Necrophiliac fashion for Wrangler
posted at 7:25 am on August 18, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Wrangler has a new ad campaign for its jeans in France, and it looks like the venerable denim company has suddenly decided to make heroin chic look wholesome. Take a look at the images Wrangler uses for its new “We are Animals” campaign. The dead animals are women:
As Mitch Berg, Jeff Fecke, and Melissa McEwan point out, this is something on which conservatives and liberals can agree. These images capture the look of corpses dumped into rivers and lakes, a sort of murder chic that appears to not just promote corpses as fashion models but to sexualize them as well. The pallid skin of the back crests at the woman’s buttocks in the second picture here as the jeans get dragged off by the weight of the water and the movement of the corpse.
This evokes nothing but the unfortunate women who have been victimized by serial killers and rapists, and having their bodies dumped in woods, lakes, and rivers. Wrangler uses them to make death sexy and to exploit a fascination with death to make a few bucks. Someone should be ashamed.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
tbrosz:
Very true. It’s funny how a blog can distort something, huh.
dave742 on August 18, 2008 at 4:03 PM
“Famous” – Within certain interest-groups, perhaps.
“Widely cited” – Within certain interest-groups, perhaps (NOW?)
“nobody has brought up any flaws in the studies methodology” – Really? How odd that nobody would do that. Or didn’t you google for longer than 15 seconds? Good research there, Mr. PhuD.
My suspicions would first be roused by the fact this is a study done at the behest of groups looking for legislative reform vis-a-vis rape victims. Of course, I’m sure you would never suspect stats of being misused for such ends. Never.
Anyway, on page two, the first paragraph leaps out as being statistically treacherous – respondents claiming to have been raped at some point in their lives – with no indication of any correction for age – then being extrapolated over an entire population’s lives. With boundaries so loose, huge numbers like this are trivial to fabricate. Utter statistical nonsense!
Back to page one, the study concluded that their results were ‘probably’ half the real number. Why? What statistical basis is there to extrapolate female rape across the entire male/child population? More nonsense!
I’m not trying to belittle the serious crime of rape (which should carry the option of a death penalty IMNSHO), but rather raise a serious question about your claims of statistical research competence. You shouldn’t have missed these big question marks.
LimeyGeek on August 18, 2008 at 4:16 PM
Limeygeek:
The article you site here says nothing at all about a flaw in the “Rape in America” study. All it says is that data on rape statistics can vary depending on methodology. Yes, of course it can. So what. The rape statistics I quoted for the US and Europe were determined in the same study, using the same methodology. There was no cross-study comparison done. Your article is meaningless. It does not relate to the rape stats I showed, and it does not point out any flaw in the “Rape in America” study. It is calling for standardization of methods. You’re an imbecile.
The study was not done by the groups, it was funded by them. Unless you are claiming a conspiracy theory and that the funding groups paid-off the researchers to fabricate data, it does not matter who funded the study. Groups that fund studies of course are interested in the results, and probably looking for a certain result. That does not mean they influence them. For instance, the Pentagon funded a study that was done by the University of Chicago to correlate suicide bombing with religion. There was no correlation, and the study actually found that most suicide bombers are secular. Just because the Pentagon funded the study did not change the results (of course, when the initial results were published, the Pentagon ceased its funding of the study – surprise).
The quote you refer to is here:
Some of what you say here is nonsensical, but asking people in a rape study if they have ever been raped at some point in their lives is a standard question. This is not the only question that was asked. Some results reflect data from this question, some do not. The quote I gave from this report was this:
The number of women raped in 1990 is not determined from the question about being raped at some point in your life. You act like the researchers asked this one question and built an entire study around it. You’re an imbecile.
Here are some recent articles that cite the study. I can give you dozens more if you like:
Hart, Rebecca A.; Lowther, M. Alexander. California Law Review, Feb2008, Vol. 96 Issue 1, p185-233, 49p
Ullman, Sarah E.; Filipas, Henrietta H.; Townsend, Stephanie M.; Starzynski, Laura L.. Journal of Traumatic Stress, Oct2007, Vol. 20 Issue 5, p821-831, 11p
Straight, Jeanette D.; Heaton, Pamela C.. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 9/1/2007, Vol. 64 Issue 17, p1845-1850, 6p
Gidycz, Christine A.; Loh, Catherine; Lobo, Traci; Rich, Cindy; Lynn, Steven Jay; Pashdag, Joanna. Journal of American College Health, Jul/Aug2007, Vol. 56 Issue 1, p5-14, 10p
Starzynski, Laura L.; Ullman, Sarah E.; Townsend, Stephanie M.; Long, LaDonna M.; Long, Susan M.. Journal of Community Psychology, Jul2007, Vol. 35 Issue 5, p619-638, 20p
Russell, Patricia Logan; Davis, Cindy. Best Practice in Mental Health: An International Journal, Summer2007, Vol. 3 Issue 2, p21-37, 17p,
Henderson, Holly. Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law & Justice, 2007, Vol. 22, p225-253, 29p
Masho, Saba W.; Ahmed, Gasmelseed. Journal of Women’s Health (15409996), Mar2007, Vol. 16 Issue 2, p262-271, 10p
Armstrong, Gaylene S.; Griffin, Marie L.. JQ: Justice Quarterly, Mar2007, Vol. 24 Issue 1, p80-105, 26p
Ullman, Sarah E.; Townsend, Stephanie M.; Filipas, Henrietta H.; Starzynski, Laura L.. Psychology of Women Quarterly, Mar2007, Vol. 31 Issue 1, p23-37, 15p
Cecil, Heather; Matson, Steven C.. Journal of Sex Research, Aug2005, Vol. 42 Issue 3, p203-214, 12p
Arangua, Lisa; Andersen, Ronald; Gelberg, Lillian. International Journal of Mental Health, Jun2005, Vol. 34 Issue 2, p62-92, 31p
Csoboth, Csilla T.; Birkás, Emma; Purebl, György. Journal of Women’s Health (15409996), Jun2005, Vol. 14 Issue 5, p441-448, 8p
Basile, Kathleen C.; Lang, Karen S.; Bartenfeld, Thomas A.; Clinton-Sherrod, Monique. Journal of Women’s Health (15409996), Apr2005, Vol. 14 Issue 3, p201-207, 7p
El-Bassel, Nabila; Gilbert, Louisa; Wu, Elwin; Go, Hyun; Hill, Jennifer. American Journal of Public Health, Mar2005, Vol. 95 Issue 3, p465-470, 6p
Raghavan, Ramesh; Bogart, Laura; Elliott, Marc N.; Vestal, Katherine D.; Schuster, Mark A.. Perspectives on Sexual & Reproductive Health, Nov/Dec2004, Vol. 36 Issue 6, p225-232, 8p
Baumer, Eric P.; Felson, Richard B.; Messner, Steven F.. Criminology, Aug2003, Vol. 41 Issue 3, p841-872, 32p
dave742 on August 18, 2008 at 5:03 PM
You think that a lack of standards is not a methodological flaw? Imbecilic indeed.
You ever heard of the “citation circle-jerk”? It’s an academic phenomenon.
I said “within certain interest groups”, and indeed, we see all the usual suspects here. No surprises. Lots of health and a couple of law citations. Which is not a problem in and of itself, but I shake my head at your definition of “famous”.
Now, Mr. PhuD, tell me what the relationship between the number of people that point to a study (and why) and its correctness is.
Hint: google “ad numerum”
I’m really not interested in arguing about this particular study. I am most amused by your mentality – you seem to think that you can waltz into a ‘debate’, fling some unchallenged stats around without having expended any effort to qualitatively and methodologically assess them (yes, the burden is on you – we’re not your lackeys), then waltz away convinced you have ‘won’ something.
Imbecilic indeed.
LimeyGeek on August 18, 2008 at 5:17 PM
Limeygeek:
A lack of standards for researching a particular issue cannot be a flaw in any particular study, you complete imbecile. Your citation did not say that any one of the methods used in the papers it cited was flawed, but only that they used different methods. It simply said that definitions and methods should be standardized. Once again, it means nothing anyway, because the stats I quoted are from the same study with the same methodology. Your cited article would only mean something if I was comparing results from different studies, which I am not doing. Why is it that that every time I post here I feel like I’m teaching 5th grade?
There is a direct relationship, you f**king idiot. That is what the Journal of Citation Reports is based on. It is the standard by which journals, and the scientific soundness of the papers contained in them, are evaluated. JCR reports is how every library evaluates journals to decide what to put on their shelves. Sound research is quoted often. If you ever did any research beyond high school and Google, you would know this.
dave742 on August 18, 2008 at 6:17 PM
No. It highlights the fact that there is variance in methodology between studies, and that the resultant variance diminishes the confidence one can place in any particular study. Perhaps you should take some remedial education. Try some simple english comprehension and preliminary logic.
A direct relationship? Something like “the correctness of a study is proportional to its level of citation” perhaps? The Journal of Citation Reports simply crunches numbers. It does not judge scientific soundness – only peer review can do that. As for libraries, well, perhaps citation level is some indication of what should be stocked on their shelves….but it in no way confers ligitimacy or correctness to the study. Plenty of bullshit studies lie on many library shelves. Sound research is indeed quoted often. So is bullshit. So is politically expedient trash. If you were actually the competent person you pretend to be, you would know this.
Go bullshit someone else.
LimeyGeek on August 18, 2008 at 7:17 PM
PS. yet again, I am disappointed to witness how easily the liberal ‘mind’ resorts to ad hominem and verbal abuse. You are everything I have come to expect of academia in America.
LimeyGeek on August 18, 2008 at 7:19 PM
Limeygeek:
This is ridiculous. Bullshit gets cited in the MSM or on internet sites and blogs, but BS studies do not get cited in academic journals. If so, give me an example. BTW, what is your research area?
Here are exerpts from your first three posts:
The reason I have verbally abused you is because that is your technique. First to everyone, then to me as well. People say a lot of stupid things to me, and if they don’t use your language above, I simply try to correct them as nicely as I can. But when you combine abusive language with a sub-90 IQ, I simply must return the favor. You are a complete nitwit, and you have no idea. It’s entertaining, though, and one of the biggest reasons I come here.
dave742 on August 18, 2008 at 9:07 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2