Reebok degrading woman w new campaign

I don't think its degrading to women. Its offensive to women.

I wonder id some other blogger( or you?) will end up run this up Gloria Steinham's flagpole and result in sit-ins at Reebok stores nationwide.

For the young folk who might not get the reference, Steinem is a famous Playboy Bunny who recently found her true calling in later life and turned into a housewife and homemaker.

http://cdn2.holytaco.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/gloria-steinem5.jpg

Randy Oldman wrote:

I don't think its degrading to women. Its offensive to women.

The determination of what is offensive lies with the individual.

Thus, it is almost certainly incorrect to say that it is offensive to all women while being most likely correct to say that it is offensive to some women.

Would it have been better if the campaign was one of the following:

"Cheat on your taxes not on your workout"

"Cheat your customers, not your workout"

"Cheat on your exams, not on your workout"

Maybe Madoff could have done the endorsement

"Cheat your investors out of their life savings, but don't ever cheat yourself out of your workout."

RP wrote:

Would it have been better if the campaign was one of the following:

"Cheat on your taxes not on your workout"

"Cheat your customers, not your workout"

"Cheat on your exams, not on your workout"

Maybe Madoff could have done the endorsement

"Cheat your investors out of their life savings, but don't ever cheat yourself out of your workout."

You have talent! You ought to get a job at an ad agency!

Well there is always this wrote:

Randy Oldman wrote:

I don't think its degrading to women. Its offensive to women.

The determination of what is offensive lies with the individual.

Thus, it is almost certainly incorrect to say that it is offensive to all women while being most likely correct to say that it is offensive to some women.

Women means more than one woman.

whacked wrote:Maybe it's a crossfit thing, specific to the self-absorbed, latest trend crowd.

This.

"Degrading woman w new campaign"?

Which woman?

Details please wrote:

"Degrading woman w new campaign"?

Which woman?

Maybe the poster meant "woman" as a broad category, like "man." You know, like "ever since the dawn of man . . ."

word from a spinster aunt wrote:

How does it feel now that the shoe's on the other foot? This makes me chuckle. Men complaining about lack of respect from adv. executives... What a joke! Oh, boo hoo hoo.

Oh god, who let you back here

You Kant Handle The Truth! wrote:Maybe the poster meant "woman" as a broad category, like "man." You know, like "ever since the dawn of man . . ."

As in, "I am Woman hear me roar"?

You Can't Hegel the Truth wrote:

You Kant Handle The Truth! wrote:Maybe the poster meant "woman" as a broad category, like "man." You know, like "ever since the dawn of man . . ."

As in, "I am Woman hear me roar"?

Bingo.

Someone had to do it wrote:

Oh god, who let you back here

The sisterhood and the National Organization for Women.

Randy Oldman wrote:

Well there is always this wrote:

The determination of what is offensive lies with the individual.

Thus, it is almost certainly incorrect to say that it is offensive to all women while being most likely correct to say that it is offensive to some women.

Women means more than one woman.

In which case women are in complete agreement with you.

You Can't Kathrine Heigl the Truth wrote:

As in, "I am Woman hear me roar"?

Whoa whoa whoa, you're telling me Crossfit did something retarded?

word from a spinster aunt wrote:

How does it feel now that the shoe's on the other foot? This makes me chuckle. Men complaining about lack of respect from adv. executives... What a joke! Oh, boo hoo hoo.

I'm not complaining. I'm just pointing out that the ad was immediately branded sexist against women, which it clearly isn't. Usually those marketing execs are right about stuff like that anyway, that's why they make the big bucks. I don't mind how my peers are advertised to because a) I don't feel I fit that demographic and b) I'm not particularly concerned with what a stranger in a board thinks of me (unless they're offering me something). I understand the experience is different for women though...

You know that roughly 20% of children in america are born to fathers who aren't the ones listed on the birth certificate, right? Some studies figure it closer to 30%. This evidence is overwhelming, noone in this field really disputes it. So much for the argument that men are the cheaters, at least when they do its just for sex and not to dupe some poor schmuck into raising someone else's child. sigh...http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/magazine/22Paternity-t.html?pagewanted=all'Of course, the men who take the tests already question their paternity, and for about 30 percent of them, their hunch is right'- I like this quote.

hey mickey wrote:

all men cheat. all of them.

snarky darky doo wrote:

44338822 wrote:

let me guess

"I want to be treated equal!!!...As long as women don't loose the things we like that aren't considered equal"

Most women i met that bring the attitude you are fall into that statement.

I think making less money for doing the same job is total crap. But women like you are pathetic.

No- I DEMAND equal treatment and equal pay- which is why I probably make 10x your base salary in a single month. I'm 10x more intelligent and a harder worker than you, too.

I don't want you to like me. Your disgust and loathing is my reward for a job well done.

snarky darky, you're awesome. I to see people stand back up to the guys here who think the anonymity of the internet gives them license to express their misogyny without consequence. I love running and that is the only reason why I come to lets run. Socially and politically it is a cesspool.