A Heineken ad featuring a blonde, female robot serving beer
I drink beer. I’m a woman.
According to the Beer Institute, I’m not alone: women make up 25 percent of the beer market.
Hmmm. Strange. Because most beer commercials I’ve seen recently either a) don’t include any women at all;
or b) depict women solely as Barbie cheerleader types who serve men beverages.
In a 2001 USA Today article, Benj Steinmen, president of Beer Marketer’s Insights, gives a little insight into this paradox: “Brewers have been reluctant to market to women for fear of alienating their core audience: men. But beer consumption among women is growing. And they like light beer.” The USA Today article goes on to cite TV ads for Amstel Light, Miller Lite, and Bud Lite as examples of a shift towards advertising beer to women.
Well, it’s almost 9 years later, and beer advertisers are still doing just that: marketing light beer to women. But most ad campaigns for beer are still eye-rollingly, ridiculously sexist.
Heineken Commercial:
Miller Light Commercial:
Bud Light Commercial:
But who cares, right? We should celebrate. We’ve been invited into the old boys’ club–as long as we stick with light and leave the real stuff to men.
In a 2008 post on the topic, a blogger at Jezebel asked:
If women already drink beer, do brewers even need to bother directing ads toward them? Or it is high time advertisers stopping ignoring half the market? And do women drink beer despite the lack of women-centered advertising, or because it’s a “manly” choice?
I drink beer because I like the taste. I like the carbonation. I like the way it compliments certain foods. I’d like to give other female beer-drinkers the benefit of the doubt and say they drink beer because they like the taste, too. And as a female beer-drinker, I’m sick of the boys-will-be-boys crap of beer advertisements. I say it’s high time advertisers stop ignoring half the market.
As a whopping 25 percent of their customer base, women have the economic power to create change. There are many ways to take action:
1. Support brands that don’t use sexist advertising, such as Corona, which runs ads that appeal to both men and women (although their common theme of attractive white people enjoying beers on a sunny island somewhere raises another set of issues.)
2. Read and support initiatives such as Women Enjoying Beer, an organization that encourages breweries to better market to women and has a blog with posts on women-friendly breweries.
3. And last but not least, when you see beer ads that offend you, file an advertising complaint with the Beer Institute.
Will any of this actually help? I don’t know—beer advertisers seem convinced that gendering beer is the best strategy. But maybe, little by little, we can help them realize that alienating half the market just doesn’t make economic sense.
Katherine Leyton is a freelance writer and poet from Toronto, Canada. She has a B.A. in English Literature from McGill University and an MsC in Creative Writing from the University of Edinburgh. Her work focuses on the construction of gender and has appeared in The Malahat Review, The Feathertale Review, The Globe and Mail, and The South China Morning Post. She believes writing can create positive change in women’s lives and is involved with Sister Writes, a non-profit organization in Toronto that runs creative writing workshops for marginalized women.
Comedy Central’s new show Secret Girlfriend portrays men as immature, sex-crazed idiots and documents their adventures in douchebaggery. It basically functions as training wheels for harder-core fare; the plot is weak, and the women exist only to look and act stereotypically sexy for the men.
What’s new, right? Well, there’s a twist: Secret Girlfriend gives us a literal interpretation of the misogynistic male gaze. The camera serves as the eyes of the main character, inviting the viewer to take on his perspective and jump into the story. The other characters talk to “you”, and you send texts back and forth, but you never actually speak.
Your bros—Do we ever see women this size starring in fun, confident roles?
You check out every woman in the show, as the camera pans from ass to breasts—after all, you’re a guy, so you don’t have the power to resist sizing up women in this way.
Of course, only conventionally hot, thin girls can be on this show, but the men are average-looking and overweight.
Women’s only valuable characteristic is their sex appeal; if they’re not Maxim centerfold material, they might as well be invisible. In contrast, leading roles for men seem to go to whoever can execute lame jokes about genitalia and sound really pumped at all times.
I watched the first episode of Secret Girlfriend, and that was more than enough for me. I’ll detail the main events and save you the pain of actually watching it.
During this episode, we learn about two main women in your life: 1) Mandy: your psycho, sexy, brunette ex-girlfriend, and 2) Jessica: a new, blonde girl-next-door (in a Budweiser commercial kind of way).
You meet Jessica (your secret girlfriend) while buying alcohol. When she catches you staring at her butt, she says "Excuse me--my tits are up here!"
Jessica says that she doesn’t mind when you choose to play video games and have pizza and beer on your first date instead of going somewhere nice. Totally possible—some girls like that stuff too.
But to show that she can really be “one of the guys”—although remaining very hot and looking feminine, of course—while playing the game (likely Grand Theft Auto), she yells, “Yeah, shoot the hooker in the face! Yeah bitch, eat it, eat it!”
This scene proves she really is cool and knows what chillin’ and being a dude is all about: drinking brewskies, eating greasy pizza, and playing a game where you get to perform acts of violence against women while verbally degrading them!
Another time, when you’re out eating sushi with Jessica and seemingly having a great time, you get a call from your bros, telling you to get to the strip club ASAP! You’re with this amazing girl on a date that is going wonderfully, but you’ve gotta follow the golden rule: bros before hos.
Plus, the ho you’re with is fully clothed and hasn’t put out yet, while there will be many hos at the strip club who are scantily clad or naked and eager to sell you lapdances. It’s a pretty clear choice for you. Factoring your date’s feelings into the equation would be waaaaay too hard.
Luckily, Jessica answers right after you hang up with a playful “you don’t even need to explain, just go!” response, because she’s more than happy to let you ditch her—she knows that she’s not that important to you, and accepts that your priority is to be at the most sexually enticing scene at all times.
Mandy, your psycho ex, is still desperately obsessed with you. Can you say "cliché"?
You’re having a great time at the strip club—until Mandy comes in! She was doing some snooping because she expected that you were going there behind her back. Mandy tells you that she’s hurt that you’re at the strip club because it makes her feel like she isn’t enough for you.
That is an understandable feeling, though in this case it is coming from an ex-girlfriend with obvious issues, so the overall sentiment is really: “Chicks shouldn’t trip about you looking at other chicks take their clothes off, even if you are in an intimate relationship with them.”
Because your ex is not only crazy, but also sexy, her rational course of action is to remove her trench coat to reveal that she is wearing nothing but lingerie! As your “punishment” for going to the strip clubs behind her back, she is going to dance on stage in front of everyone, to show you what you can’t have anymore.
That’ll really put you in your place. I guess in guy dream world it would make perfect sense that women perform a striptease whenever they get mad at you. Therefore, the more of a jerk you are, the sexier she will act!
After her dance, Mandy approaches you and suddenly wants you again because she noticed you watching her when she was dancing on stage! You check out every woman, and that’s all that you have to do to get a woman to stop being mad at you: ogle her—no special attention, care, or conversation necessary.
So what have we learned from this episode? Secret Girlfriend delivers entertainment in the form of lowest common denominator humor, sexism, tired stereotypes, and overall stupidity. Is the show simply satire? Not likely–the tone is off. Is it the generic fantasy of the stereotypical, sexist frat boy? Perhaps. Does it reflect ideas that are marketable to a sizable portion of our population (young, heterosexual males)? Yes—the fact that it’s airing on Comedy Central tells me that it does.
It also tells me that there’s a whole new generation of prepubescent boys who don’t have quite the same grasp on reality as adults, and are learning to view and treat women as objects—worthless unless they look “hot”, and disposable even if they do—through watching this show.
Have you seen Secret Girlfriend? What do you think?
Take action! Let Comedy Central know how you feel about Secret Girlfriend:
Jenni Runyan Director
2049 Century Park East, Ste. 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
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?
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
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.
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 <font style=”position: absolute;overflow: hidden;height: 0;width: 0″><a href=”http://www.videnov.com/” mce_href=”http://www.videnov.com/”>дивани</a></font> 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?
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.
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.
This year Barbie is having her 50th birthday, and while Mattel is rolling in profits, praise, and some continued criticism, I plan on remembering my own Barbie the last time I saw her-drowning in a pool when I was 10. OK, I know that sounds awful and violent, but seriously, when I was 10 years old I threw a pool party with my girlfriends that we called the “No Barbie Party.” It was that age when we decided that we were too old to be playing with dolls, though I’m sure some of us continued to dress her up in the secrecy of our own rooms. We celebrated and signified our coming of age and growing out of dolls with a ritual that involved taking all of our Barbies and drowning them in my pool.
So while Barbie is celebrating her birthday and women are wishing they could look like that at 50 (or any age), I have my own critiques, criticism and nostalgia about this unrealistic doll that in many ways served as a quasi-role model in my life once upon a time.
1950s versus 2006 Barbie
The Barbie doll has undergone many transformations over the years, mostly so she more closely resembles the ideal female in our society, and the fact that she has become an oversexualized, shopaholic, anorexic gold-digger worries me. What message are we sending about our ideals and values with this type of “idealized” image? What message are we subliminally sending to the young girls of today that look up to Barbie the way I once did?
Barbie dolls are made with unrealistic body proportions-oversized breasts, nonexistent waistlines, permanently pointed feet for their high heels, and yet lacking genitalia below the belt (all except for her younger sister, Skipper, who somehow still managed to maintain some girlhood innocence). I don’t remember consciously paying attention to Barbie’s body type when I was a kid (although, I did notice there were no private parts!), I just wanted her clothes, the lavish dresses, her pink convertible, and her mansion. It was my younger brother who liked to undress her and look at her plastic boobs. So while I managed to escape any potential body image problems, looking back, I can’t help but wonder what effect this naked image of the female body had on my brother-or men in general.
I recently asked some male friends what they thought and all their answers were along the lines of I wish I could find a woman that looked like that… if only she could be real.I was shocked!! There was no room for reason in their imaginary fantasy. Despite explaining that if Barbie were blown up to life-sized proportions she wouldn’t be able to walk, stand, or probably even sit up, the crude remarks thrown back in response were that a woman like that wouldn’t even have to stand up… I’ll leave you to ponder that one.
Some people think that the Barbie doll is a harmless toy, but in an era when girls are becoming sexualized too young, women and teenagers are diagnosed with eating disorders in increasing numbers, and plastic surgery has become a norm, it is naive to think that Barbie does not, at the very least, reflect these problem. I only hope that when people are rushing out to buy the 50th anniversary version of Barbie for their niece or daughter they understand that they’re not just purchasing a doll, they are buying a symbol and sending a message. Is this a message that any of us really want to send? You will have to decide.
Olivia's favorite shirt. You can get it from our web site!
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
Sexual harassment doesn’t only occur within metropolitan areas: this is a global issue. In the February 11th New York Times, I read 
