A Feministing win: Wal-Mart pulls “credit card” panties!

Yay Feministing readers! The gross “Who needs credit cards…” panties have been pulled from Wal-Mart:

“We have directed our stores to remove this merchandise from our shelves,” Linda Brown Blakely, a spokeswoman for Wal-Mart, told FOXNews.com Wednesday.
The undergarments had caused a stir on some blogs prior to Wednesday’s announcement. Scarlett, a reader of Feministing.com, alerted the blog to the holiday-inspired undies, which she found on a rack in the juniors department of a Wal-Mart in Cary, N.C.

Go Scarlett! And as Ann just said via Skype to me: File this away for the “online activism isn’t ‘real life’ activism” rebuttal files. Indeed.
UPDATE: This is hilarious; Fox News has the panty story on their front page. Please go look at the headline this instant.

and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

118 Comments

  1. MirandaJay
    Posted December 12, 2007 at 10:35 pm | Permalink

    Entropy:
    Maybe you should organize a bunch of people and have them write letters asking Wal-Mart to restock panties that equated teenage girl sexuality with material gifts because other wise they are caving to feminist censorship.
    Keep on fighting the good fight my man.

  2. sgzax
    Posted December 12, 2007 at 11:05 pm | Permalink

    I love that every time I speak up on subjects related to misogyny some concerned citizen accuses me of Teh Censorship!
    It’s interesting. I can have an opinion about almost any other subject and express that opinion without such accusations. I can make endless numbers of suggestions about content and value in almost any other circumstance. But my opinion on the subject of teen girls being sexualized is out of bounds, and apparently I’m a bad liberal for not… censoring myself more effectively.
    So interesting. My refusal to censor myself is censorship. Why doesn’t that make the slightest bit of sense?

  3. Luna
    Posted December 12, 2007 at 11:14 pm | Permalink

    Okay, I just gotta…
    “… I am referring to a pair of girls’ underwear that reads, “Who needs credit cards…â€? written across the vagina.”
    No. No. No. It was *not* written across the vagina. HELL no. It was not even written across the material covering the vagina. The vagina is *internal*. Vaginas are not shaved, are not tattooed (though I suppose it’s possible), are not covered by material, etc. In short, vulva != vagina.
    *sigh* I did not expect to run across that one on a feminist blog.

  4. EG
    Posted December 12, 2007 at 11:18 pm | Permalink

    Here’s what I find interesting:
    Whenever some misogynist, sexist piece of crap comes down the pike, corporations and their defenders shrug their shoulders and say “Hey, we’re just giving the people what they want! If nobody bought these, we wouldn’t make them! Don’t blame us!”
    But then when we organize a protest that indicates that hey, we as consumers and “the people” don’t want to buy this crap, and in response, the corporation pulls the item in question-we’re accused of censorship.
    So…corporations should respond to what people want…unless those people are feminists, in which case we should just keep our mouths shut?

  5. sgzax
    Posted December 12, 2007 at 11:22 pm | Permalink

    Apparently, EG. At least that’s what Entropy seems to have said, and Entropy typed so much that there must have been a valid point in there somewhere.
    Shorter Entropy:
    Uppity womenz who don’t censor themselves are censoring me! Bad womenz!

  6. dananddanica
    Posted December 12, 2007 at 11:57 pm | Permalink

    EG,
    I wont pretend to speak for entropy but are you entirely sure your views represent the “people” as you say in your post?
    I dont know yet where I stand on this issue other than I dont like it being marketed and sold to young women, adults would be a different story. It is becoming so difficult to keep items (not specfically this one) that adults should have access to if they wish but also restrict them from children.
    How can you be so sure your views represent the thoughts and feelings of the American people? I would assume they do but we dont know.
    We see on this blog often the reaction of feminists to actions taken by vocal “conservative” groups imposing their worldview on the greater society, this specific issue perhaps isnt the best platform to raise this question on but it does raise questions in my mind.

  7. ShifterCat
    Posted December 13, 2007 at 12:42 am | Permalink

    *sigh*
    The panties are not being banned. Banning would be “nobody is allowed to sell these, anywhere, ever, and if you do you may be arrested and fined”.
    This is not a freedom of speech issue any more than a radio station firing a particular DJ is. Freedom of speech means that the government cannot punish you for saying certain things — it does not mean that you automatically get a paid forum to say those things. And if a company thinks that keeping you on their payroll is going to cause them to lose listeners and therefore revenue, they are perfectly within their rights to fire you.
    Likewise, just because you’re allowed to create panties implying that tween girls have a “moneypot” inside does not give you the right to have said panties sold in major department stores.

  8. Posted December 13, 2007 at 12:52 am | Permalink

    Dananddanica: And if we were strong-arming our thoughts and feelings into legislation regardless of whether we represent the majority of Americans, that would be a problem. (Unless we were whacko fundies, who seem to be given a pass on all that.) However, since it was a corporation, in whose best interest it is to cater to the people who speak up the loudest, since they are typically the ones who will have the greatest effect, then I don’t see what the problem is. We didn’t stage a coup. No one overtook Walmart headquarters and forced them at gunpoint to take the underwear off the shelves. They wouldn’t have done it if they only received ten angry emails. They weighed cost/benefit along with crappy publicity, and decided it was in their best interest to stop selling the item.
    And honestly, I don’t care if my desire to have women be treated like human beings, with respect and decency represents society as a whole. If society is corrupt and inhumane, do we say, oh wells. If we could only get a majority of people to do the ethical thing…guess I won’t try to assert that it’s wrong to treat people that way? Of course not. But I’m glad to see that someone is trying to defend democracy here. Your patriotism is a glorious thing to behold. Now what exactly is the etymology of patriot again?

  9. Betty Boondoggle
    Posted December 13, 2007 at 8:17 am | Permalink

    “No wonder right wingers want to keep their guns.”
    Oh that’s cute. Th’ats pretty much making it clear that shes thinks right wingers want to kill those who don’t agree with them. Exactly what is there to take seriously?
    Anyway, to everyone who wrote letters, well done.

  10. Chickensh*tEagle
    Posted December 13, 2007 at 9:10 am | Permalink

    Day-yamn! I shoulda rushed out and bought a bunch of ‘em — bet they’ll fetch a pretty penny on eBay now…OW!!! Just kidding!!! Just kidding!!!

  11. SarahMC
    Posted December 13, 2007 at 9:12 am | Permalink

    People really need to get a grip on what constitutes censorship and what it means to “ban” something.
    We at Feministing did not “ban” anything. We do not have the power to do that. We are not the government. We have no authority to “ban” WalMart from selling anything.
    We expressed our opinions, and WalMart willingly decided to remove the panties from their shelves. They could just as easily have decided to ignore our message.

  12. Amanda Stein
    Posted December 13, 2007 at 10:19 am | Permalink

    This seriously made me feel awesome – yay! So nice to know our letters made a difference. I wasn’t expecting much with the luck I’ve had dealing with other coorporations lately…

  13. Marcus
    Posted December 13, 2007 at 10:37 am | Permalink

    Ok ladies lets be honest here. You all know that sex can be used to get things in life. So why the big uproar over the obvious? Why do women insist on outwardly being offended over the power of sex over their partners?
    BTW…I think the idea of a kids panties having this saying to be very disturbing.

  14. sgzax
    Posted December 13, 2007 at 10:44 am | Permalink

    There’s a difference between can and should, Marcus. Was this a lesson we needed Wal-Mart to be teaching 12 year olds? Bleh.

  15. Peepers
    Posted December 13, 2007 at 10:53 am | Permalink

    I just love the trolling on this thread and the related one.
    1. Censorship!
    2. We are obsessed with trivialities. Obsessed, I tell you.
    3. Panty-haters one and all. Clearly advocationg mass pantylessness.
    4. Joyless malcontents.
    5. Come on, can we please agree that all women essentially prostitute themselves and secretly lord over men with their pricey, pricey cunts? I mean, let’s be honest
    I’m waiting to see who accuses us of panty burning.

  16. Marcus
    Posted December 13, 2007 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    sgzax,
    I agree this is a message that should not be sent to 12yo girls and I said I found it disturbing. However, there is a bit of hypocrisy here when you get to the legal age and the comments on the panties.
    MV

  17. sgzax
    Posted December 13, 2007 at 11:04 am | Permalink

    Yes. Because women are whores. I got that.

  18. dananddanica
    Posted December 13, 2007 at 11:05 am | Permalink

    pineapple,
    I’m not sure what exactly to take from your post, especially the last bit. I do find the first part of your post interesting though. Are you saying that, in just the last few years, feminist groups havent strong-armed legislation they believed to be right even though the majority of people wouldnt agree? I would not say its a bad thing, it is good in my personal opinion, but you dont think its there at all? Im not sure why you took the democracy tack with me, I am not a supporter of pure democracy as I really dislike mob rule.
    This is a tactic people all across the political and social spectrum use to voice their distaste with something, great, it worked.
    Finally, the etymology of patriot? You describe me as having great patriotism, i never mentioned it, and then take a shot at the word, why? That is a very tired tactic, I appreciate the help youve given me in other posts but I dont understand this.

  19. sgzax
    Posted December 13, 2007 at 11:11 am | Permalink

    Dananddanica: Here’s your strawman…
    I dont know yet where I stand on this issue other than I dont like it being marketed and sold to young women, adults would be a different story. It is becoming so difficult to keep items (not specfically this one) that adults should have access to if they wish but also restrict them from children.
    But we’re talking about panties in the young adult section, marketed to teens. So the argument you are trying to make has nothing to do with what has just happened. You have changed the subject, and are now trying to get people to defend a position (protect teh children by restricting everyone!) that nobody proposed to begin with.

  20. Shadow32
    Posted December 13, 2007 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

    Even though the underwear is loathsome, I can’t dismiss the censorship question out of hand.
    It doesn’t raise the same issues as government censorship, but I do think boycotts by private groups are censorship nonetheless (funny, this is usually the argument I make when the local fundies want something pulled off the TV). If a group of ultraconservatives started demanding Wal-Mart pull all women’s wear that showed legs above the knee because it offended them, I don’t think anyone here would support that.
    And I definitely don’t buy the idea that this proves “consumers are against it.” Stuff consumers don’t want usually doesn’t require a boycott, just as genuinely unpopular TV shows vanish from the air without anyone having to complain to the sponsors.
    On the other hand, I feel a product like this is a sort of Overton’s window–if nobody protests, it nudges the boundary for what’s acceptable (even if it doesn’t sell) a little further in a bad direction. So I’m glad the panties were removed (so to speak).
    And yes, I make the same points about censorship when feminists aren’t involved. Living in the Bible belt, feminist protest didn’t cross my path at all before the Internet.

  21. Marcus
    Posted December 13, 2007 at 12:13 pm | Permalink

    sgzax,
    it is unfortunate that you think that of yourself. that is not what i said at all.
    if you boil it all down, we are all prostitutes in one way or another. we sell ourselves to someone else for the going rate.

  22. sgzax
    Posted December 13, 2007 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

    Community standards are being negotiated all the time. Everybody speaks up and the chips settle where they may. Me expressing my opinion about a subject I find upsetting is not censorship. Me telling Wal-mart that I’m not shopping there because of their practices is not censorship. I haven’t shopped at Wal-mart ever because of their business practices and they’ve flourished in spite of my disapproval.
    The issue here IS NOT CENSORSHIP! It’s people voicing their personal opinions and private business deciding to take action based upon those opinions. As members of our own communities it is our responsibility to take an active role and advocate for the things we feel are right.
    If someone wants to take a book out of the library I will voice my opinion on that subject as well. Here’s the kicker… neither me (the book advocate) nor my opposition (the book opponent) would be participating in censorship. I would feel confident that my opponent was wrong, and I would expect the community to back up my stand, but we would both be engaged in a free exchange of ideas.
    I support the right of all people to voice their opinions, even if they’re wrong. We can fight it out if necessary. That’s what freedom means to me.

  23. sgzax
    Posted December 13, 2007 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

    And in case anyone missed the point… it is crazy talk to tell people that they have to censor themselves as a safeguard against censorship.
    Crazy crazy crazy.

  24. kissmypineapple
    Posted December 13, 2007 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

    Dananddanica, if you can name some recent legislation that feminists forced in with all the giant money and lobbying we have, then I’ll retract my statement. Secondly, I’m glad you’ve gleaned something from my comments in the past, but I’m personally done giving you the benefit of the doubt. Your posts seem like the flipside of “I’m not a feminist, but…” They read like you’re claiming to be feminist, and then you follow it up with something that chips away at what feminism is. You said you don’t think you personally liked the underwear, but then followed that up with some gag-worthy tripe about thinking their being taken off the shelves might not be such a good thing, since we feminists might not represent the American people. Hence the democracy reference, and my allusion to the root of patriot is that it is the same as that of patriarchy. Which was, again, a reference to what seems to be your clinging to it. Most of your posts seem to exist to scold us somehow for the discussions, work, and/or activism that arises from the comments here, and it’s getting old for me.

  25. Nicole Brice
    Posted December 13, 2007 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

    Ok ladies lets be honest here. You all know that sex can be used to get things in life. So why the big uproar over the obvious? Why do women insist on outwardly being offended over the power of sex over their partners?
    Marcus- I fail to understand how this is not calling all women whores.
    Also- if you had any knowledge about feminism, you would understand that a woman’s sexuality is not a source of power, but is used against her, for example, through rape, forced prostitution, and sexual harassment.
    Women who use sex to get the things they need do NOT have any power. If they did have any sort of power, they would be working in a comfortable office instead of on the street corner.
    I suggest you go to visit “finally, a feminism 101 blog.” The link is on your left under Jessica’s blog roll.

  26. notsolegallyblonde
    Posted December 13, 2007 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

    Long time Feministing reader… first comment. (Well, technically I tried to comment once and my comment got lost somewhere.)
    I read this site every day, so of course I read about the Walmart underwear issue, and then today while driving back to school through small town Bible Belt Florida I heard this on the radio (local top-40 station), that Walmart was pulling the underwear from the shelves and the news report mentioned Jessica and Feministing and quoted you and everything. They also had some satirical song about it to the tune of “Put on a Happy Face” but in this area, stuff like that is to be expected.
    Just wanted to congratulate Jessica and Feministing on taking such quick action on this!

  27. Marcus
    Posted December 13, 2007 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

    nbrice,
    You have issues if you really believe what you just wrote. I am not saying that sex will enable you to become rich or powerful in business. I am talking about relationships. Like in everything in life there is give and take. Sex, at least in my relationship, is controlled by my partner. I do not force her to have it, but i am ready anytime she is. Therefore, sex is a power enabler in our relationship.
    As far as business, i firmly believe the best person gets paid the best. is there sexism and racism in the business place still? Yes in some companies. Is it as bad as it was 10 or 20 yrs ago? No. All of the companies I have worked for have been very diverse companies and I have not witnessed sexual or racial harassment.

  28. Entropy
    Posted December 13, 2007 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

    I apologize for typing so much in my last comment. Also – I didn’t expect to receive responses filled with sarcasm, hostility and immaturity. I’ve been polite, and I mistakenly assumed that I would be extended the same courtesy. It’s difficult not to negatively judge people who supposedly represent a form of feminism when they show a complete lack of respect for other people. If you want more people to take you seriously then I suggest changing your attitude, because unfortunately it does make all feminists look bad in the process by acting that way. We may not agree, but it doesn’t mean that we can’t discuss this topic civilly.
    Censorship can be defined as follows:
    “Censorship is defined as the suppression or deletion of objectionable information, as determined by a censor.�
    The “censor� in this case is Wal-Mart. Voicing your opinion is completely acceptable, but it is fallacious to imply that the consequences of your actions can be disentangled from the initiating action. If you protest against revealing clothing, for example, and a large corporation pulls that clothing from the shelves, you are supporting a form of censorship. There is a difference between supporting censorship and actually censoring something yourself – I never implied that anyone here was actually censoring anything themselves. Please attempt to understand the difference between both.
    I hope to see responses that are somewhat more respectable than what I’ve read so far. I was debating over whether or not to start commenting at this website. I assumed that this was going to become a community where everyone could share their own thoughts.

  29. Jessica
    Posted December 13, 2007 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

    notsolegallyblonde, that’s so COOL!

  30. Posted December 13, 2007 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

    *high five*

  31. EG
    Posted December 13, 2007 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

    If someone wants to take a book out of the library I will voice my opinion on that subject as well. Here’s the kicker… neither me (the book advocate) nor my opposition (the book opponent) would be participating in censorship.
    I usually agree with you, sgzax, but I have a nit-pick here–because libraries (at least public ones) are state-run institutions, I take their decisions about what books to stock very seriously. When a public library decides to pull a book from its shelves, that is a form of censorship, because it is a representative of government deciding what is fit for its people to read.

  32. MirandaJay
    Posted December 13, 2007 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

    Entropy, you are here to argue with feminists, not to participate in some thoughtful debate on censorship. This is apparent to everyone.
    I wasn’t actually being sarcastic with my suggestion. I was serious. Why don’t you organize your own counter protest/letter writing operation to express the concern of like minded individuals? Why don’t you tell Wal-Mart you want these panties back on the shelf because otherwise they are banning and censoring free speech?

  33. EG
    Posted December 13, 2007 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    Entropy, censorship is performed by governments, not by corporations. That doesn’t mean that I never have a problem with what corporations decide to do, but it’s not a freedom of speech issue.
    I assumed that this was going to become a community where everyone could share their own thoughts.
    It is. What it isn’t and has never been is a commnity where everyone could share their thoughts without taking heat when their thoughts reflect cliched right-wing talking points that we, as feminists, have heard a hundred times before.

  34. sgzax
    Posted December 13, 2007 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

    Entropy:
    If this type of merchandise is unacceptable enough to be pulled from the shelves, what other products should be censored as well? Should the work of Nietzsche be censored, for example, because of his misogynistic tone that is embedded in his philosophical writing? Where do you draw the line, exactly?
    I am a fully grown adult, and I don’t appreciate having complete strangers tell me what I can and cannot purchase, simply because they don’t like it themselves. Who among you thinks that you are qualified to decide for me what I can and cannot read? Or what clothing I may wear? Do ANY of you think you are qualified to make such decisions on my behalf?

    Did you forget that the issue was underwear being marketed to teenagers? Did you forget that I have the right to express any opinion I like? Did you forget that Wal-Mart is an independent entity that makes it’s own decisions about stocking merchandise?
    I’m at a loss as to when this became about me taking away your copy of Nietzsche. I suppose you might say that protesting the marketing of sexually suggestive underwear to teens is the first step on the slippery slope toward Orwellian enslavement… but of course we both know that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy that educated people wouldn’t dream of including in their debates.
    So I’m at a bit of a loss. How about this? I’ll use whatever tone I like when I write and people who want me to change can tell me so without fear that I’ll try to censor their opinions. And if anyone comes to take away your books we’ll all start the very necessary protest in response. In the meantime, when I see something upsetting I’m going to say so.
    If I’m supposed to be afraid of this censorship bogeyman I have to admit that I’m not, or at least not enough to voluntarily silence myself.

  35. sgzax
    Posted December 13, 2007 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

    Mistake in my post above… both of the first two paragraphs should be in italics, as they were both written by Entropy. Sorry if that makes my post unclear.

  36. sgzax
    Posted December 13, 2007 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

    I have a nit-pick here–because libraries (at least public ones) are state-run institutions, I take their decisions about what books to stock very seriously. When a public library decides to pull a book from its shelves, that is a form of censorship, because it is a representative of government deciding what is fit for its people to read.
    Good point, EG. I agree.

  37. Fenriswolf
    Posted December 13, 2007 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

    Hijack: I’d forgotten about that. Women being denied management positions because they cannot fill BS requirements like hoisting large sacks of dog food and putting it on the shelves. Costco and Home Depot are clever. They have these wonderful inventions called “forklifts” that can move entire pallets and crates. We’re not talking about firefighters climbing the South Tower with a hundred pounds of gear, a mask, and fifty feet of hose here.

    WTF? I regularly carry around 25kg (55lb) bags of cat litter to keep our cattery stocked up, and all the women at my clinic lug 15kg (33lbs) and 18kg (40lbs) bags of dog food onto and off the shelves, carry them for customers, etc. These are not big women. How big are Walmart’s bags of food??
    And besides that… It’s actually not meant to be allowed. According to OSH we’re not allowed to carry anything over 10kg without a trolley. I find trolleys annoying, but nonetheless I would’ve thought the US had similar health and safety laws?

  38. Nicole Brice
    Posted December 13, 2007 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

    You have issues if you really believe what you just wrote.
    What? You mean the part where I quoted you? Stop contradicting yourself. Also- we aren’t talking your partner doesn’t want to have sex, that is your business. I think you have some nerve using that as an example as to why we “shouldn’t be offended” by the underwear. I also wasn’t talking about racism or sexism in the workplace. If you want to address that, find another posting. We are talking about pre-teens and teens being told by tiny but pervasive messages that their power lies between their legs rather than in their ambition, intelligence, or anything else that has nothing to do with their sexuality.

  39. Entropy
    Posted December 13, 2007 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    “Entropy, you are here to argue with feminists, not to participate in some thoughtful debate on censorship. This is apparent to everyone.�
    I donate to Amnesty International, and regularly speak out against violations of women’s rights. I wouldn’t be so quick to judge me.
    “It is. What it isn’t and has never been is a commnity where everyone could share their thoughts without taking heat when their thoughts reflect cliched right-wing talking points that we, as feminists, have heard a hundred times before.â€?
    Ad hominem.
    “Entropy, censorship is performed by governments, not by corporations.�
    Here is a wikipedia link that details the various types of corporate censorship:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_censorship
    I don’t personally think that this is even up for debate. Censorship happens outside of the realm of governmental influence – how you choose to label that behavior is your own prerogative, but I will continue calling it “censorship�. I am inclined to believe that the majority of people agree with me on this definition.
    Others here have rightfully progressed the debate past the semantic argument that a few others have presented. I will address these points from now on, assuming that the majority of people realize that this is indeed a form of censorship.
    Well, since it is censorship – so what? One could argue that we censor potentially harmful things every day and most people have no problem with it. As I originally posted, in order to show that this type of clothing should be banned, you need to demonstrate that it is actually causing some type of harm to the people being exposed to it. Thus far, no one has even attempted to do this.

  40. fatsweatybetty
    Posted December 13, 2007 at 4:16 pm | Permalink

    How many times have Feministing posters discussed the ramifications of the sexualization of young girls? It has been explained, on this thread and the related one, what the message of the underwear clearly is. They are marketed to girls and, whether or not they are purchased and worn, the message can often be internalized in a way that is harmful.

  41. sgzax
    Posted December 13, 2007 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

    Entropy, you do not get to dictate the form that this conversation will take. And since I have already demonstrated that your first post was based entirely on a logical fallacy, you are certainly not the arbiter of valid arguments here. Your arguments are weak, your logic is flawed, and your opinions will be given only as much regard as they deserve. If people choose not to run, jump, and *demonstrate harm* for you it is because we have covered the subject before and aren’t obligated to do feminist hand-holding for trollish newcomers.
    If you really want to learn about the harm that misogynist language, acts, and goods do to women I advise you to quietly read for yourself and learn.

  42. sgzax
    Posted December 13, 2007 at 4:36 pm | Permalink

    Entropy:
    Ad hominem.
    Here’s a logic lesson. Ad hominem takes place when a person’s argument is dismissed out of hand for reasons that have nothing to do with the argument and more to do with the character of the person.
    That is not what happened here. What happened here is that EG pointed out that you made an argument that had been dealt with before, and that many people find that frustrating and the frustration will come out in their posts.
    There’s no point in which this can become a fallacy because EG was not making this point to refute your arguments, she was making this point to give you the heads up that you aren’t allowed to dictate the responses of the people you choose to argue with.

  43. Peepers
    Posted December 13, 2007 at 5:20 pm | Permalink

    Are panty thread trolls related to underpants gnomes?

  44. Entropy
    Posted December 13, 2007 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

    Well, there is a difference between “trolling” and “disagreeing”, although that line may be intentionally blurred for some people on here. I was looking for a debate about this event, and how it relates to our society, censorship, etc – apparently not many of you are interested in a rational discussion about this.
    Good luck! :)

  45. MirandaJay
    Posted December 13, 2007 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

    Entropy!! You never answered my question… I asked it twice!

  46. A male
    Posted December 13, 2007 at 9:05 pm | Permalink

    “As far as business, i firmly believe the best person gets paid the best. ”
    Not true, even among exclusively men, or within the same organization. And the same goes for level of authority or promotions. Highest does not mean “the best.”
    Me: Hijack: I’d forgotten about that. Women being denied management positions because they cannot fill BS requirements like hoisting large sacks of dog food and putting it on the shelves. Costco and Home Depot are clever. They have these wonderful inventions called “forklifts” that can move entire pallets and crates. We’re not talking about firefighters climbing the South Tower with a hundred pounds of gear, a mask, and fifty feet of hose here.
    FenrisWolf: WTF? I regularly carry around 25kg (55lb) bags of cat litter to keep our cattery stocked up, and all the women at my clinic lug 15kg (33lbs) and 18kg (40lbs) bags of dog food onto and off the shelves, carry them for customers, etc. These are not big women. How big are Walmart’s bags of food??
    I should have done this first, but I was lazy. I couldn’t find the long newspaper or magazine article I originally read awhile ago, but here is another link:
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec04/walmart_7-5.html
    Fifty pounds of dog food, and “consecutively” in this story, I cannot find the story that allegedly described requirements for promotion. More importantly, the woman in this story at least, had just had surgery.
    [Let's be clear I am not talking smack about women: I myself (male) have no intention of ever making a job that required repetitive lifting and turning! with up to 50 (or even 75) to and from floor to shoulder height, like I see listed for delivery driver, stocking, or warehouse positions locally, because I wouldn't make it through a single day or make it back to work the next. Even nursing (my field) does not involve that on a regular basis. There are obese or immobile people, yes, but we are meant to work as a team, and with technological aids. Nor would I even consider being a lifeguard or fire fighter. They have those tough physical requirements for good reason - saving lives.]
    FenrisWolf: And besides that… It’s actually not meant to be allowed. According to OSH we’re not allowed to carry anything over 10kg without a trolley. I find trolleys annoying, but nonetheless I would’ve thought the US had similar health and safety laws?
    I don’t know what the laws are, but that is certainly not what is practiced. (But as we can see, how much enforcement actually goes on in Wal-Mart? The US is supposed to have laws against racial and sexual discrimination as well. Someone with the money or power needs to break Wal-Mart, and I don’t mean a union.) In any case I am referring to hoisting and lifting (to or from shelves), not transporting. A simple trolley won’t help there.
    And even if you all have the ability to do what you do, I’m sorry to hear it. Please be careful with your backs.

  47. Ray
    Posted December 14, 2007 at 12:24 am | Permalink

    I just heard about this from a blog that would be labeled fairly right wing by people who make automatic assumptions based on religion. I just want to say, “THANK YOU” for getting this disgusting item pulled from the store. I don’t care about political labels and religious classifications; this was fantastic.
    Good job! (and you knuckle-heads who come here to argue on a thread where ANY person with half a brain would be applauding what these women did – Get a grip and give credit where credit is due.)

  48. ManaUser
    Posted December 14, 2007 at 5:18 am | Permalink

    Hi, I found my way here from GoingBraless.net. I found the comments about censorship interesting. I’ll have to think more about that one.
    But regarding the item itself, after considering various interpretations and reading the comments here, I decided the most offensive part was the implication that it’s cool for girls to rely on “Santa” (i.e. someone else) to provide what they want in life. You just wouldn’t see something like that on boy’s clothing.
    So I wonder which would you (meaning anyone who feels like answering) think is worse to see on clothing for teen girls? A sexual message, or a sexist message? For instance, panties that just said “Who needs fancy toys?” in a suggestive location vs. the original message, all on one side, on shirt or even a purse.

  49. Posted December 14, 2007 at 8:27 am | Permalink

    Wal-Mart yanks suggestive panties aimed at teens

    Leave it to Wal-Mart to get eveyone’s panties in a twist at holiday time. The Bentonville, AR based retailer is ordering the removal of a line of pink panties with a not-so-cute message on them.
    The underwear, sold in the Juniors department…

  50. MirandaJay
    Posted December 14, 2007 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

    I think that generally a sexual message directed at women is going to be a sexist message in some way.

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

218 queries. 0.593 seconds