Sexism in advertisements

[TC]

People were talking about adverts they thought were sexist but its hard to have a discussion about it critically when people are referencing things that not everyones seen so i thought i'd start a thread about it. So anyways here are some sexually suggestive ads, some i think really are sexist, some i don't think are sexist but are rather meant to provoke discussion (and obviously some are in bad taste but thats not the same as sexist).

So, which ones if any of these advertisements is sexist and why? (feel free to add more)


(and like if you're super-sensitive or something you should skip this thread as the entire point of discussing potentially offensive advertisements involves viewing and discussing potentially offensive advertisements...these ads are all probably at least potential offensive)







D&G men's wear ad for fall 05', actually really upset some news commentators including in Fox News.




Lynx/Axe deodorant advertisement (Marketed as 'Axe' in the United States and Europe, sold as 'Lynx' in the UK and Australia)...if you've not seen it has Ben Affleck counting every time someone checks him out or looks at him suggestively (including a good looking black man), and comparing it to an average looking guy in an elevator, who has a much higher 'count' who apparently uses Lynx brand deodorant.




'JustWait' teen sexual abstinence education program advertisement in Knoxville.




Palm Pilot advertisement. Upset some people enough to start an internet campaign against it, including several seperate parody ads and letter campaigns.



Volkswagen Polo TV ad shown in australia where a female driver looks at a man's crotch in her side mirror mirror with the caption "Objects in mirror may appear bigger than actual size." apparently offensive to some australian men in a Courier Mail article.


Advertisement for Radio Band of America, a New York radio and television advertiesement firm.


Victoria's Secret internet advertisements on 'Dog or Puppy' viral ad campaign.


Victoria's Secret 'angels' ad, often sited as sexist.


Calvin Klein Jean's ad on Houston St. NYC...apparently offensive to a number of bloggers


American Apparel ad against sweat-shop labor. Considered sexist by Media Watch


People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) advert against eating meat and wearing animal skins. Also considered sexist by Media Watch.


Calvin Klein Jeans ads. Calvin Klein has been getting criticized for its ads for years.


Okay so (assuming that all loaded properly), i think all of these ads have been accused of being sexist by someone (i searched for them by googling 'sexist ads' and 'offensive ad&#39. Which do you think are sexist, what makes them sexist, what makes some use of sex to sell products acceptable and some offensive.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Wow you put lots of effort into that post.

Personally, I don’t find any of them to be that sexist.

Some are funny and poking fun at aspects of the human body isn’t all too outrageous.

I think that one with the "-girls- don’t advertise if ur not selling" one is really dumb though. Two fold, because its first saying girls who dress up, are gona be slag’s and second that men go for girls who dress to "advertise" and unless you walk around in a balaclava and trench coat, most guys will probably view you as a potential partner. So it’s dumb.

On the AXE/lynx advert, I definitely don’t think that’s sexist. But, I think the dude at the end with Ben is better looking and can probably act too, hehe. So no wonder he got loads more.

I think all these adverts might be found offensive because the men and women in them are good looking, and some people can be made to feel uncomfortable.

I think, for both men and women being attractive is important and these ads just play on that to sell something. Unless you are a nuttball conservative I don’t think there is much wrong with some well toned abs or cleavage on TV.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by bloody_capitalist_sham
I think all these adverts might be found offensive because the men and women in them are good looking, and some people can be made to feel uncomfortable.

You know...I think that's a pretty sound observation. The only ad I found genuinely offensive was the "justwait" ad...it really was an implied attack on young women.

The commercial ads are rather "playful" and "not meant" as serious comment...even by implication.

They just want you to buy something...not change your view of contemporary gender models.

Sexist is not the same as sexy.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Apr 8 2006, 01:51 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Apr 8 2006, 01:51 AM)

bloody_capitalist_sham

I think all these adverts might be found offensive because the men and women in them are good looking, and some people can be made to feel uncomfortable.

You know...I think that's a pretty sound observation. The only ad I found genuinely offensive was the "justwait" ad...it really was an implied attack on young women.

The commercial ads are rather "playful" and "not meant" as serious comment...even by implication.

They just want you to buy something...not change your view of contemporary gender models.

Sexist is not the same as sexy.

[/b]

Of course ads don't want to *change* gender relations. They want to capitalise off existing gender roles and stereotypes. I would have thought that much would be obvious.

I mean, these ads are a product of a society where particular notions of gender are firmly entrenched- so surely these are reflected in advertising? And yes, in recent years there have been more semi-naked attractive young men in advertising, but the portrayal of them is very different (in most cases) to how women are portrayed. They tend to have more agency, ie they are engaged in active pursuits or make confronting eye-contact with the viewer. Women, as in some of the ads above, can often just be reduced to a crotch, or some other abstract body part; faceless and characterless.

These ads exist within a sexist structure, and even if they are "playful" they are designed to be so within that framework- to appeal to sexist notion of humour, or sexiness or whatever.

As for the idea that people find ads sexist because they are sexy- thats absurd. Personally I don't find people who have been buffed, shaved, surgeried and dyed all that attractive.

Note: I don't find all of the ads above sexist- my post refers to advertising in general.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Mujer Libre
As for the idea that people find ads sexist because they are sexy- thats absurd. Personally I don't find people who have been buffed, shaved, surgeried and dyed all that attractive.

But that is your personal taste...and advertisers are trying to appeal to what they imagine "most people" find "sexy".

I have no idea, of course, how accurate their imagination might be...but they'd clearly choose different "looks" if they thought it would help sell people more of their crap.

Remember that they're not interested in beauty, sexiness, gender images, etc. Their only concern is moving the product.

[VermontLeft]

I think that the ad telling girls not to dress sexy is VERY offensive and i think that its sexist, also the palm add where the girl is like a servile machine to the (probably) man reading it.

Other than those two, whatever.

cause like the real problem with sexism and patriarchy in the first world isnt about ads or commericals or whatever its about REAL ECONOMIC OPPRESSION. concentrating on whether or not too muich skin is showing is just fucking stupid IMO

[Eleutherios]

I think the "just wait" one is the only sexist advertisement out of that lot. It is telling young girls that "advertising" their bodies (presumably this refers to revealing styles of dress) is something reserved only for prostitutes (those who "sell" their body). And as the advertisement blatantly states, this only applies to girls. It's perfectly fine for men to walk around in nothing but boxer shorts. They're trying to fight teenagers acting on their sexual urges, which is stupid enough as it is, but then they try to blame teenage girls in particular for the "problem". The implication is that if only Janey would go out in a turtleneck and sweat pants, teenage sex would go away. But of course, as anyone with more than two brain cells can figure out, that's just ridiculous.

[Jormungand]

All advertising ought to be banned.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

All advertising ought to be banned.

Going to be pretty hard under capitalism, to get it banned that is.

And under communism, i dont see what is wrong with it, as noone will be exploited. its a good way of passing on infomation about new products.

Imagine workers making their own ads, to sell a product they designed and built themselves. I'd love to do that, hehe.

[Black Dagger]

Imagine workers making their own ads, to sell a product they designed and built themselves. I'd love to do that, hehe.

You realise that communism is a cashless society yeah? No one will be 'selling' anything, there's no wages, no money. The idea that commercial advertising will still exist in a post-capitalist society is very dubious, it's one of the worst aspects of modern society, playing a huge role in driving consumerism and reinforcing bourgeois 'values'. We'll have no need for such crap in a communist society.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I can't believe no one picked up one the puppy/dog advert. On one level it is a parody of the theme of the cuckhold to some extent, it shows the women as the dominant character, and the man as unable to control his sexual advances...except when he is "good".

On the other hand it could be seen as actually implying what was suggested as a parody as being true. Or even implying the same to be true of women, depending on how it is interpreted. This one was almost as offencive as the "just wait" one.

In general though all adverts will have to represent or parody the society in which they exist in order to have any impact. Our society exists with difference and discrimination as a part of it, and these ideas will come through in the ads. The role of advertisers is selling a product, not altering social trends (in the most part). It isn't that they are innocent or guilty, it is that they largely don't care, what is the profit incentive to do so?

[Don't Change Your Name]

The "just wait" one is the only sexist one. Maybe the "puppy" one counts too.

[coda]

I've never seen any of those ads before and don't really pay attention to ads or commericials much anyway, Kind of like how you block out noise --- You just don't take notice. Still, None of them to me are "sexist.", maybe objectifying, perhaps, but not really sexist.

I'm not the average consumer, but the funny thing is-- I wouldn't remember any of the brand names attached to those ads! I would remember the provocativeness without seeing past what was trying to be sold.

[redstar2000]

In the renaissance, an enormous amount of artistic talent was "scooped up" by the Church...the pay was excellent, you could set your own hours, and you could do the kind of creative stuff you liked to do.

In our era, corporate advertising serves the same purpose in attracting the bulk of creative talent that happens to be around. Consequently, some ads will have an almost stunning effect...they are the "high art" of our epoch.

So Indigo is far from alone in her reaction; many people are more likely to remember an ad than remember the product -- and advertising people talk about this "problem" all the time!

Ads can be "too good".

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

You realise that communism is a cashless society yeah? No one will be 'selling' anything, there's no wages, no money. The idea that commercial advertising will still exist in a post-capitalist society is very dubious, it's one of the worst aspects of modern society, playing a huge role in driving consumerism and reinforcing bourgeois 'values'. We'll have no need for such crap in a communist society.

Yeah I know that communism won’t have money.

I was talking about that where the hurt would be in communist societies giving information about available or new products to others.

Ads are only bourgeois at the moment because they want to sell something (usually).

But if it’s just information dissemination, why is that wrong?

I was just throwing the idea out though as ads could be fun for future workers to make. Mini films about the product they made, not too far out I don’t think.

[drain.you]

But that is your personal taste...and advertisers are trying to appeal to what they imagine "most people" find "sexy".

Is that really true or do the media shape our perceptions of what is attractive?
sure there will be some who disagree with the Western idea of beauty, just like some people disagree with capitalism but the fact that so many people are attracted to the western concept it can only mean that;
a) these people are actually attractive
b) we are led to believe that they are attractive

[redstar2000]

Cross-cultural studies have been done on "beauty" with surprisingly consistent results.

Here are some reviews of Nancy Etcoff's Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty

http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/sotp.html

http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/etcoff.html

For the most part, you know that I consider "evolutionary psychology" to be pseudo-scientific crap. But on this issue, it seems like they may have "hit on something".

[drain.you]

survival of the prettiest, hm? interesting.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by redstar2000@Apr 11 2006, 01:48 AM
For the most part, you know that I consider "evolutionary psychology" to be pseudo-scientific crap. But on this issue, it seems like they may have "hit on something".

Because they happen to agree with you this time?

While I broadly agree with most of the sentiment expressed in this thread, the question has to be asked, as with all gender issues, how much these ads reflect existing gender inequalities and how much they perpetuate them.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by ComradeOm
Because they happen to agree with you this time?

Because they put up some pretty convincing evidence.

It would certainly make things simpler for us if everything was a "cultural artifact".

But, alas, sometimes it just ain't so.

No matter how many pictures we put up of really ugly people, the chances of making ugly = sexy are just flat out zero!

Sorry about that.