It's Time to Change Your (Facebook) Gender

Feminists were pretty pleased when Facebook bowed to user – well, OK, advertiser – pressure last month and promised it would do more to keep violent and misogynistic ads off its pages. According to The New York Times, activists sent more than 5,000 emails to FB’s advertisers and sparked more than 60,000 Tweets. (Or “posts on Twitter” as the NYT calls them). Of course, it’s early days and we’ll have to see what action is taken and how effective it will be.

Now, with that campaign checked off, I have a suggestion for another one. This one takes aim at something possibly just as pernicious, but definitely way more insidious.

Those of you FB users out who are either “FB-Female” or “FB-Male” will almost certainly have noticed it. (NB. I’m treating FB genders as just that, FB genders, not real-world genders; and, yes, FB only offers the binary, but wait up, I'll get to that -- and how to get around it -- at the end.) What I'm talking about are those targeted ads that, once you start paying attention, reinforce some of the most noxious  stereotypes around.

This all started back in May, when one add in particularly really started to bug me.
  

I bitched about it on FB, of course, and was advised to instal an ad blocker, which I did. But that only blocks (most not all) ads in your News Feed, and does nothing about the sponsored ads down the right-panel. Still, I didn’t mind those so much; they’re easier to avert the eyes from and occasionally even slightly relevant. Skinny Spotlight Woman, on the other hand, was always there, front, centre and right at the very top, her torso looking suspiciously like it's about to spawn an alien. Is it supposed to be a rib? (And no, I never ever click, so I did not bring this on myself!)

After Skinny Spotlight Woman disappeared from my Feed, though, I started to pay more attention to the right-hand panel. Yes, there she was again. Just smaller this time. As were myriad other ads telling me what I could do to make myself thinner, sexier, leaner, better dressed. I started tracking them by taking screen shots, and one day, it hit me: wow targeted stereotyping is really quite nasty and insidious. Out in the real world, we might be doing all we can to challenge all those restrictive -isms, we might be turning our eyes from the celebrity diet gossip mag covers at the checkout stand (to the candy), but on FB and elsewhere, the tide is pushing relentlessly in the other direction. 

I got to wondering what kind of crap the “male” version of me might be told to be, to buy, to look like, to aspire to; what kind of things "he" would be gently advised should inspire self-loathing?  And I decided it might be interesting to find out. There are, I know, myriad other things that factor into what kind of person FB’s ads think I am and should be: age, education, location, other stuff I’ve "liked", crap my friends "like" (you know who you are), relationship status and so on. The list is endless and endlessly spooky, and the people who keep warning us about cyber-Big Brother know way more about it than I do. But just so you know: for the purposes of my research, I’m in my early 30s and live in the Bay of Plenty and obviously tend politically feminist/progressive. (Because FB’s terms and conditions state that “you will not provide any false personal information on Facebook”, I’ll neither confirm nor deny any of this, particularly the age part, but I'll just say this: “you are only as old as you feel”. When I signed up, I only gave FB the info I had to give it, so my profile is free of everything that's not mandatory, like "religion", "political views", education, and so on. )

Bottom line, nothing changed for the purposes of this experiment but my "FB gender". (Oh, and I did remove the ad blocker). So, if you're interested, here are the illustrated results of my research, followed at the end by a conclusion with some recommendations.

The tale of a billboard - part 1

Stella Artois beer advertisement, glamourous woman drinking beer, man gazing on, "She is a thing of beauty".  Someone has scrawled across the bottom of the billboard "She is not a thing."

Many thanks to Cathy Casey for this snap. 

I walk and drive past this billboard regularly, as I cross through the intersection of New North Rd and Sandringham Rd in Kingsland.

The above addition had been painted over but I noted yesterday that there was a new viewer comment (two in fact) which I will hopefully get a picture of to share before it gets painted over too.  If anyone has an image already do feel free to send it to me julie dot fairey at gmail dot com.

A teensy tiny little bit of progress on the Tui ads. Maybe.

You may have noticed that the Tui beer ads have changed.  No longer are they as awfully sexist as they once were.  Now they are only very sexist instead.  Auckland Feminist Action, who raised the issue in the first place are on to it again, with the following statement from earlier this month:

Tui needs to try harder

Auckland Feminist Action gives the latest Tui ad an E for Effort, and invites DB to have a beer with them and discuss how to make an ad without dissing women.

Feminist Action is delighted that its campaign contributed to the sexist Tui brewery ad being taken off television and the Tui website, says spokeswoman Leonie Morris.

“We gave that ad an F for Fail,” she says, “but the new Tui ad, ‘Halftime distraction’, gets only an E for Effort. Tui needs to try harder.”

While the halftime ad doesn’t put women in the sexualised poses of the earlier brewery ads, the
women are portrayed as just as stupid and helpless. They can’t get a kitten off a tree branch barely above their heads, navigate city streets or paint a sign without falling off the ladder.

What ties these ads together is that the only people equal to the lead male characters are their
mates. Women are persistently excluded from equality in Tui ads. In “Halftime Distraction” a series of beautiful women can’t tempt the hero away from his mission - getting the beer for his mates during halftime in a rugby telecast.

Women are treated as distractions from the real thing: a men-only, testosterone-laden, beer-drinking sport session.

DB says camaraderie and irreverence are crucial aspects of the Tui brand. But the camaraderie is a superficial mateship, and the irreverence is expressed by treating women always as objects, rather than equals. “It’s no accident that women like these ads less than men, since women are always the target of the joke,” says Leonie.

“Tui refuses to understand why this is sexist. We invite them to have a drink with Feminist Action and discuss how to make women equal in their ads,” she says. “Tui needs to stop laughing at women and start laughing with them.”

Here's hoping DB takes Feminist Action up on that drink and, more importantly, on that conversation.

cynical? moi?

am i the only person who watched this ad with an increasing sense of annoyance?



i know it's meant to be some kind of tribute to mothers, but the absence of fathers really bothered me.  it seemed to me to insiduously reaffirm the stereotype that all the work around raising children is to be done by mothers, that mothering is vastly different from parenting.  and enforcement of the notion that if you're not a mother, you're missing out on doing the best job in the whole wide world - which is insensitive to women who can't have children and insulting to those who choose not to.

also liked this point, which i missed the first time i watched it:

I like how they used a lot of different races, but did you see how every other race’s house and life looked dirty, cluttered, and poor except the white family?

yup, and only the people of colour were using public transport too.  read into that what you will.

so no, the ad didn't make want to cry and certainly didn't develop in me an urge to buy more proctor & gamble products.  but maybe that's just because i'm too much of a cynic.

ETA: the ad (whoops!)

missing the point

i was watching 7 days on friday night, as i do when i get the chance. well, wouldn't you know it, one of the news items was auckland feminist action's campaign against the tui breweries ads. as would be expected, the feminists were put down and the ads were supported. if you want to watch the episode, head over to the tv3 website.

funnily enough, the guys weren't saying too much. it was the woman comedian, urzila carlson, who really got stuck in. there were a few issues with what she had to say. her main point seemed to be that the young women in the ads must have worked hard at a gym to get the kind of bodies they have, and if she had such a body, she would be busy flaunting it.

there's some unpacking to be done here. first is the notion that people who have slim bodies work hard to achieve them. well that's true of some people but not true of others. some people just have a metabolism which means they don't have to work too hard to keep to the beauty ideal. other people have metabolisms which mean that they could work a couple of hours every day, and still find it almost impossible to get to that ideal.

it buys into the notion that fat people have the bodies they do because they are simply lazy. which she must know is crap. plenty of people who don't have the "ideal" body size are actually active and fit. some of them aren't because they can't be - due to health issues, or time and energy issues (possibly because they are working 2 or 3 jobs plus managing a household, and don't have the time/energy to put into exercise). and of course, some people who are thin aren't particularly healthy.

then there's the self-deprecation. ms carlson is implying that her current body shape is not attractive - seeing as how she isn't flauting it in quite the way she described on the show, she would seem to think it isn't worth flaunting. which again reinforces the notion that bigger bodies can't possibly be beautiful. her body shape is something that she does use to get laughs - i've seen two stand-up routines now where she starts off by saying that she's in the show to be the "eye-candy". which gets a laugh because we're in a society that accepts that someone with her body size and shape can't possibly be worth looking at.

i can only go by what i see, but she seems to be quite comfortable with this state of affairs ie that only thin women can be attractive, that fatness is a thing to be ridiculed at laughed at. and because she ensures that the laugh is on her, more than it is on anyone else, it doesn't seem so bad.

the only problem is that there are women who don't want to live in such a world, and who want to change this notion that only a certain size and shape of woman can be considered attractive. we want to live in a world where fat isn't evil, and people don't make lazy assumptions about fat people which they use to justify the general abuse and ridicule they choose to direct at such people.

now, i'm certainly not saying that ms carlson has to take on that fight. certainly not, and not when she's working in an industry that is particularly difficult for women. what i am saying is that she might consider that other women do want to take on this fight, and maybe she could just think about the possibility of not giving them her contempt or putting them down. it wouldn't be hard - she could have just gone with a comment about how she disagreed with their stance, but accepted that they have their own point of view. see, i'm not even expecting solidarity or any kind of support from her. just a lack of the ridicule and contempt that so mirrors what we're seeing from the dudebros across the internet.

and finally, ms carlson did seem to miss some of the point of the AFA protest. it's not just the sexualisation of the women in the ads, but also treating women as if they are stupid and/or not to be taken seriously, as well the clear misogyny of some of the billboards. it's the whole package. see, ms carlson's defense of the women in the ads seems to imply that it is those women who are somehow under attack. this is not the case. it's the people who make the ads - come up with the concepts, decide that it's ok to depict women in this way (and again, talking about the whole package) who are the target here. as well as the people who authorise and pay for the tui campaign. it's the people who make the decisions and who can choose to change the way they market the product who the protesters is speaking to.

on the other hand, shelley bridgeman gets it (as usual, avoid the comments). make of that what you will.

Abuse is not an argument

Putting to one side for a moment the merits (of which I think there are many) of Auckland Feminist Action's campaign against the sexist Tui adverts, what is up with the stylez of the pro Tui people?

A massive amount of vitriol has been spewed in the very precise and targeted direction of Leonie Morris, who put her name to the media statement and has since done some interviews, in particular on Newstalk ZB* and in the Herald.  The hateful responses, devoid of actual argument putting the counter position, are scattered across the interweb, and I know that people have also been calling and emailing Leonie's workplace to give her a hard time.

What kind of an argument is this?  To just make assumptions about feminists in general, and Leonie in particular, then use those stereotypes to dismiss the points Auckland Feminist Action are making? As if whether or not someone shaves their legs, or is a size 16, or their sexual orientation** is at all relevant to the matter?  There's also been a large dose of "feminists need a good hammering" type responses too, which honestly make me feel ill.

This has certainly been a case of Don't Read The Comments (DRTC).  And that makes me sad.  What kind of society are we living in where even raising concerns about some advertising, requesting that people think critically about the media they are consuming, gets you scragged across talkback and blogs and even motivates people to ring your place of employment to tell you off?

Particularly when you think about how people have reacted to the prominent bigotry of Establishment Men in recent times, you know who I mean; Paul Holmes, Paul Henry, Tony Veitch, Michael Laws, Andy Haden, Lockwood Smith, the list goes on and on.  Yes there are some people who call bigots out in unsavoury ways.  But they are far outnumbered by polite people like me (and probably you) who write ranty blog posts which at their worst have some swears in them, maybe sign a firm but non-abusive petition, or call to cancel their subscription to the offending media outlet.  What is it about challenging sexism, about being openly feminist, about taking on a beer company, that brings out the toxic frothing?

Kia kaha Leonie, you are doing good work.  I look forward to supporting Auckland Feminist Action's campaign here and elsewhere as I can, because all the hate has proven to me that we desperately need to take down ads like the Tui ones, and reclaim our country as a safe place for women to challenge sexism.



*  When I wrote this post the relevant interview was on the 3rd page of audio, it's probably on the 4th or 5th by now.  Sorry they don't seem to do direct links.
**  I have no idea what Leonie does with her legs, what size she is, or what her sexual orientation is, and I've worked with her on a couple of projects.  I don't need to know any of that.  If she wants me to know she'll tell me.  

It's just a joke

Occupational hazard of wanting to end rape culture: you spend lots of time designing training and education packages for people around the ways alcohol facilitates sexual violence which try very hard to avoid traditional victim blaming ideas.

The simplest way to do this is to remind people that drinking (unless you're underage, or in the wrong place) isn't a crime, but sexual violence is.

Another way I've done this in the past is by asking people to think about the messages alcohol manufacturers and sellers give us around alcohol. What's going to happen when we drink?

Well, if we drink beer:

Or how about this one?

These are real advertisements, and hopefully I don't need to explain why they are deeply problematic in terms of messages around sex, consent, masculinity and femininity. Hint: if I do, you're less media literate than young people going to VIBE Youth Health Service in Lower Hutt, where I first focus grouped these images. They were pretty clear in what they thought the key messages were "girls who are drinking are up for it."

(And you know what, we just might be. But to find that out, you'll have to talk to us, and listen to what we say, even when that's different to what you want to hear.)

What can be harder to unpack is humour. When we make something a funny, any criticism risks the defence of bigots everywhere "can't you take a joke?" That's why the Tui beer ads have run so long, despite continued real offensiveness. Because they are funny. Yeah, right.

I'm not able to comment on Tui television adverts, I hardly ever watch tv, and I don't think I've ever seen one. But Tui billboards - there's the homophobic one, the transphobic one, the one about children lying about sexual abuse, and far, far, far too many to mention that have been about treating women like we are stupid barriers to men drinking and having fun.

There's been several explicitly supporting male violence against women - the sexual harassment one, the one bemoaning Tony Veitch's inability to pay his way out of assaulting his then partner, and this little gem from 2005:

I'm going out on a limb here and saying making fun of violence against women, and queer people, and transpeople, and childhood sexual abuse, is part of creating a tolerance for violence and hate. It is part of victim blaming when violence is perpetrated against those groups. It makes us see domestic violence from the role of the perpetrator, as a bit of a laugh. It makes us look at people who say they have been sexually abused, or assaulted because they were queer/trans, with cynicism rather than compassion.

It is part of sustaining a culture which puts a particular kind of straight men at the top of the pile, where, with irony of course, some might think they belong.

It's time to put Tui billboards where they belong - on the scrapheap - by supporting Feminist Action. Watch this space.

Auckland Feminist Action takes on Tui's sexism

Media release from Auckland Feminist Action, up on Scoop earlier today.

Campaign launched against Tui beer ads
Auckland group Feminist Action has launched a campaign to get Tui to withdraw sexist beer ads featuring its all-female brewery. 

“These ads are retro-sexist”, says Feminist Action spokeswoman Leonie Morris. “They mimic tired old sexist attitudes in an ironic way. They are funny only to people who are happy to laugh at put-downs of women.” 

The Tui brewery ads feature women in skimpy clothes and sexualised poses, who are relentlessly depicted as more stupid than the dorky group of men who try to infiltrate the brewery. 

 “The ads say that men should judge women just on how they look, that women are stupid and that it’s okay to laugh at them,” says Ms Morris. 

Retro-sexist beer ads promote a form of mateship that dismisses women’s concerns and trivialises relationships with women. “Demeaning women in these ads is harmful whether the ads are funny or not. Valuing women only for how they look has a corrosive effect on women’s sense of self-worth. Men who demean women like this are more likely to be violent to them, and we have a huge problem with violence against women in New Zealand.”

“Women have been protesting against these kinds of ads for decades, and a lot of women feel silenced because they’re now so common,” she says. Young members of Feminist Action particularly wanted to campaign against them. “It’s not okay to make sexist, racist or homophobic jokes.” 

The campaign will use Facebook, an online petition and other social media to gain support and put pressure on Tui owner, DB Breweries, to drop the ads. 

Auckland Feminist Action is a new group acting on persistent inequalities between women and men in New Zealand.

This sounds like a campaign to watch, and will sadly probably attract a fair bit of backlash too.

Feel free to discuss the campaign idea here, keeping in mind, as always, that as this is a feminist blog we're probably more interested in comments that are rational, on topic, and don't draw on misogynist rubbish.  If you want to rant about how Tui's ads aren't sexist and how feminists don't have a sense of humour and wah wah wah I'm sure there are plenty of other places to go do that so best you go to There soonest.

libra doesn't get it

i'm sure you've seen the new libra ad? if not, try here where the comments are pointing out just exactly how bad it is. the first time i saw it, i wasn't really paying attention, so didn't see the end & didn't even know what it was advertising. but the second time, when i did pay attention, my initial reaction was along the lines of "stupid, gross, just so totally wrong wrong wrong".

i guess most of that reaction was informed by some of the eye-opening that has happened for me here over the last year. as is often the case, others have already made the salient points so i will point you to this piece at voxy which sums it up:

This ad in a grand feat of mulit-tasking manages to insult cisgender women by portraying them as competitive, bitchy and non-inclusive, as well as transgender women both by depicting a highly stereotypical drag queen and because, as my Twitter friend pointed out “I guess if you don’t bleed, you’re not a girl.”

By insinuating that if you use tampons you are somehow more of a female Libra is a perpetuating an outdated image of women. In mainstream media (or any media) this is not okay, especially as this ad seems deliberately designed to get a few cheap “laughs.”

and there is also this one, with some useful contact info at the bottom (though some of that is aussie-based). and this post from scar who shares how she feels about the matter (and i appreciate the point at the bottom, so am trying to be not all bleeding heart about this). if you're a twitter user, the hashtag is #transphobictampons, their facebook page is here and there's a petition here.

men advocating responsible conduc

this is what we neeed:

Is there some kind of course we can make the marketing departments take?

There's a new shared space* in Auckland's CBD, in Darby St, and a party to celebrate this innovative approach to urban planning on April 15th.  They've got the Mayor, and Kidz in Space and there has generally been much marketing riffing on the "space" theme.

Which is all well and good until we get to the casually exclusionary language being used to promote it all:

Putting man back into space

There was a "Man In Space" advert in the latest OurAuckland, in every letterbox in the superb Super City area I assume, and there's a "putting man back into space" tagline on the poster for the big launch.  You can see it on the Facebook event page.  So cute, so witty, so blithely ignoring the fact that there may be sharers of this space who aren't men.  And that being inclusive actually outweighs having a snazzy marketing idea any day of the week. 

What's particularly disappointing is that it doesn't appear that it was always labelled this way - it seems to have been changed to the "man in space" idea at some point since this went up on the Auckland Council website on 24th February:

There's another page up on it now (in addition to the Feb one which is still up) that has similar text and the exact same picture but with the new heading "putting man back into space".

When did the change happen?  Who made it?  And why? 

And when will people ever stop responding to legitimate concerns about this kind of casual exclusion of real people with the oh so predictable "man means mankind, which means humankind, which means people, silly"? 


*  Shared by pedestrians, cars, cyclists, dogs, trees, wheelchairs, and many more.  It'll be interested to see how that works out, as a first attempt at getting this to work in car-obsessed Auckland.

is it ideal?

i've been meaning to link to this post by pablo at kiwipolitico for some days now. it deals with the depiction of men in advertising on certain types of commercial radio stations:

But three things stand out about the depiction of ideal NZ men in these ads.

[...]

The third and perhaps most interesting aspect of the depiction is its representation of “manly” values. Men are mates; hard drinking, carousing, happy go lucky, staunch (especially when drinking), fast driving, opportunistic and impulsive horn dogs working hard on the ladies. Nowhere in the depiction are there notions of honour, valour, courage, sacrifice, sincerity, solidarity (except with mates), humility, basic intelligence and knowledge of current global affairs, or interest in the needs of women, children and the family. That is a bit odd simply because the early 20 to 35 male demographic is the one that is reproducing the most (presumably a manly trait), has young families, is starting careers and otherwise has the burdens of post-adolescence crashing down on it. Yet the values being reified appear adolescent.

you'll need to read the whole post to find out what the other two aspects are, and i'd strongly encourage you to do that (if you haven't already). i thought it extremely well-written.

what i'm just a little disappointed about is the number of comments, which is not too many. but this is only because i'd like to have seen more of a discussion, especially from the male readers, about how they feel about this kind of portrayal, and how it affects them (if at all). it's not often that we see this kind of discussion (or maybe i'm looking in the wrong places!), so i was really glad to see it come up.

even ads about women's products centre around men

is it just me, or have all the ads for women's hygiene products lately been more about men than about women? the two that immediately come to mind are one where a woman is getting into some really tight & uncomfortable lookin jeans, tops & boots but then wants a pad that's comfortable. the ad seems to be told from the point of view of her boyfriend who is watching and waiting (and waiting). the other one is the juvenile guy plastering pads over himself and playing star wars (or something) in front of the mirror.

the first one annoys me because its all about teh women being all irrational and crazy, again! and taking hours to get ready, again! the second one is kinda funny. but the point is that here is one product is solely and exclusively designed for women. the marketing is surely targetted at women, so why can't they be bothered doing an ad from the point of view of women, or telling a women's story?? is it really that hard? can't we have like just one product where the ads are all women-friendly and about women? apparently not.

incidentally, there's a nice discussion on the first part of radio nz's "the panel" on friday (afternoons, 16.07), where simon pound talks about an episode of the ad show looking at the lack of women in the creative divisions of advertising agencies. he talks about the fact that there are a lot of female students, and a lot of women in other sections of the same agencies.

Guest Post: Where no food is a sin - I'm lovin' it

Many thanks to Gina for this guest post, sorry it didn't go up yesterday, that was my fault.

In the UK Weightwatchers advertises under the slogan “Where no food is a sin” and apparently ladies and gentlemen that includes Macca’s.

I don’t know about you guys but when I go into Macca’s I'm not looking to make healthy choices. Macca’s is my comfort food. When I go there I order a Big Mac Combo, a 6 pack of nuggets with sweet and sour sauce and a chocolate sundae. And I bet Macca’s are counting on weightwatchers customers to come in... and be led by temptation. If I was actually on a weight management programme walking into Macca’s would be like an alcoholic going into a liquor store to buy a diet coke.

And vice versa- walking into Macca’s is not going to make me sign up to a weight loss programme. My conclusion: This is one bum marketing ploy.

Here’s the link for the coverage on this one.

What do you think?

The Vita Quench Water Police - Dislike

Facebook ad spotted this evening:

Sorry if you can't read it, here's the text "Know a girlfriend at work who drinks too many sugary beverages? Become a fan and report her to the Water Police and win great prizes!" Fans are encouraged to take photos of workmates who breach the "Laws of Water" and shame them publicly on Facebook. The VQPD will pick favourites and then conduct "Office Raids" at which "your colleague will be reprimanded, taped off, photographed and given great Vita Quench prizes..." The dobber-inner gets something called a "hydration pack" too. No doubt this involves lots of the powdery mix thingies, sorry "vitamin enhanced hydration in a simple sachet" that Vita Quench sell.

I'm going to pre-empt the "you feminists have no sense of humour" bingo square by stating clearly that I do get that this is supposed to be a joke. But it does form part of a larger body of diet policing, particularly towards women, and it should be seen as part of that context. Dislike. Intensely.

More on AirNZ's cougar rubbish

Further to my post about AirNZ's vile Grabaseat promotion last week, there have now been articles in both the Sunday Star Times yesterday and the Herald today on the matter.

SST:

... Victoria University associate professor Delores Janiewski – an expert on gender, culture and media – said the ad was "funny and cheeky" but it was hard to tell whether the ad was encouraging or denigrating single women.

However, Auckland comedian and poet Penny Ashton said the ad was sexist, and painting women as predators and men as their feeble prey "incensed" her.

"Men are not helpless. Surely if you say no a couple of times it should work?"

Social commentator and Sunday Star-Times columnist Rosemary McLeod said the ad was lame.

"I think older women should think very carefully before tackling young men in gay bars, as disappointment is bound to follow."

A Grabaseat spokesperson said the promotion was not intended to be offensive. It would not be shown on TV.

And from the Herald this morning:

The director of Rape Prevention Education [Kim McGregor] has attacked a promotion offering rugby tickets to "cougars" or women aged 35 and over "looking for slabs of meat" as appalling and disgusting, and wants advertisement withdrawn.

But the competition's promoters say they have no plans to stop the advertising campaign, which it says is meant to be light-hearted.

...She said the online advertisement, which shows a mature woman or cougar "starving itself on sparse vegetation during the day then hunting large slabs of meat at night" by stalking a young man at a bar should be withdrawn immediately.

Despite the man's attempts to ward off the woman's advances, the cougar has "not tasted fresh meat for days" and drags her prey to an inner-city apartment.

Ms McGregor said the organisation had heard from Air New Zealand staff who were embarrassed and concerned by the promotion.

"They find it degrading and that it is encouraging potentially harmful behaviour, so my question is why is our national carrier promoting sexually predatory behaviour?"

"We have also had complaints from male survivors who have been raped by women and they are very distressed that their situation is being laughed at and made out to be humorous."

Ms McGregor said a fifth of sexual violence happens in or around licensed premises and figures showed that one in four women and one in eight men would experience some level of sexual violence.

Grabaseat spokesman Sunil Unka said complaints had been laid about the promotion, but it would continue.

"We have certainly received some feedback ...it's mainly from women who are over 35 and have taken a bit of offence to it and felt it was an unfair kind of blanket comment."

"It (sexual violence) certainly is a fairly major issue but this was meant to be light-hearted and not meant to be taken too literally, so we will not be pulling it..."

Vileness, and a bit of irony, from Air NZ

Thanks to a reader who sent this through, here's the text of an email Air NZ has been sending out to promote Grabaseat:

Hi XXXXX,

Happy New Year people and I hope yours was as memorable as mine, which must have been particularly memorable as I can’t remember any of it other then waking up in a tent with a bunch of mates who I hadn’t seen for 9 years.

And let me tell you there is no greater joy than seeing people you haven’t seen in ages and realising that you have aged better than all of them. It was a lovely way to start the year, particularly as I hadn’t made any resolutions involving personal vanity. [J: Wait, what are you selling me again? Wasn't it plane tickets? So why would I care about any of this?]

Grabaseat is kicking off the New Year with a promotion for cougars. It’s my boss Duane’s idea and he’s given me a special blurb about it to send out. He wrote it himself. It’s quite good. [No, it's a sexist piece of crap, but please don't let that stop you sending it out and spreading your misogyny around]

JOIN THE GRABASEAT COUGAR PRIDE AT THE SEVENS

Cougars are women 35 and over who prefer their meat rare. [Actually cougars are a member of the cat family, and thus only distantly related to Homo sapiens, although you are no doubt correct about the rare meat, seeing as how cooking facilities are difficult when you lack opposable thumbs.] Their prey are at least 10 years their junior. [Really? Is there a rule book or something?] Grabaseat is looking for 60 of these exquisite creatures to join them at the sold out NZI Sevens in Wellington as our pride of cougar cheerleaders. [Oh joy, so this is about getting free cheerleaders then?]

All you have to do is register and upload a photo of your hunting pack (no more than 4 cougars) to be in to win tickets to the NZI Sevens. You and your pack will need to make your own way to Wellington [irony much?] and if you plan on sleeping you will need to find your own den. [Oh this hilarious lion metaphor is a source of boundless puntastic fun. Not.]

Grabaseat will be giving the winners cougar costumes [Any guesses what they will look like? I'm guessing they will feature leopard skin and not much of it] and the equipment to make enough noise to attract the attention of young males [To be the "prey", I suppose]. And to make sure the pride doesn’t go hungry, 10 brave young men recruited by ZM will be thrown in as fresh meat to the winners in Wellington. [Now that's just awful.]

So if you’re more roar than meow, check out our video about the mating habits of cougars and sign up here.

Yuck, yuck, yuck. Haven't watched the video as I'm at work, but if any reader wants to explain what's in it please do so after the beep (i.e. in comments).

life pharmacy promotes beauty

i received an email from nicola skews, woman's representative for young labour, regarding a complaint letter she wrote to life pharmacy about a current promotion they're running. i'm reproducing her letter and the life pharmacy reply, with her permission. here is her complaint:

Kia Ora,

As the New Zealand Young Labour Women’s Representative, I am charged with representing many young women across the country. It is my job that their best interests are promoted, and issues that may be relevant are brought to their attention.

Yesterday I was appalled to pass a Life Pharmacy window display that advertised a venture by Life Pharmacy, Shiseido and WORLD to give away free tote-bags with slogans that said “If you’re good at anything, make it beauty” and “If the result is beauty the method is justified!”

Not only are these regressive in terms of promoting positive self image, the mentality behind the latter slogan could be harmful to women struggling with self confidence or eating disorders.

The idea that ‘if the result is beauty the method is justified’, is rather scary when you consider the following figures:
· In developed societies, anorexia nervosa is the third most common chronic illness for young females. It is ten times more common than insulin dependent diabetes.
· 15 – 19 year old females 0.5%; 20 – 24 year old females 0.25%
· Risk of successful suicide is 32 times that expected for same aged population.

These are only some of the statistics, for only one form of negative body image.
With a constant bombardment of images and expectations reinforcing a mainstream view of beauty, it is no wonder so many young women struggle with self confidence, which doesn’t always go away with age or remain a just an insecurity. Promoting slogans which imply anything you do for beauty is justified as long as you achieve it, is an unbelievably unhealthy message.

WORLD proudly states that they have a “take it or leave it attitude” in their merchandise, but the women of Young Labour (and no doubt other women) would hugely appreciate a company making a difference and taking a stand on body image and unhealthy slogans.

Please reconsider your current promotion, and make a difference to the self confidence of young women who are sick of being encouraged to achieve ‘beauty’ no matter what it takes.
Regards,
Nicole Skews
New Zealand Young Labour Women’s Rep

and here is the reply:

Dear Ms Skews

Thank you for your feedback on our current Shiseido / World Promotion and for taking time to present us with a very detailed commentary in support of your feedback.

Life Pharmacy and Shiseido brands are both very focused on the wellbeing of our customers and women in general. We contribute regularly and generously to many charity foundations to support New Zealanders in a wide range of health matters. In addition, the Shiseido philosophy centres around making the customer feel beautiful on the inside and outside [yeah? i've missed the beautiful on the inside promotion, where do we find that?]. We also mutually share the philosophy of ‘beauty at any age’ (meaning, look fantastic for your age, rather than trying to alter your age [what??]). With that background in mind we felt we could have a little fun with the World brand with the chosen slogans and that these would not be interpreted too literally.

To date, an overwhelming number of customers have chosen to freely participate in this promotion. The feedback to our store teams on the bag slogans in particular, has echoed sentiments of fun and light hearted frivolity. We do however understand that, as with any promotion, consumers may choose not to participate for a various number of reasons of which we greatly respect.

We apologise if you have been unintentionally offended by the slogans chosen and once again thank you for taking time to bring your views to our attention.

Yours sincerely
Jacquie Dabrowski
Merchandise Manager - Beauty
Life Pharmacy Limited

ah, the steve-crow-donate-to-marginally-related-charities defence, and the "it's just a joke" defence. not particularly original, and not particularly helpful. on it's own, the "if the result is beauty the method is justified" implied self-harm message is not a big deal, but when it feeds hundreds of messages women get every day that the pursuit of beauty is the only thing of value, yeah it has an impact. it seems that the main purpose of the beauty industry is to make women feel naturally ugly.

And in breaking news...

Widex has bowed to the pressure and decided to withdraw their sexist advertising campaign!

Here's a message from Leonie:

Please report on The Hand Mirror that the campaign that Stop Demand and
Auckland Women's Centre has been running against the Widex billboards has
been successful!

We are delighted that Widex have stated today that they are withdrawing the
billboards people took offence to.

This is proof that collaboration and organising brings results. Thanks to
everyone who assisted this campaign.

Big congrats to Stop Demand and the Auckland Women's Centre for coordinating the response. And kudos to Widex for taking the billboards down.

Sex sells hearing aids?

Bothered by Widex's ridiculous billboards? You're not the only one, and, thanks to reader Leonie for the info, you can complain directly to Widex by emailing Lynn Miller LMiller@widex.co.nz.

Here's Leonie's list of concerns about this billboard campaign:

1. It is a pornographic image; the young woman is in a pose frequently used
in pornography, i.e. naked underneath a coat, wearing stockings - stockings
are frequently used in pornography

2. The photo of her conveys the message that women are sex objects - a
harmful message to women and girls.

3. Because it is a billboard - this harmful message will be seen by people
of all ages, including young children.

4. The slogan "To hear no evil would be a bit of a shame" so that a
pornographic photo of a half-naked young woman is alongside the word evil.

5. Widex is using sex to sell a product that has nothing to do with sex.
This is a breach of the People in Advertising Code which says they will not
use "sexual appeal simply to draw attention to an unrelated product".

6. Widex claims to practice corporate social responsibility yet this Widex
advert reinforces the idea that women are objects for men's pleasure. This
is one of the ideas that underpins the high incidence of sexual assault in
New Zealand, where one in 4 women in NZ will be sexual assaulted in her
lifetime.

Some people are taking their message straight to the billboards themselves:


Leonie sent in this one, and I've seen another one with the words "Child porn your shame" added too. Feel free to email me, julie dot fairey via gmail, if you have any others to add.