Gay Democrats Object to Sexy Burger Logo
Welcome Instapundit Readers!Â
As I take a break from writing the toast/speech for my sister’s rehearsal dinner tonight, Glenn Reynolds alerts us to a display of PC prudery at the University of Michigan.  And it’s not socially conservative Christians or Republicans who are objecting to the suggestive logo Ann Arbor’s Quickie Burgers, “a busty woman in a tight shirt straddling a hamburger.”  It’s the University’s Stonewall Democrats, “a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender caucus of the University’s College Democrats chapter.”
This Democratic group has been “circulating a petition to sway the owners to change the logo.” Club member Kolby Roberts finds the logo inappropriate and offensive, claiming its message not a good one since it contributes to “the objectification of women.”
Well, if he objects to the objectification of woman, he must also (favoring gender equality) oppose the objectification of men. So, therefore, I would assume he’s leading the charge against ads for gay bars, sexy photographs in gay magazines and any other media representation of scantily clad men designed to appeal to men like us who find such images alluring. And I trust he’s been leading a boycott of Abercrombie & Fitch, given how that clothing company’s ads “objectifies” young men.
Give me a break. Â If you find Quickie Burger’s logo so offensive, head down to McDonald’s when you want a burger. But, maybe that’s not PC enough for you. Or maybe it’s just that you’re offended by the display of a busty woman? Â Or just overeager to please your feminist allies at the U or M?
Gee whiz. Our society is rife with images which objectify men and women. That this Democrat would choose to direct his anger against a burger chain with a drawing of a woman when there are countless more alluring photographic images out there, suggests someone with a need to be offended.
Most adults, while we may be titillated by such images know better than to “objectify” members of the opposite sex (well, in our case, the same sex). And if they don’t, it’s not a problem of the image, but of themselves. And silly petition campaigns will do little to fix that.
So, to those Michigam Democrats, I say, leave the burger place alone and focus on improving yourselves.
As per Glenn, there’s more on this at Classical Values and the Advice Goddess.  Good posts both.Â
27 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leftists are so freakin retarded.
Comment by Vince P — March 29, 2008 @ 2:11 pm - March 29, 2008
I think it is more likely that some of the members of this group are misguided on this issue and I certainly wouldn’t ascribe their actions to all Democrats. Â I don’t agree the group should have taken on this cause. Â It probably would have been more appropriate (if taken on at all) by something like a local chapter of NOW, the campus Women’s Caucus, etc. Â I was actively involved in the gay campus group where I went to college and I remember a similar issue came up in my college town. Â A couple of women in the group wanted us to take up this cause, but a number of us (men and women) were against it for the reason that the overwhelming majority of people didn’t have a problem with it and it clearly wasn’t something that was seen as being an attacks on gays/lesbians/bisexuals.
PS - Interesting A&F is mentioned - I find it pretty funny that their store designs now have shutters covering the store (something very against the conventional concepts of visual marketing) almost as if there trying to hide something pornographic in their stores…but then again if you check out some of those big photographs hanging in their stores……
Comment by Kevin — March 29, 2008 @ 4:50 pm - March 29, 2008
I don’t understand the whole sex thing when it comes to selling products, but obviously it works. And gay periodicals are the absolute worst when it comes to objectifying people for the sake of selling something unrelated.
Here’s a parody clip from the old Ben Stiller show that I think is one of the funniest send-ups of the whole "objectionification for commerce" thing: http://youtube.com/watch?v=kRKk27i1Y7s
Comment by Rhodium Heart — March 29, 2008 @ 6:33 pm - March 29, 2008
What a non-issue. I wish they would focus on helping gays from being deported back to countries where they would be tortured or executed. That would be worth their time and energy.Â
I agree that the left gets distracted with a lot of stupid crap like this. And it’s why they have accomplished next to nothing over the last few decades.
Comment by Houndentenor — March 29, 2008 @ 7:02 pm - March 29, 2008
And to think I was headed down to In & Out for a burger! Not that the name is suggestive or anything to someone as pure of mind as I am.
Comment by Robert — March 29, 2008 @ 7:06 pm - March 29, 2008
Perhaps another campus group will object to the fact that the cowgirl straddling the hamburger appears to be holding a mug of beer in her right hand?
Comment by Christopher (Chino, California) — March 29, 2008 @ 7:10 pm - March 29, 2008
I’m at a loss why anyone would much care about the logo, much less an ostensibly gay alphabet soup organization. Maybe the Islamists have infiltrated?
Comment by Crow — March 29, 2008 @ 8:18 pm - March 29, 2008
I thought the picture was going to be suggestive!  I thought she’d be busty, or straddling the burger instead of sitting on top of it.  Â
Yes, if this is "objectifying" then any advertisement with a person in it would count.
(And abercrombie and fitch objectify young men who appear barely pubescent.  Got their height but don’t shave.)
Comment by Synova — March 29, 2008 @ 8:25 pm - March 29, 2008
I think the Logo is cute.. She looks like she’s having a good time. Why would someone spoil that with their negativitiy
Comment by Vince P — March 29, 2008 @ 10:53 pm - March 29, 2008
<blockquote cite="">Why would someone spoil that with their negativity</blockquote cite="">
Simple, lefties believe in equality. Since they can’t make everyone equally happy, they make everyone equally miserable.
Comment by Leah — March 29, 2008 @ 11:36 pm - March 29, 2008
And to think I was headed down to In & Out for a burger!
You can’t, unless you get a Double-Double for me. Seriously. It’s been 13 years since I’ve had a heart attack on a bun.
Now as far as the post: I bet a year’s worth of hamburgers that if you asked 100 people, at least 80% of them never noticed what the logo was. Therefore the GLBTWXYZ group, most likely, only increased the chances that folks would go there. This is free advertisement for the burger joint.
Frankly, I’m offended that gays are associated with liberals. Can we get a petition going on that?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 30, 2008 @ 1:13 am - March 30, 2008
Because, Vince P, in #9, some on the left don’t want people to have a good time, at least if they’re heterosexual.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — March 30, 2008 @ 2:26 am - March 30, 2008
I am offended! I think they should change the logo to a cowboy riding a foot long!
But seriously, I’m much less offended by the busty ho than I am by the fact that she appears to be farting mustard.
Comment by American Elephant — March 30, 2008 @ 2:53 am - March 30, 2008
Am Elephant: That was freakin hiliarious.
Comment by Vince P — March 30, 2008 @ 10:21 am - March 30, 2008
The guys in the Stonewall Democrat group are just jealous that they don’t get to ride meat that big.Â
The women in the Stonewall Democrats are just jealous that they cannot have that lady sitting on top of them.
Comment by ShermanStreet — March 30, 2008 @ 11:07 am - March 30, 2008
#10: "Simple, lefties believe in equality. Since they can’t make everyone equally happy, they make everyone equally miserable."                      Â
Well said, Leah. This type of crusade also illustrates perfectly how the "causes" undertaken by lefties are never about making the world a better place because only rational, thinking people are capable of seeing beyond their own narcissism and recognizing that even if they are successful in changing or censoring the logo it means NOTHING. Even if the proprietor were a sexist, objectifier of women, that would not magically change just because he (or SHE!) was shamed into taking the sign down. Nor would the censoring of the logo somehow PREVENT well-behaved, non-sexist male patrons from suddenly transforming into slobbering rapists and sexual harassers. This campaign serves one purpose: making pathetic, useless liberals feel wonderfully self-righteous in their deluded faux-heroism.                      Â
It’s also more evidence of just how perfectly comfortable liberals are condemning and suppressing speech they disagree with (or are simply uncomfortable with). For them, the "equality" Leah mentioned includes the "right" for liberals to be free from being offended by how other people choose to express themselves, commercially or otherwise. If they are offended by it personally, they see no problem with undertaking efforts to erase it from public discourse. As student Kolby Roberts puts it, "It just seems like it’s not putting a good message out there for the objectification of women." Naturally, the business owner’s decisions about how to market his own business are irrelevant–his marketing efforts are to be condemned and attacked unless he’s "putting a good message out there" about women. Dim-witted narcissists like "Kolby" attack the owner of a small business in the press, circulate outraged petitions in the community and try to pressure a private individual not only to conform to his silly view of the world, but to shoulder the financial responsibility of promoting liberal-approved messages in his marketing efforts. People like Kolby NEVER stop to think that they might be anything but the "good guys."             Â
Finally, their outrage is, in itself, sexist. The very idea that women somehow need the activism of the Stonewall Democrats to ensure their respect and equal treatment in American society necessarily implies that women simply can’t handle being depicted in this way or are in a blind, screaming tizzy out of fear that men might interpret the logo as confirmation that ALL women are just free-wheeling sex objects. If their psyches are that delicate, then perhaps the group’s next project could be to stop women from exercising their choice to actually behave like free-wheeling sex objects when and if they are so inclined. Why not? Apparently, women are so precious and fragile they need to be PROTECTED. We wouldn’t want the little darlings to hurt themselves–it’s a big, bad world out there.                      Â
P.S. BTW, you’re right, Kevin. The actions of the Michigan University Stonewall Democrats can’t be ascribed to "all Democrats" under these circumstances. The only way ALL Democrats would support this cause is if the logo had offended Michigan’s Muslim community.
Comment by Sean A — March 30, 2008 @ 11:42 am - March 30, 2008
Sean , as I was reading your post first I was thinking Hmm. I’m sure there’s plenty of Muslims at the university and I bet these leftists are too cowardly to speak out against what Muslims are doing. They only protest against "safe" offensives. It’s like when Madonna will mock christians and christian symbols even though it’s muslims who said they would kill her.
Comment by Vince P — March 30, 2008 @ 12:50 pm - March 30, 2008
The women in the Stonewall Democrats are just jealous that they cannot have that lady sitting on top of them.
Or if the cowgirl were riding a crack snack.
Anyway, does anybody know if there’s a Hooters close by? I’ll bet anything there is.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 30, 2008 @ 1:20 pm - March 30, 2008
#17: Right again, Vinnie P. Liberals believe that the Bush Administration has ALREADY accomplished its evil, sinister plan (supported by an army of Christian conservatives at the highest levels of government and at the pinnacles of billion-dollar corporate institutions) of establishing a global theocracy, rescinding the Bill of Rights, silencing liberal dissenters and exterminating innocent minorities and non-Christians across the globe. At least that’s what all of them keep telling me on their TV shows and on red carpets with 58 microphones thrust in their faces. Conservatives (Christian or not) are, from what I hear, the greatest threat to American freedom that HAS EVER EXISTED IN ALL OF RECORDED HISTORY. Accordingly, what could be more brave than celebrities like Rosie O’Donnell, Barbra Streisand and Sean Penn incessantly braying about this imminent threat around the clock–don’t they know they face assassination, medieval torture or being thrown in one of Bush’s gulags never to be seen again?! Where do they find the courage to speak truth to power in a country where free speech has been outlawed? It’s inspiring. Truly.
You’re right–the Stonewall Democrats (in Michigan or anywhere else) are only capable of "safe" protests. "Safe" means white, conservative and/or Christian targets because (1) these people are always the staunchest supporters of the Stonewall Democrats’ constitutional rights to bitch and be outraged about inconsequential matters (even when their beef is, as usual, with the conservatives to begin with), and (2) the targeted individuals would sooner cut off their hands than retaliate with anything more than a sincere apology if they inadvertently offended anyone. This is how useless liberals "save the world."
If these fools had any real courage or instincts to protect the truly oppressed, they would take on the draconian treatment of women, Christians and gays in the Islamic Republics of the Middle East and the communist regimes of Asia where real lives and freedoms are at stake. The problem is that it would require them to have the fortitude to identify and face down REAL EVIL in the world (Iraq, Iran, North Korea,…) and support U.S. efforts to depose, kill or contain those regimes that, in fact, threaten American freedom. There’s a name for people who are capable of going after the "not so safe" targets, and it’s not "the Stonewall Democrats." It’s SOLDIERS.
Comment by Sean A — March 30, 2008 @ 2:48 pm - March 30, 2008
16: Â thanks for the stupidly unnecessary and false P.S.
Comment by Kevin — March 30, 2008 @ 4:51 pm - March 30, 2008
 thanks for the stupidly unnecessary and false P.S.
Translated from Bullshit to English: You hit the nail on the head!
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 30, 2008 @ 5:35 pm - March 30, 2008
If you scan the middle school sex ed curriculum, I am certain there is a section on the "quickie burger" and how to exact optimal pleasure. Maybe the logo cutie is not ethnic enough to qualify for liberal approval.
Comment by heliotrope — March 30, 2008 @ 5:59 pm - March 30, 2008
#21: "Translated from Bullshit to English:Â You hit the nail on the head!"
OH! Â Well in that case, thank you, Kevin!
Comment by Sean A — March 30, 2008 @ 6:00 pm - March 30, 2008
Y’all figured it out ;-)Â Certain GP commenters - not all on the Left, but mostly - are actually complimenting you, if they purport to criticize you.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 30, 2008 @ 7:37 pm - March 30, 2008
#22
If you scan the middle school sex ed curriculum, I am certain there is a section on the "quickie burger" and how to exact optimal pleasure.
Perhaps if it was a chick riding a fur burger, they wouldn’t have a problem?
Maybe the logo cutie is not ethnic enough to qualify for liberal approval.
C’mon! Cowboys were predominately men. Cowgirls were for show at traveling performances like Buffalo Bill’s. Here you have a woman in a clearly dominate role even if she is farting mustard. How much more "progressive" can you get?
Would it make the liberals happy if the burger was riding the cowgirl? It wouldn’t make a damn bit of sense, but neither does anything else liberals like.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 31, 2008 @ 2:50 am - March 31, 2008
#25: "Would it make the liberals happy if the burger was riding the cowgirl?"
Liberals? Â Happy? Â Never.
Comment by Sean A — March 31, 2008 @ 5:56 am - March 31, 2008
Time well spent Stonewall Dems. Time well spent.
Comment by Rob Taylor — April 1, 2008 @ 9:44 pm - April 1, 2008