Why look, another thread where women get told what sexism is and isn’t. Great. I’m sure this will end as well as it always does…
21 Likes
You didn’t answer my question. How would you define sexist packaging, and what rules would you give brewers to follow? How would you crack down on sexism only, while allowing for sexual innuendo?
6 Likes
Packaging that utilizes derogatory and objectifying imagery/wording to stereotype a person based on their sex
But, I’m sure you will take the time to nitpick that definition. I’ll be the first to admit that there are probably much more succinct definitions. Instead, I’d appreciate you defining the terms “explicit” and “lewd” in this context - and explain how the definition wouldn’t include, say, classical art such as the Venus de Milo.
Again… if the goal was really about sexism that would be great. However, as you and I agree upon, this seems to be more about enforcing family-friendly packaging for the shelves of walmart.
Yes and no. The way woodchuck is made is more like alcopop. And even their dry contains a lot of sugar, there’s just tartness to offset it. Well made ciders tend to be less syrupy, and taste more of apple, or wine, less like apple jolly ranchers.
1 Like
When I saw this I was like “someone is going to get mad…”
It’s not sexist; it stays! Hooray!
EDIT: It was real tasty 
5 Likes
13 Likes
That’s still not clear or any less subject to interpretation. Your preemptive acknowledgement doesn’t change that.
Sexually explicit, which was the association’s wording is a pretty ubiquitous term. It is defined as:
“d]epictions or descriptions of: (1) sexual references; (2) full or partial nudity, including depictions of uncovered female breasts, aroused or unaroused male or female genitalia, and unrealistic or overly detailed genitalia; (3) bestiality; (4) sexual acts to or with minors (anyone under the age of 18); (5) sexual acts including, but not limited to, penetration/intercourse, and/or oral sex with or without another avatar or any other object, including overt sexual toys and/or sexual aids; or (6) sexual behavior that has a violent context.”[1]"
Lewd is defined as “crude and offensive” in a sexual way.
I think those are pretty straight forward, and that your suggested definition fits pretty neatly inside of the above definition.
We don’t agree on that at all. I quoted another poster who made some very valid points in support of the policy, and I included them for the same purpose.
I believe this is the simplest policy for the association to write and implement. If someone decides not to use the Venus de Milo on their beer label because of it, that’s just fine with me. But I doubt it will be a problem. The fact that more resturaunts and stores will carry more craft beers is icing on the cake.
8 Likes
Some people seem to be regarding any image of a woman on a beer label as inherently sexist, but there’s obviously a spectrum, with St. Pauli Girl on one end (She’s not spilling out of her dirndl or giving us a come-hither look, she’s a traditional German server you might see in real life at any Biergarten or Oktoberfest) and “Panty Peeler” on the other (which is just embarrasssingly gross; I can hardly think of anything I’d be more ashamed to be seen buying or serving or drinking.)
As for pin-up type labels, some are fairly innocuous
while others are way over on the wrong side of the sleaze line
It doesn’t do any good to lump them all in together.
ETA: The ratio of male to female weekly beer drinkers is 3:1. It’s understandable but shortsighted to go out of your way to appeal to a demographic you already have a lock on instead of trying to expand into one with more potential, especially with branding that actively displeases women.
6 Likes
I ain’t mad, but . . . that label doesn’t make me want to drink it 
8 Likes
what delicate, ladylike movements. You can barely tell.
“Horses sweat. Men perspire. But ladies merely glow”.
No. I saw exactly what you restated in your reply.
You see this as an attack on microbreweries, you resent it, and that your fear of microbreweries losing their creativity is equal to your concerns about sexism.
Obviously the association has taken on the responsibilty of deciding. I don’t doubt that they will make changes and exceptions as they come up, but that is the way of all policies.
This is a pretty typical and oft employed argument against progress, especially with respect to sexism. I’ve seen it in discussions about sexism in pretty much every area, that by omitting something that a lot of people see as tasteless and unecessary, brewers will lose all creativity. But I have a lot more faith in brewers and their imaginations than that. They will be ok.
Brewers want the awards and titles that the association grants, they want to sell more beer in more places, and many of them now understand that sexism doesn’t add to their revenue. What it does do is turn many new drinkers off to their product.
11 Likes
The policy that is now in place would draw exactly the same distinctions that you did. The labels you are showing would not be lumped together.
6 Likes
I didn’t read it that way, but if that’s the case I’m glad it’s more nuanced than I thought. (And more nuanced than a few of the comments here.)
1 Like
Well my understanding is that they will only be withholding use of the awards from beer names and labels that are sexually explicit and lewd. But I would not mind seeing fewer women as decorations on beer labels. It’s tired.
12 Likes
I am nuetral about those sorts of names without sexist images attatched to them.
6 Likes
I can say for cetain that it won’t be any mormon deacon, because they are 12 year old boys…and mormon.
5 Likes
I’m going with @quorihunter here. Beer has a long and proud tradition of naming things inappropriately. Raging Bitch isn’t a double entendre, it is a triple entendre. Gilbert Gottfried would be proud. Too Soon?
Yes. Yes it does.
Tee hee hee hee.
1 Like
No, you seem to be selectively blind to my repeated statements that I recognize the problem of objectification and that the policy has good intentions. And no, I most certainly do not equate anything to do with beer to be equal to the problem of sexism. As I clearly stated twice now, I am conflicted about the positives of the policy in regards to sexism versus the negative of the association impinging on the independence of the brewers.
You do seem to attribute to me things I didn’t write though. I didn’t say at any time that the brewers can’t sell beer without sexist labels. That was your straw man.
It’s not an argument against progress. It’s an argument against harming your own cause by alienating those who support you just because they don’t pass your purity test. You might recall the Hillary/Bernie infighting if you need a concrete example.
And, yeah, I’m feeling pretty alienated now myself so I’m done here. Best of luck in your future endeavors.
War Eagle. Wow.
