tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8180270631422837748.post914864928672156397..comments2023-08-16T09:39:08.120-04:00Comments on femonomics: Femonomics reads the internet so you don't have to: great cleavage, the obesity bandwagon, and abortion in the Obama ageCoca Colohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05951066922977616639noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8180270631422837748.post-1140019578988588802010-04-29T15:06:35.410-04:002010-04-29T15:06:35.410-04:00Hey, anonymous, I don't think that's true....Hey, anonymous, I don't think that's true. That's the reason that the ad was pulled from the Lane Bryant site, but if you click on the Jezebel link you'll see that there is a document from ABC saying the ad would be banned from certain shows, including Dancing with the Stars. The trademark problem would have prevented the ad from being aired at all, and of course would have been communicated to Lane Bryant, not limited the shows the ad would be allowed to air on.Coca Colohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05951066922977616639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8180270631422837748.post-14352459782595782662010-04-28T05:26:54.209-04:002010-04-28T05:26:54.209-04:00The reason the ad wasn't broadcast was because...The reason the ad wasn't broadcast was because it showed a model using a Blackberry. The ad was recut to remove the trademark from the device, and now there isn't a problem.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8180270631422837748.post-77922212193610938582010-04-25T23:11:23.722-04:002010-04-25T23:11:23.722-04:00Hey Prowlerzee, I absolutely agree that the change...Hey Prowlerzee, I absolutely agree that the change is worrying. I wasn't trying to make a normative statement about the shift, but rather just saying we need to acknowledge it's happening--the Democratic party's priorities have changed, it seems to me. The abortion thing was one of the big reasons <a href="http://femonomics.blogspot.com/2010/03/healthcare-skeptics-guide.html" rel="nofollow">I was skeptical of the healthcare bill</a>. I think it shows the government isn't very good at deciding what is and is not appropriate medical care.Coca Colohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05951066922977616639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8180270631422837748.post-90390945526648524082010-04-25T19:46:38.802-04:002010-04-25T19:46:38.802-04:00Your priorities as WOMEN are changing? To the poi...Your priorities as WOMEN are changing? To the point it's a-ok for you that women's rights as citizens are trampled in order to pass a version of "health care reform" so mutilated they had to change its name to health insurance reform?<br /><br />That's just wrong. Whatever you think of abortion, it's a legal medical procedure and it's no one's business what private legal medical procedure women seek out. Separate is not equal. just ask the GetEqual activists, who definitely "get" it far more than the bridezilla generation of women.<br /><br />Thanks for the link to the Newsweek article, which at least begins to address this horror show where women are willingly subverting their rights as citizens just to prop up a weak president who so little cares about their sacrifice that he invites Stupak to come celebrate a private executive signing to continue the inexcusable Hyde Amendment.prowlerzeenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8180270631422837748.post-57773617925613353982010-04-24T11:33:02.900-04:002010-04-24T11:33:02.900-04:00Having run down all of the paths linked here, I wa...Having run down all of the paths linked here, I was left wondering why our society has such an obsession with women's breasts. I'm going to a moment assume this is a largely male obsession, and that women are more-or-less bowing to that in much of their own attention to the subject. Here is the most intriguing (and Freudian) theory I've found:<br /><br />The theory runs: Breasts are linked (subconsciously) in men's minds with nurturing. The symbolism seems pretty clear there. Many adult men lack a sense of being nurtured, and deeply crave it (again subconsciously). That craving is transferred to the symbol (breasts) mistakenly.<br /><br />Pretty weird, but I kind of like it. From a purely rational perspective, an obsession with any body part makes no sense (except maybe genitalia?) and yet many of the images we see in magazines, tv, and online are completely focussed on women's breasts.mongoose6https://www.blogger.com/profile/17517485576276212600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8180270631422837748.post-79932704832290415732010-04-24T02:19:09.636-04:002010-04-24T02:19:09.636-04:00It's very unfortunate that those networks did ...It's very unfortunate that those networks did not want to air that ad because of the size of that woman's chest. That only reinforces the horrible trend we have in this society that we only want to display people of certain appearances on TV. <br /><br />However, after viewing the ad, there may be... other... good reasons why they may not feel it is appropriate for their network... maybe like the camera zooming in a little too close at certain angles. And, to be honest, the ad did strike me as a little too sensual for something that should be geared towards a female audience. It seemed more like it was trying to attract the attention of guys. Personally, I don't know any guys who wear women's lingerie (at least I don't think that I do). <br /><br />However, I do agree with you that they seemed to have applied a double-standard here by allowing Victoria's Secret to broadcast, but not Lane Bryant. Really, they should forbid ads like that from all companies, especially during prime time when children could be watching. And they certainly should not have insulted that poor woman by making derogatory comments about her body.White_Treehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13484786327013996204noreply@blogger.com