Time for PETA to change their campaign strategy
The male oppressor with the vulnerable and scared female.
If it looks like violence against women and it smells like violence against women, is it violence against women? Nope. It could be the anti-animal testing campaign Fighting Animal Cruelty by cosmetics company Lush and About-Face frequent offender PETA. The new campaign by the two companies has become a worldwide phenomenon in a matter of weeks by having a performance artist sit in a Lush store window and undergo cosmetics testing by a male doctor.
PETA’s campaigns are famous for being shockingly sexist by openly comparing women (not all people — women) to animals. At this point, it’s not ignorance that PETA can fall back on: “I didn’t know that putting Pamela Anderson in a bikini on a billboard and comparing her to a cow was objectifying women” doesn’t work as an excuse anymore.
The Lush campaign manager, Tamsin Osmond, has stated in a recent post:
I am very aware and very sad that campaigning groups have capitalized on titillating images of women…on images and storylines that encourage the abuse of women… We felt it was important, strong, well and thoroughly considered that the test subject was a woman… the oppressor was male and the abused was vulnerable and scared. Continue reading
Gallery of Offenders: Forget the woman, get yourself a Bot!
Questions to Consider:
Source: Billboard, 2010. yunchtime.net/?p=780
* Are women on their way to becoming perfectly constructed robots?
* Why does Svedka use a female bot and not a male bot?
* How does this ad represent women?
* What would it mean to be bought (purchased)?
* Who is the target audience of this ad?
What We Think:
Svedka has come out with a new wave of “R. U. Bot Or Not?” ads, including a TV commercial. The Svedka Bot is a woman who has been broken down to the most “essential” physical features. She is branded with SVEDKA down her leg. As an animatronic woman, she is designed to serve and she has no needs of her own. Her singular body type leaves no worries of men having to put up with a woman who falls outside the body ideal of 2033 (and today).
The “R. U. Bot or Not” tagline has three levels of meaning. First, it asks if women have achieved the body type of the Svedka Bot. Second, it asks if women have been claimed by men who have bought them a (Svedka) drink. Lastly, if men can purchase a Svedka Bot in 2033, the ad also asks if women have literally been purchased by men. (by Juliet Weintraub)
Take Action! Contact:
Leah Pepper
Sr. Manager of PR and Events
Svedka
Gallery of Offenders: Marc Jacobs crosses the (age) line.
Questions to Consider:
* How old does this girl look?
* Why is she only wearing underwear and a bra?
* Is this ad sexual? In what way is it sexual?
* How does the advertiser (Marc Jacobs) want you to feel?
* What is this ad selling?
What We Think:
This ad for Marc Jacobs perfume is quite disturbing. The fact that the girl in this ad looks young and innocent while she lies in a field in her underwear appeals to a pedophilic sexuality. Her body is open and vulnerable to preying eyes. At first glance, she appears naked because the white underwear and bra she is wearing is hard to notice against her pale skin. When you do notice her white underwear, it further symbolizes virginity, youthfulness, and innocence. With her eyes closed and legs spread open, she is sexually open. In sum, Marc Jacobs supports the sexualization of girls. (by Juliet Weintraub)
Take Action! Contact:
Jen Sagum
Advertising and Home Collection
Marc Jacobs
email: j.sagum@marcjacobs.com
Gallery of Offenders: Not a person, just a butt.
Questions to Consider:
Source: Maxim magazine, August 2010
* Who is the target audience for this product?
* What does this product do? Is it clear or unclear?
* What role does the woman’s body have in this ad?
* How many recent ads have you seen which display only pieces of a model?
* Why is it so common for a woman’s worth to be based on her body parts rather than her whole person?
What We Think:
Body-building supplement Syntha-6 would like consumers to take notice. Their tagline reads: “SHAKE WELL and enjoy”. We here at About-Face find a few reasons to be alarmed. Taking a quick glance at this ad, the eye is drawn to the red drink bottle and bikini bottom worn by an all-too-familiar dismembered female model. The woman in this ad is not espousing the benefits of this protein concoction. Her incomplete body is a sign; this product is marketed toward men. Her truncated figure is posed with an extremely arched back, giving her the look of unrealistic proportions. Everything in this ad: the fake skyline and white sand beach, the poorly Photoshopped drink container (and the hand around it), and the woman delineated down to key eye-catching elements, are merely props meant to fulfill a heterosexual male fantasy. With this advertisement, Sythna-6 delivers a low blow to both men and women by making assumptions about male sexuality and marginalizing women in order to sell an ambiguous sports beverage. According to their calculations, it is a man’s world, and a woman’s worth is based on how well they accessorize it. (By Jason Leach)
Take Action! Contact:
BSN, Marketing Department
Syntha-6
5901 Broken Sound Parkway NW
Boca Raton, FL 33487
via web: bsnonline.net/misc/support.php
Gallery of Offenders: “A pageant girl is someone who gets on stage, smiles, and when they get off stage, they don’t [smile].” —Brooklyn, 10-year-old pageant contestant
Questions to Consider:
Source: TLC's Toddlers & Tiaras, Season 3, "Winter Beauties"
* What are the criteria on which pageant participants are judged?
* Do the girls seem to enjoy being in pageants?
* What skills or lessons are the girls learning?
* Why do you think Toddlers & Tiaras was renewed for a third season?
What We Think:
Who at TLC came up with the messed-up idea of publicizing pageants for little girls? Now in its third (third!) season, the documentary-style show follows children (usually girls) through preparing for and competing in a beauty pageant. Each episode shows more than one grotesque transformation of otherwise smart, wonderfully childlike children into made up, dolled-up, sexualized little women. Toddlers & Tiaras demonstrates just how much performance goes into being the “right kind of girl”. Most of the pageants come with cash prizes or scholarships, but I’d rather see the girls using their brains to get those scholarships, instead of their doll-like faces and stripper-like dance moves.
The pageant contestants are learning what a girl has to do to get approval. But in the end, these adorable kids just want the crown. Because it’s sparkly. (by Jennifer Berger)
Take Action! Contact:
David Zaslav, CEO
TLC
c/o Discovery Channel
One Discovery Place
Silver Springs, MD 20910
Discovery Channel online contact form corporate.discovery.com/contact/viewer-relations
Discovery Communications: (240) 662-2000
Gallery of Offenders: How much lower can Ludacris possibly go?
Questions to Consider:
* Why would the girls in the video want to dance in order to make Ludacris appear?
* Does Ludacris respect these girls who are “calling” him?
* What product is this video selling?
* What kind of behavior is this video promoting for women?
* How does this video make you feel?
What We Think:
This reminds me of a modern day “Bloody Mary” story. Only instead of a crazy, haunting ghost, Ludacris appears in the mirror, which is equally terrifying. I cannot think of a better example of how women are supposed to get a man by dancing and dressing provocatively. In order to lure Ludacris to come into their bedroom, girls must seductively dance in front of the mirror. Then when the mirror portal is broken, the short guy plus two creepy men in face masks chase the girls down the stairs and magically, yet forcefully, removes the girls’ clothing. So the bonus of getting Ludacris to appear is to be chased around and have your clothes ripped off of your body. . . Interesting. (by Juliet Weintraub)
Take Action! Contact:
Jennifer Heath
Radical Media (the company that produced this video)
1630 12th St.
Santa Monica, CA 90404
email: heath@radicalmedia.com
phone: (310) 664-4654
Learn how to write a great complaint letter here.
Gallery of Offenders: Victoria’s Secret: Passive Seduction.
Questions to Consider:
* How is the woman in this image presented?
* What body parts are most emphasized in this image?
* What product is this image selling?
* Who is the intended audience?
What We Think:
This image is problematic because the woman is posed provocatively, with the intention of being a passive object of sexual attention. The specific angle at which this shot is taken places emphasis on her breasts and face, while the rest of her body is secondary. The way that this model is positioned creates a sharp line along the torso that cuts into her waist, making her appear skinnier than she already is. Additionally, by placing the model’s left arm behind her body, her arm is visually amputated. Using simple positioning and camera angles, Victoria’s Secret photographers are able to chip away body parts, leaving the female model small and powerless. (by Juliet Weintraub)
Take Action! Contact:
via web: victoriassecret.com/CustomerService/QuickHelp/ContactUs/CommentsQuestionsorSuggestions
Gallery of Offenders: An Appalling (lack of) Apparel
Questions to Consider:
Source: Billboard on Divisadero and Oak, San Francisco
* What product is this ad selling?
* Why would American Apparel use a semi-nude model to sell clothes?
* Who is this ad’s intended audience?
What We Think:
“Oh, hi! You caught me completely by surprise as I lay here topless, staring vacantly into the camera. But while we’re here, allow me to sell you this lacy undergarment.” Ah, American Apparel. You never fail us with your misogynistic, exploitative, pornographic, just-plain-nasty campaigns. Whether it’s a reclining model captured in a grainy, pseudo-spontaneous state of undress, or a one-woman representation of “classy black girls, with the nice hair,” American Apparel always impresses us with how low it will go. We’re especially astounded by the company’s open assaults on our senses. Their images aren’t just confined to magazines, but pop up all over public billboards, ready to be consumed by passers-by of all ages, genders, and levels of impressionability. But American Apparel does have something great going for it: its business may be going down the toilet any day now. (by Michelle Konstantinovsky)
Take Action! Contact:
Dov Charney, CEO
American Apparel Inc.
747 Warehouse St.
Los Angeles, CA 90021
(213) 488-0226
Feedback form on American Apparel’s web site: americanapparel.net/AboutUs/Contact.html
Gallery of Offenders: Jillian Michaels is hazardous to your health.
Questions to Consider:
* How are overweight people portrayed in this video?
* How does Jillian’s training style make you feel about exercise?
* What message does this video send about sensible weight loss?
* How does the video make you feel about your own exercise habits?
* What might the show be selling to you?
What We Think:
Hey Jillian Michaels, you might consider exercise-induced vomiting a badge of honor, but we think it’s cruel and unusual punishment.
As the trainer on NBC’s “The Biggest Loser,” Jillian routinely likes to intimidate, berate, and demean the overweight contestants, confident that her abuse is the key to success. If you measure success as weight loss, then sure, Jillian gets the job done. But how about the enormous physical risks, mental anguish, and emotional distress these competitors go through?
In this clip, Jillian not only pushes a participant to the point of near-collapse (“I’m proud that I made him vomit, that’s all that matters”), but in the process, she stands on top of him (“Are you kidding me with the falling on the ground right now?”), threatens to injure a fellow contestant (“Greg, if you don’t run, I will pull Alex on the floor and I will break every bone in his body”) and then attempts to justify her brutality by rubbing his head and cooing, “I’m actually super duper proud of you.”
Former competitor Kai Hibbard has already alleged that the show gave her an eating disorder. Is Jillian just waiting to see how many other people she can terrorize in the name of “health”? (by Michelle Konstantinovsky)
Take Action! Contact:
Jillian Michaels
Everyday Health, Inc.
4 Marshall Street
North Adams, MA 01247
(866) 348-9729
Gallery of Offenders: Diesel tells all to “Be Stupid.”
Questions to Consider: 
* What is this ad saying about women? About men?
* What kind of action or attitude is this ad encouraging?
* What product is this ad selling?
What We Think:
In this ad, Diesel is encouraging women to take actions that would gain them the title of “having the balls.” I don’t think it’s too much to say that having balls is indicative of being male, or at least masculine. Masculine traits are preferable over feminine traits, even for women. In order to be more masculine and thus more respected, women should compensate for their — forgive me — lack of balls, by doing stupid things, like flashing their breasts at security cameras. Further, since having brains and being smart is not a desired attribute, women (and men) are encouraged not to pursue their intellectual development. (by Juliet Weintraub)
Take Action! Contact:
Diesel
220 West 19th Street
New York, NY 10011
(212) 755-9200