Anyway, here is an e-address for Lyreco customer relations : [email protected]

[ 02 March 2005: Message edited by: James ]

[ 02 March 2005: Message edited by: audra trower williams ]

If you're looking to find a dated, derogatory view of women in the workplace, look no further than the Lyreco Catalogue. The office supply
company features scantily clad women draped over office furniture in an attempt to push sales. In one photo a woman is pictured sitting seductively on a desk, painting her nails with the white-out she presumably purchased through Lyreco. In another, a woman in a bikini lays on top of a desk "tanning" under some lamps.

Local advocates Allison MacLellan and Audra Williams have begun a letter writing campaign against Lyreco, in reaction to these ads. Williams' company, Lefty Lucy Communications, is calling for the company to pull the catalogue, issue an apology, and make a sizable donation to MediaWatch -- an organization that advocates for positive depictions of women in the media.

"Until they do these things," states Williams "I'd hope that their customers would take their business elsewhere."

MacLellan concurs. "I think all women would hope that their respective employers would look to an office supply company that promoted equal rights, and an appropriate image of women in the workforce"

Terri Fraser, a promotions coordinator for the HRM finds the ads extremely offensive.

"It really shocked me that they were depicting professional women in this manner" says Fraser, "I would expect to maybe see these images in a fashion spread, but in a office supply catalogue? It was insulting."

Fraser immediately wrote a letter to the company's communications department expressing her displeasure. After showing the pictures to colleague MacLellan, the two decided further action was needed, and requested the assistance of Lefty Lucy Communications, which had earlier worked with MacLellan on a successful campaign to remove Tourism Nova Scotia ads from reality TV show The Swan.

Lefty Lucy is calling on women and business owners across Canada to write letters of complaint to the office supply company, which has several high-profile contracts. The letter campaign also consists of carbon copying local businesses and government offices that may be interested to note Lyreco's perception of women.

For further information:

Audra Williams, Owner
Lefty Lucy Communications
(902)423-8938
[email protected]
www.leftylucy.ca

[ 02 March 2005: Message edited by: audra trower williams ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Great press release, Audra. Just one question: what's "the HRM"?

---

quote:

---

The megacity that dare not speak its name.

---

That's very funny.

It's listed under document presentation. ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Great press release, Audra. Just one question: what's "the HRM"?

---

Her Royal Madness.

But seriously, good work Audra.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anchoress:

Or are they trying to corner the tiny market of people who need stationery in order to write a letter that reads, "Dear Penthouse Editors..."

---

"I never thought that this would happen to me, but while I was shopping for office furniture at Lyreco...."

Actually, I have been to your site, and was quite disappointed with some of the images in your portfolio. Not because I find them offensive myself--it is already established I am not easily offended--but because of the double standard you seem to have when it comes to using provocative images of women. Apparently from what I observed of the material LeftyLucy produced for "Dyke Night" (which contained an image of three nude women in a hot tube), or the Halifax Women's Dance (which featured suggestive images of women, particularly focusing on their cleavage,not to mention portraying cigarettes in an almost sensual and appealing manner as opposed to the very real health threat they present to women, who continue to smoke at alarming rates!) you have a very serious double standard concerning when it is approriate to use images of women and their bodies to sell or promote an event. When LeftyLucy does it, it's okay, for everyone else, it's wrong. More than a little hypocritical, don't ya think??????

[ 11 March 2005: Message edited by: NautiGirl ]

I think if folks feel that picutures of women in a BATH advertising a BATH NIGHT are the same as pictures of women in a BIKINI advertising a STAPLER, then I don't know what to tell them

It's weird that, like, you only pop up when people think an ad is sexist and you don't.

quote:

---

Having fun antagonizing some hyper-sensitive femi-nazis on an online forum. Some people need to lighten waaaaaay up. I tell you, trying to reason and logic with some people is pointless.

---

Nice website!

[ 11 March 2005: Message edited by: audra trower williams ]

You know, the difference between you and me is that you are the so-called "communications professional", yet your responses to differing opinions are far from thought out, well argued or logical. Instead, you resort to quoting personal websites, making personal attacks, or the likes. I would expect more from someone who makes their living from public relations--certainly a more "removed" and thought out response. I can tell ya, if it were my company's image on the line, I would think twice before calling the likes of LeftyLucy. But then again, judging from the content of your comapny website, it is more about promoting yourself than your company anyhow.

I have a keen interest in the media, and marketing and advertising in particular, which is why this thread caught my attention. And I am much more offended by images of 14 year old girls wearing enough make-up to make them look like streetwalkers (which are prevalent, and far more damaging to an entire generation of future women but I don't see you objecting or protesting to every one of those around) then to ridiculous pictures from an office supply catalogue. I mean, I had to go grab the Lyreco catalgue from work just to get the whole picture for myself, and I must say I have never seen a LESS seductive bikini in my life!!!!! There is a lot more cleavage on display on your own website than on the Lyreco website. But again, it's okay if you are selling to lesbians, but not to the general public. DOUBLE STANDARD!

And they say feminists are the ones with victim complexes.

Why not just participate normally on babble, disagree respectfully, and enjoy your time here instead of being so rude to a community of people you don't know?

[ 11 March 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]

[ 12 March 2005: Message edited by: Radices ]

No my Dearie, I came here to express a dissenting opinion. See the problem with your type is that you label people who express any opinion different from your own as being "rude and confrontational".

[QB] You didn't come here to have a healthy debate, or in any good faith whatsoever. So you come here, post in a rude and insulting tone (not to mention lifting your post from a Frank Magazine article - did you have to pay royalties for that?), [QB]

First, in the typical fashion of people of your ilk, who comment on things they hear about second hand as opposed to having first hand knowledge of (Audra's previous judgements on Mr. Keevill in the Alehouse thread, my first participation on this forum, are an example). I did not plagarize Frank in my post. Have you read the latest edition of FRANK? Could you please do me a favour and quote the phrases that you seem to think I have "lifted" from their pages??? To share the same viewpoint, as I apparently do, does not equate to plagarizing.

Where have I been rude or insulting? Did I personally insult Ms. Trower the same way she has insulted me in email, or insulted people who do not share her opinion? Nope. I have pointed out that she has a double standard in when it is okay to use suggestive images of women, and for what purpose, but that is not an insult by any stretch. If I were to say that "men must find her repulsive", which is quite similar to the phrase she used to describe a male she has never met, you would have a point. Again, a double standard exsists. It is okay for Audra to behave in such a manner, but not for anyone else, and even if they have done no such thing (I have not once made a personal attack on anyone at this site: pointed out errors in their logic, but not made a personal attack), it is acceptable, and even encouraged by some of the participants here to do so.

[QB]brag on your web-site about how you're going to go and stir up the "feminazis" (sorry, WHO is doing the cyberstalking again?), and then you wonder why you're not received well.[QB]

First of all, my website is a PERSONAL website, which I have in place for the purpose of family and friends only. It is not meta-tagged. You cannot locate it via Google, and it is not registered with any other search engines either. I take great offence with having my privacy violated to the extent that the link to a site which I have created at this point for the purpose of communicating with family and friends ONLY is posted on a publically accessible site. It is no different then me posting your home address or phone number, and I assume if you wanted that information shared, you would post it yourself. Likewise, if I wanted the general public to have access to my site, I would have included a link to it under my profile, as Ms. Trower did. Of course, it appears the issue of protecting one’s personal privacy seems to be one which is molded and formed to suit Ms.Trower and her followers, with little regard to those who fall outside that circle. I am sure the thought that it could jeoprodize my personal safety by having links to my photograph, and personal information such as where I work, where I sail from, where I attend classes never entered her mind. Again, if I wanted that information posted and viewable by the general public, I would have done it myself. It is Audra who shows a total lack of respect for others, and frankly, it disgusts me.

[ 12 March 2005: Message edited by: NautiGirl ]

[ 12 March 2005: Message edited by: NautiGirl ]

[ 12 March 2005: Message edited by: NautiGirl ]

I have had that catalogue sitting over my desk for 2 months, and never even gave it a second glance or thought after recieving it. Of course, since all this fuss, I have flipped through it several times, and found a great little desk organizer that I can't live without and will order first thing on Monday. I wonder how many other people will have reacted the same...

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
Messy desk, eh?

Who is Ms Towers?

---

Also, judging by your "Walmart Managers Gone Wild" photopage, I really don't think "your company" would ever hire me anyway.

Bath nights and women's dances are obviously marketed differently from office supplies. It's nice that you're concerned about the affect that the media has on young women, though. What're you doing about that?

[ 12 March 2005: Message edited by: audra trower williams ]

Yep, would seem to me that those ads certianly use a more seductive and objectifying veiw of women to sell their product then the tongue-in-cheek photo's used in the Lyreco catalogue.

Also, how absolutely naive must a person be to post under the same alias on a bunch of different sites, link to her supposedly "private" web site (lesson #1 - no such thing as "private" on the internet especially if you link to your web site from other public sites), and then get all upset because someone she called a "feminazi" found her easily on google?

I would suggest that if you don't want people to find things you've posted about being an expert at giving blow jobs (not that there's anything wrong with that, btw - admirable talent), as well as your personal web site, that perhaps you shouldn't link to your site from campus kiss (which IS googlable). Or, maybe if you've decided to have sport on a discussion board with "feminazis", you should perhaps not use the SAME ALIAS there as you do on other boards where you're bragging about your fellating prowess, or on sites where you've linked to your personal web site.

Just a thought.

[ 12 March 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by audra trower williams:
You've been given an argument several times. You just keep pretending you haven't.

---

I don't want an argument: I want a logical, NON-PERSONAL debate about the issue. There is a difference. You seek only to discredit on e personal level, not to actually debate the issue.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Well, given that her original purpose in coming here was to stir up the "feminazis", it's not surprising that she ignores the substantial responses she gets.

---

No, my original purpose in coming her, way back when, was to comment on how I think that women do a dis-service to ourselves by flapping our gums about relatively minor things like billboards and silly pictures on catalogues while larger issues go ignored. It was only after I expressed a dissenting opinion and discovered that rather than trying to thoughtfully explain their point of view, or thoughtfully try to explain why they disagreed with mine, they would rather Google me and post comments, links, etc from other websites on here vs enter into reasonable debate or discussion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by audra trower williams:
I actually don't think every single depiction of a woman as sexy is "objectification". It depends, as all things do, on context.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by audra trower williams:
Please tell me, NautiGirl, what "larger issues" you think I am ignoring?

---

[ 12 March 2005: Message edited by: NautiGirl ]

quote:

---

I think if folks feel that picutures of women in a BATH advertising a BATH NIGHT are the same as pictures of women in a BIKINI advertising a STAPLER, then I don't know what to tell them

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
It's okay (as far as I'm concerned) to advertise for a WOMEN'S BATH NIGHT by showing women in a bath tub. Sorry you're having such a hard time figuring out why sexist stereotypes of female office workers isn't the same as advertising a women's bath night.

---

I was fine up until the part about you being sorry for me. It would be easy to attack you back instead of attacking the issue.

Bigger issues then billboards and dumb photos in a catalogue?

Mmm....wage equity/gender discrimination in the work place, violence against women, funding for health issues specific to women, support of single parents (not welfare, but education programs, childcare, etc), conditions for women abroad....etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by audra trower williams:
I recall a lot of your saying you think some of the issues I've worked on aren't important. What I DON'T think you've touched on is:

1. What issues you think are more important.
2. In what ways you think I am neglecting these issues.
3. What you are doing to improve the world in the ways you think it is lacking.

---

1. The welfare single mom trying to get through university so she can break the cycle.

2. Spending time on what seems like frivilous issues like advertising. Well more to the point when its sooo pervasive in society choosing an office supply catalog.

[ 12 March 2005: Message edited by: NautiGirl ]

[ 12 March 2005: Message edited by: NautiGirl ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by NautiGirl:
Radices,

from what I can observe, most women's groups cease to take a genuine interest in a pregnant woman when that woman choses not to exercise her right to terminate her pregnancy. I see lots of "feminist" groups being vocal and loud about the right to choose, but doing very little to support and assist those who make a choice that is not abortion.

---

Whoa.

[ 12 March 2005: Message edited by: Anchoress ]

quote:

---

NautiGirl:...from what I can observe, most women's groups cease to take a genuine interest in a pregnant woman when that woman choses not to exercise her right to terminate her pregnancy. I see lots of "feminist" groups being vocal and loud about the right to choose, but doing very little to support and assist those who make a choice that is not abortion.

---

And this has WHAT to do with the Lyreco issue? (Hint: Nothing.) So why did you post it? You were confused? You wanted to start a new thread and couldn't figure out which button to press?
Nah. You posted it because it is consistent with a pathological anti-feminist series of postings that you've already made. And in such a context, it makes perfect sense. But why would any babbler want to make any more replies to such troll-like postings? One is enough for me. In fact, one is too many.

It is unfortunate I guess, given the other activities and initiative you mention that you are active or involved in, that when I hear your name, or the mention of your company, I immediately associate it with petty protests though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

And this has WHAT to do with the Lyreco issue? (Hint: Nothing.)
....

"Buu Bye."

---

It has about as much to do with the Lyreco issue as posting a link to my personal web page, my comments from another web forum, or assuming that I have an internet dating profile on a site called campuskiss or something along those lines. Why have you not chosen to ask that same question to those who chose to post PERSONAL information about me, or turn this into a thread that is about me, istead of the issue?

[ 12 March 2005: Message edited by: NautiGirl ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by meades:
ahem.
This would be the point you ignore, NautiGirl:
[QUOTE] I think if folks feel that picutures of women in a BATH advertising a BATH NIGHT are the same as pictures of women in a BIKINI advertising a STAPLER, then I don't know what to tell them

---

I don't think you were clear enough meades.

quote:

---

Originally posted by audra trower williams:
I'm sorry NautiGirl feels she portrays herself in a degrading way. I've only drawn attention to things she's posted herself. I'm also sorry she feels the need to refer to me as a "femenazi". That's pretty disrespectful.

---

So far two wrongs haven't made anything right.

How long did it take women to have previous sexual activities excluded from rape trials? Yet here we are listening to the champion of womens causes expousing the atrocities of a catalog while slandering a fellow womans character because well ..she started it. na na nana.

You're right though. Audra should turn the other cheek when being called a feminazi. I don't know what she was thinking.

quote:

---

posted by audra trower williams:
Hi babblers!
Sometime in the next week or so, I'd like to add a bit to the babble rules saying DON'T FEED THE TROLLS, only probably worded better. I think it's a policy we need, so we can enforce it, because right now all I can do is plead and plead with y'all, and it seems not to be working. It's getting so toxic.

Anyway, anyone have any thoughts, or suggestions as to how to word/implement this?

---

In addition to trolling, sock puppetry is also against the rules "Radices."

[ 12 March 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

Sock Puppets are extra Internet identities created for use on message boards by individuals to:

1 Agree with original individuals point of view and provide fake support, or

2 Support a point of view contrary to their own but write obnoxious and or stupid things at the same time therefore undermining the point of view espoused.

quote:

---

Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
Slander? Where?

You're right though. Audra should turn the other cheek when being called a feminazi. I don't know what she was thinking.

Are there any names that Audra should be allowed to respond to?

---

Audra however, and others, have in fact violated the policy :

You agree to avoid personal insults, attacks and mischievous antagonism (otherwise known as trolling). You will not post material that is inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy or otherwise violative of any law.

quote:

---

Originally posted by audra trower williams:
No, you called me a femenazi on your own website, with a link to rabble.

---

All of a sudden the words "You're so vain, I bet you think this site is about you..." popped in my head.

Sorry Audra, could not be bothered to storke your ego by adding your name to my own website.

[ 12 March 2005: Message edited by: NautiGirl ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by NautiGirl:

by invading my privacy by posting links to my personal website (which I chose, upon registering for this site, to keep private).

---

ahem.
This would be the point you ignore, NautiGirl:

quote:

---

I think if folks feel that picutures of women in a BATH advertising a BATH NIGHT are the same as pictures of women in a BIKINI advertising a STAPLER, then I don't know what to tell them

---

[ 12 March 2005: Message edited by: meades ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:

If you wanted to keep your id private, then why did you use the same name on Rabble and Yafro?

---

quote:

---

I think if folks feel that picutures of women in a BATH advertising a BATH NIGHT are the same as pictures of women in a BIKINI advertising a STAPLER, then I don't know what to tell them

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by meades:
This would be the point you ignore, NautiGirl:

---

And this would be the point you ignore meades:

quote:

---

Audra however, and others, have in fact violated the policy :

You agree to avoid personal insults, attacks and mischievous antagonism (otherwise known as trolling). You will not post material that is inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy or otherwise violative of any law.

by invading my privacy by posting links to my personal website (which I chose, upon registering for this site, to keep private). However, as usual, there is a standard for Audra and her followers, and a standard for the rest.

---

quote:

---

And this would be the point you ignore meades:
...
by invading my privacy by posting links to my personal website (which I chose, upon registering for this site, to keep private). However, as usual, there is a standard for Audra and her followers, and a standard for the rest.

---

You made a mistake. That's YOUR fault.

so once again, you're wrong.

wrooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong

And once again, I want to know what you have to say about this:

quote:

---

I think if folks feel that picutures of women in a BATH advertising a BATH NIGHT are the same as pictures of women in a BIKINI advertising a STAPLER, then I don't know what to tell them

---

[ 12 March 2005: Message edited by: meades ]

Thanks for the opportunity to participate.

You know Glenn, I'm not a violent person. I don't go walking around the street picking fights. Ever. But if you break into my home and start hitting me, I'm going to do my damnedest to beat the crap out of you.

The only person who wants to talk about the content of Naughtigirl's "private" website is Naughtigirl.

Everyone else (with the additional exception of Radices) is trying so hard to bring the discussion back on track to being about the difference in standards between different contexts, but the very brink of hilarity was approached when Naughtigirl directly responded to Meades by saying the real issue in this thread was that her privacy had been violated.

Sorry dude, this is not a thread about your privacy, no matter how hard you try to make it into one. No-one is interested in either violating or discussing your privacy. I think that knowing thy foe is a pretty sensible response when being attacked on the internet - you never know why someone might have an agenda against you or even have a worthy frame from which to be arguing what at first might appear to be a crappy argument. I think if more people used the basic tools of the internet to find out what their opponent is all about before engaging in debate, things might go a little more smoothly. It's hardly muckraking. Maybe indeed Audra uses her government name more candidly than you do on the internet, but if you go everywhere calling yourself Naughtigirl then you aren't keeping shit separate from shit. Just because you thought you had the advantage of being more familiar with her than she was with you, you're taking umbrage that you're not impossible to research.

You got caught out there bragging that you were baiting "feminazis". No-one said you violated the rules of the forum and brought the language here, but it blows your skirt up. I guess that's why you've abandoned actually trying to have this argument - you've been exposed as a troll. So now you're just trying to do damage control on that.

I'd suggest that if you want to salvage any credibility as a serious contributor to discussion around here, you'll drop the crybaby routine and make an earnest response to the actual flow of the argument, not this operatic meta-fight.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RealityBites:
Her information was not used against her. She, like you, came here for one purpose only -- to troll.

You know Glenn, I'm not a violent person. I don't go walking around the street picking fights. Ever. But if you break into my home and start hitting me, I'm going to do my damnedest to beat the crap out of you.

The lesson? Don't invade people's places, start hitting them and expect not to get the crap beaten out of you.

---

Do you really think Radices is trolling? I think he's just more sympathetic to Naughtigirl's position and is taking her side over a perceived insult.

I really did think he was a sock puppet for a second, when I looked at the post times, but in his defense he does link to a personal site from his profile and it seems like a lot to set up just to have a sock puppet come to your defense on a board.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesse Dignity:
Do you really think Radices is trolling? I think he's just more sympathetic to Naughtigirl's position and is taking her side over a perceived insult.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RealityBites:
I think he's trolling, but I didn't wish to imply he's a sock-puppet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by NautiGirl:

My ID on here is not the same as my ID on Yafro.

---

She's right, Heywood, she dropped all the vowels on Yafro. And on HotorNot its different yet again, both profiles, not to mention ....

quote:

---

Originally posted by James:

She's right, Heywood, she dropped all the vowels on Yafro. And on HotorNot its different yet again, both profiles, not to mention ....

---

You have waaaaaaaaay too much time on your hands. Funny, how I would never think to come here and start searching the bowels of the internet and googleing posters here, but it seems to be the MO of the majority of the folks here. Hell, you would think I am running for public office. And yet people accuse ME of trying to make this thread about me?????Whatever! Y'all are the ones who won't let it go.

I can't believe how whacked some of you can be, and how damn personally you take it when someone expresses a difference in opinion (which is what originally started this whole thing--I expressed a difference in opinion, and an issue with a double standard, which lead to others taking things to a more personal level). Yet again, I am done trying to have a rational, logical debate with irrational, illogical people.

[ 14 March 2005: Message edited by: NautiGirl ]

quote:

---

I think if folks feel that picutures of women in a BATH advertising a BATH NIGHT are the same as pictures of women in a BIKINI advertising a STAPLER, then I don't know what to tell them

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by NautiGirl:

when someone expresses a difference in opinion (which is what originally started this whole thing--I expressed a difference in opinion

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by James:

No, let's be accurate. You came over here a while ago on a little "raiding party", thought you had taken some scalps, which you took home and then proudly displayed around the web for your own glorifucation. That seemed like fun, so you decided to try it again. This time you were captured, and riduculed. Simple as that.

---

Yes lets be accurate ..the original post

===========================================

To: [email protected]
From: [email protected]
Subject: Harass THIS, moron.

Hi there!

I just wanted to let you know that your Ale House ad is utterly vile, and I feel that if sexual harassment had ever affected any woman close to you, you'd know that.

Not that I imagine women are clamouring to get close to someone who finds their oppression funny, so I suppose that's a moot point.

Yours in scorn,

Audra Williams

===============================================
Nautigirls first response....

I'm sorry, I just don't see anything in that advertisement which encourages people to go into the Alehouse and sexually harass women. I could perhaps almost understand being upset if the waitresses were adorned in Hooter-like uniforms, but that is not the case here. Clearly, they are playing up on the period costumes the waitstaff wear, with some humour (or not, depending on your sense of HaHa), and not advocating sexual harassment.

The controversy has done more to make this pub a recognized name across the country, than the billboard alone ever could. I am sure the owner appreciates the publicity.

I am repulsed by the personal attacks on Mr. Keevill. I would hope more people would not jump to snap judgements on folks based on a silly billboard advertisement. I really don't see the need to make those types of comments, particularly when you have not met the individual of whom you speak.

I find it interesting that someone suggested that we should first make sure a woman didn't design the campaign: do I understand correctly that from that perspective, it is acceptable for a woman to produce such material, but not for a man? Talk about a double standard! To me, feminism and equality is about eliminating double standards period, not just the ones that don't suit your own agenda.

Peace out.

=================================================

[ 14 March 2005: Message edited by: Radices ]

That post sure did miss the point by a mile.

Her posts in this thread were like, light years ahead of that until they stopped being about anything but herself.

[ 14 March 2005: Message edited by: Jesse Dignity ]