Graeme Hamilton: Quebec feminists erupt over Molson's 'Goddess' calendars

[Mugu]

By Shane Dingman, network.nationalpost.com

MONTREAL — Using pretty women to sell beer is not exactly a novel idea, but Molson finds itself under attack this week for a series of calendars featuring scantily clad Quebec "goddesses."

The idea was to highlight the most beautiful women from five Quebec regions, and auditions were held to make the selections. In some cases the winners received a trip to Cuba for the photo shoot.

The images (which you can see here, and are only marginally safe for work) are for the most part no racier than what one would find in Sports Illustrated's swimsuit edition (Mind you, Miss February in the Quebec City version, wrapped in a strategically placed length of rope, would raise a few eyebrows on the beach).

Feminist groups have denounced the promotion as sexist and borderline pornographic. "It's disgusting," Estelle Lebel of a feminist research group told Le Devoir. "It's on a par with the old garage calendars. It's as if we go one step forward and two steps back."

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/07/11/graeme-hamilton-quebec-feminists-erupt-over-molson-s-goddess-calendars.aspx">Complete article and link to photos

[yardwork]

1. They're utterly fake looking! The photos have been so altered and air-brushed they look absurd.

The heads and bodies are out of proportion, the arms and legs are much too thin for the bodies, the breasts look like they were injection molded. They all look shiny and plastic like Barbie dolls that have been dipped in boiling hot water until they melted.

This isn't sexist. It's just bizarre.

[TreasonousBastard]

2. Well, I don't have to go any further than

Mlle Janvier to see why feminists are outraged. However, unless we outlaw pretty girls and force them all to look like (deleted to avoid this post being deleted, but I bet you can guess) these particular feminists will just have to stuff their outrage.

[devilgrrl]

3. One person complains and the media turns it into a controversy... what a joke.

Feminist groups have denounced the promotion as sexist and borderline pornographic. "It's disgusting," Estelle Lebel of a feminist research group told Le Devoir.

Why is it that these "Feminist groups" never seem to have names?

[Canuckistanian]

4. I think this is just the National Post trying to stir things up

The National Post is the arch-conservative's paper.

And besides, Quebecers are the most UNpuritanical people in North America. They're probably stifling a yawn.

A quick check of Le Devoir, Québec's major paper, reveals..... nothing about this "eruption".

[RubyDuby in GA]

5. That third poor girl holding the sign that said Colorado

has the wedgie from hell! Poor girl!

[MannyGoldstein]

6. All Women Should Wear Burkhas

It would solve a lot of problems.

[aspergris]

7. oh noes!

A company is using pictures of scantily clad attractive women to sell BEER?!?!?!

Spare me the outrage.

[pagandem4justice]

8. NO...

I think that the issue is with calling them "Goddesses." Imagine the outrage if a calendar featuring 12 different scanty looks of a "hot" guy called "God" was marketed to Christians. Those of us who are either Goddess worshipers or Polytheists take offense at humans being portrayed/marketed as deities.

[newmajority]

9. Well, there's two other things wrong with it

The whole damn website is in French, and it's sponsored by crappy beer. :beer:

[aspergris]

11. tabernac!!!! n/t

[aspergris]

10. oh, cmon get real

SO you are offended when the latest Men's Fitness etc. article says "Use this workout routine to become a Greek God" etc, or any # of cosmo articles of a similar ilk?

I mean, cmon.

Any monotheist who is offended by a statement like "Learn to Squat triple bodyweight and you will be GOD at your gym" needs to get a life.

Similarly, anybody who gets offended by a statement like "These women are goddesses" similarly needs to get a life.

I can kind of grok how people would get offended by a statement like the classic "we're more popular than jesus" except Lennon wasn't saying they SHOULD be more popular than Jesus, he was just stating that they were. Now, the statement is of course FALSE, unless you were counting 14-18 yr old girls as your only sample population, but you get my point.