I'm Too Pretty To Do Homework!!!!!!

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

When I first read the shirt, I didn't read it as "Because I'm so pretty, I'm incapable of doing my homework, so my smart brother does it for me", but rather, I interpreted it as "I'm too pretty to be bothered by doing my homework, so my ugly brother does it." While I agree that it's an ugly shirt with a bad message (either way) and no one should buy it, I wonder what message the designer intended (and also what message the JCP-purchaser perceived).

message: please help me to transfer as much of your cash from you to me as is possible via your purchase of this ridiculous t-shirt.

nothing more. this america.

[SWTXBelle]

Words have meaning. There's the literal meaning, and there's the meta message. In the case of this t-shirt, both are awful. Yes, JCP was trying to make money. You don't do that by perpetuating negative stereotypes which offend your target market. The shirt is pulled; the market has spoken.

[knight_shadow]

I'm not a fan of censoring clothing like this. I'm sure that someone out there thinks that shirt is witty, so why should the public have the ability to tell that person s/he can't buy it?

That being said, I think it would've been more effective if it said "...I make my brother do it" as opposed to "...so my brother has to do it for me."

[SWTXBelle]

It's not censorship - the manufacturer wasn't told to stop producing it. The retailer wasn't legally prevented from selling it. They decided that the cost of offending their clientele and the way it reflected on them wasn't worth the offsetting profits to be made from selling the shirt.

I'm personally over all the 'attitude' shirts, anyway.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I'm personally over all the 'attitude' shirts, anyway.

Generally, I agree. But I couldn't stop laughing over the one I saw at lunch:

[thetaj]

LOL @
1) Whoever designed it
2) Whoever approved it
3) Whoever didn't want to buy it so much that they made it so no one else could buy it

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by thetaj

LOL @
--
3) Whoever didn't want to buy it so much that they made it so no one else could buy it

@ SWTXBelle

The above is what I was getting at in my post.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Not censorship. If anything it's the free market at work so to speak. It does make sense to try and influence our world to make it be the way we want it to and we do it all the time.

I posted this earlier in the thread:

Originally Posted by thetaj

LOL @
---
3) Whoever didn't want to buy it so much that they made it so no one else could buy it

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

@ SWTXBelle

The above is what I was getting at in my post.

Censorship was the wrong word. I just shift in my seat with the WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN mentality when it's so easy to not buy the item. I think Ed Hardy shirts look like shit, but I won't petition to have them removed from a store.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

I posted this earlier in the thread:

Censorship was the wrong word. I just shift in my seat with the WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN mentality when it's so easy to not buy the item. I think Ed Hardy shirts look like shit, but I won't petition to have them removed from a store.

We influence how our society is at all times. This isn't about keeping porn away from children or keeping them from learning about sex education in schools or protecting them from things that they don't need protecting from. This is kind of exactly what young girls need protection from. This message tells them pretty > smart.

All that said, JCPenny is the one who made it available and the one who took it off their shelves so blame them not the people who complained about it. Because the idea that we should just shut up and not complain is another message we should protect young girls from. There's no reason to support a store selling a message we don't like. Just like when Christians protest Disney (or whatever) for Gay Days. They're well within their rights to do it. And the pro-equality crowd supports Disney (or whatever) for it. So Disney, goes with a) what it thinks is right or more likely b) what will be the most financially beneficial idea.

JCP did the same thing, and apparently no one was supporting the idea that this shirt was a GOOD message for girls. So guess which way they decided.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

There's no reason to support a store selling a message we don't like. Just like when Christians protest Disney (or whatever) for Gay Days. They're well within their rights to do it. And the pro-equality crowd supports Disney (or whatever) for it. So Disney, goes with a) what it thinks is right or more likely b) what will be the most financially beneficial idea.

JCP did the same thing, and apparently no one was supporting the idea that this shirt was a GOOD message for girls. So guess which way they decided.

As an aside - because this drives me crazy - Disney does not sponsor Gay Days - various and sundry QUILTBAG groups organize it and go to the parks, just like any other group. It drives me crazy when Christians don't do their homework and boycott Disney because an outside group goes to the parks. I guess some might argue that Disney should somehow use gaydar to refuse admittance to those there for Gay Days, but those people are what I like to call stupid.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

We influence how our society is at all times. This isn't about keeping porn away from children or keeping them from learning about sex education in schools or protecting them from things that they don't need protecting from. This is kind of exactly what young girls need protection from. This message tells them pretty > smart.

At the risk of dragging this on...

That's really not JCP's job. This is a time where I feel that a parent should step in and say "Wow, Susie, this shirt is stupid. I hope you don't ever feel that pretty > smart." rather than "I WANT A MANAGER. WHO SELLS THINGS LIKE THIS??"

It was obviously meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Should we petition malls to remove Spencers since teen girls have to walk past the store to get to their destinations?

All that said, JCPenny is the one who made it available and the one who took it off their shelves so blame them not the people who complained about it.

They took it down because of the complaints. Multiple people (buyers, web designers, managers, etc) saw the item without incident but it didn't become an issue until that petition was started.

Because the idea that we should just shut up and not complain is another message we should protect young girls from. There's no reason to support a store selling a message we don't like. Just like when Christians protest Disney (or whatever) for Gay Days. They're well within their rights to do it. And the pro-equality crowd supports Disney (or whatever) for it. So Disney, goes with a) what it thinks is right or more likely b) what will be the most financially beneficial idea.

@ the bold - That's my point. If I don't support that shirt, I won't buy it. If I don't support that store, I don't shop there. knight_shadow is not representative of the masses, so just because it doesn't suit ME doesn't mean that there isn't someone else out there who likes it.

JCP did the same thing, and apparently no one was supporting the idea that this shirt was a GOOD message for girls. So guess which way they decided.

I understand why JCP did what they did. My issue, again, was with the petitioners.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

I just shift in my seat with the WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN mentality when it's so easy to not buy the item.

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

I think Ed Hardy shirts look like shit, but I won't petition to have them removed from a store.

Do you really think this is comparable? If so, it is no surprise that you disagree.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by thetaj

3) Whoever didn't want to buy it so much that they made it so no one else could buy it

Yeah imagine a world where there are instances when individual outcomes are surpassed by aggregate outcomes. We should all just chill in our own little huts and let other humans fend for themselves, especially when we're talking about what mainstream retailers are selling.

I can't wait to see those awesome "I'm a baaaaaad bitch" and "ISUCKYODICK" tshirts for K-12. Those who don't like those shirts can just not buy them. Let everyone else do as they choose. And, yes, I consider an "I'm too pretty" shirt to not only be dumb but to be offensive gender jargon.

Societies are awesome.

[thetaj]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Yeah imagine a world where there are instances when individual outcomes are surpassed by aggregate outcomes. We should all just chill in our own little huts and let other humans fend for themselves, especially when we're talking about what mainstream retailers are selling.

I can't wait to see those awesome "I'm a baaaaaad bitch" and "ISUCKYODICK" tshirts for K-12. Those who don't like those shirts can just not buy them. Let everyone else do as they choose. And, yes, I consider an "I'm too pretty" shirt to not only be dumb but to be offensive gender jargon.

Societies are awesome.

This single instance just doesn't cross the line for me, and that's where our opinions differ. I'm no philosopher or politician so I'm not worried with the hypothetical situations that could stem from this, but I really wouldn't support an ISUCKYODICK shirt (though Spencer's probably already has these available for K-12). There is a line somewhere, but this one doesn't cross it for me.

[Optimus Prime]

Originally Posted by thetaj

This single instance just doesn't cross the line for me, and that's where our opinions differ. I'm no philosopher or politician so I'm not worried with the hypothetical situations that could stem from this, but I really wouldn't support an ISUCKYODICK shirt (though Spencer's probably already has these available for K-12). There is a line somewhere, but this one doesn't cross it for me.

I worry about this because hypothetical situations always stem from small instances. There is always a starting point and the small, "not so bad" ones always desensitize people for the really bad ones. I have no children to worry about wearing these shirts and I'm not a feminist, but this shirt is degrading to women.

I took a class on how movies and television roles portray gender and race. We don't realize how small messages like these really impact how we view, think about and stereotype people, but they impact us greatly. So even if it may not be an outwardly offensive shirt, it is sending a bad message into the minds of everyone and helping to shape more stereotypes that women have been trying to break.