Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
I saw a Web site by a group (can't remember the name) that rates representation of women in magazine ads. The group gives low marks to ads that show women only as sex objects and ads where all the women are Calista Flockhart/Kate Moss/heroin addict thin. High marks went to ads that showed women of all sizes and ads that showed women as active, not as fantasy figures.
While I appreciate the group's point about promoting impossibly thin as the ideal, I'm having a hard time processing the rest of it.
I certainly agree that a woman's physical apperance has nothing to do with her intelligence and her worth as an individual. (The same ought to go for men.) But I can't agree that men aren't able to appreciate a woman's beauty AND treat her as a human being. Why should the two be mutually exclusive? Should I apologize for finding a sexy woman to be sexy? Women don't seem to get into trouble when they salivate over hunks. Am I overreacting, or is the group overreacting?
While I appreciate the group's point about promoting impossibly thin as the ideal, I'm having a hard time processing the rest of it.
I certainly agree that a woman's physical apperance has nothing to do with her intelligence and her worth as an individual. (The same ought to go for men.) But I can't agree that men aren't able to appreciate a woman's beauty AND treat her as a human being. Why should the two be mutually exclusive? Should I apologize for finding a sexy woman to be sexy? Women don't seem to get into trouble when they salivate over hunks. Am I overreacting, or is the group overreacting?