Doesn’t sending the message that “I am a sexy mom of an autistic child too” actually reify the idea that a woman should be sexy in order to be heard? You claim these videos were intended to be tongue in cheek, but there is nothing in the videos themselves to indicate that (imitation =/= satire).

The videos are saying “Hey, I am a sexy mom of an autistic child too. I believe in neurodiversity and don’t believe in the junk science of special diets.” (the opposite to what Ms. McCarthy believes).

Again, the sexualized images are meant to poke fun at at the fact that media is giving waaaayyyy to much attention to Jenny McCarthyand her opinions (because of her celebrity status) and ignoring other experts, parents and people who actually have autism.

Just because someone can do something doesn’t mean they should do it.

Just because celebrity shock works for anti-vaccine and quack therapy supporters doesn’t mean that everyone should go for the same celebrity shock value to get their message across.

These videos do not make for good marketing. The messages are obscured by the images and leaves the audience confused as to what is being ‘sold’ to the public.

Exactly.

Now, imagine an alternative ad in which the woman, still dresses provocatively said something like “I choose who to love and who to kiss. Autistic people know what they want, too. Support self-advocacy.” The agency of everyone involved would be preserved and promoted, bu there would still be the implication that this can be a sexy issue so-to-speak.

Really, I think the buying-selling issue is something that can most effectively be addressed from both ends. You can’t sell what no one is buying, after all. Positive, powerful images of female sexuality rather than passive ones, for example, are less likely to be used because advertisers believe that they will not appeal to those they’re trying to reach, so we don’t see those images in the media as often.

A clarification regarding the use of the word ‘bimbo’: I was not aware that it can be construed as a slur. I meant it as the dictionary definition: “A woman regarded as vacuous or as having an exaggerated interest in her sexual appeal.”

Your question regarding responsibility: You cannot buy something unless it is offered to be sold. If you buy what is being sold, it is a free transaction, an exchange of the buyer’s time/money/interest in return for the seller’s value proposition/product. If some people want to bring about change in what is being sold and bought in this market, whom should they target?

My focus was not on moral responsibility but on questioning what will work and what will not in order to bring about change. Moral responsibility lies equally on both men and women. But if the world is acting immorally and unjustly with some people, it is up to those people whether to take the burden of responsibility to bring about change in the world, or continue to hope that the world will realize its mistake.

@ekswitaj~ Well said. Also, I did not know of the term “neurodiversity” prior to this post. Thank you for posting!

Of course, women do have a responsibility to each to try to change this, but it seems to me that your concluding question and the use of the gendered slur “bimbo” in the first sentence suggests that women have a greater responsibility not to “sell themselves as sexual objects” than men have not to consume such images and mediamakers of any gender have not to create them. Why is that exactly?

When you say ‘another example of women being reduced to objects of sexual desire’, I detect an implied hint that this is being done by someone other than women themselves. That is what intrigues me – in this case, the model herself agreed ‘when asked’. Who asked is one question. But as long as women agree to sell themselves as sexual objects, will anything really change?