On May 15th, the advertising industry gathered for a giant collective pat-on-the-back, and to collectively exclaim "can you believe we actually convinced people to buy all that crap!?" - also known as the Clio Awards. And since we are talking about the advertising industry, sexism was a main ingredient of many award-winning campaigns. Below are some of my favorites:
Virgin Atlantic's "Love at first flight"
(sarcasm alert) Ah, the good old days: when cell phones were the size of bricks, when computer games made beep-beep noises, and when flight attendants were female, white, and "hot". Note the not-so-subtle message all little girls want to be flight attendants when they grow up, and boys want to be pilots (and be flanked by "hot" flight attendants)
Esthe WAM Hair Removal Course "Beauty bowling"
This is a warning ladies - see how much damage that one stray hair might cause? Assuming, of course, that you throw yourself down a bowling lane in your bikini in order to win the pink lady bowling competition.
Australian Tourism "Transformation"
Oh god, where do start? So, I'll use basic arithmetic to express the two sexist messages of this ad (don't even get me started on the other sucky messages):
1) woman + powerful job + inflexible boyfriend = woman - boyfriend = depressed woman + always rainy NYC
2) woman - powerful job + child giving direction to her life = woman + boyfriend + happiness
Ugh.
What really gets me is this: on their website, the Clio organizers acknowledge the powerful impact advertising has on culture. Yet despite this fact, they do not hesitate to honor sexist ads with the highest industry awards. Yuck.
(For more examples of award-winning sexism, go to www.clioawards.com)
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Sexist ad? Here's your statuette.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13793
I totally agree with the first two videos being filled with sexist messages, but for the last I'm not as sure... Well, there is a sexist message in that it's saying the woman will be miserable and lose love because of her seemingly high-powered career. I don't know if it's implying that... actually I do see how the child giving direction to her life is implied, since the child is telling her that sometimes we need to do this and sometimes we need to do that.
At first glance though, the third video isn't as blatantly sexist as the first two. I guess it shows how subtle sexist messages can be.
I'm not sure I agree with you that there is subliminal sexist messaging going on in the last commercial. Think about if it were a man instead of a woman: If it were a man walking in the rain trying to juggle his unsuccessful relationship with his demanding career, if HE had been hassled by the woman to stop working so hard, might you still consider the commercial sexist against women since it is the man who has the profession and the woman is just complaining? I think that the only message being stated here is that the child represents Australia's youthful demeanor and that it is the perfect refuge for grown-ups to toss their cares away, regardless of gender. The fact that they put the female in the professional image and the man as the anchor seems to me that they were making a conscious effort NOT to appear sexist.
i dunno. i really enjoyed that first one. thought it was cute and tongue-in-cheek (like the pilot winking at the woman heh).
I was a flight attendant a few years back and we all feel like that crew in the commercial when we're in the airport - everyone staring and in awe.
But there are some crews that really stand out because of their sharp uniforms, and/or the reputation of the airline. Of course, when they were around, we'd feel like that drab crew in the commercial. :-)
ok now i saw the others. the bowling one is very bizarre and disturbing. notice the ball retriever all pink & phallic, too?
the Australia one, I don't see as sexist at all. Would you prefer the man being bogged down with work and the woman complaining? that seems traditionalist to me and would garner more "omg that is so sexist" reactions to me.
This is putting an overworked woman on the same plane as an overworked man: she gets too wrapped up, too, and needs to relax and unwind.
also, the child is that adorable boy from the movie, "Australia."
seriously don't follow how that one is sexist?
I personally agree. The Australia one is not saying that a woman should not have a strong career or that she needs a boyfriend to have happiness; she had lost herself in the work, was not there for her significant other anymore, was not enjoying life (hence the rain). A trip to Australia supposedly rejuvenated her and made her "Kate" again. I personally would like to find a good job but also be there for my husband as often as he is there for me; I don't think that is sexist at all. The commercial argues that it is not our careers that make us who we are. That is something I can agree with.
right, Jessi, and her trip to Australia wasn't necessarily about the guy (though her love for him was a catalyst). At the end she wasn't labeling herself as her job, but as herSELF. they didn't say, "happy wife/girlfriend." But she was reclaiming her OWN identity based on nothing but herself ("Kate").
I agree. I'd say a good test is whether the commercial would still make sense and have the same impact if you changed the genders of everyone involved - and it certainly would. In fact, it would be more stereotypical and arguably sexist if you did that.
...but herSELF was based around him. It seems like theyre saying that herSELF is what he considers herSELF rather than what is actually her authentic self. It also insinuates that her job took away her authentic self and the only one who knows who or what that is, is her boyfriend/fiance and only he can give the approval when she's back to her authentic self. It also seems to rest around the idea that she's only being authentic when she's happy/smiley as if her boyfriend/fiance cant comprehend that she can still be herself without chronically being happy/smiley all the time. This is an extension of always believing women need to be happy and externally pleasing to someone else or else theres something seriously wrong with her, especially as it pertains to pleasing guys = pleasing herself.
I see your point - the first time i watched the Australia video, i didn't get a "yuck, that's so sexist" feeling (and it made me want to get out of the city so badly!!)
But on the second viewing, what jumped out at me was the fact that she didn't seem fundamentally unhappy with her job. Sure, she's annoyed that someone messed up and she has to fix it now. Nor did I get the impression that she had lost her identity.
I might be reading too much into this, but what I took away from the ad was that the true motivator for her "walkabout" was the threat of losing her boyfriend - who seems to be unable to deal with her commitment to her job ("I think we need a break" and "It's always work" and "You are not the same person that I fell in love with"). She doesn't go to Australia to find herself. She goes to "come back" to her boyfriend.
I'm not advocating that women should give up on personal happiness for the sake of a job. I'm just saying that this ad portrays her happiness and identity as fundamentally tied in with her relationship.
And the tag line at the end makes me want to yell: what's so wrong with being "Ms. K.Matherson, Executive VP of Sales"? She is still Kate, even with a title!
But I have to admit - I really do want to go swimming in that beautiful lake right now!
I agree. It seemed the problem was her boyfriend/fiance. He seemed like the one that needed to go. Maybe it couldve shown her going to Australia and finding a nice new guy AND having the great career? It seems to point to the fact that its her career and not him thats the problem. And like you wrote, it doesnt show her upset at her career but at the unsupportive boyfriend who is still going to be unsupportive when they get back and still have the same problems they had before hand. Why should she have to disrupt her successful career to tend to his problems?
My problem with your statement, is, why is the boyfriend "the problem"?
Why does she need a "nice new guy"?
If the genders of this ad were reversed, a way would be found to place the blame on the male, again.
Am I really the only one that sees a problem with this fact?
I think the real problem is the fact that a lot of the feminists on this site inextricably tie a woman into her career. It seems that the ultimate achievement for women, to them, is making lots of money, and nothing else is important.
If a man was neglecting his significant other, making his life all about work, ignoring her, and not meeting her needs, you'd have a problem with him, no? Or would you say he just needs to "find a nice new gal"?
To place so much importance on a job, which is (when it comes down to it) simply your means for eating and having a place to sleep, over your interactions with someone you supposedly love, well...that's f'd.
Putting careers and money-earning at the top of the list make a man "motivated." It makes a woman "neglectful" of her true self--which is to say, an appendage of the male she is with. Men are expected to value their careers, while women are "f'd up" for doing it. Not sexist at all.
Of course, I'm just one of those idiot "feminists on this site." By the way, thanks for pointing out our failings. So glad you dropped by to let us know about them. What would we possibly do without your sage direction?
No, if it was the other way around I would still find it wrong. But it wouldnt be seen the other way around because the commercial panders to gender stereotypes and limited ideas of what kind of construct goes to which gender. If it was the woman that said the same dialogue at the beginning (over the phone) the audience would assume it to be some flippant emotional thing that he as a man isnt providing for the woman and when he takes the vacation, the audience believes, "oh isnt it nice that he went the extra mile for her (insinuating she's faulted) to compensate for her immaturity and lack of understanding." I doubt there would be a "I'm glad youre back" either directed at the man since its assumed who he is, is a success (and that means at work and world of money) as long as he's dedicated to his career. He would be portrayed as a hero and she a bit of a harpy. Similar to how people interpret a man when he cries versus a woman.
Putting careers and money-earning at the top of the list make a man "motivated." It makes a woman "neglectful" of her true self--which is to say, an appendage of the male she is with. Men are expected to value their careers, while women are "f'd up" for doing it. Not sexist at all.
Valuing your career is one thing. Focusing on it to the exclusion of all else is another. No one calls a man motivated who lets his life crumble around him while he works nonstop. Most people just pity him.
And, no one said it was as an "appendage" of a male. Don't be obtuse. You're exactly the person I describe.
You are not your job. When you become your job, yes, you are no longer who you used to be. Feminism is the equality of men and women, not the drive to make lots of money and have lots of expensive toys to show for it. Since when has feminism become nothing more than making lots of money?
But it wouldnt be seen the other way around because the commercial panders to gender stereotypes and limited ideas of what kind of construct goes to which gender.
No, not really. The gender stereotype is the "overworked man who neglects his girlfriend/wife".
"oh isnt it nice that he went the extra mile for her (insinuating she's faulted) to compensate for her immaturity and lack of understanding."
What's funny about this, is you insinuated the boyfriend was faulted. Just like you're claiming they'd do to her, if the genders were reversed. Interesting.
I think the idea is, try the commercial exactly as written, save reversing the genders. Do you think that exact same portrayal would show the man sympathetically for his devotion to his job, and the girlfriend as a harpy? I'm not seeing it.
I also question the assumption that the woman was perfectly happy with the job, if only her needy-assed boyfriend would stop whining. I've been in a job that put me in that position, and it seriously sucks being caught between the demands of work and the needs of those you love.
I actually found the first one terribly sexist (in a kind of amazingly anachronistic way), but the second one kind of hilarious in how completely over-the-top it was. Obviously I see the sexist imagery, but I can't help but wonder if maybe it goes so over the top that it becomes sort of self-satirizing, especially with the image of the one tiny little hair stubble RUINING EVERYTHING FOREVER. It's just so implausibly extreme.
Gotta love the Australian one-- "let the savage brown child show you the beauty of living simply, by using a cultural term to prove that we're not just appropriating something for an ad".
Oh, advertising. Yuck.
what, "walkabout"? the nation is using its heritage to boost its economy. so what?
what, "walkabout"? the nation is using its heritage to boost its economy. so what? I find it appealing they are recognizing the TRUE heritage and offering a beautiful swim in a canyon, and not something steeped in its European history, with exorbitant money-spending activities that ignore the beauty of the natural environment.
"the nation is using its heritage to boost its economy. so what?"
Whose heritage? Not all Australians are aboriginal. Kris McDermott is right, this commercial shows a classic racist situation: a person of color who is somehow mystical or magical, and imparts special "savage" knowledge on a white person. It's a controlling image (see Patricia Hill Collins, "Black Feminist Thought," or search the web for racism and "controlling images").
If Australia wants to profit from Aboriginal culture, it might want to stop treating its Aboriginal peoples like shit.
DUDE, thank you. I don't know if I'd argue that the commercial is sexist, but there's defo some racist tropes in there. Native = simple, magic, primitive, and in the service of white people.
And a magical child with magical earth to magically, uh, well, dust things with, I guess. It's almost like they were intentionally trying to condense all the features of this trope into one little image.
You are totally right - Slate magazine criticized the ad for racist connotations as well:
"But did we really need to see another magical minority guiding our white protagonist toward spiritual fulfillment? Let's retire this trope, shall we?"
Basically, I just really don't like the ad.
YES. This is what bothered me about the ad. I was especially irritated that they had him wandering around barefoot.
He didn't represent a child-figure to her mother-figure. He represented a magical "noble savage" whose culture is there to enlighten and enrich the lives of any tourist willing to pay. How is that appropriate, or even remotely similar to a mother-child relationship?
Unless, of course, she was planning to adopt him too.
Wow yeah, I cant believe they got away with that one, the bare feet, the dirt and overgrown hair and cutesy accent. Gag.
First two ads - ew. sexist. Australia ad? definitely racist, NOT sexist in my book.
I found all of the ads to seem racist as well. As far as the Aussie one, maybe she dumped her boyfriend and got a hot new lad and is vacationing with him in Australia? He's just saying, "I'm glad youre back (...after you left your former douche boyfriend and got a new one)."
There's nothing sexist about the walkabout one. That child was not at all representative of women needing to be mothers to have direction in their life. That child was *her* inner self telling her that she needs a major break from all the stress of her job, stress that a man in her position would have to deal with as well and would *also* likely need a vacation from.
There's no indication that she gave up her job at all. The commercial is not "Tell your life to fuck off and move to Australia." It's "Take a break, come to Australia for vacation, [BE A TOURIST AND GIVE US LOTS OF MONEY,] then go back to your life refreshed."
The only one that seemed to be stressing her was her boyfriend. Like juliap pointed out above, she isnt unhappy with her job but her boyfriend and the problems he's giving her. How can you take a vacation with the one who is causing you problems in the first place? Why shouldnt she go with her girlfriends and scope out some hot new Aussie action?
nah. he was her voice of reason. would it have been better if taht was her best girl friend telling her? or her partner?
Yes, it would have.
The voice of reason is undoubtedly the boy.
The boyfriend is really just complaining about her unavailability, and seems willing to give up on the relationship.
On the other hand, the job certainly seems to be very stressful in her life, at a minimum it is forcing her to work late at night every time something is done wrong.
I don't understand the meaning of 'walkabout', however the boy is obviously meant to represent some form of nature, as he spontaneously generates dirt, is naked, and shuts off modern technology with his mere presence, not childhood, not motherhood, not aborigines.
The middle one is definitely bizarre. It likens the poor woman to being a bowling ball herself, she's basically just an object after she throws herself, even going through mechanisms only meant for bowling balls, and so it is EXTREMELY objectifying.
The top one: SEX SELLS!
Just FYI, the Clio Awards do not select ads to receive awards, they are only organizers of an awards program. Each year, they assemble a jury of creative directors from ad agencies around the world who review the entries and select the winners. Clio has no control over what the independent jury selects.
Opinions!
The first ad: Silly, funny, dumb. Kinda disrespectful. Harmful? Doubtful.
The second: Yep, pretty sexist.
The third: I love this ad, don't find it sexist at all. The posted "equations" really miss the point!
Ads get criticized often on Feministing, meanwhile "Gain flat stomach fast!" and other weight loss ads are all over the front page, and the Snorg Tees ads that use boobs to sell t-shirts right there with 'em... kinda makes the criticism ring a little hollow.
The only ads that I get on the front page are for ISPs and phone companies. You do know that those self-generating ads base themselves on your own web-surfing habits, right? They are not picked by the site, they are tailored to things that the ad-generator gleans from your surfing habits, including your location and your interests. They also generate based on keywords in the text on the page. Unfortunately, they often take the keywords out of context. This means that a criticism of dieting ads or culture will cause the engine to spit out Nutrisystem ads and the like.
"I agree. It seemed the problem was her boyfriend/fiance. He seemed like the one that needed to go. Maybe it couldve shown her going to Australia and finding a nice new guy AND having the great career?"
Yeah, right. Maybe that's what I should have done that time that my job was taking 14 hour days, six days a week, for months at a time, and my wife and kids were getting upset because I was never home. Maybe I should have dumped them, gone to Australia, and found myself a new hottie who was more supportive of the work habits demanded by that job. Because when my family is unhappy because I'm always at the office, THEY are the problem.
Okay. First two, are def sexist! Though I must say, for the first one, I am kind of surprised (in a way) that not all of the women were blonde! Not saying that I wanted them to be...just knowing society, I would think they would make all the women "hot skinny white blondes". And as for the second...is there really anything that needs to be said? Skinny woman. Tight bikini. Oh, and the nice little zoom at the end.
UGH. Society these days!