ABA Journal - Law News Now

Comments

• Report Abuse

1. Posted by Ellen Barshevsky - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 13 hours, 5 minutes ago

   Why do WE always have to be objectivized?  You know these men only want to see pretty women in skimpy bathing suits , and I’ll bet most of the men will be dressed to the nine’s in their 6 piece suits.  Also, why is it that these people are focusing on physical beauty, when it is our MINDS that differentiate us from other bimbos.  I went to law school to be a professional, not to show off my body to anyone.  I would NOT buy this calendar product, even though it purports to be gender neutral and for a good cause.  Face it, without pretty WOMEN, no one will buy it to see the guys.  Women should NOT be viewed as MEAT.

2. Posted by associate - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 10 hours, 47 minutes ago

   Ellen your posts always crack me up.  You’re like Borat, only you talk about post-feminism issues.

   Anyway, I was just thinking it’d be funny to be playing basketball with some buddies in a suit, or running in a 5k in wingtips with black socks.  But then again, I can laugh at myself.

3. Posted by msg - 4 months, 1 week, 1 day, 17 hours, 9 minutes ago

   Don’t worry Ellen - no one is going to buy it anyway except the conceded lawyers who apply to be in it.

4. Posted by dms - 4 months, 6 days, 17 hours, 40 minutes ago

   sure msg...you’re not a bimbo...you just don’t know how to spell conceited.

5. Posted by Rick - 4 months, 6 days, 12 hours, 40 minutes ago

   The world loves beautiful people.  They make more money, are more readily trusted, etc.  Welcome to reality.

6. Posted by Bill - 4 months, 6 days, 12 hours, 29 minutes ago

   Ellen, look what you did.  You just made an old man’s weekend.

7. Posted by An Older Grad - 4 months, 6 days, 12 hours, 15 minutes ago

   It’s a fine line between objectifying (to be distinguished from objectivizing, which I presume has something to do with “rendering objective") and admiring.  Physical beauty is what it is, and it is inherently subjective, and admiration is NOT always objectifying.  Objectification occurs only when the identity of the person is lost to the mere physical form.  Here, it sounds like the combination of “work and play” pictures, and the profiles (and presumbaly, recognition of their pro bono pursuits) at least SEEKS to focus attention on the whole of the person.

   Perhaps you could submit your own photo, Ellen, as a declaration of the beauty you find in yourself, and take advantage of the opportunity to write a profile that publicizes your views, exposes “the whole you.”

   The women in the calendar will, as do the men, have absolute freedom in choosing their poses and attire, and so can exclude themselves if they find their options offensive or degrading.  Perhaps, just for fun, they could all dress up in “male style” suits, to avoid any accusation that the clothes are sexist.  (This seems more likely to be accepted than a mirror proposal for all of them to dress up in acceptable women’s attire, though, having worn a kilt, I can vouch for the comfort of a skirt.) Faced with the assertion time and again that women’s clothing is sexist, women continue to wear it, though I can’t understand why women continue to choose to wear some of those shoes, for instance; cowboy boots have the same effect as stiletto heels of shifting your center of gravity off kilter, have the same effect of [as my Mom would say] “installing a swing on the back porch,” and they’re surely more comfortable.

   And if you think it will only be bought by men to see women, and not vice versa, I would hasten to point to the French rugby team calendar, “Les Dieux du Stade”:  Containing all men in the photographs, it is purported to have sold more than 200,000 copies of its 2007 calendar, and the 2008 calendar has only recently been released.  (They’ve been publishing since 2002, I think.) And it’s even “just” black and white photos.

   Many people who don’t even really use paper calendars would buy such a thing to support the charity.  As for the “conceited” people who are in it, I’m inclined to suspect that at least other members of their respective firms are likely to acquire and distribute it for the promotion of the firm and the values of those who work therein.

   In a word, relax.

8. Posted by Brian Meadors - 4 months, 6 days, 11 hours, 57 minutes ago

   This article is worthless without pics.

9. Posted by John - 4 months, 6 days, 11 hours, 23 minutes ago

   #8 - funniest comment yet.  Ellen, as usual, over board, get a sense of humor and a life.  The problem with feminists like yourself is that you do not want equality, but rather superiority.

10. Posted by posner - 4 months, 6 days, 10 hours, 7 minutes ago

    Ellen, the sixties are over.  The feminists lost.  I know, its a shame but we all have to accept it. 

    PS:  #8 - Hilarious

11. Posted by Lawyer - 4 months, 6 days, 9 hours, 39 minutes ago

    I think it is a great idea!  Why not flaunt the bodies behind the brains?!  It is extremely sexy when a person has the physical characteristics to back up their brain and knowledge.  Ellen, you are just jealous that some people have it all - beauty and brains!

12. Posted by nichole - 4 months, 6 days, 8 hours, 42 minutes ago

    Is “natural element” the law library? “Outside activity”? What “outside activity”? I don’t think they know what lawyers really do.

    To #8 - nice.

13. Posted by alli - 4 months, 6 days, 2 hours, 58 minutes ago

    ahhh, don’t worry.  The objectification of men is alive, well, and rapidly expanding.  In fact I have this calendar at my office for the slow days.  Hopefully the lawyer calendar will take some clues from this successful publication.
    www.mormonsexposed.com
    (don’t worry, this link will not get you fired or divorced)

14. Posted by feminist - 4 months, 6 days, 1 hour, 44 minutes ago

    Elllen, I agree with you. Poster of comment #10: feel free to kill yourself.

15. Posted by feminist - 4 months, 6 days, 1 hour, 21 minutes ago

    Okay, my previous comment may have been a smidge harsh. But seriously, “the sixties are over. the feminists lost"- your whole “get over it” attitude makes me sick.

16. Posted by XYZ - 4 months, 5 days, 18 hours, 54 minutes ago

    Pretty women brighten up any gathering. My suggestion: just use photos of gorgeous females. Who wants to buy a calendar with guys in it? Feminist braying aside, there’ll be more money for whatever charity the money is earmarked.

17. Posted by Regular Guy - 4 months, 5 days, 14 hours, 13 minutes ago

    Why can’t anything just be fun? Intelligent people are both making the decision to be featured in this calendar, and to purchase it.  The proceeds benefit a vital public service, which certainly needs the money.  Nobody gets hurt by this. 

    Are people seriously suggesting that if we don’t publish pictures of pretty people its a more fair and just society? I don’t think its so terribly shallow to appreciate natural beauty. People want to hang up pictures that they enjoy looking at.  What is the difference whether it is of gorgeous scenery or gorgeous people?

    I think this is a great idea to have some fun and raise money for a good cause.  If you don’t like it, don’t buy the calendar.  Better yet, come up with an alternative rather than criticize everyone else.

18. Posted by bd - 4 months, 4 days, 14 hours, 48 minutes ago

    Ellen is right.  May be a little extreme, but right.  The women likely will be pretty, but wearing little clothing.  The men, also handsome, won’t be skantily dressed.

19. Posted by anon. - 4 months, 2 days, 5 hours, 3 minutes ago

    As a man, I just have to say there aren’t alot of scantily-covering clothing out there for guys. I mean, I’ve looked for nice, classy dress pants with a slit up the inner pant-leg up to the crotch, but they’re just not out there.