Visual Art Oct 13, 2011 at 10:01 am

Comments

104
Guys: Think about it. If most of the women posting here are saying it is at the very least ageist if not sexist then logic would dictate that the joke is offensive. It’s just not offensive to you. Just because you as men are not offended doesn’t mean that the joke is thus objectively inoffensive. Thinking that your male perspective is or should be The Default Perspective is an example of the privilege you as men have.
It’s like that old saying: A woman looks in the mirror and she sees a woman. A man looks in the mirror and he sees a person. Boys get to be Default Human. Girls get to be tender fresh chicken or old stringy meat. And that’s fucked up.
105
It's irrelevant if this joke is offensive. It's the lack of Goddamn perspective.

This is a cartoon drawn by a minimum wage convenience store employee in our mutual local neighborhood.

And basically what Jen is doing here is using a bully pulpit of the Stranger to generate a populist (and laughably "temporary") boycott of this store.

Why? Because she was offended. That's petty as fucking hell.

I wonder. Does City Market advertise with The Stranger?

106
@74
Oh hon, Women turn into piles of dead garbage--to be either consumed or discarded by men--way before they hit 40. They're born that way!
107
Seattle is sexist as shit, which is so baffling considering how up-in-arms offended people are by practically EVERYTHING else in this city.

Don't pick up after your dog? 200 commenters will be fucking outraged by that.
Don't stop your car at a crosswalk? My god, you're practically the devil.
Ride your bike through a stop sign or without a helmet? Holy crap, 400 commenters really want you to know how horrible you are.
Call someone fat on a receipt? You'll never hear the freaking end of it from the ENTIRE city.

But call something out as sexist, and almost no one understands what the big fucking deal is and YOU just need to relax. I don't get it at all.
108
One more thing to add and I'll stop wasting my limited privilege on this stupid shit.

Thank about this:

If this is such an import issue to Jen DID Jen go into the store and tell anybody, a manager, anybody what she thought BEFORE posting this?

If the answer is no then that is just chicken shit.

Publicly shaming what is probably a struggling local business — associating them Misogyny ( IE: hating women) — before you give them any sort of chance to deal with a problem face to face is lame as hell.

This isn't Sony Entertainment or Omnicom or some sort of media conglomerate. This is a tiny local business.
109
@104
Girls: Think about it. If most of the men posting here are saying it is neither ageist nor sexist then logic would dictate that the joke is not offensive. It’s just offensive to you. Just because you as women are offended doesn’t mean that the joke is thus objectively offensive. Thinking that your female perspective is or should be The Default Perspective is an example of the privilege you as women have.
110
@108

She has a history of this:

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…

Make accusations first, do actual journalism later.
111
Also… What if this was drawn by a woman? (Do we know that it wasn’t?)
112
"God forbid women dare to question the culture that turns them into piles of dead garbage--to be either consumed or discarded by men--as soon as they hit 40."

Hahaha. Fight the power! This is so retail. Feminism is laughing at you.
113
I love old, stringy meat. There's nothing better to add to a stew or a soup. Who adds the tender stuff?

Also: mildly offensive, mildly funny, entirely harmless.

I donate a fairly significant amount of time to working with a woman's rights group. I'm a certified educator advocate with the state to talk about sexual assault and sexual rights. I've seen misogyny. Misogyny is hateful and brutal and abusive. This seems to be none of those things to me. Topeka just got rid of its domestic assault laws. THAT is misogyny. Let's keep our eyes on the prize, folks, and not get our undies unduly bunched.
114
This shit just turned meta, and on the 100th comment, too!

Shitty Market Inception!
115
Breaking: City Market doesn't like mentally ill people.
116
http://www.flickr.com/photos/evilrobot6/…

Ageism or casual misandry?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/christopher…

Casual homophobia! For sure!
120
@118: If you think boycotting a store over a sign, which very few people seem to find offensive, and domestic assault laws being repealed are even in the same solar system you have a strange set of priorities. Now me, I want people to stop beating their spouses. Until they do, I want there to be laws against them doing so. Once that gets taken care of maybe I'll find the energy to worry about storefront signs.
121
@104 Of course it's offensive. Their signs are usually offensive. Take a famous person, add an offensive quip usually based on some current event involving that person, and draw it in an amusing way. In this case Aston Kutcher dumping someone for Demi Moore. Most of the time, as in this case with Kutcher, the quip does not put them in a positive light.

In the past they've made fun of rumors about someone being gay, numerous murders, mental illness, sex scandals, and various other things.

If your one of those no offensive jokes people, fine, not for you, but it seems a bit hypocritical to be fine with the other stuff, including jokes about dead kids, but somehow find it very objectionable when they have Aston Kutcher saying something sexist about his ex.

122
@118

Oh. Fer...

The only person making the claim "women ARE garbage" was Lindy West. The other comments were in ironic reference to that.

"Perhaps what happened in Topeka.."

Yes. Let's blow this bullshit even more out of proportion. For fuck sake.

The City Market Cartoon... IT'S JUST LIKE RAPE!
125
How it's okay to be so blatantly derogatory toward women just because they're women in this year and in this city is revolting to me. I mean, I know most of the men trolling the comments are looking to argue and bitch about just about anything, but for it to be okay in your minds to say "it's fine to treat women like trash as long as it's funny or if it doesn't effect me negatively" is so... uh, misogynistic.

The comments in this thread prove that Jen's observation is just the tip of the iceberg of sexism and misogyny. She made a quick observation about a small dig at women, and instead of seeing it as that you quickly pointed out that she's just a crazy bitch and doesn't know what the fuck she's bitching about out of her stupid fucking white girl prissy ass dick sucking lips. Yeah, you're not misogynists at all.
126
@120, It's all one package. Some pieces are larger, some are smaller. But it's all the same thing. It's treating women as disposable. And a bunch of women have found it offensive, not 'very few'. What's worse is how the very idea was treated. Did you read some of these comments?

Would have been interesting to learn what happened if someone had gone into the store and inquired about the sign.
127
@125 None of these things were said, actually.
128
Can some please explain what
_______ _______ sez,
means when used in a comic (book) setting?

I though it meant that the character in the accompanying drawing was making a statement; a statement from--and reflecting on--their character rather than that of the artist/author. But now, after all this, I'm just getting all confused...

Does THIS mean City Market is pro- drastic, harmful GOP budget cuts too?!?
129
@123: Supporting women and women's issues doesn't mean taking everything every woman says seriously. They can be just as wrong and just as reactionary as anyone with a penis. That's one of the things about equality.

Now, taking into consideration that this is a comments thread on the Internets, it strikes me that you're going to get a lot of dross mixed into the discussion. If I took everything I read on here seriously we'd all be Nazis, babykillers, terrorists, fascists, etc. Jen has every right to get up in arms over anything she wants. I certainly never told her to shut up. But it seems to me that feminists, like oh so many other groups from guns rights to PETA, could get much further by working on the big issues before the little shit. And yes, this is little.
130
also that Jen Graves wants to revoke artistic license is funny.
131
What the... now you're just making shit up.
133
For pretty much the same reason you can't herd cats. Trying to do too much at the same time both distracts from the message and creates contention when you really don't need to. It seems to me that you're going to get a lot more people to agree that spousal abuse is wrong (at least I hope so) than you're going to get caring about 1 nonconsequential sign in front of a store known for its nonconsequential and mildly offensive signs.

It's like the outrage I've been forced to listen to about the SlutWalk because of A, the word used for it, and B, the fact that there aren't enough minority women involved. Again, the message gets trumped by the minutae.

Not to mention the fairly good point above; what makes this sign more offensive than ones about dead babies, gays, and crazy people? This was about celebrities, for Pete's sake, and I'm pretty sure there have been many worse things said about them both in many, many places.
134
@132

Yes. In the grand scheme of things — and with only 16-odd-thousand days to ones adult life, and half of that spent eating and sleeping — It's crucial that we give equivalent importance and bandwidth to a marginally sexist convenience store cartoon AND to stopping the forcible rape of hundreds of thousands of women in Africa.

It must suck to be you. Seriously. In your worldview 99% the men in the world hate women because they won't join a crusade to stop a fucking hand drawn sandwich board cartoon.

This is the world you want to live in?

Where literally every man you meet hates you because he won't be as ridiculously dogmatic as you are over a cartoon. Or a Judd Apatow movie. Or whatever stupid thing gets posted to a blog that associates itself with offending your identity group.

A world where no gendered pejorative should be suffered to exist because that's nearly the same as hating all women. Which is exactly like rape.

It must be exhausting.

Meanwhile women are being murdered and raped in conflicts all over the world. But you spend time trying to demonize every man on the board who disagrees with you ove a god damned cartoon.

You people really ARE too privileged.
135
It never ceases to stun me that so many men think they know more about sexism than women do.
139
Holy crap, people.

#1 - She said that City Market had earned her temporary boycott - she's not calling for ALL OF YOU and ALL OF CITY MARKET'S CUSTOMERS to boycott them. Just her, just temporarily. (By the way, City Market is hardly a 'struggling business'. Just FYI.) It's the equivalent of walking by, seeing this tasteless sign, and tut-tutting. Jen tut-tutted, and all you outrage monkeys went ballistic.

#2 - Puh-lenty of female type people have posted in this thread to say, yeah, that's pretty offensive. All you who are kicking against that: stop. If it's offensive, it's offensive. Period. You don't get to tell someone that they cannot be offended by something because you aren't. It just doesn't work that way.

# 3 - Lissa's post @104 should have been the last word on this topic.

All of you posters who took the time to explain, with varying amounts of condescension, sexism, and misplaced outrage, why Jen was a big humorless poopyhead have actually proved her point, in spades. Jen saw a tasteless, offensive sign today, posted it on Slog, and went "Tut-tut." And this comment thread is the result of her taking these actions inside a sexist, patriarchal, inequal society - in a fair society, comments would have been supportive of Jen's observation, not attacking.

Good job, folks! You proved her right!!
140
it's the little things. and the big things. they add up. http://microaggressions.com/
141
I am with Jen on this. It is misogyny. It is misogyny to characterize women, and specifically women's sexual bodies, as meat (read: passive objects for consumption) and as stringy old meat (read: repulsive, worthless, deserving of scorn, suitable only to be discarded). I find it hard to believe so many media-savvy folks here really don't recognize the familiar discourse that says women's worth is only as sexual objects for men. That's why it's so offensive: because it reinforces something that many people (including, obviously and unfortunately, many commenters above) really believe about women. If the sign characterized a woman as, say, tough as cartilage, or sharp as a tooth, or sour as a lemon, that wouldn't be especially offensive, because it doesn't draw on an established notion about all women. But this characterization of woman, repugnant as a failed object of desire? Odious and tragically unoriginal.
142
I hate to wade in here again, having already been deemed Part Of The Problem, but eight innocent people were killed yesterday in a California beauty parlor by a mentally ill man in a child custody dispute with one of the salon's hairdressers.

Yet we're all worked up about a sign about some silly celeberity gossip, outside a mini-mart in Seattle's hipster haven?

Such a uniquely Seattle discussion we're having here.
143
@142-I second that. Yeah, isn't that interesting eh? Not that I disagree with the kindling theory of aggression, but these are high class problems.

"in a fair society, comments would have been supportive of Jen's observation, not attacking."
I wonder what kind of society that would be, where we'd all be unthinking robots afraid to cross the PC-line because of our highly-refined liberal sensibilities. In a fair society, comments of disagreement would not immediately be called sexist, misogynist or wildly mischaracterized as "attacks." This reminds me of how Hillary supporters were increasingly labeled racists as we slogged through the '08 primary.
144
Kinda undermines your feminism/equalism point
when the first ad in the right gutter
is for Club SinRock
featuring an oiled/wet dyejob slutty model wearing about 1/10 yd of "clothing".

Jen from rooftops:
"Hey! Misogyny is bad, mkay??! especially when used for small biz commerce ...
but, objectifying the naked female form, though... THAT pays my rent!"

....

145
It's interesting how the posts keep shifting. First the arguments were:
“It’s Hilarious” “Aren’t they supposed to be offensive?” “It’s funny because it’s offensive”.
Then they shifted to “it’s not even the most offensive” “did you freak out about (insert other offensive thing posted by city market or that appeared on slog)” to exhortations to “lighten up” accusations of over sensitivity and further references to Demi Moore’s waning charms specifically her breasts and “old slot.”

When other women began to post even the mildest expressions of distaste or discomfort regarding the offending sign or the dog pile on Jen the arguments shifted again.
The posts directed at Jen became more personal and focused on her body and her weight. Because, of course, it is every woman’s duty to stay thin and desirable after all, isn’t it? Which is what Demi failed to do isn’t it? Oh and then the false equivalencies began to fly! Jen has too much privilege so she should shut up! She should worry about real women’s problems (say the men) like rape! And she should shut up! And the joke wasn’t offensive! Or if it was, it’s irrelevant (say the men) because we know better than women what women should worry about! Also Jen should shut up!

Yeah whatever Default Humans. You just keep telling yourselves that you’ve got nothing in yourselves to examine and that alllll the women here are humorless, privileged, PC, and over reacting.
But,so sorry, we won’t shut up.

146
I hope you are all equally upset by this sign, which is clearly anti-male.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/evilrobot6/…

Men are not just sex objects, to be used for our large penises.
147
141/Portlander: I am with Jen on this. It is misogyny. It is misogyny to characterize women, and specifically women's sexual bodies, as meat (read: passive objects for consumption) and as stringy old meat (read: repulsive, worthless, deserving of scorn, suitable only to be discarded).

But Kartoon Kutcher isn't saying that the sexual bodies of women are repulsive. He's saying that the sexual body of an older woman (and, one could argue, by implication, all older women) is repulsive. As Frizzelle pointed out early on at 10, it's a put-down of age, not women.

I find it hard to believe so many media-savvy folks here really don't recognize the familiar discourse that says women's worth is only as sexual objects for men.

There's a huge difference between thinking of women only as sexual objects, and enjoying them as sexual beings in addition to all of their other aspects. While I'd never deny that there are men in the former camp, I feel that most men are in the latter. (And men hardly have a patent on being attracted to good-looking sexy people. Women are that way too.)
148
Way to go, Lissa (@145). I'm not trudging through all this bullshit, but, I saw enough to know that you are spot on.
149
So, what if City Markedup replaced the poorly drawn Ashton with a poorly drawn Catherine Zeta Jones?

150
This will all be so, so much more relevant AFTER we've read Jen's forthcoming interview with Cain Morehead, the sign artist in question.

(And really... "Morehead"?!? Could he have a more misogynistic name!)
151
144: I noticed that inconsistency too...but I doubt nobody at The Stranger will "notice" enough to comment.
152
@ 145, when you lump me in with the others, as well as ignore some good points by NateMan, you're kinda guilty of the same thing. I guess not conforming to a complete second-wave viewpoint means you're the enemy?

I, for one, never shifted anything in my comments. I, for one, demand that my comments be judged by what they say, not what anyone else said.
153
For the love of god please retire the "_____ much?" phrase. It's like fingernails scratching on a Capitol Hill sidewalk chalkboard!
154
@152: Sorry for the confusion Matt, I have been in agreement with most of what you have posted here.

But ya know, now that you mention it…

Your objection is an excellent example of something that always bugs me in these discussions, which is the need for men to be reassured that, yes of course, not all men, and specifically not them, are “like that”. I haven’t gotten a lot of sleep and I’m a little too tired to be handing out individual feminist cookies to y’all, so I’m just going to make the blanket statement that if you are not one of the Jackasses on this thread then I’m not talking about you.

But that’s also not to say that we couldn’t all benefit from a little self examination of our privilege gentlemen.
155
Jen, you did fine.

Tkc, you really don't get it do you? Change the offended group from a partular sex to a particular race. The outrage would be HUGE. Even if it was just on a sign at a local store. But since it's not race, it's ok, huh? That just shows how far we still have to go as a society. Fighting the little fights like this are worthwhile if we are ever to change how women are viewed in society. While there are still plenty of racist things going on in this country, the lack of tolerance for it by most people have made it a better place during my long life time. But every day, I still see a huge tolerance for the kind of misogyny you seem to find totally acceptable. I hope to see that changed as well during my lifetime.
156
@ 154, I don't care about anyone else's actions. I take the time to evaluate everyone individually and don't go around making blanket statements. And I truly believe that these discussions would go much better if everyone (or at least every thoughtful person) would do the same. Also, if everyone would take care to address what's being said, instead of what you think they mean, whether that's what they said or not. Or instead of bringing up some tangent that doesn't help things either.

I don't want special recognition. But I don't want to be regarded as indistinguishable from the dope either, which is what including my words with theirs does.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. You're one of the voices worth hearing, which is unfortunately becoming more rare here.
157
104/Lissa: Guys: Think about it. If most of the women posting here are saying it is at the very least ageist if not sexist then logic would dictate that the joke is offensive. It’s just not offensive to you. Just because you as men are not offended doesn’t mean that the joke is thus objectively inoffensive.

Well, first of all, it is ageist, not misogynist. Even if men found all older women sexually undesirable, but they found younger women sexually desirable, that would, of course, be very unfortunate for and hurtful to older women but it wouldn't follow that men hate women.

And second, you bring up a very good point about how, or why, something can be categorized as offensive. It seems reasonable to do what you did and apply a majority (or perhaps supermajority) test. If, for example, a comedian told a joke about women or blacks or gays (or older white men) and 90% of the people in the targeted group found it offensive, I think it would be reasonable to conclude that it's "objectively" offensive. But if only 10% in that group took umbrage at the joke, I think it would be equally reasonable to conclude it's not "objectively" offensive and that the people who were offended are probably hypersensitive.
158
I do believe we have BINGO. http://hoydenabouttown.com/20070414.431/…
159
Thank you Matt and Roma. I wish I had a like button.
Oh jenojeno how I do love me some Bingo! Thanks for the link. :)
160
@139 FTW

Thanks for taking the heat, Jen. You're right.
161
I'm with Jen. Stupid sign. The one about Amanda was too. Holy smokes that was nasty. I get the feeling that if I saw some more of them that I wouldn't like some of those either.
162
@ 157 - Well, first of all, it is ageist, not misogynist.

I appreciate your reasoned thoughtfulness in this thread (like always - yours is generally a calm voice of reason here on these internets), but I think that in this case, it's fair to say that it's both ageist and misogynist.

It's clearly ageist, but it also qualifies as misogynistic simply because the male sex is not subjected to the same culturally-held notions of a female 'pull-date'. It hooks into and reinforces the notion that 1) women's bodies are nothing more than a consumable commodity for men and that 2) those bodies better be young and firm for that commodity to have any value whatsoever.

Men don't have that onus placed on them in this culture, only women do. Therefore when a female body, an 'older' female body, is referenced as being 'old and stringy', the reference clearly resonates as a misogynistic statement.

@ 158 - Nice! Thanks for the link!
163
@116 & @146 win. misandry is ok but misogyny oh no!

i love women, i prefer older women. it wont change that many women are just maddeningly insecure.
164
@163: Once again aardvark you demonstrate just how obtuse you are. Think. Just for a minute! It won't hurt!
Why are many women maddeningly insecure do you suppose? What role does culture play in that? Who makes the culture? What gender norms and stereotypes are reinforced? Seriously. Think.

Oh and you, 116, and 146 have a good time beating that straw man piñata of yours. Cuz I'd love for you to point out any woman here who has expressed that sentiment.
165
104/Lissa: Guys: Think about it. If most of the women posting here are saying it is at the very least ageist if not sexist then logic would dictate that the joke is offensive. It’s just not offensive to you. Just because you as men are not offended doesn’t mean that the joke is thus objectively inoffensive.

Well, first of all, it is ageist, not misogynist. Even if men found all older women sexually undesirable, but they found younger women sexually desirable, that would, of course, be very unfortunate for and hurtful to older women but it wouldn't follow that men hate women.

And second, you bring up a very good point about how, or why, something can be categorized as offensive. It seems reasonable to do what you did and apply a majority (or perhaps supermajority) test. If, for example, a comedian told a joke about women or blacks or gays (or older white men) and 90% of the people in the targeted group found it offensive, I think it would be reasonable to conclude that it's "objectively" offensive. But if only 10% in that group took umbrage at the joke, I think it would be equally reasonable to conclude it's not "objectively" offensive and that the people who were offended are probably hypersensitive.
166
I honestly thought that Jen was over the top with her reaction, demonstrating a lack of good humor to make a worthless post. Reading through the comments (particularly Lissa's @104) actually changed my mind, and reminded me why I love reading Slog comments in the first place: (mostly) thoughtful dialogue and the chance to challenge my own perceptions. Thanks EVERYBODY who's weighed in without being an asshole.
167
@165: Referring to someone's partner as "meat" detached and devoid of personality could be construed as misogynistic, I suppose.
168
I think some people are 'misunderestimating' the number of women who find this offensive. And to the poster who asked if it'd be equally offensive (in a different way) were the picture of Catherine Zeta-Jones - yes and no. No, because that's just never going to happen. Aging men are not regarded with the same existential shudder that a woman who is reaching the end of her fertility or is (the horror! the horror!) menopausal is regarded.

For crissakes, a few people get defensive every time any kind of sexism is brought up! What the defensive folks seem to miss is that it's become taboo in polite society to make racist jokes, and it's becoming taboo to make homophobic jokes or fat jokes - but mean-spirited 'humor' about women, especially women's perceived attractiveness, is still fair game. And you can call me privileged all you want - I'm still gonna get blamed if I get assaulted, because I was fool enough to have my vagina with me. If that's privilege, you're fucking welcome to it. Wanna trade?

The joke is stupid. And yeah, the offensive signs are their trademark. The one about Amanda Knox actually bothered me more, but people didn't get as defensive in attacking those who found that one unfunny. The joke is offensive mostly because, as has been said several times already, it reinforces something MANY people already believe - that there's no way a young, virile man could possibly want to be with a woman who's approaching the end of her fertility. No matter how attractive, fit, and sexual that woman may be, she's past pull date.

And yeah, I'm a little sensitive about this because I'm several years older than Demi, yet don't feel my sex life is or should be over just yet. I haven't yet had to tie pork chops around my neck to get the dog to play with me, but it kind of bugs me to know how many people think I should just go sit in a rocking chair and die already.
169
I've been trying to avoid the Slog comment section lately and this thread reminds me why. The defensive, mean-spirited commenters come out swinging right away and the more enlightened folks (perhaps those who actually have lives) post later on. After being on here a while I notice it's the same assholes (5280, for example, I bet you're not even reading this...you've moved on to trolling other posts) and they never actually respond to well-reasoned, sound, moral arguments.

For those who do add value to this discussion, thank you. It is helpful for me (a straight, white male) to actually pay attention to how others experience the world. It enhances my life too.
170
@ 166 - Thank YOU, Matt S. - you made my day!

:-D
171
167/ayn: Referring to someone's partner as "meat" detached and devoid of personality could be construed as misogynistic, I suppose.

Well one could probably construe plenty of things as misogynistic if one was so inclined. I dated a woman about four years ago who once hurled "misogynistic" at me when I disagreed with her in an argument we were having (as if to like women is to have to always agree with them.)

Misogyny means a hatred of women. A man may only like women for their bodies, he may not appreciate them for their personalities or their minds or their interests (and I believe the percentage of men like this is very small) but that doesn't mean he hates women.

*

168: but mean-spirited 'humor' about women, especially women's perceived attractiveness, is still fair game.

Geni, I'm not defending mean-spiritedness of any kind, humor or otherwise, but do you think things like men's looks, penis size, and income/status are not fair game for pointed barbs by women?

And yeah, I'm a little sensitive about this because I'm several years older than Demi, yet don't feel my sex life is or should be over just yet.

Glad you're an older woman who's still interested in sex. I'm about the same age and have met so many women the past few years who weren't that interested anymore that I've started to become cynical and have stepped out of the dating pool for a while. I'd think that, unless she was very repulsive or annoying or boring, an older woman who was still very into sex wouldn't have that much of a problem finding a man.
172
@166: Holy Crap. I have changed some one's mind on the Internet! That happens so rarely as to be almost axiomatic! Thank you so much Matt S., you made my day. :)
@168: Hot Menopausal Redheads Unite!
173
BAN ALL COMEDY! Someone's feelings might get hurt!
174
@173: Thank you for that classic example of the "Slippery Slope" fallacy.
175
@ Roma, see my comment way back @ 26. I agree that this doesn't rate up as misogyny, but it is sexist, and I think more so than ageist. And for the very same reason you argue that it's ageist.

There's a distinction between sexism and misogyny that is often lost because people use the terms interchangeably. Misogyny is sexist, but sexism isn't always misogyny.
176
@173: Some of the trolls are still at it I see. Like a true troll, you can't/won't consider any of the previous 172 comments. Someone might enlighten you. Oh, and hardy har har, very clever. Did it take you a full 29 hours to come up with that?
177
@171: "A man may only like women for their bodies, he may not appreciate them for their personalities or their minds or their interests (and I believe the percentage of men like this is very small) but that doesn't mean he hates women."

You haven't devoted any thought to this, have you?

An ambulatory vagina is not a woman.

Plenty of men enjoy *sex* with women and/or feel obliged to marry them but don't like women, or outright hate them.
178
@175: "There's a distinction between sexism and misogyny that is often lost because people use the terms interchangeably. Misogyny is sexist, but sexism isn't always misogyny."

They are not interchangeable terms but are often characteristics present at the same time. Misogynists are sexist by default. Not all sexists are *necessarily* misogynistic, however it really depends on how you define "hate" of women. It's a somewhat subjective term.

In this case it's a valid usage.
179
Can we go one day without someone throwing a hissy-fit over the City Market signs?
180
162/merry, I missed your comment earlier. Thank you...I appreciate the nice compliment.

I think where you (and others) and I differ is that you have a more expansive view of what misogyny is.

Men are not subjected to the same physical notions that women are; I'll agree with you there.

But, in turn, women are not subjected to the same status and financial notions that men are.

We both judge each other, but put the emphasis on different things.
181
Ashton Kutcher = Mop topped coffin robber!
182
175/Matt,

Ageism is prejudice or discrimination against a particular age-group, especially the elderly.

Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially discrimination against women.

Since Kartoon Kutcher is trading an older woman for a younger woman, he's not discriminating against women as a group. He is, however, rejecting an older woman and, by implication, all older women. Hence ageist. But not sexist. That's the way I see it anyway. But many of us see words in different ways. In the same way that some women may see this as misogynist where you and I don't, you see it as sexist where I don't.

I'm not saying I think the sign is wonderful. Or even neutral. I think it's crass and clearly intended to provoke, and it would probably pass the "objective offensiveness test" by being offensive to most women. If I owned the business, it's not how I'd choose to get attention.
183
Why is everybody so upset about Ashton Kutcher's dislike of inferior fried chicken?
184
oh, Jen. don't be such a sourpuss just because you're old and unattractive.
185
In other news, the staff at the Stranger really really REAALLY want you to give City Market your business. Why else would anyone bother taking the time to photograph the sign, then upload it from their camera to their computer, then write up a ranty little blog about it to publish to the internet? And Jen Graves is just pissed that Ashton would never give her a second look.
186
. . . and 184 and 185 remind us why we have to continue having these discussions.
187
@184: You must have a very healthy sense of self-esteem. Also, similar jokes were made early on in this thread; even then they were unoriginal. Oh, but I understand--it was Friday night and you couldn't find any new porn torrents so you were bored.
188
@187, exactly! were you looking in my window last night?!
189
Thank you 184 and 185 for excellent examples of the Affirming the Consequent fallacy. It is amusing to see that that's all y'all have left. I have to say though suddenlyorcas, you disappoint me.
190
@189, so you lost your sense of humor with your youth and good looks as well.? what a shame. and as much as you would like to affirm my fallacy, it only gets firm for hot chicks. sorry.
191
Still trolling, legacy builder? Again, you must have a very healthy sense of self-worth.
192
almost as healthy as your love of the word 'fallacy'. like that word, huh? used it in few posts haven't ya? that's a neat word.
193
After wading through 190 comments I must say that this one simple sign board would qualify as an advertising exec's wet dream. One little sign board outside a small, local to Seattle, business and now even people who are most definitely not local to Seattle are aware of the place. The person who came up with that particular board might want to think about getting into advertising as it definitely would pay better than whatever he or she is making now.

That said:

Yes it is definitely an offensive statement. A solidly sexist ageism type remark as the ageism doesn't work without the inherent sexism. That is something you can accuse it of without any real fear of being wrong. It is when you call it misogynistic that the problems start. If this were the market's first ever offensive sign then you might have called it correctly without any further review or knowledge of the creator's intent. Unfortunately for the misogynist crowd, putting out offensive signs seems to be the standard for the market. Now to call it as misogynistic requires some work. You will need to review ALL of the signs made by that particular person and determine if there is a pattern of sexism to them. Ageism isn't required in the review just sexism as misogynist is based on sex not age. If there isn't a pattern the charge of misogynist fails at this point in the review. If there is a pattern then the review continues as these are supposedly based on topical gossip/news points. If those points are heavily weighted with stories that twist better to be offensive to ladies than stories that twist better to be offensive to men then the work continues. If they would twist better on the male side then congratulations, you have just proved your charge enough for the headline. Not enough for a real charge of misogyny but who cares as this is more of a gossip piece than a real news story and the evidence would stop a libel charge in its tracks. On the other hand, and there is always another hand available, if the evidence shows otherwise then the charge fails again and now you have to be an investigative reporter and actually talk to the person who created the sign and similar ones. With the proper leading questions about how sexist the sign seems to be it wouldn't be hard to actually find out if the person is indeed misogynistic. The person's attitude towards you as a female reporter would do wonders to proving or disproving it but wouldn't be enough evidence in and of itself to sustain the charge as lots of people that are misogynistic are still going to be careful of how they act around a reporter. Others are going to come across that way simply because they hate all reporters and it wouldn't have mattered what your sex was while talking to them. They would dislike you because you are a reporter and not because you are a female reporter. You just add the attitude into the results of the questions when trying to decide whether misogynistic by intent or simply using sexism to create offensive signs that (supposedly) get people into the market. Intent is what makes it misogynistic and not just a relatively simple play on sexism.

My personal take on it:::

Sexist, Ageist, not all that intelligent of a statement while an Advertising Exec would consider it to be a brilliant quickie advert.
194
Slog commenters; more misogynistic than stupid signs.
195
192: Yes, your point being? Since this is a comment thread, many people are making (or attempting to make) arguments. (You're doing neither, but that is another matter.) In order to discern the validity of such arguments or point out the invalidity of other's, one needs a few tools. A list of common fallacies is one of the more useful tools.
196
Well, the conversation's moved in a new direction, but I just want to point out something I noticed. The anti-Jen's perspective comments did engage in some pretty hysterical hyperbole: She's calling for everyone in the entire world to boycott! She must be calling to burn down City Market! (Yes, that's the logical opposite of being a customer...) She blows up all tiny non-issues into huge world-encompassing indictments of all men and all white people! Her response to this sign is exactly the same response people have to more violent sexism! She's a hypocrite because she hasn't monitored all City Market signs ever! Etc.

Look, people. She made an observation. She's irritated and won't be shopping at this place until that subsides. You can disagree about the degree of tastelessness in the joke and whether it merits a response at all, but don't shove words in her mouth (and/or tell her to shut up) if you disagree. That's pretty much one of the most basic guidelines of feminism: listen, don't silence. And yes, making the issue about whether she should speak rather than about what she actually said is a kind of silencing because it reframes the issue away from what she brought up to whether you think she should have spoken.
197
(Wow, just reread my last sentence - excuse the repetition, please!)
198
@190: Aww who's the big bad man? Whooo's the big bad man? Is it you? Yes it is! Yes it is,!

You're just so damncute when you're stamping your little feet!
199
Oh and @190? Nice example of Ad Hominem, (First among fallacies! A classic!) coupled with a pun, which is, of course, the lowest form of humor.

I swear, you're just adorable!
200
Sexist versus ageist vs misogynist based on his choice in women...if he had switched to Serena Williams would it also be racist?

The guy wanted someone else, he went and got her, and quite frankly if a bear were to eat an older woman versus an older woman then it would probably find the older woman "stringier".
201
@200 (me), the first "older" in that second sentence was supposed to by "younger". And a bear was used because they are evil and the number one threat to America.
202
@198. who's angry? i'm bored at work and it's kinda funny to get such a rise out of you chicks. and regarding @199, you're so wrong: puns are hilarious.
203
@202: Sure sweetie. What eeeever you say.

Why don't you go ask Passer By if the two of you can go ride bikes. That sounds like fun doesn't it?
204
@203 actually, that does sound like fun.
205
@204: Well then off you go! Just be home in time for supper, and don't go across any big streets.
206
are you suggesting only children ride bikes? is this view on bicycles and/or bicyclists any reflection on you being lazy and fat? because you kinda come across like an ugly, angry, fat chick.
207
I don't understand. Does the Stranger selectively like City Market or only uses them to try to create outrage. This posting
http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/11/phil…
you love them and actually show that you have some of their signs hanging in the Stranger office. They are lampooning a murderer (Phil Spector, an accused murderer and criminal (O.J Simpson) and a actor that had some mental problems (Owen Wilson).
Yet you have never talked or interviewed the artist. I remember that the artist was even nice enough to donate his art to your annual Strangercrombie! They also sponsor the annual night out on the hill and feed for free 100's of the local hill community every year. Last year the proceeds from donations were donated to the Swedish Women's Cancer Center. What gives trying to hurt a independent business when they do so much for the community?
208
@206: No silly, I'm suggesting that you personally are childish as evidenced by your rudimentary trolling.
But you know, keep swinging! It’s really cute. xoxo
209
City Market is OK.

The signs they post out front are funny, even if they offend sensitive artistic types.

Who's Jen Graves?
210
Could someone please mention the missing apostrophe so I don't have to?
211
Man, it's like anti-feminist bingo up in here. My card is full.
212
You really need to get over yourself, Jen.

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


    Add a comment
    Preview

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.