hot, and formerly colonized countries such as East Timor, India, Ireland, et al didn't win their freedom by arguing that their women were hot. Apartheid didn't fall by convincing Afrikaners that non-white South African women were hot. If the intent of this campaign is truly to get young American men to care about the issues facing Israel, it's going to fail. All it will do is make them disrespect military women and Israeli women. Objectification only begets more objectification. It has never been, and never will be, an effective tool for education or change.

"They weren't forced to do it, but I bet if any of them wants to continue having a career in the army..."

What is the likelihood of that? I heard that in some counties Israel a high % of the young men (and in Israel, a high % of the young women too) are conscripted for a couple of years between high school and getting on with their lives.

In countries with this system, that probably includes a lot of people who don't want to continue having a career in the military and who wouldn't have joined the military in the first place had they grown up in countries without widespread consciption.

"See son - The west is corrupt. The women whores."

It could also get reactions like

"See son - The First World is corrupt. The women whores."

"See son - The intellectuals are corrupt. The women whores."

Some Muslims don't scorn women (including us), First World standards of living (including vaccines and email), academia (including 6th grade), etc. At the same time, some non-Muslims *do* scorn these...

What is the likelihood of that? I heard that in some counties Israel a high % of the young men (and in Israel, a high % of the young women too) are conscripted for a couple of years between high school and getting on with their lives.

Mina, all Israeli citizens must serve three years in the army, and then they're they're placed in the reserves (I think until they're 51 or something?). So, their service isn't necessarily over when that three years is up. Moreover, what the other poster is referring to, I believe, is the women who want to have a career in the military, which is quite a large sector of Israel's economy. And the mandatory service thing in Israel makes this all the more sickening because it means the repercussions of this stunt will eventually touch all Israeli women, because let's face it, women who pose for things like this are unfortunately never taken seriously afterwards, and this image of military women as sex objects will stick to the women who come after them.

I'm just so fucking sick of all women's work being sexualized, from the naughty nurse to the slutty maid, to the female CEO who supposedly slept her way to the top (the only woman I know who's the vice president of a company has to deal with that shit all the time). This type of shit affects us in the real world, and I'm sick of ignorant-ass trolls acting like it's okay for us to be viewed as sex and nothing more than sex no matter what we do. I'm sorry, but I am fucking sick and tired of only being recognized for being skinny and large-breasted rather than for what I do in the world. Fuck you if you're an ignorant-ass troll who thinks I'm overreacting because I want to be a person rather than an object. You have no fucking clue what it's like, and you're all so fucking weak and naive that you'd probably kill yourselves if you had to walk in our shoes for a week.

"Mina, all Israeli citizens must serve three years in the army, and then they're they're placed in the reserves (I think until they're 51 or something?). So, their service isn't necessarily over when that three years is up."

I knew it wasn't necessarily over (if it was, there wouldn't be anyone in the military besides conscipts!). I did forget about the reserves, though.

"I'm just so fucking sick of all women's work being sexualized, from the naughty nurse to the slutty maid, to the female CEO who supposedly slept her way to the top"

It starts even before womanhood - remember the junior high school girl uniform fetish?

"I'm sorry, but I am fucking sick and tired of only being recognized for being skinny and large-breasted rather than for what I do in the world."

For that matter, only being shunned for being plump and/or small-breasted rather than recognized for what one does in the world also sucks.

Ponies and rainbows wrote: I'm just so fucking sick of all women's work being sexualized, from the naughty nurse to the slutty maid, to the female CEO who supposedly slept her way to the top (the only woman I know who's the vice president of a company has to deal with that shit all the time). This type of shit affects us in the real world, and I'm sick of ignorant-ass trolls acting like it's okay for us to be viewed as sex and nothing more than sex no matter what we do. I'm sorry, but I am fucking sick and tired of only being recognized for being skinny and large-breasted rather than for what I do in the world. Fuck you if you're an ignorant-ass troll who thinks I'm overreacting because I want to be a person rather than an object. You have no fucking clue what it's like, and you're all so fucking weak and naive that you'd probably kill yourselves if you had to walk in our shoes for a week.

and Mina added: For that matter, only being shunned for being plump and/or small-breasted rather than recognized for what one does in the world also sucks.

Sorry it just deserved to be posted twice because it was well written and this is how I feel every fucking day. Thankyou for putting it into words and making me feel like I'm not the only one who is torn apart by this.

xx

For that matter, only being shunned for being plump and/or small-breasted rather than recognized for what one does in the world also sucks.

Yeah, I've seen that happen with plenty of my friends and with my mom. (I hope I didn't seem like I was minimizing your experiences, BTW!) It's so sickening to see all those stories about how women who weigh more than a stick don't get hired or get passed over for promotions, whereas men who weigh more aren't punished at all for it professionally unless they're really, really obese.* It's just so sad to see all the ways that girls and women are prevented from ever reach their true potential, or from even considering it, all based on how MEN have constructed and interpreted our bodies and sexuality.

*(To be fair, I have read studies about how men who are shorter have a harder time in the professional world -- but even that might have a hint of misogyny in it, since being short is considered more of a feminine quality.)

"I hope I didn't seem like I was minimizing your experiences, BTW!"

Don't worry, you didn't!

"t punished at all for it professionally unless they're really, really obese.* It's just so sad to see all the ways that girls and women are prevented from ever reach their true potential, or from even considering it, all based on how MEN have constructed and interpreted our bodies and sexuality."

Exactly. I mean, I can understand thinking someone isn't sexy or pretty because of how he or she looks. At the same time, "you're unsexy" or "you're ugly" is no good reason to reject one for any of the tons of non-sexual roles people have in society. The problem is far less society's definitions of beauty than society's rejection of people for not being beautiful.

Bite me, Lee. Who do you think you are? We know you're an MRA; trolling as the American feminist police is disingenuous and crass. You don't support feminism; why would we follow your misguided instructions re: how to be good feminists? Ann did nothing wrong; she represented herself very well and got the message across. Some of us women are sick of being treated as the sex class.

ponies and rainbows, Mina, chem_fem---so true, so true. The trolls are just hanging on the status quo for dear life, but you are all making a difference. xxoo

Oh my god! Were did all these trolls come from? Why hasn't this Lee person been banned yet?

Lee has an interesting point- On the one hand, you have these cheesecake images of scantily clad Israeli women. Then in comes this feminist, sanctimoueaously lecturing the audience on how these images are supposedly sexist and exploitive. So you basically have an American both coming across as dumb and simultaneously making the Israelis looking even dumber, while the muslim anchorwoman looks comparatively dignified and proper - a perfect anti-western propaganda device. (Oh, and BTW, those Isreali women were pretty damn HOT, IMO).

Give me a break...you make it sounds like these ladies were forced at knife point to pose for free. I'm sure they were handsomely paid for their time. Do you have some sort of savior complex?

No, I didn't at any point say that the IDF vets were forced, or even that it's wrong to do T&A pictures. What I'm saying is that it's insane to see a group of people fighting and dying for an idea, and then see them in a situation where their government has to use the lowest level of salesmanship to even get someone to give a shit. It's a bit like if there was an ad on TV "Your donations can stop world hunger--and you get a buy one get one free coupon for a bottle of shampoo!"

"What I'm saying is that it's insane to see a group of people fighting and dying for an idea, and then see them in a situation where their government has to use the lowest level of salesmanship to even get someone to give a shit."

I don't see how it's sexist, though. Men in dangerous jobs do this too- the NYC fire department has been putting out a "hunks" calendar for 10 years, and no one seems offended:

http://www.nyfirestore.com/calendars.html

I am bemused by how many of the responses here read "But straight men like to look at pictures of scantily-clad women!"

Well, I guess if straight men like something, there can't be anything anti-feminist about it, huh? Nothing wrong with turning women into sexual objects to sell anything, as long as straight men like it. Who needs feminist analysis that takes into account things like power differentials, the effects on the commodification of female sexuality, the objectifying male gaze? All that matters is that straight men like it!

"Nothing wrong with turning women into sexual objects to sell anything, as long as straight men like it."

EG- The point I, and a number of other posters are trying to make is that enjoying looking at attractive women is NORMAL for heterosexual men, and that it's moralistic for people to pass judgement on what is basically normal, healthy human sexual behavior. Liberals hate it when religious conservatives lambast queer sexuality- how is it any less moralistic to demonize hetero male sexuality?

Anyway, I see nothing wrong with using sex as a selling point, either. Even some of the mods on this sight recognize that female sex appeal sells- Jessica put a picture of a woman's naked midriff on the cover of her book- didn't she?

You feminists truly defy logic. Mohammed himself told Muslims that the day of judgment would not come until all the Jews were killed. This is recorded in the Hadith by two seperate authors. This is what Islam teachers. This is what Arab Muslims believe, how can you honestly say Arabs do not want to destroy Israel? The founder of their religion said to do it!
Here are the proof texts :

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

Sahih Muslim Book 041, Number 6985:
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

Do the world a favor and actually investigate what you claim before making yourself look foolish. I stop voting democrat because I can to the conclusion that liberals cannot handle reality. You people continue to support that conclusion.

Do you really believe that all Israel has to offer is a brutal war of occupation and hot girls with guns?

It's an ad campaign meant to drum up tourism, nothing more. The obvious reasons they went the route of bikini chicks is because (a) Israel's public image has taken a beating over the last decade when it comes to politics and foreign policy (b) high culture isn't exactly a big seller (c) there aren't quite so many religious people eager to shell out money for anything other than museums and dig sites where this prophet or that saint are buried and (d) you can get a certain percentage of young men to buy almost anything with hot chicks doing the selling.

Sure, it's a crass sales gimmick -but all sales gimmicks are crass. Offering lower prices is, too. So is slapping "new and improved" on a product.

Is there nothing else? And why do you lack enough basic empathy to comprehend that women might be tired of being used as bait?

I don't remember any of the models complaining, nor do I remember them turning their ability to make decisions and have opinions over to you. I also don't consider it empathy when one person claims to think and speak for others. Arrogance is more like it.

Besides that, it's massively insulting to young American men. Sure, getting a poll together, they'll admit they love gorgeous naked women. But they're not Pavlov's dogs, just because they drool doesn't mean you can use tits for mind control powers. "Support Israel -- Home of the Hawt Nekkid Chix" gives a low estimate of their intelligence that is simply unfair.

It might not be fair, but it is true that sex appeal sells. Advertising in general is an insult to the intelligence of the consumer. But it's humorous that self-proclaimed feminists are most upset by the crass advertisements that do the least amount of harm.

I don't remember any of the models complaining, nor do I remember them turning their ability to make decisions and have opinions over to you.

So your argument is based on the fact that people are not publicly speaking out against their source of income?

You'd think a feminist blog would be the last place to see neo-Crusaders spewing anti-Islamic vitriol.

/hugs copy of Qur'an

It might not be fair, but it is true that sex appeal sells.

So true. That's why everything from cars to stereo systems to trips to Israel is advertised by having near-naked men posed langorously and erotically. How else can the advertisers appeal to straight women than by using men's bodies like so?

Oh, wait. That's not the case at all.

When people say "sex sells" or "sex appeal sells," they never seem to notice that it's always women's bodies that are equated with sex.

Dear lord, are the MRA trolls still in here making a fuss about how these pictures are OK, because it's "normal" for men to like looking at them?

Can't you guys let the feminists have one place where we can have actual discussion without every debate turning into a Feminist 101 primer or a "...but what about the MEN!?" argument? If you love looking at objectified women so much, go blow your load in a tube sock and leave the rest of us alone.

qwertster wrote: “enjoying looking at attractive women is NORMAL for heterosexual men, and that it's moralistic for people to pass judgement on what is basically normal, healthy human sexual behavior.�

IF you really want to understand the politics of statements like this, you would definitely profit from Feminism 101. It may be “normal� for heterosexual men to enjoy looking at attractive women, but what is normal? what cultural factors determine the norm? how is desire culturally constructed? etc. “Normal� is not as transparent as your use of it implies.

Then there is the telling slippage in the first part of your sentence—“normal for heterosexual men�—to the second part—“normal, healthy human sexual behavior.� Here again Feminism 101 would help you understand the implications of your linguistic equation of the particular (heterosexual men) with the universal (human sexual behavior). You probably would protest that that’s not what you meant, but your slippage reveals a point of view that easily privileges heterosexual males. This blocks you from understanding the issues of, as EG points out, power differentials, the effects on the commodification of female sexuality, the objectifying male gaze. Your ignorance of these issues leads to your belief that any objection to your position is “moralistic.�

Wise up, kid. The world does not revolve around what you find normal, and the issue under discussion is much larger than your dick.

I stop voting democrat because I can to the conclusion that liberals cannot handle reality.

Pfft!

And when y'all say "sex sells," what you really mean is "women's bodies sell."

This thread has exploded since I was online last, so I'll try to address some of the points that have come up (from both trolls and non-trolls…):

As far as the Israeli government is concerned, what else can they do to appeal to young American males? Hockey and football aren't very big in that country, and the U.S. beer market is oversaturated. What does the Israeli government have to offer them? "Come see our new Apartheid Wall"? "Watch us ethnicly cleanse Palestinians and steal their land"? "Take the deluxe 'drop bombs on Lebanese children' tour"?

I'd say that, if Israel wants to improve its image (and appeal to young men AND women in the U.S.), it should improve its policies. Stop building apartheid walls and dropping bombs on Lebanese civilians. Same goes for the U.S. image abroad. If you want to improve your image in the Middle East, stop occupying countries and taking their oil. American PR efforts abroad so often fail because the image they're selling doesn't line up with what our country is actually doing.

Way to play into the hands of the Islamists.

I was very concerned (and almost said no to this appearance) because I wanted to be sure my comments weren't edited to make it sound like I oppose women revealing their bodies. I think I made it clear that I'm NOT opposed to images of women in bikinis, that it's the Maxim-style portrayal and the labeling of these images as "normal life" that is troubling to me.

It cracks me up that there's this perception on behalf of American conservatives that Al Jazeera (especially Al Jazeera English) is an ultra-orthodox network that advocates terrorism. Somebody's been consuming a bit too much Bill O'Reilly. I mean, have any of these trolls watched clips of other Everywoman episodes? It's hardly produced by "radical Islamists."

There was a large debate about this on a women and media listserv I'm on. Basically, we discussed whether feminists should refuse to appear on networks that have owners/views/histories/shows that are unfriendly to women. Should no feminist ever accept an invitation to go on a network rooted in religious conservatism (whether it be Christian or Muslim)? And I think the point here is that, if we all say no, they get faux-feminist groups like the Independent Women's Form to go on instead and speak for women. Is that really preferable? I think these decisions have to be made on a case-by-case basis, but I don't think my appearing on Everywoman is an endorsement of every view and policy espoused by Al Jazeera. And I'm pleased with my decision to appear on the show.

Did you even watch the video? It's a TOURISM campaign. They're trying to DISTRACT people from the conflict, not draw attention to it.

Right. And the way to do that is have a spread called "Women of the Israeli Defense Forces" in which they discuss guns 'n' ammo. Makes sense to me.

But, if you don't have a problem with Maxim-style girlie pics in general, what's the beef with these photos? Just because they're government sanctioned?

Right. I mean, I wish Maxim-style girlie pics weren't the norm, weren't the dominant image of women sold to young American men. But, as I said repeatedly on the segment, I'm mostly offended that this is a government-approved advertising technique. I expect my government not to sell my country by selling the bodies of women who live in it. And from the reactions of many Israeli women, many of them believe the same thing.

Some of the posters here have gone a little further than Ann - and I respect them for their consistency.

Basically, they take the position that they are globally opposed to any adds that involve using sexualized images of women's bodies in advertizements.

And they go into detail as to WHY they object - basically, it makes them feel objectified as women, and it magnifies all the self hatred that the advertizing industry indoctrinates them to feel about themselves and their appearance.

This particular ad, which apparently was intened to get young college educated White American men to come to Israel on vacation, by implying that they'll encounter young "exotic" White women who measure up to White American beauty standards (or at least Madison Avenue's version of White American beauty standards - that is, women who are abnormally tall, emaciated and have disproportionately large breasts considering their overall size and body fat content).

In other words, Israel is trying to find a niche for itself in the lucrative and growing sex tourism market.

Which makes sense - after all, who wants to go visit a war torn land, known for it's apartheid-style persecution for it's indenous Palestinian Arab population, and it's world class torture chambers, where soldiers and police openly violate every clause in the Geneva Convention.

Incidentally, I wonder how many of the young women in those ads were Military Police, Linguists, Medical Corpsmen (typical mitary sexism - even women medics are called CorpsMEN) or Military Intelligence during their military service?

If any of these models served in any of those military occupational specalties during their time in uniform, then they were probably directly involved in torturing Palestinian political prisoners.

Of course, that's not something that neither Maxim nor the Consul General of Israel would want to talk about in a lighthearted tourism ad who's main thrust (pun intended) is to make young affluent White American men think that they can come to Israel and "get some".

As for the posters who object to the ads because they somehow degrade the nobility of these young women's military service - I have to strongly disagree.

Basically, these young ladies were serving in the racist army of a colonial settler state, built on stolen Arab land.

Serving in the Israeli Defense Forces today is equivilent to serving in the South African Defense Forces or the Rhodesian Army in the days of Apartheid, or serving in the German Army in the days of Hitler.

So I don't think these women have any reason to be proud of serving in the racist colonialist IDF - and a lot of reasons to be ashamed.

Maxim gets a bit of the shame too - by making racism and war atrocities "sexy" with this pictorial.

There's another problem with this ad campaign: apparently, the government of Israel does not see the need to appeal to female tourists.

Whether that's because they don't want them, or because they assume that it's the men who make the travel decisions for women, I can't say. But either way, it's offensive.

When I first began my journalism degree, we had to take a bunch of basic media courses that lumped print/broadcast/radio journalism, PR and advertising all in with each other (both so students could get a the secomplete picture of how the industry works and so they could determine whether there was another media-related degree they'd rather pursue). Our units on advertising were particularly heinous -- we once had a guest speaker who worked in advertising come in, and he basically admitted that advertisers' goals aren't really to reach the largest number of people. Their goal is to reach the largest number of people who have money and will therefore buy their products. Now, knowing what we know about the wage gap between men and women and black and white people, it's not hard to put one and one together and realize that ads like this don't exist because they appeal to the largest number of people. They exist because they appeal to the largest number of powerful people -- white, heterosexual men. The rest of us don't matter, unless we can be cowed into buying products to please the most powerful members of society (makeup and cosmetic surgery for women, skin lightening cream and hair straightening products for black people, etc).

It's interesting to see how all these issues are related and build on each other -- the wage gap leads women to have less buying power and causes advertisers to focus on men because they have more money, the resulting advertisements make women feel like shit and they starve themselves and spend their last dimes in an effort to look "hot," some women stay with men who abuse them because they don't have the money to get out and/or they believe they don't deserve any better, the law doesn't adequately protect women or their children when they do leave an abuser because most politicians are male and don't understand or give a shit, and there are fewer female politicians because little girls are raised on images like this and think they can only be sex objects when they grow up even if they're in the military or medical field and if they do transcend that socialization they get harassed upon entering male-dominated fields, rape becomes almost impossible to prosecute because all women are believed to want sex all the time because that's all we're portrayed as in the media, girls and women are trafficked around the world and within their own countries to satisfy the wants of the powerful group, and on and on.

Each one of these threads are part of this web that's holding us back, and unless we focus on disentangling every thread, the structure will never fall. It's bullshit for trolls to talk about how this isn't important when we all know damn well that, unlike us, they've never volunteered at a rape crisis center or donated to groups that help get women elected. And they ignore the very real existence of human trafficking and the role that sex tourism plays in human trafficking (an issue which I recently found out Ricky Martin spoke to the UN about -- did everybody else know about this, or am I really that pop culture deficient?). The real issue is that these trolls are scared to fucking death because women are getting pissed off about how we're treated, and because it's possible that the Britney-Spears-please-men-at-all-costs era is coming to a close. Criticisms of misogyny in hip-hop are getting louder, Harry Potter and kick-ass girl heroine Hermione are stealing headline space from Paris Hilton, and a musical starring a beautiful, pudgy girl opened to packed theaters this weekend. Hell, even Britney got fed up with all this bullshit objectification and shaved her head. The trolls know this and are just making one last gasping effort at maintaining their stranglehold on us, but all it will do is make us stronger and convince us that this is an important issue -- if it weren't, they wouldn't have come here in droves to try to silence us.

"...the wage gap leads women to have less buying power and causes advertisers to focus on men because they have more money"

This simply isn't true. Here's a relevant article from Businessweek:

"Who's the apple of marketers' eye? It's not free-spending teens or men 25-50. It's women, thanks to their one-two punch of purchasing power and decision-making authority. ...women earn less money than their counterparts -- 78 cents for every dollar a man gets. But they make more than 80% of buying decisions in all homes."

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/feb2005/nf20050214_9413_db_082.htm

qwerster, do you think I'm a goddamn idiot? First of all, they said women make the majority of houshold purchasing decisions, not that women make the majority of allpurchasing decisions. Since they don't really say what they define as a "home," it's hard to know whether that statistic means anything at all. Are they including college kids living in dorms? Are they including people like me who live in a house with six roommates? Are they including people who live alone? What about seniors in senior housing developments? I'm guessing they used a pretty traditional definition of household, because 80% would be a pretty fucking steep number if you included all the men who live alone or with other men. (Hell, 8-10 percent of the male population is gay -- that's 8-10 percent right there where women are probably not making the purchasing decisions.)
If they mean homes with children, well, about 25-40 percent of mothers nowadays are single mothers, so that's 25-40 percent where the person making purchasing decisions is automatically going to be a woman.

Furthermore, the article only says "the majority of purchasing decisions," with no further explanation. What the fuck does that even mean? Does it mean that if a woman makes purchases at the grocery store three times a month and her husband makes one purchase at the used car lot, she's made the majority of purchasing decisions? It says nothing about how much money each person spends or decides to spend. In fact, this article seems to confirm my theory, as it says that "men were the principal purchaser of items like groceries and children's clothing in 21 percent of all US households." (Italics mine.)That statistic would jibe with the one in the Business Week article, so I'm guessing that they're using amount of items bought rather than amount of money spent. Yes, women's purchasing power is growing, but part of that is because we had practically none to begin with. Just because we suddenly have some purchasing power doesn't mean we have all the power in the world (nor do we want it, just in case you were thinking of twisting my words into ZOMG THE SCARY FEMINIST WANTS WOMEN TO HAVE ALL THE POWER IN THE WORLD!!!).

Furthermore, pretty much every bloody survey ever done on advertising and gender shows that because women are more strapped for time, they're less likely to pay attention to ads -- so, advertisers continue to cater to men because men's power in society ensures that they have the leisure and time to pay attention to such things. (In fact, such a study was even cited in your precious little article above.) If anything, all I get from that article is that husbands and male partners are too goddamn lazy to go out grocery shopping, which I don't find terribly empowering at all.

So thanks for the article -- it gave me a lot of feminist insights into more things that we need to be paying attention to! ;)

"When you get people interested in an issue in a way that has nothing to do with what the issue actually is, they're not going to stick with it... The civil rights movement didn't succeed by arguing that we should give black people voting rights because ZOMG, black women are HAWT! It succeeded by arguing that black people are FUCKING HUMAN BEINGS and should be treated as such."

I think this is the most cogent argument I've heard yet on this subject.

"I think this is the most cogent argument I've heard yet on this subject."

Yeah, you know a subject is well argued when the writer uses lots of big capital letters and sophisticated vocabulary like "ZOMG".

Qwertster – do you hear that roaring noise? That's you missing the point at 100mph.

Far freaking out, Ann. Nicely done.

I only just saw this now (because my feed reader, bloglines, doesn't import video so I didn't realize there was more to the post than the text) and I think you did a really great job and you should be on TV more often.

(I also like your haircut)

this is so nicely done. very good job on this.
Bulgaria hotels