to see me?
We're all too familiar with the ridiculously sexist campaigns by PETA and others substituting women's bodies for meat in efforts for public attention, which Ann took on a while back. Well, it looks some folks in the green movement have jumped aboard the "sexualizing women for the sake of activism" bandwagon.
Selling sex to recruit environmentally-friendly dudes isn't actually a new phenomena, but via Sociological Images, a new campaign and website called Angry Green Girl is (not shockingly) getting quite a bit of attention.
Her motto is, "Shamelessly exploiting everything I got to save the world!" and implies on her site that if you go green, you'll get to meet her or one of the girls in her posse. (Or another hot green girl you can find on the social networking section.) Her videos generally consist of her in a bikini, in which the camera constantly does boob and crotch close-up shots as she gives her lesson of the day - like using a bikini-clad staff member as a metaphor for a green world as opposed to her with a coat on due to global warming.
It's pretty offensive to guys too; its premise that men are too stupid or sex-crazed to understand the environment unless references to naked women are made is pretty wack. But sadly, folks like mega blog Treehugger are buying it (and might as well throw a feminist stereotype in there too!):
Angry feminists usually get the eye roll. But what about angry green girls? Seems like they're getting plenty of attention - or at least this particular spokesperson for green issues. Basically, Angry Green Girl knows how to use her hotness for getting attention, but for a good green cause. From hybrid-only bikini car washes to nearly naked shower tips, check out how Angry Green Girl broadens the eco-issue umbrella through her sarcasm-laden eco-tips. Water issues have never looked quite like this.
As Treehugger notes, there's a layer of sarcasm by Angry Green Girl which would probably have defenders saying it's "all in good fun," but the thing is that the layer is thin enough to expose what the real purpose is here: an attempt to convince straight guys that going green will get them laid. And that's just gross.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Is that a recyclable bottle in your pocket or are you just happy
to see me? .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15816
:: groans ::
Ad campaigns from the likes of PETA and Angry Green Girl are insulting to both sexes. Let's promote environmental awareness WITHOUT promoting sexism and objectification, shall we?
Well, they ARE doing a great job...by turning me off from going green!
Sorry, girls, but guys aren't paying attention to your "message." They're too busy staring at your boobs.
We can do both. And this "guys" stuff is hetero-normative.
Yeah it's heteronormative... but do you really think their target audience is queer women / trans folk?
I'm not a mind reader. But I know a lot of women of various orientations who think having their car washed by babes in bikinis is either sexy or just fun.
The main problem with using "sex" (which often translates to partially-dressed women as shorthand) to sell things is that you aren't selling sex. You are selling a product, an idea, a concept, whatever. And if sex isn't it, using sexualized images to draw people in might get a few of them to notice what you're trying to do, but a lot of it is just going to fall by the wayside.
There have to be better tactics out there. I mean, the environment is not my sex life. And that's okay.
From a pure marketing perspective it actually makes alot of sense to do this. Especially in this day and age where people are inundated with advertising all day long, you need something to catch their attention and draw them in in the first place, or they won't even look at your ad.
The 2 things people care about most in life are sex and money. These are the 2 best ways to get someone to notice.
I actually don't really have a problem with using sex to sell personally, I just want it to be more equal between the sexes and to make sure no one is forced to do anything.
I disagree. A couple guys will go to this site, watch a few videos, talk about how "hot" the girls are, then laugh at the bad acting, maybe browse for a second, and eventually get bored and move on. From a marketing perspective, it would be more effective to come up with something more clever and "sticky" than the old 1, 2, hot girls, cool products/ideas routine.
"The 2 things people care about most in life are sex and money. These are the 2 best ways to get someone to notice."
This comes from a really cynical, uniquely American perspective. Fairly ethnocentric statement that reflects the intersection of the patricarchy and capitalism as it plays out in our country. Lots of people would put religion, family, and survival before sex and money. For a lot of people in this world, money is only relevant in that it is the means by which one continues to survive.
In short, being an environmentalist myself, I feel that there is no excuse for this degree of intellectual laziness for something that is so important at a critical tipping point in human history.
This comes from a really cynical, uniquely American perspective. Fairly ethnocentric statement that reflects the intersection of the patricarchy and capitalism as it plays out in our country. Lots of people would put religion, family, and survival before sex and money. For a lot of people in this world, money is only relevant in that it is the means by which one continues to survive.
Can you point me to one of these many perfect human utopias?
Since when does caring about religion and family over sex and money translate to a perfect human utopia?
Call it what you will. Will the names of these pure and incorruptible societies where people aren't greedy about sex or power (money) be forthcoming? Or . . .? I'm curious whether we're worshiping ultra modern European societies that have risen above these things, or some fantastical Edenic "noble savage" peoples somewhere who haven't been corrupted by these "cynical, uniquely American" vices. So let's hear it. Where is it that people don't focus on money and sex? Surely it can't really be every single country other than America, so who?
I disagree with this too. I think that selling ideologies using women in bikinis does NOT work. It hasn't worked for PETA, it won't work for them. No one is thinking, "Hot girls, my next car is going to be a hybrid." - if anything, most people are like, *eye-roll "more women in bikinis, I coulda flipped on the TV for that." I mean - do people really get surprised, shocked or turned on by this shit when they see it constantly ALL THE TIME?
Plus - environmentalists have a goal, which is to not exploit the earth... Exploiting women in this fashion is just a contradiction in the same way it is for AR activists who do the same thing.
The advertisements that stick out MOST in my mind, are the funny ones. Like the insurance add when the two squirrels run out in front of the car and it goes flying off the road - and they high five each other... THAT is an add that sticks in people's minds. I would basically use funny because personally, humor is much more valued than money or sex.
I think it works directly - but you both admitted it can bring people to their site. So the idea is get them to your site and then hope they'll look around and actually pick something up.
It's like stores that have sales. They get people into the store by offering a sale on *some* products, and then hope that while they're there, they'll end up buying a bunch of other stuff. And that works. Whether it works here is debatable of course, and I'm not saying it's the best strategy ever or works all the time, but I am saying I understand it from a marketing perspective.
I meant I DON'T think it works directly. Hopefully that was obvious but I felt compelled to correct it. :)
It's not like stores that have sales, because in that context, the shopper is already interested in buying a product; you're just trying to convince them to buy more.
In the context of a person getting hooked by scantily clad women, they are not necessarily already interested in "going green": they're interested in looking at hot women. So whereas having sexy pictures of women makes sense in front of, say, an adult video store, it doesn't make sense in front of something that's interested in changing someone's attitude toward the environment.
About that last paragraph - "...but the thing is that the layer (of sarcasm) is thin enough so straight guys who go on this site will think that going green will get them laid..."
Isn't that just underestimating straight men?
You said it yourself ealier in this post - "It's pretty offensive to guys too; its premise that men are too stupid or sex-crazed to understand the environment unless references to naked women are made is pretty wack."
Just pointing that out...
I'll clarify that what I meant is that this is what the site's real purpose is.
"...an attempt to convince straight guys that going green will get them laid."
Makes much more sense. Thanks.
I'm not old enough to remember "girls say yes to boys who say no" as draft resistance propoganda, but I know the history enough to know that this is not the first nor the last time that women have been treated as a door-prize to entice men to sign on for causes near and dear to the hearts of fauxgressive, antifeminist, white, middle class cis het men.
(I have to say, if I thought this was a real grass-roots operation where the models were also the originators of the concept, ran the site and controlled their own images, etc., I would be a lot more sympathetic. But the site and the promotion look very slick; they have a professional PR flack and there's no real "who we are" info on the site, just more promotion-centered look-at-pictures-of-women-and-oh-here's-a-bio stuff. I put self-directed sexual expression in a different category.)
Would the analysis really change, though, if the sexual expression was self-directed? Would it be objectifying women to advance an entirely non-related cause any less? Would it convince more people to join said cause any more? Would it say nicer things about the men this campaign is targeting, or would it still be viewing them as sex-crazed neanderthals that we sexy women can manipulate by flashing some boob?
Furthermore, the OP never claimed this was either the first or the last time this tactic has been used; doesn't mean Vanessa shouldn't still point it out and decry it.
I certainly never thought or meant to imply that Vanessa shouldn't point it out! I meant that this dynamic is sadly common, and all the more worth fighting over because of that.
I do think that whether it is self- or other-directed makes a difference. I think reasonable feminists differ on this, and I'm not trying to declare my thinking as infallible or universal truth, but I'll put it out there as "as far as I've gotten thinking about this":
I looked at the AGG site, and I think these women are professional models. I don't think they are activists. I'm not sure of that, but the dynamics of the site suggest that to me. There is no identifiable person behind the site -- the spokesmodels and their online personas are out front, with nothing to indicate a whole life and a whole person. There are no creator credits that I could find. The site is very slick; someone laid out a lot of money do to this. They have professionals doing the camera work and lighting. They pay for locations to shoot. There may be reasons why a grass roots group of women could end up with a site with professional video shoots and nice locations and very polished design and all, but it suggests well-funded and established to me.
I'm bothered by tossing sex into the stream of commerce. It's not just that I'm bothered by sex as quid-pro-quo. While it's always problematic, sex as quid-pro-quo can arise from complex relationships. I think that to say that's always wrong is to deny women's agency. So if some woman wants to use her image as a come-on to lure het dudes in, I can question the value of tactics, but not the motives. That is, if she's in the driver's seat. And I think that's all the more true the more she knows her audience. "By us, for us" material where the creators share common ground with the intended audience is a lot less problematic than mass-produced crap meant to attract any consumer.
If a bunch of guys are paying a model to be sexual-on-command for any guy that stumbles on the site, that's not a bunch of women making choices about negotiating their sexuality, their audience and their commitments. That's just a bunch of dudes putting women on store shelves again. And to my mind, while the media would surely get all excited over what form the images take -- nudity would get more press and condemnation than a bikini carwash, for example -- to my mind, it matters a lot more whether women are making relatively less constrained choices about how their commitments and self-expression interact, than what the actual image is.
But those are, I think, all very debatable propositions.
What really chaps my ass about stuff like this is that if these bikini-clad women were selling Hummers, many environmentalist/liberal/etc. men (and women) would be quick to point out the sexism inherent in this marketing technique.
But its okay if it's for a "good" cause. I find that type of sexism insidious and possibly even more damaging. If so-called liberals don't think this is problematic, what can we expect from people who are less inclined to be sympathetic to feminist principles?
The "it's a good cause" reasoning holds just as much clout with me as Dick Cheney's rationale for torturing Guantanamo inmates.
The method is wrong regardless of the circumstances.
I agree with what everyone is saying. And the acting is really bad.
When will people realize every group that is oppressed (that includes mother nature) is tied and can only be freed when all oppressed groups are freed? It just makes no fucking sense to promote decommodification of one group by commodifying another. Especially when the method used to gain interest goes against what the interest is to be gained in.*
*I mean being macho does not involve "going green," but it does involve being into hot girls/women. Men who are not concerned with being macho may have interest in women, but will most likely not need the hot women to care about "going green." If a man wants to be macho, he will show interest in you as a hot woman and then throw the recyclabe paper pamphlet you gave him on the ground or in the trash.
I think this is a dumb idea. It got an eye roll from this feminist but it wasn't an "angry" one. What struck me most is that it treats environmental consciousness as more of a fad than an actual cause. That seems to be pretty common. Walking down the cleaning aisle at the grocery store yesterday I was bombarded with "green" products. It's amazing that even though the goal of green living should be to consume less, we're somehow being talked into consuming even more... this just sort of seems like an extension of "fad environmentalism" to me. Much in the same way that I think of PETA as fad vegetarianism. (PETA does truly have the ability to make me angry though so maybe it isn't exactly the same).
I'm not crazy about the bikinis and the hybrid car wash but I can't muster the energy to be indignant over it. It just strikes me as dumb. I guess I'm just not in a self-righteous, man-hating, fun-destroying mood today. We feminists sure can be flaky...
She's really more like Bitchy/Snotty Green Girl than Angry.
But the few analogies that I watched (like the suntan lotion / winter coat) weren't too bad. Yes, they were sexist, but I managed get a few educational facts too.
I'm certainly not thinking I'll ever date/meet green girl or the interns. It never even crossed my mind (I'm not a moron). FYI - Anyone who who actually thinks that is probably so sexist that this is the mildest type of sexism that they participate in.
She actually degrades what you assume is her stereo-typical viewer. So I think a bit is tongue-in-cheek parody too.
I thought the KTLA TV news channel coverage (from the TreeHugger.com link) was actually more sexist and rude to the women.
And I'm not advocating the above but for those of you who say aren't there better ways to save the planet, let me point out:
The other/better ways aren't working...
Gary
http://GarySaid.com/
Question. A lot of feminists on this site are pro sex work and anti-stuff-like-this. Does anyone else find that a little hypocritical? I mean, why is it okay to sell sex for money but not as a means to spread environmental activism?
I can only speak for myself, but I think that prostitution AND objectification like this are destructive to women. For a long time, I've been baffled by feminists who defend prostitution (I do not use the politically correct euphemism "sex work") but speak out against objectification. We need to realize that BOTH reduce women to sexual commodities.
Thanks for your response, it pretty much mirrors my opinion.
What about people who are pro sex work. What do you think about this campaign?
Dancing naked for money is empowering, washing cars in a bikini to draw attention to a cause you believe in is just s\k\a\n\k\y objectifying? Yeah, that seems a bit off to me too.
If I were a hunk I'd wash hybrids in a swimsuit too.
A bunch of cute guys in swim trunks washing cars... Hmm, that doesn't sound so bad ;) All right, we need to start a massive campaign for equality in objectification so I can get my car scrubbed down by a hottie.
Well I'm no hottie, but I know some pretty good looking guys. Buy an environmentally friendly car and I'll see what I can do.
This is a derail. You should probably make a separate thread for it.
I was confronted with something similar this morning. The radio lady announced in a voice that can only be described as chipper that there the local fire fighters would do a car wash today. I immediately wanted to know if the fire fighters would be semi-nude (I doubt it) and whether the sponges would be fastened to their penises (I doubt that even more); unfortunately, the radio didn't provide this information, so I fear I'll have to call the fire department to find out.
But listening to this ("Ladies, this is for YOU!") I definitely felt insulted by the idea that I (female, straight) would be turned on by the fire fighters (apparently a synonym for attractive male) washing my cars. Because I don't have a brain? Because I'm subject to my raging hormones? Because I've never seen an attractive male before?
I really can't follow this idea perpetuated in these comments that it is somehow unintelligent or insulting to have sexual attraction?
Why would someone who is sexually attracted to others someone who has no brain or is all raging hormones or is immature? I don't follow this logic at all.
I really don't find it the least bit odd or unreasonable that alot of women would like getting their car washed by a fire fighter. Or that a man likes a car wash by a girl in a bikini. Someone with a PHD or who is president of the US is just as likely to be interested in this as the lowest most uneducated person in the country.
This whole line of thinking just feels like slut shaming to me. Like your a total brainless slut if you like looking at attractive people. I can't get behind that.
the point of this campaign is ***not*** to convince men that "going green will get them laid"! the thought process of advertising designers is rarely so straightforward. no one is even attempting to make that connection.
the point is to change the image of people who are involved in the green movement. i.e., "it's not just hippie dorks and your mom who recycles!" this car wash and ads similar to this are attempting to speak to people who may be sympathetic to the green movement's aims but don't align themselves with it because it doesn't mesh with their sense of personal identity, which is displayed to the public through alignment with certain brands. ***they are targeting people who already consume products whose ads feature scantily-clad women.***
advertising no longer promotes the virtues/merits of products because decades of research have proven that IT IS NO LONGER EFFECTIVE WITH THE CONSUMING PUBLIC TO DO SO.
now, this being true doesn't mean it's "okay" to use scantily-clad women to sell stuff. that's a different discussion. but, quite frankly, the advertising analysis on this site is pretty weak. next time you try to analyze an ad, could you please talk to someone, you know, who worked on the ad? or someone who works in the field?
"advertising no longer promotes the virtues/merits of products because decades of research have proven that IT IS NO LONGER EFFECTIVE WITH THE CONSUMING PUBLIC TO DO SO."
Is that only true for certain kinds of products? Because I still see headache and indigestion cures advertised as the fastest acting relief, trucks advertised as having the most torque and horsepower in their class, razors as providing smoother and more comfortable shaves, and Enzyte advertised (without ever quite saying it) as giving users a larger penis. I would say those are virtues/merits of the product.
yeah, you're right that there are specific exceptions, most of which advertise products that only the purchaser would ever see/know about and therefore, communicate nothing about the user to other people. but even these products tend to try to establish an image of some sort: think commercials for pain relief medications showing athletes using them instead of old people, activia yogurt being eaten by 30-something women laying out in their bikinis instead of showing someone coming out of the bathroom, truck commercials showing the big tires splashing through mud driven by a guy with a big cowboy hat instead of showing a "consumer reports" review on reliability, etc.
the advertising industry is actually scared shitless, because studies are showing that traditional advertising is far less effective than it used to be in convincing consumers to buy things.
From my own observations, almost every ad tries to convey a message about who the consumer is, but a huge portion do that and also make straightforward claims about the product to the potential buyer. I think the former has become more important to the latter, but not replaced it.
I agree that the advertising industry, over about 50 years, has gone a long way towards so bombarding us that getting any kind of pitch through is difficult and they probably have no idea how to deal with it. But we're not particulary media-savvy, just sort of reflexively pitch-averse. Lose-lose, I think.
This strikes me as completely different from PETA "substituting women's bodies for meat", showing women in fake mouse traps, etc. If a woman wants to walk around in a bikini to draw attention to her cause, bless her heart.
Although the low quality of the sarcasm is unforgivable.
You know, if they were REALLY green, wouldn't it be "Free bicycle wash"?
I agree that the "green" movement really gets lost when you tell people to buy shit, part of the reason we're in this mess is because we buy shit and then throw it all away. Whatever happened to the REDUCE part?
Things like this is offensive to both men and women, and also the cause itself. It trivializes everything.