On Halloween, about 2000 people received an email from the Highfields Center for Composting offering “New Rewards for Highfields’ Heat Recovery Kickstarter Project!” The Hardwick nonprofit has been researching ways to better capture the heat generated by decomposing food scraps, and is in the midst of a $40,000 Kickstarter campaign to help fund a research center.
The two images that accompanied the email, though, were startling for some. In one, a smiling woman held up squash to obscure her naked breasts, while straddling a green placard with the word ‘Compost’ written across it. Another woman lay topless in a pile of dark humus, flinging some up with her left foot. Both models were volunteers for a 2013 ‘Hot Compost’ calendar that Highfields’ planned to offer as a reward in its campaign.
But the cheeky photos sparked a small but vocal backlash from customers and others who found the concept offensive and demeaning to women. Under pressure, Highfields scrapped plans for the calendar and offered an apology on its website and Facebook page, in which it called the concept a “mistake” and said it did not reflect Highfields as an organization.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Seems some people have some very vivid, and dirty, imaginations.
This is ridiculous. Why are people so prude? These women look beautiful and were obviously very happy to participate. Why does no one ever say things like “that’s objectifying men”? Why is it always only women?
Nudity is not offensive. Honestly, people need to get over it – in many other nations, nudity is a fact of life, not an invitation or objectification. The women who modeled for the project were willing participants and appear to be having a good time – if you don’t want to buy the calendar, then don’t buy it! What’s next, burkas for all so we don’t “offend” someone? Spare me!
Heather Gray WAS NOT the photographer for this project. This project may have been inspired by her work, but she had nothing to do with it.
Get over yourselves whiners, no one is making you buy it. Probably the same people that want to decide who should/should not have an abortion and what god you should worship.
It does seem interesting that the Men of Maple Corner project was seen as “cute,” but these women are seen as “offensive.” Typical double standards at work again…
Nudity is NOT the problem. Objectification/sexualization and sexism are the problem. Did you actually read the article?
I objected on grounds of false advertising. “This will GET YOU HOT” the subject line of the email promised. “If these don’t get you hot (or your compost) than [sic] nothing will…” said the text. Even though I replied, “…not sure who your target audience is here…naked Hardwick
girlies do NOT get me hot…”, nobody responded with an explanation of why a respectable company would fail to deliver on published promises.
And also I think it slurred mechanics.
Besides which, it’s just plain unhygienic. Think of the microbes!
And furthermore…I’ve had it up to here with my body being up for discussion in public forums. Suffering through presidential candidates discussing policy for my insides is bad enough, but local socially-responsible businesses informing me about my own arousals is too much.
I would guess you don’t hear “that’s objectifying men” mostly because there’s not a lucrative capitalist industry profiting from same. Men are exploited in other ways, typically, usually by social pressures to squash down sensitivity and promote swaggering. A good starting point to learn about this is Jean Kilbourne’s film, Killing Us Softly. In 45 minutes she sums up 40 years of female images in advertising.
Men of Maple Corners showed men going about mundane tasks, and just happening to be naked. Hotties n’ Humus, at least the previews, seems to be explicit poses delivering messages contrary to a business that sells compost. As I mentioned in a letter to Highfields, “the photograph of the woman with widespread legs, vegetables, and a
placard could suggest a caption such as ‘F*CK COMPOST–USE
MIRACLE-GRO(TM)’ or, considering the glyphs on the placard and the
placard’s placement, ‘COMPOST IS GOING DOWN’.” But perhaps that was meant ironically?
I think it is very odd.
Men ARE objectified, more and more so……but just because we’re starting to objectify other genders doesn’t make objectification “OK”. Jean Kilbourne’s film helps lay out why Highfield’s calendar and sexist ad language (which by the way, was not fully disclosed in this article) is so damaging to our society and to ALL genders. Here’s the film: http://vimeo.com/20024751
Jean Kilbourne’s film helps lay out why Highfield’s calendar and sexist ad language (which by the way, was not fully disclosed in this article) is so damaging to our society and to ALL genders. Here’s the film: http://vimeo.com/20024751 for those who want to educate themselves. For the record, there were more than “6” people who expressed they thought the ad/campaign was offensive and I’m certain there are many more who feel the same way. And, as several of us expressed to Highfields Center and Seven Days, the photos and ad language expressed via Highfield’s campaign were nothing near “cheeky” and cannot be compared to the other, non-objectifying previously created fundraising calendars mentioned in this article. Like one of the commentators mentions below – the problem is not nudity (and no one protested nudity). The problem is around objectifying, demeaning photographs and language and the “socially progressive” organization’s continued self-defense and justification of such material. This IS a social justice issue. I hope that Highfields Center and other “socially progressive” organizations educate themselves on these issues and become socially mature enough to start promoting empowerment and self-respect of all genders, instead of distributing and defending the opposite.
Here is some of the original language around the calendar campaign, which has been pulled and no longer can be viewed on the Kickstarter update (although the original mechanic endorsement in Update # 2, along with the original photos, can still be seen under UPDATES) : “We all know some car-shops have some pretty revealing posters and calendars of models on their shop wall. Bring a little class to your mechanic’s shop – who knows, maybe he’ll like it enough to give you a discount on your next oil change. Package includes 2 Full 2013 calendars featuring the “Hotties of Humus”, just as steamy as our compost piles. Buy one for you and one for your mechanic. Bump up your pledge to $70 and we’ll send you 2 super-hot calendars sealed with a kiss from one of our models. See our new update for an endorsement from our local mechanics.”
And this in their original email newsletter: “Drawing upon some of the finest ladies in the Hardwick local agricultural scene and some of the finest compost in the world, we’re dishin’ up a calendar of hotties n’ humus for the 2013 year. This item is so hot it’ll make your neighbors’ compost piles hot, beware.”
I’d buy one
Let’s be clear, neither these images nor this language exists within a vacuum. Our culture constantly and insidiously sexualizes and objectifies girls and women at every turn. Adding to the body of work initiated by the first “Killing Us Softly”, here’s a recent report by the APA (American Psychological Association) that examines the profound effects this sexualization is having on girls and, by extension, women, in our society:
http://www.apa.org/pi/women/pr…
There’s no debate about this. The calendar’s images and language might as well have been copied right out of a textbook on the subject.
For Highfields (and Seven Days for that matter) to refuse to speak out about this epidemic (neither is willing to offer up or stand behind any proven research – we commenters are having to do it all) shows how there’s no realization by either party that there’s anything wrong with images and content like this. Even worse, reading this blog post, reading into Highfield’s relative public silence and reading the personal
email correspondence I’ve had with Highfield’s executive director its clear that that both organizations actually mock the outcry. Its not unlike the way the majority of the media presents the concept of anthropomorphic climate change – they can’t dedicate any time to the issue without also inserting pregnant doubt into the validity of the very concept, even though there’s something like less than one percent of peer reviewed scientists that question its validity.
What a shame it is that this proven and diabolical issue is not on either’s radar screen.
I did. Where, exactly, do you draw the line – and who gets to draw it? Do you think we should cover up all the classic sculpture at the State House because a lot of it happens to feature nudes? How about the statue near the entrance to the Chamber that depicts a near-naked Native American in stereotypical “noble savage” regalia? Maybe we should go to museums throughout the world and blockade the doors, or pretend that people are actually going to stop enjoying sexual imagery just because you think they should stop. From what I can see, the calendar features models who appear to be doing this voluntarily and are having fun. Does it sell? Yes; always has, always will. Why does that bother you so much?
The writing around the calendar from Highfields was shoddy and amateurish, not to mention they obviously don’t know much about their target audience. For a lot of businesses, the calendar itself would probably be perfectly fine – that *might* even have been true for Highfields, but obviously the framing language used struck a discordant note with the e-mail recipients.
The calendar idea, and the images released, seem harmless to me. The outrage kicked up in response is typical of people who actively think of themselves as progressive, tolerant and open-minded – what they really mean is they accept just as narrow a range of behavior and belief as anyone you’ll ever meet, but it’s their narrow range and they like it.
At least it’s good entertainment for the rest of us. Few things are as humorous as the horrified gasps of prudes at the sight of mildly suggestive photographs – or the puffed up pronouncements of the primmest rectitude, more useful for shoring up the self-image of “social justice activists” than for protecting the world from the pernicious influence of compost hotties.
Where did your body come up in this discussion?
The best argument against this calendar is made by Sheila below – the text accompanying the calendar images and promotional material was poorly written, poorly targeted and obviously not in accord with the image of Highfields.
Despite your attempt to paint Highfields and Seven Days as “objectification-deniers” akin to climate change denialism, what this boils down to is awkwardly written material and a clear error in marketing to Highfield’s current audience. Framing it as a social justice problem is frankly ridiculous, and does actual movements for social justice no good by conflating the very serious and real problems in the world with such absurdity.
And the word anthropogenic – I don’t think anyone is arguing that climate change is shaped like or has the personal characteristics of a human being.
Nate, Did you watch the film referenced in the comments? It’s not about nudity or being a “prude”. Sexism is harmful to the entire society. You can choose to see that as humorous and choose to ridicule those who call out the harm but that doesn’t make the harmfulness of it go away.
In my letter to the HArdwick Gazette, I called the pictures “mildly naughty vegetable play.”
Yes, the text was badly written and juvenile. But that doesn’t mean the women were exploited.
As with all sexual imagery, if you want to know whether the women in the pix felt exploited, ask them. Obviously they did not.
Prudery does not advance gender equality.
Judith Levine
Sexism and objectification of women, regardless of whether or not the person posing consents or not, does not advance gender equality either.