It is not the UDK's responsibility to screen ads for political correctness.

Once again, it is not the responsibility of the publisher/newspaper to screen ad content. They also have published somewhere in the paper every day that the opinions of their advertisers do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the staff, publishers, etc of the paper, and vice versa.

The fact of the matter is the Kansan IS responsible for every single word that is printed in the paper. They have to make decisions about which ads to include, and ads aren't the same thing as written opinions. The Kansan accepts funding from the businesses that place ads in the paper, and since every ad must be selected on an individual basis, it is absolutely the paper's obligation to take a stance and reject this kind of misogyny. The UDK could have just as easily rejected the ads and instead chosen ones that represented places that were less discriminatory/objectifying. The choices the Kansan makes are representative of its beliefs and values because things like opinion articles are attributed to specific authors, whereas decisions to run ads must be made by the paper itself.

Furthermore, the issue at hand is not political correctness--those buzzwords are an excuse to justify inaction and overlooking things like sexism, racism, and other kinds of intolerance. This is NOT about "political correctness"--it's about not being a misogynist or an institution that upholds misogyny. It is not okay to objectify women and if that, to you, is simply a plea for political correctness, then it justifies calling things like rape prevention and women's rights "political correctness."

Very well written comments Cherry. The Kansan should find better sponsors. I think being sponsored by strip clubs reflects poorly on the paper.

So accepting sponsors that are questionable is not a reflection upon the entity accepting the sponsorship? It seems a little too convenient for the Kansan to include a blurb in the staff box absolving them from all responsibility to determine appropriate sponsors. I will agree that balancing the business interests of an organization alongside the stated goals of that organization can be tricky. But to claim that the two are mutually exclusive is incorrect.

So, the conflicts surrounding blood diamonds and the innocent lives they cost has nothing to do with the businesses that purchase those diamonds? I mean, really, it's just a business transaction, right? What about the items produced by sweatshops? The people that keep those sweatshops running aren't responsible for the abuse that happens inside of them? I'm sure that the UDK's endorsement of things like strip clubs provides a hefty amount of their business, otherwise they wouldn't be so explicit in their love for KU students. Agreeing to be sponsored by these establishments makes the Kansan complicit in the misogyny that happens within them. You also are forgetting what I said earlier--ads are different than opinions BECAUSE it's a business transaction and because the individual decision must be made to select those particular ads. Even if I grant you that ads are the same as opinion articles, the UDK also says it reserves the right to NOT print opinions that are obscene or attacking people. So why should the standard for ads be any different?

Also, I'm not sure why "the editor is a woman" is a reason why the UDK can't make sexist decisions. Women can be complicit in their own oppression sometimes, and often are. Half the population of the world is comprised of women, but would you deny that sexism exists? The presence of women guarantees nothing whatsoever. Men are not the only ones that perpetuate sexism and to claim that they are misplaces the problem and prevents any sort of solution. EVERYONE is part of the system--not just men.

The fact that advertising in the UDK boosts business is exactly the problem. It's not okay to justify sexism and objectification with "well, they're making lots of money off of it." Plenty of people make lots of money off of the commodification of women--the fashion industry, the music industry, politicians, strip clubs, the sex industry, etc. Why does the exchange of money make this kind of treatment okay? There is a market for tons of things--slave labor, child sex workers, terribly harmful drugs--are those things okay to you, too?

You suggest "quelling the demand." How do we do so? By refusing to support such places, by rejecting their ads, and by--at the very least--criticizing the institutions that support those ads. If you grant that the strip clubs are misogynist (and you did), then there's zero reason why the UDK should run their ads.

So... you're comparing blood diamonds and sweatshops... with an advert about strippers? In a college publications? Nice to meet you Overstatement.

No, I'm comparing blood diamonds and sweatshops to the objectification of women, which results in rape, forced labor, child prostitution, domestic abuse, and so on.

Nice to meet you, too, Strawperson Argument. Way to completely miss the point.

sexingthecherry: "Way to completely miss the point."

I don't know which is more sad, that you write this without any sense of irony or that you were accepted to a major university with such an astounding lack of intellect.

You could choose, instead, to contribute to the discussion, rather than offering baseless attacks. You have not offered a single reason why my argument is wrong. If I exhibit such "an astounding lack of intellect," then surely it would be easy for you to discount my claims, but you could not do it even once.

What "sense of irony" am I supposed to have about the oppression of a full half of the world's population? It is not enough to attempt to be witty and snide--but it sure is easy from a position of privilege, isn't it?

Wait, how is the student voice being silenced? Is all that ad-space taking away from article space?

Your responses are illogical and as misdirected as the original article. There is no discussion to be had when your premise is faulty at best and idiotic at worst. I will not define irony for you (here's a hint, your screen-name and the misguided position you take about advertisements in a small-town school-newspaper). Maybe you could ask one of your professors?

You would think that "illogical," "misdirected," and "idiotic" claims would be pretty easy to discredit, and yet you STILL can't provide ONE SINGLE REASON why my argument is incorrect. You're not here to engage anyone in dialogue or encourage anyone to see things the way you feel is correct. I fail to understand how resisting misogyny and bringing it to the forefront of discussion (instead of its usual covert position) is idiotic--it is instead an issue of civil rights.

Hey, by the way, your tactics to call attention to my screen name (about which you know nothing) are typical strawperson arguments. You are trying to boil down the issue to one simple (and false premise) in order to make it easier (in your mind) to defeat. There is no irony in my ability to speak freely (my username) and my activism in actually doing so (the article itself). Misogyny is not the same thing as a woman's choice to, oh, I don't know, have a username that contains the word "sex" (Heaven forbid!). My username and position in the article are not contradictory (what you call "ironic")--on the contrary, they go hand-in-hand. It is not hip or witty to be ironic about sexism, especially when you can't even explain how it would be done in this situation.

You also try to mitigate the effects of misogyny and the objectification of women by trivializing the impact of a "small-town newspaper." KU has a student population of 25,000+ and faculty/staff upwards of 8,000 people. Over 30,000 people have access to the paper on a daily basis, so what is the bright line as far as what constitutes ENOUGH sexism and oppression for me to be riled up about? When does frat-guy joking and "boys will be boys" cross over into sexual harassment or rape? When people do nothing about it.

Maybe you could provide ONE SINGLE REASON why my argument is wrong, instead of personal attacks which do nothing, aside from decrease your credibility.

Also, no, as far as I know, the ads don't take away from article space per se. That wasn't my argument. The argument is, the advertisements actively promote the objectification of women, effectively silencing THEIR voices. The voices of half of KU, half of Lawrence, half of the world. It is simply never acceptable to be sexist, and to do so literally silences women in every single instance.

ss77white,

I don't understand your argument at all. The only world in which the premise of the original article is wrong is one where the objectification of women goes uncontested. To say that it is 'idiotic' to fight sexism is analogous to the 'idiocy' of fighting racism. But if you were to use slanderous, racist language, and someone were to call you out on it, I assume you would (barring your obvious lack of intelligence and overall common sense) apologize for your acts.

Now, why then, is it idiotic to draw attention to an issue that plagues women every day? Because they are women? Are they secondary citizens? Do they not have the same rights and individual integrity as men? There is a fundamental lack of equality in this area, and as long as people brush sexism under the rug, as long as people choose to ignore the language and logic of the oppressor, women will never be equal.

And THAT is not okay.

My point of contention is with the rationale that strip clubs objectify women. Just who do you think is being played in a club? The women working or the poor schlubs forking over their hard-earned cash to watch? I am of the opinion that stripping IS empowering for women. Most strippers that I have known view their vocation as using their FSM-given abilities to make a living. That you can draw a line from strip-club advertisement to f*cking blood diamonds shows a very suspect streak in your line of thinking. I'll go ahead and state the obvious for you...equal rights for women and freedom from oppression is of the greatest importance. But why are strip-clubs bad again? Because men pay to ogle the dancers? That is kind of lame and puts the struggles for women's rights in kind of an odd light. But, go ahead getting upset about advertisements. I'm sure that will change the world.

SEXingthecherry: "When does frat-guy joking and "boys will be boys" cross over into sexual harassment or rape?"

That should be as obvious as the nose on your smug little face. Explain to me again how strip-clubs = misogyny.

And what about gay strip-clubs or Chippendales? Are you going to stick up for the poor down-trodden male stripper who is constantly being oppressed and objectified? Oh...that's right, they have male genitalia so they can't be anything more than oppressors. Thanks for playing.

I don't recall making the argument that strip clubs are inherently misogynist on their own. I believe that strip clubs could, IN THEORY, be empowering. Women and men making money off of the intrinsic attractiveness of their own bodies, right? But the problem is, stripping is not quite the glamorous profession you seem to envision it as. Most people--especially women--are forced into the sex industry, which includes stripping. The women who strip are almost never suburban socialites or independently wealthy, etc. Their "choice" to strip is almost always an economic necessity. A forced choice isn't truly a choice, and thus, isn't truly empowering.

My argument was instead that the particular ads in the Kansan were misogynist. The portrayal of women (notice that there were no ads for "gay strip-clubs or Chippendales) reduced them to sex toys, stripped (as it were) of their ability to choose and of their identities themselves. Once you understand that my beef is with the context of the strip clubs, and not stripping in and of itself, you really don't have an argument.

As far as your claim that I'm accusing all men of oppression, see above (I preempted your "all feminists just hate men" argument a loooooong time ago):
"Men are not the only ones that perpetuate sexism and to claim that they are misplaces the problem and prevents any sort of solution. EVERYONE is part of the system--not just men."

If anyone here is portraying men in a uniquely negative light, it would be you. You call male patrons of strip-clubs "poor schlubs forking over their hard-earned cash to watch," as if men are somehow forced against their will into strip clubs, and then coerced into spending their money on something they don't want to do. Men actively choose to patronize strip clubs, and to portray it in such a way that suggests that the strippers are manipulating men reeks of rape-apologists and victim-blaming.

And again, NO, I'm not comparing blood diamonds to strip clubs. Also from above:
"No, I'm comparing blood diamonds and sweatshops to the objectification of women, which results in rape, forced labor, child prostitution, domestic abuse, and so on."

Also, is it impossible for you to participate in a discussion without resorting to personal attacks? You are obviously not that concerned with equal rights when you're not even willing to entertain a discussion on the subject. Nobody is against you here, so the hostility on your part seems a little suspect.

You work at McDonalds or Wal-Mart for economic neccessity.

You strip because you'd rather make the money faster.

No, "I" don't do any of those things because I was lucky enough to be born in the middle-class economic bracket.

Know what the phrase "working poor" means? Good luck raising children, paying rent, using electricity and water, going to school, buying groceries, paying taxes, having health insurance, etc on a single paycheck from McDonalds or WalMart, two corporations notorious for their horrific treatment of their employees and ceaseless, relentless lobbying to keep minimum wage as low as possible.

If stripping is so glamorous, you go do it.

Thanks for enlightening me. I work forty hours a week and pay all of my own bills, including medical insurance, rent, cell phone, all utilities, etc. survive on like $75 a month for my own expenses after gas and all other things are taken into account. But thank you for making a very strong presumption about my economic status.

Am I contending it is glamorous? No. If you don't want to do it, you can find alternatives. My mom raised me without higher-than-high school education as a single mom. She didn't work as a stripper. Her job sucked, but she gradually made her life better. I know some people have trouble economically as far as getting jobs, and I know those corporations treat their employees terribly in many cases. You do not have to strip, that is a choice you make, and I've seen examples firsthand of people getting by without doing that.

Finally, people who choose to work in that industry make that choice for themselves. I don't buy the slippery slope argument. Both of them are objectification of women, according to you, which leads to oppression and gender violence. That's a serious issue, and connecting the two is too general an argument.

And to clarify, I'd work more every week but I am a full time student as well, so I'd prefer to leave myself enough time to be academically successful.

I don't recall making any assumptions about YOUR economic status. In fact, I spoke in the first-person about my own good fortune to be economically secure for my entire life.

The fact is, wherever you work and whatever you do, you are able to even have money left over. Despite your anecdotal evidence (which is the least accurate type of support for an argument), the fact is that many people do not have the means to make ends meet. Sure, it's the American dream, which is why it's so easy to sweep marginalized people under the rug.

There are lots of contributing factors that deprive women of other options and force them into professions like the sex industry, which is especially true in women of color. Lack of access to sufficient education, racist discrimination in general, and inability to access contraception (see: lack of health insurance/appropriate coverage) are just a few of those contributing factors, ALL of which predominate in women. All of these things, which society ignores, denies women their "choice." True, they DO have a choice. Strip, or don't eat.

The discussion about whether or not stripping is in and of itself empowering is almost entirely irrelevant, however. I conceded from the beginning that the distinction is not clear. Most women are forced into the sex industry for survival, but I am sure there are some who are independently wealthy and strip for the hell of it. The initial point of the opinion article was to point out that an academic institution, in supporting certain advertisement choices and celebrations was uniquely encouraging an oppressive and misogynist view of women. The original opinion was very explicit in the specific ways in which this occurred. Even if I grant that strip clubs aren't inherently sexist, the ads themselves certainly were.

I feel like that last point is especially important because it has gone COMPLETELY UNCONTESTED throughout the entirety of this discussion. You don't have a single argument why the objectification of women is good.

"You don't have a single argument why the objectification of women is good."

Gee, that's kind of a loaded statement. Kind of like asking someone how long it has been since they've beaten their wife. But, altogether now, lets state it for the record.

Objectification of women is bad.

There. Done.

Moving on, how do advertisements "silence" student' voices? How does stripping lead to the world-wide abuse/subjecation of women? What is misogynistic about "blood diamonds" in particular? And, most importantly, when does frat-guy joking and "boys will be boys" cross over into sexual harassment or rape?

It wasn't a loaded question. My argument was that the ads were uniquely bad for women, and nobody contested that. When that point is conceded, it means the only way to prove otherwise is to win that objectification is good.

Now, to answer your questions:

"...How do advertisements 'silence' student voices?"
The original opinion article specifically answers this question--and keep in mind, they were the ads in particular, and not ALL ads, and not ALL strip clubs. The argument is, the ads contribute to the objectification of women (an argument which has gone uncontested). As such, it denies women their identity (or, at the very least, justifies doing so) and thus, silences their voices. The oppression of ANY group of people leads to their dehumanization in general--think of any example of sexism in society today. They all deny a woman's agency. Rape rates, wage gaps, denial of access to contraception, and so on. The ads only contribute to this objectification, which don't JUST justify the silencing of student voices, but women in general.

"How does stripping lead to the world-wide abuse/subjecation [sic] of women?"
This is really a moot point. The argument was never that stripping is ALWAYS going to be oppressive. You can read my above thoughts on why I believe it USUALLY is, but that's not the point. The point was, the ADS are oppressive. When this sort of thing becomes commonplace and acceptable, it justifies total objectification of women globlly (if you haven't read Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale," I suggest you do so). We, as a nation, are less credible activists globally if we can't even agree to give women equal rights at home. How are we supposed to stop sex crimes globally if we can't prosecute rapists in case that had multiple eyewitnesses/admissions of guilt? It does not exist in a vacuum.

"What is misogynistic about 'blood diamonds' in particular?"
As far as my argument is concerned, nothing. I don't know where you got this question, to be honest. My argument (way above) was in regards to the paper being responsible for its ads. It wouldn't advertise for blood diamonds (given the horrific nature of their acquisition), so why would it advertise in such a way that contributes to an equally heinous problem, ie the oppression of women?

"...When does frat-guy joking and 'boys will be boys' cross over into sexual harassment or rape?"
The argument I was making was that people who are apologists for minor offenses (which are actually symptomatic of a MUCH larger problem) must then also be forced to defend the results of those actions. Similarly, if you agree that female genital mutilation, rape, sexual harassment, etc, are BAD, then you should also agree that "lesser" offenses are bad, too, because those things make "larger" offenses possible.

Four words: First Amendment, Free Speech. Stop trying to be "Maternalistic" about things and instead go for the root cause of all this; convince young men that seeing a woman "objectified" as a turn off.

Just because you CAN say something doesn't mean you SHOULD, and you definitely shouldn't support an institution that advocates reprehensible ideals/actions.

Nobody is being "maternalistic"--do you even understand the buzzwords you're throwing around? Being paternalistic means to attempt to manage the lives of others with the assumption that they aren't smart/strong/capable enough to do it on their own. Hence why the word is so often applied to describe governmental misogyny. Maternalism, on the other hand, does not have the converse definition. It literally means behaving as mother. In which part of this conversation is anyone doing that?

The last part of your statement is insanely offensive: "convince young men that seeing a woman 'objectified' as [sic] a turn off." Why should every single decision made about the way we treat women be a sexual one? Women have more roles than that of vessel/orifice. The "root cause," as you say, of the objectification is not that young men are turned on by it, but instead that they don't recognize the intrinsic human rights value of a woman's life. The reason why some people are turned on by the objectification of women is because they have failed to come to that conclusion--that women are men (and all other gender identities) are equal entities. Women do not exist for your sexual gratification, and to imply otherwise is mindblowingly asinine and repugnant.

Really? Women aren't just here for sexual pleasure?

Give me a break.

It's like coming out and saying "Infants are not here to be used as a soccer ball." We get it.

Really? You get it? Because if that were the case, if everyone truly "got it," people wouldn't be spewing things like this little gem:

"[...G]o for the root cause of all this; convince young men that seeing a woman "objectified" as a turn off."

Free Speech. It's in the Constitution. Right after freedom of religion. It's why we have newspapers to begin with. Sorry you were offended, but then again no one forces you to read the Kansan. Try something less controversial like T.V. Guide.

Just because someone CAN say something doesn't mean they SHOULD.

Free speech also doesn't mean you are less accountable for your words. It does not excuse them, and it doesn't mean you aren't responsible for their ramifications.

My freedom of speech is equally protected. The Kansan can print anything they want, and I can consequently point out how what they said makes them guilty of sexism generally and misogyny specifically.

Yeah I got that CAN and SHOULD thing in your previous post. So who is to determine what SHOULD and SHOULD NOT be said? You? I have a better idea; If you don't like what is in the Kansan, don't read it. You can go on and on about sexism this and misogyny that, but at the end of the day no one is forcing their views on you.

Also, the belief that the Kansan supports sexism and misogyny because of the ads it publishes is just an opinion, not a fact. People can think for themselves and arrive at their own conclusions.

First of all, how does one know that the content of the Kansan is undesireable UNLESS they read it to begin with? Also, if the paper purports to represent its students, it should represent ALL students, and not just the sexist ones. You have ZERO reason why the ads depicted weren't objectifying and misogynistic.

And why shouldn't someone speak up in the face of bigotry? See above--ignoring smaller offenses, pretending they don't exist, makes larger offenses possible. We have to draw the line somewhere on issues of sexism, and the only way to do it un-arbitrarily is by rejecting all sexism outright.

Also, why should I read something else? Why shouldn't the paper just not be sexist? It is intended to represent an academic institution, NOT a frat house.

Certainly people can think for themselves, but don't you think the conclusions people reach are gonna be biased in a particular direction if they only thing they EVER see leans in that direction? You are so convinced that sexism isn't THAT big of a deal because it's all you see and it's all you know. You are precisely why these kinds of ads are problematic--proof that a patriarchal culture leads to the women remaining in the private sphere. See what happens when someone (especially a woman) speaks up about why sexism is wrong? Nearly every other poster on this thread has responded only in an attempt to tell me how wrong I am. Being an apologist for sexism is simply not acceptable. It's an all or nothing.

1. You read undesirable content in a periodical once, so you never have to read the periodical again. It's that simple.

2. The paper does represent many viewpoints. You have ZERO reason to think that a single ad means that the entire paper and every edition is "sexist".

3. You throw the words "sexism" and "misogyny" around like they are objective. They are however, subjective. What is sexist to one may not be sexist to another. That is something you cannot deny. Just because you define something as sexist does not mean that it is universally so to all people who are exposed to it.

4. There is nothing wrong with speaking your mind, but there is a thin line between sharing your views and badgering those who disagree with your own.

5. How exactly do you plan to "reject" sexism outright? That's like saying we should put an end to evil or thinking bad thoughts. Good idea, but impossible to implement. Once again, because sexism is subjective and is defined differently to everyone, the only conclusion is that you wish to get rid of anything that doesn't live up to your personal standards. Fortunately the First Amendment protects the rights of all people to have their own opinions.

6. You should read something else because the content of this periodical seems to bother you. Why you would continue to consume anything that causes you displeasure is beyond comprehension, unless you are the type that likes to get worked up. Your logic dictates that anything you find offensive should not be available for anyone. That is called censorship.

7. Not all content of the Kansan is related to gender-relational issues, so the argument that the only thing you EVER see on its pages or society as a whole is sexism is unfounded.

8. I never said that sexism wasn't that big of a deal. Don't put words in my mouth. I just said that Free Speech trumps censorship, which brings me back to my original point: If you don't like what a book or magazine says, put it down, throw it away, do whatever you want to it, but don't think you can force others to do so as well.

9. I am not a reason of anything. You don't know what I have seen or what I know. You presume much but know very little.

10. Perhaps nearly every other poster on this thread disagrees with you because your arguments are over-zealous, illogical and wholly ridiculous. You think that everything else should change but you should not have too. Maybe if you had an open mind and were willing to at least consider other perspectives (or at least not read things that offend you) you wouldn't face such a wall of disagreement.

11. Your contention that a sexist periodical represents only a "Frat house" reveals your own hypocrisy. I believe generalizing that all men in fraternities are sexist is sexism in and of itself. Men are not the only ones capable of sexism.

12. It is easy to complain that the deck is stacked against you in life, because of sexism or patriarchy or whatever. However, no one gets a free ride. Everyone has problems, and no matter what one's gender, this is a fact of life that will not change.

13. Instead of complaining that life is not fair, perhaps you could find real solutions while respecting the rights of others.

14. Freedom means taking the bad with the good, and accepting ideas that seem offensive. If the Kansan weren't able to publish things because they were offensive to anyone, then that would defeat the point of a free press and the First Amendment would go right out the window. In this way, even offensive and sexist content can be a good thing.

Because it protects the institution of freedom.

I'm gonna respond in order w/o numbers, since your numbering is a little wonky.

A periodical that purports to represent me should NOT publish material that is blatantly and outrageously offensive. Period. It CAN, yes. But sexist material is simply not acceptable. I'd rather cause change than simply ignore it.

I don't think every edition is sexist. The newspaper, however, is responsible for its content. And what they printed was misogynist. The opinion article was simply calling them on their incredibly poor decision.

Talking about ob/subjectivity is an excuse for inaction. I guess the KKK probably thinks racism is subjective, too.

Where is that thin line, per se? I'm badgering people, but you're not? I will gladly badger people to stop oppressing me.

Just because it's impossible to solve all of the world's ills completely doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do something about them. Rejecting sexism outright means speaking up in the face of it and advocating change--letting sexists (and racists, and homophobes, etc) know that their action is unacceptable.

I'm not advocating censorship--that's a strawperson argument. I'm advocating responsible journalism and marketing. I'm advocating human rights.

I never claimed the Kansas as a whole is sexist. But their content does represent sexist views at times. This is never acceptable. You STILL can't explain to me how the ads WEREN'T sexist.

I'm not censoring anyone, so your argument doesn't apply. The First Amendment is not an excuse for reprehensible behavior. I'm simply exercising my 1st Amendment rights to call oppression what it truly is. You notice how I never said the paper should go out of print?

The only things I presume are based on what YOU have written. If I make false presumptions, then you shouldn't depict yourself in such a way.

I never said that men are the only ones capable of sexism--see previous posts. Frat houses--including all of the women and men that perpetuate their existence--are universally more tolerating of sexism than, say, an academic institution should be.

Your next argument is basically, sexism isn't that big of a deal, get over it. This is exactly the kind of thing that causes me to make certain presumptions about you.

You say I should respect other people--I'm not sure how I've been disrespectful. This whole conversation is about respect, and how it seems like the only people that are entitled to it are males. What exactly constitutes a "real solution" to you? This is not a complaint that life is not fair--I am pointing out that sexist people like you should not get away with being sexist. This is just not an argument. I bet slaves should've just stopped complaining about how unfair life was, huh?

And finally...

Sexism is not a good thing, simply because it makes equality look better by comparison. That's like starving someone and giving them food once a week and telling them that the starvation was good for them because it made the food taste better. Women don't need oppression to know that freedom is kinda neat.

You don't have a single argument that justifies sexist material in an academic periodical, or why it wasn't sexist to begin with, or why sexism is a lesser problem than others.

"Also, if the paper purports to represent its students, it should represent ALL students, and not just the sexist ones."

I dont have time to rehash all of this, because this whole thing is just getting out of control. But seriously. It's an advertisement. It says in the paper that the views of advertisers do not represent the views on the Kansan. Therefore, your objection is not with the paper.

Also, it is laughable, the concept of representing all students... because representing one viewpoint is against another altogether, so there's no way to appease both sides in this situation or in any other.

The Kansan isn't responsible for its content? Well great! I'm just gonna place an ad for the next KKK rally, then, and see how well that goes over. The Kansan DOES screen their ads, they just decided to draw the line that was discriminatory in a way that society still accepts. That does not make it correct, and it does not excuse their behavior. My objection is certainly with the paper because they had to agree to place the ads.

There is a difference between trying not to offend minute groups of people and trying not to objectify women--a full half (approximately) of the campus. Since when is expecting male-female equality nitpicking? I would understand it being impossible to avoid offending some group that only contains 5 students, versus trying not to blatantly objectify and degrade 50% of the campus population. This is not a hard task, or an unreasonable one. In fact, to do otherwise is irresponsible and sexist.

OK, sexingthecherry, you nutbag. I've been reading your nonsense for long enough. Look at the Kansan this week. There's an Allstars ad for MALE strippers. Yup, believe it or not, Allstars is an equal opportunity offender. Where's your whining about objectification and oppression now?

The Kansan, like many newspapers, attempts to represent its readership in its news coverage. From frat parties to high-handed, overzealous womens studies undergrads, they try to paint a balanced picture. Sometimes they get it, sometimes not. Advertising, the main lifeblood of any news outlet, is a little different. It's news that is purchased and produced by another source, free from editing. Unless the advertiser is saying something blatantly illegal or discriminatory to any group, it's a good bet a paper would probably print it. After all, the advertiser pays good money to get their message out. At that point, it's up to the marketplace to decide if the message was effective, stupid, offensive, etc. In short, if ya don't like it, don't go! You even have the free speech to tell your friends not to go. But don't hate on those who do.

On a related note...regardless of what you believe to be true, Allstars isn't doing anything illegal or discriminatory. That's why you can't (laughably) compare it to a Klan rally or blood diamonds. Those dancers (women AND men) CHOOSE to work there. And as a matter of fact, they're hardworking, and they make a pretty good living out of it. I seriously doubt you've ever taken the time to talk with any of them to find out THEIR perspective on this. Oh no, you're much too contemptuous to do that. You would prefer to wax academic about how one ad in one paper pissed you off and gave you license to wage an idealogical cyber-war against our woeful "patriarchal culture". Those poor, helpless strippers are indicative of a wider problem, blah, blah, blah ad infinitum... To boot, everyone who disagrees with you is flat wrong (and probably unconsciously sexist too, right?).

The bottom line is: Get a freakin' life, and let others live theirs.

I'm gleefully counting the minutes until you have some heavily worded response, probably about what a myopic pig I am. At this point, it's just gotten funny.

See above on the issue of "choice." You don't have a single response, or anything new to say whatsoever. And just because the Kansan makes a lot of money off of the objectifying ads doesn't make it any more acceptable. Making money off of sexism is not any better than doing it for free.

Wanna know why I didn't say anything about the male strippers ad? Maybe because I don't live in Lawrence over the summer. It is certainly inappropriate. Having not seen the ad, however, I can't comment specifically. I would bet, though, that the pictures aren't a close-up of the male package. I bet the male strippers have faces.

Yes, the ads I HAVE seen were discriminatory, and you don't have a single reason why they weren't. From the very first opinion article, I clearly stated why they were, and not one single person has been able to negate that fact.

Insults and condescension are not substitutes for real argumentation. Just because you think strippers are glamorous does not mean that the profession is one that garners a lot of respect--your attitude is proof enough of that. You literally do not have a single argument.

Of course it's just funny to you--it's hard to take discrimination seriously when it not only doesn't affect you, but also is a highly exploitable endeavor. If it's such a silly conversation, they one would wonder why you'd care to participate, especially when you contribute so little to it.

Ok... Seriously... Censor the world.

Best of luck to you.

The most amazing part is, I look at those ads and don't think "yeah, women are objects," I just think "well... That's their business, and I wouldn't visit it." So I don't. People should make their choices. You shouldn't make choices for them.

I'm advocating neither censorship nor the removal of the freedom of a person's choice. Find me one place where I take that stand.

What I think is interesting is the fact that I can present an idea, and the majority of the responses are insults/attacks. Wonder why that is?

since sexingthecherry is likely the writer of the article, could you please tell me why the title has nothing to do with the article, why we should take your arguments seriously with the suggestive username you post with, and how our college newspaper singlehandedly encouraged the rape, abuse, and degredation of women worldwide by running ads for bars and clubs who were expecting an increase in business on stop day and chose to appeal to the more easily influenced and higher spending male demographic?

I mean its not like the Kansan is deliberately not showing adds that promote womens suffrage or are choosing not to post articles by women or anything of the sort. Maybe you should discuss how women are portrayed in tv shows (girls next door, desperate housewives, insert random show about slutty women here) instead of a few adds that ran for 1 week.

I am, indeed the author. I don't know why you think the title is misleading, but I'm not responsible for it in any case--the Kansan picked that, not me.

I don't see what my username has to do with anything. It's the name of my blog, and so I use it when I write. Even if my username was "please-do-me-now" it wouldn't make a difference--look to content rather than preconceived notions. This is just proof that a woman's sexuality, real or perceived, makes you take her less seriously. You don't think that is a problem? You don't think it's representative of society in general?

The particular ads that were run were sexist for reasons that were explained in the original article and were never refuted. Every single instance of un-confronted sexism makes future offenses possible--and my argument is that an academic institution should hold itself to a higher standard than your average everyday misogynist.

You're right that the portrayal of women in much of the media is incredibly harmful to women in many different ways (the least of which is that you describe women as "slutty"). However, I decided that discussion about the newspaper itself was most contextually appropriate in the newspaper. The fact that other things are sexist, too, does not make the ads any better, and does not make the complaint any less valid.

STC: "This is just proof that a woman's sexuality, real or perceived, makes you take her less seriously. You don't think that is a problem? You don't think it's representative of society in general?"

Classic example of a negative proof and logical fallacy...and you are supposedly some master debater? What a joke. Get your smug head out of your tight posterior and try a little harder. The world is a big and scary place honey, your small-minded ambition is noble but ridiculously inept. Don't you have anything better to get worked up over than months old ads? Like maybe standing up for the rights of unwanted kittens or something?

That's right--you're definitely proving me wrong by appealing to offensive female stereotypes. You are threatened because I don't fit into those stereotypes. Not only that, but you can't refute what I'm saying. Again, you resort to insults instead of actual argumentation, which is funny, because if I were really so inept at making my case, you'd think it would be much easier for you to refute it.

The previous poster said that my "suggestive" username makes him/her more inclined to take me less seriously. So actually, there was no logical fallacy made--my perceived sexuality was enough to make him/her question my merits, my qualifications to make such statements, all without even paying attention to what I was actually saying. There is no fallacy here, except on the part of "anguswalker." Oh, and misogynists in general.

PS - Masturbation jokes stopped being funny in middle school.

STC: "Masturbation jokes stopped being funny in middle school."

Huh? I'm not sure what you are talking about here but, once again, you are wrong. Masturbation jokes can be funny, just like inane letters to the editor. You continue to make the claim that no one has refuted your argument when numerous people have taken the time to do just that. Yes, the ads were sexist (just like the male-stripper ads, which you apparently don't have any problem with)...most ads are. No, there is no inherent misogyny in the ads or in the papers decision to print them. They are merely ads...no more no less. Sex sells, aimless whining about perceived wrongs does nothing but annoy. Please find a better outlet for your endless rage...maybe you could even find a cause that isn't childish and pointless.

s77white: "Yes, the ads were sexist..."

That's all you had to say, really. You grant that they're sexist. So why include them in the paper, when they're clearly BAD FOR WOMEN? Also, I don't know if you knew, but when you grant that they're sexist, they have to--by definition, since we're talking about sexism against women (even though sexism hurts all of society)--be misogynist, too. Just because misogyny is a lucrative business does not make it any more acceptable or any better for women (and society) overall. Lots of really terrible things are done for (a fairly substantial) profit.

In fact, no one has refuted my claim that the ads were sexist--you yourself admitted that they were. Most people are here to insult me or tell me why I shouldn't have a voice in this matter, all positions which reek of the patriarchy's urge to control everything around it (especially dissent). Proof of this occurs when you tell me that my complaints are "childish," and--since you disagree with them--somehow less valid.

Please tell me why the newspaper IN WHICH THE OFFENSE OCCURRED is not an appropriate outlet for the complaint.

Additionally, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to comment about ads that I have NEVER SEEN BEFORE and whether or not they are sexist.

You have yet to prove how these ads are bad for women (or men, you seem to be bizarrely myopic on this point). It is my contention that they are most certainly not. And sexist does NOT equal misogyny. Don't twist my words to fit your idiotic agenda. Here is what I actually wrote dear, "No, there is no inherent misogyny in the ads or in the papers decision to print them." Why are you so uptight? Maybe you need to go to a couple "screw and bolt" parties?

Uh oh...I shouldn't have written that. Now I'm a misogynistic, blood-diamond producing, frat-boy rapist too!

Yeah, I bet a good lay would cure me of my nasty little habit of calling out sexist folks on their misogyny, yes? But certainly, if I were looking for such services, you surely wouldn't know where I might obtain them.

As I've repeated (ad nauseum) above, sexism is the product of an entire society--not just an act perpetrated only by men against only women. So yes, I DID, in fact, address how sexism is bad for men, women, and other gender expressions alike.

I just can't wrap my mind around how something can be sexist without being misogynist (misogynist specifically in this case, since the people being objectified graphically were women). If the ads were sexist (read: discriminatory towards a sex), then how would they not also be misogynist (ie, discriminating against women is bad for them)? The ads were equally detrimental to men, assuming that they all only want sex, and they all want it to be meaningless, and anything less makes them less of a man. Patriarchy. Is. Bad. For. Everyone.

STC: "Patriarchy. Is. Bad. For. Everyone."

FALSE AND MISLEADING, PLEASE TRY HARDER. These issues that you are raising do not exist in a vacuum, they require deeper thought then mere Bachelor of Arts Feminist cheerleading.

Patriarchy...ISN'T bad for everyone? I just explained how it is, in fact, detrimental to society as a whole. You're not even making arguments. The only thing you're saying is "nope, you're wrong," without a warrant as to why your assertion might be true. I at least explain myself. Nothing I've said has been misleading whatsoever.

The very fact that the issues DO NOT exist in a vacuum is precisely WHY patriarchy is bad for everyone.

Also, my major is in the sciences. And I was a feminist way before college. Try again.

I wasn't commenting on your educational direction sweetie, just your vapid logic. Are you implying that we live in a patriarchal society? Either way, I must have missed your thesis on the wrongs of the patriarchy (maybe I'm wrong to assume that you are talking about the USA; are we discussing reality or the amorphous dystopia that you regard as reality?), care to restate it for us inept groundlings?

First off, I'm not your dear or your sweetie, so know that your insulting attempts at paternalism are not unnoticed.

I'm not implying that ours is a patriarchal society--I am asserting it outright. To claim otherwise is to ignore mountains of evidence to the contrary--rape statistics, the wage gap, and government-made medical decisions, to name a few.

As far as why patriarchy is bad...it seems like it would be self-explanatory. Patriarchy is, obviously, the idea of a governmental structure based on the valuation of the male above the female--not just humans, but stereotypical ideals. Any time one group of people is valued above another, it is detrimental to society as a whole (see: slavery). Of course, this structure demands rigid gender norms in order to strictly enforce the male over the female, so anything that defies these gender norms has no place in the patriarchy. "Male" values are highly prized (in males), such as aggression, domination, and stoicism, etc. Anything that deviates is wrong--sensitive males, articulate/intelligent females, other gender variants that don't fit into these molds--all are shunned by mainstream society. Additionally, the patriarchy outwardly projects its "masculine" ideals, and actively engages in preemptive warfare, excessively violent tactics, application of double-standards, and bullying in general.

Is that what you were looking for?

Yes, I was looking for further proof of your flaming idiocy and lack of cognitive reasoning...thanks for spelling it out for me. I'm sorry that you are so oppressed. You are completely justified to rail against these evil ads in a small college newspaper. May the goddess bless you for all of the hard work you are doing for the down-trodden American female. I believe that you are doing a great service in fighting against the oppressive leaders of the Kansan. Hang on one sec...I'm cutting off my balls in solidarity. PREACH ON SISTER!

Yes, the "flaming idiocy" is so strong that you can't establish a single argument against it.

STC: "I'm not implying that ours is a patriarchal society--I am asserting it outright."

PROOF OF IDIOCY. GAME OVER.

...What does that even mean?

Seriously, you are literally not making any arguments. You are selecting random sentences, repeating them, adding insults, and calling it a victory. You will not win that our society isn't a patriarchal one, nor have you even attempted to do so.

Remember the time when that crazy girl kept replying to everyone who commented on her ridiculous column about how AllStars ads were somehow tied to blood diamonds and sweatshops? Oh, the lazy days of summer...