In my blog on 8/07/10, I commented on a sound bite I heard on the radio from Arianna Huffington. She talked about “incivility on the Internet” and said she bought an Internet monitoring company to screen her site and delete offensive words/comments.
Kinda funny then, on the Huff Post today was a post titled, “Rachel Maddow Takes On Bill O’Reilly.”
It was a Rachel vs. Bill war of words kind of article, where words such as “slimeballs” (good one, Rachel!), “far-left loon,” “uber-leftist,” “stupid,” and “bullpucky” were used.
Are those uncivil words? Maybe to some people. But not to me.
But what WAS OFFENSIVE to me was the following advertisement smack dab in the middle of the post:
A young woman in see-through panties and see-through blouse in a pose you wouldn't see in a corporate boardroom is more "uncivil" to me than bad/rude language.
I would rather read name-calling hundreds of times—no matter how colorful or gross—than see women in advertisements using their bodies in a sexually provacative way to SELL a PRODUCT. It’s degrading.
Hey Arianna, what’s up with the see-through undies butt shot? What kind of a message does this send to young women? Sheesh. Do I have to rescind your FW NOW Award?
Huff Post link:
While I’m at it…. Here’s a Sears ad in Sunday’s paper – for Juniors’ clothes. What’s with pulling up her blouse? And I don’t even want to know what the finger in the waistband is about!
Here’s pretty, entertaining, and talented singer Katy Perry. Isn’t that enough to sell records?
Lots of racy photos of Katy Perry in the August 19, 2010 issue of Rolling Stone. I've never seen Sheryl Crow in her underwear but I still buy her CDs.
Do you have to be photographed in your underwear? If so, that’s a really bad commentary about America—that in order for a young women to be successful, she has to take her clothes off. UGH.
