There has to be a better way to promote organ donation
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: There has to be a better way to promote organ donation.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13802
Oh dear God! Really!!! And I'm an organ donor too.
I think I just threw-up a little.
How can people create garbage like that and actually think it's okay?
They actually went there?
God, I'm head-desking all over the place today.
is that supposed to be sexy? cute?
disgusting..........
at least they didn't say, "... the only chance to get your organ inside her." i guess.
they do realize that to "get inside her" you are dead, right? and she is on her way to dying and probably in a hospital bed not quite looking like that.
this ad makes me want to cry. how can they make something so altruistic, life-giving, and optimistic so filthy.
what's next -- a picture of a sexy teenage girl to represent children dying in undeveloped countries?
I'm not defending this atrocious ad or anything, but not all organ donors are dead. You can be a living donor of a kidney, lung, partial liver, etc (http://www.donatelife.net/UnderstandingDonation/LivingDonation.php)
good point.
I wonder if they use the same agency as PETA.
Ew ew ew ew!
On the train yesterday I saw an ad for organ donation that said something like "4 out of 5 people in Illinois think organ donors are SEXY" or something like that. I would never think to use the fact that I'm an organ donor as a pick up line in a bar. How about "I'm an organ donor because it's the right thing to do" or "I'm an organ donor because I want to help save lives?"
This is just gross. It's one of those things were the ad makers/campaign people think that since they're doing it for a good cause it doesn't matter if they're objectifying women or being sleazy or whatever as long as they get their point across and more people rally to their cause. Peta ringing any bells?
wow. the only thought in my head right now is a resounding wtf. forreals, i want to know who came up with that and, more importantly, who thought that was a good idea? ugh.
awww, groosssssssssss.
This ad seems to appeal to exactly the type of douchebag who would be the last person to consider giving of themselves to help someone in need. Unless there's a demographic of donor fetishists. Apologies in advance to any sexist misogynist philanthropists.
That was shocking. I'm not shocked by much but my jaw quite literally dropped when I saw the text of the ad.
WOW, in such a bad, bad, bad way.
My jaw actually dropped too, and I'm not usually that reactive to stuff I see online. I mean, I knew it was going to be bad, but when I read the text I was actually surprised that it was that bad. Wow.
Hate to point this out, but Cara at Feministe found this a while ago.
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/11/14/message-to-the-guys-donating-your-organs-is-almost-like-sex/
"Also, let’s just consider the menz for a minute, can we? Think about it. You’re some poor guy who donates your organs for the purpose of showing the world how very macho and heterosexual you are, and then you die and your organs go to — oh noes — another man! That would, like, make you totally gay, dude!"
Hahahahaha! Oh Noes!
But seriously, this is just a horrible ad. Sadly, it's having the desired effect. People are noticing it and talking about it and talking about organ donation.
Oh thanks! Yeah, these ads often make the rounds for a while; it's the first time I'm seeing it.
good editorial there. that's right: would it be gay if their organs went to a man? lol
YUCKY AD
WOW- so that's offensive....
what publication was this in- anyone know?
That's fucking vile.
oops- didn't see the link above- was in a Belgian men's mag- got it.
See, there's a couple ways you could go to advocate for organ donation.
You could logically state your case--or emotionally state your case, if you need to--and hopefully rely on the genuine decency of human beings to sign up.
OR
You could make a joke out of it.
And this isn't even a good joke. I want to see anyone hold this up as witty or wry, in any way. It's got the humorous reaction of a Bazooka Joe comic, but with a little bit of added smuttiness to appeal to the part of our brains that finds anything to do with the hoo-hahs of a woman to be intrinsically hilarious.
So that failed...
This ad has done two things to me. It made me, first of all, go "oy, why does that need to happen?" in that pretty skinny ladies really don't need to be commodified for a good cause, like a human logo.
Secondly, it's made me extremely suspect of the people around me. I want to show this to all my friends, watch who giggles, and stop being friends with them. It makes me wonder who, around me, is a ten-year-old on the playground...
"I want to show this to all my friends, watch who giggles, and stop being friends with them. "
oh man.... there are so many times I feel like this with different things, but I'm afraid of what I'll find out :-(
Gigglers. I'm not mad. I'm just disappointed...
right, i wouldn't be mad, but would lose some respect :-( this is why i don't talk politics with my mom & dad who are pro-torture (their words)(but they get all irate about abortion.. wtf)
(and dad who thinks women shouldn't have the right to vote) :-(
Yeah, that's a lesson I've yet to really internalize. DO NOT ask parents what they think about anything. Ever. At all. It just causes my head to hurt. I think there was something in the water back then, that...ate...decency. I don't know. I'm not a scientist.
Regards to the ad, though. I just don't know who would be happy about this? Who does it appeal to? I mean, it's not even like heterosexual men should be happy because they can ogle an 80% nude lady. We have the internet. It's not like there's a shortage...
Ew. That's such an insulting poster, it makes me NEVER want to donate my organs!
Hahahahaha! The joke's on the sucker who falls for it though, since you'd have to be DEAD to get inside her! I can't stop laughing...
As another commenter has already pointed out, there is such a thing as live donation. Doesn't make the ad itself any less heinous, but you don't have to be dead to donate (e.g., bone marrow, partial liver, kidney, and some others).
In one swift move this ad tells me that super skinny is sexy and then makes me want to vomit up my lunch. Ironic.
That is really, really messed up. People donate organs and blood to help people who's lives depend on it, regardless of their age, gender or looks. It has nothing to do with sex. YUCK!
You know what I find so sad? Giving your organs is already associated with several good qualities: altruism, caring, compassion. Anyone who donates their own tissue, blood, and/or stem cells, clearly cares a great deal about other human beings.
But somehow, that idea, of caring for your fellow human, isn't enough. It has to be sexy, too. Caring for your fellow human is not as socially preferable as being sexy. That is horrifying to me.
Never mind that someone cutting your still warm body open on the roadside after the car accident sends a branch through your skull is as un-sexy as you can get. Never mind that your liver won't be getting any sexual pleasure from being inside someone else's body. Never mind that in all likelihood, your organs will be going to someone whose organs have failed, and so they are not the epitome of health and begging for a fuck, thank you.
It just absolutely boggles my mind the way things that make no sense being sexualized are called "sexy" in order to get more attention. You are a hero if you donate blood: I don't give a flying fuck if you look good in lingerie because your actions make you a good person and that is more than enough.
Oh dear god! That literally made me cringe.
Ugh. Sometimes I think the world is going backwards.
DOES EVERYTHING have to have a sexy lady in it? Every-freaking-THING! Can we please grow up already?
also, the ad MAKES NO SENSE.
Disgusting.
One of the many unfortunate aspects of this horrid advertisement is that the creators will inevitably defend it by pointing out what a good cause organ donation is, e.g. "We're using sexism to promote organ donation!"
Sure, organ donation is an important cause and this ad probably will inspire a few people to become donors, but that doesn't make the vile tactics behind the advertisement appropriate.
Wow, advertisement agencies have absolutely no limits when it comes to slapping half naked women onto a completely unrelated product or service. How hard would it be to make a poignant ad based on the idea that some good can come from a sudden, tragic death? Grieving families and friends may find some small comfort knowing that a death was not entirely in vain. Or simply show or offer testimonials from recipients who are alive due to donors.
I'm sure one of the reasons they went this idiotic route is to avoid directly mentioning death because people get uncomfortable. But when we are talking about harvesting organs from a brain dead body, it's sort of inevitable.
AAAIGH! What's wrong with you?
Don't you realize that organ donation has nothing to do with sex?
Don't you realize that no guy is that desperate?
Don't you realize the damage that is done by the above stereotype?
Don't you realize that people do this to help people, and that is enough?
Don't you realize that you're presenting that woman as a sex object to gain admission into rather than a human being worth saving?
Don't you realize that there's more to advertising that grabbing people's attention?
Don't you realize that just because you're working for a good cause doesn't give you free license to publish whatever idiotic offense crap you think of?
Don't you realize that no guy is that desperate?
Have you looked around at our rape culture lately? Many guys are "that desperate."
I feel like this slaps a stamp on organ donation as a socially acceptable, sexy thing. As if it was necessary. Does everything have to be sexualized? Music, TV, the news, every damn women visible within the media, hell even chefs (Padma Lakshmi with the burger commercial?), Dora the Explorer?.. Everything. Now even charity must be sexy in order to be acceptable.
"the only chance you'll get to get inside of her"
She's a human being, not a gateway to your pleasure.
I am a human before I am a woman. I'm so tired of seeing this classification reversed.
They do realize that not everyone may want to get inside her () as bad as that sounds) ?
Talking about advertising incessantly is such a waste of energy! It's always on feministing! There are about 10,000 better applications for a feminist analysis than stupid sexist ads.
I understand that it's an issue, but there a re so many larger issues with concrete implications. Is feministing just a place for pop-feminism? Really, we already have Jezebel.
It's not a waste of energy at all. The media is one of the most powerful communicators within our society, and with 10,000 ads a day for each person, one of the most subconsciously influential things in the world.
Addressing these ads is absolutely crucial to stopping them. And stopping them fights one of the worst outlets for sexism.
Um. Okay. You want us to find some sort of new thing to talk about? Abortion? Pay equity? Sexism in the workplace, in jails, on television? These are boring now? What have you got?
If feministing isn't satisfying your need to discuss "more important" issues, why don't you either: a. start your own blog which deals which issues that you think are important OR b. write a community post about these issues OR c. send these important issues to the editor at feministing.
I understand that what you see as a focus on "pop-feminism" might be frustrating, but I don't understand why you feel that what you think is important is what everyone else should also think is important? I'm not saying that feministing shouldn't be open to critique, but it's not my blog, so if I think something deserves coverage I can blog about it myself or maybe send it to the editors at feministing. I think that it's important to recognize the larger issues which "pop feminism" brings forward and go beyond simply a criticism of the ad, in this case, in order to uncover the systemic issues it reveals.
Although I recognize that Feministing can prioritize whatever issues it wishes, I also am tired of these "X product/ad is offensive" posts and find them trivial. These analyses aren't bringing anything new to the table. Nothing's being said here that hasn't been rehashed last week at Feministing, and the week before that, and the week before that. Nothing is being meaningfully "exposed" or "revealed" in some kind of meaningful, transgressive way. The editors can post what they want, but let's not delude ourselves that this is cutting edge theory or whatever.
Alessa - "addressing" these ads isn't doing anything to stop them. And I really question if advertising is one of the worst outlets for sexism - I'd say that violence, colonialism, and trafficking make advertising look like a children's picture book. There are myriad bigger issues out there than goddamn pop culture and media. The vast majority of women in the world have almost no access to media.
quantummechanik - I find that the white young feminist mainstream tends to stay relatively inside the box of reproductive rights, media, wages, and body image. I don't know why. I go to other feminist communities and it's all intense, difficult, thought-provoking discussions on radical love, guerilla gardening, the interplay of gender and race in girls' hygiene, issues of self-care, what it means to hate yourself in a society that wants you to, immigration and women's bodies, race in the trans movement, etc. Even the writing styles are different - less Feministing-style editorials, more raw, razored down, thick with emotion, pregnant with ideas writing. Coming back here for another abortion discussion is a bit underwhelming. Posts about offensive ads aren't even worth reading, for me.
i hope it's ok to ask this here and not tacky, because it's not as if I'm going to stop visiting feministing, but can you share what those other sites are? thanks.
Hey - I strongly recommend Little Light (http://takingsteps.blogspot.com), BrownFemiPower (http://flipfloppingjoy.com) and CripChick (http://blog.cripchick.com) for starters...their blogrolls can lead you on to more awesome finds.
Hmm. I tried to respond but got moderated, i.e, my comment is sitting in a queue. Either I angered someone or, more likely, it's because I had a bunch of links. So here's my unlinked version of starter recommendations - they'll all be in the top results at Google:
+ Takingsteps.com (blog by Little Light)
+ FlipFloppingJoy (blog by BrownFemiPower)
+ CripChick.com (blog by CripChick)
Also, Angry Indian covers a lot of vital alternative news that isn't necessarily explicitly feminist but touches on a lot of feminist issues like race, colonialism, corruption, etc.
thank you!
So why come here at all, if you have such a rich supply of feminist communities to choose from? I'm not being snarky, I'm being serious. I don't read blogs that don't interest me for one reason or another.
I don't feel that the whole site is trivial, just some of the posts. Mostly though, I've discovered I can learn a lot about privilege, power, and discourse by participating in the comments section. So I primarily stay for the comments.
I"ve never been clear on the term Pop Culture. People seem to use it to describe something either transient, without value, or without artistic merit. Or whatever comes out of the US. Some of the most lasting movies, television shows, pieces of music, etc. have come out of the US, and they've certainly not been transient. As for value and artistic merit, that's really in the eye of the beholder. But aaanyways.
I remember a discussion about the concept of radical feminism, and wondering what counted as non-radical feminism. I mean, gender equality counts, in and of itself, as a radical idea in that it involves a major restructuring of the systems that operate behind the world in which we live. Does that make all feminism radical? I'm not sure about that. What I am sure about is that inter-feminist fighting doesn't really accomplish much, while focusing on different aspects of the problems of the world and the possible solutions is what brings men and women closer together.
If you've got a problem with young white feminists and their priorities...well, you might be at a disadvantage for a while, because I'm going to assume that they've got most of the websites. But c'mon. This isn't trivial. Posting it isn't trivial. Exposing it isn't trivial. I didn't have any education in Women's studies when I started reading over these sites. That's why these sites, for the most part, work for me. They're accessable, in plain language, and usually witty enough to make people that are making and doing the bad things seem ridiculous as well as wrong. The people running this site are clever, informed, in touch with the society around them and feel that commenting on that society in an effort to show off why things should not be the way they are. We've got a world around us, a society around us, that simply does not work the way it's supposed to. What's wrong with showing that off?
Aaand someone has done my work for me.
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/04/12/faq-why-are-you-concentrating-on-x-when-y-is-so-much-more-important/
great link - thanks for posting it!
I feel that 'pop culture' commentary is extremely important. This is where my feminism stems from. As a young kid, I didn't deal with pay discrimination, abortion, health issues, or any of these more "serious" topics...I dealt with the images and ideas that media was presenting me.
So things like this hit close to home.
And I believe that ads like this show how acceptable and ingrained sexism is in our culture and that by attacking these accepted ads we can go a long way towards increasing understanding. I showed this to my bf and he didn't get why it was offensive at first (besides it just being a dumb and ineffective ad) but he got it after I spent time explaining it.
I always say this, but the little things ad up! This goes for sexist ads but that also applies to taking time to show/explain the sexism one bit at a time to others. So I think posts like this are important and serious and don't want to see them go away.
The problem with applying that "Feminism 101" post whenever someone says "I find X trivial" is that we could just as easily send that link to fellow feminists who complain (rightly so!) that the media does trivial coverage of feminism or women's issues.
What you have to consider is not just whether something was labeled as trivial in comparison to other issues, but also the context of privilege and power relations involved.
I don't understand how privilege and power relations effects what a person finds trivial as opposed to comparison with other issues\ideas\etc in that field.
There are a few ways power and privilege can intersect with judgments of importance.
Way #1: Issues close to the hearts of the privileged tend to be granted higher importance.
For example, attractive young white ciswomen who go missing, or are raped and murdered, are often considered more important to cover than women of color or women who don't fit conventional standards of beauty. There's power and privilege at work in that subjective decision of what's important and what's less important.
Way #2: Privileged people tend to characterize issues in a way that is deradicalized, because part of privilege is adhering, in certain ways, and often unknowingly, to dominant ideas and the "status quo". This can result in issues being discussed in a trivial way - in which I'm defining "trivial" as "somewhat sapped of what made it really powerful".
For example, some WOC bloggers have been talking about "radical love" quite a bit lately. They've been struggling with issues like: "How do we negotiate the challenges of loving people we do community-building with when they can also be very messed up and frustrating? Is radical love for your community necessary? Is it radical to love yourself?"
Then Jessica Valenti (from Feministing) did her own piece on radical love, in which the challenges of love were presented as "You can't just walk out on your job or quit in a huff. You can't make unilateral career decisions, or change jobs without extensive discussion and negotiation." In other words, Jessica discussed radical love mostly in terms of how personal relationships can restrict certain freedoms - freedoms that are filled with race and class privilege. I mean, being able to quit or change jobs is an unbelievable luxury.
So to many WOC bloggers, Jessica's take/review was a trivial version of radical love - it took out the most difficult, challenging, conflicting parts of radical love and left an easily digestible shell in which radical love is about not having to do dishes.
So along these lines, let's look at the current issue - lots of posts about sexist ads. How does privilege operate here?
I would argue that sexist ads have their greatest affect on a relatively privileged sample of feminists and women.
First, it takes some class privilege to be exposed to ads (such as through cable TV, magazine subscriptions, trips to the local mall, walking in urban areas where advertisers want to sell) in the first place.
Secondly, it takes some race, cis, able-bodied, etc privilege to be represented in ads, offensively or not. As you may have noticed, the ads which Feministing finds offensive primarily feature conventionally attractive cis white able-bodied women. Other women are generally rendered invisible.
Lastly, because of the previous two points, I believe that sexism in advertising is less radical and critical an issue for a good swath of less-privileged women, to the point where I believe my use of the word "trivial" is valid.
I mean, when your sisters and daughters and mothers are making the products in unsafe working conditions for shit pay and ungodly hours, I can't help but feel like blasting the moral implications of the promotional materials will seem a bit...expendable. Or when you struggle daily with poverty, violence, police brutality and ritualistic marginalization, saying "wait you guys, let's talk about how white cis thin women are being portrayed in ads" is, perhaps, not considered a terribly useful or crucial discussion.
To some extent, I believe that if analyzing ads is what does it for you, what opens your eyes to inequities, what makes that lightbulb above your heard turn on, you're probably coming from a place of some privilege. I know everyone has to start somewhere, and that's fine. But these posts pop up pretty much every week, and I feel like Feministing is missing an opportunity to push its own boundaries and let its feminism evolve.
Obviously it's fine to discuss advertising, but in this case I feel like Feministing has lots of opportunities to be more inclusive and provoking, but instead it's sort of hovering a little above Feminism 101, somewhat aimlessly.
I apologize if this offends anyone.
I'm also unsure as to the definition of "Radical love". Haven't come across that before.
I'm also unsure as to the definition of "Radical love". Haven't come across that before.
Also, is there a way to..depersonalize issues, I suppose? To look at what causes the most harm to the most amount of people, and concentrate on that, fix it, and move on...so on and so forth?
Radical love, I think, is still going through the process of being defined. However, if you want to see some great discussion on that very question, I recommend checking out:
http://flipfloppingjoy.com/2009/04/03/radical-love-what-is-this-nonsense/
As to your second question - I don't think we can really organize issues by priority. I do think, however, that those of us with privilege (i.e., all of us in some respect) can try to say, "Hey, I'm going to try to learn about 3 issues facing a disadvantaged group I'm unfamiliar with every month". I think that's a great way for individual cells to start branching out their activism without trying to do something unmanageable (like organizing a massive feminist takedown of various problems, one at a time).
What I am sure about is that inter-feminist fighting doesn't really accomplish much, while focusing on different aspects of the problems of the world and the possible solutions is what brings men and women closer together.
I don't know if this is what you're implying, but I don't think I'm inter-feminist fighting right now. Also, I'm really not inclined to hold back my criticism for the sake of the movement. The movement is a big girl, she can handle it.
If you've got a problem with young white feminists and their priorities...
I don't have a problem with young white feminists, or their priorities. Just as I find that women of color feminists tend to focus more on issues of poverty, violence, and community-building, I find that white feminists tend to focus more on body image, sex, and the media. Nothing wrong with focusing on what gets your particular goat; by all means, do the theory that you love. My problem is that young white feminists, partially by virtue of their privilege, are more likely to become "A-list feminists" with highly-trafficked sites, book deals, and public exposure - and the result is that if they don't make an effort to cover issues that might be a little out of their comfort zone, those issues may never be heard by a larger community. No, that does not mean Feministing is obligated to fill some kind of radical quota. It's not my blog, as others have pointed out. But it would be nice if they made more of an effort.
But c'mon. This isn't trivial. Posting it isn't trivial. Exposing it isn't trivial.
I said I find it trivial. As in, my subjective opinion is that it's trivial. At least do me a favour and acknowledge your subjectivity too. You're allowed to find this stuff meaningful and important. I'm allowed to find it trite and redundant.
We've got a world around us, a society around us, that simply does not work the way it's supposed to. What's wrong with showing that off?
Nothing. I'm just tired of reading the same sort of posts every week. And I don't think analysis of ads (yes, they're sexist, I get it) still has the same punch the three hundredth time as it did initially. Simply put, I think sometimes big blogs start to stagnate; they struggle to find challenging new avenues or to develop and grow like they did when they were smaller and newer. Whether this ad stuff drives people's feminism or not, I think the sheer repetitiveness of these posts - and their redundant conclusions - is a symptom of that stagnation.
That's completely accurate. If the A-list sites don't bring certain issues to the front page, they're less likely to get noticed. I'm with you 100% on that one. Diversity of opinion, of issues, of everything.
I think the problem with mainstream feminist sites (and I can think of many people who'd say those two words are contradictory, but I get what you're saying) is that they're written with traffic driving in mind. It's good to get content, to get community posts up, to get four-page comment lists. And I think that the issues that appeal to sort of the lowest-internet-user-common-denominator are the ones that you're talking about--body image, sex, abortion, etc--that end up getting the most screen time. Some of that is because it makes good copy, and some of that is because it probably applies the most to the writers themselves.
I remember, when I first started with my women's studies class, wondering whether there was some way to prioritize the issues that sexism and patriarchy brings up, "Okay, let's start with the murder. After that's done, fix the rape. Then fix the pay equity issue. And so on and so forth." Now, I think that that was probably a less-than-effective method of trying to rank problems\solutions\ideas--by what does the most damage, and could help the most. Forgive me, I was young--ish. I don't think any part of feminist theory, any aspect of it's issues, is more or less important than any other. I think that some things are more horrific and depressing than others, and some solutions proposed are more worrying than others, but whether something is, to me, more trivial? I dunno. Like when I started, if you lined up the gamut of bad stuff, the stuff on the light end does seem pretty inconsequential to the stuff on the heavy end.
No, critiquing\analyzing\expressing outrage at\mocking of sexist ads isn't "new". It's unlikely that anything that shows up in the comments section will change the political or philosophical gestalt of feminist theory. At least, not from me. I'm not that smart. But...I don't have to be. I like these sort of posts because they remind me what it is I'm talking about with my friends, my classmates, etc. I don't have the experience, the intellect, or the training to bring Feminist A-game. But what I CAN do is look at this very simple thing, and understand why it's bad. And it's tough, because I definitely feel like I'm out of my depths. I haven't heard of half of the things you mentioned. But if this is all I can do, then that's what I'm going to do. And I don't expect anyone else to be any better than me right off the bat.
I have to say, I think you're underestimating yourself here. You seem quite intelligent to me. At any rate, I think the deeper sort of posts I'm talking about don't require a bunch of obtuse academic language - just some patience and attention. A lot of WOC bloggers don't use jargon because they have non-academic working-class backgrounds too.
Anyway, I agree with you about everything else.
Is anyone forcing you to read these posts? If you have something infinitely more important to say or read about, why not do it instead of lecturing others about what they "should" find important?
Is anyone forcing you to read my comments? If you have something infinitely more important to read or respond to, why not do it instead of lecturing me about what I "should" comment about?
Ghostorchid totally said what I was trying to say, 10 times better than I could.
I think feministing is fantastically accessible, and a wonderful place for feminist discussion, that's why I read this blog.
I have just been noticing a lot of posts about ads; which I subjectively consider trivial in comparison to, say, discussion about 'immigrant' women.
I completely disagree. I think addressing them is a way to fight them; how else can we condition ourselves to recognizing it, and help others to do the same? It's these messages within the media that promote objectification of women, rape culture, and the overall sense that women aren't human. That causes violence against women, and treatment of women as objects.
All of those issues are incredibly important, obviously. But we have to address the cause of those problems. I think the media is a huge cause of it all, because everyone is exposed to it a ton, daily, and the common messages are sexist.
STUPID. If you're using an advertising gimmick that has nothing to do with the issue you're advertising, you might get someone's attention for a moment, but you won't keep their attention.
Same point has been raised about the PETA ads.
Ugh, this is another tone-deaf attempt on the part of a philanthropic organization to appear edgy and non-PC by objectifying women. Philanthropy and empathy have been so feminized in this screwed up culture that these people think they have to run ads like these in order to appeal to men who are afraid that doing something nice will shrink their man bits.
Oh come on. Everyone knows that thin, conventionally beautiful women have no problems in life! (... I'm kidding)
Am I the only one who also thinks this is also a sub-par glamour photo? They cut off her feet. That's not post-shoot processing. That's a major mistake on the part of the photographer. And that means they didn't have any better shots that were framed properly in the first place.
I used to be a deputy registrar. We tried to get young people to register with a "voting is sexy" approach. It was tacky, maybe, but let's face it - bothering people about registering to vote is tacky in itself. And sexiness is about more than physical appearance. Of course, we weren't toting around bikini models, but is there REALLY a problem with using sex to promote something that is socially beneficial?
That said, the way the tag line is phrased is far beyond tacky.
I'm generally rather hard to offend but there's something about this add that really rubbed me the wrong way. There's something about the phrasing on it that feels sort of rapey to me (but I've been feeling a little triggered lately so perhaps I'm just being overly sensitive on the issue). It almost feels like it's feeding off the sense of entitlement to women's bodies that many males seem to feel. Like they are promising some sort of access to women's bodies to those males who are so gracious to donate their organs.
Nope. It's not just you. It's not because you're feeling triggered. It is rapey. It is disturbing. It is not funny or sexy.
that's tacky
Ew! That is the worst...
No more words for this.
That is one of the most offensive ads I've ever seen and it takes a lot to offend me. It's just gross.
Not only is this offensive but I can't believe it actually works. I have just been reading about motivations for altruistic behaviour that has shown through psychology experiments and brain imaging that offering a small sum of money for an altruistic act actually reduces the number of people prepared to be altruistic. To be altruistic you need to feel altruistic and like you are really helping someone out. All this advert seems to aim to do is to turn someone on. I can't see how anyone, even the young males who I would guess this advert is aimed at, will move from feeling turned on to being altruistic.
DISGUSTING. I don't think I've seen an ad so exploitative in a while. Ugh. UGH!
This comment has been deleted.
Never mind appealing to women, or at least not grossing us out, eh? Just appeal to men, and your job is done! um, NO.
I do not care for "we're wired this way" as excuses for sexist behavior. Adult men are thinking, self determining human beings, not dumb animals that act only by reflex and instinct. Right?
We are biologically inclined to enjoy sexual connotations. That is something that we are. To deny this notion is to deny the essence of being a man. Believe me when I say this, literally all straight men (and probably even some gay men) would be enticed by that advertisement. What makes you believe that any healthy adult male would deny themselves the enjoyment of this image and joke? Especially for a good cause? What a horrid stand you're taking.
Right here. Heterosexual male. Thinks it's offensive, sad, annoying and in poor taste.
Well sir, I'm sorry you are without humor.
Oy gevalt.
"It has nothing to do with rape, that is foolish. You are obviously not the target demographic, that's because they used something called Marketing. Perhaps that's why you don't think the woman is sexy nor the ad funny? Rapey, give me a break you dolt..."
So let me try and understand your argument here. Firstly, according to you, this isn't an ad meant for women--targeting specifically heterosexual men--and thusly, any reaction of women is AT BEST an unintented consequence of the ad-makers and 'foolish', 'dolt'ish, etc.
Okayyyyyy.
Creating an ad about organ donation that specifically targets heterosexual men--I don't know if that's necessarily sexist, per se. It's weird, but not debilitatingly or offensively so, in and of itself. However, using underclad women as a...joke, essentially, a draw or a logo or some such thing, devalues women. Because it reduces her to a sex object--not even an active sex object, a sex object that's doing something interesting or desireable. She's something you want to be in, and dammit, you're going to achieve that goal one way or the other! If you don't think this is offensive, that this sort of attitude is worrying, or causes problems in any way, then there's about six books I want you to read. If you don't CARE, then I really can't help you.
"That is beyond asinine. So the previous generations were devoid of decency? Well, after all the years of human existence I'm glad you're finally here to fill that void. All hail the Decent Generation!"
I've been waiting for something like this--I thought it would be on a card or something, but hey, this is a start.
"Adding sex appeal to an advertisement unrelated to any sexual promotion is an effective way to reach customers. It triggers our...yep, you might not have heard of this...human sexuality. Believe it or not, sex is appealing to most people, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. And if you're using it to advertise for organ donors in order to reach more people, then that is a positive effort. It is admirable if that ad appeals to just one person, because that could mean one life saved. The joke, which is actually quite clever, lends itself to the target audience, men. Would you laugh at the joke if there was an average looking woman in the ad? Or perhaps we'd be treated to more "ZOMG but you'd be dead!!11! HAHAHA, SUCKERS!!". Sadly, I have no doubt it would be the latter. And do you really think people are dumb enough to believe their organs are strictly going to fashion models? Jesus..."
I'm going to leave feminism for a second (sorry) and move back a little bit to the philosophies of Kant, among others. There are immoral ENDS and there are also immoral MEANS. Kant believed that the essence of morality was something called the categorial imperative--Basically, that human beings are particularly special in the universe and that using them as a MEANS to accomplish something is immoral. There was a debate going on in my partner's med school, where the question was whether it was valid to use medical information discovered by Nazi's using human test subjects in Auschwitz. Basically, during the Holocaust, doctors had free reign to test out really whatever they could dream up, and they had some pretty...active imaginations. What temperature does a human body freeze at? How long? Can you surgically change the color of someone's eyes? Etc. Using this information was immoral, because although it could theoretically be used to help people, it was gained through the using up of other people--just like the Tuskegee experiments, just like a whole bunch of things. So, just because it's for a good cause, doesn't excuse the immoral means to which that cause is furthered.
"When you are appealing to men, sexy ladies work, because that's how we're wired."
Yeah. It's wiring. All these half-hearted attempts at edginess and their frankly creepy methods of sales is just what we're wired to respond to. I can think of two exceptions your statement.
A) Men who aren't attracted to 'sexy ladies' and
B) Men with FREE WILL
You know what's edgy? You know what's well thought out? A joke that makes us thing about something important, but taboo. A joke that makes us examine the world around us by demonstrating it's inherent silliness or it's inherent danger. All in the Family was edgy. Richard Pryor was edgy. This is just frat-boy. We're better than this.
"A joke that makes us thing about something important, but taboo."
woops.
So anyways, I have a sincere question for you. Do you think an organ receiver would care what made the donor inspired to donate? It's actually about them, not you. And drawing a parallel to the Holocaust is just insulting, I really hope intelligent posters out there don't run with that.
"Creating an ad about organ donation that specifically targets heterosexual men--I don't know if that's necessarily sexist, per se. It's weird, but not debilitatingly or offensively so, in and of itself."
Why do you find this so strange and foreign? It's almost laughable that you don't understand this as a powerful way to target audiences, especially the one in question. Sexy lady plus joke = attention. This is neither insulting you nor the men that appreciate the ad. Free will does not equal a distaste for sexual appeal; it does not neuter us. Why on Earth would you assume that "Men with FREE WILL" don't like sexy ladies in ads? Don't they have any sexual desires? Is sexual desire so suppressed by their intellects that they only find sexual notions appealing in a bedroom? That's actually the question I'd like answered.
How is an explanation about the usage of human beings as means, not ends, using a holocaust parallel insulting? Who does it insult? Why?
Yes, I hope that the reciever of the donation cares! I hope that everyone cares where they get their organs from, the circumstances around the harvesting, etc. That's a big deal.
It's odd because organ donation should be universal, and targeting a specific group for it based on what they imagine is a unifying characteristic of that group, is a weird thing to do. If an entire ad was crafted to appeal to the gay and lesbian community, and the tagline was "Recycle" it would be a bit odd, especially if the ad consisted solely of virtually nude men\women depending on what section of the community, I don't know, playing volleyball with a tagline saying "keep our beaches clean" or something. That would be odd. That would be an odd way to advertise, based on the percieved wants\needs of the group.
It doesn't need to be sexual. It could be anything. I like to read. I want to get good marks in school. If there was an ad that said "Hey? You want good marks in school? Take a trip to Hawaii!" then that ad, while appealing to my wishes unrelated to the product, would still be weird. This ad is both weird and has the added bonus of being offensive. Just because it's attention grabbing--and succesful at that--doesn't mean it's not offensive. Just because it's for a good cause, doesn't mean it's not offensive. It's offensive because...it offended people. The fact that it offended people makes it offensive. That's the definition of the word.
As for men, free will, and sexual desires--The wiring defense has been used an awful lot. Like, a lot a lot. Toooooo much. For both men and women. I like women. I like attractive women. I have glands. However, this doesn't influence my decision-making, my critical examination of things like this. If it does, if my brain is overpowered by my glands, it's a failing of mine. If someone gets so angry at someone else that they strike the other person, that's a failing because their rational, logical mind--the part that says it's not okay to hit people--got overpowered by the angry part. Just saying "But I have an angry part!" doesn't excuse it.
Everyone, let's not feed the troll. Feministing gave us a "Report Abuse" link for this very situation.
First of all, regarding targeting men with this ad for organ donorship...men are 50% more likely to be organ donors than women. That's a number directly from the US Department of Health & Human Services. You can try to ignore the numbers all you want, but there are 3 male organ donors for every 2 women who donate. That's a huge disparity. I suppose your feminist ideals couldn't possibly let you admit that men are actually helping 50% more people by donating organs, but it's fairly clear that they are. Targeting men with such an ad is simply a way of getting more men to donate, because obviously women are not pulling their fair share. Hyperbole to be sure, but what else can we assume? You have many, many more men who donate, therefore ads for organ donation must appeal to the greatest number of people who would be likely to donate, i.e. men. Marketing research is fairly clear when it comes to what kind of ads appeal to men. You can put a scantily clad woman in a commercial for tampons and there are probably men who would purchase them simply because of advertising. Let's be pragmatic about this: we want to save lives. If showing a girl in a bikini (more clothing than 90% of the pictures in Cosmo, I might ad) leads to a greater number of lives saved, are you that idealistic that you totally condemn the campaign? Ideologically, I can understand the objection to the picture from a feminist platform, but 1) it is perfectly legal, 2) appeals to the greatest number of people who will donate organs and 3) is obviously intended as a joke. The only individuals objectifying the woman in the ad are the feminists, and they're indirectly opposing organ donorship by stating their outrage. No man looks at that ad and says to himself, "That woman is a sex object, I don't respect women". He simply sees an attractive female form which draws him in, reads the ad, and then makes a decision about donating organs. Would you be as outraged if the ad targeted women and a shirtless Brad Pitt were displayed? What about a piece of chocolate cheesecake? Explain to me the best way to target men with the ad besides appealing to their base desires. Sex sells because it is physiologically a motivating factor for men. And women, too, let's not forget that.
Your mention of Kant and the Categorical Imperative is laughable. Did you take Intro to Philosophy or something? Feminists state at length how they wish to have the freedom to choose regarding abortion, etc. You do realize that Kant would directly oppose abortion, correct? You're not allowed to apply deontology where you see fit and simply ignore it when you don't like the outcome. Feminism is deeply rooted in Utilitarianism, at least from what I can tell. Either pick one or the other, don't pass off lazy thinking for ethical superiority. As a Jew, I also take offense to your reference to Auschwitz. Showing a girl in a bikini is akin to murdering countless individuals for a flawed ideology? Surely you jest.
Regarding the joke being "edgy"; this is obviously not edgy, it's simply good marketing. The joke is pretty lame but it serves its purpose adequately. When I saw the ad I thought how dumb it was. The posters on here are outraged for a variety of reasons, none of which has any logical basiss.
How many deeps do you have in there?
You're going to have to deal with my mentioning of Auschwitz. Yom HaShoah's just passed, and it's time for Tikkun Olam.
Yeah, I had hopes that you were something other than a troll, but there goes that wish.
Of course I'm a troll because I pointed out the massive flaws in your argument, specifically the one regarding deontology vs. consequentialism. Explain to me how you can justify appeal to Kant and yet support utilitarianism.
Of course I'm a troll because I pointed out the massive flaws in your argument, specifically the one regarding deontology vs. consequentialism. Explain to me how you can justify appeal to Kant and yet support utilitarianism.
I don't think you are listening and actually trying to progress this conversation and are instead just picking fights. This is what makes you a troll.
The "joke" argument is a big FAIL.
"Humour – the final frontier of colonialisation. You really now you’ve co-opted someone into the frame of dominance from which you work, when you can get them to laugh at jokes insensitive at the least, vicious in the usual. Which is why it’s so important to berate those humourless one who fail to laugh or worse still dare to complain – they’re obviously not with the programme."
So, you think all men are as shallow and stupid as this ad would have them be? On days like this, I am so glad I'm married and don't have to deal with the average American male. Because, this? Is self-righteous crap that seeks to defend the objectification of women because men are "doing so much good." That's what floats your boat? Using women this way? That's what would induce you, as a man, to donate organs? That tells me all I need to know about you, and it's not about how altruistic you are.
"We're better than this."
AMEN!
And they think this will be effective... why, exactly?
Since organ donation is definitely a life-and-death issue, I would have no problems with this ad or other sexist ads being used if I thought they would really help. But I can't imagine that this poster would actually get anyone to sign up as an organ donor. Unless maybe the idea is that the ad is shocking and tasteless on purpose, so that people will be offended enough to remember it, and maybe sign up to be organ donors as a result? I dunno, I'm no marketing expert.
No, you are not anything close to a marketing expert, nor are you a man. Why would you purport to know how this would appeal to a man when clearly men and women think and behave differently?
1. It's been proven already that you don't speak for all heterosexual men. Stop acting like you do.
2. It's been pointed out, several times, that advertisements whose gimmick has nothing to do with their message do not effectively deliver that message. (See Ruth's comment above about researchers offering money for altruism.) If you have any evidence to counter this, link to it.
3. Don't insult other posters. You're violating the comments policy.
Thank you. This guy is the kind who makes my husband say, "Times like this, I'm ashamed to be a man." And if he didn't feel that way, he would not be my spouse. I just love it when narrow-minded bigots purport to speak for people who want nothing to do with them.
Thanks for this!
We just went moderation-crazy so you shouldn't see these dudes anymore. You should see some of the hate emails I got about this post!
Yes, damn you Jessica and your wanton and offensive displaying of images! Ads aren't meant to be SEEN!
So angry.
Oh, good, I hoped it didn't look like I was trying to take the mods' place. :)
I'm not a marketing expert, but I do run a charity which, amongst other things, does campaigning work through the use of things like posters. In order to do this successfully I have listened to a lot of experts and read lost of studies about what makes a campaign successful - and this poster is clearly a campaign.
To be successful a campaign has to know who it is aiming at, what motivates them, and how to motivate them to take the action your campaign is pushing. Of course sex is an important motivation for many straight men and thus this poster would attract their attention. However that is not the same as motivating them to take action as a result of this poster.
So for example in the UK health campaigns against smoking that are aimed at young people tend to target the short term problems of smoking - smelly breath, etc rather than the long term harm, as research has shown that young people think of themselves as invincible and thus are not affected by education about long term health risks.
I fail to see any link at all between men finding this woman sexually attractive, finding the joke funny and then wanting to donate organs. So it is not about what adverts/posters etc people find appealing, which is what you are arguing. My argument is that I just can't see any reason this poster would actually work.
In addition I am very aware that when you run a campaign you don't want to really annoy others who would support your campaign, but don'tt link your style of campaigning. There might at times be good reasons to ignore this general rule - but I don't think this poster is it.
Oh. My. God.
I'm not often terribly offended by the "look at this nasty ad" posts, but that is just.. incredibly bad taste. Ewwww. :(
Sorry folks, troll has been banned!