<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.3" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Target Corporation assumes feminism is dead; dismisses bloggers</title>
	<link>http://www.parentsforethicalmarketing.org/blog/2008/01/13/target-corporation-assumes-feminism-is-dead-dismisses-bloggers/</link>
	<description>Blog of Parents for Ethical Marketing</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:52:36 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.3</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: BagOfNothing.com</title>
		<link>http://www.parentsforethicalmarketing.org/blog/2008/01/13/target-corporation-assumes-feminism-is-dead-dismisses-bloggers/#comment-317</link>
		<dc:creator>BagOfNothing.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2008 02:47:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.parentsforethicalmarketing.org/blog/2008/01/13/target-corporation-assumes-feminism-is-dead-dismisses-bloggers/#comment-317</guid>
		<description>[...] Parents for Ethical Marketing has a good write up about it. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Parents for Ethical Marketing has a good write up about it. [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shaping Youth</title>
		<link>http://www.parentsforethicalmarketing.org/blog/2008/01/13/target-corporation-assumes-feminism-is-dead-dismisses-bloggers/#comment-309</link>
		<dc:creator>Shaping Youth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:11:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.parentsforethicalmarketing.org/blog/2008/01/13/target-corporation-assumes-feminism-is-dead-dismisses-bloggers/#comment-309</guid>
		<description>Why is it offensive to me personally? Well...gee...Spread-eagle stance, V pointing to her vagina...Target logo on the V spot...normalization of objectification by a 'family friendly' retailer where I shop...A 12-year old daughter that I'd like to raise without media messages bombarding her with cues that her self-worth and purpose on the planet is tied to  being a vessel for sex. etc. etc. 

Now, that said, I will add this ad is MINUTIAE in the big picture of global context of sexualization imagery &#38; objectification...so I agree, we should not give it too much weight.

I'd prefer to take the dialog in a different direction so that 'mainstream media' can grok the problem and the issue if it is that hard to discern. (otherwise it will continue to be trivialized via the 'over-reaction' arena which is where it's living now...)

Here's what I wrote on one of the new Mn. blogs linking to us, where we've been 'under fire' disrupting our operations over the last 48 hours as a nonprofit do-gooder trying to accentuate the positive. 

"Hello, it's Amy Jussel with Shaping Youth, of the S.F. Bay area here...(thank gawd I don't live in the Twin Cities w/this absurd brouhaha; poor Lisa Ray in Mn., judging from the wacko-factor backlash I'm getting out here!) Guess this is getting the microlens because of the mildness of the ad in comparative context, but hey, they never offered 'context' because they wouldn't return the freakin' call to comment! 

Frankly this is a 'non-story' for the positive social change work we’re doing here at ShapingYouth…we’ve covered blatant instances of ‘sexualized ad slop’ (media loves that line for some reason) so this one pales by comparison. 

The only ‘news’ here is the normalization of objectification via a family firm, mega-retailer who then dissed 'non-traditional media' when I called to fact-check their motivation, and see if they were playing the 'feign cluelessness but be as crass/clever as you can' advertising card. 

I wish the 'mainstream media' &#38; blogosphere would either elevate the dialog to a much larger context of objectification/ambient advertising and the impact on pop culture, or bury it in the circular file of corporate idiocy and customer service blunders to learn from.

As it is, 'tarzshay' could easily inspire copycat corps to mirror the tactics of free press controversy as an ad strategy.

Out of thousands of our posted topics (using the power of media for positive change, Twitter fundraising to send orphans to college in 24 hours, Age of Conversation global social media raising $11K for children's charity) worthy media literacy, ecology, nutrition, and global counter-marketing programs for kids, THIS is the blog post that's pulled for 'mainstream media' attention? 

What a shame.  What a loss. What a lousy target. sigh." 

--Amy Jussel, Founder, Shaping Youth</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why is it offensive to me personally? Well&#8230;gee&#8230;Spread-eagle stance, V pointing to her vagina&#8230;Target logo on the V spot&#8230;normalization of objectification by a &#8216;family friendly&#8217; retailer where I shop&#8230;A 12-year old daughter that I&#8217;d like to raise without media messages bombarding her with cues that her self-worth and purpose on the planet is tied to  being a vessel for sex. etc. etc. </p>
<p>Now, that said, I will add this ad is MINUTIAE in the big picture of global context of sexualization imagery &amp; objectification&#8230;so I agree, we should not give it too much weight.</p>
<p>I&#8217;d prefer to take the dialog in a different direction so that &#8216;mainstream media&#8217; can grok the problem and the issue if it is that hard to discern. (otherwise it will continue to be trivialized via the &#8216;over-reaction&#8217; arena which is where it&#8217;s living now&#8230;)</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s what I wrote on one of the new Mn. blogs linking to us, where we&#8217;ve been &#8216;under fire&#8217; disrupting our operations over the last 48 hours as a nonprofit do-gooder trying to accentuate the positive. </p>
<p>&#8220;Hello, it&#8217;s Amy Jussel with Shaping Youth, of the S.F. Bay area here&#8230;(thank gawd I don&#8217;t live in the Twin Cities w/this absurd brouhaha; poor Lisa Ray in Mn., judging from the wacko-factor backlash I&#8217;m getting out here!) Guess this is getting the microlens because of the mildness of the ad in comparative context, but hey, they never offered &#8216;context&#8217; because they wouldn&#8217;t return the freakin&#8217; call to comment! </p>
<p>Frankly this is a &#8216;non-story&#8217; for the positive social change work we’re doing here at ShapingYouth…we’ve covered blatant instances of ‘sexualized ad slop’ (media loves that line for some reason) so this one pales by comparison. </p>
<p>The only ‘news’ here is the normalization of objectification via a family firm, mega-retailer who then dissed &#8216;non-traditional media&#8217; when I called to fact-check their motivation, and see if they were playing the &#8216;feign cluelessness but be as crass/clever as you can&#8217; advertising card. </p>
<p>I wish the &#8216;mainstream media&#8217; &amp; blogosphere would either elevate the dialog to a much larger context of objectification/ambient advertising and the impact on pop culture, or bury it in the circular file of corporate idiocy and customer service blunders to learn from.</p>
<p>As it is, &#8216;tarzshay&#8217; could easily inspire copycat corps to mirror the tactics of free press controversy as an ad strategy.</p>
<p>Out of thousands of our posted topics (using the power of media for positive change, Twitter fundraising to send orphans to college in 24 hours, Age of Conversation global social media raising $11K for children&#8217;s charity) worthy media literacy, ecology, nutrition, and global counter-marketing programs for kids, THIS is the blog post that&#8217;s pulled for &#8216;mainstream media&#8217; attention? </p>
<p>What a shame.  What a loss. What a lousy target. sigh.&#8221; </p>
<p>&#8211;Amy Jussel, Founder, Shaping Youth</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex</title>
		<link>http://www.parentsforethicalmarketing.org/blog/2008/01/13/target-corporation-assumes-feminism-is-dead-dismisses-bloggers/#comment-289</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:03:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.parentsforethicalmarketing.org/blog/2008/01/13/target-corporation-assumes-feminism-is-dead-dismisses-bloggers/#comment-289</guid>
		<description>I'm still confused as to why this image would be found "blatantly sexist?"  It seems as though no blogs or articles actually explain how this is offensive.  All they state is the fact that this is offensive...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m still confused as to why this image would be found &#8220;blatantly sexist?&#8221;  It seems as though no blogs or articles actually explain how this is offensive.  All they state is the fact that this is offensive&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Saint</title>
		<link>http://www.parentsforethicalmarketing.org/blog/2008/01/13/target-corporation-assumes-feminism-is-dead-dismisses-bloggers/#comment-287</link>
		<dc:creator>The Saint</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:35:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.parentsforethicalmarketing.org/blog/2008/01/13/target-corporation-assumes-feminism-is-dead-dismisses-bloggers/#comment-287</guid>
		<description>It's too bad that you people can't use this type of energy at other more worldly important issues...  sad &#38; pathetic.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s too bad that you people can&#8217;t use this type of energy at other more worldly important issues&#8230;  sad &amp; pathetic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amanda</title>
		<link>http://www.parentsforethicalmarketing.org/blog/2008/01/13/target-corporation-assumes-feminism-is-dead-dismisses-bloggers/#comment-283</link>
		<dc:creator>Amanda</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:52:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.parentsforethicalmarketing.org/blog/2008/01/13/target-corporation-assumes-feminism-is-dead-dismisses-bloggers/#comment-283</guid>
		<description>"Where did that come from?"  Are you serious? Target didn't have to "tell" me that that is what is being depicted.  I looked at it and.... voila!  Saw a snow angel.  And that's all.

You are completely reaching here, and searching for something (anything!) to be offended by. This kind of stuff does real damage to the credibility of any SERIOUS critique of sexism in the media.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Where did that come from?&#8221;  Are you serious? Target didn&#8217;t have to &#8220;tell&#8221; me that that is what is being depicted.  I looked at it and&#8230;. voila!  Saw a snow angel.  And that&#8217;s all.</p>
<p>You are completely reaching here, and searching for something (anything!) to be offended by. This kind of stuff does real damage to the credibility of any SERIOUS critique of sexism in the media.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anne</title>
		<link>http://www.parentsforethicalmarketing.org/blog/2008/01/13/target-corporation-assumes-feminism-is-dead-dismisses-bloggers/#comment-275</link>
		<dc:creator>Anne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:23:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.parentsforethicalmarketing.org/blog/2008/01/13/target-corporation-assumes-feminism-is-dead-dismisses-bloggers/#comment-275</guid>
		<description>There is absolutely no way of assuming that this girl is in the middle of making a snow angel!  Where did that come from, except from Target defensively proclaiming that is what she was doing!  There is no snow.  She has winter clothes on.  Those are the only two facts.  Why does it mean she is making a snow angel?  I would never have paralleled this girl with a snow angel by simply looking at the photo.  The man skating on the logo is self-explanatory...he has skates on.  The subliminal attempts are blatant.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is absolutely no way of assuming that this girl is in the middle of making a snow angel!  Where did that come from, except from Target defensively proclaiming that is what she was doing!  There is no snow.  She has winter clothes on.  Those are the only two facts.  Why does it mean she is making a snow angel?  I would never have paralleled this girl with a snow angel by simply looking at the photo.  The man skating on the logo is self-explanatory&#8230;he has skates on.  The subliminal attempts are blatant.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
