Girl Power vs. Feminism: An Interesting Juxtaposition at the Brooklyn Museum
By letterhead | June 4, 2008
Recently, I was at the Brooklyn Museum to see the exhibit of Japanese pop-artist Takashi Murakami, and found that it made an interesting comparison to the Ghada Amer exhibit in the museum’s “feminist wing” next door.
More important, I was there with my dear friend Cindy — a marketing whiz extraordinaire who is one of the savviest most down-to-earth people I know.
She manages to walk the finest of gossamer lines: being completely immune to hype and intolerant of contrivance, while being totally earnest and not the least bit jaded. (She is from the Midwest after all… as she says… “Get with it baby! It’s all happening in the Prairie!”)
After seeing Murakami, we walked across the hall, and as we entered the “Center for Feminist Art,” she rolled her eyes and just said, “No, no, no, no.”
Then, when we saw the big “HERSTORY” emblazoned on the wall, she let out a groan, followed by, “I. hate. this. It. is. such. bull. shit.”
Then, she related to me the following (her)story…
You Have Tits? I Have Tits!
Cindy told me:
So this woman colleague comes into my office and sits down, and she says: “Do you believe in women helping women?”
I told her that was a really bad place to start, but go ahead.
She said that she’d had this project on her desk for months, but that she’d been pulled in a dozen different directions, and she’d been traveling, and bla bla bla, and the project “got away from her”… and now her calendar was totally jammed, but she was up against a deadline and needed someone to take over pieces of the project to get it finished. And she knew I was really busy too… but could I help?… you know, because we’re both women and we should be supporting each other.
I said: “So let me get this straight. You think that because I have tits and you have tits, somehow that makes me obligated to cover your ass? I’ll tell you the same thing I’d tell any man who walked in here with the same question: NO”
Girl Power… ACTIVATE!
Right when we walked into the Murakami exhibit, Cindy was totally enamored. She laughed out loud: “I love it! He’s got quite the girl power thing going on.”
And boy does he. (no pun intended) One of our favorite pieces was entitled Second Mission Project ko2 — a powernymph who can fold her self up into a rocket ship:
Needle and Dread
By contrast, across the hall in the feminist wing, there is Egyptian-born Ghada Amer, who’s work is completely pickled in rhetoric. She embroiders erotic imagery onto canvass (and other materials)… for some reason thinking that sitting hour after hour laboring with a needle and thread is an effective way to “protest the tyranny” of housework.
Showing, at least, that she has a flair for irony. (no starch intended)
But in sum, the work is overwrought and hyper-intellectual, the kind of art where the concept behind it is more important than the aesthetics of the work itself. The work, in fact, loses a great deal of its meaning when shorn of political context. In effect, it cannot speak for itself because the artist is SHOUTING SO DAMN MUCH!
Ready, Set, Get Off!
Personally, Id rather be riding my rocket boobs to inter-galactic triumph than sitting around diddling my discontent with a needle and thread, which sounds a bit masochistic to me.
I get the fact that Ms. Amer grew up in different cultural circumstances — which were undeniably difficult, even dangerous, for women. And I get that she is addressing her experiences through her art.
My issue is that her aesthetic is masturbatory… and she’s too possessive with her creation… she’s gotta keep at least one finger in it at all times. So to speak.
She can’t give her work to the audience on its own terms and let the two of them go off and have their own relationship. She’s like a proverbial third wheel tagging along on a date — her political monologue constantly braying in the background. One gets the distinct impression that her inner agenda is to make her own “voice” the real center of attention.
I Showed You Mine…
I think this little juxtaposition sums up a key problem of our pandering, co-dependent, identity-base culture. It’s too self-conscious… dare I say self-obsessed?
It’s self-idolatrous, unlike “girl power,” which is an exercise in straightforward, unselfconscious, unmediated power that’s based within her person, rather than her political significance. Girl power is not contingent on anything.
Today’s “feminism,” however, is contingent on capitulation and validation by others. It’s the “I have tits you have tits” world of quid pro quos in which I am the center of my universe, and your obligations to me are assumed rather than earned. It’s enough to make you want to scream… in true shagadelic fashion… “Oh behave!”
Anyone with an ounce of “girl power” would have blasted through that project while sitting in First Class and sipping champagne, or gotten a budget for an assistant and delegated it months ago, or simply marched into the boss’s office and said “I need an extension”… anything other than making some wimpy passive-aggressive request that plays on guilt and the fear of being called a meanie if you don’t help a sister out.
That. is. manipulative. bull. shit. And if that’s all that’s left of feminism, then you can toss a shovelful of dirt on it, because when “empowering” is just another word for “enabling” then it’s pretty much useless.
Give me girl power any day… no pain no gain… feel the after-burn!
There, I showed you mine. Now show me yours… tell me what a sexist putz I am.
Topics: Art, Uncategorized | No Comments »
PRSA Gets it Wrong Again: CBS Rant Against PR Wasn’t an Attack, It Was an Obituary
By letterhead | June 2, 2008
What to make of this latest broadside against PR — by CBS news analyst Andrew Cohen… ? In which he says:
The reason companies or governments hire oodles of PR people is because PR people are trained to be slickly untruthful or half-truthful. Misinformation and disinformation are the coin of the realm.
Oh there’s sooooo much. Too much, in fact, to cover in just one post… So as we were getting all geared up to dig into the self-destructive habits of the PR profession in general, we’ll just consider this an opening gambit.
PUBLIC RELATIONS… IN THE HANDS OF PRSA:
The first thing it highlights is the utter lack of competence of PRSA. When a new client comes to you in a crisis after getting slammed in the press, 9 times out of 10 here’s what you find:
no pre-existing press relationships
a history of avoidance rather than engagement
a vindictive, self-righteous attitude that you can cold-shoulder reporters who don’t fawn all over you
database searches that surface years of consistent criticism paired with years of “no comment”
zero recognition that the organization needs the press — or even a press strategy
a belief that somehow in the heat of a crisis all they need to do is explain themselves and people will magically see it their way
deep resentment that someone would dare [!] criticize them
Sounds just like what PRSA has been doing for years. And PRSA’s response to CBS is also pretty much predictable and true to form. So PRSA “finds it imperative to affirm the professionalism of public relations practitioners and to take exception with what we regard as a misguided opinion.”
“Find it imperative” to defend yourself? Go ahead. Smack him again with that wet noodle. Surely it will change his mind.
My favorite is this quote: “In a business where success hinges on critical relationships built over many years with clients, journalists and a Web 2.0-empowered public, one’s credibility is the singular badge of viability.”
A “Web 2.0-empowered public?” What the hell does “Web 2.0-empowered” have to do with anything??? Couldn’t resist putting in jargon-laden talking points, could you.
STRETCHING CREDULITY
In the middle of the PRSA statement there is, surprisingly, a glimmer of insight. Followed immediately, and not surprisingly, by a steamy load of crap:
“For public relations professionals, engaging diverse and often skeptical audiences requires top-flight skills in communications, creativity and even persuasion, but a trust once lost cannot be regained. Unemployment, contrary to your opinion, is reserved for the professional who has lost his or her credibility.”
The first part is most definitely true. Lost trust is rarely regained.
And our entire profession has lost the trust of the publics we are supposed to be communicating to. In that regard, Mr. Cohen’s screed was not so much a criticism as an obituary — a statement of the plain truth that we have run amok and our reputation is in tatters.
We have no credibility left, thanks in part to the sterling job done by PRSA to represent the profession, not to mention develop and actually enforce a set of professional standards.
The second part of the PRSA statement is Exhibit A in why we have run amok: because our profession is stuffed to the gills with senior executives with no scruples.
Witness Jim Abernathy telling Business Week that the best way for China to deal with protests over Tibet is to distract people with some pretty little gymnast girls jumping around on the morning shows like a Chinese version of Mary Lou Retton.
Our vaunted leaders are out there every day foisting nonsensical, implausible, irresponsible dreck onto the press and the public (see any “BS of the Month Award” posting on this site for an example) and rather than getting fired, these people win awards and get promoted to positions of authority and influence.
PRSA may want to give the profession a one-memo makeover, but their claims stretch credulity to the ugly point — especially for a profession that has endured everything from unending political spin…
to fake press conferences (FEMA)
to fake blogs (Walmart/Whole Foods)
to hidden pay for pundits (Nuclear Energy Institute/Patrick Moore, Dept of Education/Armstrong Williams)
to Pentagon propaganda
to teaching PR students how to create fake blogs (Coach/Hunter Colege)!
And those are just the tip of the iceberg. The truth, as we have seen with our own eyes, is closer to what Mr. Cohen writes.
KEKST ADMITS THE TRUTH, WHY CAN’T WE?
Jack O’Dwyer’s, a few months back (Feb 13 issue), reported that Kekst is working for meatpacking giant Smithfield Foods, which is fighting efforts to unionize one of its plants in North Carolina. The company sued the union (under the RICO statute) to “seek relief from the [union’s] extortionate corporate campaign.”
The kicker, according to JO’D:
Smithfield seeks $17 million and a court order barring the union from issuing press releases or using other PR tactics targeting the company. [emphasis added]
HOLY SHIT! Did that say what I think it said?
With support from their PR firm (Kekst), Smithfield is seeking to portray common PR practices as “extortionate.” (see NY Times article for more) In what warped corner of Hell does this make sense?
A nationally recognized PR firm with the stature and influence of Kekst seeks to undermine and delegitimize – even criminalize — their OWN profession to win a PR campaign for a client. Of all the evil genius… would you have ever thought you’d see the day?
Or did Kekst & Co. just admit the truth that we all already know?
THE HAND THAT FEEDS, ON ITSELF
So it’s OK to use press releases, spokespeople, pressure groups, op-eds, hardball assaults on image and reputation… all in the name of winning for your client. Unless someones uses them against you. In that case they’re criminal racketeering: “the same thing as what John Gotti used to do,” according to a Smithfield lawyer’s talking point.
That example nails it for me. Facts are facts; and the facts are these: our profession has become a bastion of stealth, disinformation (e.g., the Pentagon talking head program), obfuscation, avoidance, diversion, distraction, and every other kind of trickery and hucksterism.
PR is eating itself alive, and PRSA’s response to the criticism — their complete denial — is emblematic of the profession’s long-standing trend away from straightforward engagement.
I, for one, can’t wait for the Silver Anvil Awards this Thursday night. Any guesses to whom PRSA will hand out the honors, and for what?
Do you think it will be for “truth and accuracy,” “ethical standards,” and “integrity?”
Don’t you worry, I’ll have a full report next week.
Topics: Public Relations | No Comments »
Giong Out on a Limb, I Predict: Joe Lieberman (R) CT
By letterhead | May 27, 2008
OK. Usually this site stays clear of politics because it’s just so darn ugly. And there’s so much lying, pandering, obfuscation, mealy-mouthing, hyperventilating and just plain spinning that its’ too much to keep up with.
But the more I watch Sen. Joe LIE-berman jockeying for the kissing-spot closest to McCain’s ass, and hear him burbling Republican talking points on TV, the harder it gets to keep the following prediction to myself:
Based on all his right-wing rhetoric (e.g., bombing Iran, Obama being a Marxist, Obama being the Hamas candidate) and his constant stumping as McCain’s “answer man” and officially joining the McCain campaign, acting as an apologist for Pastor Hagee, his willingness to appear at the GOP convention, and campaigning for GOP candidates in his home state, bla bla bla…
I WILL GO OUT ON A LIMB AND BE THE FIRST TO PREDICT THAT IF THE REPUBLICANS LOSE CONTROL OF THE SENATE, JOE LIEBERMAN WILL JOIN THE GOP. (AND THERE’S BETTER THAN A 50/50 CHANCE HE WILL ANYWAY.) Let the recall petition begin!
(And for the record I am a registered independent and I wish someone would please tell Bill Clinton to sit down and shut the F*K up. The whole victimology rhetoric kept his ass from getting impeached because it was basically true. As far as Hillary goes… not so much. She is her own worst enemy where truth, transparency, and authenticity are concerned.)
OK. That’s it for politics… for a while.
Next up… we will be exploring the issues of stealth and disinformation and how they are destroying the PR profession from within.
(Happy belated Memorial Day)
Topics: Politics | 5 Comments »
Jim Abernathy Gives China a Big Sloppy Kiss, Gives PR a BIG BLACK EYE
By letterhead | May 19, 2008
Just when you thought the PR profession could get no more immoral, unscrupulous, or just plain asinine, along comes Jim Abernathy to take us down to a whole new low.
O’Dwyer’s re-ran quotes of Abernathy’s interview with Business Week about how to deal with China’s PR woes surrounding Tibet, and its overshadowing of the Olympics.
Ever the statesman, Abernathy said he’d “find attractive, English-speaking Chinese women and a ‘couple of sweet little 19-year-old gymnasts’” and put them on the talk-show circuit. Direct from Business Week:
“We’ll have the Chinese version of gymnast Mary Lou Retton do flips on camera but provide only noncommittal answers about the conflict. We’re here to talk about little Mary Lou’s flips, not geopolitics.” The idea, of course, is to change the subject. “You want to make people like the Olympics because it’s sweet little girls and athletes doing what athletes do best,” Abernathy says. “That way it becomes a personal thing and less of a geopolitical issue.”
Ok Jim… and while you’re at it, why not go ahead and pinch the stewardess’s ass when she goes by with the drinks cart.
Sailing Without a Moral Compass
If Abernathy had been skippering the Ark, our freezers would no doubt still be stocked with frozen giraffe steaks to this day. [More]
Topics: Public Relations, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »
JetBlue In The Face (Part II): Exasperation and the REAL Difference Between Marketing and PR
By letterhead | May 15, 2008
I’ve still been noodling on the whole JetBlue post from yesterday and I think this event is a pretty good teaching moment for those who still can’t tell the difference between PR and marketing — as well as those executives who treat PR (and PR people) as a hassle without value. (And for PR students who may find themselves one day as professionals faced with this kind of situation.)
The key issue we will illustrate here is that the seed of most public relations disasters is bad behavior and poor decision making on the part of management.
These problems often fester at the operational level before they break into public view — which means that most of these situations could have been avoided if different decisions had been made, and the company could have gotten a better handle on the public mess if PR people had been involved earlier on.
This key observation is often overlooked in the never-ending and totally moot discussion of whether PR is subordinate to marketing.
Lesson #1: Multiple Guess
Imagine you’re a C-suite exec at an airline (i.e., any big company) and you find that in all likelihood one of your pilots (i.e., a senior manager) endangered the safety/life of a passenger (i.e., a customer) and potentially exposed the company to a federal prosecution. What do you do…?
a) give the pilot a raise…
b) give the pilot another drink…
c) promote him to CEO…
d) suspend the f*#kr without pay
The correct answer, or course, is C: promote him to CEO. [More]
Topics: PR 2.0, Public Relations, Uncategorized | No Comments »
JetBlue In The Face: Holding Our Breath Waiting for Some Smart PR
By letterhead | May 14, 2008
OK so JetBlue has managed to dive head first into another vat of boiling passenger resentment. But after the Arabic t-shirt fiasco, and the O’Reilly fiasco, and the 25-hour FtLauderdale-to-NYC flight fiasco, and on and on… you’d think that their PR team would be a little better prepared this time around.
Certainly better prepared than to simply give a “no comment” when queried about whether the pilot made a passenger sit on the toilet for three hours during a cross-country flight — a violation of federal regulation. Need we say”serious” violation, or is that an unnecessary redundancy?
The buddy-pass freeloader could, of course, have lined the walls of the loo with sanitary pads to create a little padded nook for himself in case of turbulence. But wouldn’t it be nicer to have a seatbelt?
How about JetBlue simply saying: “We’re investigating the alleged incident. Passenger safety is our highest priority. Any safety infractions will be dealt with quickly and severely.”
How about getting out ahead of the story? OK so you may have to sacrifice a pilot on the alter of remorse. But how does it look that you are stonewalling and protecting him instead of the people who pay you to fly them places? How about some concern for what customers might think?
When JetBlue launched back in 1999, it was with a decidedly consumer friendly brand image. Hip. Young. Open and straight forward. And even a bit cheeky. The uber-trendy NY-to-Miami route (Ft Lauderdale actually) was one of its first and most successful products. The company took great pains to identify with the mindset and lifestyle of its target customers.
And it’s just the kind of brand that takes a direct hit when the company does not live up to those attributes in its communications style.
Topics: Public Relations | No Comments »
Fox Business Proves Street Cred and Hypocrisy: White Cody Willard a Gang Member?
By letterhead | April 27, 2008
At a recent media party hosted by the UK’s heavyweight newspaper The Financial Times, Fox Business host (and Financial Times columnist and successful capital markets investor) Cody Willard flashed a gang sign for the cameras.
Willard is described by Huffington Post columnist Rachel Sklar as friendly, chatty, affable, jocular, and a good sport… all in the short space of three paragraphs.
Fox, it seems, has hit on a way to charm the knickers off the nuns of the left. But Willard, the affable jocular charmer, it seems is a bit of dense dunce — an uber-privileged white guy trying to feign hipness with a flash of street cred.
While you’re at it, why not pull your pants down and wear them around your ass Cody?
And while you’re posing, why not let’s ask Chris Wallace and Papa Bill O’Reilly what they think. I am sure that they will come to your defense, as fellow Foxes can be expected to do. It was all just in fun. Pretend. Make believe. We know he’s not black. He certainly doesn’t look scary.
But let’s get serious here for a minute. In reality, gangs are scary. And white guys co-opting black street culture is so… stupid. (They killed it with backwards baseball caps.)
Most of all, it’s insulting for a national “news” professional to be making light of the violence (nay, “terror”) that plagues so many urban neighborhoods where people of color have to live. Especially the same “news” network that uses “terror” as a club to beat the drum of war in Iraq. The same “news” network that pigpiles on the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright every day for being an angry black man.
Exploitation and hypocrisy are ugly when you see them up close.
Hey Cody… you know what… next time maybe you could just cover them up… with a bit of black face.
Topics: Race, TV, Media, Politics | No Comments »
Mahiavelli Fingers Bush: Touching Moments and an Occasion for Tears, a National Groundhog Day
By letterhead | April 11, 2008
A couple of days ago President Bush “blinked back tears” at the funeral of a Marine who threw himself on a grenade to save his fellow soldiers.
It’s tough to believe anything that comes out of the White House, given its seven-year history of… dissembling… a history in which Herr Karlmiester recreated reality to suit Bush’s political ambitions.
“When we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors.. and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do’ ”
Karl Rove (10/04)
Fixing a Hole Where the Rain Gets In
So when Bush cries, what “reality” is he aiming to create? Sympathy? Empathy? The pain of resolve? No doubt something as heroic as the man whom he mourns.
But what Rove failed to understand is that truly original narrative is almost impossible to write, and that people have been “studying what [they] do” for millennia.
Machiavelli nailed Bush to a “T” more than 500 years ago — pegging exactly what “reality” is being created, independent of the president’s intent:
“A prince must take great care that nothing goes out of his mouth which is not full of the [below]-named five qualities, and, to see and hear him, he should seem to be all mercy, faith, integrity, humanity, and religion.
“And nothing is more necessary than to seem to have this last quality, for men in general judge more by the eyes than by the hands, for everyone can see, but very few have to feel.
“Everybody sees what you appear to be, few feel what you are, and those few will not dare to oppose themselves to the many, who have the majesty of the state to defend them; and in actions of men, and especially of princes, from which there is no appeal, the end justifies the means.
“Let a prince therefore aim at conquering and maintaining the state, and the means will always be judged honourable and be praised by everyone, for the vulgar is always taken by appearances and the issue of the event; and the world consists only of the vulgar, and the few who are not vulgar are isolated when the many have a rallying point in the prince.
“A certain prince of the present time, whom it is not well to name, never does anything but preach peace and good faith, but he is really a great enemy to both, and either of them, had he observed them, would have lost him state or reputation on many occasions.”
from “The Prince”
That rib-tickling comedian Marx brother… Karl, that is… said that when history repeats itself, it is first as tragedy, second as farce.
In the ensuing 150 or so years, lots of folks have wondered: What about the third time? And the fourth? And the umpteenth? How many times has this scene played out since Niccolo sketched it in 1505?
What history repeating itself creates is… a rut.
Bush, no doubt, will call it a “legacy.”
Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments »
Bear Stearns CEO Wins BS of the Month Award: Can One Authentically Claim to be a Victim of Suicide?
By letterhead | March 30, 2008
BUT FIRST… THE RUNNERS UP…
Second Runner Up… Harper Collins’ Children, Birthed by Stepford Wives
When criticized recently for product placements in children’s books, Susan Katz, publisher of HarperCollins Children’s Books, responded:
“If you look at Web sites, general media or television, corporate sponsorship or some sort of advertising is totally embedded in the world that tweens live in,” Ms. Katz said. “It gives us another opportunity for authenticity.”
Like totally… wow! But isn’t “sponsorship,” like, um, acknowledged publicly, like when you brand a sports stadium with a sign big enough to be seen from space? Or when you, like, name a whole children’s emergency medicine department after a totally barfy but way popular clothing line? (Clothes like the t-shirts for teen girls that say “With These, Who Needs Brains?” and “Do I Make You Look Fat?”)
Hiding brand names in story books for piles of cash is a lot little less honest than openly promoting bulimia and boob jobs for teen girls — and then funding an entire hospital wing dedicated to “children’s health.”
More troubling, however, is the attitude of the authors. One showcased her “authentic”genius this way:
Wells [marketer and aspiring author] said she would not change a brand that she felt was at the core of a particular character’s identity merely to cement a marketing partnership.
Like, totally wow… again. So really the concept of “authenticity” is really all about stealth marketing? Wait I don’t get it, are you saying that the core of “authentic” identity for every teen girl in the world is… a brand aspiration. So that makes it OK?
It makes one wish that somehow Edelman had been able to trademark the term “authenticity,” if only to keep it out of the hands of dimwits like Wells and Katz. But maybe it’s me, maybe I am being like so totally blond and not getting it… [More]
Topics: PR 2.0, B.S. of the Month Award, Public Relations | No Comments »
Fans Want More Gay Kissing!! What Can a PR Person Say to That?? Seriously… What Do You SAY?
By letterhead | March 10, 2008
Hmmm…. it seems that some un-Godly fans of the P&G sponsored afternoon soap opera “As The World Turns” have started a letter-writing, protest campaign because they want to see more gay kissing, according to a recent article by the Associated Press.
It provides an interesting juxtaposition against today’s absolutely stunning! and shocking! revelation that a GOP Congresswoman hates the gays… she has revealed to the world that “gays” are more evil, and more of a threat to “our children” than Eeeslamist Terrorists.
(Our children?)(We gays don’t have many children.)(Being homo-terrorists bent on destroying their America, we shouldn’t really be allowed any.)(But wait… then why do I have so many God-children?)(I haven’t figured that one out yet.)(No doubt I have brainwashed family and friends into thinking that I am a normal human being.)
But no matter… the real story here is that in the fictional romance between characters “Luke Snyder” and “Noah Mayer” (jeez how queer do they sound?) fans want to see more lip-locks.
While all the straight couples on the show are smooching, ogling, groping, and dry humping their way to the next commercial break, apparently poor Luke and Noah are as chaste as blushing Edwardian virgins.
As a PR Person… What Do You Say to a Reporter?
That’s a tough one. According to the AP story:
The soap is owned, produced and written by Procter & Gamble Productions Inc., a subsidiary of the consumer giant that makes Bounty, Crest, Pampers, Mr. Clean and Ivory soap. CBS executives consult on the series, but the creative direction is set by P&G.
And when asked for comment, P&G spokesperson Jeannie Tharrington gave the following non-comment comment:
“It’s always hard to please a diverse audience,” Tharrington said, “and we have a diverse audience.”
BINGO! Triple-7’s!!! Must be in the front row! It may sound mealy-mouthed on the surface, but sometimes we PR folks are put in the uncomfortable position of having no right answer, and a list of conflicting agendas as long as your arm. [More]
Topics: TV, Public Relations | No Comments »