You Be the Judge--NOW Claims These Ads Are 'Offensive to Women'--Are They? (Part II)
October 26th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Background: TV often portrays men and fathers as idiots--to watch some videos of "dad as idiot" TV commercials, click here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, or here.
As Bill Maher says, "Look at television...the wife is always brilliant and ethereal and right about everything and the husband is always just a dumb jerk who's lucky to have found her."
We've done two campaigns against these types of commercials--to learn more, click here and here.
The National Organization for Women/NOW Foundation has launched a new campaign around ads which they label "Offensive to Women." The campaign involved Love Your Body Day 2007, which was October 18. In this series, I'm reprinting some of the ads which NOW tells us are "Offensive to Women," giving my own humble opinion on the matter and soliciting yours.
In You Be the Judge--NOW Claims This Ad Is 'Offensive to Women'--Is It? (Part I), I agreed with NOW in their criticism of a Maker's Mark whiskey ad.
NOW pairs the two ads above together, one for Calvin Klein (left), the other by Ralph Lauren Polo (right). NOW writes:
"Calvin Klein: Does this dress make me look fat? Exhibit A in why women think they can never be thin enough."
and
"Ralph Lauren Polo: Not to be outdone, Ralph offers that perfect look to wear while scratching your back on a tree while waiting for, um...the stableboy?"
NOW believes that ads which hold up thin women as examples of beauty are "Offensive to Women." I would disagree in general, but can agree in extreme cases. The picture on the left seems like an extreme case to me--she looks like she just got out of Auschwitz. The woman on the right is a little too thin, too, but is very attractive. Granted that it's a subjective judgment, I'd give NOW a split, agreeing with them about Calvin Klein but disagreeing about Ralph Lauren Polo.
That brings NOW's score, in my book, to 2 out of 3 correct.
"));
19 queries. 0.411 seconds.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:43 am
I am starting to think that the Fem movement is moribund and that the end is near, I can smell it. A movement so antithetical to the very foundations of life and society cannot long perdure. They had best be prepared to dawn sack cloth and ashes.
October 26th, 2007 at 1:40 am
Actually, certain women who are uglier than a cow find this photo offensive.
http://www.cowsgomoo272.com/image/cows/cow3.jpg
Some women are so ugly as to be intimidated by beautiful young women going their own way. It makes sense that some frustrated old gender feminists would try to exercise their abusive power and control over beautiful young woman who could take men away from them at the drop of a hat. The bottom line is, "Who really cares what over the hill, nagging hags think about anyone's sexual expressions?
October 26th, 2007 at 3:00 am
That Calvin Klein ad is so over the top that I have a difficult time believing Calvin Klein was using this as an ad and not as a PSA for anorexia or bulemia. The NOW page is here: http://loveyourbody.nowfoundation.org/offensiveads.html, but I couldn't find at that site any source information as to where the picture came from.
If I do a Google Image Search for Calvin Klein make me look fat, I see the pic, but only at the NOW page. I don't see the pic anywhere else if I just GIS for Calvin Klein, Calvin Klein Anorexia, or Calvin Klein Bulemia. If I do those searches, I do find lots of CK ads that show very thin women that people are saying show CK ads create problems.
But I don't see that one ad.
I don't know if NOW made a mistake or not, you might want to ask them where that photograph came from, if it is a CK ad presenting a woman advertising for clothes, perfume, or whatever, it is pretty damned offensive.
The other ad? Gorgeous woman. Since when is an acknowledgments of beauty, and an acknowledgment of an adults sexual interests offensive? I think if they find it offensive, than they have real issues concerning sex and beauty -- perhaps NOW should go see a shrink.
I am also curious if the ads are offensive to ALL women, or just American women? Amy Alkon on a recent trip to Paris aptly demonstrated that ads or portrayals like this may be considered perfectly normal and acceptable in other cultures, if not in ours.
I have to admit I am biased, I know the model, she's um, my girlfriend. Yeah, that's it. She's my girlfriend.
October 26th, 2007 at 3:04 am
Glancing ahead, I can't wait till you get to the "space shuttle ad", because NO, that is NOT a Space Shuttle on the computer screen. What a bunch of anti-science, can't believe their own eyes ignorant jerks.
October 26th, 2007 at 5:47 am
I really fail to see how showing an attractive woman is offensive. That's all advertisers do, they show sexy, happy, successful people using their product, to try and create a subconcious link between the two in the consumers mind.
The second one is fine. Does the first one actually say 'does this make me look fat?' Because otherwise it is just an unhealthily skinny woman in an advert. While that may be nasty and unnattractive (at least it is to me) I fail to see how it is offensive to women. Is it protraying women negatively??
And if anyone says the media makes young girls go anorexic, that's crap. Women in Iran are more paranoid about their bodies than your average European/American woman, you can hardly blame pictures of semi-naked women for that!
Source: Beautiful people have more daughters - Alan S Miller
October 26th, 2007 at 6:02 am
In a more abstract way NOW seems to be right. The woman on the polo jeans ad is a beauty. However, women who indulge in sheer consumption, for instance in fruitless efforts to make them look any better than they really are, are indeed an affront. They already spend 80 % of every discretionary dollar, according to Lis Wiehl. The latest UN report on our environment, GEO-4, is very explicit (page 36, GEO-4). Changed consumption patterns are one of the main drivers. Investing instead of consuming might be a better idea. It seems that men, in general, are better suited in handling this matter. So, I expect NOW to act upon their own beliefs, demand an immediate cut down of the possibilities women have to continue their consumerism, and change the existing divorce laws in order to limit the possibilities of further environmental destruction.
October 26th, 2007 at 6:23 am
Mosts ads irritate the hell out of me, so I'm definitely no judge.
October 26th, 2007 at 6:43 am
Haha Rosemarie you hit the bullseye there. Though to be fair, there are some quality adverts, although they all seem to be for beer. Do you have the Cadbury's advert with the gorilla over there?
October 26th, 2007 at 8:07 am
I've mentioned this before but in my country ads portraying violence against men as "comedy" are commonplace. We also have federal govt ads telling us that we "say no to violence against women" which, of course, demonstrate that only men are violent. You can see these ads bracketing a bloke being laughed at while in agonising pain. Ah...product placement.
An image of an attractive woman is grounds for a lawsuit. An image of violence against a man is grounds for comedy.
No hypocrites here.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:54 am
The women who are offended are unattractive with weight problems. There doesn't exist a beautiful feminist, by their definition. Ironic, isn't it. These ads are fine.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:55 am
I will never understand how the beautiful woman ad is offensive to woman.
Perhaps if woman didn't spend so much time and money on their looks it would make more sense.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:03 am
I'll agree that the ad on the left is destructive to society, not because it's "offensive" - neither ad demeans women in any way, but simply because it encourages anorexia.
Do we get offended by beefcake? Of course not. Men like to look, and are sympathetic to women who are similar.
However, I do think Ampersand of Amptoons.com hit the nail on the head with this blog post:
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/04/26/sexism-against-and-for-men-on-tv-sitcoms/
"Because when people list adjectives describing the male husbands in these sitcoms — dolts, incompetents, dumb, lazy, dufus, predictable idiotic territorial selfish doofuses who need to constantly be looked after by their wives, and so forth, there’s an essential adjective that always gets left out: The Lead."
An interesting counterexample is I Love Lucy - in which the bumbling idiot is still the lead role - but in that case, a woman.
Even listen to Matt Groening. Initially The Simpsons was about his life as a child, with Bart being a vehicle for these experiences. Homer was originaly based on Matt's father, but as the show matured, Homer became more a mockery of Matt's own family, just like any sitcom writer.
That's the point: in all of these shows, the men are making fun of themselves. Not even making fun of men in general, but themselves. In that case, the question doesn't become "Why does TV mock men" but instead "why does TV have so few women leads who are willing to play the fool?"
Now obviously, this only applies to family sitcoms. Advertising, Lifetime movies, etc. are a whole other matter.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:07 am
Shorter Ampersand: When men are portrayed as idiots, women are the real victims.
It's a very simple formula: Whenever ________, women are the real victims. In fact, I think Amp once even said that being a feminist requires you to first assume that women are to be worse-off in any situation.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:27 am
didn't you know? EVERYTHING is offensive to women -I don't mean feminists - I am saying WOMEN. You know what happens when you thrust yourself into the spotlight - you are under the merciless gaze of the beholder. How could we have been fooled for so long? There are so many things deserving of consideration in these matters - only a book will suffice -what use logic, reason - careful study reveals little or none exists in the fair sex(ooo bad word), So what's the point of reasoned argument - answer: none. However a lot of loud protest seems to work - good on Glenn for this.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:33 am
Seems to me that if women found the ads offensive, they'd vote with their credit cards. Offensive? No sale. Not offensive? Gimme more.
So, is NOW saying women aren't smart enough to figure out for themselves which ads should offend them? Sounds like it to me.
But I suppose it's the "life imitates art" argument. You do what an ad or TV commercial tells you to do because you want to achieve the same results of the happy people in the ad.
Other than myself, I'm not sure how people who use their own brains operate, but I'm assuming it's the same. I can think for myself whether or not I want a product and I can think for myself as to whether an ad is offensive. Those who don't use their own brains? Oh well, let Darwin's principles come into play and stronger will survive anyway.
October 26th, 2007 at 10:27 am
I think both photos are offensive to mankind. I don’t see beauty in a painted face or an emaciated body.
October 26th, 2007 at 10:32 am
Besides, aren’t most of these fashion moguls women?
October 26th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Yeah Ampersand is famous for his backwards feminist logic. There's some good posts on the subject at feministcritics.
I think the reason men are always portrayed negatively (playing the fool) is because people are naturally more sympathetic and protective over women. To have a woman play the foolish lead would first require her to act like a fool, which most men would find offensive due to chivalrous attitudes; most women would find offensive because women almost ALWAYS favour eachother as a gender before other ties, whereas men do not.
It's still priceless that he considers men being embarrassed, demeaned, hurt, humiliated and laughed at grounds for women being oppressed. It's like saying that a dying soldier on the battlefield is priveliged over a woman because she never got the chance to die for her country. Never mind the fact that the man is dead, he is part of a 'priveliged' class.
October 26th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Are the models a little too thin? The one on the left, Yes, the one on the right, not really.
Are these ads offensive to women? I don't think so.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Neither picture is "OFFENSIVE" to women. Seriously, honestly, to the point.
They are pictures of women used for advertising. One is not bad, the other is too thin.
Think of all the advertisements containing men who look good, have washboard stomachs, and perfectly groomed hair/faces...... Are those offensive to men? No.
In either case, they are only 'offensive' to people who aren't comfortable in their own skin.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:25 am
I think Matt hits this one on the head with his "So, is NOW saying women aren't smart enough to figure out for themselves which ads should offend them? Sounds like it to me"
This is true in more cases then not. They think that they hold the moral high ground and that they speak for EVERY woman because THEY know whats best. If I were woman I would be extremely insulted that some group would have the termerity to speak for me assuming that I was not smart enough to figure it out for myself.
There has already been a movement in the fashion world to correct the problem with models who starve themselves to meet that misguided notion that all models have to be anorexic to be successful.
See: http://www.zafu.com/roller/page/blog?entry=skinny_models_may_be_a
So for NOW to use that skinny comment as its justification shows (yet again) how out of touch they are with reality and I agree with an above post also tha the inherent jealousy of some women towards other who look better, dress better, are more successful may have as much to do with their whining as it does with tackling real issues.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:33 am
Can we return the same attitude? "It's a joke! Come on now, why be so serious?"
October 26th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Kevin Merck: The gender of the producer of magazines containing stick-thin models is irrelevant, all of the consumers are women. The problem is, feminists see skinny models as pressure that 'society' puts on women. Whereas in reality it is pressure that women put on THEMSELVES, not other women. Women are biologically inclined to want to look as good as possible, much more so than men. From an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense.
I'll say it again, looking at pictures of skinny women does NOT make women want to be skinny. They already want to be skinny, that's why they look at the pictures.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
I find what I view as the generalized maternal objectivication (sp?) of children offensive and the most common form of gender-based child predation. (Government and the NOW are the formost 'child predators' as I see it.) Children are not possessions (sp?), they are gifts from God who need love and parenting from BOTH parents ideally in the same home.
Mike
October 26th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Callum,
Thinness is not innately attractive. In the United States and Europe where the thin ideal is culturally dominant, men still tend to prefer medium-sized women to thin or fat ones. We care less about size than waist-to-hip ratio--we like that to be around 0.7. The fashion industry exaggerates the thin ideal to an absurd degree not because that ideal is especially beautiful, but because it is extreme and exotic, and perhaps provides a good frame for fancy clothes to hang on. With less flesh, it is easier to focus on the clothes.
October 26th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Harq:
I agree with you completely. However, it is the reflex that causes women to see themselves less attractively than they really are that is the problem. They could just as well think that they have horrible skin, tiny breasts or a gruff voice. One study found that women with ideal body dimensions still consider themselves too fat, and that what most women thought the ideal body size was was several sizes over what men considered to be ideal.
October 26th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
And 'models are basically walking clothes hangers' was the way my sister described it. However, I'm not personally sure whether girls (and boys) who starve themselves are trying to be thinner or trying to be more like models. Considering I knew a boy completely uninterested in fashion who was anorexic, I'm tempted to believe that it may be more to do with a form of attention seeking from parents and peers, that's certainly what it seemed like with him.
October 26th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Yes, it is unfortunate that so many women are unhappy with their bodies. I don't think it helps that the media portrays such a narrow range of types as beautiful--it seems to be either scary fashion model or "perfect" hollywood actress. I think things are slowly changing, though. The "Bones" star has a kind of bookish sexiness that belies her initially plain-seeming appearance. Matt Damon's love interest in the first Bourne movie was not a classic beauty either, though still attractive in an attainable sort of way. Then of course there is Ugly Betty.
October 26th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
The subtle point I was trying to make is that this advertising is directed at women and promulgated largely by women. For N.O.W. to blame men for this advertising being offensive to women is typical nonsensical thinking on their part.
Seems to me what’s irrelevant here, is what men think about this advertising. Women spend over 85% of the disposable income in the United States and if they don’t like the advertising they can simply not buy the product. Men aren’t the ones spending money on what these people are selling. My blue jeans cost $14.99 and my tee-shirts cost $5.00 at Wal-Mart. Not much advertising directed at that demographic.
By the way, both of these women look repulsive to me, the one on the left looks emaciated, and the one on the right looks like a prostitute.
Kevin Merck
October 26th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. Why should I care whether a picture in a magazine is offensive to women? The women I care about -- mother, sister, daughter -- would probably joke about them and then go on about there own business.
I'll give a crap that a picture in a magazine is somehow doing real harm to women, when women start to give a crap that taking a man's children away from him for no good reason does real harm.
Please. It's a f*cking picture in a magazine.
October 26th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
To Kevin Merck,
Good point,
i wold guess that a large percentage of people who work in these advertising companies and magazines are women, I wish the NOW reaize the root of the problem and start advocating getting rid of these women from such positions, along with their pays, and possibly replace with men. it contradicst the feminists asertion that if more women in power, the world will be better, more equaly, and women will feel safer, etc. Looks like more women in managerial positions in fashion, ad and magazine industries are doing harm to themselves.
Also there needs to be more parity in terms of actual spending power, of which women currently hold 85%. Funy how you will never hear accusation of discrimination when these figures are favouring women, but only some pondering on how these women'advantage could spill over to other areas of society so that women can establish matriarchy.
October 26th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Okay, I do think the ads are offensive, but I blaim that all on women, not men. Both ad's say that women are only worth anything if they are young, hot and skinny as a rail. But I don't know a single man who thinks that way at all. I see wonem looking down their nose at a 'too fat' girl. If NOW is offended by these ad's they need to take it up with the offenders, any woman who willingly supports the idea that the only good woman is a hot woman.
And, to the people who said these ad's only offend ugly women, you can say that to me again after you see your friends eating nothing but salad because their mothers are telling them that they're too fat at 145 pounds.
October 27th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
callum,
I don't watch TV for the most part - I do watch British mysteries on DVD because my "husband" loves them -
so I don't see many commercials. I will, from time to time, watch Seinfeld reruns if I'm tired and they are on.
I do remember one commercial in particular, about six or seven years ago, about making bad decisions. I can't remember the product (so how effective was the ad?) but I was ROFL. It was the elderly Rose from Titanic about to throw the diamond overboard when she has second thoughts. After the blurb about the product, you see her coming out of a storefront happily counting all her money. Now THAT was funny.
So was the guy who came out of a room looking exhausted - I mean, totally wiped out, looking as though he's just finished crossing the Sahara, who said to his wife, "I've just finished reading the internet". Dont' remember the product in that instance, either. That was from about five years ago. I was with my non-computer literate father and he didn't understand why I thought it was so funny.
So tell me about the gorilla.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
I agree with callum. I wonder if any of these feminists at NOW have been to a car show, or seen a beer poster, or picked up a motorcycle magazine. I'm pretty sure NOW would find the women protrayed in each of these to be offensive to women, but the women in these media sure don't look like stick figures. To me, complaints from women about how men encourage them to be skinny is just another example of women failing to take ownership of their own issues.
October 30th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Both ads are pretty stupid, but then most ads are.
Personally, as a woman, I don't find either one offensive. The ad on the left just looks distorted, as if the woman is under water - sort of a failed attempt at some kind of art nouveau project by a frustrated design artist. The ad on the right is just silly, I mean who would stand around in that getup and expect to be taken seriously.
I think its pretty telling that NOW finds it so hard to dig up anything 'offensive' to women that this is all they can come up with. Lame.
November 1st, 2007 at 8:58 pm
I can't find mention of the first anywhere either, I think this was a very specific ad for a very specific demographic. It'd only be offensive in mainstream mags, and then only to those with ratty enough self-esteem to believe that was attractive to others. (Projection much?)
I have absolutely no clue what is going on with the ad to the right. I can't fathom a single way it's offensive to anyone, perhaps the writer of the article is going steady/married and saw her hubby staring at it? Raawr, out come the claws! The writer really let her innermost self show by choosing that.
November 4th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Oh, yeah, Dave, "everything is offensive" to me merely because I'm a woman.
Uh huh. (eye roll)
November 8th, 2007 at 7:04 am
Didn't you find that comment offensive Rosemarie - I must do better next time
November 13th, 2007 at 12:23 am
"I'll agree that the ad on the left is destructive to society, not because it's "offensive" - neither ad demeans women in any way, but simply because it encourages anorexia."
Don't be too sure you know what causes anorexia, and that it's pictures of very thin women.
See the remark by another commenter above referencing "Why Beautiful Women Have More Daughters," by the late Alan S. Miller and my friend Satoshi Kanazawa -- noting that in Iran, where women are NOT exposed to imagery of women's thin bodies (since women there are forced to run around in pup tents), women are MORE likely to have eating disorders.
A QUOTE FROM THEIR BOOK: ...A recent study shows that women in Iran, where they are generally not exposed to the western media and culture, and thus would not know Jessica Simpson from Roseanne Barr, and where most women wear the traditional Muslim hijab that loosely covers their entire body so as to make it impossible to tell what shape it is, are actually MORE concerned with their body image, and want to lose MORE weight, than their American counterparts in the land of Vogue and the Barbie Doll.
**hijab, MORE and MORE should be lowercase and italicized but I wasn't sure if you had HTML enabled.