You Be the Judge--NOW Claims These Ads Are 'Offensive to Women'--Are They? (Part III)
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."
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 (Part I), I agreed with NOW. In Part II I agreed with them on one out of two.
Regarding the Winston ad on the left, NOW writes:
"Winston tries to convince young women how tough and cool they can be by smoking while waiting for a man. Hope he arrives soon...before lung cancer sets in.
Regarding Brown & Williamson, they write:
"Brown & Williamson appears to be marketing cigarettes to pre-teen girls with this ad that practically makes smoking look wholesome. Really not."
Regarding the Winston add, this is (sigh) another example of feminists' absolute refusal to acknowledge anti-male sexism. The ad isn't hostile to women, it's hostile to men who are, of course, not good enough, not "real men," etc. Regarding Brown & Williamson, yes, marketing cigarettes to young women is bad, but I doubt they market them any more to young women than to young men, so I don't see it as being a gender issue. I think NOW is very wrong on the Winston ad, and off mark on the B & W ad.
That brings NOW's score, in my book, to 2 out of 5 correct.
"));
19 queries. 0.330 seconds.
October 26th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Never was a fan of smoking, or their ads. How to advertise something that has no actual benefits, and everyone knows it? From day one they have been playing up smoking is cool to both sexs. The first add is no different. Would NOW have liked it better if it had targeted lesbians and said, " Until I find a real woman..."
As to the second one:
"pre-teen"? What? How is that targeting pre-teen. The model looks young, I'd guess in her low 20s. But definitely not 11? Wholesome? because of what, a hat?
October 26th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
The second ad appears to be an illustration of that old practical joke the one that starts by telling the mark, "If your hand is bigger than your face, you have cancer."
October 26th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Who cares. It's not even hard to quit smoking and I should know, I've done it like ten times.
When did I quit? January, July and September!
I'm here all week. Try the veal.
October 26th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Every image of women who look younger, thinner, and prettier than the NOW ideologues who score the lowest in these attributes would be labelled "offensive", because they cannot accept the fact that they are not the youngest, thinnest, and prettiest on earth, let alone see images of prettier women plastered on billiboards, magazines, etc.
it simply remind you of the fact that you cannot change the human nature, that women are women, as they are always envious of other women. Years of indoctrination in feminism ideology obviously failed to freed them from this old nature trap.
It is also intereting to see the labelling of "offensive to women" has been expanded to include anything that may or may not cause health, occupational and other hazards to women. If dieting is hazardous to women's health, then it is "offensive". Maybe images of women playing sports should be refrained because some women get injure from sports. Images of successful career women would also need to be banned since it lower the self-image of other no-so-successful women, and also may inspire women to work too hard which may be hazardous to their health and well-being.
October 26th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
WRT the Winston ad, perhaps what NOW is really finding offensive is that a young woman would actually admit that she wants (dare I say needs? Naaaaaah.....) a man.
WRT the other ad, are they afraid teens will want to try sticking cirgarettes into their eyes? I'm kind of upset, too: what kind of message does that send, for pete's sake? Smoking is dangerous enough, but now I have to say "careful, you might put your eye out!"? If you're going to impress upon teens to start smoking, at least show them the right way to do it! Sheesh!
October 26th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
I can see how the cartoon "Joe Camel" markets to kids, but the second image? It's clearly not of a pre-teen girl -- I know, I'm lucky to have two of those!
Are cigarette companies marketing to kids -- almost certainly. Is this ad one of those? No more than the rest.
Is marketing cigarettes to kids offensive to women? No. It is offensive to parents.
Is marketing cigarettes to women offensive? If they are legal products, the answer is no.
Is an ad showing an attractive woman holding your product offensive to woman? No.
I have never smoked and I certainly give my kids the message they should not smoke, but I also try to give them the message that what grown-ups do, even if it would seem to harm them, is their own business.
Soren, you wrote, "Maybe images of women playing sports should be refrained because some women get injure from sports.". http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/sioncampus/06/20/aimee.mullins/index.html That picture got a lot of feminists upset. Regardless of all the accomplishments of Aimee Mullins that are described in the article, showing her in a racing stance was offensive to them. Now, not all feminists were upset, but the usual suspects (Twisty Faster @ iblamethepatriarchy http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/?p=1240) certainly were. Here's a feminist defense of Mullins: http://trinityva.livejournal.com/666098.html
October 26th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
I think what N.O.W. finds offensive to women is that a know carcinogen is being marketed “specifically” to females.
The success or failure of N.O.W., and everything they stand for, relies to a great extent on women outnumbering men.
Most public money spent on medical research is spent on ways to prolong the lives of women, very little is spent on men.
Criminalizing fathers is an effective way to disfranchise a large percentage of the male population. Fewer men at the polls will translate into feminist control of our courts and legislator.
In the words of a dedicated feminist:
“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.”
Sally Miller Gearhart
October 26th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
I think NOW is off to a good start. But there are many, many more offensive ads. And products. And logos. All of the below list could be offensive to women, in some ways, and must be banned:
Little Debbie cakes: Offensive because she is a young girl and that sets an unrealistic age standard for women. The success of Little Debbie surely means men are pervs and want to freeze women at age 8.
Aunt Jemima: Offensive -- men will expect all women to serve them because of her bad example.
Morton's Salt Girl: Offensive because her dress is too short. And she is too young. Again, proves men are pervs!
Martha White Muffuns: Offensive because men will want women enslaved in the kitchen, baking.
Uncle Ben: Offensive because his mere presence implies women are unable to cook rice. Proves men want to oppress women in rice-oriented matters.
Quaker Oats Dude: Very patriarchial. Manly image makes women believe they are not up to snuff when it comes to getting a job in the oatmeal field.
The Entire Bread Aisle: Must be removed from supermarket, because it could cause men to say "Bi*ch, make me a sandwich!"
Easter "Peeps": Must be banned because they could cause men to call women "chicks," which is derogatory.
Chick Peas: See Above Entry.
Chicken of the Sea Mermaid (on can): Must be banned. Skimpy outfit could cause men to fly into sexual supermarket sex frenzy.
String Cheese: Too phallic. Must be replaced with non-gendered cheese -- perhaps swiss, which has female-oriented holes in it.
Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream: The combination of male names with creamy, white substance amounts to "psychological rape" when seen by females. Must be removed from shelves and replaced with sherbert, which has been deemed non-offensive because nobody actually likes sherbert.
Johnny Walker and Jack Daniels: Male names discourage females from drinking, proving discriminarory.
St. Pauli Girl Beer: Female name encourages females to drink, proving discriminatory.
Asprin: Sounds like to word "ass," which could whip males into a sexual frenzy, again causing sexual supermarkets. Must be banned!
Dr. Pepper: Surely a product of the patriarchy.
Mr. Salty (the Planters Peanuts dude): See Above Entry. Also, pervy leg-cross makes women uncomfortable.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Speaking of offensive -- to both women and men -- how about the the guys singing abou the wonders of erectile dysfunction medication in the Viva Viagra ad?
October 27th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
The first example states that most men aren't as good as a good cigarette. Could somebody explain how that demeans WOMEN??
The second is just lame, light n sassy?? Then again, that's my own opinion. As for gender bias, there's none at all in that advert. A woman smoking is portrayed positively and wholesome, that is wrong, as smoking is anything but wholesome; however, it does not demean, belittle, mock, offend or steriotype women in any way. NOW are kidding themselves on this one.
November 1st, 2007 at 9:10 pm
It's quite ironic they would target that first ad. Can't begin to tell you how many times back in my emotional tampon days I heard women say that verbatim. Or you could replace cigarettes with any other consumer vice, really. It would still be true.
The second one has no grounding at all. If you deleted the cigarette it would become some random woman's personal dating ad. It's not a very smart ad since to nonsmokers like moi, she's overtaking the product in question. I never liked cigarette ads that went this route, it seems like the product is thrown in at the last minute. (Seems a lot of advertising does that lately. I'll be watching one on TV and say "That was pretty cool...what were they selling anyway?")
As far as I can remember "women's cigarettes" have always specifically been this way. I guess it works or they would change by now. Strikes, Salem, Misty, etcetera.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
I think that the Winston ad is actually offensive to both genders. The offense to men is clear; you've got no argument from me there. The offense to women is, IMO, more subtle: first, the implication that young women are thinking about "finding a man" all the time, including when they smoke (!), is stupidly offensive; second, the implication that cigarettes can be used as a substitute for a relationship -- i.e., consumerism is the cure for women's romantic troubles -- is just as stupidly offensive. So, while I don't agree with NOW's assessment of how the ad is offensive to women, I do think the ad is offensive.
As for the Misty ad, I don't know what they're talking about when they make reference to "pre-teen girls." The "light 'n' sassy" part is somewhat regressive, and equates the cigarettes they're selling with the women they're marketing it to in a way that is just weird and (borderline) offensive. But NOW didn't even bring that part up, so I don't know what their problem is.