What’s the first thing a woman wants you to notice when you meet her? Is it her smile, her eyes, or perhaps her sparkling wit or charm? Not according to Reebok–at least judging from their latest ads.
It’s no coincidence that in most of these ads, the woman herself is never seen except in bits and pieces. After all, that’s apparently how Reebok sees women: as just boobs and legs, with no pesky identity to distract from the pretty picture.
The first of these ads shows a perky young brunette who seems determined to explain the scientific basis for the benefit the shoes claim to provide, yet is constantly distracted by the cameraman focusing on her well-toned butt. Does this bother the young lady? Of course not, she is properly flattered by the objectifying gaze of the camera! After all, what woman doesn’t want to have men more focused on her butt than on a single word she is saying?
But wait–it gets worse!
Another ad shows a pair of toned legs, writhing sensuously on a bed, while the announcer recites the benefits of the new toning technology of the shoes. “88% of men will be speechless, 76% of women jealous, and 0% will know the reason is on your feet…Better legs and a better butt with every step.”
This ad simply focuses on the age-old idea of women’s self-improvement being simply another way to catch a man’s eye. Disgusting, of course, but nothing new.
But wait–it gets even worse!
The final ad in the new series doesn’t settle for encouraging objectification from men, or even jealousy from other women. No, now it’s time to make a woman’s body jealous of itself! The final ad shows a close up of a woman’s breasts, with a voiceover claiming to be the voice of the breasts. The breasts, the voice claims, are jealous of the attention that the butt is now receiving, after the unseen woman in the ad began using the new Reebok shoes:
It’s no coincidence that in most of these ads, the woman herself is never seen except in bits and pieces. After all, that’s apparently how Reebok sees women: just boobs and legs, with no pesky intelligence or career to distract from the pretty picture.
Reebok may have silenced the women in their advertisements, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t speak up! Let Reebok know what you think by contacting them:
A frame from the new Rethink Breast Cancer commercial (full video is on the jump)
Rethink Breast Cancer has released a new ad that they hope will catch the attention of heterosexual men and increase awareness of breast cancer as the leading cause of cancer death in young women ages 20 to 59. But though they may have the best of intentions, this ad is liable to do more harm than good.
We’ve all seen the “pinkified” ads for breast cancer awareness and research. They usually focus on women as mothers and daughters and frequently feature emotional music, pastel colors, and a plea for support. It’s no doubt time for a new approach, but the ad recently created by Rethink Breast Cancer is a big step in the wrong direction.
The video opens with a shot of a pool party, with a crowd of women and men enjoying themselves in the water. Then, to the amazement of all the men, Aliya-Jasmine Sovani (a host for MTV News Canada) walks onto the scene, wearing a small white bikini. The video is slowed down and cropped to showcase Sovani’s breasts, and reveal the motion of her breasts with every step she takes. The men at the party are excited, while the smaller-breasted women surrounding them look on in envy and disapproval. The caption reads, “You know you like them. Now it’s time to save the boobs.”
Apparently, to the makers of this advertisement, the ability to look at breasts is the only reason men care about women. It would be impossible to appeal to them as lovers, fathers, sons of women who are affected by breast cancer. No, best to keep it simple for the dudes: “If they lose their boobs, we can’t ogle them anymore!” (And that’s not even taking into account the other women in the ad; clearly, women with smaller breasts aren’t worth saving.)
This ad not only reinforces the objectification and valuing of women based solely on bodily perfection, but it degrades men as well, portraying them as incapable of seeing beyond their own desires to the concerns of women they care about. Real men care about the women in their lives as full people: minds and spirits, as well as bodies. When a husband loses a wife to breast cancer, it’s not the loss of the breasts that he is mourning, but the loss of a woman.
While getting men concerned about the dangers posed by breast cancer is an important goal, ads like this will only serve to remind women that their value in the eyes of men is determined by the perceived perfection of their bodies.
In recent news, a former VH1 reality TV star, Ryan Jenkins, killed his model girlfriend, Jasmine Fiore, cut her up in pieces, and stuffed her in a suitcase. It’s pretty disturbing to imagine that something as horrific as cutting up a body and packing it into a suitcase could actually happen. What is even more disturbing is that I’d seen this image before.
However, it wasn’t due to a story about domestic violence — it was an advertisement I had seen (for designer Guiseppe Zanotti’s line Vicini) of a woman’s body stuffed in the trunk of a car with just her legs sticking out under the hood. [Warning: Disturbing images on the jump page.]
It’s not just the crime itself that is disturbing, but also the fact that, as a society, we take violent images, especially those against women, lightly. Such violent images are deemed as “art”, but what does such art express? What do they say about actual violence against women? How can we condemn these heinous acts and not the “art” that glorifies them?
The examples are endless.
This contestant's challenge was to pose as if she had died from being pushed down the stairs
One America’s Next Top Model challenge had contestants pose dead in grotesque crime scenes. These models depicted glamorous women who had been electrocuted, disemboweled, shot, decapitated, strangled, pushed off of a roof, drowned, poisoned, pushed down the stairs, and stabbed — all in the name of art and entertainment.
A recent window display by Barney’s in New York featured female mannequins wearing fancy dresses with blood splattered all around them. Thankfully, the people took action against the display and Barney’s was forced to take it down, but why did Barney’s have that display to begin with? Especially when one out of three women experience sexual assault and/or abuse in their life (that statistic is only based on crimes that are reported).
A recent window display at Barney's
This is not to say that perpetrators of violence are influenced to commit violent crimes against women because of what they see in advertisements or on television. However, we should take responsibility for the ways women are objectified in our society. We have to ask ourselves: are rates of sexual assault and domestic violence related to objectification and violence against women in the media?
Part of the Gold's Gym "Cankle Awareness" campaign
“Cankles” is a charming term (like “love handles”, “muffin top”, “saddlebags”, etc.) that describes yet another thing women are made to feel insecure about: having ankles the size of one’s calves.
As reported on Feministing, Gold’s Gym graciously took a step to eradicate this nonexistent problem by declaring July “Cankle Awareness Month.”
Both the Today Show and ABC News report that ankle size is a genetic predisposition. The first solution they offer their news-seeking audiences is liposuction in the area. Popular news sources advocating surgery for a body-type trend? Ankle size is not a medical condition, and yet, it is being treated as something we should rush to talk to our doctors about.
Cosmetic surgery is promoted as a cure for cankles
Cankle Awareness Month is apparently a humorous attempt to get people in the gym, but I’m not laughing. Call me crazy, but I don’t think breeding insecurity among the already body-conscious public is funny.
While I was watching reruns of a family-friendly sitcom the other afternoon, a commercial came on advertising longer and fuller eyelashes. Usually commercials with promises of pumping up eyelash volume are reserved for mascara. This commercial, however, was for the prescription medicine, Latisse. The commercial informs the viewer that one must consult a doctor before using the beauty product.
Though the common side effects are relatively harmless (itchy eyes and redness), the fact remains that the Latisse advertisers are selling doctor-prescribed medicine to improve one’s appearance. Through the bumping music, the before-and-after shots, and the spokesmodel Brooke Shields, the commercial lures viewers into thinking life would be better with long eyelashes. With the long eyelashes Latisse would give them, they too could have fun at parties and flirt with men as Brooke Shields would.
It really took me aback that a medical body “enhancement” procedure is being advertised on daytime television. Not only was this medical cure to a non-existent problem being sold to viewers, it was being sold during a family oriented show! With the beginning of summer comes a sharp increase in the number of children watching television during the day. The chances of tweenagers watching this commercial are high.
No woman needs to be told her lashes are “inadequate or not enough” but especially young girls should not be subjected to the notion that their bodies need fixing.
If you want to make your voice heard about these advertising techniques, you can contact the makers of Latisse through the Allergan web site.
For the past few weeks, I’ve seen this link for the 15 Sexist Vintage Ads floating around cyberspace, shared among Facebook friends and highlighted on humor and culture blogs. It takes you to a web site that showcases 15 “sexist” ads from the early and mid-twentieth century. With overtly sexist tag lines like “The harder a wife works the cuter she looks,” “Blow in her face and she’ll follow you anywhere,” and “Men are better than women,” these ads look different from what we’re used to seeing today.
Or do they?
Take a closer look.
In this first group, notice the vintage ad’s placement of the women’s lips and the lipstick. Then notice the similarities to the modern ad. Both ads portray the sexualization of women.
In this next group, notice how both ads portray women as less than human.
In this last group, notice what both ads insinuate — that women are dumb, or should strive to be so.
In both worlds, decades apart, women are portrayed the same: as unintelligent, as submissive, as sexual fiends, and as objects.
Sure, the vintage ads are a little different. Advertisements today don’t have blatant, wordy warnings, stating that if women don’t smell good or feel soft, they risk having their husbands literally not come home that night. But look around. Look at fashion magazines, billboards and TV commercials. The overall message of nearly every single ad is that we women are imperfect and need to strive to keep a man’s attention.
Advertisements — those from 1949 and 2009 — never let us forget that a woman is judged only on the basis of her appeal to men.
And even though we don’t see sexism spelled out, as in the vintage ad that reads, “Men ask ‘is she pretty?’ not ‘is she clever?’ ” we see that sexism when ads continually warn us to slim down, whiten teeth, curl hair, smell better, shave, primp, yet never to — get this — be strong, brave, intelligent, and powerful. In the twenty-first century, women are absolutely still being told to be pretty. Forget clever.
Also, notice the disconnect in the ad on the left: How is spanking a woman at all related to selling coffee?, you might be asking. But I would ask the same thing today of the ad on the right: How is a naked, faceless woman at all related to electronics?!
Furthermore, these vintage ads are nowhere near as sexually explicit as ones today. These ads don’t feature extreme closeups of women’s breasts, butts, and unrealistic and unattainable body images, all to sell a product and make girls feel ashamed. Ads back then may have been sexist, but ads now are sexist and sexually explicit.
So before you pass the 15 Sexist Vintage Ads link onto your friends, laughing at how much things have changed, think again. Have they?
Let us know what you think, About-Face blog readers. Go through the vintage ad web site and About-Face’s Gallery of Offenders to find similarities and differences yourself. Leave your findings and thoughts in the comments.
From the moment the Obama family moved into the White House, our newest President and his wife became instant American icons. A beautiful and intelligent African-American couple, the Obamas exist under a social microscope with the media reporting on virtually every aspect of their lives.
In the midst of all the Obamamania, one of the most interesting news trends is the increasing interest in Michelle Obama, often subjecting her to a level of attention beyond the normal scrutiny reserved for a first lady.
Michelle Obama has essentially become public domain, with every aspect of her body up for discussion, from her clothing choices to her physical body itself.
The interest in Michelle’s clothing is like most relationships we have with public figures. There is a fun and escapist quality in watching her wardrobe choices. Mrs. Obama has a huge fashion following, often referred to as “the new Jackie O”, she inspires blogs that track her every outfit, and coffee table books celebrating her style. She makes headlines whether she’s wearing designer Narcisco Rodriguez or J. Crew, and even her penchant for sleeveless frocks inspires nationwide controversy.
Like the obsession with her wardrobe, the attention given to Michelle Obama’s body feels inspired by the public’s voyeurism (the press and public often critique the bodies of female celebrities), as well as a desire to be like Mrs. Obama. From Fitness Magazine to Glamour, magazines everywhere are promoting articles on “How to Get Michelle Obama’s Arms!” Very interesting. But what does this say about us?
Is it strange that the press is focusing so much on Mrs. Obama’s clothing and body, and rarely mentioning her other life accomplishments? Or are women simply inspired by an extraordinary first lady who always looks fantastic?
The desire to dress and look like Michelle Obama is understandable, she is a beautiful woman who promotes a healthy body image, which the public is clearly responding favorably to. But here are 4 facts about Mrs. Obama that get a little less press coverage:
Michelle was born and grew up on the South Side of Chicago and graduated from Princeton University and Harvard Law School.
Michelle met Barack Obama when they were working at the same law firm, and she was assigned to mentor him.
She promised Barack that she would support his decision to run for President if he quit smoking.
She is a strong and down-to-earth mother who values her children remaining as normal as possible, keeping them involved in play dates, school, and sports activities.
Mrs. Obama’s body is something to be desired, but I would like to know that as many women are inspired to attend Ivy League schools, go to law school, support their husbands, and become strong mothers because of her example, too. Obviously, Michelle is truly a positive female role model, and the media should treat her as such…with or without those toned arms.
For a company that prides itself on making all its attire in the United States, American Apparel deserves no congratulations when it comes to its ads. American Apparel already has one ad posted in our Gallery of Offenders and the obviously have done nothing to improve there act–they seem to have gotten worse!
Just take a look at these four recent advertisements from American Apparel:
American Apparel Ad for Socks
American Apparel Ad for Underwear?
American Apparel Ad for ???
American Apparel Ad for Opening in Japan
What is the first thing you see in these pictures? Certainly not the apparel. What kind of position are the women in? What are their faces saying? What does it mean when you can’t see her face? Where are the men? What does their absence mean?
What kind of language is used in the advertisements? How do these words reflect the photos in the ads, and how do they connect to the ads’ messages?
Socks and underwear aside, what are the ads really selling?
After rubbing my eyes a couple times and staring at the computer screen with my mouth agape and my face flushing with anger — incidents that are probably happening to you right now — one of the first things I noticed was the candid-photo style of these photographs. The odd lighting, the grainy-ness — doesn’t the style of these photos give you the feeling that the women were unsuspecting subjects in the photos? There’s a sense in the ads that a man is snapping photos of the woman — helplessly left to be the object –and we are lucky enough to voyeuristically view the results. Gee, that makes me want to go buy socks!
So what are the ads actually getting at? American Apparel advertisements — advertisements that are plastered all over magazines and weekly newspapers nationwide — aren’t selling clothes. They’re selling the notion that scantily clad girls in compromising positions are hip. American Apparel caters to a hipster clientele, and the company is equating coolness with sexualized positions, and the idea that it’s okay to treat women as things that should be stared at.
The women have become the products, not the clothing. We’ve all seen the countless advertisements in fashion magazines and on billboards — women in shopping bags, women without faces, women’s body parts taking up the entire photo. American Apparel wants to be trendy, but they need to step away from this current advertising trend. They need to stop objectifying women to sell socks.
Congratulations, American Apparel. You make clothing in a socially sound manner. For that we thank you. Now please stop using half-naked models in inferior positions to convince us all to buy your company’s underwear.
If you’re as furious as me, please send your thoughts to
American Apparel Inc.
747 Warehouse St.
Los Angeles, CA 90021
United States
It is sad to say, but when most women hear the words “beach season,” we brace ourselves to feel bad about our bodies. This is something I have come to expect from women’s magazines and diet-pill commercials, but I didn’t expect Oprah to join in with a swift kick to women’s body image.
On Oprah’s web site there is an article titled Summer Body Shortcuts. As the word “shortcuts” implies, all of the suggestions on the list are cosmetic surgery. They suggest everything from breast implants and tummy tucks to porcelain veneers and Botox. Some procedures aren’t even FDA approved, and still the reader is corralled into thinking “I could use that…”
Oprah Approves Botox Injections
It is disheartening to see Oprah put up things like this on her website. She has an extremely large following of devoted fans who excitedly watch every episode of her show to see the next “must-have.” For someone who has had her own public body image issues, it is surprising that she would help foster body insecurities in this way. I think it is incredibly irresponsible of Oprah to tell women their bodies aren’t good enough as-is.
We need to stop looking at our bodies as something to be fixed and stop listening to people, like Oprah, who tell us we aren’t perfect by telling us how to “fix” our bodies. Instead of constantly picking apart body “flaws” we need to refocus and set our sights on becoming comfortable with our bodies the way they are.
Here are tips to love your body WITHOUT expensive, risky, and unnecessary cosmetic surgery:
Cut out the negativity and make a pact with your friends to only say good things about your bodies.
Write a list of things that you like about yourself (i.e. your hair or sense of humor) and pin it up on your bathroom mirror. Then read it while you brush your teeth in the morning. Reminding yourself of how great you are will put that little extra spring in your step.
When you are hanging out with your friends, notice all of the different ways to be beautiful (i.e. a person’s boisterous laugh or their loving nature). Remember that people are not meant to look exactly the same. Variety is the spice of life!
Go for a walk outside. The combination of the fresh air and the light work out can really boost your overall mood.
Walk around your house in your underwear or bathing suit. This can help you to become comfortable with your body. The more comfortable you are with your body, the more confident you will be when at the beach.
CHALLENGE: Come up with more ways to feel good about your body and share your ideas with the About-Face community by writing them in the comments for this blog!
You can also share your thoughts on the Summer Body Shortcuts article with Oprah by emailing her: click here.
It’s not enough that in advertising most photos are endlessly retouched, often beyond recognition. But to have the chutzpah to use a mannequin in place of a real woman as part of the ad is ridiculous and insulting! Well, that’s Prevage, the new product from Elizabeth Arden
The obvious dividinglines around the major limbs of the body (for easy detachment and renewal, perhaps) are what caught my eye in the ad in the April 2009 issue of Vogue. Of course, such lines are never found on a real woman, but only on a mannequin.
The ad is seemingly innocuous and even pleasing to the eye:simple colors, simple lines, and a simple message. The text isalso simple: from a terse “total transformation” to a full statement, “I want firmer, smoother looking skin with no sign of stretch marks or age spots” to the actual name, “Prevage” which of course reads: “prevent age.” However, the psychological effect it has on women is anything but simple.
Vogue April 2009 Prevage Ad Text Detail
The tube of Prevage is strategically placed at the forefront and blown up to the size of the wom– er– mannequin. The advertisement states to the consumer that not only will this cream help with all the head-to-toe problems (come on, admit it, you’re just not perfect), but that every woman is plighted with such problems that need to be either prevented or taken care of ASAP.
Great, where do I buy a tube, or three, or, what’s the limit again? Finally: a solution to ALL our (women’s) peskiest problems! This is exactly how the advertisers want the consumer to react. But who allotted those problems?
Although a bottle of Prevage first appears as a salvation, they are not actually promoting a solution. What they are doing is making women feel damaged and shameful of being a functioning human being. How about this for a retort: “It is better to be a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without.”? Thank you, Confucius.
What I don’t understand is this: Are they saying that after using their ground-breaking cream a woman will end up looking as “perfect” as a mannequin? Or that the mannequin is the epitome of beauty, which a cosmetic surgery enthusiast can’t even live up to? To use Photoshop to take a blemish or two off a model is the rage, but to use a man-made statue as the promoter of a cream is just absurd.
I personally do not know of any men who have complained about crow’s feet or a stretch mark, or whatever else the cream is supposed to erase and banish from existence. But a perfectly lifeless girlfriend? That might raise a few complaints.
-O.V.K.
Olya Krapivina graduated from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) in 2008 with a B.A. in Cultural Anthropology. She has always been interested in people’s psychology and behavior. Journalism and writing have also been of major interest to her.
