I think it's explained pretty well in the blog post. The mixed messages that advertising sends us and that are embodied in this flier--gorge yourself, then feel bad about it--promote a very unhealthy attitude toward food.

I actually remember getting the flier and didn't even notice the scale, so I'm glad someone pointed it out. During the quick glimpse I gave it on the way to the recycle bin, I only noticed how good the food looked and wished they had recipes in there!

You make a good point; however, I would say that the cover is worrisome. They're showing a completely over-the-top amount of food, followed by a pair of distinctly feminine feet on a scale with the word "yikes!". It's sending a message about a woman with no self-control when it comes to food, who then feels horribly guilty as soon as she steps onto a scale.

This is a *very* bothersome message for several reasons-- one, the fact that it encourages overeating. Why on earth is one woman eating so much food? And two, it's sending the message that this woman should immediately check her weight and-- this is the really important part-- feel ashamed. Why are they targeting women with this cover, exactly? Is it because women are the ones who need to be constantly checking their weight after they eat?

These are the kinds of serious questions we need to go over when questionable ads (such as this) are used.

I think I agree. On the basis of: Why are people assuming it's for one person? It's a Thanksgiving issue, and not to insult the lonely and alone, but very few people eat that alone, and enough eat dinner with their entire extended family that those dishes--while extravagant--are not unreasonable.

The idea is still there, we do encourage overeating during the holidays, and there is a lot of shame put on fat women, so I guess my stance is that it's bad, but it's not so bad as people are making out.

yes, attagirl and others - i certainly agree that it's bothersome, and the unhealthy relationship of food which attagirl mentioned - i agree that the ad depicts said relationship. All I'm saying is that this doesn't in effect *promote* eating disorders - I think that statement is a bit sensationalistic. And I did read the blog post, which struck me as a bit contrived, that's all. But unhealthy relationship with food - YES, for sure. And that is something I think almost all Americans have. In fact, attagirl, that phrase is so perfect that it makes me wish even more for a recognized distinction between an "eating disorder" and an "unhealthy relationship" with food. Because this distinction could really help to address some of these unhealthy relationships without automatically labeling them eating disorders..

To add to this, I feel like the blog post is more backwards than the cover it attacks.

The majority of the article is, "Women, you don't know what you should be buying, nor how to equip your kitchen. You might think you have an idea of how big your gatherings will be, but you're wrong. I know what you need or don't need."

Next, the whole, "this is way more food than one person could possibly eat alone" seems to contradict the idea of "showing that much food encourages bingeing."

Since the food is for a large gathering (or possibly the Phillies?) how on earth can we conclude that the chef must have binged when eating it?

I'm also sort of confused why it's worth mentioning that the scale is literally labeled a body fat scale. Allowing people to focus on body composition (quite relevant for health) instead of becoming fixated on weight (not so good) seems utterly reasonable.

Or is the author implying that women [i]ought[/i] only be concerned with pounds?

Nice. I like anyone who looks back fondly on what was basically a feudal system.

Myself, I was a big fan of the three-fifths rule. Just rank human beings in order of value and it becomes so obvious which ones you should choose to care about.

I wrote a reply to this woman, but since it probably won't post on her site here it is:

"Well, who would you like to disenfranchise first? Women? Dark people? The disabled? That smelly guy behind you in line at the supermarket?

Or just everyone who disagrees with your point of view? The last one? Of course.

It must be so galling to some conservatives that everyone is supposed to be treated the same under the law. It's true though, and acting on the opinion you've expressed would require the dismantling of our republic and the institution of some other form of government. Not all of us yearn for a religious dictatorship, so I think you're going to have to live with disappointment. American ideals are antithetical to your ideals. Poor you."

The ad with the boy is shocking. I think it is effective though, and raises an issue more people should talk about.

I would also love to see ads that encourage men to report when they are beaten or victimized. I'm sure it is a message that needs to get out there, but I don't agree that these messages need to be shut down just because other messages need to be transmitted as well.

What I don't understand about the MRA movement is the disconnect between their stated intentions and their methods. If gender parity is really the goal then feminists are their ideal allies. There really doesn't need to be a complete disconnect between the sexes, and sometimes I feel like they cultivate one.

IMO, the first ad is offensive because it uses a child instead of an adult.

The placement of an innocent child, with text saying "I WILL", implies that the boy is inherently evil, and incapable of being saved/living a normal life.

I happen to agree with those criticisms of Obama, generally.

But then you link to a URL defending Palin. Am I to understand that you are supporting a McCain/Palin ticket? Because that would be much worse for many women and pretty much all feminists (the "traditional" kind) than an Obama/Biden administration, hands down. So if that's the case I really can't take you seriously.

Some criticisms of Palin may be overblown. Yes Palin has had a lot of sexism targeted against her, and that is not good. But there are plenty of places you can look at the concrete McCain/Palin policies and know it's no good for women.

And even if you believed in your heart of hearts that Palin /wants/ to help women, and /believes/ her policies do that, don't you think McCain's tremendous demonstrated misogyny would cancel that out?

here: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/27/palin.tension/index.html

I dislike the use of the word "diva" but other than that, I think the article points out some pretty significant problems with Palin from some pretty credible sources, making them pretty hard to argue against.

I've been having this problem, too. It worked for a day or so and let me click "liked" or "disliked," but now on the vast majority of comments it already counts me as having clicked one or the other -- like you, even on comments I haven't even read.

True. And don't you think that a more progressive administration that supports equal pay for equal work (Obama/Biden) as opposed to a president who is part of a culture that actually harasses women and tells sexist jokes (McCain) would lead to more opportunities for female political involvement in the future? I sure do.

(Palin doesn't support equal pay for equal work, either, you know)

There should be more women in power. But the reality is that Sarah Palin is not good enough to be the President. Bush may very well go down as the worst president in history (beating out Tyler, who actually defected to the South during the Civil War) and even he had more reason to be president than she does. It isn't the fact that she's a woman that's stopping her, it's the fact that she has ridiculously misogynist views (regardless of your position on abortion, putting the mother's life at risk is wrong; making women pay for their own rape kits is wrong) that she legitimately seems to believe in. It's the fact that she doesn't know what the Vice President does. It's the fact that her entire run for the Vice Presidency has been being folksy and cute. Is that partly the fault of the media? Probably. Has she been playing it up anyway? You betcha!

And even if you're willing to discount everything against her simply for the fact that she's a woman, think of this: women politicians are held up to more scrutiny and higher standards than their male counterparts would ever have to face. Hillary Clinton's run for the presidency had groups like Citizens United Not Timid appearing on television and legitimized. Nancy Pelosi is constantly under fire for the fact that Democrats in Congress don't have enough of a majority to do anything. Ask yourself if you want the first woman president to the last one, because that's really what we're talking about here. Elect her VP, and odds are she'll be president within four years. America can do better than Sarah Palin. America deserves better than Sarah Palin. And if it means that we have to wait four or eight years for a legitimate female candidate, so be it. Better slow progress now than no progress later.

Hear, hear. Is this something to cheer about? Really, Feministing?