October 23, 2007

NOW announces offensive ads

NOW put up a website of offensive ads. I can't believe it's 2007 and we are still here. Seeing these images side-by-side was shocking to me and I am someone who thinks about gender and advertising. Do you think that people will understand sexism better by seeing these demeaning images side by side, with explanations as to their problems?

An example:

Dolce & Gabbana: This ad is beyond offensive, with a scene evoking a gang rape and reeking of violence against women. In an interview, NOW Foundation President Kim Gandy said, "It's in Esquire, so they probably don't think a stylized gang rape will sell clothes to women, but what is more likely is that they think it will get them publicity. It's a provocative ad but it is provoking things that really are not what we want to have provoked. We don't need any more violence."

Does reposting these ads educate people or just amplify a bad message? I know I have seen the images reposted around the internet. Personally, I am glad they stamped them with the words "offensive to women" so that when people repost discussions about them, they are not taken out of their context as images that legitimize violence against women.

I wish NOW had addressed the racially offensive nature of some of these ads.


emily2 said...

oh the irony. the men in the dolce and gabbana ad don't appear to be the type to be, um, interested in women...

Christopher said...

Gay men raping a straight woman?

Puhleeeeeeeze, girlfriend. This level of political correctness isn't correct, it's lame.

It's not 1971. Try to join the 21st century.

Anonymous said...

I don't think the men have to be straight for the image of a group of men dominating/exerting power over a woman to be sexist.


Ily said...

I'm surprised they didn't include that Tom Ford ad, which is like a bottle of perfume hanging out in someone's vagina...I think that one really beats them all...

Anonymous said...

@ ily
Do you know where I could find that image?

@ everyone
Does it seem like sometimes in these sorts of situations, organizations equate sexist with sexualized? There is a way that can be sexualized that is sexist but sexualized is not always sexist in my opinion.


Ily said...

Anon, you can get a pretty good idea at tomford.com