Recently in Advertising Category
And we're trying to get them taken down, FYI.
And in fact, let me tell you a lil' something that I often tell audiences when I speak on my book, Perfect Girls. The diet industry is a $30 billion enterprise in this country and it fails 95% of the time. Would you shell out for an iPod if it turned out to be a lemon 95% of the time? No, because you're not stupid. So don't diet. Ever. Okay, done.
Oh, wait, not done. Here's a picture of a little girl that I think is awesome. So not on a diet.
Hailing itself as the inventor of women's jeans, Levi's celebrates the 75th anniversary of women in denim.
First introduced to male laborers in California in the 1850's, jeans became a symbol of empowerment for women as an alternative to more feminine clothing. Levi's says, "People could tell a lot about a person just by looking at their Levi's® jeans - in the 1930s and 1940s, the waist, hip and length information was included on the waistband patch of every pair of women's jeans." Never before had a woman's value been so publicly reduced to the measurements of their body!
Obviously popularized by teenagers (See: Rebel Without A Cause), they are ubiquitous in America today. From loose-fitting, high-waisted jeans in the early years to the skin-tight, low-rise, objectifying period, to even the fake embrace of masculinity through the marketing of the "boyfriend" jean, denim and American women are now inseparable.
Still, the annual production of denim jeans requires 20 million kg of indigo dye, for which the treatment process exposes workers to such toxic levels of chemicals that their life span while working in such conditions is 5-7 years. Additionally, Levi's continues to exploit its workers in the production process, especially women working in un-unionized textile factories.
Thanks, Levi's, for the reminder that jeans have shaped women's lives in different ways: for the global North, they can be a symbol of empowerment or of objectification, while in the global South, they continue to be an oppressive means of employment.
This ad for Coopers Premium Light beer, created by a Singapore agency, is one of three. Get it? Because of the low alcohol content dudes won't have beer goggles and end up hooking with an "ugly" woman! Charming, no?
I just moved to Brooklyn (Fort Greene stand up!) and I'm definitely loving my new neighborhood. However, as a last tribute to my old neighborhood, I thought I'd share this feminist gem, snapped in the east village. I know there's been some lively discussion on this site in the past about the merits/morality of altering public property in the name of feminism, and I think that needs to be an ongoing discussion because I don't know that it was ever quite resolved. But for the record I tend to think that "renegade feminist" acts like this one usually do more good than harm. I don't know about you, but I can always use a little something to make me look twice at that objectifying image or heavily touched up ad and remind myself not to be fooled by the BS, or to ever take it at face value. So for that jolt of a reminder, I appreciate the person who put up this sign. The verdict is still out on whether or not these kinds of street sign tactics are viable for long term effectiveness.
What do you think-Was the ad problematic in the first place? (I say yes.) Are you moved to put a sign up every time you see a bothersome/un-feminist/offensive image? Would it make a difference if we all did this all the time? Should it matter whether or not this is technically "legal"?
From the early 80s...
And now.
We've covered the weirdness that is gendered vitamin marketing before, but I couldn't stop myself from posting this commercial.
Related: Shae's Community Post
Check out this really in-depth article following up on the some of the big picture questions I raised in my post last month about the new Google AdWords policy disallowing abortion ads in over a dozen countries.
The article was written by Masum Momaya of Association for Women's Rights in Development (AWID) and gives a dope analysis of this truly multi-dimensional topic. Also the article explicitly mentions Feministing commentors and a lot of the points you all brought up in my first post on the subject, which is awesome and a testament to all of your thoughtfulness!
*pause to reflect on the greatness of this community*
Anyway, one major reveal from the article is that, legally and practically, "those submitting the ads, and not Google Inc., should be doing the screening for legal compliance." So there goes the theory about Google AdWords initiating the abortion policy just to abide by local laws.
Also, the article gets to what I think is the heart of the issue by exploring the various competing interests that are informing Google AdWords decision-making behind closed doors: legal, social, and financial, and more, and then asking:
"So do we want Google Inc. sorting, accrediting and ordering our information for us, ads or otherwise? And is doing so in a truly unbiased way possible for a for-profit company whose major source of revenue is dependent on advertising?"
Yeah, and I would add that reproductive health care information in particular requires special defense, because it is so often under attack as being "controversial" or "politically risky" when it is just health care for women, who, need I remind you, constitute half of this earth's population!
Anyway, before I begin to rant more about that, let me get back to the article. Overall, I agree with the article's conclusion:
"It is important for women's rights activists and social justice advocates more generally to understand the issues and limitations behind what does - and does not - show up when Googling for "abortion" or any other topic, for that matter, and continue to be on the lookout for this 'invisible' violation of women's rights."
Word.
I know I shouldn't be surprised by PETA's latest billboard campaign in Florida - after all, their brand of activism has proven to be sexist and racist time and time again - why not fat-shaming to boot? (Part of me hates posting this at all because it does just give PETA the attention that they want. But I just had to.)
From PETA's press release on the billboard:
A new PETA billboard campaign that was just launched in Jacksonville reminds people who are struggling to lose weight -- and who want to have enough energy to chase a beach ball -- that going vegetarian can be an effective way to shed those extra pounds that keep them from looking good in a bikini. The ad shows a woman whose "blubber" is spilling over the sides of her swimsuit bottom...Anyone wishing to achieve a hot "beach bod" is reminded that studies show that vegetarians are, on average, about 10 to 20 pounds lighter than meat-eaters...
"Trying to hide your thunder thighs and balloon belly is no day at the beach," says PETA Executive Vice President Tracy Reiman. (Emphasis mine)
Seriously? This shit is just shameful. Consider this woman's reaction after seeing the billboard:
I was planning on taking [my family] to the beach to enjoy the beautiful day when I saw a billboard that made me want to cry....We all sat there and stared at it for a minute and everyone in the car was silent. No one wanted to mention my weight. I laughed it off as usual, but it really had made me so embarrassed, so self conscious and so ashamed about my weight that I dropped off my family at the oceanfront and left to go home, making the excuse that I wasn't feeling well.
I'm with Holly at Deceiver: PETA owes the residents of Jacksonville a serious apology.
Related posts: Sometimes there are no words
Quick Hit: PETA's Ad Banned from the Super Bowl
PETA: Cause objectifying women never gets old
When you thought PETA couldn't get worse.
PETA does it again
Same old shit from PETA
I just wanted to give folks an update - as you know we've been having a problem with really horrific weight loss ads popping up on the site. You all have been incredibly patient, and I know how much it sucks to keep hearing us say that we're working on it while the ads continue to appear.
So this is what's going on (for anyone who is interested)...
Seriously, marketing pink products to women is sexist. Many genders like pink!
Are they saying we are little girls that like pink? I am sure there is a relationship between marketing pink to little girls and grown women buying products that are pink, however, overall I think that is a weak relationship. Personally, I have never been a fan of pink, my favorite color is purple. The only grown folks I know that like pink are high femmes or gay men, but I guess that is just me.
The smaller text underneath is just priceless:
Women are soft and gentle, but they hit things. If your wife hits something in a Volkswagen, it doesn't hurt you very much.
I think I feel like hitting something right now... (Kidding! I don't endorse violence!)
See previous editions of Vintage Sexism here. Thanks to reader Lance and ncbeets on Twitter for the link.
Not sure what to think about this one. Zack's story, revealed to be a new ad campaign from Tampax (parent company Proctor and Gamble) is accompanied by a website, blog and Twitterfeed in the voice of 16 year old Zack, who supposedly wakes up with a vagina one day.
Besides doing things like making fun of V-Day (the name of the video above) which is traditionally known as a day to combat violence against women and girls, something about this series does not sit right.
The question of using stealth ad campaigns aside, I can't echo Double XX's sentiment that it's just a fun humorous video series. Maybe it's the employment of every gender related stereotype imaginable.
As Ann pointed out, it is also not a good portrayal of men. It makes them seem like they have no idea what women go through--totally the "men are from mars women are from venus" trope. Not all men are grossed out by female anatomy or as clueless about women as Zack seems to be.
The series also over-emphasizes the differences between men and women--all of sudden because of a vagina he sees the world totally differently. Starts eating yogurt, yells at his friend, changes his sense of humor, can't find anything to wear. All of this ignores the years of gendered socialization that a boy like him would have experienced. It essentially makes an argument that anatomy or biology are what affect these behaviors, not society.
One interesting twist though, is that despite Zack's genital switch, he still seems to identify strongly as male. Is there is a trans friendly message to be found buried here? Possibly the idea that genitalia doesn't determine your gender identity--although all his observations about the changes he experiences are incredibly gendered. Now I can't really argue that this message comes across through all the other super-gendered concepts and messaging, but one could hope.
What do you all think?
You can watch all four of the episodes out so far here.
I would LOVE to have been a fly on the wall in the ad meeting that choose this beauty of a campaign. Disgusting.
Unfortunately this isn't the first offensive ad campaign for BK--check out Ann's post about a previous incident in 2008, over the "Whopper Virgin" campaign.
You can contact Burger King's corporate offices here.
It is your official midday fluff post. But isn't it funny?!
Oh wait this isn't vintage, this company exists today. Sociological Images (which is increasingly my go-to place for great break-downs of visual sexism) has a great breakdown of their not-so-funny marketing claims.
Check out this ad that appeared in American Rifleman, the official magazine of the NRA. Because things that sparkle and shine easily distract silly women from their deeper concerns about having a relationship that is respectful and fulfilling. Ugh.
Thanks to Phillip for the heads up.
I found this via Sociological Images along with the title of the post a quote from where they found the picture (the URL seems to be down or I would put original link.) And yes, this ad is saying what we think it is. It is not an attempt to raise awareness around the importance of getting checked for breast cancer, but instead in an effort to be "quirky and edgy" relies on sexism. I almost appreciate that it acknowledges that women are objectified.
As reader Lorin said when he sent this in, "I feel unsurprised." It's not news to any of us that the people behind Axe's marketing campaigns have no respect for women, not to mention men's intelligence, but I had to post this one because it really takes the cake:
Supposedly this ad, created by a South Korean agency, is up on the side of a college dorm. I'm just hoping those who live there had control over whether it went up and when it was taken down. My hunch is that they didn't, which makes the whole thing even more gross. If anyone finds out what college/university it was that allowed this, please let us know.
Thanks to Lorin for the heads up.
