Word: ad
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1970-1979
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...disagree with the majority's judgment that Playboy's editorial treatment of women is often sexist. We did not, however, find the ad sufficiently offensive to merit an exception to our general standards of advertising acceptability. While the majority argues that the ad contributes "specifically to the exploitation of women," it is hard to see how The Crimson's refusal to publish it will combat the magazine's sexist view of women. The Crimson's suppression of the ad merely restricted the number of applicants from which Playboy's photographer could choose without making the resulting pictorials any less sexist...
Playboy does not photograph women against their will. For their modeling services, the magazine pays them a substantial fee. Had the Crimson published Playboy's ad, the women who read it would have had a clear choice--either ignore the ad or contact the magazine's photographer...
...find the majority's decision to withhold the information in the ad disturbingly paternalistic. The refusal to publish was a form of censorship that ought not to be tolerated in a community of intelligent individuals. It would surprise us if our readers were not more insulted by The Crimson's apparent lack of confidence in their ability to make intelligent decisions than by the content of the Playboy advertisement itself...
...argue, as the majority does, that it "does not in any way want to be party to Playboy's exploitative tactics" and yet still accept other ads for the magazine, as the Crimson has done and apparently will continue to, is clearly inconsistent. By saying that ads for the magazine itself are somehow less sexist than ads seeking models is to make a distinction without a difference. By publishing future advertisements for Playboy--especially for the one that will contain the photo layout of Ivy League women--The Crimson will inevitably take an active role in supporting the magazine...
...found itself in the difficult position of having to decide whether to run an advertisement asking Radcliffe students to call David Chan, a Playboy photographer, if they were interested in posing for an upcoming Playboy pictorial on "Women of the Ivy League." The Crimson decided not to run the ad because through the ad the paper would be actively helping Playboy in its exploitation of women--in effect, The Crimson would be acting as an intermediary between Playboy and the Radcliffe community, directly aiding the magazine in its procurement of models. These considerations, The Crimson decided, outweighed the usual concerns...