Here's the skinny on KFC: the world's largest chicken chain's US same-store sales fell 7% in the second quarter of 2010. Two weeks ago, KFC revealed more than 60% of Americans ages 18-25 couldn't identify who that "old guy" (Colonel Sanders) was on the KFC logo.
Obviously, time for a change! Spalding University in downtown Louisville is the first campus in America to be involved in the logo change. KFC's Marketing Division paid $500 for a cute college coed to parade around campus with "Double Down" emblazoned across her not quite tight sweat pants, obviously to attract young men who are the key customers and the biggest fans of "Double Down" KFC Sandwiches.
Frankly, I have absolutely no problem with this. But the National Organization for "I don't know what kind of" Women has a
problem with this. Terry O'Neill, president of NOW says
"It's so obnoxious to once again be using women's bodies to sell fundamentally unhealthy products."
Gee, I don't know....how healthy (emotionally and physically) is it for women to have perfectly good babies sucked out of their bodies in an abortion?
I don't know...how unhealthy (emotionally, physically, and financially) is it for women to intentionally make babies while single, with no daddy for the children and no husband to share love, life, responsibilities, and finances?
I don't know...how unhealthy (emotionally and physically) is it for women to put their children in the care of institutions instead of their own arms, voice and time?
I don't know...how healthy (emotionally and physically) is it for women to have casual sex ("hooking up" as it's called)?
These are all issues that NOW does not criticize.
NOW criticizes a sign on the rump of a college coed. Give me a break.
And as one comment on this story read:
"If NOW were not the shrill, hypocritical, quasi-Marxist 'women's advocacy group' that it is, it would concern itself with REAL issues such as Islam's treatment of women in much of the world (and in not-so-isolated cases right here in the USA) regarding honor killings, husbands' 'rights' to beat their wives, stoning, second- or third-class citizenship and the like.' "
And another comment:
"How amusing. So the NOW organization, which has no problem with burqas, and no problem with a former president [Clinton] accused of rape, finds it offensive for women to advertise on their behinds."
Well, I find it offensive when a gorgeous, voluptuous, former Miss Something or other, wearing very tight clothes, goes into the locker room full of naked men ostensibly to get "interviews" after a football game, and gets her nose bent out of joint when they hoot and holler. I thought her behavior was provocative, inappropriate, and unnecessary, and her outrage at being admired absolutely ridiculous. And the
got punished! I think
behavior was sexual harassment!
I thought the National Organization for "I don't know what kind of " Women's chief purpose was to promote women's rights? Doesn't a woman have the right to do with her body as she chooses? If she can kill babies in her womb, should she not be able to earn a few bucks with a "Double Down" tag on the rump of her loose-fitting sweats? Walk the streets in prostitution? Produce and star in pornography?
I had a feminist professor from an east coast university write me a threatening letter when I published a column promoting married mothers raising their own babies. She pretty much said I singlehandedly was trying to keep women oppressed and in poverty. So much for my rights to free speech. She promised to amass a movement to eliminate my written voice, simply because I promoted mothers loving, holding, teaching, feeding, protecting, and nurturing their own babies.
I don't believe NOW has much credibility in general, much less in this circumstance.