I don’t know how this idea originated… but I like it!
The Atheist Bust Campaign:
(That mockup is by Flickr user Krypto.)
Drats! I can’t remember her name. The young lady from YouTube that makes the great atheist vids. I can’t belive I can’t recall her name. Augh! She should be the model.
Tony: Laci Green by any chance??
Hmm, kind of hard to read when it’s separated into two columns like that. I keep wanting to read it as “There’s probably now stop you’re not even reading no god worrying and any more are you.”
I didn’t notice any writing at all. Nice cans, however. 😉
(Ladies, please forgive me, I have a poorly evolved frontal lobe)
AHAHAHA, I must draw this, now!
Okay. But fair is fair….there should also be something similar in the way of snuggly-fitted men’s underwear. Briefs? Speedos? Dramatically-padded codpiece?
Do we really need to objectify women to make our case? This seems pretty tasteless to me.
^ ^ ^
Aug. The fabric of the bra is shaded like it’s curved, but the text is flat, like perhaps it’s painted onto a perfect pane of glass in front. And electric blue on top of navy? What a horrible color scheme.
llewelly, somehow I think you’re the only one who will notice all that.
I agree with cicely (and to some extent llewelly). The problem with this concept is that it assumes the audience is predominantly men.
Ahahaha, this is hilarious. I agree that it was hard to read though. I may be willing to donate my D cups to such a nice cause <3
That would be hilarious!
Alright, but I will have to request the Atheist Butt Campaign, featuring a nice fit male bum in boxer-briefs with a similar message printed on the back. You know, for those of us who are so inclined.
I’m sure the atheist movement will benefit greatly from this ill thought-out sexism.
You send me the bra, I’ll be the model I’m a third-wave feminist, and I think it would be hilarious.
However, if someone thought it was meant to be any serious attempt at dialogue and connection – the way the bus ads are – they would certainly be confused.
The problem with this concept is that it assumes the audience is predominantly men.
What about lesbians and bisexual women!?
1. Ask Skye said, why is objectification of women ok here?
2. ATL-Apostate response is the typical lame response to a ligitimate concern.
How about the atheist “buss” campaign – shirts that read, “kiss me, I’m an atheist”
That would work for people of any sex or sexual orientation.
Oi, people calling this sexist need to calm down. It’s just a play on words. And we all know boobies are awesome.
I don’t have anyone particular in mind but could we make it someone who’s not silicone enhanced? It would be nice to see some real boobs for a change.
I’d love to see Kelly from Rational Response Squad in that
I’d volunteer to be a model but I think I’d hurt the cause rather than help it. lol. I think I may take my bra to one of those “make your own T-shirt” places and ask if they can put it on for me. My husband would get a kick out of it if no one else did!
lighten up, Velvet.
I think you can find better examples of intolerance and sexism than this blog.
I know it seems to be the consensus that anyone calling this sexist needs to “lighten up,” but I’m pretty sure this is exactly what stopped a lot of people from listening to Peta (in addition to a variety of other hypocrisies of course, but this is one reason). Objectification is bad no matter who does it, and it’s especially annoying as a feminist to see another cause I care about wanting to use it in order to reach out to nonbelievers.
I would, on the other hand, be a-ok with this if it would utilize natural/average atheist women AND men. I don’t feel it’s harmful objectification if both genders are equally represented as sexual beings. Having an equal amount of sexy, average male atheists and female atheists being used for that reason would be great, so long as you don’t chop off their heads for the image. When a woman becomes nothing but her breasts, or a man becomes nothing but his penis, THEN we have an objectification problem (and an identification problem; how would we benefit from using well known atheists if their faces can’t be seen?).
Shame they would probably crack down on a full crotch, but be a-ok with displaying sexy sexy cleavage. Le sigh.
Whoo! Tl;dr from a (somewhat) humorless feminist.
Well, I think Velvet and Skye had a point, so it’s unfair to dismiss them as “wet blankets” or in need of lightening up. Yes, it’s a (mildly) humorous play on words. That doen’t mean that it doesn’t reinforce some sexist ideas. It apppeals (primarily) to heterosexual males, while making women’s bodies the object to transmit a message. No, probably not the most blatant example of this, but let’s not just dismiss people’s criticisms of it as unfounded before trying to understand them.
ATL, clearly you don’t get the concept of sexism, maybe you should stay out of this conversation before you further embarrass yourself. Don’t be offended: just lighten up, I’m sure you can find worse cases of fed up women in your immediate environment.
I find the ad mildly offensive and somewhat humorous, but I’d be much less annoyed if there were another ad showing off a close up of men’s filled out briefs. But then that begs the question of what exactly do a bra and briefs have to do with the message here?
To the third generation feminist: I identify the same way, which doesn’t mean it’s ok to just pretend this message is directed at lesbians and bisexuals, or that the responses here reflected any understanding of sexism’s hurtfulness.
But the most offensive part of this are the lame ass responses from some of the self styled enlightened people here. I guess it’s just further proof that religion is not the only source of idiocy.
Am I the only one who thought of “Evolved/Rational” when I saw this?
I’d like to go ahead and nominate Ashley Paramore (HealthyAddict on YouTube) for this job.
While I understand that the intent of this ad was to be humorous, I do have to agree that getting the message across through the vessel of objectification is not the way to go.
I think there are other funny, potentially less offensive things that could be used to form the basis for a legitimate ad. The one that is posted here, I feel, doesn’t really add anything. In other words, I don’t see why the ad HAS to be words put on a bra.
For those of you suggesting that the users who rightfully mentioned this should just “lighten up,” I ask–do you really want atheism reflecting such narrow-minded views about gender stereotypes, too? Atheism is supposed to be a part of the movement of intelligible REASON. It’s bad enough the religious are so willing to persecute women for being even remotely sexual and the LGBT community for merely existing. Also, if you disagree that subtle forms of sexism–even sexist humor–can be harmful to women, I suggest you read up on the stereotype threat literature.
“There’s probably now stop you’re not even reading no god worrying and any more are you.”
makes no damn sense.
also @JJ you appear to have a stick up your butt. it’s more comfortable to remove that.
Objectification is bad no matter who does it.
When women happily check out men with six pack abs, is that objectification too? Where is the outrage from “masuclinists” at Calvin Klein ads, or porn made for gay men?
Maybe we should all be neutered at birth lest we grow up, go through puberty, and start finding others sexually attractive – thereby “objectifying” them. What a crock of shit…
I guess not all prudes are religious.
Kris: Yes! That’s her. Laci.
Objectification is fine if all participants are willing. A girl jumps on the bar and starts dancing, she is obviously enjoying herself, whistles and catcalls are not offensive there. But in this culture women’s bodies are always on display, demeaned, objectified, and used to advertise anything from cars to refrigerators, and apparently even atheism. And to answer your question: yes, it is objectification when men’s six packs are on billboards. The difference is that this is not a daily, every time you turn on the TV type of occurrence.
That gets real old after a while.
I have a question for the people that think this would be offensive (even if only mildly so) and i’m not meaning to put anyone out, i’m genuinely curious as to the answer.
Do you think that advertising that relies on sexual beauty is inherently discriminatory/offensive or are there situations where sexual beauty could legitemately be used without offense? Would making two adverts of this kind, with featuring women and one featuring guys make it non-discriminatory?
By sexual beauty i mean boobs, bums, rippling six packs, well filled briefs etc etc. Basically things that are meant to make the relevant gender/sexuality think “Phwoar”.
Oh goody! Another ad to make me feel inadequate about my chest size. I know – I know – lighten up. BLARGH.
Send me the fucking bra and I’ll fucking wear it, my man boobs look awesome in a bra.
Still think the bus ads are a waste of money though.
To gribblethemunchkin: I’m down with it if it’s equal-opportunity. It might still be tacky but most ads are that without sexual content anyway. At least sexual content is frequently amusing. I get the boobs thing in this post because of the play on words, and I wasn’t particularly offended but the point remains that women are more frequently (constantly, let’s face it) presented as sexual objects. We are too-often expected to be either asexual or hypersexual, and it’s a pain in the ass sometimes. *resists sexual joke* The addition of some nice full briefs might accomplish more in the way of increasing the insecurity of men than in comforting the insecurity of women, though, so what can ya do? IMHO, we would all be seeing more real boobs if we were seeing less advertising and celebrity boobs. Women with perfectly good boobs are being made to feel inadequate about them all the time, and really, that’s a losing scenario for all of us 😉
I can see how a national ad campaign based on this would be demeaning, especially if there was no male counterpart…but I stand by my comment that people need to lighten up because it was only a single joke based on a play on words. If it was a real campaign, that’s a different story.
Full rant at my blog, don’t want to clutter up Hemant’s comments too much. Probably just going to get flamed, but oh well.
If it was white with pink and orange (like the bus slogan) it would be more logical to read across rather than down…
but who is reading anyway?
Another vote for Kelly O’Connor (RRS) here – assuming, of course, that this comes in *much* larger sizes.
The joke by itself is fairly innocuous. It’s a drop in the ocean, but the ocean is made of drops like these.
I am confused as to what the gender stereotype is here. Human women have breasts: Fact. “Most” human men are attracted to them for biological reasons: Fact. The concept is then based on this biological/physical reaction. I know I am probably the wet blanket bringing science into it, but maybe instead of attacking peoples personal ideologies we can figure out how they got to these ideologies… Sorry for the anthropologists rants…
Tony: I’m sure Lacy Green would be more than happy to find that her work in speaking out against atheism has reduced her to a pair of boobs.
Stupid stupid stupid. This is just as bad as PETA using naked women to bring attention to their anti-fur campaigns; the message is worthy, but not how you’re presenting it. As an atheist feminist I find this very offensive.