Who would we objectify if all the women were to die?
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.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Who would we objectify if all the women were to die?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14395
iPod products and exotic cars, those are both vying for 2nd place right now.
So far as I read it, yes, it's just the "Women are beautiful, men are hideous" part of our traditional gender roles, and relies on the audience to share this perception. I'm also pretty confident both the creator of the ad, and it's intended audience, think it's good that women are seen this way.
Firstly, you're right that the ad is not an attempt "to raise awareness around the importance of getting checked for breast cancer" as it self identifies as a "Cervical Cancer Screening Program" whose stated objective is to encourage women to "have regular Pap tests". People might believe you didn't examine the image very carefully and therefore doubt your other conclusions.. :)
http://www.womenshealth.gov/faq/pap-test.cfm#pap01
Further, it is possible to both encourage women to get regular cancer screening exams and simultaneously do so in a way that relies on sexism.
That being said, I'm not sure the above illustration is unacceptable objectification (or even if its objectification at all). Coming to that conclusion would probably require a better understanding of the original painting (The Birth of Venus, Botticelli) that I certainly don't have right now. I'll contemplate it a bit more and consider other opinions hopefully to be posted here.
By the way, the world (at least mine) does need women.
I don't see any images and the link to the main page doesn't work for me (the ad page, not the SI blog page). Does anyone have a mirror?
To me, there is a difference between objectifying women and appreciating aesthetically pleasing art. Although the line between "ok" art and art that encourages objectification is thin, there is still a distinction. And we as a society get to judge what is acceptable and what is not.
I agree. I've always liked The Birth of Venus. However, I like the painting because of the artistry, not the opportunity to look at a female body. That's where this ad goes wrong.
I've seen this image a lot on facebook (maybe because I'm in Canada).
I didn't think I'd ever say this on Feministing but is this really that big of a deal? I understand how objectification and sexism are embedded into pop-culture and advertising but I doubt the advertisers in this case had that intention. The ad reminds me of what the Guerrilla Girls did in the 1980's - distorting classic works of art to grab people's attention.
The ad isn't trying to sell anything (pap tests are obviously free in Canada) but merely reminding women to get checked regularly to prevent cervical cancer. I guess I just feel in this case that the message is more important than the means through which it's expressed.
Plus, kudos to them for what I think is actually a pretty clever ad.
If you "understand how objectification and sexism are embedded into pop-culture and advertising" but "doubt the advertisers in this case had that intention" then I question how well you really do understand how objectification and sexism are embedded into pop culture. I think a lot of people who operate in sexist ways or hold onto sexist mindsets have no intention of doing so. Unfortunately for them, actions must be measured by actual impact, not intangible intent. The extent to which this advertiser did not understand the sexism they were relying on to make this ad clever is the extent to which sexism has become more subversive and culturally embedded.
I do not disagree that this ad is clever, but I do not think that is mutually exclusive to its being sexist. In fact, as sexism becomes more subversive and embedded, the more we see and will continue to see ads whose humor is obvious, but the sexism on which the humor relies is not, making these ads more concerning, not less so.
Bottom line: no matter how funny the ad, ugly men are not the reason the world needs women. And that idea is anything but funny.
"actions must be measured by actual impact, not intangible intent"
I think in this case the impact is vastly more intangible than the intent. The intent of the advertiser is clear - they want women to get screened for cervical cancer. If they were selling a product then perhaps their intent would be more vague. But it's the impact that's impossible to determine.
I liked this ad and now I'm feeling guilty because I still don't see what is sexist about it, even after reading the comments. Does someone care to explain to me why they view it as sexist?
It relies on the gender-based stereotype that women are pleasant to look at, men are unpleasant to look at, and the aesthetic appeal of women is part of their value (some might object to "part", rather than "all", so let me explicitly disavow any specific percentage, other than to say "more than zero").
Yup, the add implies that if we didn't have women to objectify (especially naked women) then we would (gasp) have to objectify men instead. I would hope that there are better reasons than objectification to want to keep women from getting cancer. (A non-attractive man was used to really stress the poster makers belief about just how ridiculous and gross objectifying a man would be versus objectifying a woman which they consider par for the course). I have trouble seeing how this ad is going to have an effect on the women who view it. Sure, it is eye catching, but I'm not going to run off to get screened because I want to stick around on earth so the men have something to objectify. A ad with some facts would be more effective in getting me to get a pap smear if I didn't already get one.
Thank you! I completely did not get that there was a connection between the man and the "World needs women." Crazy I know, but I just overlooked it. I thought the image of the guy was to get our attention and somehow I missed the link that they were saying if the world doesn't have women we will have to look at "unattractive" men instead of women. This is a pretty gross ad.
This ad basically pushes the idea that a female's main source of value is their appearance. What if a women looks like the guy in the ad, does that mean she's not worth saving?
I could also see how this ad could be found offensive to people who've transgendered.
I liked this ad and now I'm feeling guilty because I still don't see what is sexist about it, even after reading the comments. Does someone care to explain to me why they view it as sexist?
It's basically saying, "Get your pap smears! If all the women die you won't be here to look pretty for us."
How offensive would this have been if it was for breast cancer? I'd say EXTREMELY offensive. I know one woman who has had cervical cancer and as a result of that will never be able to have children. She frequently gets depressed about how she'll never have children.
This painting (the original painting) is pretty explicit of the "female form" even the shell she is standing on is supposed to remind people of her "vulva". Therefore the meaning of the picture of a MAN in the place of a WOMAN, standing in the shell that is supposed to represent womanhood disgusts me. To me it means, that if you have this cancer, you will loose all that makes you female. You will be unable to have children and you're "beauty" will be lost. And that you will just by default become "male like" because you are unable to have children.
Am I the only person that can't see anything in a single link?
No. And I'd really like to.
I'm a little surprised that so many commenters have questioned whether the ad is sexist or not. Let's reverse the genders, shall we? There are plenty of masculine equivalents to the Venus de Milo-- the statue of David, for example. Yet I highly doubt that an ad would instruct men to get a prostate exam because otherwise, male beauty might be lost. And that's what this ad is saying. It's not about whether women are beautiful or not. It's whether that is the primary function of women. Men would not be represented in this way because they have better things to do-- get a prostate exam because otherwise you might not discover the cure for cancer. The implication of this ad is that women only get cervical and breast cancer exams because otherwise they might not be able to provide window dressing for men. I don't know about you, but I've got more important things to do with my life and I'd like for healthcare ads to acknowledge that.
I can't see the image either. Did any earlier posters get a screen shot? Can you find it on google images? I (and presumable others ) would like a chance to see the image and weigh in on the discussion.
The way I see it is: Once again, something that is supposed to be all about a women's health and life is boiled down to her looks or how she affects others. Much like the "Save the Ta-Tas" campaign. This is a women's life on the line they think the biggest motivator is that men would be sad there were no women to look at?
I'm a BC resident, and I just saw this ad on the bus yesterday. I have to say, it affected me in a way that bus as (usually extremely lame) *never* do. I suppose I'm predisposed to think good things about the BC Cancer Agency--I'm the son, brother, and nephew of women who've benefited from their care. That said, what this ad did for me was make me think of the women I know--family and friends--who've fought forms of cancer that only or predominantly affect women, it made me think about how important women's lives are, and so too how important women's health is. The ad choked me up a little.
Do we really think a silly riff on a renaissance painting is meant to objectify women?
I'm a BC resident too, and I saw this again a couple of days ago in a restaurant bathroom stall. This silly riff on a renaissance painting is blatantly meant to objectify women, and I am puzzled that this obvious message is flying over people's heads.
The text urges us to remember regular pap tests because "The world needs women." As per the picture, what does the world need women for? Not to be educators, policy makers, health care workers, researchers, care givers, artists, bloggers, CEOs, etc, but to be a beautiful and/or sexual ornament.
The BC Cancer Agency would have been better off showing pictures of women working in traditionally feminized positions, ie as a stay-at-home-mother smiling with her children at the kitchen table, or a kindergarten teacher, or a nurse. That kind of sexism is maybe more subtle, yeah, but it attributes womens' worth to a hell of a lot more than their appearance.
Somehow, I imagine most people here would be no more pleased if the image instead was children sitting down to a horribly burnt meal, or men making crying children cry harder, or .. (whatever else the general perception is only women can do). And I imagine the general public reaction is probably better on this, since most people will probably take the message that being beautiful is something that makes men better than women (and it's probably harder to go this way anyways, since the idea that men can't parent, or can't teach children, or can't provide healthcare isn't nearly so prevalent as the idea that men can't be beautiful). Similarly, the idea that the world needs women to be educators, policy makers, health care workers, researchers, care givers, artists, bloggers, CEOs doesn't sell so well, because the (general thinking, anyways) is that the world needs people to do this, not women (though not not women either, merely that CEOs are fungible across gender).
Presumably a "you and/or people who care about you would be happier if you got a pap smear" would be a more egalitarian sentiment (and we could apply it to prostate exams too, and not have "Get a prostate exam, or your family will be eaten by saber-tooth tigers" ads to compliment it (given time, I'm sure I could come up with a better example of where the general perception is that men are irreplacable, but I'm at a loss for the moment. Sorry.)
Well said! Thank you!
This reminds me of the various "Save the titties!" breast cancer awareness campaigns. It's not about saving women's lives, it's about saving titties, or in this case, women's bodies because they are nice for straight men and lesbians to look at. Of course some would argue that everyone, including gay men and straight women, find women sexy. But the bottom line is that women are only valuable as nice things to look at.
Whatever.
This is wrong, but I'll admit that it got a laugh out of me.
You know, it's kind of telling that the illustrator decided to draw an image of what's not considered a conventionally good looking man, instead of drawing an "ideal" man, like Michelangelo's David. Western art has a long history of standards of what the ideal man, either painted or sculptured, should look like, dating all the way back to the Greeks. So it's kind of funny that the ad chooses to draw a conventionally unattractive person because it implies that if there were no women, the fairer sex, in the world, then artists naturally would have to paint ugly men, instead of the ideal men they have made artworks of for a long time.
I think that the fact that the illustrator chose to draw a man who isn't conventionally attractive to replace what is supposed to be the ideal woman (during the time of the painting) really does enforce the belief that the only thing women are needed for is to look pretty, because if there were no women then art would be filled with ugly men.
The caption says "The World Needs Women." Of course, they have to give some reason for this statement. The reason is that men look gross naked, and women look sexy naked. This is sexist. End of story.
I'm not offended by this at all.
Nor am I. I think this is an attempt at humor--in sort of an ironic way.
Do you all really think this health organization think that women's sole purpose is to be pretty??? It's making this statement in a tongue-in cheek-sort of way.
"Do you all really think this health organization think that women's sole purpose is to be pretty??"
Um, I would assume so, considering the fact that that's what their ad is saying.
The ad relies on fatphobia as well as sexism. It assumes that no one could possibly want to look at a painting of a naked fat man.
I agree, and I'm surprised no one brought this up.
If it was a painting of a toned, stereotypically "beautiful" man, it wouldn't work nearly as well.
By taking a well known painting depicting Aphrodite emerging fully formed from the sea, and replacing her image with porn star, Ron Jeremy, the intended aim is achieved: to attract the attention of the passerby who will, with any luck, look more closely and take to heart the message which clearly states, "Remember to have regular Pap tests". When said passerby remembers to have regular Pap tests, she'll ostensibly have more time to deconstruct and dismantle the sexism and patriarchy that permeate her society.
Sexist? Perhaps. Effective? I imagine it is. People are certainly looking at it, are they not? Anyway, it seems better than using such images to pimp Canadian blended whiskey.
:)
Come on, there are worse ads with much more significant objectification and blatant sexist overtones. This ad doesn't offend me at all, I think it's one you can read how you want, it's not out and out sexist like the usual kinds of ads we see.
It's funny that feministing posts this ad, which I find really quite unoffensive yet didn't post the link to the ad I sent them, which was TRULY offensive, saying outright that women are bad drivers (it was a series of photos of accidents or really bad parking from a car rental agency saying 'yes we rent to women too').
This ad is basically saying that we need women in the world just so they can look pretty. It's saying that our value is based on our appearance. While I agree that the ad you mentioned is offensive as well, just shrugging off sexism and saying "oh it could be worse" is NOT helpful to the feminist cause.
*facepalm*
It's clever and it'll probably succeed at what it intended to do (raise awareness for its cause), but it's sad that it had to resort to sexism to do it.
The sculpture of david was just as aesthetically pleasing to the eye and this painting. Men CAN be beautiful in art. Art is a celebration of HUMANITY, not just femininity. I am saying this as a feminist. Because making art only about women objectifies them, and pretty much says that they're not good for anything else. The same goes for the whole fertility goddess issue. Sorry for any lazy misspellings on my part. (tired)
I hit submit to this one too early, and couldn't cancel soon enough. Sorry about the errors.
The scultpture of David was just as pleasing to the eyes as this painting is. Men CAN be beautiful in art. Art is an expression, and celebration of HUMANITY. Not femininity. I am saying this as a feminist, because making art only about women objectifies them. Plain and simple.
In Europe and America the cancer of a neck of a uterus occupies 2 place on prevalence among malignant new growths of women till 45 years (conceding only to a mammary gland cancer) and 1 on number of the lost years of a life: life expectancy of the ill women decreases on the average for 26 years.