Today’s Lady News: “Californication” Ad Stars David Duchovny And A Woman’s Butt

Taurwen
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 05:10 pm: [report]

The vaccine thing shouldn’t be much of a shock. Although it is ground breaking, and something to seriously consider getting (One could even go as far as encouraging girls to get it) it has caused some deaths, and some pretty bad side effects. I don’t think it should be mandatory personally.

lewomack
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 06:53 pm: [report]

Y’know, I’m pretty sure if my nipple bled I’d be showing some “acute distress.”

impoddity
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 07:26 pm: [report]

I’m sure Hank Moody would have quite a bit to say about that sexist ad. 

@Taurwen: My gyn suggested the vaccine, but hasn’t mentioned it again after I told him no.  I’m still rather iffy about vaccines in general, the optional ones.

Katrina
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 07:40 pm: [report]

Um, pretty sure that ad accurately sums up Californication pretty well. Hank Moody can objectify me any day

Жин
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 07:55 pm: [report]

OK, this is my first comment on this site, and I’m mad it’s a negative one but I disagree. That picture isn’t sexist. It’s a girl in shorts. The guy’s not even looking at her. That’s how a lot of girls dress, it’s not a big deal.

And about the vaccines, I hate this paranoia about how in general vaccines aren’t good to get. #&@$%. Yes, it is true that a few people die from them, but those are rare cases. In my honest opinion, it’s better that a few people die, but many people are protected from death by the vaccine than people just dying when there is a cure out there. Although, I agree with Taurwen they should not be mandatory.

And the bleeding issue, c’mon be honest that’s not an ER issue, unless it’s gushing out. If it was. I apologize.

The submarine thing. All I can think about is 6 months worth of tampons and pads all sitting in one sub. I know they would make sure to keep all that out of the way and sanitary, but ew. But yeah, I think women should have the opportunity to serve in the submarines.

Жин
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 08:11 pm: [report]

*When I said “mad” at the beginning I meant “sad.” “Mad” makes me sound really angry. Sorry. I really do like this site!

canadiancutie
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 09:04 pm: [report]

I honestly have to say I feel really, really bad for Americans because they have to use the profit-driven middle man of the insurance industry. I feel even worse for the impressionable people who are led to believe the commercials which try and make socialized healthcare sound like a bad thing, “Commie-driven” or whatever. I mean, it’s not my problem or anything, but I have a considerable amount of not rich family in the United States and I just feel really bad for them.

canadiancutie
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 09:07 pm: [report]

Frankly, where I live it is up to the patient to decide if something like a bleeding nipple is reason enough for a trip to the emergency room or not, and no one sends you a bill afterwards if you happen to think it is. That is the difference between being a “Communist” and being a capitalist.

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 09:07 pm: [report]

@canadiancutie: You’ve got 6% of GDP less going to healthcare…I think you’re doing something correctly.

Little Lamb
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 09:11 pm: [report]

My worry—-when does removing competition ever improve service???  It may be cheaper, but that’s exactly what it will be.  Cheaper.  (And I pay a $hit ton for my insurance.)

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 09:15 pm: [report]

I want a tax on crappy food. We shouldn’t be talking about ‘heath care’ as a system till we can fix the people who aren’t healthy. 9/12 project proved that, a march on Washington is the first exercise they’ve gotten in a long time.

canadiancutie
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 10:55 pm: [report]

Little Lamb - you’re right and you’re wrong. It’s certainly more difficult to get help for non-medical emergencies - in my province of Ontario, I can’t remember what percentage it is but a fairly decent amount of people don’t have a family doctor because there aren’t enough to support the population numbers (it’s still less, percentage-wise though, than the uninsured in the U.S.). This means for things like a pap smear, you’re kind of S.O.L., having to go to a walk-in clinic.

However, for actual emergencies, you can go to the hospital and be taken care of quite well. I had a kidney stone about 3 years ago and went to the E.R. in the middle of the night and was in a bed within 20 minutes. (Disclaimer: I’m sure the fact that I threw up in the nurse’s garbage pail expedited the process). Nevertheless, they said the paperwork could wait as I had my health card with me and that’s all you really need - proof that you reside in the province.

canadiancutie
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 10:57 pm: [report]

A big part of the reason, though, that our healthcare system is “cheaper” though is simply because our doctors are not overpaid. American doctors have the most inflated salaries in the entire developed world. Surely, this has an impact on healthcare costs but the capitalists never want to talk about that.

adamjs
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 04:37 am: [report]

@ canadiancutie: Another part of the reason that healthcare is cheaper in countries, like Canada or Australia (where I’m from) is that by providing access to healthcare to more people you lift the median health level of the entire country thereby decreasing the total amount of healthcare actually needed overall.

The cynic in me still thinks that somehow the high US costs of healthcare are due partly to the amount of non-essential medical treatment they get because those who can pay for it do and take advantage of that unnecessarily.

SamL
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 04:37 am: [report]

As a UK citizen, all I can say is that our National Health is (from my personal point of view) no great shakes. Sure a bleeding nipple would be a reason to go to ER, but only because no UK doctor would come out and visit during the dark hours, or a doctor’s appointment wouldn’t be available.

For example, I can’t get any form of doctor’s appointment for at least a week. If I have an emergency I have to either get myself to a hospital or call an ambulance.

Of course that’s, in theory, all free. In reality I’m paying a National Insurance stamp which is supposed to finance my public pension (a joke) and the National Health Service, so I am paying for health insurance. Just not very much at all.

Doctors here are paid exorbitant salaries, for doing less and less every year.

But the bottom line is that when there is a commercial profit aspect to health care, as in the US, then it will always be an expensive proposition.

In my view, the Germans, with their mandatory health insurance & public, mutual insurance companies, have a better system, although it will cost you $250-$300 a month for insurance. In theory you can get free treatment if you can’t afford to pay insurance, but it’s bottom of the barrel stuff.

And the French have simply the best public health system in the world… but it ain’t cheap.

adamjs
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 04:44 am: [report]

@ SamL: what do the French do differently?

SamL
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 05:06 am: [report]

@adamjs The Brit system is free except for the National Insurance I spoke of above.

The French system is free except that you pay 21 Euros each time you need a doctor…. not recurring!

From a friend: “Now, this is from personal experience, but I find doctors in general are much quicker in France. Like for example, I was ill in December, and whereas I would have had to wait a week or more to get an appointment with my GP, I went to the hospital and waited there for three whole hours.

Also, I had problems with my ankle as I broke it, and after I removed my cast, I had to go the physio, and got regular appointments very quickly. Here, my friend sprained his ankle and would have had to wait months before seeing a physio.”

Try these links for more:

European health care systems compared - http://tinyurl.com/y8k8kgn

Best answer I could find - http://tinyurl.com/yb9o8lm

averardoll
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 07:08 am: [report]

Canadiancutie… the salaries of doctors is not what is driving the cost of American healthcare. Many primary care physician in the Northeast U.S. comfortably in the middle class, once they pay off the 250,000 dollars in loans they accrued (more if they had any in Undergrad). Furthermore, many people are considering to NOT go into Ob/Gyn, because the cost of malpractice insurance is so high. (ex- $170,000 a year for a doctor from Long Island, NY who has never had a suit against her).

spatula
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 07:37 am: [report]

OH PLEASE, there is nothing wrong with that picture. Not everytime a woman is portrayed as ATTRACTIVE, means she is being OBJECTIFIED. Go ahead and un-bunch your panties.

william.paul
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 08:03 am: [report]

1) Sexist or not, I think the idea behind that ad is to show you what he sees (IMHO). However, its a show about a horn dog, played by a sex addict, and you’re surprised how?

2)The American health care system is far more skewed than anyone here has mentioned.

4)With all due respect to Admiral Mullen, I don’t think mixed crews are feasible at this point on most of the submarines in the fleet.

bumbler
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 09:05 am: [report]

I like William.Paul’s numbering comment so I’m going to nick it.

1) The ad is objectifying.  They are headless women focusing solely on their bodies for pleasure.  Yes, it may be done in the context of the show (for the record I’ve never seen it) if the main character has a history of objectifying women but the problem is that I doubt our culture would see it as twisted or dysfunctional in the least.  In a way it’s our culture’s ultimate fantasy about women and that’s sad.

2) I hate our health care system.  There is no real competition amongst insurance providers to keep rates reasonable.  In fact every area of insurance has become more and more troublesome.  My parents are required to have home-owner’s insurance (I live in an apartment.)  Several houses in the area with the same policy have filed claims and been dropped.  They’re paying money for insurance but can’t ever collect on the insurance.  When I was a teen I had Lyme disease.  I had 3 positive blood tests and the insurance company denied my coverage because the doctor told my mother he didn’t believe in Lyme disease.  They then told my parent’s they would cover it if I had a positive spinal tap at 14 years old, a procedure that has quite a few risks.  Luckily for me my mom kept fighting and they eventually covered me but they seem to deny almost everything out of hand at first.

4) Michael Crichton said in Sphere that studies show that women are more effective in enclosed spaces like on-board submarines.  I know its fiction but he generally did a lot of research before each book.  I’d like to see if there are actual studies to back this up.

Жин
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 09:39 am: [report]

“They are headless women focusing solely on their bodies for pleasure…In a way it’s our culture’s ultimate fantasy about women and that’s sad.”

Oh please, like it’s a bad thing for a woman to be found attractive. So what are you suggesting? Put her face in the picture. Why? She’s obviously not a main character. It’s a TV show it IS fantasy. It’s not sad. It’s not sexist, don’t pretend women don’t do it too. It’s not about gender, it’s about personality. Some people are skirt-chasers, some people are maneaters. It’s not gender exclusive, and it’s sexist to say that it is.

william.paul
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 09:41 am: [report]

Hmm, I’ve been nicked by bumbler. Don’t know if that’s good or not.

2) A friend sent me this article, and it really does highlight how messed up the situation is with our healthcare system: http://tinyurl.com/lquswk

4) My stance against it has nothing to do with my feelings toward women in general or women in the military. Personally, I think they would do just fine on a submarine.

However, there isn’t enough space on any of the older attack submarines for separate facilities for women and refitting them would be expensive. There might be enough space on the SSBN’s, but then you still have the problem of refitting the boat.

I could see some of the current class being re-designed to accommodate women, but then you have to decide if you want mixed crews or all mall/all female. If you go with all female crews, you have to train up an all female submarine qualified wardroom, chief’s mess, and sub qualified warrant officers (oh and the crew as well!), and that doesn’t happen overnight. If you want a mixed crew, then the women who serve on submarine are going to have to accept submarine life in which they’re going to have just as little privacy (if not less) as their male counterparts.

Sorry for the long winded response (and its the summarized version) but, I don’t believe there is a pragmatic way to get women on submarines.

bumbler
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 10:15 am: [report]

@william paul I agree that there is a way to go towards allowing women to serve on submarines but I like that they are beginning to think about it and make plans perhaps for the next generation of submarines.  I personally don’t see a problem with mixed-gender subs but they would have to provide things like separate bathroom facilities by law and it would require either retro-fitting current subs or adding the feature to new.  Like I said I would like to see it eventually but I understand it requires additional research and development which will take time.

bumbler
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 10:25 am: [report]

Oh please, like it’s a bad thing for a woman to be found attractive. So what are you suggesting? Put her face in the picture. Why? She’s obviously not a main character. It’s a TV show it IS fantasy. It’s not sad. It’s not sexist, don’t pretend women don’t do it too. It’s not about gender, it’s about personality. Some people are skirt-chasers, some people are maneaters. It’s not gender exclusive, and it’s sexist to say that it is.

1) It’s not a bad thing for women to be found attractive.  The problem is that overwhelmingly in our society the sole source of a woman’s attractiveness is through our appearance.  Society also tends to reinforce the idea that a woman’s value is solely through her attractiveness and therefore her appearance.  Look at the media hoopla about Michelle Obama wearing shorts and how her legs weren’t up to par.  The women is a Yale-trained lawyer, middle aged mother of two and the First Lady of the United States of America and the feature story is her legs?  Think about the messages young girls are bombarded with every day and then tell me there is no problem with how we value women in society.

2) Are you suggesting that advertising uses disembodied male parts as frequently as women’s? 

3)Hmm Now you’re making up things that I’ve said?  I never said that women don’t objectify or pigeon-hole men.  What I did say is that society as a whole continues through cultural norms to not only accept but to encourage the view that women are basically walking vaginas for male pleasure.  Yes, some women believe that men are just weak-minded pigs who are lead around by their penises without any willpower of their own.  No where do I condone that kind of stereotyping. 

Try rereading my complete comment.

ProChoiceLiberal
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 12:58 pm: [report]

As the pro-choice escort that had the ‘94 abortion & shared her story about clinic violence in Akron, OH, I want to say a big thank you to Jessica for posting my op-ed that appeared in the Mansfield News Journal on 9/27.  The more pro-choice women that speak out the better!

Жин
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 03:15 pm: [report]

@spatula
I just realized that I said almost word for word what you said! Sorry I totally agree though, she’s just an attractive girl, doesn’t make her a sexist image.

@william.paul
Yeah, I was thinking if the women could serve on a sub, they would probably have to have a female only one. I didn’t think about how much time and money it would cost. I can understand the military’s reluctance to try to get that going. They have bigger problems.

TL;DR

@bumbler, I’ll go point by point. If you don’t read or reply, no offence taken, this is WAAAY too long.
1)
-a-“It’s not a bad thing for women to be found attractive.  The problem is that overwhelmingly in our society the sole source of a woman’s attractiveness is through our appearance.  Society also tends to reinforce the idea that a woman’s value is solely through her attractiveness and therefore her appearance.”
-a-OK, there is a difference between how an entire culture/society treats women in comparison to how a charecter on a tv show treats them. The point of the matter is that this is an ad for a tv show, in which the main male lead is apparently “a horny novelist.” The ad is showing how HE sees the world, therefore he is surrounded by “sexy” girls. There are alot of shows about dating (and not just sex) that show the faces on the ads.
-b-“Look at the media hoopla about Michelle Obama wearing shorts and how her legs weren’t up to par.  The women is a Yale-trained lawyer, middle aged mother of two and the First Lady of the United States of America and the feature story is her legs?”
-b-I don’t think it was about the quality of her legs? (That was a weird sentence to type). I think some people were asking whether or not it is appropriate for the first lady to wear shorts. (side noye: I have no problem with her wearing shorts, personally).And I googled “Michelle Obama legs” and I got really positive restults. And I’m also wondering why being a mother is ranked right up there with being a lawyer and a first lady. I guess that’s just a personal thing, but I don’t understand what makes a woman with children any better than one with none, I don’t know if you meant that as a big deal, or if I am just reacting really strongly to it.
-c-“Think about the messages young girls are bombarded with every day and then tell me there is no problem with how we value women in society.”
-c-I am a young girl. I don’t feel bombarded. I don’t feel that I have to dress sexily to get a guy. I know plenty of people who do, and that dosen’t make them an object. I don’t mind a dose of sexiness in the media. It’s pretty, and it sells a product. I really couldn’t care less.

2) “Are you suggesting that advertising uses disembodied male parts as frequently as women’s?”
-Yes, I am. If you’re on this site, I’m sure you’ve seen fashion ads. There was actually an article on this site (I don’t think it was that long ago) about more and more males being used as accessories in fashion ads. The article seemed to be pretty accepting of it too. I think that that’s totally fine. I think the pictures are pretty, and they’re just fantasy. (Oh an she’s not “disembodied” it’s just a cropped photo)

3) “Hmm Now you’re making up things that I’ve said?  I never said that women don’t objectify or pigeon-hole men.  What I did say is that society as a whole continues through cultural norms to not only accept but to encourage the view that women are basically walking vaginas for male pleasure.  Yes, some women believe that men are just weak-minded pigs who are lead around by their penises without any willpower of their own.  No where do I condone that kind of stereotyping.”
-I think you just made my point for me. You are presenting a double standard of sexism. You toss off the idea of sexism against males as something that just “some women” do. Yet you accuse a whole society of being sexist against women. Since when if thinking a man’s body is attractive sexist? It’s so socially acceptable. So why is it so wrong to think the same of a woman. She is an attractive girl, yeah?

That was a loooong post.

Jessica Wakeman
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 03:31 pm: [report]

Just to be clear, my objection with the “Californication” ad, which I was not clear about in my post, was how the women’s bodies don’t have any heads. As @bumbler put it, “They are headless women focusing solely on their bodies for pleasure.” Considering the face is how humans identify each other, I think it’s harmful to women to just show pieces of their bodies in advertising. David Duchovny’s character may very well be a sex-crazed man who don’t “see” women for who they really are, but I doubt the intention behind this image was that deep. I think it just happened to crop the women’s faces out, showing only their legs and butts, which has rendered it just as bad as when ads use boobs or a butt to sell a product like beer or something.

william.paul
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 04:01 pm: [report]

@JessicaWakeman I gotta disagree with you on the intent, the marketers who created the promotional materials for the show have to be aware of the show’s content. A large part of that content is the main character’s behavior when it comes to sex (and drugs and alcohol for that matter).

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 04:09 pm: [report]

@Jessica: There is a reason they don’t have heads….it’s because Duchovny is there. They don’t want to draw attention away from a character to a model. If you seriously think no heads on this ad is sexist…you will be disappointed every day of your life.

Here is what you do…DON’T WATCH IT.

william.paul
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 04:13 pm: [report]

@Жин Amen that the Navy has bigger problems to work out. It’s always been a weird beast when compared to the other two branches (very stuck in the past at times).

What I’m afraid of when they do try women on submarines, is that they don’t give them a fair shake, claim that it was a bad idea from the start, and then close the door on the whole matter for another 15-20 years (or until they get enough pressure from the outside to do it).

Also, what’s the phonetic pronunciation of your handle?

bumbler
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 04:14 pm: [report]

Ugh I just typed out a full response and it was too long and I lost it.  Maybe later.

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 04:28 pm: [report]

@william.paul: It’s Mongolian for a whole bunch of things including .6 kilograms, balance, weight, load, freight, cargo, poultice, compress, to ring, jingle, to be in good order.

william.paul
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 04:32 pm: [report]

@CheeeeEEEEse, thanks, but that still doesn’t help me with how to say it.

Looking back at what I wrote, phonetic pronunciation is a stupid thing to write. I should have asked either for the phonetic spelling or the pronunciation. d’oh!

bumbler
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 04:32 pm: [report]

Rawr ago here we go again.  The ad may have to do with context of the show (as I said previously!) perhaps the main character has problems with women, a sex addiction I don’t know and the ad shows his dysfunction in relating to women in his day to day life.  The problem is we are so inundated with images of women with only their sexuality as commerce that the complexity of the message is lost.  If HBO had a show about an African American struggling with racism the advertising campaign may feature racially charged images and stereotypes to shock and underscore the difficulty of the main characters life.  If this campaign was targeted towards racists who actually believed that all black people like watermelons, were minstrels etc then the complexity and real meaning of the ad would be lost.  It would just be another affirmation of what the racists believe black people are like to them. 

I think everyone here who has had some exposure to magazines, billboards and tv would agree that the roles of women in media is much more limited than men’s.  There is a disturbing trend of showing men as the doofy husband but thats an argument for another day.  Every facet of the media is saturated with the idea that a woman’s sexual attractiveness is her main power and worth.  This is seeping into society as girls younger and younger internalize the message.  I would like to survey 100 young women off the street and ask whether they’d rather be model-gorgeous or genius-brilliant.  I’d be willing to bet good money that the majority would rather be beautiful as fleeting as it is because they’ve been taught that attractiveness is where their real power lies.  Yes I do see this as sad and pathetic.

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 04:33 pm: [report]

@william.paul: I may be mistaken, but I think its pronounced “gen” or “jing”.

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 04:38 pm: [report]

@william.paul: Nope, looked it up. “zh” as in Azure “ee” but short and “N” as in net. zh-ee-n.

Taurwen
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 04:41 pm: [report]

I’ve never had much problems with our health care here (Ontario) I had a family doctor growing up, so if I got a sick enough to go to the doctor (normally didn’t bother, because normally it’s just a cold) I had an appointment within the next couple days.
My one experience with the ER was when my sister was hurt, and they got her into x-rays within forty five minutes to check out her… back I believe it was.
Now-a-days I live across the street from a walk-in clinic that can give me an appointment the same day I call most of the time…
And since I’m so broke, and clumbsy and anything, if I were somewhere where healthcare wasn’t free I can just see myself duct-taping a broken arm to fix it -_-

Жин
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 05:27 pm: [report]

@william.paul
CheeeeEEEEse is right. It’s pronounced zh-ee-n. It’s really as close as I can get to my name (Jean) in Russian.

@bumbler
I wouldn’t call his views on women a problem any more than I would say someone with a different political belief than me has problems. It’s just more or less opinion to me. If that’s the way some people see others that’s OK with me as long as they are not hurting anyone. And about racist ads, if they make a point and draw people to a show that is against racism, to me, that’s fine. But I think that the line between what’s racist or not is lot more defined than the line of what’s sexist or not.

And I think that sexism in the media is pretty equal, although it doesn’t always show, because it’s usually brought to the media and really talked about when it’s female. But I guess it’s all just a matter of opinion, and what you find offensive or not. I really just don’t understand how the picture is offensive. Just because that girl has her bum on an ad, doesn’t make me feel inferior as a member of the gender.

You’re probably right about the survey thing though. That is a little sad, but that’s how people are. I don’t think they need to be changed. I wouldn’t want anyone changing me just because they disagree with my values.

323Felicity
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 11:02 pm: [report]

@ProChoiceLiberal: Finally someone mentioned the abortion law thing. I think everyone else seemed to miss it. Obviously they are too caught up with the Californication ad. Sure it might be objectifying women by cropping out theeir faces but they aren’t even characters on the show and his character is a sex addict or something and this is obviously why the women are portrayed in such a manner.

ProChoiceLiberal
wrote on September 30 2009 @ 11:44 am: [report]

@323Felicity, thanks.  More women need to speak out about women’s rights, especially when it comes to abortion.  The anti-choicers in Akron & other clinics throughout the US have gotten more aggressive.  Our escort was attacked b/c he was pro-choice & gay!  Luckily they caught the guy (once the anti’s turned over the video a month & a 1/2 later!), & he’s going to trial for a 2nd degree felony, yeah!  As for the David ad, it may not be right but it’s Hollywood, sex sells.

nonenone
wrote on October 7 2009 @ 01:52 pm: [report]

i don’t think that ad is sexist either… COME ON, showing hot girls is not objectification, showing hot girls doing demeaning things… objectification