[A'dam] American Appreal
Hier kun je discussieren over [A'dam] American Appreal.
It has also been bombarded for the same amount of time with graffit slogans of anti sexism, femininism and anti consumerism.
They have also been dressed and hands painted over their body parts.
After months of campaigning against these posters they have finally been removed.. :)
They have been replaced with adverst for tv and telephone contracts..but for now they are down.
It makes us happy to see that after our efforts to bring it to peoples attention that such adverts are unnecessary and completely degradable to women,
that a change has occured in our favour and that the humiliation of these women has ended.
Even though tv and telephone adverts are not much better ..
(keep in mind the campaign is not over)..
For now its good to see insurgency works and can bring about a positive change for all :)
Just wanted to spread the good news around:)
The Uncontrollables
After one of the billboards
After one of the billboards was taken down, it was replaced by a billboard for the Wegenwacht, which said something like, 'now you can also call us in twijfelgevallen [when you're not sure what to do]', and it featured two women looking under a car and not knowing how to fix it.
I'm glad the creepy American Apparel ads are gone, but I just want to say, sexism is insidious and has many facets and forms.
Besides, how do we know if it
Besides, how do we know if it wasn't simply a case of a change of ad campaigns? Ever noticed these tend to, well, come and go, anywhere, all the time?
>For now its good to see insurgency works and can bring about a positive change for all :)<
I mean, really :|
'don't be naked and sexy'
Hello again,
Good to hear that you gave some thought to your declaration and action methods. Painting hands ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamsa ?) and 'clothes' is at least more subtle and decent then just throwing paint. Still you are sending the message here: 'don't be naked and sexy'.
These models choose to show themselves like this on the billboards. What gives you the right to choose FOR THEM that they shouldn't, and that it is something humiliating to be (half) naked?
Actions like these contribute to an intolerant 'climate'. Topless swimming used to be more accepted for ex. then it is today. It is still not too bad here I think (luckily), but in many countries - like many US states - the repression against nakedness is heavy. Actress Lina Esco is campaigning against that with her movie Free the nipple: (interview and trailer) http://vimeo.com/81344670 (style: pussyriot meets FEMEN , Hollywood version) (more: http://fundanything.com/en/campaigns/freethenipple ).
Long time ago I did a naked action myself. Me and another guy went into a fountain in a shopping mall to collect the coins people threw in there for luck, in protest against social-money-cuts. The people who were distributing flyers were beaten up because of that. I think being naked is rebellious, and protesting against nakedness is reactionary. Not that I think that AA-ads will bring about a better world, but censoring them will definitely change it in the wrong direction. I think that the strategy of the AA-brand is to be on (or over) the edge of what is considered acceptable, to get extra publicity from the reactionary actions against it. So you are just playing in their game. Not what I call 'uncontrollable'
I agree with you that there
I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with being naked. There is even nothing wrong with being sexy, though the two are different things. But I do think there is something wrong with using images of naked bodies to promote products. And if it's strictly images of 'good looking' women that are being used, it's starting to become a sexist thing.
True,
True: 'naked' and 'sexy' is not the same thing. (you can be the one without being the other, and the other way around.) Underwear is a product to fit the naked body. To show underwear in an ad the model MUST be half-naked. It can not be done in another way. The main function of underwear is not sexual but to keep our bodies warm and comfortable. But it has also a sexual function because when people are going to have sex they first see each other in their underwear, and they want to be looking attractive in it. Of course the brands choose models who are considered to be attractive by many to sell the underwear. The customer hopes to gain some of that attractiveness of the model by purchasing underwear from the brand. AA wants to have an image of being sexy, while f.ex. Sloggi is more focused on comfort. I really don't get what is sexist about it all, according to you. Its just a product everybody needs. In a capitalist system producers must compete and use ads to get their stuff sold. (In a communist world I would still like to see ads, so that we all know how fantastic all the products are that we get for free. But of course also many 'open' billboards.) That there are more ads for womens clothes is because women are much more interested in clothes and spend more money on them, then men do. You could discuss about the reason for that of course, if you think it's somehow problematic.