The Burger Grind Bar ad in The Rebel Yell is offensive 
October 5, 2009 by Anthony Guy Patricia
I am outraged by the full-page color advertisement for The Burger Grind Bar & Lounge that has appeared in at least two editions of The Rebel Yell, the most recent being the one on Thursday.
For those who might have missed this masterpiece of capitalistic garbage, allow me to describe it: Against a distressed, light brown background, the main copy reads, “After a hard day, unwind with something tender.”
A picture of a substantial hamburger is centered between these lines of mismatched print. To the left near the bottom of the page, more copy appears billing The Burger Grind Bar & Lounge as “a new kind of premium burger restaurant with industrial design, cool music and classic cocktails.”
To the right near the bottom of the page is a pseudo stamp bearing the name of this new eatery that gives it three stars and tells us it was established in 2008.
It is what is to the left of the pseudo stamp that is so offensive: a cartoon-like representation of a woman with long brown hair, red lipstick and presumably, an inviting smile on her face, on her knees with her face and nude backside presented to the viewer.
Oh, and don’t let me forget to tell you that almost all of this woman’s body parts are labeled for quick and easy identification: her shoulder, chuck, rib, breast, loin, rump, round and soup bone.
What kind of a message does such a depiction convey?
It connotes that women are nothing more than “tender” things for men to eat after said men have had “a hard day” and need to “unwind.”
That’s the kind of message The Rebel Yell and The Burger Grind Bar & Lounge want to send to the women of the university community? This is the best they can do in the 21st century? I feel as though I have fallen into a time-warp and found myself back at some point in the 1970s, or worse.
The publication of advertisements like that for The Burger Grind Bar & Lounge is doubly ironic considering the fact that on Oct. 8, university students and community members are set to speak out against violence directed toward women during the annual “Take Back the Night” event.
One of the reasons women are victimized by men so often is because of ads like that for The Burger Grind Bar & Lounge, which treat women as no more than cartoons and pieces of meat, undeserving of respect.
While Las Vegas may well be a city in which women are exploited in all sorts of ways for the amusement, titillation and the kicks of men in our patriarchal and misogynistic society, the university is no place for such demeaning, degrading and disgusting portrayals of human beings as featured in the ad for The Burger Grind Bar & Lounge.
As a doctoral student and a two-time alumnus of UNLV, I want answers: Who approved the acceptance and publication of such a reprehensible advertisement? Why was it accepted and published? And what are The Rebel Yell and The Burger Grind Bar & Lounge going to do to compensate those they have offended in the university community for their complete lack of judgment on this matter?
C’mon now I went to the Grind Burger and wasn’t appalled by the photo that they have visible on the wall. I was more offended by the price of the food and the beer. You can buy a 6 pack of beer for $5 at most places but it cost $5 for a freakin Modello there and to top it off, it came in a can. Hopefully they fail and move elsewhere.
Is this what we’ve come to as a society? Anything that can offend anyone now has to be removed, people must resign, Congress must hold investigations into this matter and a prompt show-trial and apology tour of everyone from the Rebel Yell. In addition a new ad must be placed showing a woman in a business suit or a stethoscope or a breifcase.
Instead of teaching common sense to people that it’s their choice whether or not to patron the establishment, which is obviously lost on Mr. Patricia, we teach them to be offended by anything they do not like and to enjoy some cheese with their whinning.
“And what are The Rebel Yell and The Burger Grind Bar & Lounge going to do to compensate those they have offended in the university community for their complete lack of judgment on this matter?”
Nothing. It looks like the Rebel Yell allowed you to write an opinion article, but they didn’t need to.
The most important thing you need to do is to stop reading the Yell if you are offended, but don’t expect any compensation.
The RY can run whatever ads in the paper it wants. It’s ad revenue the paper needs and that’s that. If you’re so offended by the ad, then don’t read the paper. If too many people voice displeasure with that type of ad, then it makes economical sense for the RY to no longer use those ads as the mere usage of those ads will decrease readership and affect advertising performance.
I do not think the RY should apologize or address this ad any further. If the RY’s intention was to offend people, then that would have been obvious. All you need to do is look back to the RY circa 2004 to find greatly offensive *written* material.
To the commenters: Men that are unoffended by an ad that is specifically targeted at women? Really? I wonder how you’d feel if it were targeted at men in a similar fashion. If you understood the connection between a cultural narrative that promotes women being viewed as nothing more than “tender” things for men to eat after said men have had “a hard day” and need to “unwind,” and the abusive treatment of women who refuse to passively fill this role, YOU are part of the problem. We need to build a bridge between genders based on mutual respect for each other’s needs rather than widen the chasm.
Snore. With all that’s going on, this is the only thing you could think about to waste your time writing?
SP,
The Rebel Yell as well as anyone commenting has a right to express their opinions on this story due to our great country allowing freedom of speech, expression, etc. Granted some people do tend to abuse said power with their stupid comments but I think the writer got some dialogue going here or else you wouldn’t have responded.
They’re going to draw on a woman as if she were a cow, implying she is to be eaten and s*** out moments later, and not expect people to be angry? Wow I’m so glad society thinks of women in such an empowering, uplifting way! It brings so much hope to those who have had a struggle or two in life with their female gender. I agree the RY has the right to express what they wish, and if you are offended, you shouldn’t buy it. Just know it is truly ignorant of human beings to “snore” and dismiss this subject because of “all that’s going on”. I’d hope that your mother taught you better than that.
I wish the ad in question was included with the article so those of us who only have access to the online version would be able to see it and draw our own conclusions. Why should I blindly follow the conclusions of someone who clearly did not like the advertisment? Also, I know this argument is made all too often, but this editorial gives more publicity to The Burger Grind Bar and most likely more business than anything else. I’m not a believer in the ignore it and it will go away mentality, but there has to be a better way to make your point than to give this much attention to a business whose ads you clearly don’t like.
To Hmm,
You don’t buy the Rebel Yell. It is given out for FREE all around campus. Just would like to point that out.
I agree 100% with Ryan. We are giving publicity to the Burger Grind when we don’t need to be. For those of you curious, just walk into the establishment and you’ll see the painting in question to the left of the hostess stand. Also, the gambling machines are still not operational since they have failed to get a gaming license so enjoy your beer or liquor in silence.
People seem to be missing the point Tony’s trying to make in his analysis of the ad for The Grind in the Rebel Yell. It’s that some advertising money ought not to be accepted because the ad copy is more than offensive—in this case, it’s misogynist. It could just as easily be racist. How many of you would see nothing wrong if the ad were to, say, depict a chained African American male with copy that implied that he’s such a good worker that he could enable you to relax? Or an African American woman with an Aunt Jemima kerchief that hinted that it’d be nice to come home to a home-cooked meal after a hard day at school or the office? These imaginary ads depend for their meaning on degrading stereotypes just as the Grind’s ad does. Now, that being said, you’re right. We CAN vote with our dollars, even though the Rebel Yell is free. We can boycott the Grind. We can picket and let people know why we are angry. We can organize a campus-wide boycott. We can write to the local papers and let them know what’s going on and why it’s going on. If you still see nothing wrong with the ad, consider this: the fact that it does not portray a particular woman implies that it’s applicable to all women. How many of you would remain unoffended if someone regarded your mother or your sister or your daughter like the cuts of meat the ad implies all women are? Interestingly, my letter to the editor could be refused if it’s deemed offensive. Too bad the same standards that apply to the students whose activity fees help to support the paper aren’t applied to the advertisers.
Tony Patricia is correct in objecting to the Burger Grind ad. Gina Sully is equally observant and correct. I agree whole-heartedly with both. Hasn’t society come any further than selling T&A in an ad campaign? to lure customers through their doors? This is Vegas baby, but there is a limit! What kind of low-life ad rep thought this one up? Boycott the establishment. Money talks.
It saddens me that in our society (at least according to the first few posters) it will be the overpriced food and liquor combined with the lack of a gaming license that causes the demise of an establishment that objectifies women in such a way.
[This comment has been removed due to terms of use violation]
I posted this ad on my facebook page with the majority of your comments and the responses I got were right on the money. One of my female friends in her early 30s didn’t see anything wrong with Juicy Lucy since her first reaction to the photo was rump roast. Another one of my guy friends said it is so easy and fun to get a rise out of those who are so far right that political correctness is an excuse for being dumb. You honestly don’t want to know what my Jewish friend thought since that would get into the whole religion argument.
With universtiy revenues down due to budget cuts it seems sound business to accept any ad submitted and then let the chips fall where they may. And then let the debate rage at this institution of higher learning. It’s just more grist for the mill of learning and discussion. Can’t wait to see the ad for their bratwurst.
Mark (I would address you by the title Mr., however, unlike Mr. Patricia, you did not have “pair” enough to include your last name),
I’m glad to know that your hamburger was “worth the price.” Worth the price of women feeling objectified? Worth the price of marginalizing half the population? Worth the price of reinforcing male domination? Worth the price of ignoring decades of struggle to achieve gender equality? Worth the price of offending all decent people? That must have been some hamburger!
The posts disagreeing with Mr. Patricia’s remarks all have an individualistic quality to them: if one does not like the ad, one has the choice to neither frequent the establishment nor patronize the Rebel Yell. Certainly those things are true, but what about the concept that we are all in this together? Gentlemen, that ad demeans half the population! As Ms Sully pointed out, would you be content with your mother, daughter, or sister being objectified as a side of meat to be carved up and consumed? Then why do you passively accept this clear statement of misogyny that affects all women?
And for the record, Mark, I do have “a pair,” a pair of breasts which have nurtured four human beings, teaching them that all people deserve respect and consideration. I have taught my sons and daughter that one may not sit back and enjoy his hamburger at the expense of others, that we each have both the right and the responsibility of looking out for our fellow human beings. I’m sorry, Mark, that you were not taught those same lessons and only wish that you could grow a pair in order to learn them.
Has anyone noticed that the majority of the posts have come from the ultra-feminist movement? They have failed to mention that it is okay for them to objectify us by oggling at us. Take for example, Thunder From Down Under, how is that not objectifying men? The ad depicts a bunch of gentlemen with their shirts off and as someone else pointed out, sex sells. I can guarantee you that those ads have already appeared in the RY and did men cry about it? I would think not.
I think this debate could rage on for many, many days so I’m willing to agree to disagree on the matter.
Ed, what is your definition of an “ultra-feminist”? Do you think they are the intended audience for Thunder From Down Under ads?
Stephanie,
My definition of ultra-feminist is a woman who thinks men get no forgiveness since they are part of the problem of society objectifying women. Also, a men hater who holds out for sexual equality at all costs.
You missed my point that I was trying to make. I was trying to say the ultra feminists don’t give the same standard to us men since they think it’s okay to oogle men and stare at them. Male models are another example so in essence, no I am not saying they are the intended audience for the Thunder from Down Under ads.
I am extremely disappointed with the Rebel Yell in choosing to run an ad for The Grind burger restaurant. Was it necessary to run the logo? Seriously? I hope it was worth the advertising bucks. I did a double take and thought,”Wow, the Yell will run any ad as long as it brings in the coin.” Truly sad.
If you are offended by the ad, join the Facebook group “UNLV Boycott The Grind!” You’ll find updates about protests and picketing designed to encourage the restaurant to retire Lucy.
People are offended by this to the point of wanting to protest and picket? Give me a break!
Aren’t there other causes more worthy of your time? Get a life!
Jules,
The feminists find anything and everything to picket and protest about. You are the first intelligent woman to offer anything of substance to the comments. Thank you Jules for your great insight.
I feel this issue is pointless. It’s just a ad to get people to go to there eat establishment. This is stupid and there are big problems to b talking about then a silly ad like this.
Seriously. Selling sex in ads has been going on for decades, why gang up on this one ad targeted at college males?
Why come women are getting upset over this? Ed is right Jules is a genus! As she said Give me a break! Aren’t there other causes more worthy of your time? Get a life!
I’m not “upset” about this logo. I’m ANGRY. There’s a difference. The fact that so many of you see no reason to get upset about this is precisely the reason that we choose to make noise about it. And, if you look at the membership list of the group, you’ll notice that almost half of the people who are angry and participating in the boycott are male. It’s not just a bunch of women, although it strikes me that if it were, it would indicate even more strongly that there is a divide between how men and women experience media images used to sell products in this country in general and this town in particular. If this were just another ad that used a drawing of a naked woman to sell a product, I probably wouldn’t be doing so much to agitate against it. In fact, I like to look at naked women as much as I like to look at naked men. IT’S THE FACT THAT SHE’S DIVIDED UP INTO CUTS OF MEAT THAT’S SO OFFENSIVE. IT’S THE FACT THAT THE AD IMPLIES THAT HER “TENDER” MEAT EXISTS SOLELY TO HELP PEOPLE “UNWIND” THAT PISSES US OFF. Finally, if the controversy is such a waste of time, why are you talking about it?
BTW, I find it interesting that while The Grind asks people to comment about whether or not people find the image offensive on their FB page, one must be a fan to post, and they’re offering free fries to anyone who becomes a fan.
Gina will go away in time because she was probably the one who was up in arms about Hooters use of breasts to promote their restaurant and casino. Where is Hooters now? As far as I can tell, Hooters is still a mile away from Grind Burger and even has a bar called Dixie’s Dam Bar. Protests and pickets got the extremists and feminists nowhere 3 years ago and I predict that it will get them nowhere now as well.
23 people out of 46 who are male and can claim that they are extremists just like Rush Limbaugh. Whoop-de-do!! BTW, your group will flounder because Vegas has more important fish to fry. Look at the state of the state if you will. Clark County just cut 200 jobs and you think this is the most important thing in the world today.
I can’t beleive this is what has offended you! You should be offended that the graduation rate in las vegas is about 47%, or that the unemployment rate is 11%, or that the education budget is dried up (including UNLV).the homeless is at its all time high in the valley. That and many other IMPORTANT issues is what you should be offended by. If you dont like it dont give them your buisness.
I wonder what shareholders in Grind Burger, Inc, think about the wisdom of an ad campaign and a logo that alienates any, let alone approximately one half, of its potential consumer base.
First, I used to work at Hooters. Before I came back to college, I managed a strip club on the East Coast. I’m no prude. Ask anyone who knows me–politically, you can’t really get any further to the left than me. People like Rush Limbaugh are in another galaxy, and I’m gald about that. Second, why do you assume that this is the only public activism I’m involved with? It’s not. I actually work with Literacy Volunteers and sponsor young people monetarily to help them through college because the financial aid system in this country is so abysmal. Third, I don’t think this is the most improtant thing in the world, in Clark County, or even at UNLV today. And my behavior reflects my beliefs. I am, as I said, involved in other projects, charities, and empowerment programs. Finally, I suggest that you hurry up and take Philosophy 102. It’s a required class, and in it, you will learn that attacking the person who’s making the argument is “ad hominem” reasoning, and it refutes nothing about the points at issue. Shifting the focus to another another issue is called “two wrongs make a right” reasoning, and it, too, is considered bad reasoning, even if the new issue is equally or more troubling. If you wish to refute what I’ve said, you must address the substance of my claims, not my character. I am one stubborn Sicilian-American woman, and I ain’t goin’ anywhere. BTW, notice that the ad didn’t run in this week’s Rebel Yell. Could it be that the noise we’ve made, beginning with Mr. Patricia’s letter, has had some sort of effect besides pissing you guys off so badly that you feel comelled to participate in a conversation you believe is unimportant? Hmmm…
Please excuse the misspellings in my previous post. I’m not usually so careless!
By the way, if the problems of the homeless concern you, Food Not Bombs is always looking for volunteers. They meet on Saturday mornings at the Coffee Bean–across the street from campus–and they feed homeless people for free every Sunday from 10 AM until 2 PM in Baker Park, at St. Louis and 10th. Hope to see you there!
Okay, if you wish to discuss the issue with the portrait, I must point out that the majority of females I know didn’t see any issue with the ad for Juicy Lucy. One friend, Tiffany’s first reaction to the ad in question was rump roast. She is a very intelligent woman who is in her early 30s as I pointed out. I am wondering if any other woman out there thought the same thing.
Alright, folks. I think some of you are missing that there is a connection between the objectification of women that goes on in this ad and the lack of critical thinking which promotes failure in school.
See, I happen to know some of these people (and just to present my ethos (look it up), I’m a heterosexual male). I know that what they’re arguing against in this ad isn’t necessarily the objectification of women (the whole Thunder From Down Under counter). It’s the blatant way in which the woman is so objectified that she becomes nothing more than a sexy piece of rump-roast.
You complain about the ultra-feminists railing against the piggishness of men, but seriously, how can we expect them to view us as enlightened and respectful when we celebrate this kind of dehumanizing of women?
The thing is, guys, it’s not that she’s hot. It’s not that she’s nude. It’s not that the advertizers are using sex to sell their goods. Those all may be problematic, but not what is being railed against. It’s the fact that she’s hot, nude and portioned out like she belongs on a butchers block. And she seems to be enjoying this idea.
There’s more to be said, but I think I’ll let it go for now. But this isn’t just about one questionable ad, folks. That ad is a reflection of the greater societal position on women, men and humanity in general.
So what I am getting out of thi s whole isuue is you guys want free speech until it bothers or offends someone. Maybe you guys should form a council and you guys will be the one’s to approve what gets put in the paper and what doesn’t. Sound familiar????
Nope. That’s not the point either, Brian. Coversations like this consitute the exercise of free speech. See, someone says something, and then someone else says that there’s something wrong with what was said. Then people talk about the issues (not about each others’ character or lack of testicles) until they at least understand what everyone is saying. It may be the case that no one changes his or her mind, but the dialogue itself is a valuable learning experience, designed to bring opposing points of view together. The best thing that could happen in conversations like this, as far as I’m concerned, is that someone will offer a rational, well-reasoned argument that will cause me to change my mind. Changing my mind means I’ve learned something new–about myself or about the world in which I find myself situated. That’s what education is all about, for me at least. So, Brian, I don’t want free speech to end. I want to know the ways in which I might be wrong. That’s why I’m here. To get an education. Not to have my character, sexuality, or politics attacked by people who disagree with something I’ve said.
So Gina, no one has attaacked anyones character,sexuality or politics. all i am saying is that this ad is meaning less! its an ad thats all nothing more nothing less. look up and down the strip and on the outskirts of the city they are everywhere (worse). look in the papers (worse). and now people are talking about picketting ( thats the funy part) i dont see them in front of the scores billboard or on the front steps of the review journal. so are all those ok? i agree with you statement 100% but when no one can find common ground the result is just get rid of it and this issue goes away. is that a solution? what did we learn?
I think its funny as hell people….. Dont get soooo upset.. its all in good fun.. you really wanna get upset over something.. GET MAD AT THE PORN INDUSTRY THAT DEGRADES US WOMEN, PLAIN AS DAY… Now thats something to take offense to.. But this??? Ive been unemployed for almost 8 months now, and I must admit, seeing it gave me a much needed good laugh that Ive needed…..and if it bothers you that much, DONT LOOK AT IT…
Finally a voice of reason thank you Marie. The ad served it’s purpose
Brian, if you think no one’s attacked anyone’s character, sexuality, or politics, look at the posts that call those who are opposed to the ad “ultra-feminists,” right wing stooges like Rush Limbaugh, and that claim that our political beliefs (because that’s what this conversation is about–political beliefs) are petty and insignificant. It’s an attack on a person’s character to imply that they don’t have the integrity to stand up for their beliefs. Perhaps you missed the post that was withdrawn because of its vulgarly worded suggestion about what we who are opposed to the logo need? Marie, not all porn degrades women. In fact, there is a thriving feminist porn industry, and UNLV is lucky enough to have an expert on it on campus–Dr. Lynn Comella. I’ve got to say that I think that Juicy Lucy is just as explicit about making the point that WOMEN ARE JUST MEAT as some of the more degrading “gonzo” porn films out there. It’s the desensitization to imagery like this that requires some pornographers (but not all or even most of them) to push the envelope of female degredation further and further.
The possessive “its” has no apostrophe, Brian.
Next protest: Brian’s flagrant misuse of apostrophes!
I hesitate to participate in this posting because what I have to say is as much about the integrity of the university as it is about sexism and consumerism. One of the purposes of higher education is to provide people with the knowledge and the perspective to question and to combat social inequities of all kinds, and regardless of how badly the University needs the money, I feel it is inappropriate to capitalize on perpetuating social inequality. Students in higher education are required by professors to avoid bias in essays, to avoid racism, sexism, ethnocentrism, etc. The Rebel Yell, as a university publication should hold itself to the same standards. Moreover, it seems to me that we should all take a personal interest in how our university is represented to the world. Let’s face it, it’s hard enough to convince people from outside of Las Vegas that there’s anything more to this city than poker, prostitutes, and partying. The Grind advertisement only perpetuates that reductive stereotype of Las Vegas, and by running the advertisement, The Rebel Yell inadvertently (maybe) supports that narrow, stereotypical view of this city. Furthermore, UNLV is not a well-known or highly rated university, which means that we have to work harder to get taken seriously as an institution of higher learning. Imagine if the first impression a visiting dignitary or scholar or administrator or politician was formed by seeing this advertisement in a school publication. Are the socio-cultural messages imbedded in The Grind’s advertisement really the kinds of messages we Rebels want to project to the world? Admittedly, I am offended by this advertisement; but I would argue that my feelings of outrage have at least a much to do with my concern for the reputation and image of our university as with the fact that I find sexism offensive. The primary point for me is not necessarily that the advertisement shows a woman as a piece of meat that should be chewn up and s–t out. Rather, the point for me is that the advertisement capitalizes on perpetuating social inequality and rampant, cannibalizing consumerism and the devaluation of HUMAN life. Furthermore, I would argue that this advertisement stereotypes and devalues men as much as it does women. While the ad suggests that women are “tender” pieces of meat to be consumed, it also suggests that men are, and always will be, easy targets. It suggests that men value women first and foremost as a “tender” piece of a–. It suggests that men are completely at the mercy of their sexual desires. I would think that men would be offended by this highly reductive and simplistic characterization. So, what’s really at stake here? The ways that both men and women are stereotyped; the integrity of the university newspaper; the reputation of the university; the image of Las Vegas; the value of Human Life; the effects of consumerism. This isn’t just a debate about women and sexism. This is a debate about stereotypes and social equality. This is a debate about the ways in which we value and/or devalue ourselves as individuals. This is a debate about the role of college publications and the standards and goals of higher education. I know it’s tempting to say, “What’s the big deal?” as many of the above comments demonstrate. Have we all become so cynical and desensitized that blatant stereotyping no longer seems like a big deal? Why is it okay to revel in stereotypes about women and not, say, about other groups who have had to fight for social equality? And, for those of you who feel that we’re beating a dead horse, so to speak, by discussing sexism, your reasoning suggests either that the issue of sexism should be abandoned for “more important” issues or that sexism isn’t enough of a problem anymore to warrant all this attention. First, I’d like to think that, since we’ve made it into the realm of higher education, that we’re good enough at multitasking to enable us to particpate in multiple causes and activities at the same time. Second, one look at hiring practices, maternity leave policies in the workplace, the availability of day care (or lack thereof), the fact that women STILL get paid less than men for doing the very same jobs, the fact that sexualizing women in the media is still far, far more prevalent than the sexualization of men (Thunder Down Under aside–BTW–why don’t you do a survey of the number of strip clubs that feature women versus the number of strip clubs that feature men?) should be proof enough for even the greatest skeptic that sexism is yet at work in our culture today.
On a more humorous note, the genius who created the drawing seems to have created some strange, hybridized beast in this woman–the meat parts labelled on her body mix up cuts of chicken with cuts of beef or pork. I’ve never seen a chicken with a “rump” cut, nor have I ever seen a pig or cow with a “breast” cut. Is this proof that ignorance and injustice go hand-in-hand? Maybe . . .
im offened you are attacking my use of apostrophes i would like this to stop, im forming a facebook account to protest this.i will be picketting as soon as i can find out where one would pickett these things. the apostrophe has a place just because you dont like the way in which i use it, i do not need to have my character, sexuality, or politics attacked by people who disagree with the way it was used. hahahahaha
no apostrophes were used in the making of this statement
Couple of thoughts I had on this.
Men are initially attracted to women based on appearances and generally you gauge burger joints toward men…since they are typically the majority client.
I read a post above about from Jennifer about how “I wonder how you’d feel if it were targeted at men in a similar fashion.” then she goes on about how we’d feel if men were portrayed as pieces of meat and all that.
Women don’t do this because I just doubt it would go over too well. On the other hand, generally a similar pro women messages would include things as to how much smarter they are then men, how they make more sense they make…and how men are so childish.
While these are hardly compliments, you just roll your eyes and don’t give it any more attention, it’s as easy as that…for me anyway.
Somewhere along the lines, in this country especially, we have confused the right to free speech and tolerance with this idiotic “right to not be offended” which is crap. You can certainly voice your opinion but you might wanna try to relax once in a while too.
Harold, you’re right. There has been a culture shift, and men are now routinely portrayed in the media as less intelligent and more appetite-driven than women. In fact, my current research involves examining the changing direction of physical violence in television sitcoms. What I mean is that it used to be the case that television husbands put their over their knees and spanked them for misbehaving–think Lucy and Ricky. Now it’s changed and Deborah hits Raymond and calls him an idiot, and we’re all supposed to laugh. That strikes me (pun intended–see, I do have a sense of humor after all!) as wrong, too. But two wrongs don’t make a right. I’ll just keep saying that until people stop acting as though it does. That’s just bad reasoning. Ask any philosophy professor on the campus. Let me just say once more, that this is not about being offended. It’s not about some kind of misguided prudery. It’s about the idea that it is wrong to portray women as if they’re CUTS OF MEAT! And, as Laura P. implies, assuming that this ad will appeal to men sells men short. It perpetuates the idea that you guys are silly, shallow, and easily led. In my (not inconsiderable) experience, most of you aren’t.
Harold, that has to be the best comment that has been left on here so far. Thank you.
The problem, too, is that the Rebel Yell IS NOT free, contrary to popular belief. Along with advertisements, the Rebel Yell maintains itself by taking a portion of student fees every semester. So the students actually help pay for the Rebel Yell. That being said, students are, like it or not, indirectly supporting this type of misogyny in a campus community–a place where diversity of all types is supposed to be commonly accepted. Thus, the ad with “Juicy Lucy” directly abdicates what we, as an intelligent, scholastic community strive for: a culture free of gender, race, religious, and sexual-orientation bias. Shame on the Rebel Yell for using student fees to promote this degree of misogynism!
Everyone has a price. I guess we found out there’s.
see men get beat up daily in main stream media, just watch tv. this is an ad in the rebel yell and yet noone is boycotting tbs, nbc,abc,mtv etc. so is it fair? what do you do when something is offensive to you when its on tv? maybe just maybe turn the channel so then what is so hard about turning the page? and you can say well i paid for that, dont you also pay for cable. are you going to refuse a cab in vegas that has a billboard of the spearmint rhino on it? no you will get in without a thought. or how about one that has the thunder from down under? just so both sex groups are mentioned. no you will get in the cab and maybe not look at it . that is what is great with this country if you dont like something dont look at it. or dont watch it. or dont listen to it. but dont try to take it away from someone who does.
Yes, Brian, I agree. But that price is also at the students’ expense, and additionally degrades the overall ethics of our campus community. Whereas, the Rebel Yell should be supporting diversity and deterring, rather than encouraging, negative stereotypes.
I’m not so sure that taking interest in a very attractive woman means we are misled and shallow, I think its just being male. I mean, biologically it would seem, we are wired to be drawn to what we call attractive women. I’m guessing this comes from and ancient desire to have a healthy partner to mate.
Women it would seem on average hold stability, morals and the ability to provide for a family higher than men, but it’s not like women have no aesthetic requirements.
That being said, I doubt having attractive women laid about as if they are there for the taking doesn’t promote the idea that women are just there to grab… I doubt there was that much thought put into it. Instead if you put it into the most carnal thought it would be more lie….. “Wow there is a beautiful girl there, who for some reason is looking at me like she has some interest in me!” if even for a second……so now the ad has the readers full attention…then they notice hey its a burger joint and I’m hungry.
I just don’t buy into the fact that media influences cause men to treat women poorly, I’m pretty sure the men who act like this were able to do that all by themselves.
I’m not so sure that taking interest in a very attractive woman means we are misled and shallow, I think its just being male. I mean, biologically it would seem, we are wired to be drawn to what we call attractive women. I’m guessing this comes from and ancient desire to have a healthy partner to mate.
Women it would seem on average hold stability, morals and the ability to provide for a family higher than men, but it’s not like women have no aesthetic requirements.
That being said, I doubt having attractive women laid about as if they are there for the taking doesn’t promote the idea that women are just there to grab… I doubt there was that much thought put into it. Instead if you put it into the most carnal thought it would be more lie….. “Wow there is a beautiful girl there, who for some reason is looking at me like she has some interest in me!” if even for a second……so now the ad has the readers full attention…then they notice hey its a burger joint and I’m hungry.
I just don’t buy into the fact that media influences cause men to treat women poorly, I’m pretty sure the men who act like this were able to do that all by themselves.
apologies for double post.
If that was the case every article and ad will more than likely offend someone out there and then what do we pull ads and article if it creates contraversy?
Brian, dude, it’s theirs.
See, again, the issue with spelling, articulation, clear thoughts goes back to a question of ethos (seriously, look it up). It’s also part of the issue with this ad. It creates an ethos for UNLV that may not be the kind we’re looking for. Do we want to be seen as the kind of institution of higher learning that promotes the objectification of women or do we want to be seen as the kind of institution that promotes the breaking down of stereotypes, that leads to open and coherent communication with the general world around us.
Honestly, I’ll admit that there has been some pretty excited posts on here, but take some time to look beyond your gut reaction and see of maybe there’s not something worth thinking about under all this hyper-feminist bluster. It’s not about this one ad, gents. It’s about the way this ad factors in to the broader context. That whole issue of the Rebel Yell had a lot going on that might be worth talking about. The ad was just the strongest catalyst.
I just want to say thankx to everyone that kept this going with me today.by the way my real name is Cindy. We had an office pool going that we could not keep this going all day. We are bored here.thanks to Gina and everyone else for making this possible. Drinks are on me tonight. Something good did come out this and I did learn something!!
Or rather do we want to be an institution which uses the word ethos a lot? And then attack those who may or may not know what ethos means, even though we’ve already assumed they don’t. Then, we can start using other vocabulary words which we believe gives us a degree of superiority over our fellow man and attack them on that basis too. I just want to have sex and eat a hamburger like a normal man. And if it’s at the same time, George Costanza style, then so be it.
thank you Ryan, we women feel the same. the Grind anyone. i hear they have good burgers.
In response to Happy Harold’s recent post:
Logical Fallacy #1: Attractiveness is socially constructed–it’s based upon socially and culturally specific aesthetic standards and has nothing to do with “health,” which is physiological.
Logical Fallacy #2: The belief that women are, by ‘nature’, more interested in “stability, morals and the ability to provide for a family” than men is itself a social construction rather than a scientifically proven “truth.” Furthermore, morality itself is a social construction.
Logical Fallacy #3: This one is less a logical fallacy than what seems to be a misunderstanding of what many of us believe are the issues here–that the primary problems with this ad are that the woman is divided up into cuts of meat and that it’s put in a university publication.
Logical Fallacy #4: There’s plenty of evidence out there–including empirical studies of psychological phenomenon, investigations of visual rhetoric, and even codified strategies used by advertisers that have been proven effective–that shows how much human behavior CAN and often IS affected by the visual rhetoric of advertising and by media portrayals in general. The media has the power to shape us whether we like it or not, and to deny the various ways that the media shapes morality, social behavior, aesthetics, etc., suggests a naivete that is both frightening and sad.
Ryan, you’re right. It was unfair of me to assume that other commenters on here didn’t know what ethos was. It was an elitist judgement of me. Sorry for that.
As far as the rest of my words, honestly, they’re pretty basic. I could go with a lot “higher” vocabulary than that.
But, to make it a little more basic: Do we as a school want to be seen as knuckle-dragging, women are objects, it doesn’t really matter because it’s just a picture kind of people or do we want to believe that the world around us influences us and to respond to it accordingly?
(was that vocabulary basic enough for you?)
I’m rather appalled by the highly aggressive nature of many of these posts. Attacking each other lowers what could be a very probing, intellectual discussion. That being said, I have some questions regarding the recent post by Ryan Phillips. Ryan, exactly how do you define a “normal man”? And who defines what qualifies as “normal”? Is it necessarily a great thing to be “normal”? Doesn’t the word “normal” also imply the word “average,” which implies mediocrity? Doesn’t the media by and large both define what is “normal” and then reinforce it through its use of images, texts, and play upon the emotions? I know a lot of vegetarian men and a lot of burger and beer loving women–all of whom really enjoy sex– who might disagree with your conception of “normal.” Also, it seems to me that ethos is an integral part of higher education. If it weren’t, there would be no reason to have universities at all.
wow, ethos ,Logical Fallacy ,elitist. this is some serious dialogue.
sorry im just a knuckle-dragging, women are objects kind of person. i miss spelled that dint i. could you tell me what those words mean so i can keep up with the conversation
What does “basic” mean?
I view the university as I view a family or the country at large. Many different viewpoints are going to be firmly held and that diversity of opinions if used properly can strengthen the fabric of our society rather than diminish it. This one ad in the Rebel Yell does not make UNLV a misoygnistic campus nor does it reflect on UNLV at large to a larger degree than saying all UNLV students are hotheads because one student got into an argument with parking officials. And as I’ve yet to see this ad for myself, I do not hold any opinions on it. But to picket an establishment over it, it better be one horrific ad.
Wow, you people are smart! If Las Vegas wasn’t the 2nd dumbest city in the country, I think my head might explode.
By the way, nothing makes us look less intelligent than picketing a burger restaurant… I think we just leapfrogged Fresno for the bottom of the barrel.
Cyndi/Brian: You obviously have a computer in front of you. Why don’t you look them up?
we did that on oct.5th when this started
you guys probably are the same groups that said it was offensive to pray in school and say the pledge of allegiance.
Ryan, I’m going to respond because I believe you are honestly trying to communicate here. I used the term basic in reference to the accusation that my language was pompous and that I was using the words I used just to sound smart. So, I opted to use words from a more basic vocabulary. Okay?
To tell you the honest truth (and I hope Gina doesn’t kill me for this the next time she sees me), this ad in and of itself isn’t the worst I’ve seen. However, when we consider it in the context of the objectification of women that’s part of the general fabric of the university and the two other elements of that same issue (i.e. the article about students and sex which was accompanied by a picture of a Playboy bunny and the ad for a plastic surgeon giving student discounts for breast augmentations) it becomes more of a catalyst. Consider the parable of the straw that broke the camel’s back.
I’ve listened to a lot of complaints from some of these people about the way we as a campus seem very comfortable with the stereotype that men only want a woman for sex and women are best appreciated for their bodies to know that this ad isn’t the issue, rather it’s the moment when someone finally decided that it was time to speak out.
I’ve been doing a little research on the “portrayal of women as meat”. I found an interesting example online called Hot Chicks wanted for burger ad”. It was for Carl’s Jr. who is known for using half-naked celebrities in order to promote their burgers. Fast food chains have done this for years and we have yet to boycott them. The latest ad has a meat-filled sandwich and a woman with sultry lips with the caption, “It’ll blow your mind away.” That pretty much shows that some of us lack ethos. I can also point out PETA as an example of a group objectifying women as pieces of meat.
Brian, I love the idea of praying in school and am vehemently opposed to taking the pledge out of schools. I’d be there to boycott any school that tried to eliminate the pledge that I could.
Brian/Cindy: I think that’s one thing we agree on. Most of us with some ethos don’t want to see the pledge of allegiance eliminated from schools. I know some have isssue with prayer due to their beliefs but we are again detracting from the issue at hand.
thank you, i am just trying to understand, because i know that when people say its just an ad, it is more than that. but this has been going on since the invention of advertiseing. any ad majors will tell you sex sells. and if they are offended by that they will keep it quite because when it comes down to it they will do whatever it takes to get the job done like it or not. that is they way we are. regardless, the rule is check your feelings at the door. and every women on here has been pursueded by an ad that was offensive makeup, underwear, clothing ,cars, so to pick out this one ad is a little one sided. i think
soory ill use my real name from now on i dont want to confuse anyone.
So I made a few more ads for The Burger Grind. I hope that they use them! The first picture is Juicy Lucy, their actual mascot, for those of you who haven’t seen that yet.
They are real photos of women, so I wouldn’t recommend you look at them at work or if you are squeamish.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/43412562@N08/sets/72157622414019017/
Cindy/Brian: If you had already looked up the words, it, of course, being obvious that you already had, then that’s just a simple confirmation about the snide, smart-alec, instigatory tone that has characterized many of these posts, including yours. If this is no more than a bit of harmless entertainment for you, then you may want to consider two things: 1, the amount of time and attention you and your co-workers claim to have devoted to following and responding to these posts suggests that it is more than just a joke to pass the boring time at work–it suggests that you as well are standing up for your beliefs, even if it’s the belief that women are and should remain objects; and 2, Americans used to find minstrel performances and black-face performances highly entertaining in the same way that you seem to find this ad entertaining.
yes, if it were an important topic maybe we would not have been so playful with it. but its a burger ad.
1. it was a way to pass the time we got a pretty good laugh about the whole thing.
2. we as americans still find them entertaining. look beyond the meaning its just fun.
have you ever been to a bachorlette party with male strippers?
I happen to know the design firm that did the ad and a WOMAN designed it. i think she is a great designer SHE has done some great stuff. And i am proud to be a designer when a company lets a designer think a little outside the box and be creative. so thank you you know who you are.
i am a designer that works with cindy. dont want anyone to get us confused.thats all i have to say.
So she thinks “outside the box” by plagiarizing a decades old image?
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news/images/headline_3077b.jpg
http://noise.typepad.com/photoblog/images/peta2006_1.jpg
How creative!
i agree with Juan as a designer its good to see a design get a rise out of someone. everyone is so blah with design these days dont want to offend anyone so its boring. good job Grind and the designer who did it.
We need more of it.
[This comment has been removed as a duplicate]
Cindy/Brian–boy do I want your job then! To be able to sit around for not one but 3 days to participate in a joke instead of working—ahhhhh.
I am also proudly American; but that seems even more reason that I would want to join the battle against inequality.
It’s not “just a burger ad.” It’s representative of a larger cultural attitude.
And, no, I’ve never been to a party with male strippers. Personally, I find women’s bodies much more aesthetically pleasing than men’s bodies. And I’ve got a few friends who are strippers (of both sexes) who also feel this ad has gone too far–because, if I can repeat it for at least the third time, it’s less about the fact that the ad features a woman than that it features a human being divided up like a piece of meat–glorifying cannibalism, egregious capitalism, and dehumanizing people of both sexes.
[This comment has been removed due to terms of use violation]
[This comment has been removed as a duplicate]
If that is the case Laura P, why are we not discussing the dehumanizing of both genders that is portrayed constantly on the pages of PETA(People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals)? They are constantly devaluing human lives of the people that eat meat by dehumanizing individuals.
I guess it may have worked though because one of PETA’s ads was rejected due to being too risky.
No you really dont want my job its to boring, we just heard about this, this morning and thought we would take a look at it from a designer that works here. And after seeing some of the comments left by some people got us thinking. Why? This is a burger ad you can take any ad and if you look at it hard enough you can find something that would offend somebody maybe not everybody but somebody. i know many dancers as well and i sent them a copy of the ad and they cant imagine why anyone would waste there time on something like this. Instead of the fact this place is creating jobs in a market that is nearly bankrupt and that the jobless rate is higher among women than men and this place will likely hire more women than men and the fact that these women will be able to feed there children and pay there bills. if you people were to picket and this place gets shut down are you going to pay there bills, no, you will probably be happy you guys won the fight, hurray for me, pat myself on the back. right? all you would have done is ad to the problem and fixed nothing.
ok its time for me to leave work, if we are slow tomorrow ill be back to talk to you somemore Laura,Gina,Ed. if not you guys make sure your signs are really big that way the families who jobs you took can use them for shelter.
I love that Cindy and Ed’s comments are somehow magically making it through, when everyone else on the other side of the argument has theirs moderated.
Maybe I’m wrong and this won’t be moderated like the past four posts I’ve made!
[This comment has been removed as a duplicate]
The post that kept getting a moderated message had links, so maybe that is it. So without linking to the actual images, I can tell you that the woman who “thought outside the box” and created this ad used a slight variation on an image very commonly found on signs protesting the meat industry.
Maybe someone just got to emotional, you can see this is a big issue at UNLV.
yes it is not new, and the woman who did it used it for this just like someone used it for something else and it will be used after this. every designer knows its been around since the fifties.
it got you talking about it didnt it so yeah she thought outside the box
So the definition of “thinking outside the box” is to get people to talk about something? Do I really need to get into graphic examples?
its not just another boring ad for another resturant. i wish i could have a buisness with htis kind of talk about it. good advertisement.you cant buy this kind of ad.
no that wont be helpful, but when you use something that has been done a million times and get a buzz about it, what does that say. do you design?
ok maybe”" thinking outside the box is not what i wanted to say since you are hanging on that.and missing the point
Actually, I would like to amend my last post. It IS about women too, specifically about the history of women’s inequality. The larger issue, of course, is social inequality in general and the fact that the promotion of social inequality does NOT belong in a university publication.
I don’t believe that “thinking outside the box” includes gender stereotyping and plagiarizing an image that’s already been created by someone else. “Thinking outside the box” produces new and intellectually stimulating ideas, regardless of the industry of expertise.
Yes, as I mentioned in an earlier post, the point is that I agree with Laura P. wholeheartedly. The issue is that, in a community that promotes social and cultural diversity–free of gender, racial, religious, and sexual-orientation bias or stereotype, an ad that condones such should have never been run in the first place. Furthermore, the Yell exploited student fees to do so.
[This comment has been removed due to terms of use violation]
[This comment has been removed due to terms of use violation]
Now that I’ve read all the recent posts over the last hour, I’ll add a bit more. Ed, my point since my first very long post and thereafter has been specifically focused on the location of this advertisement–our university publication. I am not aware that PETA has ever had an ad in The Rebel Yell or any other college publication–something I’ll need to investigate. I’d be willing to bet, though, that we’ll never see a PETA ad in The Rebel Yell for reasons similar to my own in arguing that advertisements with any type of dehumanizing manner do not belong in a university. Thanks for bringing up PETA–there’s a phenomenon I’m seeing here that may make a great conference paper.
That a woman designed something doesn’t mean that it isn’t degrading to women. Claiming that it does demonstrates yet another logical fallacy. It’s called “irrelevant reason.” One more time: shifting the focus from one point by making the point that something else is worse is a logical fallacy called “two wrongs make a right.” That PETA ran an ad that offended you is irrelevant to the issue here. If the ad offended you, then it was up to you to do something about it at the time, just as we are now. Irrelevant reason and two wrongs make a right thinking are bad reasoning and have no place in a conversation in a university community. Nor do ad hominem attacks. There are a lot of people who claim that the ad’s okay because they personally are not offended by it, or because they know women who are not offended by it, or because it’s such a petty issue that it’s not worth discussing. I’m not really seeing anyone offering any kind of substantive argument in favor of keeping Lucy as a logo. I am not seeing anyone refute the reasons people have offered for getting rid of her. I have read a number of posts about how our activities are violating the restaurant’s right to free speech. Well, we also have the right to free speech. My exercise of free speech involves telling everyone I know and everyone I can that I believe that this restaurant ought to be boycotted until Lucy is retired. Until someone can offer a rational, reasoned, convincing argument explaining why she shouldn’t be, I’m going to keep on speaking. It’s my right. In fact, it’s my duty.
[This comment has been removed due to terms of use violation]
then dont go to the restaurant
After reading the article and the comments, I am compelled to comment. First, to the author: since you are a two-time UNLV alum, in the world outside of a University it takes money to finance any newpaper…even a “free” one. Money comes from advertisers.
Second, I have been to The Grind and Juicy Lucy is their mascot. The graphic is light-hearted and reminicent of the 1940’s pinups. There is nothing offensive here. Lighten up! There are more things going on in this world that deserve this kind of outrage – like people not having the advantage of being a two-time alum.
Third, as a woman I have been exposed to true offensive behavior in the real world directly aimed at me as an individual…a light-hearted drawing doesn’t come close in comparison.
Finally, what I find most offensive is that most of the commentators here can’t spell, can’t present a cohesive thought, and lack basic grammatical skills. Maybe we should be more outraged at the waste of money being used to finance education.
I agree 100 parcent wit dat statmend
[...] Web site is teeming with comments on Anthony Guy Patricia’s op-ed, which criticized the ad and this newspaper for running it. Our inboxes are overflowing with [...]
Burger Grind Bar and Grill,
Your “Juicy Lucy” campaign is highly offensive to females everywhere. I work in the restaurant industry (as a server) and the last thing women workers need is an increase in objectification!
Way to perpetuate the “women as a peice of meat” metaphor, I thought that we, collectively, as a society were moving past old and stale discourses of sexuality. The woman is not something to be objectified and deconstructed part by part. Nor is she something to be consumed in any way shape or form! Nor is she something to come home to after a stressful day at work to provide any man with tender loving care and a nice meal. The layers and layers of offensive metaphors that are subjectivly and unconciously planted in the minds of Americans perpetuate traditional gender roles and promote inequality!
Start thinking about the larger social consequences of your actions and consider embracing a more ethical business model! I will never eat at your burger joint, and there are plenty of others out there like me, who will boycott your restaurant on the grounds of chauvenism.
Go ahead and try and write us off as “crazy feminists with no sense of humour” , but I wonder what the women who work in your head offices think? Or do you have any?
Emily S
*** I know women aren’t the niche that these marketers are trying to reach, but I encourage men to boycott this spot! (and yes it is unlikely that will happen in vegas) This is an issue that needs to be addressed by both sexes. It might seem counter-intuitive to feminism to say that women need men’s help in fighting chauvenistic or misogenistic attitudes but equality on every level is an issue of fundamental human rights. Do what you can and boycott or send an email!!!! Thank you! ***
http://grindburgers.com/contact.html
FYI, I’ve tried contacting the owner, Mark DiMartino and the GM, Scott Keane with no success. I left messages for both gentleman and in 2 days, not one thing. I wonder why.
Great, just read the comment that a woman designed that ad!
Thanks to your lack of critical thinking, you have contributed to your own compartmentalization and as such the continuation of male dominated ideology. Yay for Hegemony! Do the men at your workplace respect you a little bit more now? Probably, Maybe you even got a few more accounts because they know you are docile and complacent enough to “play their game”. Go ahead and blame it on the “system”. Thats just how these things work, right?
Just another ‘crazy feminist with no sense of humor’ here, thanking Mr. Patricia for writing this Op-Ed piece.
Yes. Everyone has the right to speak their mind, even if that means cutting women up into little pieces. I’m going to start running around in a white sheet and call it “freedom of speech.”
I am amazed at the amount of anger present on the side of the people who don’t understand our outrage at this terrible ad. Not only are they angry but they are angry and insulting. From reading some of the sexist and dehumanizing comments here, it is obvious to me that we cannot allow this ad to be acceptable under the guise of a lighthearted comic. It is clear to me that we have not moved past the negative ways in which we view women and so it is imperative that we continue the fight against social injustice and inequality and the dehumanization of women.
Ads like this create an atmosphere of disrespect and negativity towards women. An atmosphere that creates negativity towards women is the start of a community who accepts violence against women. I won’t stand for it and I will never understand why anyone else would, including the Rebel Yell.
TAKE BACK THE NIGHT! TONIGHT @ UNLV in the STUDENT UNION!!
HELP END VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN!
“Like a pice of meat” / Salon.com —
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/10/08/juicy_lucy/index.html
Thanks, Grind Burger and Rebel Yell, for putting our campus on the national map.
LV Gleaner —
http://www.lasvegasgleaner.com/las_vegas_gleaner/2009/10/las-vegas-should-demand-a-recount.html
LV Civil Rights Examiner —
http://www.examiner.com/x-14004-Las-Vegas-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m10d6-Las-Vegas-Grind-Bar-and-Lounges-Ad-depicts-women-negatively
THANK GOD THEY DIDN’T USE A BLACK WOMEN FOR THE PICTURE, WE DON’T NEED OBAMA GETTING INVOLVED!
PEOPLE WHO THINK THIS TYPE OF ADVERTISING IS OFFENSIVE NEED TO MOVE FAR AWAY FROM LAS VEGAS. STOP PICKING ON A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER WHO IS TRYING TO PROVIDE A SERVICE, AND MAKE SOME MONEY, IN A TOWN WHERE SEX SELLS!! ALSO, THOSE WHO ARE OFFENDED GROW A PAIR AND TRY TO STOP ALL THE NUDE SHOWS THAT VEGAS IS KNOWN FOR. YOU WOULD’NT DARE PICK ON A WELL KNOW HOTEL/CASINO BECAUSE THEY PAY A LOT OF TAXES IN THIS CITY. OH, AND ABOUT THAT FREEDOM OF SPEECH THING FOR YOU COLLEGE FOLKS, HAVE YOU LEARNED NOTHING IN SCHOOL, OR HAVE MOMMY AND DADDY WASTED THERE MONEY. BOTTOM LINE, IF YOU DON’T LIKE THE METHOD OF ADVERTISMENT, DON’T VISIT THE PLACE. WE WON’ T MISS YOU
Well at least you recognize that if they had used a black woman for the picture, there would have been even more of an uproar (and justifably so, although black or white its just as offensive to women everywhere) . Why are you so angry about the fact that this advertisement offends people, think about this from a woman’s persepective Steve! It has nothing to do with big or small businesses or even taxes for that matter. This is about blatantly implying carving up a woman, deconstructing her and then consuming her as “a piece of meat”. The parallel between a cow that is to be consumed for your gastrololgical pleasure and a woman whose sole purpose (according to the parallel) is to be consumed for your sexual pleasure. There are nuances here between say a strip club and the actual message that is being constructed by this company mascot. (Such as a woman’s agency in portraying herself as she chooses- -** note: which admittedly is problematic**– as opposed to having it portayed for her.) I understand that ” this is a town where sex sells but does that mean that women just accept a fate and don’t take a stand and say: “hey, we don’t like this?! This implies that we are worthless sex objects, someone out there thinks of us as a peice of meat… ” The facts that the message of the image resonates with all of us demonstrates the very dangers of such advertising. Consider the larger picture, the social consquences which themselves translate into the material…
this entire article (from day 1) is just a way for some to defend their degree. and if you think not then look at some of the post. they speak for themselves.so congratu;ations you are smarter then us.
Andrea, you’re wrong about this being a way to defend a degree. There are people who have power to decide whether or not I get my doctorate who believe that what I’m doing is unseemly. Moreover, it can also hurt my chances of getting a full-time job in this town (where my husband is employed) when I graduate. So, this controversy is much more likely to hurt me than to help me. Nonetheless, I believe that speaking out against social inequality and the degredation of human beings is too important to ignore even though attending to it might not be in my own self-interest. This is about a much bigger picture than my own pretty insignificant life.
Steve, this isn’t about sex, unless you happen to think sex involves carving up a woman like beef cattle. It’s the carving and the markings that are the problem, not the nudity.
And Steve, my parents haven’t paid for anything for me since I moved out of their home 33 years ago–except the occasional Xmas gift.
[This comment has been removed due to terms of use violation]
Steve: Las Vegas is a far more diverse and complex place now, and sex is no longer the only thing that “sells” in this city. I wonder how the majority of Las Vegas residents would feel if they knew how reductively they’ve been stereotyped. Moreover, the image of Juicy Lucy does not appear in all the The Burger Grind’s advertisements–not in the Journal, not on the billboards, not on the bus stop ads, which suggests that they are well aware of the negative reactions that the image would inspire in the larger community. And, as Gina Sully so clearly pointed out, these are not small business owners but owners of several multi-million dollar businesses in the valley. Additionally, had you read the comments carefully, you may realize that most of us are involved in a variety of different political activist projects, several of which ARE aimed at the big casinos. One example: petitioning and speaking out to raise the taxes casinos pay in order to fund education in the valley.
Now that I’ve addressed the actual arguments in your post, I must say it’s unfortunate that so many commentators here have stooped to personal insults and attacks. Not only is it ridiculous and illogical to suggest that we “grow a pair,” which is biologically impossible for those of us who are women and terribly insulting to the many men who have participated here, it’s also unproductive and absolutely useless. If you want people to take you seriously and listen to your views, the last thing you want to do is insult them since, most of the time, people fall back upon petty insults when they have no valid argument to make. And, just to be clear, there’s not one among us whose “mommy and daddy” paid for our educations. Many of us work upwards of 60 hours a week for a paycheck that falls well below the standard poverty line in order to finance our own educations. And we’re all well aware of what freedom of speech entails–again, had you read through the debate above, you would see that what we’re doing here is the very essence of free speech.
George, what’s most “ridiculous” about the debate are the petty, ignorant, reductive, and completely irrelevant insults and stereotypes that appear so many of these posts, like attacking people’s sexual preferences. Sexual preference has absolutely nothing to do with this debate. Another thing that’s “ridiculous” is the blatant misunderstanding of the issue at hand–the issue here is that the advertisement appropriates an image that perpetuates social inequality, violence, and cannibalism.
BTW: Unless you’ve done a comprehensive and objective survey of a large number of women from diverse ages and backgrounds, you cannot say with any legitimacy that women don’t care about this issue. In fact, the number of signiatures we’ve secured to protest the ad shows that at least 90 % of the people who know about the ad–both men AND women–care very deeply about this and find the ad an appalling proof that our society is yet innundated with sexism.
George, you’ve got to be kidding. You’re resorting to name-calling? In college? Perhaps by the time that you finish your education, you’ll understand that it’s not an insult to call someone “gay,” whether or not they are; it’s only correct or incorrect. There’s nothing wrong with being gay. There is something wrong with hate speech. And plenty of women–even HOT women–care about this issue. But women would have to talk to you for you to know that, I guess.
Notice how Laura P. when noting the fact that the Grind does not use Lucy in much of their other advertising, writes that this fact, “suggests that they [the Grind] are well aware of the negative reactions that the image would inspire in the larger community.” Now notice how, without any facts to back her up, Andrea asserts, “this entire article (from day 1) is just a way for some to defend their degree.” Class, which is the more level-headed, reasonable, fact-based argument?
Please understand that “free speech” does NOT mean free of logic, free of sound and true premise, or free of free of validity and reason. Well, I suppose technically it could, but it ought not to on a University campus.
I keep hearing that I dont have a “sense of humor” if I am getting angry about this ad but the thing is I do have a sense of humor and I am angry about this ad.
Gina is right, it is not about the nudity its about how dehumanizing this is towards women. Its about how she is cut up in pieces like women are a piece of meat.
And Steve, unlike Gina I still do live at home and my mommy and daddy to pay for my education but I can assure you that they’re not wasting THIER money.
(not “there”)
I keep hearing that I dont have a “sense of humor” if I am getting angry about this ad but the thing is I do have a sense of humor and I am angry about this ad.
Gina is right, it is not about the nudity its about how dehumanizing this is towards women. Its about how she is cut up in pieces like women are a piece of meat.
And Steve, unlike Gina I still do live at home and my mommy and daddy to pay for my education but I can assure you that they’re not wasting THIER money.
(not “there”)
DO* not TO
And I apologize, I didn’t mean to post that comment twice.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/09/national/main5373278.shtml
This is just one of the reasons why I and my courageous colleagues are objecting to The Burger Grind’s “Juicy Lucy” mascot and The Rebel Yell’s publication of the ad featuring her image.
Somewhere along the line, this male attacker got the idea it was okay to cut a woman up into pieces . . . just because he was mad or upset with her for some unknown reason.
Yeah, “Juicy Lucy” is just a harmless joke and all in good fun.
But, somehow, laughter escapes me.
Picture a naked black man kneeling, penis hidden, buttocks exposed, lash marks on his back, with ad copy that reads, “After a hard day’s work…relax with something helpful.” This description is analogous to the image of Juicy Lucy. Would the RY or even the Las Vegas Weekly accept an ad that included this racist image? I doubt it. I hope not. If I prayed, I’d pray not.
If you want to convince me that Lucy is protected free speech, provide a convincing argument that this dehumanizing RACIST image would have to be accepted by any newspaper to which it was submitted, including the RY and the Weekly. Then, by analogy, I’d have to admit that the dehumanizing SEXIST image is also acceptable. So far, no one’s taken up this issue, even though Laura P. and I have repeatedly asked the same question.
Can someone, for instance, make the case that the racist imagery analogy is not apt? If so, in what ways do the images diverge? If not, would anyone claim that the racist image I described is merely sophomoric or fun? Or is racism somehow inherently worse than sexism? These are some of the questions to which I seek answers from those who claim that the Juicy Lucy image is an unimportant, humorous, or free speech issue. These are some of the questions that must be answered by those who wish to refute the claim that Lucy is an unacceptable image for a university newspaper. So far, no one has even acknowledged these points, much less tried to answer them.
This analogy makes clear that this is not just a free speech issue. Cigarette ads are banned in the American press. I’ve never seen a liquor ad in the RY. Clearly, some ads may be refused without violating the 1st amendment. Ads that perpetuate the dehumanization of human beings, whether on the basis of race, sexual identity, sex/gender, or ethnicity/national origin, ought to be among the ads that are declined–at least on a university campus.
I have said before and I will say again that the Juicy Lucy image is not just objectification, is not merely sexual because it’s an image of a human female body divided and labeled as if it is a piece of meat. There is a difference between objectification and dehumanization. It may be only a difference of degree, but it is a difference, nonetheless. This is dehumanization. This is NOT okay.
Shut up with the ‘what if it was a man’ argument. If it was a guy, NOBODY would care, they’d laugh until they dropped. I certainly would. Women need to lose their victim complexes. You need to learn that you do not have the right to dictate other peoples thoughts or impose your interpretations on them. You do not own the female image either. Deal with it.
If you want to replace her with a man, fine with me!
Oh please,
Again you offered no reason why anyone should change their mind and you made it sound like you were a juvenile who likes to be looked at as a cannibal. It’s guys like you who put shame to our gender. If you have a g/f, more power to her. If not, no wonder why.
Again?
-That was my first post.
Want to be seen as a cannibal?
-Completely arbitrary accusation and has zero to do with sexism. Not being offended by a drawing like this doesn’t mean I kill and eat people, even if it did, it’s still absolutely irrelevant to my comment.
And… how what I said in any way degrades my girlfriend, I can’t imagine. I said it was fine if a man was up there. I’d say that’s pretty much the definition of an equitable position. No consideration of gender means no sexism. Think upon that for a while. You seem to be confused about what sexism is.
If you’re going to respond to me. Respond to what I state and don’t invent things and then try to associate them with me. Telling me that I’m a disgrace to ‘our’ gender because I don’t agree with you is not a retort. If you can’t comprehend this, just be quiet.
The whole argument is that the image is disrespectful to ladies, oh please. I know there are some that don’t find this image sexist and I was one of them at first but as I thought about how disrespectful this is, I changed my mind. As Gina Sully pointed out, she’d be fighting for the same thing if the ad was for sausage and Juicy Brucie was featured so we are talking about fighting for what we believe is right.
I must conclude by saying “rude much?” This is a college forum and you should know better than to tell others to “be quiet” if you can’t comprehend something.
If she can’t handle this and thinks others don’t have a right to be amused by what doesn’t amuse her and it must ONLY be because they hate women… Too bad. That’s just not true, not to mention incredibly arrogant. Like I said earlier, she doesn’t get to dictate other peoples interpretations or police their thoughts.
This may be crass humor… but sexist? No. Sexism requires some sort of discrepancy between the sexes.
Oh please, my point with the analogous image wasn’t “Oh, what if it were a man?” It was about the relative dehumanization involved in racism and sexism. Do you believe that racism is okay? Would you be okay with an ad that depicted a racist image? If not, is the dehumanization of women upon which sexism depends somehow more acceptable than the dehumanization of people of color upon which racism depends? If you think it is, could you please explain to me how and why? I keep asking this question, and no one seems to want to answer it.
In a university forum, one hopes to find reasoned arguments, not “ad hominem” attacks, “two wrongs make a right” reasoning, and “straw man” thinking.
Implying that my argument is not worth answering because I have a particular mentality is an example of an ad hominem attack. Bad reasoning. Just ask your Philosophy 102 instructor. Fact: Claims about my character are irrelevant to the conversation unless you can somehow demonstrate that I am a pathological liar. That might be relevant. Another fact: If I thought I were a victim, I’d be in a corner somewhere crying. I am not a victim; I am an agent. Therefore, I am acting. And not alone. And by the way, anyone with a victim mentality would have walked away from the personal threats and name-calling this struggle has engendered a long time ago.
One version of “two wrongs make a right thinking” shifts the focus from the argument being made to another point outside the scope of the argument you’re addressing. Re-read my post and notice that it’s about an analogous RACIST image. You have nowhere addressed the points I made in my letter. Instead, you’ve implied that since it would be okay if it were a man up there, it’s okay that it’s a woman is an example of two wrongs make a right thinking. Bad reasoning. Ask your Philosophy 102 instructor. Fact: If it were a male body depicted in a dehumanizing way, I’d be yelling just as loudly. Another fact: My point is that images that help to perpetuate the dehumanization of human beings have no place in an ad in a university publication.
“Straw man” reasoning reworks an argument to make it as ridiculous and as weak as possible and then knocks down the weak argument rather than addressing the points raised in the argument you’re addressing. Saying that because I “can’t handle this” I want to “spoil” others’ fun is an example of straw man thinking. Saying that I want to “dictate other people[']s thoughts or impose [my] interpretations on them” is, too. Bad reasoning. Ask your Philosophy 102 instructor. Fact: I view my participation in actions to combat the dehumanization of human beings as an important part of who I am. It has nothing to do with you. I might not even know you (although I can’t tell because you haven’t used your real name). Laugh all you want.
Finally, Oh please, I wish you would proffer me the same courtesy for which you asked Ed . Please address what I’ve said; don’t make things up and put them in my mouth. Peace.
I have to agree with Gina, but I’m also concerned about all of us. When I read Herman Melville’s Typee, I recognize how the narrator worries that he may be forced into cannibalism, and how he feels concern that cannibalism is a mark of a lack of civilization. When I see a human being divided into parts on a butcher chart, I have to think of cannibalism, and I couldn’t possibly eat at The Burger Grind unless my last name was Lecter.
To everyone: it appears that Grind Burger has removed the image of “Juicy Lucy” from their main fan page and removed everyone that had a problem with it. Talk about that for a while.
No, Ed. Sadly, they really haven’t. They’ve just relocated her to their photos section. Moreover, they still have the “Juicy Lucy” fan page going on FB, too. Bummer. You really had me excited there for a minute! Thanks for the help, Ed. I’m glad that our objections to the ad were well enough made to convince a local journalist. Peace.
Gina, my friend Valerie has an excerpt(notebook) piece going into the LV Business Press so I’ll update you once that does happen, if it happens. Unfortunately, they also removed all of your links regarding this topic from their fan page too.
I guess their backwards reasoning is “out of sight, out of mind.”
“Please address what I’ve said; don’t make things up and put them in my mouth. Peace.”
hahaha, what? Don’t jump the gun lady.
You keep insisting that the fact that she is a woman is significant. It isn’t, because that requires the assumption that the owner would find the same image of a man unacceptable. You don’t get to imbue his actions with attitudes out of nowhere, sorry. Her gender is not a factor in this because there’s no gender discrimination inherent in the image, just because they chose a female doesn’t mean they would have a moral problem with it being a male. Your insistence on sexism being a factor here indicates that this isn’t about cannibalism, it’s about your feminazi ego and your desire to dictate the lives of others according to it. You’re a spoiled child throwing a temper tantrum to get her way and your method is to work people into an emotional fervor over sensitive issues in order to bypass logic and reason because your attitude has no rational legs to stand on.
The racism argument is moot because it’s completely and wholly unrelated. There is no parallel! There is no inherent discrimination of any kind in that image. It may be dehumanizing, which is not a gender specific concept, because of the reference to cannibalism, but that has nothing to do with sexism lady! Some of you really need to learn what REAL sexism is, because it *DOES NOT* include anything you find unflattering directed towards a female.
The only way you have logical position in finding this offensive, is if you drop the obsession with sexism and focus on something that is unquestionably present in the image –> Cannibalism.
Geez…
First, I have never said anything about the owner of the Grind Burger other than to remark that I respect the efforts he and his family have made through the years to turn Vegas into a world-class food town and that I think his choice of image is a poor one. I have no idea what he thinks, in part because he has chosen not to respond to the letter I sent him before I did anything else about the ad. This is one example of you putting words into my mouth and attributing thoughts to me that I have never had.
The fact is, if DiMartino or the ad agency decides to circumvent the controversy and make the image male, I’ll be yelling that’s that’s wrong, too. Here’s the thing: I believe that dehumanization is wrong, no matter its target.
Second, please read the posts. I have never made the cannibalism argument. That is someone else. Please address your remarks about that to her. I wouldn’t presume to speak for her. This is another example of you putting words into my mouth that I’ve neither uttered nor written.
Third, I am intrigued by your notion of a harmless dehumanization. Could you please explain it to me in more detail? That is, you say that the image “may be dehumanizing” and yet you imply that it’s harmless. That idea is so far from my experience I can’t even begin to process it. Please help me out.
Fourth, you say that my analogy is not apt. Could you please explain to me in what ways it fails? Why is there “no parallel”? Both rely on the use of an image that dehumanizes a particular population. Why is the one bad and the other okay? I really do want to understand. I am in college because I want to learn.
Fifth, my argument is not that the image is discriminatory. Read what I’ve written, here and elsewhere. I’ve never used the word “discrimination.” As someone who has spent years studying culture, I am aware that dehumanized populations are disproportionately the foci of violence of a variety of types, and it is the dehumanizing aspect of the image with which I have a problem.
I think that the allusion to beef cattle is inherently dehumanizing (woman’s body=cow’s body, cow’s body=meat; therefore, woman’s body=meat; therefore, woman=cow, cow~human; therefore, woman~human). This is regardless of the owner’s (or anyone else’s) intentions. How have I read the allusion incorrectly? If I’ve read it correctly, could you explain to me why that’s not inherently dehumanizing? If I’ve read it correctly and it is dehumanizing, why is this form of dehumanization okay while other forms (like racist imagery) are not? In other words, what’s the difference besides the particular population being dehumanized?
Finally, calling me names like “feminazi” is about an egregious a use of the ad hominem fallacy as I’ve encountered in the discussion of the Juicy Lucy image. It’s still bad reasoning, oh please.
And it seems to me that I’ve remained pretty calm. You seem to be getting worked up into quite a “emotional fervor,” though. I wonder why?
Peace.
“First, I have never said anything about the owner of the Grind Burger other than to remark that I respect the efforts he and his family have made through the years to turn Vegas into a world-class food town and that I think his choice of image is a poor one. I have no idea what he thinks, in part because he has chosen not to respond to the letter I sent him before I did anything else about the ad. This is one example of you putting words into my mouth and attributing thoughts to me that I have never had.”
…Not even close. The assumption that there is sexism in this image depends on there being a discriminatory attitude. If there’s no such attitude it’s just a crass attempt at using sex to sell. This is not putting words in your mouth, this is the concept of sexism. If you say it’s sexist, you say he has such attitudes. That’s what you keep missing. You think because it’s a women in the picture and it’s dehumanising, it is sexist. No! The image does not indicate an attitude of discrimination directed exclusively at women, that is your assumption and it’s baseless. For there to be sexism there needs to be discrimination based on sex. It needs to make the statement a women is meat because she is a woman, and a man is not because he is a man. It does not do this. This is the nature of the concept of sexism. Get over it. How many different ways does it have to be written? Look it up or something.
By your logic anything unflattering directed at a women is sexist simply because she is female and it’s offensive. That’s not what sexism is…
I’m also not making my argument by calling you a feminazi. I’m making my argument on the concept of sexism. I just called you a feminazi because I think that’s what you are and I felt like letting you know.
You have a strange definition of sexism with which most feminists would disagree. I don’t need to look it up. You are relying upon a purely legalistic definition of sexism; I am not.
Granting you your definition, though, that is, admitting that the ad does not discriminate in the way you claim it must to be sexist, what about my claim that dehumanization is just wrong? Am I incorrect about that? If so, you still haven’t explained what makes some forms of dehumanization okay and others reprehensible or why dehumanization is not ever wrong. Can you do one of those two things? Because if you can’t, you haven’t convinced me, since as I said, and as I’ll keep saying, dehumanization of any human beings is wrong and has no place in an ad in a university publication. That is the claim I’ve been making all along. Therefore, that’s the claim you need to refute in order to demonstrate that I am wrong to object to the ad’s presence in the Rebel Yell.
It seems a bit inconsistent to say that the image is both sexy (“using sex to sell”) and unflattering to women. It seems to me that the ad can only be sexy to those whose idea of sex involves cutting women up as if they were beef cattle. It doesn’t seem to me to be unflattering to women. It seems to me to be unflattering to those who find it sexy.
And really? You just felt like calling me a name? Wow. That takes me back. To like sixth grade. Thanks. I feel young again.
I don’t mean to butt in where I’m not wanted, but I’m curious to know what Oh Please would make of the phrase “unwind with something tender” placed prominently above Juicy Lucy. I see this as a pretty obvious implication that she is tender, and by default desirable. That same supposition wouldn’t be as applicable to a man. Nor would we see it as desirable if it were a man kneeling nude and drawn up for butchering. Maybe ridiculous, but not desirable. By making her both desirable as a sex object and desirable as a consumable commodity, when a man would be seen only as a joke in the same context seems to be dehumanizing because of her gender, which would make this an issue tied to sexual discrepancy, right?
Very eloquently put, Andy.
Thanks, Ed. I’ll look for it.
Andy Bahlmann, if you begin with the arbitrary presupposition that sex is dirty, degrading, and harmful, then there’s no arguing with you that the use sexual appeal isn’t offensive. There’s nothing behind that for me to dissect, it’s arbitrary.
The word “tender” may not appeal to some one who is sexually attracted to men, and that’s way too subjective to begin with, but all that means is that there are different strokes for different folks. It has no bearing on whether or not the image is sexist. It just means you wouldn’t be the target demographic, or they’re just bad at figuring out what choice of words would appeal to you if you are. Equal does not mean the same. Also, objectification doesn’t automagically equate to sexism either. The justification behind the objectification has be that she has been objectified expressly BECAUSE she is female, otherwise her gender is a non-entity in the act.
There is no ‘because of her gender’ in this image whatsoever. This is being assumed and imposed. You can say that this image is offensive because depicting people as food is dehumanizing, that’s your opinion, but there’s no grounds for a claim of sexism on top of that.
and just to mention… They’re using the same desire confusion method as any other kind of advertisement where unrelated sexual appeal causes the viewer to unconsciously associate their product with pleasant feelings. If the image feels good, and their product is in it, the product feels good… That’s the big idea. They just wrote it on the body instead to be more edgy.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines sexism (from which the term sexist derives) as:
1) Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women. 2) Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender. (AHDEL, Third Edition, pg. 1654).
The Burger Grind’s “Juicy Lucy” mascot (and by extension, all women) discriminates against women by objectifying them as pieces of meat men can butcher or consume (fill in the verb) while they unwind from a hard day. As Gina has pointed out, the same argument would be at stake if “Juicy Lucy” was “Juicy Louis” instead and targeted toward enticing other men or women.
Furthermore, The Burger Grind’s ad does nothing if not convey an attitude that promotes stereotyping of social roles based on gender. It tells the world that the only place for women is on their knees, naked, and marked up for butchery by all those poor men who need to unwind from a hard day.
“Juicy Lucy” = sexism = “Juicy Lucy.” It’s that simple . . . and that complicated.
…the image doesn’t indicate any justification by gender. They’re not treating he like meat because she is a woman. THEN it would be sexist. They used the image of a woman because that’s what is sexually appealing to their target market.
That’s not sexist… That’s just using sex to sell.
I think people, in western nations at least, are just so fixated on the idea that sex itself is oppressive and anti-women that any use of it to attract customers is going to get tagged as sexist, however technically incorrect it is.
Oh please, the ad copy would make no sense culturally if applied to a male body, since the cultural ideal for the male body is masculine, tough. “Tough” doesn’t work to get people to desire meat.
Andy’s argument does not presuppose that sex is dirty or degrading. It presupposes heteronormativity and a cultural discourse of gender that constructs the female body as tender, soft, and desirable. So does the ad.
You cannot have this part of the culturally established discourse without implying the other half of the conversation: Male bodies are not what female bodies are since our culture defines males and females as not the same. Therefore, the copy wouldn’t work if the body were male. To claim it would is one possible idiosyncratic reading of the ad, but it has little to do with dominant gender dicourses in the US.
Furthermore, as I said before, this image is about sex only insofar as sex involves carving up a woman’s body into meat. To argue that it’s about sex presupposes that all nudity is sexual. It’s not. Unless you’re a cannibalistic serial killer. ;-D
I forgot the adjectives “available” and “compliant” in regard to the intersection of the dominant cultural discourse of the female body and the ad. Sorry. Those adjectives are important to the deconstruction of this particular ad.
Dominant constuctions of gender in the US certainly don’t define white male bodies as compliant. That’s one more way in which this ad wouldn’t work if it were applied to a white male body–unless the copy were changed. Thus, Andy’s reading is spot on. As the ad is, it specifically targets and dehumanizes the female body and, by extension, female subjects.
This note, I think, applies to everyone at some point in this discussion (including me, and I was called on it when it happened).
If we’re unwilling to make an attempt to see what the opposing side of the argument is saying, if we’re going to stick to our position without regard to any counter-arguments that come our way, if we’re going to perpetuate stereotypes about gender, education, political views, etc. ad nauseum, we should just forget trying to be part of this discourse. By refusing to adjust our views to take in new information, we’re just spinning our wheels both in this particular discussion and at UNLV in general.
[...] prompted graduate student Anthony Guy Patricia to pen an op-ed in the Yell calling the ad a “masterpiece of capitalistic garbage.” (Since when is capitalism a [...]
Ask yourself how you would feel if the ad was a photograph of a real woman rather than an illustration. And the ask yourself how you would feel if that real women portrayed as so many cuts of meat happened to be your wife, mother, sister, or daughter. And that my friends is why the ad is not only ignorant but sexist as well.
Myrna: As they would say in London where I recently spent ten great days: “Spot on!” Thanks!
By that logic, when Homer Simpson says something, should I imagine if he were a real person? If he were my father, my brother, my uncle?
As of 3:40 pm today, “Juicy Lucy’s” photo was removed from their website as well.
Ed’s right. The image is gone from the restaurant’s official website as well as from its Facebook pages. Hopefully, it’s a permanent state of affairs.
I support the 1st amendment no matter what its parents responsibility to teach kids their values, Why should I be denied the ability to laugh at a totally tasteless offensive sexist joke. If this is really that offensive should you just move out of a place called “sin city” you guys picked this town to live in, why not move to Utah where there take away even more or your rights, Isn’t America the land of the free? Or is it only acceptable if you agree with it? What if some of the Koran offends you? Will you boycott Islam?
You are of course right marc. Unfortunately, the people with sense are usually the ones who remain silent on issues. Everybody acknowledges that the ad is offensive, but I thought we agreed a long time ago that the first amendment gives us the right to freedom of speech. And I agree with Gina Sully that she has the right to criticize the ad, or as she put it, even a duty, but to try and force the RY to remove the ad is absurd. She should really look at what other publications are publishing for ad revenue.
We have not tried to “force” the RY to remove the ad. There is no way to do that. We have tried to convince people that the ad is not merely “tasteless,” that it is part of a process of the dehumanization of women and women’s bodies and for that reason the RY ought to have declined to publish it just as they presumably would have refused to publish a racist image. We have tried to convince people that such an ad does nothing to enhance UNLV’s reputation as an institution of higher learning.
We have collected signatures from nearly 400 members of the UNLV community who believe that the ad conveys a message about women and women’s bodies that is inappropriate for a university community; however, the petition DOES NOT request the RY to remove the ad. We have acknowledged that the RY has entered into a contractual arrangement that must be honored. Still, we are pleased that the image is disappearing from site after site.
As far as I know, our actions have nothing to do with Juicy Lucy’s disappearance from the RY this Thursday. I can only guess that the contract was up, or that someone decided that the ad might not make a favorable impression on the parents who will be on campus this weekend for Homecoming and Family Weekend, or that Mark DiMartino is reconsidering the effect the ad is having on his customer base. However, I have no way of knowing for certain why Lucy disappeared from the RY this Thursday, because no one will answer my questions.
Finally, as Thursday’s RY article indicates, we have reached an agreement. The RY will publish an 8-page, advertisement-free insert whose contents will include the voices of those on ALL sides of the controversy. This special section is being funded by the Provost’s Office, the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, and the VP for Student Affairs’ Office, and it will be treated as an advertisement, meaning, as Yamini said in the article, that the RY staff will not make decisions about its content.
The content of this section will represent ALL sides of the issue equally, and the content will be decided upon by a panel of students. GPSA President Jessica Lucero and CSUN President Adam Cronis secured the funding so that participants can continue the discussion in a professional, fair, and democratic manner. If interest continues after the special insert in th RY, we’ll try to organize a pubic forum with a panel representing all sides of the issue.
Submissions to the section of the RY can be sent as attachments to jlcontroversy@embarqmail.com, and they should be a maximum of 750 words, formatted as Word documents, and the language should be appropriate for an academic forum. If you have any more questions, send them to the email address above.
Hope to see your submissions soon. Peace.
This was a great ad. I personally never heard of the place until this uproar occurred; now I will try and eat lunch there at least a couple times a week.
Always glad to support a local business that isn’t afraid to express itself!
“Cultural narrative”, “chasm…between genders”, “reinforcing male domination”, “perpetuating a reductive stereotype”, “egregious capitalism”…it’s good to know universities remain a fertile Petri dish for overstatement and loquacity. And that students can devote so much time to such an unimportant topic. Hell, the 2004 campus activists at least had something as big as a war to rally against.
To everyone who’s complaining about women being objectified by the ad…you do realize that no actual women were objectified in the making of the ad, right? Just an illustration. Some paint and ink were demeaned, that’s all.
[This comment has been removed due to terms of use violation]
Juicy Lucy was back and was never gone…Gina indicated that Lucy was removed from the Grind Burger Bar web page. Maybe Gina should have looked a little closer like the Juicy Lucy Marketplace that appears on the web page. Looks like a page is being created for Juicy Lucy merchandise, shirts, hats, keychains etc.. Maybe these items will start to show up on campus, shirts worn by students in your classrooms, hats at Rebel games, Heck maybe they will start to have real woman in Juicy Lucy suits walking around campus. What will you do then? Arrest these students? Fire staff, It appears that this publicity is actually going to be a bonanza for this establishment. Cant wait to see what they do for tier two of the marketing campaign!!
I am quite shock of how many shallow minded people condone this ad posted on the Rebel Yell. You people are disgusting.
For those of you who commented that this ad was inappropriate, you must wear blinders all day driving around Las Vegas. Almost all businesses especially the hotel and casinos which employ over half of the population in Las Vegas use seductive advertising. Businesses wouldn’t use it if it didn’t work. I hope that those of you who commented first looked in your own backyard before you start throwing rocks.
I work in marketing at a popular restaurant in town. I was doing some ad research and a comparative study of what other restaurants use in their marketing. 95 % of the food ads in this city don’t feature any food! That’s right. The advertisements for restuarants don’t feature food AT ALL. They feature sexy women, animals, and/or groups of people drinking having a good time. We are a chain restaurant so we advertise along our branding lines rather than along with the rest of the city.
I say this to say I respect your opinion, but your fight is with much larger restaurants, industries, and an entire city that set the trend that this smaller restaurant is just playing into. In order to even have a chance in this town this smaller entity HAS to advertise along the same lines. Besides I think it’s more tongue in cheek than offensive. I’m more offended by the hot girls direct to you trucks that run up and down the strip.
If this is about the RY running the ad then that’s also unfair. It’s an advertisement. If it wasn’t printed there it would be printed everywhere else.
In regards to violence against women…this is not “The Burger Grind house” with a picture of a woman’s parts hanging like meat on a rack. In no way do I see this restaurant as being against women or pro violence against women.
If you’re going to write an editorial I dare you to attack a larger more prevalent enemy or a larger entity in this town. It seems a little SAFE to pick on a new small burger bar that has no real effect on anything and didn’t set the trend on sex selling food. I’ll say this though, I’m going to the restuarant because of the ad and your article!
Imagine that! I think that means this ad works.