You Be the Judge--NOW Claims This Ad Is 'Offensive to Women'--Is It? (Part IV)
October 30th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
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. In Part III, I thought they were wrong on both.
NOW protests the Dior ad above. They write:
"Dior: The text reads, 'New! Dior Addict Lipstick to Die For...in 30 killer shades...Get hooked. Now.' Dior proudly uses the themes of addiction and death to sell lipstick, under the impression that the tactic is edgy and original. Not."
It's a little hard for me to understand what is going on in the ad--maybe it's confusing or maybe I'm just unhip. NOW says "addiction" and "death," and maybe they're right, but whatever the theme, the woman seems to be suffering and possibly even injured. I'll go with NOW on this one.
That brings NOW's score, in my book, to 3 out of 6 correct.
"));
19 queries. 0.317 seconds.
October 30th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Actually it looks like the woman is in ecstasy after having her Fix. In this case, Putting on Lipstick.
If this is offensive to women, then the the same could be said about all those Orgasmic Herbal Essence commercials.....
October 30th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Well I'm just as unhip, but when I think of addicted to the lipstick, "30 killer shades" and "lipstick to die for", I don't think of women dying without these, but I think of women killing for these shades.
As in popular societal motifs: La Femme Nikita, Women Assassins on 24, female business women looking for the killer deal, even female politicians: http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2005/09/04/in_japan_female_assassins_look_to_slay_old_political_guard/
The ad seems stupid. I am not sure who should be more offended, women, the men targeted by the ad, or the shareholders of Dior.
October 30th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
This isn't even closely offensive to women. Sure you can make a very good case against the use of lipstick based upon it, but it does not demean, humiliate, mock or offend women as a group. If it mocked women to sell a product (as most products targetted at women do to men) then it would be. All this does is encourage women to buy lipstick, painting it with an almost dangerous mystique.
Just because an advertisment is of poor quality and deals with 'bad' themes such as addiction and death, that does not make it offnesive to the target audience. Then you could just as well say a life insurance advert (using death as a motivation) is offensive to parents (the main group buying life insurance, to look after their kids)
Sorry Glenn, this isn't even close.
October 30th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
And jerry, to the link you posted, what a pile of crap.
The idea that because women do not dominate a certain industry, in this case politics, means oppression is completely unfounded. Women dominate the service sector, which makes up 80% of the British economy, but that doesn't mean that men are being forced out in any way. It simply means that women prefer jobs there. There is no drive for men to stay at home and take traditional roles, yet people call for women to throw off these 'shackles' like they are somehow negative. That a woman who stays at home as opposed to becoming president is any less of a human being. Well this is a new lie, and it really does disturb me.
No, this is a simple PR stunt, and I hope the people of Japan have more sense than to fall for it. Image politics really has become too much. I'd rather vote in candidates based on their merits, not their novelty value.
I would continue this to rant about Mrs Clinton, but I'll leave that for another day I think.
October 30th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Umm, maybe I just watch too many movies, but I often see cocaine snorted off a mirror in film. I suppose that's what the graphic is supposed to refer to.
And either way, all of these products are marketed at women and are about women. This is different from the old "beer commercial" adverts that used boobs to sell stuff to men. This is a product intended for women - and you don't go far by hating/offending the customer.
October 30th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
I think the ad uses "Killer" as in "awesome" or "wicked" is used in slang language. The connotation is not murder, rather something "perfect".
the word hooked is probably used as in "armed" or "equipped". When you say "hook me up" (get me a date with so and so).. you dont mean addicted, you mean connected or setup. So it seems NOW wants to debate informal language (slang).. sure, I am with them, but the ad being offensive to women? No way!
October 30th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
It looks like the result of her application of the lipstick was before the successful completion of a sex act to me. The last I checked, even feminist weren't against have orgasms, and more likely than men, multiple orgasms. I understood that feminists were largely objecting to men having orgasms by means of women (who are in most cases supposedly getting raped acoording to some); pornography; or prostitution. No doubt its 'Okay' if it involves 2 women.
The last I checked 'sex' itself can be an addictive behavior, as well as personal appearance in matters relating to weight loss via anorexia and bullemia (sp?); plastic surgery; various cosmetic products; etc.
Mike
October 30th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Now lets see here, Dior is trying to sell a product to women by way of demeaning them????
Something just doesn't add up.
I could see the argument if they were using those terms to sell duct tape or carbeuraetor parts (masculine stuff), but the argument they are making here would mean that DIOR is trying to lose business.
Get a grip, these are just radical feminists who don't like that sex sells (to both men and women)
October 30th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
If NOW had it's way, men wouldn't even be allowed to LOOK at women walking down the street, let alone allow women to pose in advertisements like this or prohibit men from viewing them.
October 30th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
At a 50-60 person Halloween party this weekend with about 20 females in the 20-40 age group.
17 or 18 of the costumes in this age group were variations on how to expose, by volume and surface area, more breast than is exposed for a breast X-ray.
Gee, and none of the women were sexually abused or raped. Boy, doesn’t that really defy the odds!
DanH
October 30th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
I think Dior doesn't piss away money on ads that don't sell their product.
You may not like it, I may or may not like it, but fact remains, it must move merchandise.
If NOW is offended, I tend toward liking it.
Heheheheh.
The Geezer
October 31st, 2007 at 5:49 am
Offensive to men?
October 31st, 2007 at 1:07 pm
No gwallan, it would only be offensive if it was trying to sell something.
Apparently, that's how they measure it now, rather than how much it demeans, humiliates, mocks or shames women.
November 1st, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Decent enough. I prefer implied sex over Abercrombie-styled "Doin' it in your face" sex. Not exactly the angle or tone I would have used, but okay. Ironically, if they used killer in a literal sense, and it was made blatantly obvious the woman in the ad was, say, Poison Ivy from DC Comics, they would applaud it.
November 6th, 2007 at 10:20 am
C'mon - it's a look of ecstacy. Certainly you guys have seen that look before?! I don't find this add, or any of the adds shown that NOW gripes about, as "offensive." In fact, most of the adds aren't even American companies. Have you not been to Europe? They do not have the sexual hang-ups that Americans have, so therefore it's not offensive to the population they target. And I agree with the point that if your marketing to a certain population, the way to reach them is not by offending them. These advertisers are using what consumers - yes, women - obviously find appealing, as thought it is something to strive for. Just because we all can't look like a Victoria's Secret model doesn't mean we can't admire their bodies. If not, why would we bother looking at the catalogs? If it's SO offensive? And by the way, the Dolce and Gabana add is really erotic........it mirrors the "rape fantasy" of women (not rape literally, which is a violent act as we all know). NOW needs to speak for theirself. I'd rather keep men looking at me for being attactive - it feels good. What's so sexist and offensive about that?
April 21st, 2008 at 1:34 pm
[...] You Be the Judge--NOW Claims This Ad Is 'Offensive to Women'--Is It? (Part IV) [...]