Outright lying and implying that a candidate would not want to help a rape victim…too far.
By Timothy Dalrymple, October 22, 2010 12:12 am
A recent transplant from Boston to Atlanta, I have not lived in Georgia long enough to feel invested in the local politics. I should care more than I do, since the local elections will influence the life I lead, but I tend to focus on national political issues. Several recent ads, however, have truly disgusted me. They raise again this issue: What are the ethical principles that govern political rhetoric? When is it rhetoric as usual that we simply accept and shake our head at, and when is it so dishonest or unfair that it should not be tolerated?
I’m sure this video is meant to be somehow affirming:
Used to be, that a woman was reduced to her bits and pieces by the creepy old guy in the office who didn’t know better. You know, he was from the older generation, like Bill Clinton.
This nonsense is being foisted on women by Reebok. It’s supposed to be an encouragement to what? Wear more revealing tops so guys don’t stare at a girl’s fabulous butt?
The video is so stupid, condescending and sexist that it makes me completely disinterested in ever buying anything Reebok again. The thing is, I’m not prudish. I also get the notion that “sex sells”. But the flaw in this video is the substance as much as the form. Reebok indulges in the worst of stereotypes–competitive petty women angling to get the most male attention–and turns a woman against herself. She competes with herself. That is, her boobs want to best her butt. What the hell?
Via @Ziggy_Susan on Twitter