Perhaps you've seen the image on the left circulating around the Internets. It's an homage to the image on the right, a '60s antiwar poster featuring Joan Baez and her sisters.
I second Rebecca Traister, who says the newer, Obama-themed poster "Makes me want to put a fist through a wall, put a hammer through my skull and move to France." More specifically, as Renee puts it:
It's not even a new twist on an old theme; as Barack would say, it's more of the same. The idea that women's bodies can and should be offered as a reward for good behaviour has been with us for centuries. It's appearance as a campaign slogan only proves how far we need to progress as women.
I really hate that this props up the idea that there's a "groupie mentality" among young women who support Obama. The poster echoes the insulting argument made by some during the Democratic primary that young women who support Obama don't actually think he has good policy positions or political stances. We just think he's HAWT. And we like that our boyfriends like him!
Look, I understand this poster is supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, retro fun. (Hello, it just oozes "Made in Brooklyn" hipsterrific charm.) And you know what? I'm into retro. Retro fashion? Yes, pls. Retro music and home decor? Yes and yes. But retro politics and political statements? Um, no thank you.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Pimp the vote.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10110
UGH. Groupie mentality. That's EXACTLY what I thought when I first saw this. f-ing annoying.
The poster echoes the insulting argument made by some during the Democratic primary that young women who support Obama don't actually think he has good policy positions or political stances. We just think he's HAWT.
Um, what? I fail to see the jump from "vote for Obama and you'll get teh smex" to "girls only like Obama for his looks." Especially given two things:
-If you look at the bottom of the poster, it becomes obvious that what it's really taking on is the classic "Sarah Palin is a symbol of femininity" crap.
-You can't even begin to infer a "dumb shallow female" attitude from the origin poster. Why does one spontaneously appear when the subject changes from just being anti-war to supporting Obama?
You know what I really, really wish they had done with this poster? Just added the word "only" - "Girls ONLY say yes to boys who say Obama."
That would have changed voting for Obama from a sufficient condition for sex (I'll screw any Obama voter) to a necessary condition for sex (You have to vote Obama to even have a chance). And the latter is something I can definitely get behind, while still keep the retro reference.
I don't know how I feel about this.
I love Rebecca Traister, but I don't agree with her here. Obviously, she has every right to feel the way she does about it, but it doesn't offend me.
I don't think it's saying "Girls only vote for Obama cause that's what cute boys do!"
Don't we all agree that pro-choice men, liberal men, feminist men, are WAY sexier than anti-choice Republicans who call empowered women "feminazis"?
Obviously the wording could have been better. But the point is that respecting women is sexy, Obama's policies respect women, and men who support Obama are way sexier than men who don't.
And I agree with what ellefromtheeast said.
x
allison
I saw this a few days ago and after some thought decided that I didn't really have a problem with it. I'm not sure entirely about the context of the original poster, but I have a hard time jumping from the slogan on this poster to offering sex for a vote for Obama. To me, the phrase, "say yes" is just too vague to infer a meaning that explicit. The vagueness to me says rather what some other previous posters have said, that support for Obama, or rather not-supporting McCain Palin, is a necessary condition for a man you would be involved with at all. And to me that seems to echo what I've been saying for a while, that I wouldn't be involved with someone who didn't respect my right to chose, etc, etc.
Anyway, it would have been cool if they had re-updated the artsy-vibe of the poster, with something more political and contemporary. But I think revulsion, or being really nasty about the girls who made it is taking it a bit too far.
Actually, as a feminist, I'm a big fan of this poster. By being AMAZINGLY ironic, it's doing the job of exposing the ridiculousness of the groupie mentality without saying "we oppose the groupie mentality!"
This is art, so it's playing around with assumptions and statements, and it's meant to be taken as a whole. What written (the big statement) isn't actually what's being said, because we haven't taken into account the picture AND the statement. Herein lies the irony: I mean, look at the women in the picture (as well as the original Joan Baez version). Do they look like women who going to take any shit from some guy(s) who think they can get in their pants by voting for their candidate? Not really. This meant to be a one-off to those who actually believe that the statement rings true anywhere. It's basically saying "Fuck you. I'm voting for Obama because Sarah Palin isn't reppin' me."
We've got to move away from is literal-mindedness -- we close off a lot of opportunities to make our statements in creative (and controversial) ways. By the way, to preempt anyone who might respond to this thinking that I also support PETA's ad campaigns featuring young, naked (or nearly-naked) women, I don't -- I think those are gross.
I agree that I don't see how one can infer that this poster is saying girls like Obama cause he is "hawt". It is saying girls like boys who like Obama; it doesn't imply that they like boys who like Obama because girls think Obama is good looking. I also don't see how this poster is much different than the "I don't fuck Republicans shirt". I get that this doesn't say girls ONLY say yes to boys who say Obama, but I think that is implied. I'm not crazy about the poster because it still seems sexist in that I can't see a sign saying "Boys say yes to girls who say Obama" ( that would be admitting that girls have sex drives and are trying to get guys to agree to have sex) but it doesn't drive me crazy either.
At first glance, and when looking through the pokey-proddy lens you built up around this picture, I saw it as you saw it-- "Yes" meaning, yes, sex.
It's obvious that the picture on the right-- the old version-- is talking about using sex as a reward-system. But after a second glance, I don't think that's what the women who put the image together *meant*.
I think that in this particular case, the over-scrutiny of the picture has blinded people to the over-arching point of the picture, which is, simply:
"Men, vote Obama. The McCain-Palin ticket is not going to support womens' rights. Add your obama vote, and you are helping to support womens' rights by proxy. The women are voting this way for themselves-- vote for them, too. Vote Obama."
I don't know, Femimax. I think a lot of people get the "groupie mentality" impression from it at first, and first impressions are generally not a result of over-analysis.
Like a lot of other people, I have mixed feelings about this poster. I think it's important to use humor, irony, and pop-culture references to draw people in and drive home feminist points. But I think maybe this one goes a little too far.
I'm going to have to agree with the OP that this is inappropriate.
Yes, pro-choice, feminist men may have more sex appeal (not necessarily my experience, but sure, let's run with that).
But, still...this poster frames women (particularly these hipster snow angels) as serving as some kind of ethereal sexual arbiter, willingly descending on Obama voters as a reward for a vote.
Reducing women to sexual rewards for exercising your civic responsibility feels so medieval.
To go in a bit of a different direction, has anyone noticed that it's apparently only white and East Asian girls who will say "yes" if you vote for Obama? Is this because the creator of the poster doesn't think that the white, hipster boys who seem to be the poster's target audience aren't attracted to brown girls?
There have been many things throughout this campaign that have made me want to put my fist through a wall. This, however, is not one of them.
I saw the message as girls, in appreciation of the pro-woman Obama-Biden ticket, also like men who support this idea, they say yes in approval. Not, if you want some ass you'd better vote Obama.
I only came to the "say yes", meaning sex, when I realized that the author of the post was critiquing and not praising the poster.
Definitely some interesting explanations/ interpretations from the community.
Yeah I don't like this poster one bit. It reminds me of a story I heard on the radio the other day, that in Denmark an environmental group has made a porn video to try and raise money for forests calling it 'Fuck for Forests'. What's the point of sacrificing one cause to further another?
P.S about France, if you actually did live here you might get a rude awakening about just how backwards people are here in terms of ideas about women and feminism. Unfortunately :(
wait... Why can't women own their sexuality?? If the sixties was a time of sexual awakening for women, an era where women were finally able to make the choice of who to have sex with and when, I for one, want to celebrate that choice!
I do think that's a pretty narrow analysis though. When you vote, you say "yes" or "no" to propositions. Similarly, I think this poster says women who support Obama are in support of guys who support Obama.
Also, the whole "Obama is a hottie" thing is not even remotely related to this poster. The "political stance" is on the poster! Loud and clear. Obama is pro-woman. And on a NON-SEXUAL LEVEL that is what I want in a guy.
Side note: FeministReview mentions the lack of diversity in the poster. I really think this is again, over analyzing the poster. Also, isn't it hypocritical to assume the target audience is white hipster boys? Why can't they be black hipster boys? Or Hispanic hipster boys? Or Arabic hipster boys? Or Asian hipster boys? Are white and East Asian girls are only attracted to white boys? Just a thought...
Perhaps it's not so much offering womens bodies for good behavior as stating that women prefer boys with good political sense?
Clearly it's not meant to mean that is the only requirement but surely it's attractive quality.
curiousdude, I thought about that, too. I was like, why does this bother me, when I'm not bothered by the "I Heart Pro-Choice Boys" shirts I've seen before.
It's because it implies sex is your reward: "Vote for Obama and the ladies will fuck you." I don't think I'd have a problem with a shirt that says, "I Heart Boys Who Vote Obama." Just like I wouldn't wear a pro-choice shirt that said, "Girls say YES to pro-choice boys."
And look, I knew people would be all over the map on this, in terms of whether or not they found it offensive. The reason I brought up the implication, in Robin Morgan's essay, that young women liked Obama in the primary because their boyfriends liked him, is because that's an underlying theme of this poster for me. Girls are into boys who are into Obama. I probably muddied the waters by bringing up the "Obama is HAWT" portion of that argument. It's more of a leap, but I do think that ties in to the implication we saw in the primaries that young, female Obama supporters have a "groupie mentality." Even if this poster isn't directly about Obama's looks.
As with lots of things on this site, the goal is to have a conversation about what this poster means to everyone, in a feminist context. Obviously, everyone is different and will see the poster in a slightly different way.
As for whether both posters convey (positively) the sexual revolution, that's a whole other tangent. Probably a whole other blog post. But suffice to say that a lot of women didn't find the sexual revolution to be a *feminist* sexual revolution. There is a whole section of the Hite Report, the famous study of female sexuality, about how many women felt empowered by the sexual revolution in some contexts, but felt it also served to seriously prop up male sexual privilege in lots of ways. Like I said, it's a whole other post (which maybe I'll write someday....), but just wanted to mention that connoting the sexual revolution does not necessarily connote liberation and independence for all feminists/women.
i was immediately turned off by the fact the poster is filled with white chicks. they can't even squeeze one black woman in the middle?!?!?
yay, diversity.
Maybe "Girls say NO to boys who say McCain" would be a better sentiment. No implication of sex as a reward, more like you don't even stand a chance if your going that way in the voting booth.
And I don't know if there's any way to rescue this from the implied heterosexism...
Another observation: 4 "girls" while there were three in the original. Only to fill the larger couch?
Yeah, I agree that there's a groupie mentality and also a "voting for Obama will get you LAID" mentality. I don't think getting sex is really a good reason to vote for someone and I don't think it should be encouraged either. I get that's it's trying to be "retro" and "ironic" and eye-catching. What's funny is that how clique the notion of retro is already. As if the concept of retro is retro, and not in a good way.
How about a poster that says "men who care about women vote for Obama"? But then again, why does it have to be specifically marketed to men, as if women can't also vote Obama? Also noting the hetero-normative assumptions therein. Anyone? It's about straight boys getting sex from straight girls as payment for political support.
I was around when the original poster came out (still have a copy somewhere). There was a similar debate back then-- I remember thinking "I wish it said "Girls say 'no' to Boys who say 'yes'." Since I believe the poster was originally inspired by Aristophanes play Lysistrata, in which the women agree to withhold sex until the men end a war, it would have been more true to the source, as well as, as several commenters here note, making it seem a
*little* less like sex is a direct reward for the "boys" action. But the overall sentiment still felt kind of uncomfortable...thought you might want to know that this was so even way back then...
Ann said :
Obviously, everyone is different and will see the poster in a slightly different way.
Ann said it right.
For some, this poster is just a laugh. For others, it's just sad.
Like my high-school daughter, age 15. At first she found it funny. Then she asked me why they were all white. Then she asked me why someone would try to "sex up" a presidential campaign. (Old story, I said.) Then I saw her lightbulb go off: "And hey, what if you're a boy for Obama who likes BOYS? Or a girl who likes GIRLS?"(SAT word of the day:"heteronormative".) "There's an ick factor here, isn't there, Mom?"
She also told me that she didn't think this poster was something Mr. Obama would really approve of, at least where his daughters are concerned. (Disclosure: we live in Mr. Obama's neighborhood, and support him on most issues.)
Then I asked her what her straight male classmates would think. The eyeroll. To them, so many things (everything?) are an invitation to sex. Bonding jokes in chem class. Nasty slang in Spanish class. There is no escape from it. It starts when the first bell rings. Sheez, mom!
I thought about what she told me, and I started to remember that it was like that in my high school. It persisted throughout my life until workplace harassment was finally recognized as unacceptable, and then it only got a little better. In high school, it lives forever. I think I just tried to repress the memories.
Yesterday was the first day I visited feministing. I came here because my daughter attended a meeting of the high school feminist club, and out of a population of 1,400 people, there were all of 3 girls there (Two senior officers, and my daughter.) They can't even find a faculty person to advise them. I came to this site hoping to find something energizing to help her get the ball rolling, and not give up. Then I see this poster. I feel queasy.
So we don't like when Palin is presented (and presents herself) as a sexual object but its ok when its for Obama?
This poster is offensive. The 60's Sex for War resistance is(was) offensive.
It shouldn't matter who or what the politics is, offering up women as sex objects for boys who do "X" is offensive.
I agree entirely with ellefromtheeast, that would have been a much better poster. That changes it more from a reward system to a punishment system, which in my opinion seems more empowering.
And I agree with the general orientation and message of the poster. I don't say yes to conservative women, that's my personal choice.
Saying "Girls ONLY say yes to boys who say Obama" isn't any different in its implications. It just changes the conditions. Its still just as offensive.
The only way it could be saved would be to say "These Girls Say Yes to boys who say Obama", then they wouldn't be purporting to speak for me.
I still don't get how when Palin speaks for "women" we find it offensive but just we agree with Obama we don't see this as offensive as well. They both work on the same type of assumptions and the same co-optation of womens voices.
Sorry, that should read: but just *because* we agree with Obama.....
Southsider, your daughter sounds amazing. :)
Bellabear: My question is based on the magazine's target audience, which is definitely a concern for any promotional campaign that BUST undertakes. Given that the magazine's primary target audience is white, I think it's safe to assume that they're primarily concerned with speaking to white people who buy their magazine, boys or girls actually. And I'm not going to try to deconstruct the deeply complex issues of race and desire on this blog (mostly because I think they're largely irrelevant to your questions regarding the intention of the poster specifically), but I will say that people do tend to date within their race and this influences editorial decisions about the types of images that appear in magazine, advertisements, tv, etc. Certainly, these are generalities, as well as speculation in this specific case. Tis better though...
Whoops. Was supposed to end with "Tis better to question though..."
I'm having keyboard issues. :)
FeministReview:
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I don't think BUST actually made the poster. I think they just reported on it first in the online blog. My understanding is a NY photographer and her friends made it. So, I wouldn't call that a "promotional campaign", more just something BUST thought was cool.
I guess I'm unsure what the problem is. I suppose the poster could be remade to be 100% PC and have all races and genders and sexualities represented, and could say "Girls (and guys) ONLY say yes to boys (and girls) who say Obama". But wouldn't that feel kinda set up? I still think it's just a cute poster some friends wanted to make to espouse THEIR beliefs.
I definitely agree that advertising tends to cater to same race (and heteronormative) relationships (romantic and otherwise) and that is a shame. We should hold advertising agencies accountable for lack of diversity. I just don't think this is an example of that.
Bella: Hmmmm. I guess I misunderstood the origins of the poster then. I do think that it utilizes themes that reflect the sexism, racism, and heteronormativity of our society, but I'm not one to get all that worked up over a poster. I just wouldn't hang it up on my wall because of the things I find problematic about it.