Posts filed under 'sexualization'
Helen Keller is an American icon who is best known for learning to communicate in spite of the fact that she was deaf and blind, but she also was a writer and had a strong political voice. 3OH!3 references Keller in the song “Don’t Trust Me”, but the lyrics in the song’s hook show no respect for this brilliant female icon:
“Shush girl, shut your lips / Do the Helen Keller and talk with your hips”.
A frame from 3OH!3's "Don't Trust Me" music video
The two 3OH!3 group members are goofy and are
not meant to be taken seriously. However, it can be more damaging to the view of women in general when the song is seen as a joke. Because of 3OH!3’s poppy beats and lurid comedy, young people sing along to “Don’t Trust Me” without really listening to the distressing lyrics.
Take a look for yourself:
The “Don’t Trust Me” music video shows women bumping and grinding suggestively around the 3OH!3 singers, but the song’s lyrics take the cake with their truly disturbing implications.
Like other popular songs, women are repeatedly called “hoes” in “Don’t Trust Me.” First of all, calling a woman a “ho” in this context dismisses her humanity, bringing her value down lower than a man’s. Also, the song tells us not to trust women. Why? Simply because they are women. Yeah, it would be hard to trust women with your heart when you don’t see them as thinking, feeling persons, but as sexy things there for men’s gratification
The lyrics go way downhill from here, telling us that the woman in the song (you) wants to drink with the band. Then, the song’s story goes:
“Bruises cover your arms
Shaking in the fingers with the bottle in your palm
And the best is, no one knows who you are
Just another girl at the bar…
Shush girl, shut your lips
Do the Helen Keller and talk with your hips”
Also, why would the woman in the song have bruises on her arms? Why is she alone at the bar? Why are they telling her to not to speak but to “talk with [her] hips”?
The woman in the song sounds like she is depressed and physically beaten, or has perhaps been using intravenous drugs. The singers tell us all they really want from her is sex. The 3OH!3 singers tell her not to talk about the problems but to essentially be a body by talking with her hips.
More frames from the "Don't Trust Me" video. What role do these women play?
Singing along to music like this makes it seem normal to joke about and see women as things and not people. When you don’t see women as people, hurting them can become a more digestible idea. Degrading a group of people and calling it a joke does not make it okay. 3OH!3’s “Don’t Trust Me” is a demeaning piece of work disguised as a funny pop song.
If you want to let 3OH!3 know how this song makes you feel, you can send them a message through their MySpace page. Remember that is it is important to talk about songs like this with the people around you so they don’t repeat these lyrics without knowing their true meaning.
–Ashley
August 26th, 2009
Anyone who listens to the radio or is remotely up to date with today’s music has unfortunately grown accustomed to lyrics that offend, degrade, or sexualize women. Nonetheless, nothing prepared me for Katy Perry’s “I Kissed a Girl” when I heard it on the radio last summer. It’s been nearly a year since I first heard the song, but when it came onto the radio a few days ago, it disgusted me just as much as it had the first time it unhappily met my ears, and I felt compelled to speak out.
Wow, where to begin?
Is it enough that Perry created an entire song about the deplorable commonality of lesbian action for the sake of male enjoyment? This alone makes me sad for the women and girls who hear this song and who, like others, think that female sexuality is not something to be owned by the woman herself, but that is at the disposal and for the benefit of male viewers.
Kissing a girl — like kissing boy — ought to be a shared experience amongst the individuals involved. Yet for many women of all sexual orientations, kissing a girl is done for the pleasure and excitement of the heterosexual gaze.
It is common knowledge — or common myth? — that all men drool over the idea of watching lipstick lesbians touching each other or viewing the highly coveted threesome. Visual creatures or not, a song in which a girl gushes over her illicit kiss with another girl is undoubtedly designed to alter some male blood flow. Perry sings “I hope my boyfriend don’t mind it.” The implication is that her boyfriend only minded if he wasn’t there to witness it.
Not only am I incensed over the way in which this girl-on-girl kiss is promoted as an object of straight male lust, it also sends a powerful message about lesbian relationships in general. “It felt so wrong” Perry coos, “It’s not what/Good girls do/Not how they should behave.” Good girls don’t kiss other girls or when they do it’s wrong? Yikes.
This song celebrates female sexuality only in so far as it is experienced by the male outsider. It is only okay that she kissed a girl because she expressly calls it experimentation. Perry describes it to avid male listeners and sends the message that it’s “so wrong,” which is meant to add to the excitement anyway.
The video takes this message even further. Just a few seconds of the three-minute video makes it clear that Perry is selling sex to a male audience. It’s hard to think how much more you can objectify women than by making them faceless lingerie-clad bodies moving mindlessly in the background.
Perry does not acknowledge her fellow females nor interact with them in any way. Meanwhile, her lyrics describe her female sexual interaction; an interesting contrast, the meaning of which is far from transparent. Is Perry provocative enough to lip sync about kissing a girl but not quite bold enough to take that on screen? Or does this just add to the tease to hear her describe a girl’s “soft lips” while touching her own body and not another’s?
With a video that basically just shows Perry dancing provocatively surrounded by anonymous women (and a “pussy” cat on her lap?) combined with appalling lyrics, “I Kissed a Girl” is an over-the-top insult to and infantilization of the gay community as well as a despicably direct message to men and women alike that female sexuality is a plaything of men.
When are women finally going to be told, “Your sexuality and your body belong to you and you alone and nothing about that is wrong?”
-Marisa
July 8th, 2009
As Nikki reported yesterday, Calvin Klein had posted a “sex orgy” ad in New York’s SoHo neighborhood. Was I irked? Yes, of course, but I wasn’t as concerned by the sexual content as I was by the sexualization (the using of sexual objects) of ALL of the models, not just the woman. So when they decided to put this one
up in its place, I didn’t breathe a sigh of relief, like some of the people interviewed for other news outlets.
Calvin Klein, this isn’t better. It’s a sexualized image of a woman, drawn large on a billboard and meant for us to lust over or envy. The idea is that this will pacify the angry masses while still keeping it slightly provocative, which is Calvin Klein’s brand history. But why aren’t we all up in arms about this one? Because we are so used to this type of image — hypnotized into thinking it’s normal — of a woman in a bikini. “Sex sells” after all, and “sex” always refers to women’s sexuality, cheapened up and used for a male-dominated culture’s titillation. But post a huge image of half-nude, sexualized women with men, and everyone loses it.
By “everyone,” I mean the news media reporting on it like crack fiends and the Christian right (who may have been responsible for getting this ad taken down) getting their panties in a twist because their children are being corrupted.
So now, I’m going to call LOUDLY for the removal of this ad too. And all the ads like it. Because women deserve better.
- Jennifer
June 26th, 2009
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
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.
-Kate
June 12th, 2009
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
Or contact them directly on their website by clicking here.
-Kate
May 18th, 2009
Two of the contestants from the TLC show Toddlers and Tiaras
While previous generations were playing with Barbies, current younglings are opting to become Barbie – and their mothers don’t seem to mind. In a current reality TV series on TLC, Toddlers and Tiaras, the cameras follow young girls and their mothers in their quest to win beauty pageants.
Beauty pageants have always been scrutinized, and the reason for that is becoming more evident. According to an article by Jessica Bennett in Newsweek, girls are starting to use makeup at a younger age (the average age now is 13), than they did just four years ago, when age 17 was “the makeup moment.” Makeup is not the culprit, but seeking ways to “improve” oneself through makeup is problematic.
The same article reports that pre-pubescent girls are using self-tanners, tightening creams, face masks, and are getting laser hair-removal treatments. The amount that is spent on priming these tweens for womanhood is roughly $100 million annually and counting. I guess there will be no camping or free play for these princesses! God forbid she breaks a nail, and then what?
What’s next, “anti-cellulite” and smoothing cream for those stubborn dimples on a newborn baby’s butt? Get her a pair of stilettos and a wig; maybe add more sparkles to her eyes? After all, she must be reared to compete.
It is hard to pinpoint exactly who is responsible for such dramatic occurrences. Do we blame the mother? She is as susceptible to advertisements and our gender-stereotyping culture as her daughters; however, mothers should learn better discretion. How about society and the ad agencies? Are they the devil or are they the scapegoat: do we create the ad or does the ad create us?
What are beauty ads doing to our kids — where has childhood gone? “To the spa” seems to be an appropriate answer. While businesses and entrepreneurs are cashing in on instilled insecurities that women face more and more and at a younger age every day, it makes me wonder: how healthy can this be for girls who barely graduated to big-girl panties? Also, if 19-year-olds are already getting Botox to get rid of their “wrinkles,” what measures will they take in five, ten, or twenty years from now? I am almost afraid to fathom. Everyone only gets one chance at a childhood, a time to be carefree, but that is something these girls are giving up. It is ironic that little girls are made to dress up like women: makeup, high heels, fitted clothing, yet at the same time pressured not to get older.
–O.V.K.
May 1st, 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
Webbie's album cover: Savage Life 2
If you have seen popular music videos recently, you know that women are often wearing little clothing and dancing provocatively around men. The lyrics to these songs can be just as oversexualized, if not more so.
Although there is no shortage of music featuring women in these second-class roles, there is a brave new popular rap song and video that goes in a new direction.
That song is “Independent” by Webbie. Despite the fact that the song focuses mainly on material objects (i.e. money, flat-screen TVs, and cars),
the overall message of the song is that independent women are strong and can take care of themselves. It is refreshing to see a male artist unabashedly come out with a music video that depicts women in a positive light. My favorite line in the song is:
She’s got her own house, she’s got her own car, two jobs, work hard, you a bad broad.
The song’s music video has a similar empowering message. The video shows women in classrooms studying current events and dreaming about their futures. Women are shown as doctors, business executives, and even the first African-American woman president of the United States.
Click here to watch the “Independent” by Webbie music video
Although this music video has empowering aspects, it still isn’t ideal as far as representing women goes. Women are still shown wearing small clothing and dancing for the camera. I would prefer that women’s breasts weren’t popping out of their clothing when they are in a classroom, but at least they are in a classroom and not a bedroom. I would also prefer that women weren’t shown as dancing objects in music videos, but the camera isn’t focused solely on her gyrating hips — instead, it is focused on her face.
Is Webbie’s music video the answer to all of our prayers for positive images of women? Maybe not, but it is definitely a step in the right direction.
If you want to let Webbie know what you liked about “Independent” and encourage him to make more music videos like it, send him a message through his MySpace page.
- Ashley
Ashley Yee has worked with elementary-school-aged kids for more than three years and will be a graduate student this coming fall. As a former About-Face intern, Ashley strongly believes in empowering girls and women through educating them and boosting their self-esteem. Ashley worked on the About-Face Yay Scale campaign in July 2008.
April 10th, 2009
High heels for babies? We don't think so.
My mother has always called high heels “modern-day foot binding.” Foot binding was a practice in China to wrap, bend, and even break women and girls’ feet to keep them small so the feet would be perceived as more appealing. The damage was extensive, and many women were permanently disabled. Although the damage is less severe with high heels, the principles are the same.
Now a company called Heelarious is selling high heels for infants 0 to 6 months. This product is marketed as a joke but there are very real implications and consequences of having these shoes in the world. In addition to grooming babies into the painful practice of wearing these types of shoes, creating versions of very adult products for very young girls is very problematic. Women’s high heel shoes are made to accentuate certain aspects of women’s bodies to make them “sexier” (i.e. flex one’s calf; make one’s butt stick out, etc.). Do we really want to sexualize our 4-month-old babies with these shoes? The animal prints the baby shoes come in only exacerbate the sexual connotations.
Want to take action? You can e-mail the company at sales@heelarious.com, or call them at (425) 646-HEEL. You can also contact Lindsay Lefler, the Vice President of Corporate Communications at 913 S. Mansfield Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90036, or at lindsay@distinctiveassets.net. There is also a way to e-mail through the website.
-A.Y.
October 27th, 2008
Next Posts
Previous Posts
