cross-posted from: https://lemmy.today/post/12851483
What’s the craziest or funniest Wikipedia outline you’ve seen?
The sexualization and desexualization of M&M ladies were both very successful marketing schemes. How often do you get prime time Fox News Bros yelling about M&Ms, left leaning news outlets and famous and non famous folks on every social media platform making fun of the Fox News Bros who are so upset about the less sexy M&M ladies? So much free marketing, just by putting them in more comfortable shoes.
Might be a free win for the company, which of course only cares about profit, but I think it’s still somewhat important development of discourse as it is the dismounting of sexism
Well, sure. And I’m all about comfy shoes, but I feel the need to point out that one can be a feminist while wearing white knee high block heel boots or stiletto pumps!
Of course you can. The female m&m was not depicted as a feminist though, was it?
Let the Green M&M Be a Nasty Little Slut
For those familiar with the iconography of the green M&M, this change is nothing more than tectonic. I imagine it is similar to how the people of Wittenberg must have felt watching Martin Luther nail his 95 Theses of the Protestant Reformation to the church door. But it is also a major error on Mars Wrigley’s part, because the green M&M being a dirty slut, as signified by her iconic white go-go boots, is precisely what has engendered her a devoted fan base, particularly among similarly libidinous women and gay men who have embraced the character. Consider, for instance, this ad where she does erotic ASMR for no reason other than to give the male M&Ms a massive boner, then feigns ignorance at the impact her performance has. Can we, or should we, attempt to put a cap on such virulent, untrammeled female sexuality? Can you stop the wind from blowing? Can you prevent a dog from vomiting after eating too much cheese? Can you keep Twitter libs from being self-righteous about adhering to COVID protocols? No, you cannot.
The green M&M has spent decades building her brand as a horny, sexy bitch, and for what? For her creators to give her Larry David footwear in the name of feminism? For Mars Wrigley to give themselves pats on the back and big fat fucking raises at the next corporate retreat in Palo Alto? Guess what: the green M&M is a feminist, and she’s a dirty slut. We are real, and we exist, and we refuse to tolerate this disgusting attempt at erasure. We are given so little, and we have tolerated so much. Let the green M&M keep her go-go boots. Let her get blackout and suck dick in the bathroom at Acme on a Wednesday. This is what we want. This is what we deserve. This is what she deserves.
“Hello I’m a man and the public objectification of women as per se sexual objects in popculture is not relevant. Am I right guys hahaha?”
That’s what you took from this post?
Well, kinda, yeah. Discoursive power is a thing and brings sorrow. The recent change (also called “wokeness”) that adresses the reproduction of sexism is accordingly important.
As I understood that post, it redicules said change in discourse. So it contains this discoursive element of men making fun of feminism, or at least applying some whataboutism, as seen my fellow responder, doesn’t it?
And I mean that, maybe I’m wrong. I’m open to criticism.
I think the meme is just showing the ridiculous difference between the company being controversial for literal child labor and imperialist exploitation compared to simply making a female character “less sexy”
This is the relativist argument I was talking about
Playing off one kind of oppression against another has never done any good to emancipatory endeavor (aka the left)
Treating a controversy about a fictional character wearing different shoes with the same severity as literal child slavery sounds absolutely exhausting and absurd to me
I don’t know if you have noticed, but cartoon characters depicted as female are usually depicted as sexy. Almost always in pubs.
If you care about oppression, you will understand how the reduction to being sexy for men (“objectification”) of women all over society is important. Imagine the violence of not being seen as a person by default, an agent, but an object to male desire, the male gaze.
Again and again, since the wake of feminism, men bring up that relativist argument. Oh you feel oppressed because over your whole lifetime and that of your mother and sisters men treat you like a peace of pretty meat? Well, wrong, honey, look at “literal real problems”.
Ok, but the controversy over the mnm character was them de-sexualizing the character. This should not be a controversy because this is a positive change. However it’s treated as a controversy in the same level as child slavery in this wiki article. I think this is where we’ve gotten mixed up
I personally think cartoon characters in high heels is literally worse than genocide, let alone child slavery
