Sexist billboard under attack
za, 27/07/2013 - 13:47 — nn
Hier kun je discussieren over Sexist billboard under attack.
They keep cleaning it up, but we'll keep spraying it down.
These sexist objectifying adds are everywhere, disempowering women and convincing us all that women are nothing but passive sex objects. This one is particularly enraging.
Enough is enough. Women unite!
Comment was hidden
You have attacked a woman
You have attacked (a picture of) a WOMAN selling underwear to WOMEN. Whats wrong with (that according to) you? Don't you want to be attractive in your underwear? She does! I'll bet modeling is her dreamjob. Even though she's probably 'over'exploited because of the harsh competition in the modeling business. But thats not your point is it? (you would have attacked her employer then.) Why do you think its objectifying and disempowering to look attractive? I think its in fact the opposite. Being attractive is an asset which you own and can use when and how you want to. (Mostly for women, but also for men. There are also the same ads with male models to sell underwear etc. to men) Of course its hard if you are born less attractive, or if thats what you (were made to?) think. If f.ex. the fashion is thin and you are big. True that the fashion industry is promoting only one image of "beauty". As I understood this is a source of many psychological problems like eating disorder. So I Would agree if you critisised that, but I think the best way to do that is to promote non-mainstream attractiveness. Not to attack mainstream models!
Re: Sexist billboard under attack
Just for clarity: this is about an AD (as in ADvertisement), not about ADDing anything. But I guess everyone gets the message anyway.
Comment was hidden
Re: Sexist billboard under attack
I have to respond to the simplistic note that adds are only there to sell a specific product, in this case womans underwear, directed to the buyers.
If it were the case that this commercial was only made to sell underpants for woman to woman, they'd direct adds to woman -making the add appealing for woman. If'd you compare it to another female product, sanitairy pads or tampons, where commercials are also directed to woman... I think it's clear that the first add is not only selling underwear to woman.
To go to this specific add. The brand is playing with the fenomenam of underaged girls who meet someone on internet, who askes her to take of her clothes and make a snap shots of herselve with a webcam. The other person then, spreads the images of the girl.
This is a fenomanam, because it's not incidents or accidents, but active ways to get 'sexy' pictures taken by girls who didn't know they got set up for the sex-industry. In meanstream porn and also commercials, the ponification of -underaged, 'lolita'- teens is wide spread.
In other words the brand is flirting with expropriation and pornification of underaged girls...
To get back to the first line, advertizements sell so much more then a product, they sell values, dynamics, body-images...
ICheck out the documentary 'Killing is softly'
Here is the link to Killing us softly #3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufHrVyVgwRg&list=PL4F6FB12D8A0D5845
about your addition and the 2012 adbust
answer to addition by nn zo, 28/07/2013 - 13:45.
Your addition is apparently an answer to my critique. So why did you post it as an addition, instead of here under discussion?
I don't know why you think this ad is "playing with the fenomenam of underaged girls who meet someone on internet, who askes her to take of her clothes and make a snap shots of herselve with a webcam. The other person then, spreads the images of the girl."
This story may be in your dirty mind, but I don't see this in the add. Its just a young woman (18+) posing in her underwear. (For a photographer, not a webcam.) And there is no indication at all that the picture will be stolen from her to be sold as porn.
Some other ads (but not this one) of American Apparel may be considered as soft porn
http://www.buzzfeed.com/angelamv/the-28-raciest-american-apparel-ads-ever
but I don't think these are sexist either. Most people -men and women- do happen to think a lot about sex. Thats why it sells (products).
Sexism is something completely different then naked pictures. It means unequal rights for the two sexes. Usually (but not always) women are the party that is being discriminated. Society and the system are definitely very sexist in spite of article 1 of the constitution. The worst case of sexism (in the Netherlands) is that women get paid much less for the same work. Also women get harassed at work (for example within the police force that is supposed to protect people from harassment), and are excluded from the very top levels of much big organisations.
Back to your declaration. You also wrote: "advertizements sell so much more then a product, they sell values, dynamics, body-images..."
This company is selling underwear to women and (I suppose) they don't give a fuck about (any other) "values" (then their profits). So they choose their images in such a way that it makes women want to buy their products. So apparently many women want to look like these models do. You may not like that, but that doesn't give you the right to attack this model in her private parts. I think what you did is sexual violence. Luckyli you did it to a picture of her and not to the model herself, but still I can only see this as an attack on her. And you did this only because she is too naked in your eyes. Go to Saoudi Arabia or Iran and join vice police if you're in for the real thing! (Bitch) You'll get a chance to torture real women and maybe even stone them to death when you're lucky.
the 2012 adbust
The 2012 adbust picture in your first adddition is completely different in my eyes. Here the model is in the background so the adbust is not an attack on her personally at all, but indeed against (just) another commercial billboard. Still I don't agree with the posting under the title "sexist billboard" but the adbust itself is a positive thing in my mind. I rather see real art then a commercial billboard, and this piece of art I like very much. If thats also your work I think you should try to pick up on that style again. When you make something like this you are very welcome in my neighbourhood, but if I'll catch you attacking privat parts of women with red paint I'll kick your ass.
addition moved to comments
My comment was titled: answer to addition by nn zo, 28/07/2013 - 13:45. but when i was writing this addition was moved to the comments and is now: comment by nn ma, 29/07/2013 - 00:58
Not sure about models age / I withdraw my threat
Sorry. I (again) didn't think long enough about my comment. Must already come back at two things.
1. I assumed the model is 18+ but after zooming in on her face I'm not completely sure about that. But anyway she is old enough to sell underwear and look sexy in it. If she is really 'underage' as you imply I think its even worse that you attacked her.
2. I withdraw my threat to "kick your ass" and apologise for it. I was really overreacting. Still if I would see you do something like this I would not stand by and let you do it.
Be careful
Be careful if you notice that your seemingly feminist agenda begins to want the same thing as the patriarchal conservative religious fundamentalists.
Ask yourself a simple question: Would you object to that image if it showed a good locking man in underwear and a provocative pose that reinforces male gender stereotypes? (something which is generally the case, or have you ever seen a man on an aftershave or underwear ad who was not super masculine?)
If the answer is no, then you are not discussing sexism here, but rather you are channeling a form of prudish morale through the pretense of feminism.
lolita (music video)
Posting this link because she speaks from the 'lolita' perspective.
Lana Del Rey - Lolita: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc5bCExt6L0
Lyrics: http://www.metrolyrics.com/lolita-lyrics-lana-del-rey.html
enjoy
ok, just a short reaction
ok, just a short reaction because I cannot stand it that you think you are so right that you could even 'kick someone’s ass' for it, while you are just so wrong.
Of course there is nothing wrong with sex or with feeling sexy or thinking about sex but the problem is the way how what is sexy is created. And indeed nowadays women are seen to choose this kind of being sexy themselves because we all, men and women, have more or less internalized these restrictive perspective of being sexy. Because we all are bombarded all our lives on every corner and on every digital medium whit images that tell us how woman (and in lesser extend man) should look and behave.
Thus the advertising industry does not simply react on the fact that sex sells, they create sex and what is sexy. And this means that what is sexy nowadays is usually for sale. One can construct sexiness by buying the right clothes, diet products, make-up, gadgets, cosmetic surgery, a fitnessclubcard and going to beauty salons.
Moreover the whole (female) identity and degree of success is coupled to beauty images. In the worth’s of Andrea Press: “Women are promised success, glamour and happiness if only they can get the improvement script right. Prince charming, plus a well-paid and glamorous carrier, all will follow if you can only pick out the perfect designer shoes, etc. In sum the road to glamour is also, it is promised, the road to riches”.
So, especially for women, these are no choices without consequences, the ideals of beauty are narrowly defined and not to comply is severely punished. A women in this weeks paper, for example, talking about annoyances in the train literally says: some people think they can just wear any shoes they like, even when they have lime nails, athlete’s foods or gloves in their heels. Thus according to this women you cannot just feel free to walk around the way you want when you (or your feet) do not comply. And although this seems like an extreme example it is something we see every day, we are judged for the way we look and how we should look is defined by norms set by media and advertisements. If you have cloved feed you should not wear open shoes and why didn’t you do anything about it anyway? If you have hair on your legs don’t wear skirts (or better: get them off), if you are fat don’t wear tight clothes (and lose weight) and if you are getting older stay inside (or use botox)! Or in all cases: do something against it (usually through buying the right tools) or you are a human (woman) failure that is not allowed to show itself.
Needless to point out how this creates misery, insecurity, time- and money- waste for lots of women, for applying to the often unhealthy, expensive and fake (because fotoshoped) standards is clearly not reachable for everyone.
Finally using the term sexism is very logical in this case because it is a marker to say: he, something is very wrong here! and because for sure this kind of advertising confirms and (re)creates sexist images of what being female (or male) means. And, as hopefully made clear above, because these images restricts us all in the ways we can be and live.
Comment was hidden
If only ...
If only the original poster had explained all those dynamics and thereby based their action on some arguments why this advertisement poster was attacked.
It is indeed problematic how men seemingly can get away with being less "optimized" while women are supposed to always look perfect and beautiful up to a level that is not realistic anymore.
It is quite interesting, though, that you mention an example of another woman complaining about other women. It is certainly one of the most frustrating aspects of any political struggle, if the potential beneficiaries are actually undermining it themselves. Of course the reason why they undermine it is that everything these days is competition driven, and the main "accepted" methode of female competition is the beauty contest.
Fact of the matter is, that the problem is a bit more complex than something which can be addressed by some spraypaint on a poster.
Re: ok, just a short reaction
nn Thank you for your answer. You are very right that I was very wrong threatening you. I apologised for this and I'm doing this again. Now that I'm not angry anymore I do also apologise for what I wrote about torturing women and stoning them to death, and for writing "(Bitch)".
What you are writing about in your answer - that there is a problem with the one-dimensional images of beauty, sexyness, male and female stereotypes that come to us trough the media, entertainment and advertising industry - I recognise that. I also wrote about it in my first reaction.
I am also not a friend of the advertisement industry and I have no problem at all with attacking billboards and/or claiming them for publishing critics and/or alternative views. I hope I made that clear in my comment about the 2012 'dode wereld' adbust.
My objection against this action is that I can see it only as an attack on the model personally. You didn't answer to this critique. Indeed I believe that I am very right that I don't accept attacks like this. (But I was wrong overreacting.) Also I still don't agree with calling this (or any other) AA-ad "sexist".
As I already wrote I consider discrimination of women in this system as a major problem. I admit that gender-stereotype images are somehow connected to this problem. But the problem is not at all that this woman looks like she does. Only that alternative ways to look are not accepted by many (it is interesting that its a woman in your example complaining about 'uncomplying' people. Like also in extreme sexist cultures its usually women who enforce the rules upon their daughters. Another interesting example is in the movie 'beperkt houdbaar' http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beperkt_houdbaar where its the mother who is pushing her daughter to be operated on her vagina even though she never took a look at it), that images of alternative looks are censored and that people (especially women) who do not match the mainstream-image are discriminated. (example: http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2013/05/18/in-het-rijksmuseum-werken-hertjes-en... )
Why don't you look for people who are old and/or fat and/or hairy etc. who are beautyfull, attractive and sexy, and produce and distribute images of them? (f.ex on the billboard, saying in a text balloon to the AA-model: "im just as pretty as you are" or something like that.)
Hope we are discussing in a contructive way now and I'm looking forward to your answer. With friendly greetings.
Comment was hidden
Comment was hidden
Brand boost for AA / about my virtual billboards
First I wanted to write something trolly that both this action and the comments from Wessel were a set-up by American Apparal to boost their name and their brand. But I don't really believe that so it would all have been only satire. Still the result of this action is that their brand name is mentioned many times here. They don't care if it's mentioned in a negative or positive way because all publicity is publicity.
I published two virtual billboards in additions. Maybe its possible to produce something like this for real. I would like to steal billboard space. Maybe with a professional design no-one would think that the ad was not payed for so it can stay there until they come to mount a new ad. Still it would be expensive to make it come true I guess. Anyone?
Why not work with us?
Excalibur why would you want to steal our billboard space? Our prices are lower the you think! Our partners can arrange printing and design for much better prices then you can get as an individual. We also would like to support non-profit ads. We might even sponsor your ideas like the billboard for the movie Girl Model. Evryone in our company - management, shareholders and workers - agrees with your demand for a Models Bill of Rights for models and especially child models. Though this is the first responsibility of our clients, we are communicating with them about this issue, and we are confident that they are as serious about it as we are. As you can read on our website we also want to work in an environmentally sustainable way. We like your ideas and we might even give you a job if you are interested. But please don't steal from us. (Wouldn't work either, we check all our objects on a regular basis.)
reclamepraatje
reclamepraatje
Re: Sexist billboard under attack
American Apparel sells clothes for me also. Why are all the half-naked models female?
Video: What if Gender Roles in Advertising Were Reversed?
http://www.good.is/posts/intermission-what-if-gender-roles-in-advertisin...
Re: video
@nn. vr, 02/08/2013 - 12:49
I was interested to see this video you mention
http://www.good.is/posts/intermission-what-if-gender-roles-in-advertisin...
But on the website it doesn't play because of some copyrights issue
And on youtube Its required to register to confirm your age
Is this porn or do you think youtube doesn't want us to see half naked men?
Comment was hidden
UK porn censorship will also censor political speech
http://falkvinge.net/2013/07/31/uk-net-porn-censorship-will-also-censor-...
http://boingboing.net/2013/07/26/uk-censorwall-will-also-block.html
Quotes [in dutch]: Gendercrossing, Zen seks
Gendercrossing
Deirdre McCloskey: "Vrouw worden schuilt hoofdzakelijk in iets anders dan het omvormen van een penis in een vagina. In zekere zin heb ik ontdekt, is gender hoogst oppervlakkig, een performance, iets wat bestudeerd moet worden en aangeleerd. We zijn onze maskers. [...] Gender moet dagelijks uitgevoerd worden op honderd-en-één manieren. Maar om het uit te voeren moet het van binnen ook gevoeld worden. Het is als method acting. Doe alsof je een sinaasappel bent, Wees een sinaasappel. Wees een vrouw. Voel als een vrouw! Gender is niet zomaar 'natuurlijk'. Vrouwelijke gebaren, bijvoorbeeld, zijn niet Gods eigen creatie. De sociale constructie van gender is iets waar een transseksueel met de neus op wordt gedrukt met ongewone helderheid." (Groene Amsterdammer 1-8-13)
Zen seks
Philip Toshio Sudo: "We leven in een tijd die bezeten is van seks. We worden doodgegooid met informatie in woord en beeld over het seksleven van politici, pornografie op het internet, Viagra, ongewenste intimiteiten. De nieuwste perversiteit is het gesprek van de dag in pulptalkshows. Seks wordt gemaakt tot een instrument van politiek, criminaliteit, sensatie; het wordt verkocht als entertaiment en in de aids-crisis zelfs op één lijn gesteld met de dood. Aan verwarrende boodschappen geen gebrek. Seks is immoreel. Seks is smerig. Seks is gevaarlijk. Seks moet superorgastisch zijn, anders is er iets mis en dit tijdschrift, dit product, deze levensstijl wil dat probleem met plezier uit de wereld helpen. Door al die blabla is één simpele waarheid teloorgegaan: Seks is heilig. [...]
[Zenmeester] Ikkyu Sojun zong in het ene gedicht na het andere de lof van de sake en de lichamelijke liefde, het nemen van een minnares en het bezoeken van bordelen. Hij ging openlijk in zijn monniksgewaad naar de rosse buurten, om aan te geven dat wat hij ging doen een spiritueel karakter bezat." (Zen Seks, ISBN 90 215 9712 8)
[spam deleted]
[spam deleted]