Intel CEO Paul Otellini recently took a swipe at Steve Jobs for what he thinks is a “step back” in the forthcoming Apple TV design. Citing Apple TV’s lack of full internet features, Otellini said that the product would be for his “mom,” while Google TV would offer something more serious, more advanced, for someone like his son.

This is indeed reminiscent of Droid’s hypermasculine campaign, or Dell’s “Della, for women!” Are women & moms really the barometers for simplistic, unsophisticated, dulled-down products? Is that really fair?

Otellini’s comment wasn’t just a factual exploration of the different demographic targets or marketing strategies between the two products; it was an insult. And a somewhat petty one, too, as the backstory shows that Apple had chosen to forgo Intel’s Pentium M processor for their TV, opting instead for an ARM chip. Now that the two companies aren’t business partners, Intel is suggesting the only market for Apple’s product is moms, too confused to use anything advanced. Sounds like stereotyping to me.

Zoolander - "iiiiin the computer?"

Today Spirit Airlines came out with this advertisement for coastal flights, featuring a greased-up woman in a bikini, with the header: “Check Out The Oil On Our Beaches.”

This ad is particularly tacky for multiple reasons– exploiting women as well as the oil crisis. This time, it’s not just the feminists who are upset. Spirit received so many complaints, it took down the ad and posted this apology on its site:

It is unfortunate that some have misunderstood our intention with today’s beach promotion.  We are merely addressing the false perception that we have oil on our beaches, and we are encouraging customers to support Florida and our other beach destinations by continuing to travel to these vacation hot spots.

I guess it’s really too much to expect from a company whose previous ad campaigns featured a game of “digging for Jimmy Hoffa” as well as the following tag line: We’re No Virgin! We’ve Been Cheap and Easy For Years!

What are your thoughts on this ad?

Southwest reports that the ad was rejected from publication in their magazine, Spirit, because it is “too provocative to run.” PETA, however, claims that this advertisement is no sexier than other ads Southwest accepts– and that Southwest’s motivations lie in the fact that their base is in Dallas, “the heart of the beef belt.”

I’m not sure why Southwest decided to reject the ad, but I’m glad they did. Once again, PETA tries to capitalize on the male gaze and anonymous, sexualized bodies of women to sell their point. Not only that, its specifically addressing the airport body scan controversy, an issue that many people, particularly women, have felt is an attack on privacy, because it gives others permission to images of their nearly nude bodies.

I don’t personally have a problem with TSA body scans, but I do have a problem with PETA’s message. That is: the motivation for a woman to go vegan or vegetarian should be to look more attractive to men. It’s similar to a weight loss ad Mike posted about a few weeks ago. Men can go vegan because they want to be healthy and oppose animal cruelty; women should go vegan so that they no longer have to be ashamed of their fat, ugly bodies.

In fact, I think that’s the way PETA normally frames the argument. It’s why they select mainstream attractive, frequently petite, white women for all their ads. You want to look sexy like the women in the ads? Go vegan. Want to get men to like you? Go vegetarian! It’s no different from the way any corporation runs their fashion or cosmetic advertising, but it’s even more sexualized and offensive, particularly because PETA thinks of itself as a social justice organization. Pro-animal, but not pro-woman.

I’m not a vegetarian, but a lot of feminists are. Yet it’s no wonder that most feminists hate PETA. PETA is an extreme organization that relies on sexism and racism to try to get people to stop eating animals. What could have been an allied relationship between two groups supposedly concerned about rights, just feels like a constant battle. Furthermore, PETA is overly concerned with this idea of “Speciesism“– the notion that humans are superior to animals. I’m not even going to bother comment on the merit of that concern in general, but it’s obvious to me that PETA is a speciesist, too. Animals, they think, are deserving of autonomy and rights. But women exist for the purpose of beauty and marketing.

I found this new PSA, featuring Bristol Palin on Feministing this morning. The PSA’s message is brief:

What if I didn’t come from a famous family? What if I didn’t have all their support? What if I didn’t have all these opportunities? Believe me, it wouldn’t be pretty. Pause before you play.

Feministing posted a scathing review of it, writing that the commercial’s message is:

“Apparently you should keep your legs crossed if you’re poor, don’t have family support, or are not a celebrity. What a despicable, classist approach.”

I’m not so sure I agree. It seems to be a bold move for Palin to highlight her own privilege in the scenario. Since news came of her pregnancy, the media circuit has helped glorify this affluent, famous white woman for “choosing life.” I even wrote a few months ago that Palin’s life circumstances made her choice much easier than for many women, and she had no right to use her experiences to speak to all unplanned pregnancies.

I think it’s pretty wrong to assume the message of this ad is to go ahead and have unprotected sex if you’re rich. I don’t think this ad applauds Palin’s behavior while shaming poorer women– at least that’s not its point. What I think it means to do is break down the privilege Bristol has that has contributed to the cheery depiction of her teenage motherhood. Strip all the sunny media coverage away, and the reality of being a teenage mother, especially with fewer resources and support, is much different. And there’s nothing wrong in acknowledging that.

The thing I don’t like about the ad is it seems to focus on abstinence, though that’s not entirely clear. The Candie’s Foundation does support abstinence-only initiatives, but the ad isn’t so hard-hitting on that message. On the Candie’s website, the group highlights that “Pause before you Play” can mean a variety of things:

pause to think about your future; pause to think about consequences; pause to evaluate your relationship; pause to delay sex; pause to get a condom; pause to ask “why now?”

“Pause to get a condom” signifies a safer sex approach, not strictly bullheaded abstinence-only propaganda. If I got picky, I’d say I would appreciate some comprehensive sex ed facts in the ad, as well as facts about what leaves single mothers trapped in working poverty. But for 27 seconds, this PSA doesn’t do such a bad job.

“Globalization hasn’t just given us Starbucks in Beijing and shopping malls in Africa,” he said. “It is also creating an eerily homogenized look.”

The increasing reach of American or Western advertisements, tv shows, and other forms of pop culture has influenced culture and beauty standards in foreign countries. Why is this dangerous? Because Asian women are getting their eyes surgically widened,  women in Africa are lightening their skin, and Iranian women are undergoing record rates of nose jobs. All in the name of “being more beautiful,” which has also become increasingly synonymous to “more white.”

Wide-spread and unnecessary cosmetic surgery is already a problem within the US, but when you start convincing women of other ethnicities that they’re inherently less appealing than white women, you’re in pretty dangerous territory.

And it doesn’t just span ethnicities and cultures; age also falls victim to the impossible homogeneity. On Toddlers & Tiaras, children ages 2 and up wear corsets, high heels, hair extensions, and make-up to render them physically closer to age 18. And the flip-side of this is of course face-lifts and botox in older women. Going under the knife is never an easy process, and one that can result in painful consequences.

Does the West have a responsibility to reduce the imposition of white beauty standards on other countries? Regardless, it’s doubtful that will change. But I do believe that the fashion industry incorporating more women of color into their ads may help things– at least marginally.

Maybe it’s impossible to curtail the West’s encroachment on other regions’ cultures. And maybe it’s equally impossible to reduce the spread of Western beauty ideals. But maybe if the worth of women in all societies becomes less linked to physical appearance– I’m not even suggesting the link be miraculously eliminated, but just reduced to the point where major surgeries don’t seem like a great option— maybe things can improve for all women.

But here’s the other side of the truck.

Nothing about making a woman healthier.  No, all the woman cares about is that “Men now say “Hello.’”

Today, I read that the White House Project, who had teamed up with Mattel in 2000 to launch President Barbie, has once again partnered with the company to promote Computer Engineering Barbie, while simultaneously advocating for national recognition of women’s issues. On the White House Project’s website, President Marie Wilson writes:

“Through Barbie, and its ‘I Can Be’ President Barbie, little girls have had the opportunity to lead the country from their living rooms and bedrooms, or get out their Barbie and Ken dolls and call a joint session of Congress.  We at The White House Project are thrilled to be partnering with Barbie as she celebrates her 125th career and continues to inspire girls of all ages to follow their dreams.”

Is this partnership problematic? Barbie is never popular among feminist circles, due to unrealistic body expectations, race issues, and stereotypes of girls’ activities. And let’s not forget that while Barbie first ran for president in 2000, eight years earlier she was skipping math class to go to the mall. (“Math class is tough,” TeenTalking Barbie repeated. “Let’s go shopping!”) And furthermore, what sort of mixed messages is President Barbie sending? Girls can run for office, provided they fit a mainstream patriarchal view of beauty, and spent their formative years gossiping on pink cell phones about Ken dolls?

And who among us can really say, as Marie Wilson writes, that they’ve been inspired by Barbie dolls? Entertained, fine, but inspired? The White House Project does a lot of good as far as promoting women’s leadership, but is their message diluted by the addition of Barbie to the mix?

On the other hand, Barbie continues to be one of the most popular children’s products out there, and global sales of the doll rose 12% last quarter. Is this part of the ‘if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em’ mentality? And if so, is it harmful for girls and feminism?

The argument that fashion advertising leads to obsession with unattainable beauty standards is not a new one. Standards of thinness have been criticized for years, as well as inclusion of racial groups. Magazines like Vogue have an appallingly low rate of women of color on the cover. And even Vanity Fair has gotten heat for depicting the “new faces of Hollywood” as entirely white and thin (particularly ridiculous, considering the fact that many 2009 movies featured rising young women of color in lead roles). But the issue of photoshopping has gotten more prominence since Ralph Lauren’s controversial ad campaign, featuring a cartoonish photoshopped Filippa Hamilton (pictured below, juxtaposed with her natural body shape):

Obviously fashion ads aren’t the only contributing factor to disordered eating in girls and women. But its not a leap to suggest that the absence of ‘normal’ or healthy bodies from the fashion industry contributes to body image problems. And when great liberties are taken with photo manipulation, leading to completely unrealistic waistlines, the standards are shifted even further into the unattainable.

Photoshop and digital enhancement is used in nearly every type of media production, and attaching “warning labels” to each of these wouldn’t be possible. But when such extreme thinness is glorified, its hurting a culture that should be telling girls of all shapes to value themselves. We put warning labels on alcohol and smoking ads, so should we attach them to beauty ads to expose the truth? What do you think? Should advertisements like these feature a label that states: women in photos are, in reality, larger than they appear?

Now, as a funny rebuttal to this commercial, MacKenzie Fegan has offered this response:

Here’s an excerpt of the script:

…I will make 75 cents for every dollar you make doing the same job. I will assert myself and get called a bitch. I will catch you staring at my breasts but pretend not to notice. I will put my career on hold to raise your children. I will diet, Botox, and wax. Everything. I will assure you that size doesn’t matter…I will get angry, and you will ask if it’s that time of the month. I will watch Superbowl commercials that depict men as emasculated and depressed, and I will feel so fucking sorry for you.

]]> http://feministlookingglass.com/2010/02/11/feminist-rebuttal-to-sexist-dodge-commercial/feed/ 3 Emily http://feministlookingglass.com/2010/01/08/consumerism-sexualization-and-breast-cancer/ http://feministlookingglass.com/2010/01/08/consumerism-sexualization-and-breast-cancer/#comments Fri, 08 Jan 2010 20:48:04 +0000 Emily http://feministlookingglass.com/?p=2311 ]]> I was on Facebook yesterday when I started noticing my friends posting names of colors on their statuses. “Beige!” some of them said. “Black,” and “Purple,” were other popular posts. And then there was one notable “Hot Pink!” paired with a wink face emoticon, that received about 10 ‘likes’ from male users. I had no idea why my Facebook friends were naming colors, and so I googled it.

Apparently, yesterday Facebook users were supposed to write the color of the bra they were wearing, a meme designed in the name of “Breast Cancer Awareness.” Typing bra colors would take over Facebook’s News Feed, as the viral campaign intended, and would therefore prompt users to ‘think’ about breast cancer.

I definitely  noticed some reaction on my Facebook News Feed by my friends’ bra color announcements, but none of it seemed to be breast cancer related. In fact, I’m pretty sure cancer wasn’t on anyone’s minds. Rather, there were a bunch of ‘thumbs up’ from guys, or comments like “ow ow!” or “purrr” or “sexxxy,” from male and female users alike.

This certainly isn’t the first time something ‘sexy’ or commercialized has been done in the name of breast cancer awareness. In fact, ‘breast cancer awareness’ is everywhere. Absolutely everywhere. Walk down any aisle of the grocery store, and half the products you see will come with a pink ribbon on the packaging, or advertisements that some portion of a sale will go to breast cancer research. Products like Kraft Mac & Cheese or Fritos vow that by purchasing their good, you’re joining the “fight” against breast cancer. But these goods happen to be owned by giant corporations and are overly processed & undoubtedly contain chemicals that could potentially contribute to the illness.

And then there’s the infamous “Save the Boobs” campaign that features a hot chick’s  jiggling breasts in a bikini to remind us all that cancer is the enemy. This commercial says we should fight cancer– not necessarily to save real, human lives of mothers, sisters, wives, friends– but to save sexy boobs.

Prompting people to buy products encourages consumerism in place of real action. It allows us to make a purchase that we still would have otherwise made– and to feel better about ourselves, without any real knowledge of how it might be contributing. We might feel fulfilled by buying the brand of processed cheese or cookies that’s marketed with a pink ribbon. And sure, contributing money to cancer research is better than not contributing– but how aware are we of the good these campaigns are actually doing?

Breast cancer awareness is now being marketed as sexy. Just as I have a problem with PETA using sexiness to sell their message, I have a problem with breast cancer being advertised with sexualized bouncing breasts- because breast cancer is about humans, not about hot body parts. And furthermore, there are many other cancers deserving of attention and time. Are ovaries not cute enough? How about lungs or the colon? And I haven’t seen prostate cancer advertised with sexual innuendos or cheeky references to “size matters”.

I care about defeating breast cancer as much as everyone else. I want women to be educated about their health, have access to mammograms and regular check-ups, and be able to afford any necessary treatments, regardless of socio-economic status. I think women of color deserve a special focus, because they die more frequently from the disease– most likely due to inequalities in access and prevention. But I’m not sure how making the pink ribbon a staple of pop culture while sexualizing the cause is really the best way to help. It’s another example of what some have called “Slacktivism”- a type of faux activism that really doesn’t produce results.

In the words of Newsweek blogger Mary Carmichael:

“But ultimately, what’s the point of it?…This isn’t awareness or education; it’s titillation.”