Posts filed under 'men'
Calvin Klein has built a fortune on controversy. From the suggestive 1980s commercial where a then-14-year-old Brooke Shields seductively looked into the camera and admitted to going commando, to the Secret Obsession fragrance ad depicting a naked, nipple-baring Eva Mendes (the ad was later banned from TV), Calvin Klein has always branded his product with the suggestion of sex presented in a way to shock the viewer.
Now, the world-famous jeans corporation is stirring up debate with its latest ad campaign involving a billboard in New York’s trendy, stroller-friendly SoHo neighborhood.
Calvin Klein's provocative billboard at Houston Street and Lafayette Strees in New York
The ad in question depicts a very young-looking teenage girl wearing a tiny pair of jean cut-off shorts, laying on top of one half-naked young man and kissing a second young man. A third half-naked teenager lies on the floor next to the three with his pants undone.
What is Calvin Klein selling? Oh, that's right: jeans.
Asked about the message in the ad, a Calvin Klein spokesman said, “[the] intention was to create a very sexy campaign that speaks to our targeted demographic.” This statement is questionable considering the ad is plastered on a billboard for everyone to see, including children and teens.
Calvin Klein menswear designer Italo Zucchelli spoke out in favor of the ad more fervently. “I think it is a fantastic campaign. That is what Calvin Klein Jeans is supposed to be. Everyone needs to be scandalized and screaming. That is what we want.” Zucchelli went even further to hope the controversial nature of the ads would shock some viewers into spending. “I hope they’re going to be, ‘Ooooh, what is that?’ And then they buy our jeans. In the best tradition of Calvin Klein.”
Whether you find yourself shocked by this particular billboard or not, it raises questions about the messages Calvin Klein’s advertising deems valuable to promote. Calvin Klein deviates from the norm in the respect that highly sexualized images of young men are prominently featured, as opposed to women alone. This billboard of three men and one woman is a perfect example. What kind of statement does this ad make about young women and men as sexual objects? And what kind of impact will it have on the thousands of children and teens who will see it? Shoppers need to answer these questions for themselves.
The hope is that Calvin Klein, as well as other businesses that choose to sell based on shocking imagery, will realize smart consumers are not so easy to manipulate. Calvin Klein is free to target his “demographic,” but this does not include people who disagree with the sexual objectification of women and men, no matter how provocative the ad campaign. A truly smart consumer can see through the sex and shock, and choose to spend their hard-earned money elsewhere.
Contact Calvin Klein, Inc. and let them know how you feel about their advertising habits by either calling or writing a letter to:
Calvin Klein, Inc.
205 West 39th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10018-3102
212-719-2600
-Nikki
*Quotes sourced from here.
June 25th, 2009
I have always been a fan of Nike commercials. There is something behind their unisex “just do it” slogan that is energizing and empowering. Curious to what Nike has been up to lately, I decided to Google their commercials. I came across this:
I was skeptical at first. Is it going to be sexist? Will it dampen my perception of the company? Of course, most of all I wanted to know: Who are they going to place as the winner of the challenge?
The commercial pins some of the great female and male athletes, such as tennis ace Rodger Federer, Swedish striker Zlatan Ibrahimovic, and long-distance runner Paula Radcliffe; hip-hop dancer Sofia Boutella; Fernando Torres; and NBA player Tony Parker and his wife Eva Longoria Parker.
To my delight, the commercial did not disappoint. In fact, I think it just added to Nike’s vast commercial idea: healthy competition. While the dividing line is apparent in the “Men vs. Women” title, I find it more inspiring rather than divisive or degrading to either sex.
First of all, there is no favoritism among the sexes in the commercial — both groups compete to their best abilities. Most importantly, however, it places the usual gender bias on an even keel, stating: anything you can do, I can do, for we are one.
Of course, this can be argued. The commercial starts off and ends showing the “pink bar,” which represents the female sex, as behind. Even in the end the female is a mere 13 kilometers behind. Are they implying that women are good, yet not THAT good; or is there a deeper meaning: even late in the competition a woman is still very likely to come close to surpassing a man’s achievement?
Although competitions are often about who is better, one should keep in mind that competitions are almost always between equals. You do not pit a champion NFL team against a high school football team, you do not allow a 150-pound person get into a fighting ring with a heavyweight, you will not challenge an Olympian sprinter to a running match (unless you have a really good sense of humor), and so on. By creating this “challenge,” Nike is implying that both sexes are champions; thus, they can compete easily against each other.
The idea behind women being the “weaker” sex is seemingly subsiding, although not as quickly as it should. While I deem the commercial inspiring, I do have to consider that it did put men as the winning sex throughout the commercial; it is hard to detect, but the little pink bar is lagging by a few kilometers.
So how do you feel about the ad: are you inspired by Nike’s creative competition or do you still find it sexist?
-OVK
June 3rd, 2009
Yet another awful Carl’s Jr ad:
OK. Here’s what I learned from this advertisement:
1. Men like buffalo wings.
2. Men want to be cool and macho.
3. Eating Buffalo wings, ogling waitresses, and disrespecting your girlfriend are all a part of being cool and macho.
Wait. What?
I’m sorry Carl’s Jr., but I just don’t follow your logic. Since when does a high-calorie diet equal manliness? And why does Carl’s Jr. feel determined to align its product with misogynistic clichés?
Curious to learn how Carl’s Jr. interprets its own ad, I referenced the press release for this commercial. Here is the message consumers are meant to take away after viewing:
The 30-second spot…features a young, hungry guy enjoying Buffalo wings at his local sports bar. The wings are hot but the waitress is even hotter. The ad ends humorously when the guy is busted by his girlfriend for taking a little too much interest in the waitress.
There are 3 major messages in this article I find troublesome:
1. The clear oversexualization of the waitress. Everything from her risqué outfit to the way she flirts with Hungry Guy promotes the idea that she is a sexual object. Carl’s Jr. is effectively promoting their ideal attractive woman: a young blonde who will prance around seductively for strangers.
2. Hungry Guy’s lack of sensitivity and respect for his girlfriend. Even though he knows she will be upset, Hungry Guy cannot look away from the waitress because she is sexually attractive. Basically, the idea is that macho men are incapable of ignoring a seductive woman, even if they know their ogling may hurt their loved one.
3. The Them vs. Us mentality. By marketing their big, meaty sandwich to men, Carl’s Jr. promotes the idea that men with big appetites, the bad boys, and the kind of guys that make their girlfriends upset, will like this product. Of course, this is ridiculous, but young men watching this commercial may learn to think that when you’re a stud who likes big burgers, treating women as sexual objects is normal.
Hopefully, men and women will take a long second look at this commercial and see it for what it is. Eating a sandwich does not make you more of a man, but avoiding media manipulation and sensing the sexist attitudes behind everyday advertisements definitely does.
If you are fed up with Carl’s Jr. advertising please let them know by clicking here to send your comments directly to Carl’s Jr.
-Nikki
Nikki Roddy is a freelance writer based in San Francisco. After getting her start in magazine publishing in Southeast Asia in 2007, she returned to the United States, where she writes on culture, fashion, and music for various print and online publications, such as SOMA magazine and CountryMusicGoodness.com. In her off time, she enjoys making nachos, walking around the city, and watching live music performances.
April 24th, 2009
Since a fairly young age, I’ve traveled all over San Francisco by myself. And I’ve been lucky enough to be aware of what I should expect from being a girl who consistently uses public transportation. Not everyone will treat you respectfully, and when you’re stuck in an uncomfortable situation, the first thing to do is to simply walk away. I’m now 18 years old, and being harassed on the street has become so common for me that I choose to ignore the catcalling and quickly continue on to my next destination. But recently, I was waiting for the bus and a man chose to expose himself to me. Again, I decided to walk away. At that moment, I’ve never felt more violated or outraged toward a complete stranger. It baffles me that there are people in this world who think that it’s okay to treat someone as a sexual object. When my thoughts cross this topic, a question continues to come to mind: Why should we expect this to happen? How have we become to accustomed to this mistreatment?
Starting with that unfortunate experience, I decided to do a little experiment. I asked 10 close girl friends of mine how often they are sexually harassed, and they all replied with the same answer; multiple times every day. Some of them only experience the typical catcalls, while others have been touched inappropriately or have also had men expose themselves in public areas. From catcalling to groping to indecent exposure, women of all ages are forced to endure these forms of harassment. I find it truly disgusting that this happens so often. I feel myself grow outraged whenever a man chooses to say something sexual toward me or another female, and my first reaction is to tell them how sick and immature they are. But I know in the back of my mind that my feelings would remain unacknowledged and they would most likely mock me for speaking up. It’s a lose-lose situation. If we ignore them, they’ll continue to say inappropriate things until we’re completely out of sight. If we speak up for ourselves, it turns into an argument that we probably won’t resolve.
Sexual harassment doesn’t only occur within metropolitan areas: this is a global issue. In the February 11th New York Times, I read an article addressing the issue of sexual harassment in Mexico City. It has become so common for a woman to be forced to deal with harassment there that the government has decided to have single-sex buses for women. While I think it’s about time action was taken to solve this issue, it’s depressing to think that harassment is such a common occurrence in everyday life. These women rarely report to authorities when they are sexually harassed—they simply deal with it. This past year, only seven women made official complaints of harassment on Mexico City’s buses. Since in San Francisco women experience it multiple times daily, I can’t even imagine how high the rate is in Mexico City.
Why does this happen? Media has such a strong influence on women’s images. From Abercrombie & Fitch ads and Sports Illustrated covers to Calvin Klein billboards, the media has enforced the general image of women to be almost always sexual. It has become way too common to see a woman in an ad exposing herself in a sexual way. No woman should have to feel uncomfortable for simply being a woman. It’s frustrating to know that even if we show the slightest amount of skin, we will be recognized for it in a degrading way. It’s not like we choose to wear outfits that reveal our skin because we like that kind attention or are trying to benefit the male population: We do it mostly for ourselves. Maybe we like how we feel in those clothes, perhaps it helps us feel trendy and comfortable. I want to know that on a hot day, I can wear shorts and be confident that I won’t be harassed. Until that day comes, I’ll have to continue with the simple method of walking away.
Holly Crimmins is eighteen years old and a senior in high school in San Francisco. She is a new intern for About-Face and is greatly anticipating graduating from high school and attending college next fall.
February 28th, 2008
Check out these ads from Itambé, a Brazilian dairy company. Though their recent circulation around the web has prompted some speculation as to their validity, for me the issue is not about how or by whom they were created, but about what they say:
This series of ads recasts three iconic film images (Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct, Marilyn Monroe in The Seven Year Itch, and Mena Suvari in American Beauty) as full-bodied women. The accompanying words translate as: “Forget about it. Men’s preference will never change. Fit Light Yogurt.â€
It took me a few minutes of staring incredulously at my computer screen, eyebrows threatening to rise off my face entirely, before I could even figure out where to start.
Clearly, those of us who profess that every body is beautiful have been deluding ourselves. Can plus-sized be pretty? Can you be fat and still be happy? Will anyone who’s not thin (and extensively airbrushed) ever be celebrated as an iconic representation of beauty? Apparently we shouldn’t get our hopes up.
I don’t know what’s more offensive: that the ads have such a homogenous and absolute perception of beauty (it is attained, exclusively, through having a fit/thin body, which is attained, also exclusively, through eating their yogurt) or that this perception stems from a definition of beauty as that which is attractive to men. Men, they warn us, will never like big women. No man wants to see up the skirt of a fat bisexual serial killer. No one will ever say, “Isn’t it delicious?†when the passing of a subway train raises a fat woman’s dress. And certainly no man will ever fantasize about his high school daughter’s fat best friend.
The worst part of the ads’ interpretations of male desire is the message that appealing to it should be at the forefront of female concerns. Even the most mundane aspects of daily life, such as grocery shopping, are to be approached with men in mind. The suggestion that we should choose yogurt based on how it makes us look to men essentially reflects an archaic idea that is remains all too potent in the structure of our everyday lives: a woman’s value lies in what she does for men.
Regardless of these ads’ legitimacy (Fit Light is a brand of Itambé, but we haven’t been able to find these ads on their web site.), the message they contain is definitely displayed in other elements of both Brazilian and American cultures (or many others, for that matter). So what can you do next time you see an ad like these? Stop and challenge the message it sends; in this case: “Men’s preference will never change?†Why not? We can fight back by seeing the women in the ads as beautiful. You can try writing to companies that produce offensive ads, letting them know how you feel. Challenge yourself and others to remember that beauty is not tied to size, and that it isn’t limited to we see in ads. And next time you buy yogurt, pick the kind you like the best, regardless whether it will make you look sexier.
Margot Brooks is a rising junior at Stanford University. She is thinking of majoring in psychology and/or sociology, but will probably change her mind several more times henceforth. In the meantime, she is excited to contribute to About-Face and can be reached at margot09@stanford.edu.
July 20th, 2007
