Fausta's Blog

American and Latin American Politics, Society, and Culture

March 9, 2007 By Fausta

Two international women discuss D&G

Yesterday was International Women’s Day

Celebrated on 8 March, International Women’s Day (IWD) is the global day connecting all women around the world and inspiring them to achieve their full potential.

Well, that’s a nice sentiment, but I for one believe that all people should be inspired to achieve their full potential.

Women don’t need to look to the UN for inspiration. Or to the government, or, least of all, to the thought police.

As it happened, yesterday morning I was discussing women with Spanish journalist Maria Blanco. Maria’s latest article (in Spanish) deals with a weird Dolce & Gabbana ad that has caused quite a furore in Europe, and the thought police are calling for more government intervention to protect us from ourselves.

Here’s the ad in question:

Considering D&G’s prior ads, this is pretty mild.

The ad has caused a huge controversy in Spain, France2 was scandalized into reporting on it, and now Amnesty International in Italy is asking that the ad be pulled from Italian magazines.

Think about that for a moment: millions of men, women, and children are opressed around the world, abused, enslaved, and executed, and AI/I finds time to protest an ad in a fashion magazine.

As Maria explains in her article, D&G’s ad features their characteristic

transgresion, provocation, the erotic wink, and as they themselves explain, the ad campaign is about images “that explore the thin border between morality and immorality, two parallel dimensions that coexist and divide the world”.

As it turns out, the Spanish government’s Instituto de la Mujer (IM) (Women’s Institute) is being pressured to ban the ad by the Green party, the leftlist Facua – a consumer organization affiliated with the University of Havana, that bastion of free thought – and others, because of a possible violation of section 3 of the Advertising Law (oh, yes, the Spanish have advertising laws) banning advertising that might exploit women, shows women as stereotypes, or promotes violence against women.

Maria Blanco looks at the ad and explains

In the first place, the woman in the ad is a model who has voluntarily agreed to the use of her body in a photographic composition

On the second issue, Maria explains that what raises the feminists’ hackles is the highlight on the woman’s desireable body.

So the feminazis [Maria’s word] that indoctrinate us for our own good and that penalize what they so unfortunately describe as the “objectifying of women”, are only rebroadcasting the idea that our bodies are shameful and shouldn’t be shown off as we will. We can show our other gifts, particularly those that make us like men… but not our sexual gifts.

Additionally, the Spanish Green party is also criticizing the ad because one of the guys is holding a glass (the photo above is cropped and doesn’t show it, not because I wanted to but because this is the one I could find), which would incite people to consume alcohol.

I kid you not: the Greens believe that showing a photograph of someone holding a glass is going to drive you to drink.

No wonder they think this overstylized picture will incite the masses into a frenzy.

Maria continues

The picture mainly portrays a woman’s sexual fantasy… She’s calmly offering herself to one or several, voluntarily, in front of other good looking men. There’s no violence at all, no pornography.

As Maria sees it,

What there is, is eroticism, fantasy and subtlety.

But there is a larger issue here:

In all, this preocupation with our well-being shows the immaturity of our female leaders. They didn’t get past the image of the neolithic man that kidnapped women from other tribes to rape and to replicate his genes. As a (male) friend said, they have remained in the ideological adolescence of the 1960s and 70s. By doing so, they have becomen women’s worst repressors, the worst agressors against the sexual freedom of each of us women.

The political comissariat indoctrinating us is missing out on a great deal of pleasures.

France2’s reporter in Italy interviewed several people on the street, and the one man they talked to said, “I don’t like it, but if you don’t want to look at the ad, don’t buy the magazine”. Of course, the ideologues would never ever think of that, because it’s all about the ideology. They know what’s good for you.

But, as Maria later asked in an email,

And what about us women who like tenderness, with imagination, fantasy, and dreams but without going too far beyond… are we stupid?

Hay que defenderse y dar la cara, la cara tierna, libre, imaginativa, femenina y, de nuevo, por si alguien tiene dudas… la libre, la cara libre de la mujer.

We must stand up for ourselves, and show our faces, the tender, free, imaginative, femenine face, and again, if anyone has any doubt, the free face of a woman.

Brava, Maria.

———————————————–

As a postscript, in the evening I was watching France2 news and they were talking about women in power while saying that Margaret Thatcher didn’t bring about progress and “was on the masculine side”.

That’s what happens when you are not popular with the bien pensant, even on International Women’s Day.

Update, Saturday 10 March: Atlas Shrugs and The Hill Chronicles are posting about it.

My friend Laura posed an interesting question,

In view that it’s leftist groups asking for censorship, I wonder what the reaction would have been if Christian groups or the Vatican had been doing the asking?

Digg!

Share

Filed Under: fashion, France, Italy, magazines, media, news, Spain

Comments

  1. Sigmund, Carl and Alfred says

    March 9, 2007 at 10:29 am

    The Thatcher remark was telling.

    The womens’ movement was never about choice- that was just the spin.

    The only ‘choice’ that has ever been acceptable to the womens’ movement is the ‘choice’ that was acceptable to them and their ideology. Like leftists everywhere, they are deathly afraid of people thinking for themselves because every time populations were afforded the opportunity to choose for themselves, they chose to rid themselves of leftist ideologues and ideologies.

    The IWD is a feel good bit of theater. If these women wanted to make a difference, they could. Instead, they are choosing to endorse ideologies and positions that are antithetical to the best interests of women and children.

    The only thing they care about is themselves and like leftists everywhere, the only victims or potential victims they care about, are themselves.

  2. Francis W. Porretto says

    March 9, 2007 at 12:55 pm

    First, let’s deal with the ad itself:

    YOWZA!

    Clearly the image connotes sex, promiscuity, domination, voyeurism, and complete abandonment on the part of the woman pictured (who is, dare I say it, a major hottie). There’s even a suggestion of a gang rape to come, an ambiguous conception because, while in practice it would be a degrading and possibly lethally injurious experience for the woman, there are women — possibly many women — who fantasize about being the sole object of desire of a sizable group of men.

    But the ad strikes me as ineffective at what an ad is supposed to do: sell a product. What product does it promote? I can’t be sure. The emphasis is too strong; even the advertiser’s name tends to be lost in the overpowering eroticism of the image. But what do I know? I program computers for a living.

    Second, the implications for women’s images of themselves, men’s attitudes toward them, what women believe those attitudes to be, and society’s overall attitudes toward women and sex:

    Whatever damage was done to those things was done a long time ago. If women think of themselves excessively much as sexual objects, the past forty years have given them innumerable reasons to think so. If women think of men as being predatory in matters sexual, they’re more right than wrong; we’re designed to be the sexual aggressors, and have only recently in biological terms learned how to decouple our lusts from our innate tendencies to pursue what we desire by means of violence. Men have been as profoundly affected as women by the cultural transitions of the past four decades…perhaps more so. For while most women didn’t buy into the notion of a war between the sexes that would, if men got the upper hand, result in Friday night gang shaggings (poker game to follow) and being confined barefoot to the kitchen, quite a number of men took it as gospel that women did believe it. Their behavior has often been enough to finish the propagandization of women that the gender-war feminists started but couldn’t ram all the way home.

    Society’s overall attitudes toward sex are in flux — and they’ve been in flux since the invention of language. The pendulum swung too far toward libertinism in the Seventies and Eighties, and we’ve paid a considerable price for it. However, in recent years it’s seemed to me that, with the exception of certain pockets of the entertainment industry, we’re moving a few steps back from the edge of the abyss, toward a sustainable equilibrium state that will be superior to both the anything-goes attitudes of the Disco era and the enforced prudery of the years before:

    — Sex for pleasure is as valid as sex for reproduction;
    — Everyone has a veto over the use of his own body;
    — Everyone is entitled to enjoy it;
    — As long as neither force, nor intimidation, nor deception plays a part, sex between unmarried persons is legally and socially tolerable, as is a greater degree of publicly expressed eroticism than was permissible before World War II.
    — However, there are emotional and social consequences for being promiscuous, and neither contraception nor antibiotics can protect you from them;
    — Keep your hands off your co-workers;
    — Keep your hands off the kids;
    — Own up to your responsibilities for your progeny, whether you intended them or not.

    I think we can live with that, and I severely doubt that suggestive ads will have much effect on the stabilization of that consensus…even ads as provocative as the Dolce & Gabbana ad in this column.

    (PS: My guess is that the ad is promoting the shoes. Nothing else is clearly visible.)

  3. Bleepless says

    March 9, 2007 at 2:43 pm

    Hiya, honey! Ya come here often? What’s your sign?

  4. seejanemom says

    March 9, 2007 at 4:28 pm

    Kinda freaks me out…but a law?

  5. JMK2006 says

    March 9, 2007 at 4:36 pm

    btw, For feminist depictions of rape by leftist men (or at least, women that the autobiographical main character, “Andrea,” trusts), read Andrea Dworkin’s Mercy.

  6. Fausta says

    March 9, 2007 at 5:28 pm

    The insult to Thatcher was in a report that highlighted how youthful and femenine is Segolene Royal, France2’s favorite politician of the day, who’s a socialist. So it was a triple insult.

    The only ‘choice’ that has ever been acceptable to the womens’ movement is the ‘choice’ that was acceptable to them and their ideology.
    That has been the case again, and again – and now it’s accompanied by the feminist nanny state.

    Which, as Francis so well puts it, won’t be stabilizing any kind of consensus any time soon, unless it’s a consensus of coercion and victimology.

    I don’t like the photo, and am glad beepless thought of a caption. Maybe I’ll do a caption contest – my entry would be,
    “Are you pondering what I’m pondering, Pinky?”
    “I think so, Brain, but maybe these back exercises don’t really work”.

    It is a creepy picture, as Jane said, and the clamor for censorship is absurd.

    Where is the clamor protesting gang rapes of women in banlieus?

  7. Beth says

    March 9, 2007 at 6:03 pm

    What is it, an advertisement for body oil?

    That’s the only product I noticed!

  8. Layla Gonzalez says

    March 9, 2007 at 6:46 pm

    Absolutely disgustingly abhorring. I linked to this article here:

    http://tinyurl.com/2gmagm

  9. directorblue says

    March 9, 2007 at 9:58 pm

    Well done! Excellent overview of a bizarre situation. While the left ostensibly “cares” about women’s rights, you don’t hear a chirp about the current slavery situation and the oppression of women by extremist religious bigots.

  10. Gwen says

    March 10, 2007 at 11:08 am

    Layla, I think that you’ve misunderstood my article. In a rape situation, women scream, fight, suffer… but this picture just try to show a performance of a classical dreamy evocative situation, a sexual fantasy. And even if I don’t share this fantasy, I think that it’s a radical reaction to claim that this is degradating to women. The message (IMHO) is “some women like it, and some women don’t but… who is entitled to dictate what a woman should imagine?”.

  11. Layla Gonzalez says

    March 11, 2007 at 2:24 am

    Thanks for the mention Fausta. It galls me that women rights groups are not up in arms over this.

  12. vizitator says

    March 11, 2007 at 4:39 am

    Parerea mea :
    Barbie la gimnastica.

  13. Fausta says

    March 11, 2007 at 7:24 am

    Layla, women’s rights groups in the EU are up in arms, but the absurd thing is that they’s up in arms about an ad in a magazina and not about the honor killings and rapes happening right in their own countries.

    Vizitador,
    La Barbie – ¡en clases de Pilates!

  14. Fausta says

    March 11, 2007 at 7:25 am

    make that a magazine

  15. Anonymous says

    September 24, 2007 at 7:57 am

    I am deeply shocked and horrified that no one seems to be seeing the true dispickable meaning of this picture.
    they all are wrong, it does not depict a gang rape, it indeed is far from it.
    it may be a desperate attempt to open the brand for the heterosexual audience(who forseeably but falsely associates it with gang banging) but actually and much more disturbingly it is another display of how intolerant our society truly is.
    the cool (wearing sunglasses) sexy elderly gentleman above the supposedly attractive female is actually
    trying to educate the handsome young and therefor easliy impressable and sexually
    confusable males around him that a woman is not only a human being but could also be seen as a sexual partner to start a family with. something the radical fractions of our society always proclaim to be the highest, only and true way of our species.
    watch those poor boys closely how they are looking in slight disbelief yet curious about the female
    gender which they never seen before in such a display.
    still the state of not existing sexual arousal, their obvious uninterest in the girls primary or
    secondary sexual attributes and slight boredom shows that they are unable to comprehend how someone could be sexually interested in a woman and not one of them has any thought of banging the girl yet alone as a gang.
    this campaing shows that certain individuals in our world don’t even refrain from using women in what they
    believe erotic postures to turn our fine young and absolutely normal homosexual boys of young age by “curing” them from their so called desease.

    what this picture does not tell us is that not only two of the models but also their hair stylist and make up aritst
    had to be ambulantly treated after they went into a state of shock following their severe puking attack before the end of the shoot because they actually saw a woman that close and in such a vulgar and repulsive naked way.

    I never thought that even the designers could be corrupted into betraying homosexuality but obviously these days people do anything for money.

Tweets by @Fausta
retirees_raise-2015_300x250

Pages

  • About
  • Email

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Previous Posts

  • Mrs. Maisel goes full Alinsky on Mrs. Schlafly
  • Venezuela: Did the Minister of Defense back out at the last minute?
  • You need to unfriend me
  • Go ahead and Kiss the Girl, if you dare
  • Ashamed

Recent Comments

  • John on Mrs. Maisel goes full Alinsky on Mrs. Schlafly
  • Today’s hot topics: Democrats’ collusion shift, tax-return rift, Venezuela drift, and more! – PoliticalWitchDoctor.com on Venezuela: Did the Minister of Defense back out at the last minute?
  • Today’s hot topics: Democrats’ collusion shift, tax-return rift, Venezuela drift, and more! - AmericanTruthToday on Venezuela: Did the Minister of Defense back out at the last minute?
  • Did Venezuela’s Minister of Defense Back Out At The Last Minute? on Venezuela: Did the Minister of Defense back out at the last minute?
  • Roseanne Not Back, Khan not Invited, Operaman’s back, Jobs back, Fausta’s back (but not here yet) Thoughts under the fedora – Da Tech Guy Blog on Venezuela: Did the Minister of Defense back out at the last minute?

Archives

  • 2019
    • December 2019
    • May 2019
    • January 2019
  • 2018
    • December 2018
    • October 2018
    • July 2018
    • June 2018
    • April 2018
    • March 2018
    • February 2018
    • January 2018
  • 2017
    • December 2017
    • November 2017
    • October 2017
    • September 2017
    • August 2017
    • July 2017
    • June 2017
    • May 2017
    • April 2017
    • March 2017
    • February 2017
    • January 2017
  • 2016
    • December 2016
    • November 2016
    • October 2016
    • September 2016
    • August 2016
    • July 2016
    • June 2016
    • May 2016
    • April 2016
    • March 2016
    • February 2016
    • January 2016
  • 2015
    • December 2015
    • November 2015
    • October 2015
    • September 2015
    • August 2015
    • July 2015
    • June 2015
    • May 2015
    • April 2015
    • March 2015
    • February 2015
    • January 2015
  • 2014
    • December 2014
    • November 2014
    • October 2014
    • September 2014
    • August 2014
    • July 2014
    • June 2014
    • May 2014
    • April 2014
    • March 2014
    • February 2014
    • January 2014
  • 2013
    • December 2013
    • November 2013
    • October 2013
    • September 2013
    • August 2013
    • July 2013
    • June 2013
    • May 2013
    • April 2013
    • March 2013
    • February 2013
    • January 2013
  • 2012
    • December 2012
    • November 2012
    • October 2012
    • September 2012
    • August 2012
    • July 2012
    • June 2012
    • May 2012
    • April 2012
    • March 2012
    • February 2012
    • January 2012
  • 2011
    • December 2011
    • November 2011
    • October 2011
    • September 2011
    • August 2011
    • July 2011
    • June 2011
    • May 2011
    • April 2011
    • March 2011
    • February 2011
    • January 2011
  • 2010
    • December 2010
    • November 2010
    • October 2010
    • September 2010
    • August 2010
    • July 2010
    • June 2010
    • May 2010
    • April 2010
    • March 2010
    • February 2010
    • January 2010
  • 2009
    • December 2009
    • November 2009
    • October 2009
    • September 2009
    • August 2009
    • July 2009
    • June 2009
    • May 2009
    • April 2009
    • March 2009
    • February 2009
    • January 2009
  • 2008
    • December 2008
    • November 2008
    • October 2008
    • September 2008
    • August 2008
    • July 2008
    • June 2008
    • May 2008
    • April 2008
    • March 2008
    • February 2008
    • January 2008
  • 2007
    • December 2007
    • November 2007
    • October 2007
    • September 2007
    • August 2007
    • July 2007
    • June 2007
    • May 2007
    • April 2007
    • March 2007
    • February 2007
    • January 2007
  • 2006
    • December 2006
    • November 2006
    • October 2006
    • September 2006
    • August 2006
    • July 2006
    • June 2006
    • May 2006
    • April 2006
    • March 2006
    • February 2006
    • January 2006
  • 2005
    • December 2005
    • November 2005
    • October 2005
    • September 2005
    • August 2005
    • July 2005
    • June 2005
    • May 2005
    • April 2005
    • March 2005
    • February 2005
    • January 2005
  • 2004
    • December 2004
    • November 2004
    • October 2004
    • September 2004
    • August 2004
    • July 2004
    • June 2004
    • May 2004
    • April 2004
    • March 2004
Content Copyright Fausta's Blog

Site Developed and Managed by 300m.com