Virgin: Objectifying women's bodies for 25 years!
Check out Virgin Airlines' new ad celebrating their 25th anniversary. Classy all around. I suppose I should be happy that there's no sign of urinals shaped liked women's mouths. Talk about progress!
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Virgin: Objectifying women's bodies for 25 years!.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11911
My favourite part is how they are all white. Because England = only Caucasian.
Ick. Even the airport customers are all white.
Also, one of the two "Bobbies" (British police officers) is a Black man.
I've never heard anyone call them 'bobbies' and I've lived in various parts of England all my life. I'm just saying :)
That is a really old slang term for British cops - maybe they don't use it anymore, although they probably did in the mid 1980's (when this commercial takes place)
You'd never know from this ad that the reason they have flight attendants is PASSENGER SAFETY.
The first airline to use flight attendants, American Airlines, hired registered nurses for their flights back in 1930 to assist passengers who got airsick or who were injured in rough landings.
That's why the FAA requires flight attendants on passenger flights - to assist sick or injured passengers and to assist with lifesaving after air crashes and rough landings.
Just ask the folks on US Airways flight 1549 - the 3 flight attendants helped get them out on the wings when the plane crashed in the Hudson River, and then helped them get on the rescue boats - one of the reason that nobody drowned is because of their hard work.
A friend of mine is a flight attendant for Continental, flying out of Logan Airport, Boston - before she even flew one hour, she spent a month in FA school, learning all about passenger safety (which, these days, also includes hijacking prevention)
But the stereotype is still that flight attendants are the busty blonde bimbos, put there for the sexualized amusement of the male passengers.
That's insulting to the professionalism and bravery of real flight attendants, it's also horribly sexist (and not just to the female flight attendants it demeans, but to the male flight attendants it marginalizes) and it's racist to all the flight attendants of color (like my friend, who is Cuban American) who also get marginalized and, in the case of women of color, "de feminized" and presented as less than the White women.
I agree. I felt really ashamed and angry when I saw this on tv the other day...
The red haired woman in the front row does not appear white. There also looks to be a woman of middle eastern descent in the back row, but I can't get a long enough glimpse.
So if you're not white and thin and wear drag queen heels you can't walk down aisles serving plates of pre-packaged space food? Oh the glamour of travel...
Would this ad be really much better if they had included a few non-white or even non-thin women? Unless they randomly selected people from the general population (and lose all effectiveness) ads will reflect the inherent problems within our society. And why do you want to try hide this by offering some token response that merely avoids addressing these concerns? I say keep the ads sexist, racist, homophobic. Putting a band aid on this problem (e.g. including some gorgeous black supermodel) will only hide the more serious issues that plague our culture.
Also, several of the background people are Indian or black. Of the "featured extras," one of the police officers and one of the paparazzi are black.
There's plenty wrong with this ad without making up things.
I don't think thats the point. The people that are the extras arent the desirables. The desirables are the airline attendants. And I think it says a lot that I have to look at the video twice to actually see that one of them may not be white. So yes, there are minorities in the video. But we all get what their saying here.
I certainly wont be flying virgin. Ack.
Want to really be grossed out:
Go here or, much worse, here.
I live in Seattle. It was maybe 50 degrees that day, at the most.
Okay, I'll try this one more time:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/399089_boeingvirgin07.html?source=mypi
If that doesn't open, go to the Seattle PI home page and click on the "more galleries" to the right, and you'll get to see Branson groping his flight attendant with a really effing creepy look on his face. Decision made to never fly Virgin.
Is this the picture you were trying to link to?
What a creep. Looks like the type of person who feels entitled to do whatever he wants to not only women but his subordinates within the company.
That's it! Thanks. I was just livid when I saw that photo. What an effing asshole that guy is. And, oh, ha ha, looks like she's just loving it.
It makes me ill that that was one of the "best photos of the wee" on the PI.
I saw the same picture in the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday, where they have a whole gallery of the event with several equally disgusting pictures.
http://tinyurl.com/c385vp
Yeah, "Sir Richard" totally looks like a sex offender in this pic!
Isn't making your employees engage in sexual conduct as a condition of employment illegal in Washington State - and in the United Kingdom as well?
Besides the fact that he gets to be fully dressed, but she has to parade around in a bikini, in cold-ass Seattle on what looks like a damp cold drizzly day, based on the pic.
And then there's THESE showing up in Canada (and likely other places, too!)
http://www.jennfarr.com/choice/GodsofRock.jpg
Okay, that didn't work. Try here, look for thumbnail photo on far right. I wont' do this again.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/photos/
Sorry for comment spamming!
I don't get this as a marketing scheme. What if you're (a) a hetero woman or a queer man who is not attracted to women at all or (b) a queer woman or a hetero man who is most certainly not attracted to bouffanted drones with plastic smiles?
I know, silly me, that ads have often been illogically geared toward only one segment of the potential consumer audience, but the continuing stupidity stymies me.
I think the way this is geared towards women is that these women are glamorous and women will want to be like them. As you can see in the commercial, ostensibly hetero women were also looking at the attendants in awe and a little girl was following them.
Although, clearly the ad is geared towards men. But in marketing, it is usually the case that a commercial will appeal to one defined segment over another, who can be targeted in an alternate form of marketing.
For a moment I thought that the Stepford Stewardess vibe was supposed to be ironic.
But of course not.
I know! I really don't see how this is "sexy" to begin with. For me, the vibe was more "creepy."
Our flight attendants are hotter than theirs!
For real?! Is that really their angle? WTF?
I don't get it. Are they selling shoes? I don't really understand why an airline would want to sell shoes, but, if they are expanding their market, good for them.
If Virgin wanted to sell shoes, those should be the ones. As a general rule, I don't go for shoes that are higher than 2-2.5 inches, but damn, those were cute.
They are selling 1984 or at least air travel as it was 20 some years ago. For some people, that might be sexy flight attendants. Virgin may be trying to make a broader statement about how the state of air travel has declined at other airlines, but not theirs! Unfortunately, that statement really does get lost in the "boobs & hair" ad that they came up with.
I have to say that I'm surprised though that everyone here ignored that the scene represented in the ad is from 1984, and doesn't necessarily reflect the world we now live in. The problem for Virgin is that the ad implies the company is still living in a world where there are no people of color and people choose an airline based on how "hot" the flight attendants are.
I mentioned this ad a few weeks ago in response to a post about a US airline's sexist ads, so I'm glad it got an airing on the main board. Yes, the UK is a thoroughly depressing place to be when it comes to tripping over sexist garbage wherever you go. The minor solace I take is that the makers have used a song about gay sex between men to soundtrack an ad clearly designed to appeal to straight men...I'd say that's the only thing in this ad that's even remotely funny.
I wonder how sexy their bunions are. Just looking at those shoes makes my feet cry in pain.
I find the overall tone and message of the ad pretty awful. "Fly Virgin. Ogle our live Barbie dolls." I have flown on Virgin Atlantic in the past, and their service was really good. It would be better if they could focus on the actual amenities they offer on long trans-Atlantic flights rather than the aesthetics of their employees. Especially since many more people are interested in whether the food is hot than whether the flight attendants are.
(I do like that song, though. And I'm glad that Tom Price -- the blond guy at the end -- is working, even if I wish it was in something else.)
I was waiting, just waiting for that predictable moment where an ugly, prudish looking businesswoman-type glared at the hot flock of stewardesses. I was not disappointed! Not one, but two tut-tutting prudes strike that last blow against us feminist dissenters. Keep it classy, Branson.
Get it? The guy spilling sauce on his shirt is supposed to make you think of ejaculation.
I actually liked the commercial up until the point where the captain (fully clothed and in a dark color) became the center of attention.
You see, I'm all for celebrating the awesome power women have to stop people in their tracks with sexual suggestion. We buy into the lie that female sexual power is evil and shameful and it makes us feel bad about the disproportionate power women have to attract attention. This shame exists for a reason. Think about it. It's why patriarchal societies want women covered up, so men can avoid being confronted with female sexual power.
What bothers me about the commercial is how this power is co-opted by the male, who becomes the center of attention. This dynamic is everywhere. Ordinary (or even "ugly") men are often seen surrounded by fawning beautiful women in the media. This makes men feel good because they can fantasize that all this female power is really about them, it is for them, for their ego-feeding.
I call B.S. As a beautiful woman, I can say that I don't notice 99.99% of the males around me. I'm sure that upsets some guys, to feel invisible, but it's not my fault. I'm just going about my business and my life doesn't revolve around a man. It revolves around me. I happen to meet societal norms for external beauty (something over which I have minimal control). So what? So much of this dynamic (that men want women more than women want men) is itself (at least in part) constructed by society.
>>"We buy into the lie that female sexual power is evil and shameful and it makes us feel bad about the disproportionate power women have to attract attention."
I can't speak for other feminists, but I do not buy into any such lie.
Let me tell you what I don't buy into:
I don't buy into the lie, propogated in the West for the past 60 or so years, that female sexual power is imbumbent on being (a) European and (b) of long and/or yellow hair and (c) very thin and (d) in a skirt that shows off legs, (e) in spike heels, and (f) very youthful/young.
I don't buy into the lie, long propogated in the West, that fitting this limiting description is the *only* way women can embody sexiness.
I don't buy into the lie that women embodying fantasies developed by and for the Industrialized Hetero Male Gaze is the source of a woman's "sexual power."
Finally, I don't buy into the idea that women's "disproportionate power to attract [hetero, Euro, industrialized male] attention" is an expression of a woman's own sexuality and sexual agency.
But the one thing we agree on is that the insertion of the male captain was egregious.
I add that it was yet more egregious that every flight attendant was female while the only pilots were male.
Incumbent.
I actually liked the commercial up until the point where the captain (fully clothed and in a dark color) became the center of attention.
You see, I'm all for celebrating the awesome power women have to stop people in their tracks with sexual suggestion. We buy into the lie that female sexual power is evil and shameful and it makes us feel bad about the disproportionate power women have to attract attention. This shame exists for a reason. Think about it. It's why patriarchal societies want women covered up, so men can avoid being confronted with female sexual power.
What bothers me about the commercial is how this power is co-opted by the male, who becomes the center of attention. This dynamic is everywhere. Ordinary (or even "ugly") men are often seen surrounded by fawning beautiful women in the media. This makes men feel good because they can fantasize that all this female power is really about them, it is for them, for their ego-feeding.
I call B.S. As a beautiful woman, I can say that I don't notice 99.99% of the males around me. I'm sure that upsets some guys, to feel invisible, but it's not my fault. I'm just going about my business and my life doesn't revolve around a man. It revolves around me. I happen to meet societal norms for external beauty (something over which I have minimal control). So what? So much of this dynamic (that men want women more than women want men) is itself (at least in part) constructed by society.
I'm glad you've posted about this, this ad's been playing over here for some time now and its irritated me no end-not surprising this is from virgin, the same company who hired women to strip in public for charity and appear topless with richard branston on a double decker bus around london. i'll never buy anything virgin!
battle angel alita, you can go a step even further than boycotting Virgin - complain to ASA and Virgin themselves and get this godawful ad pulled from our TV screens. If you click on the link to Shakes' website in the post, it gives you all details of how to complain. I've just done it and feel much better!
Oh and one more thing... I think it's awesome that Natalie Dylan is profiting of her own virginity. Sir Richard Branson may be cool as far as business people go, but I dislike the way in which males profit from female sexuality, beauty, bodies, and reproductive labor.
There was a Community post on that a few weeks ago if you're interested in doing a search for it.
For my part, I can be happy that an individual woman's choice has resulted in a windfall of money to her.
I remain disgusted that society is still arranged in such a fashion that her "virginity" can still be proscribed and defined as a commodity and valued as such, to the point that she's able to profit off that choice.
I criticize the social structure that makes the choice profitable and significant, not the woman or her choice itself. See the distinction?
Anyone who likes these commercials or doesn't mind them will henceforth have a big L on their foreheads as far as I'm concerned. I can picture them now: IQ of approximately 65, likes MMA, thinks wrestling is for real, lives with Mom at age 37, hairy fat belly peaking out from too-small T-shirt, crinkled beer can in left hand, contraband cigarette in the other...
Apologies if this has already been featured on Feministing and I missed it, but Southwestern Airlines have painted a woman in a bikini on the side of a "Sports Illustrated" plane. Apparently, in celebration of Sports Illustrated's annual swimsuit issue. http://tinyurl.com/dcym9r
Southwestern Airlines are objectifying women, in order to celebrate the objectification of women in "an annual swimsuit issue" by a magazine well-known for its objectification of women. If I were an American woman, I would not be flying with Southwestern, come hell or high water. As an Australian woman, I'll be registering a complaint (and informing them that on the future trips to the US I intend to make, I will not be flying with them). Southwestern don't have an email address for complaints, but you can call Southwest Customer Relations on 214-792-4223 (Mon-Fri 8am-5pm) or use snail mail:
Southwest Airlines
P.O. Box 36647 - 1CR
Dallas, Texas 75235-1647
While I was disgusted by this ad, my boyfriend thought it MUST be a joke. Because, surely a company cannot get away with such obviously sexist advertising?! Sorry darling, things ARE that bad.
I'm a flight attendant for a different major, and this made me embarrassed. I get weekly comments on why I wear pants. This is one reason why. When I wore a skirt during my probationary period, it was a lot like this commercial. People staring. We have new uniforms since spring 08, and they have this little scarf, and I just hate it. It makes me feel like flight attendant barbie and is dangerous. Someone could just grab my scarf and slam my head into things. They take the "look" over safety in this situation and it pisses me off. They prepare us and brief us on ways to be safe, and give us self defense classes, and then they slap this scarf around our NECK.