Comments on: Regarding “Girls Say Yes to Boys Who Say Obama”

By: Rachel

Rachel — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 23:22:27 +0000

Gab: Alright. I’ll take it. I think I was mostly just trying to be difficult.

By: Gab

Gab — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:58:56 +0000

Rachel: Because even if the people making the ad don’t intend to go there, someone seeing it will. And the people making the ad KNOW this, so it’s a moot point.

By: Rachel

Rachel — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 06:34:38 +0000

I wonder if the operational definition laid out in the beginning of this is even the most accurate way to interpret the poster.
Couldn’t the nice girls just being saying yes to a date with a nice boy who shares similar political tendencies? A date that may or may not having anything to do with actually having sex with said boy. Relationships are known to strive between people who have similar interests and opinions on important issues. Why is it assumed that the question to which these girls are saying yes to is “Wanna have sex with me?” and not “Wanna go grab some coffee sometime?”

By: gm

gm — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 17:57:10 +0000

I like the girl with the banjo!

By: Gab

Gab — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 04:44:56 +0000

Are you in competition with Cracked.com or something? They seem to consistently have things similar to your site. For example:

http://www.cracked.com/article_16821_hate-cracked-wed-like-see-you-do-better-seriously.html

Am I overthinking the connection?

By: Gab

Gab — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 00:36:29 +0000

Cushman: And that’s why I read this site. Overthinking things is so much fun, eh?

By: Diana

Diana — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:22:26 +0000

Matt – I like these questions. Maybe I should do a companion piece on the original poster, or advocacy from that time period that was made by women and uses similar approaches. I think in the case of the war poster, there are two particularly interesting things to think about: first, it creates a really nontraditional reversal of the relationship between the bellicose and the virile in that time’s mainstream culture — peace is hot, war is not. Second, one can make the argument that in the cultural context of that time, “saying yes” could have implied a general state of approval/support/commitment, and not sex outright, while these days, that’s almost certainly not the inference that would be made. I didn’t make as much of the “Sarah Palin is not a woman’s choice” bit, because I thought it was a direct response to the “Sarah Palin: the women’s choice” advertising that popped up after her nomination. But I could write pages on what a perfect example Palin is of the current-day conflation of the feminINE and the feminIST: “I love outfits! (lipstick)Thus I am fighting the good fight for my oppressed sisters! (pit bull)”. And you could argue that this adds an additional layer of contradiction to the Obama poster, which also conflates the feminine/feminist. Also, I should note that I made an error in the original post by saying that the two bits of text at the top were the “sole” bits of language juxtaposed in the piece, since obviously the Palin bit is also there, though deemphasized by its placement and distance from the main text.

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:28:29 +0000

Diana -

Very interesting stuff! But I wanted to hear more about the original Vietnam poster. You touch upon the fact that this poster is an homage, but then you treat it like it’s a completely original idea in a vacuum. At the very least, the implicit equation of McCain and the draft is striking. And the idea of “free love” is a little different now than it was back then. Not to mention the original used a celebrity, and the new one doesn’t – is that important? Was the original poster meant to be ironic? Is the new one? And what about the line below: “Sarah Palin is not a woman’s choice.” What does that mean?

- Matt

By: cushman

cushman — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:33:11 +0000

Gab,

Politics had so very little to do with what I wrote.

I was merely implying that the large block of text was very wall-like, perhaps approaching the magnitude of the Great Wall.

Perhaps a poorly executed joke on my part, but it did spawn some extremely off-target flying off of the handle.

Thanks, I enjoyed that.

By: Gab

Gab — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 00:33:57 +0000

Cushman, if you’re trying to imply that I’m Communist, you’re so very wrong for more than one reason. First off, China has never been, is not, and never WILL be a Communist state. In fact, “Communist state” is an oxymoron in itself, for if one were to actually read Marx and Engels closely, one would realize that the society envisioned by them is utopian- think “Star Trek,” if that helps. Communism as Marx and Engels intended means no political parties, no corporations running things, no class disparity at all, everyone helping everyone else, people doing what they want instead of what they have to, etc; and China is the exact opposite of all of those things. Not only is China not Communist, but none of the countries labeled as such now or that were in the past are/were Communist, either. So using the Great Wall and China as a way to imply I’m Communist just doesn’t work there, sorry.

Second, I do believe in some forms of capitalism, so long as it is regulated enough to prevent crises like the current economic one this country is in right now. The privatization of the school system, the hands-off-but-only-when-it’s-convenient-for-us attitude, no, I don’t like that. But I do believe in a sort of economic Darwinism, I guess you could say.

Third, it sounds like you’re one of those “Obama is a Commie Elitist”-types, going from all of what you said. You know, just because someone may be for a little more government regulation or higher taxes doesn’t mean they’re a Communist; and using that same train of thought is what leads to people STILL thinking Obama is a Muslim and that he’s going to increase the tax burden on working-class families and that his health care program is mandatory. Ahem. And hell yes I’m going to vote with my wallet, since it’s pretty much empty and McCain’s policies will make it even emptier. And even if I were to vote with my, uh, “naughty bits,” as you put it, I’d still vote Obama because he isn’t a walking corpse (or, to allude to some recent and awesome posts, a zombie). Call me crazy, but I’m not into necrophilia.

Thanks, I enjoyed that.