What We Missed: Girls Gone Wild, child care costs and more

Nike Butt Ad

Nike has released a revamped version of their “big butt” advertisement from a couple of years ago (here’s the original) that caused a lot of commotion.  Thoughts? Update: Could the ad be a fake?

A St. Louis jury ruled against a woman who sued Girls Gone Wild after she was featured having her top pulled down (without her consent) in a video.

From ABC News: “A study by released this morning by the National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies (NACCRRA) says the annual costs of child care now exceed the cost of sending a child to college in several states.”  Yikes.

Make sure to check out the vids we have up at the Video blog: a piece on racial profiling and a great spot on why post-abortion syndrome doesn’t exist.

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

14 Comments

  1. Posted August 3, 2010 at 5:40 pm | Permalink

    There are a couple concerning aspects of that ad. Both can be found in the clothing sale line. First, the dig at skinny women is really unnecessary. There’s no need to celebrate *any* body type over another. Second, why is it that all women must be obsessed with clothing sales? It’s like, hooray, let’s celebrate asses! But only if they belong to women who likes clothes. Because otherwise it’s just weird.

  2. Posted August 3, 2010 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

    I’m pretty sure the Nike ad is fake. There are a couple misspellings and grammar mistakes that I don’t think a professional ad agency would let get past them.

  3. Posted August 3, 2010 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

    “Make sure to check out the vids we have up at the Video blog: a piece on racial profiling and a great spot on why post-abortion syndrome doesn’t exist.”

    Except that, for countless women here and abroad, post-abortion syndrome doesn’t exist.

    I understand why, as Feminists, we do everything possible to remove the emotion from the abortion debate. We have to keep it black and white, a Joe Friday “just the facts” type interpretation. The law needs to be about choice, period. Anything else almost always guarantees that women will lose their autonomy, or have the talk of their rights overshadowed by laws that seek to take those rights away.

    But at the same time, we’re doing a massive disservice to women in our ranks who have not only had an abortion, but are suffering from PASS. It isn’t just a syndrome made up by the anti-choice movement to entrench us in irrevocable guilt in the hopes that we so regret our decisions, we’ll spend the rest of our lives campaigning right along side them.

    The point I’m trying to make is there really is no broad brush when it comes to abortion. Sure, some women will get abortions without a second thought, go about their lives and never experience a day of trauma beyond the initial act of removing the zygote, and there isn’t anything wrong with that. But that isn’t every woman’s experience, or even every Feminist’s experience. Some of us remain haunted and traumatized by our experiences with abortion, something that continues when we try to share those feelings with our Feminist circles.

    When we say PASS doesn’t exist, we are denying that there are women in our ranks who have had abortions and are hurting as a result. And so much of the snark towards PASS in Feminist communities is very antithetical to progress. We have the anti-choice movement insisting we terminated our pregnancies because we were brainwashed by people that get off on killing babies; and we have the movement that’s supposed to help us basically saying the only reason we feel bad is because we’ve drunk the Kool-Aid of the right-to-life bullshit.

    Basically, I’m saying we’re better than this. We’re better than stigmatizing an entire group of women to protect an ideology, or because we’re scared that admitting abortion is a horrible choice for some is just opening the door for men in suits to decide it’s the wrong choice for all. But if our methods are producing end results that still leave women out in the cold, are we making anything better after all?

    • Posted August 4, 2010 at 8:49 am | Permalink

      From Wikipedia: “The American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association do not recognize PAS as an actual diagnosis or condition, and it is not included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV-TR or in the ICD-10 list of psychiatric conditions. Some physicians and pro-choice advocates have argued that efforts to popularize the term “post-abortion syndrome” are a tactic used by pro-life advocates for political purposes.
      While some studies have shown a correlation between abortion and clinical depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviors, or adverse effects on women’s sexual functions for a small number of women, these correlations may be explained by pre-existing social circumstances and emotional health. According to the American Psychological Association, various factors, such as emotional attachment to the pregnancy, lack of support, and conservative views on abortion, may increase the likelihood of experiencing negative reactions. Studies have either failed to establish a causal relationship between abortion and negative psychological symptoms experienced by women, or been inconclusive.”

      I’d be the last person to say that no woman anywhere regrets getting an abortion, or even that no woman anywhere views it as a tragic and/or traumatic event in her life. Doesn’t mean it gets its own name; the implication of giving it its own name is that a significant percentage (I’m thinking at least 25% to qualify as a legitimate disorder with its own classification) of women who have abortions go through lasting negative emotions that significantly lower their quality of life (quality of life being a major criteria for recognition of a mental disorder) as a direct result of the procedure.

    • Posted August 4, 2010 at 10:09 am | Permalink

      What Brie said. There is a huge monumental difference from saying “Sometimes women feel a sense of loss, grief, or guilt that, in women with preexisting tendencies towards depression or anxiety, can develop into full-blown depression and suicide; these feelings are more likely if the woman had wanted a child but economic, social or medical conditions prevented it” and saying “Women can have PTSD like conditions after abortions, and this is sufficiently common and unique that we can’t just call it “PTSD,” it needs it’s own name.”

      Feminists, scientists, and psychiatrists say the former. Anti-choice advocates say the latter.

      • Posted August 4, 2010 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

        The real issue, when it comes down to the pro-choice versus anti-choice side, is the skewing of numbers. Pro-choice advocates would like to insist women who have negative reactions are rare, and those that do have them, have them as the result of slut-shaming and tactics designed to inspire irrevocable guilt. Anti-choice advocates would like to insist women who have negative reactions are absolutely the norm, due to being forced to undergo the procedure by a political agenda that abandons them after the embryo has been discharged.

        I’m not sure where the numbers actually fall, but I don’t think either side has them to the amount that they would like. But not all of us who believe PASS is a real issue are anti-choice. Six months after my abortion, while I was still finding myself unable to sleep or eat or have sex with my partner, I took part in protesting the 40 Days of Life campaign. In fact, I served as an escort into the clinic–walking with women who were going to make the same choice I woke up every day hating myself for. So it isn’t just “anti-choicers” that believe in the legitimacy of PASS; I have lived it.

        I also think the criteria presented here is problematic. 25 percent? We have plenty of other, more polarizing conditions that don’t have that kind of prevalence in the population. I do a lot of advocacy for survivors of sexual violence, and I can assure you, not 25 percent of child abuse survivors have Dissociative Identity Disorder, but that doesn’t stop it from being a recognized condition. Even as professionals find themselves split over the diagnosis, they nevertheless tend to agree that individuals get a benefit from the label in their treatment. Even if it’s only 5 percent of women who have abortions that suffer PASS, as Feminists, don’t we owe it to them to give them the full access to the mental health resources that they need, resources that they can’t access without the appropriate diagnostic criteria? It seems to me that leaving ANY woman behind is inherently antithetical to what we’re trying to accomplish.

        This is essentially what I’m saying. We, as Feminists and pro-choicers, feel like giving up any ground to the other side opens the door for them to take all our ground. But our folly in doing so is that we lose the women who need us the most–women like me, who had an abortion against our wishes, have been abandoned by those who forced us to make this choice, and need to know that the advocacy by and for these ideological circles doesn’t end just because we terminated our pregnancies. For us, it doesn’t end there. I still struggle with these feelings–though I continue to advocate for unrestricted access to abortion, on a personal level, I feel lost. I feel like the work of my foremothers and my own work prior to turning 24 enabled the abortion to happen, but not give me the support I desperately needed after it was over.

        The good news is, I remain more pro-choice than ever. But I also understand how going through what I did, including the accompanying aftermath, can turn out the women who need us the most. Women who want an abortion but can’t have one don’t generally became anti-choice; it anything, they tend to campaign harder for the right. Women who are unsure, or convinced that they don’t want to do it but are forced to by circumstances anyway, who then reach out for the support that was there to make sure they understood the procedure was their right only to find there aren’t any post-abortion resources by these same individuals, those are the ones who leave and become active in promoting the anti-choice agenda, under the misguided belief that they are protecting other women from what they went through. And with the greeting that their pain is due to a pre-existing mental condition or a Conservative upbringing, or any other causalities than acknowledging the elephant of the abortion in the room, I almost can’t bring myself to blame them.

    • Posted August 4, 2010 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

      Did you watch the video? She makes it very clear that women certainly can have adverse psychological symptoms after an abortion, but that it is not widespread enough to make it into a classified mental illness. I believe there are some studies that have concluded that an unplanned pregnancy can cause anxiety (duh), but that the anxiety occurs in women whether they had an abortion or continued with the pregnancy. Also, women who have had depression or anxiety episodes after an abortion tend to be women who have a history of depression or anxiety, making the abortion the triggering event for a relapse, not the cause of the disorder.

      • Posted August 4, 2010 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

        No, I didn’t watch the video. I trust Jessica’s interpretation that the video talks about why PASS doesn’t exist. It was that assertion I was responding to.

        “She makes it very clear that women certainly can have adverse psychological symptoms after an abortion, but that it is not widespread enough to make it into a classified mental illness.”

        But that’s very different from saying “PASS doesn’t exist,” which is what Jessica stated above. However, your statement here highlights another issue I have with the ongoing scrutiny of PASS–individuals who say, “Even if it does exist, it’s not widespread enough to make it into a classified mental illness.” The threshold is problematic (see Dissociative Identity Disorder) but the rhetoric is even more troubling.

        Feminism is about furthering the rights for women, among other things. In my opinion, even just one woman suffering from PASS is one too many, and the movement simply isn’t willing to look at its own role in cultivating those long-term impacts on women who have aborted a pregnancy. We’re too quick to dismiss the cause of the after-abortion symptoms as being linked to something else, as if that alone accounts for what they’re going through.

        And again, I think it’s because we’re afraid acknowledging it is somehow offering the anti-choice side a concession. It isn’t. It’s increasing our ability to assist the same women whose reproductive autonomy we want to protect. It’s about showing women that we don’t just turn our backs on them once they’ve exercised what has become the symbolic and pinnacle right in our struggle for equality.

        • Posted August 4, 2010 at 8:53 pm | Permalink

          Can I ask what the difference is between PASS and say, depression or bipolar or antisocial disorders? To be more clear, what is specific to PASS that you wouldn’t say that you have depression (for instance, I’m not diagnosing your symptoms) that was triggered by an abortion? All cognitive disruptions have an interplay between the biological and environmental, and for me, my depression is triggered by certain events.

          • Posted August 5, 2010 at 11:16 pm | Permalink

            To my limited understanding, bipolar and depression are both chemical imbalances, generally, though some cases of depression can be situational. PASS is most certainly situational in that unless you’ve had an abortion, you will never be at risk for PASS.

            For me, on a personal level, what set PASS apart was not only the sheer duration of the “acute” symptoms, but how those symptoms were influenced. I was afraid to sleep, for example, because I had nightmares of mutilated fetuses chasing me, dragging me to the hell I don’t even believe in. I couldn’t interact with any children, let alone watch a TV show or movie that featured pregnancy. I resented all the children in my life and their mothers who were “allowed” to birth them, while I was forced to terminate my pregnancy. I physically relieved the trauma of my abortion over and over again. The sight of blood made me pass out, even my own period, because of how much blood I lost during my abortion.

            I never wanted to be a parent, but I became obsessed with the idea of redemption by becoming pregnant again. Yet at the same time, having sex with my partner was traumatic–I was scared to death that being pregnant would result in the same situation playing out, so even having my partner kiss me could spur me into tears, a complete emotional breakdown for the loss of autonomy and the pregnancy itself. I found myself thinking if I could kill myself, I could somehow be forgiven for allowing someone else to make such a choice for me.

            In other words, every feature of my mental and emotional disturbances was uniquely flavored after my abortion. And these symptoms permeated for almost six months. I lost over 15 pounds during this time, and when my most recent pregnancy test came back positive, I seriously contemplated ending my life right then and there because I was afraid of being forced to abort again and I knew I couldn’t handle it. I couldn’t handle the idea of having my body taken away from me again, my choice made for me again.

            What’s sad is my story isn’t unique, or even the most extreme. And I wonder how, with stories like these, where women are legitimately suffering and hurting, any Feminist who honestly wants to help her fellow sisters can insist it is a syndrome that doesn’t exist, or doesn’t exist in enough numbers to matter.

            To me, the thought of even ONE more woman having an experience like mine breaks my heart. The thought that women with the best of intentions will further deny these marginalized women with the invalidating, “What you’re going through isn’t serious enough to warrant a title, you’ve just been brainwashed by the right” is devastating; WAS devastating. I still remember one Feminist, after I poured my heart out to her and admitted I was struggling to reconcile my ideology with my hurt, telling me I was betraying the movement by letting my abortion effect me so much. She was hoping to bring me back into the fold, give me a logical way to out-think my situation, but it simply doesn’t work like that. I wish it did.

            And what’s sad is that the Republicans who want to keep our choices limited extend more sympathy to women, post-abortion. The anti-choice side can look awfully attractive when your own kind are telling you to put your stuff on hold in the interest of the movement. Until our movement realizes that part of empowering women is provide them with the resources (in this case, recognition of what many of them go through with PASS) we will continue to lose them to the same enemy which probably facilitated their pregnancy in the first place.

  4. Posted August 3, 2010 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

    The Nike ad is most assuredly fake and the copy was written by someone that can’t even figure out how to spell “ambassador”.

  5. Posted August 3, 2010 at 10:33 pm | Permalink

    It amazes me what companies things counts as a “big butt”! She looks so small to me!

  6. Posted August 4, 2010 at 3:48 am | Permalink

    While $5 million is probably not a realistic expectation in damages, the GGW incident ultimately involves sexual exploitation beyond the terms Jane Doe consented to. Even if GGW made it clear that the women were expected to perform certain acts in order to attend a party, a “worker” cannot (or at least should not) be forced to provide desired services (showing her breasts) — although GGW would be entitled to seek appropriate damages/compensation of their own if JD backs out.

    Unfortunately entertainment of a sexual nature tends to be discussed from the standpoint of permitting nearly all or nearly nothing. Realistically, this content has to regulated with nuance — providing all acting parties the right to remain in control (allowing them reasonable power to object to content they were a part of and enabling the government to step in when a party is unable to exert control) and to include measures against non-consensual exploitation. While measures along these lines exist, a case like this one demonstrates some improvements are in order.

  7. Posted August 4, 2010 at 11:58 am | Permalink

    I don’t see women dressing like that while running at my university. That clothing just isn’t practical, so I have to wonder to whom they are trying to sell. Also, the theme of butts in this ad seems fetishtic to me.

    We’d never see serious ads featuring men waxing eloquent on their arses.

Feministing In Your Inbox

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

194 queries. 2.187 seconds