I like the “fur is worn by ugly people…” as an idea because when I hear it I immediately think “ugly on the inside.” However, I don’t think it was well carried out.

And I actually love the ink not mink ads even though they make no sense because I like some tattooed eye candy once in a while. There’s aren’t enough shirtless tattooed guys in my every day life. I guess that’s objectifying guys a little but I think it’s okay to objectify strangers in certain contexts, so long as you aren’t objectifying people whose traits and personality you know.

re: dude. Dude is not gender specific! Take if from a California girl.

Re: language, I’m still working on phasing out certain terms, myself. As humans, I think we’re all never-ending works in progress, so many of these “isms” are just hammered into us from birth.

I think you’re safe with “dude,” though – to me, it’s like the male equivalent of “gal” or “lady.” :)

Anyways, I won’t act like I have never said “Fur Hag” in passing amongst friends and I won’t deny that I have ever used the word “bitch” or “chick” or “dude” or whatever. The idea of using it for an actual campaign is simply tasteless and useless. But, you do bring up a very good argument for eliminating it from my vocabulary completely.

I am far from being a politically correct. It’s just my nature (even as a feminist), but I do see how fur hag being directed only towards women and the focus being on women definitely goes against feminism.

Thanks for the entry.