Holiday Hates: Jewelry Commercials

I’ll admit it– I love the holiday season. Perhaps it’s simply good childhood memories warming my heart, but this feminist is no Scrooge. One thing about the holidays that I can’t stand, however, is being bombarded by ridiculous, cheesy, materialistic jewelry commercials.

Every year, we have to suffer through “Every kiss begins with Kay,” or “He went to Jared’s” one-liners, accompanied with trite images of happy, white, heteronormative couples sharing their love through expensive, mass manufactured jewelry.

This commercial was particularly insufferable for me this year:

Ladies are like kittens or little children, terrified of thunder and lightning! But luckily, you can fall into your man’s arms! He will protect you with the strength of his love! And his wallet!

And then, there’s this one:

This commercial says, “I love you enough to buy you a watch…but definitely not enough to learn sign language properly.”

This is not to mention the fact that all of these commercials try to make you buy into a notion of ‘love’ that is extremely frustrating to me. Heteronormativity, mass production, materialism, and a ‘damsel in distress.’ What’s more, they make love into something that should be demonstrated by purchasing an expensive diamond, from an industry that truly has no regard for the havoc it has and continues to wreak on so much of Africa.

I’ll continue to roll my eyes every time I see any of these commercials– but I’ll leave you with a little feminist humor on jewelry commercials, courtesy of Sarah Haskins:

Don’t Be A Girl– Buy the Droid!

My dad, ever the technologically savvy geekster, forwarded me this article about the ‘masculine’ advertisement campaign for the new Droid phone– the latest and greatest smartphone from Verizon that should encroach on sales of the iPhone and Blackberry. “Do you think this would be good for your blog?” he wrote me.

The ad campaign for the Droid is basically a set of stereotypes about femininity and “cluelessness,” and the Droid’s violent opposition to those qualities.  

“Should a phone be pretty? Should it be a tiara-wearing digitally-clueless beauty pageant queen? Or should it be fast? Racehorse-duct-taped-to-a-Scud-missile fast? We say the latter. So we built the phone that does. Does rip through the Web like a circular saw through a ripe banana. Is it a precious porcelain figurine of a phone? No. It’s not a princess. It’s a robot. A phone that trades hair-do for can-do.”

This is the sort of thing that reminds me of what the all-male ad execs would come up with during Mad Men. It’s a complete smack-down on perceived femininity, and it posits that feminine qualities are completely incongruous with intelligence, speed, or productivity.

This is essentially a microcosm of a fairly prevalent problem in society. Women are supposed to be pretty, they’re supposed to be ‘feminine,’ they’re supposed to be princesses. But society simultaneously abhors these characteristics. Throw in any “dumb blonde” stereotype juxtaposed with  the stereotype of a trophy wife, or Disney princess, or other unattainable beauty standards, and you’ve got a completely schizophrenic picture of what it means to be a woman. You’re told you have to be pretty, or you’ll never become a wife or mother; but you’re told you’re not smart or a productive member of society if you’re a ‘beauty queen.’

Additionally, this type of hyper-masculinity is what leads to the pervasive LGBTQ inequalities in society. Check out the scene where a man throws stuff pretty violently at some male mannequins dressed up in ‘effeminate’ fashionable clothes.

I realize this is “just a commercial.” But it’s a commercial with a clear purpose and an outlined campaign that reflects serious problems imbedded in society. And check out the tone– it’s just mean.

Style over substance is one thing– but calling users of iPhones prisses or sissies is just plain offensive. Not necessarily to the average iPhone-user. But to people whose lives are consistently negatively affected by gender nonconformity or gender inequities.

Okay, PETA Haters, Here We Go Again

Many feminists hate PETA because of its sexist advertising campaigns.  However, as I have written before, I don’t think there is much quarrel with its goal of eliminating abuse of animals.

Well, PETA has done it again.  See the two ads below with Joanna Krupa (recently of Dancing with the Stars and on the cover of Playboy).  The message is admirable: “Be an Angel for Animals.  Always Adopt.  Never Buy.” and “Save a life by adopting from an animal shelter, and always give your animal companions the love and care they deserve.”  As usual, PETA offends some while getting publicity for an admirable cause.

Of course, the Catholic Church is offended–but not because Krupa is semi and mostly naked.  No, all the church (or at least the Catholic League) cares about are the images of the crucifix and rosary.  Here is what the Catholic League president said about the ads:

The fact is that cats and dogs are a lot safer in pet stores than they are in the hands of PETA employees.  Moreover, pet stores don’t rip off Christian iconography and engage in cheap irreligious claims. PETA is a fraud.  Those who support this organization sorely need a reality check. They also need a course in Ethics 101.

Krupa, who is a Catholic, had a sensible response:

It’s understandable that the Catholic League is wary of another sex scandal, but the sex we’re talking about pertains to dogs and cats.  As a practicing Catholic, I am shocked that the Catholic League is speaking out against my PETA ads, which I am very proud of.  I’m doing what the Catholic Church should be doing, working to stop senseless suffering of animals, the most defenseless of God’s creation.

Sooooo, here we go again.  What do you think?

Ridiculous, Funny Vintage Sexist Ads

For some lighter, weekend blogging, I dug up some old sexist advertisements. On one hand, the ads are so ridiculous that it’s pretty funny. On the other hand, its depressing to think that such sexist stereotypes were so prevalent.

First up, check out this TAB commercial:

Be a mind-sticker, ladies! Keep your shape!

The second one brings up the old stereotype that women can’t drive. Check out the horror music that accompanies the woman driving the car by herself:

Jon Corzine’s Pro-Woman Campaign Approach

Since moving to New York City, I’ve caught quite a few TV ads for both Jon Corzine and Chris Christie’s campaigns in the NJ gubernatorial race. Jon Corzine began a steep uphill battle, due to NJ’s poor economic situation, as well as the July 2009 corruption scandal involving 40-something NJ officials, rabbis, and possible organ trafficking. But what struck me was the direction and focus of his current campaign ads. At least half of what I’ve seen targets women’s issues and GOP candidate Christie’s reluctance to protect women’s health.

I stumbled upon this article from The Nation, which posits that Corzine’s campaign has become revitalized due to his decision to market to the left– not paint himself as a moderate:

What did Corzine do? Instead of steering to the center, or the Blue Dog right, he turned left. Looking to rally Democratic voters, he patched up shaky relations with the state’s unions and linked his campaign so closely to the president that his billboards now feature images of Obama and Corzine…and as Congressional Democrats wavered on the issue, Corzine made healthcare reform a focus of his campaign.

It’s noticeable that Corzine’s campaign has decided to go where few Democrats these days are bold enough to go — the left. But I think what stands out even more to me is his clear decision to make women’s issues at the center of the election. He has powerful TV spots about Christie’s apathy for women’s health screenings, as Christie sides with the insurance companies to not mandate that they cover mammograms or pap smears:

Christie is now on the defensive about the issue, arguing that a mammogram saved his mother’s life.  But his rebuttal seems a little unclear and still reflects a sort of elitism. It sort of gives you the feeling that Christie believes some women should get mammograms– but doesn’t care enough about extending access to all women of all socio-economic statuses.

Additionally, Corzine doesn’t shy away from discussing abortion, with an ad that accuses Christie of not supporting a woman’s right to choose. With an ominous music note in the background, Corzine’s ad zeros in on the subject, highlighting that Christie even supports a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. It’s meant to scare you, and it should— but it’s surprising because few Democrats go that far in their fear mongering on the issue. It’s generally been the tactic of Dems to soften their definition of “pro-choice” — to mitigate their pro-choice voting records with caveats and apologies about how, no, really, abortion is evil, but we should protect it in some circumstances. That sort of back-peddling and side-stepping around the issue always bothers me, and it’s refreshing to see how Corzine doesn’t use that approach:

He has one other ad that ties up a lot of his pro-woman policies– paid family leave, protected health coverage, hospital stays for giving birth, and the right to choose. He’s actually speaking directly at women, not just about them.

Politics is politics, and I don’t know enough about either Corzine or Christie to know for sure which are facts and which are stretches– but the important takeaway is that this election is a rare example of women’s health and rights being at the heart of the fight. It can be a pretty powerful thing.

Pepsi’s Stereotyping iPhone App

PepsiCo is known for being one of the very few Fortune-500 companies headed by a female CEO, (Indra Krishnamurthy Nooyi, who also happens to be a woman of color). But the company has been in the news for far less feminist reasons. PepsiCo’s new iPhone App for its Amp Energy drink features different “scoring tips” for men to use on stereotypes of women, as well as a way to “brag” about your conquests on Twitter or Facebook.

The two things that really bother me about this are (1) forcing all females into 24 hackneyed stereotypes and (2) reinforcing this culture of viewing women as victories or conquests.

The different “types” of women to choose from include: Women’s Studies Major! Cougar! Foreign Exchange Student! Oh– and Twins!

Before anyone says, “But it’s just for fun!” or “It’s a joke,” I know that it’s not supposed to be serious. But it doesn’t have to be serious to be damaging. I agree with the reasoning on Jezebel:

This is a program sponsored by a major corporation that encourages men to look at women as objects to be won, used, and tossed away after a “victory” is obtained, and the more normalized things like this become, the worse off we’re all going to be.

It’s obnoxious, and “boys will be boys” isn’t a legitimate excuse. Jezebel ends the analysis, I think, pretty well:

It would be nice to turn on the television one day and not see some dude completely dehumanizing women as a part of some asinine “game” in order to promote deodorant or soda pop or body wash, but I guess there isn’t an app for that yet.

PepsiCo has since “tweeted” their apology, saying it was in “bad taste,” although no word on whether or not they’ll pull the app. Bad taste may be one thing– but it’s part of an under-acknowledged part of culture that treats women as objects, marketing ploys, and freakish stereotypes, and treats men as stupid.

Bizarre Tourism Campaign Shows Danish Women as ‘Easy’

Via Jezebel:

A viral marketing ad from Denmark’s Tourism agency has been pulled amidst public criticism. The ad features a young, blonde Danish woman, seeking the father of her baby. She talks casually about how they met when he was a tourist, and goes on to explain that this baby was the product of their one-night stand. She’s fairly emotionless, and emphasizes how she isn’t obsessed with finding him or needing anything, but just wants him to know.

The ad was put out by VisitDenmark, which is the tourism agency for the country. At first, the agency defended the ad, calling it, “nice and sweet story about a grown-up woman who lives in a free society and accepts the consequences of her actions.” Later, though, under pressure VisitDenmark pulled the ad and apologized, admitting that it was created to attract male tourists.

As Sociologist Karen Sjoerup puts it:

They’re obviously trying to sell a type of promiscuous Danish woman and exploit the idea that you can lure quick, blonde Danish women home – without a condom.

Women are frequently used as commodities to sell various products, services, and even rights campaigns. It’s gross and sexist. This one seems particularly bizarre, though, since the idea seems to be that Danish women don’t use protection, and now this tourist has a baby. I don’t quite see how that’s a strong selling point for the demographic they are trying to reach, but I suppose the harsh ‘reality’ is softened by the fact that she doesn’t seem particularly intent on finding him or needing anything from him.

The other off-putting thing is that the ad is obviously associated with sex tourism, an industry that is mixed in with sexism, racism, cultural stereotyping, and in the very worst cases, child abuse. There’s nothing illegal going on in this ad, of course, but promoting a country based on stereotyping the promiscuity of its women isn’t something that sits well with me.

Watch the ad here and see what you think (as long as YouTube keeps it up):

More About McDonald’s Boy Toys

I recently posted about what I thought was a funny anti-feminist blog in which the blogger wrote that McDonald’s was providing “leftist propaganda” by including American Girl books in its “girl toy” Happy Meals.  I also cited a positive blog that talked about how much “cooler” the boy toys were than the girl toys.  I subsequently saw these photos from the past few years showing how much more popular the McDonald’s boy toys have been.

Is McDonald’s Putting a Feminist Message in Its Happy Meals?

I hesitate to give this blogger any publicity, but it was so funny that I want to mention it.  I saw an anti-feminist blog in the “Macon County Conservative Examiner” titled “McDonald’s starts peddling leftist propaganda to children.”  Apparently, McDonald’s has been including books from the American Girl series in its Happy Meals and the blogger considers it to be “leftist propaganda.”  He writes:

McDonald’s is now including “American Girl” toys in its Happy Meals, which come with a little booklet that seems innocent enough at first…until you hear your child reading the whole thing aloud, at which point you realize It should be called “Anti-American Girl.”

Set in San Francisco, the story is about a little girl coping as her feminist mother divorces her father and opens up a shop selling “gladrags.” To smooth over all the turmoil this creates in her life, the story celebrates “change” in general by pointing out all the “positive” changes that were going on all around her–“protesters [marching] against war in Vietnam,” new laws “[protecting] the environment and endangered species,” etc.

Agenda much?

Sooo, apparently all of those things are “anti-American.”  That’s news to me.  But it got me thinking about my beliefs about dolls and the marketing of different types of toys to boys and girls.  I know almost nothing about the American Girl dolls, books, and general empire.  However, since I think that having dolls should not be a major goal of young girls, and since American Girl dolls apparently are so popular, I have a very negative image of them (thus thinking of American Girl dolls as “rightist propaganda” rather than “leftist”).   But what if there is a positive message that comes from at least some of the books.  Does that make it more palatable for dolls to be marketed to young girls?

The related issue is the marketing.  A blogger in the Washington Post titled his blog: “Do ‘Boy’ Toys Always Trump ‘Girl’ Toys?”  He writes that larger chain restaurants that offer toys frequently have a “boy” toy and a “girl” toy.   His daughter quickly determined that the “boy” toys were always far cooler than the “girl” toys and he cited as a current example McDonald’s giving Lego race cars for boys and girls getting a “token American Girl book” and that the next set of toys will be Hot Wheels for boys and a Barbie compact for “girls.

It seems to me that the first simple solution for fast food chains is to never market any toy specifically for boys or girls.  But the harder question is what to do about the types of toys that are given with the meals.  Is it acceptable to give kids a choice of toys that includes gender-stereotyped things like American Girl books (or Barbie compacts)?  (After all, if it is a correct assumption that almost all young girls would be happy to receive Lego race cars and Hot Wheels, but that few young boys would be happy to receive American Girl books and Barbie compacts, doesn’t that automatically mean that the “girl” toys are gender-stereotyped?).

I’d like to hear your thoughts.

HPV Vaccine May Be Approved for Men

Gardasil, the HPV vaccine with the catchy “One Less” campaign, is currently undergoing review for use on boys. On September 9th, the FDA will decide whether or not it will recommend that boys also get the vaccine. Although men are generally unaffected by the virus, they are carriers. Vaccinating boys in addition to girls would be sure to significantly reduce infection, and thus reduce cervical cancer.

But as this article notes, Gardasil has had its fair share of controversy. It has been accused of being unsafe, and its effects insufficiently researched. But the CDC came out with a report that found that it is as safe as other vaccines. Serious complications have occurred at similar rates as with other vaccinations. But the marketing of the drug came under fire for downplaying side effects of the drug while overplaying the risk of cervical cancer, and not focusing enough on poorer women’s risks for cancer.

These controversies certainly may affect the FDA’s decision on expanding use of the drug. It should also be interesting to see, in the case that Gardasil is approved for males, if there will be the same level of outcry and controversy about implications of promiscuity. When Gardasil was first introduced, many were concerned that giving this vaccine to girls would encourage sexual activity. In fact, Texas became the first state to mandate the vaccination for girls entering the sixth grade.  There was such an outcry over the implication that this drug encouraged girls to have premarital sex that the state legislature later reversed the mandate. It is ridiculous to think that 1) a vaccine will be the reason a girl has sex 2) the idea of girls remaining virgins is somehow more imporant than the reality of their health and 3) girls having sex is so abhorrant that its better to risk them getting HPV and cancer. I doubt such a fight would be held over boys’ virginity.

Business week writes that:

Merck [Gardasil’s distributor] has given the FDA data showing Gardasil prevents 90% of HPV symptoms in men, but since related male cancers are rare, the main justification is to protect their partners from cervical cancer

Protecting their female partners from HPV should be seen as necessary. Women’s health should be a serious issue to everyone, particularly given the fact that we are 50% of the population.  Not to mention that health problems in general are costly for individuals, insurance companies and the government. Prevention is essential.

Regardless of the controversies, Gardasil has endured, and I believe that it is an incredibly important drug for women. I do hope it gets approved for male use so that number of “carriers” of HPV is reduced.