|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This ad sounds a lot like the UK Lee Jeans billboard ad which featured a woman's foot clad in a black stiletto heel resting upon the naked buttocks of a prostrate man. (The billboard used to be viewable at The Bull's Balls Web site: http://www.thebullsballs.com, but something appears to be wrong with that site right now).
Yes, folks, it's another attempt by advertisers to uplift women by degrading men. Let 'em know what you think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NineWest caters to a fairly narrow market, mostly to young women who don't really care about the misandry in the advertising. In fact, they probably find it quite amusing. But NineWest's stores are found in many malls across the country, so the proper, possibly more effective response to this is to call any mall that has one such shop and tell them that you will not shop in ANY store in the mall as long as that poster or any equivalent appears. I suggest you do this TODAY because the Christmas shopping season is fading fast, and your dollars, spent elsewhere, will count for less after December 24th.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday December 14, @11:05AM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
If there is one of these sexist displays in the mall near me, I will be contacting the mall management company and file a complaint.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not 100% positive that it is meant to be sexist or derogatory to men so much as it is meant to be fetishist. But either way rather distasteful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not 100% positive that it is meant to be sexist or derogatory to men so much as it is meant to be fetishist. But either way rather distasteful.
I would accept that if the store were designed around goods and services catering to sexual fetishes. I know nothing about this store, though.
The Lee Jeans ad I spoke of was definitely intended to degrade men (in harmless fun, they said). The company even admitted to it in an address to the UK Advertising Standards Association.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday December 14, @01:41PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
That store does cater to sexual fetishes, though they do it very subtly. Who do you think buys thigh-high leather boots, church ladies?
People who aren't into BDSM, or familiar with BDSM practices, just aren't going to get this ad. It's going to shock and offend them. I am very surprised they are running it in the U.S. In Europe or Asia nobody would care about this, but here people will go crazy.
BTW in other countries they do run ads featuring babes in bondage, especially in Asia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've seen "babes in bondage" type ads in this country. Fashion mags, that sort of thing. Most women's magazines like Cosmo and Vogue, and men's magazines like Maxim, are basically just softcore porn these days. I don't allow them in the house for fear the kids will pick them up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday December 14, @03:09PM EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't be surprised. I don't read those magazines. I think they're trash. You're right, they're softcore porn. Even looking at them in the supermarket aisles, the covers have headlines like "Give him the orgasm of his life" and "Rev up your libidio."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've seen "babes in bondage" type ads in this country. Fashion mags, that sort of thing. Most women's magazines like Cosmo and Vogue, and men's magazines like Maxim, are basically just softcore porn these days. I don't allow them in the house for fear the kids will pick them up.
Magazine ads are a different beast. You can blame Calvin Klein for those. Still, you are much more likely to see men in the submissive than women in both those ads, and ads in public like the above store's. And you most definitely will *never* see a female being submissive in such a public display.
Regardless, I also disagree that it's America's Puritanical nature that causes the offense here. I'm offended, as I said, because of the inequity, not as much because of the nature of the image in the ad. Lots of people like sex games, and if it were clear to me that that's what this ad was (and not the uplifting of women via the trashing of men), then I would have absolutely no problem with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"And you most definitely will *never* see a female being submissive in such a public display."
I have. A woman on all fours on a leash, head crotch level to a man's trousers (couldn't actually see the man above waist). Woman in a cage - I think that was a Bebe ad. Takes all kinds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just received a call from security at the store or mall of the Nine West that I called.
When I called them, I calmly spoke with the manager, told her that I find that ad demeaning to men and sexual harassment of the men who work at the store.
The (security) man who called me told me that they, at the store, felt threatened by my call. It was very outrageous and struck me as a clear attempt to harass and intimidate me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday December 14, @03:42PM EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps I could shed a little light on this, being a slight bit "kinky", myself. Of course it's easy to be considered "kinky" in this sex-scared society.
There are a few interesting ironies here.
A. Mainstream gender-feminism is pretty anti-sex in my opinion. NOW has "loosened up" a bit over the last few years, but only because there is a large LESBIAN bdsm subculture within feminism. NOW used to be totally anti-bdsm but because its not "conventional" sex, and because its PC among certain lesbian sub-cultures, they tolerate ads like this -- and ads where women dominate women. Men dominating women is still taboo, however. NOW has a whole "project" that is pro-bdsm.
B. The majority of BDSM couples/players/etc. as anyone who has ever been in the "scene" can tell you is male-dominant/female submissive. "Mistresses" achieve their power and status because not only is this a female-friendly culture, but male subs are still a lot more common then female dominants.
C. No one mentioned the context of the ad. I don't know what it looks like, so I'll just give my differing reactions to what it might look like. If the ad shows a smiling male, with a feminine foot lightly resting upon his chest or back , I would think of it as playful.
If it shows no real indication of the emotional context from the mans point of view I would say he is the classic "sex object", and wonder about the hypocricy.
If it shows the man screaming in pain, then let me be the first in line to boycott. We don't need any more depictions of male pain causing female happiness.
Obviously things are more complicated then this in terms of potential contextual/societal/biological context. But this ad is a bit off the normal "beaten" path.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have. A woman on all fours on a leash, head crotch level to a man's trousers (couldn't actually see the man above waist). Woman in a cage - I think that was a Bebe ad. Takes all kinds.
And where exactly was this ad? Even if it was in public (which I doubt), it still doesn't make up for the fact that 99% of modern advertising that creates a gender message is anti-male.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The (security) man who called me told me that they, at the store, felt threatened by my call. It was very outrageous and struck me as a clear attempt to harass and intimidate me.
OH MY GOD! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
That is SO funny! They feel threatened because someone doens't like their ad? Well, now you definitely know whose side that store is on. Geez! It's the "if you don't agree with me you must want to hurt me so I'm going to make laws censoring your opinion" feminist philosophy at work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, Thomas, why don't you call the police and tell them that you feel threatened by the ad at the store?
Better: file a sexual harassment complaint against them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I, in fact, told the security agent that I had at least as much reason to feel threatened and it would make as much sense for me to call the police and report the store manager. I suspect that it had an effect on him because he started sounding more inclined to tell the store manager to drop it.
I definitely felt seriously harassed. Nevertheless, I think that it would only hurt me in terms of time, money and God knows what else the gynocracy might have in store for me, if I did call the police. I really don't think I'd win a thing in a lawsuit and I would have to pay a lawyer a great deal to take the suit.
Thanks for the suggestions, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good points, Remo.
Anyone know if the man's face is visible in this ad? And if so, what is his expression?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's what I wrote to them. Just discovered there are stores in my area:
-----
To Whom It May Concern:
I would like to register a complaint with you about your recent advertising campaign depicting a man being forcefully held down by a woman in boots. This ad is demeaning to men and gives women a false sense of empowerment via the trashing of men. Although this concept has been popular with many misguided individuals in American advertising over the past 10 years, it is *rapidly* losing its appeal, especially among women who are sick of being seen as evil, selfish man-tramplers, and men who are sick of being painted as deserving of hatred.
Your company would be better served by either portraying men in a less negative fashion, or leaving men out of your advertising altogether, considering we are obviously not part of your consumer base.
There are two Nine West stores in my area, and I intend to lodge complaints with them as well. I am also tempted to consider sexual harassment claims against such a public display of hatefulness (and hate speech) toward my sex.
I recommend that you have your stores remove the offensive displays and fire the marketing people who conceived this incredibly insensitive and unintelligent campaign.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good letter, Nightmist. Did you email it or send it via snail mail? (I'm curious when they will get it.)
Also note: The heavy, who called me, several times said that I should not contact the store and should contact corporate headquarters only. I said that if a store posts an advertisement that I find sexist and offensive, I have the right to post a complaint with the store's manager. He also said that I should leave it up to women to complain, since they are the potential customers.
Just so you know what you might be dealing with when you lodge complaints directly with the stores. The response of this company strikes me as particularly vicious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just so you know what you might be dealing with when you lodge complaints directly with the stores. The response of this company strikes me as particularly vicious.
Heh.
I e-mailed it to corporate. Also, if we leave it up to women to complain, then the store is much less likely to hear any complaints because women don't feel the pain of this as much as men do. That's like saying we should've left it up to men to complain that women had no voting rights until 1920!!!
Sigh. I really do *hate* politics. No matter what that guard says, you have *every* right to complain, Thomas. Every right. Neither he nor that store can take it away from you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just be careful, Nightmist. As you know, to a large extent in this country, the appearance of harassing a woman is often legally found to be de facto harassment of the woman. Likewise, a woman's claim that she feels threatened is often taken as evidence that she has been threatened.
I don't think our rights are as secure as you imply in your last post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think our rights are as secure as you imply in your last post.
I'll be careful... but, I don't really care if they *do* attempt to trample my rights to express my opinion to them or not. If they do, I'll escalate it as far as I can escalate it within legal bounds.
I sick of this type of shit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The man's torso is visible. The woman is visible from the waist down. No arms are in view.
Even if the stance of the woman over the man wasn't questionable from the domination point of view, it's extremely suggestive. If you picture a woman in an ultra-short skirt standing over a man's chest, with one leg raised to put the boot on his chest, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what that man can see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you picture a woman in an ultra-short skirt standing over a man's chest, with one leg raised to put the boot on his chest, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what that man can see.
Hmmm. I'm not sure what the man can or cannot see is relevant, though. If a man forces someone to perform fellatio on him, does what the victim sees (the man's genitals) negate the evil of the forced act?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just returned from a trip to my local shopping mall, where I visited the Nine West store and spoke to the two managers on duty. I remained calm and polite at all times. I presented them with links to the articles on this site, as well as relevant articles on FoxNews.com.
The first manager seemed mildly concerned when I expressed that the advertisement comes across as strongly sexually biased. She directed me to speak with the second manager.
This manager appeared on the verge of laughing at me, and gave me the distinct impression that I was talking to a brick wall. She said, "Well, sex sells!"
When I asked for the sign to be taken down and replaced with something less objectionable, she stated, "We can't take it down, that's up to the corporate office."
As a side note, both managers were women. Neither showed any inclination to call mall security. Although I felt like the second manager was staring down her nose at me, neither manager made any insulting comments, raised her voice, or seemed confrontational in any way. They took the printout and retreated behind the counter after I said my peace.
To correct my previous comments, now that I've had a second viewing of the picture, for anyone who's interested in details: the man's clean-shaven chin is visible but there's no visible expression, and the woman's boots have extremely long, narrow heels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This manager appeared on the verge of laughing at me, and gave me the distinct impression that I was talking to a brick wall.
The response by this company to objections is nasty if not outright vicious.
When I asked for the sign to be taken down and replaced with something less objectionable, she stated, "We can't take it down, that's up to the corporate office."
I got the same copout line from the manager with whom I spoke. Good chance corporate headquarters has already sent out emails to all stores on how to respond to complaints. And the response is anything but sympathetic or openminded. It is at best spiteful stonewalling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nightmist (and anyone else to whom this might be relevant): In case the call that I received from security was part of a "corporate headquarters" directive for dealing with complaints, you might want to make your calls soon and record any return calls that you get. (Expect the manager to ask for your name, perhaps twice, to be clear on it.)
If we wait, "corporate headquarters" may get wind of what we're doing and direct store managers to act in a different, though no less obnoxious, fashion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And... here's their marketing director's response:
-----
Customer Service brought your comments to our attention in Marketing. Thank you for taking the time to let us know how you feel about the advertisement. May I assure you that we at Nine West did not intend to connote anything sexist. It was not about dominating men. We do appreciate your input and apologize for the offense.
-----
Ummm, so exactly *how* is this ad not about dominating men? Apparently, she's claiming that the ad is neither about degrading men in everyday life NOR about BDSM.... ummm, OK. So what the hell IS it about?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday December 14, @03:22PM EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
The difference here is that someone has chosen to buy the offending magazine. Walking down the mall with a child and viewing anti-male sexual displays is very different.
Also, unless you provide specific examples of such ads depicting "babes in bondage" your assertion is mute.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday December 14, @12:58PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
"I'm not 100% positive that it is meant to be sexist or derogatory to men so much as it is meant to be fetishist"
------------------------------------------------
Really? I have never seen any advertising aimed at children with a woman laying of the floor with a domineering man standing with a boot on her.
Marketing perverse sexuality preferences does justify the highly offensive nature of this display to the general public
This is highly derogatory toward men.
Do you think that the only response a kid will get when confronted by this display is "oh it's just some fun sex game?"
The underlying meaning is far greater than that.
Isn't feminism great????
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday December 14, @01:03PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
It's called trampling, and it's a form of foot fetish BDSM. I'm very surprised a major company would run such an ad, because it's only going to appeal to people who are into BDSM, and then only to female Doms and male subs. Male Doms and female subs probably won't be offended, but they aren't going to get anything out of it.
I do web design work and many ofour clients are adult sites, including foot fetish sites, so the ad does not offend me. I can see how it would offend someone who is not used to being exposed to BDSM material, though. When I was first exposed to BDSM content, it tweaked me. Now I'm desensitized. Most people aren't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm very surprised a major company would run such an ad, because it's only going to appeal to people who are into BDSM, and then only to female Doms and male subs.
I think you're seeing this with too narrow a perspective. Yes, it is clearly about female dominance, but that fact won't be lost on most of the public. The ad reinforces, I think in a more general way than you realize, the notion of female superiority and male inferiority. The advertisers for Nine West are not so stupid. They made this ad because they know it will appeal to many women.
The public would hardly stand for it if the roles of the man and woman were reversed. In fact, if the roles were reversed, the ad would appeal to almost no one. A major men's clothing store would not run such an ad with the roles reversed, because men would be outraged by it and would quit shopping at the store.
Many thanks to Christina S. for bringing this to our attention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I saw this ad in a context that made it clear to me that it was fetish-related, I would also not be offended. But not everyone picks up the entendre. In fact, there are quite a few sheltered folks out there for whom this interpretation doesn't even exist. Besides, it's like sexual harassment in the workplace: no matter what the intent of the sender, it's the interpretation by the recipient of the message that carries the weight. I find it offensive. Others agree. To me, that's all that needs to be said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is, in fact, a case of sexual harassment. One of the male employees of the store should sue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
frank h: "Besides, it's like sexual harassment in the workplace: no matter what the intent of the sender, it's the interpretation by the recipient of the message that carries the weight. I find it offensive. Others agree. To me, that's all that needs to be said."
Me: For the record, I think that's one of the major problems with sexual harassment claims. I don't accept that actionable offense should be defined solely by the "victim." But that's a different issue. As far as the ad is concerned ...
I agree with you, Frank, that most people are not going to think specifically of BDSM when they see this ad, although it may seem to have a certainly sexual implication. I think most people will react as I did and see the ad as yet another example of "grrrl power" and "isn't it fun and/or empowering to see a women dominate a man and use him as a sex toy?"
I would have absolutely no problem with this ad if the same image with genders reversed were acceptable. Actually, I wouldn't stop shopping in the relevant store (as Thomas, I think, said he would) unless I thought the ad was meant to be mean-spirited and deliberately espoused literal physical violence against women. People are WAY too sensitive about this kind of thing nowadays, in my opinion.
BUT, it not acceptable to show men physically dominating women, especially not with any kind of sexual implication. Therefore, I find this ad offensive on the basis of inequity. I had hoped to be done with mall-shopping this season, but maybe I'll drag myself back to see if the Nine West here in King of Prussia (PA) has this annoying thing posted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BUT, it not acceptable to show men physically dominating women, especially not with any kind of sexual implication.
The inequity is exactly the same reason I find it offensive. If the context of the display were more obvious, and it wasn't practically illegal (with sexual harassment policies/laws in the U.S.) to put up a similar display with the roles reversed, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just called one of the local stores. It took about two minutes.
The store is displaying the ad. I spoke with the manager and registered my complaint and strongly suggested that she contact corporate headquarters about it.
I agree with others that this would be far less offensive, if offensive at all, if there was balance. There is, however, no balance. The idea is for women to dominate and men to submit.
If you want, check for local Nine West stores in your area at
http://www.qwestdex.com/cgi/search.fcg?
and register your complaint. It will only take a couple of minutes. Also, it will only take a minute to click on the link above and write as simple a message as, "Your ad depicting a woman stepping on a man is anti-male, sexist and disgusting."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday December 14, @02:59PM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
The Leftist interest groups have spawned a new kind of secular Puritanism that has created this type of issue.
As such, it is not OK to offend people, unless they happen to be white heterosexual males, then anything is acceptable. As the case is here.
If a sexist displays depicting the denigration of women were acceptable, than I would be OK with this. But as we all know, it's only acceptable to be offensive to men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday December 14, @02:59PM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
It is not clear to you because you are not part of the BDSM subculture, nor are you very familiar with it, or you would have recognized it as a portrayal of trampling.
I think this company made a big, big mistake running this ad in America. Most people are going to react the way you did. Ironically, a lot of people who aren't beyond a little spanky-spanky in their own bedrooms are going to rise up in protest at this ad. I could have told Nine West this. They should pay me $300,000 year to be a marketing consultant instead of the genius who decided running a BDSM laced ad in Puritanical America was a neat idea. Other countries wouldn't care about this. America will. Americans are just not ready for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday December 14, @02:47PM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
In this country, no, they wouldn't run an ad with the roles reversed, but they do in other countries, notably Asia. I'm not surprised that everyone here is so upset about the ad. Americans flip over this sort of shit. In Europe or Asia, nobody would care, but American culture is too Puritanical to stand for BDSM on display at the mall. Whoever decided to run this ad in the states is a moron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The advertisers for Nine West are not so stupid. They made this ad because they know it will appeal to many women.
I think it is weirder and more insidious than you think. It sounds like they are definitely marketing to the fetish market. In a kinky venue, such a display wouldn't raise an eyebrow and wouldn't be anti-male.
I think these folks see being anti-male as so socially acceptable that they think they can cloak a sex display in a mall in the legitimacy of male-bashing!
"It's not about kinky sex. It's just poking fun at men."
Time to get writing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday December 14, @07:37PM EST (#46)
|
|
|
|
|
Geez! What are you objecting to? Sexism? Or is it worse to market kinky sex?
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geez! What are you objecting to? Sexism? Or is it worse to market kinky sex?
LOL - I guess that was a little obscure. Kinky folk are least sexist people I know. My guess is that these Nine West people would have also gleefully put up a leather-clad man leading a woman around on a leash if they thought they could get away with it. Both displays are wildly inappropriate for a public venue like a mall.
So, I'm objecting to such a display simply because it's in the wrong place. I also want to point out to them the prevailing anti-male attitude that made them think they could get away with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday December 14, @08:02PM EST (#48)
|
|
|
|
|
Although I am personally not offended by the ad, nor would I be offended by an ad with a Dom leading around a leashed woman, I agree with you that ads like these have no place in a public mall. People can keep dirty magazines out of their house, and block dirty channels on the TV, but when you take your kid to a shopping mall, you have every right to expect /not/ to encounter sexually explicit ads.
Last week the Los Angeles Times Magazine ran an ad featuring a woman clad in saran wrap, with her nipples clearly showing. While the ad didn't offend me, I thought it highly inappropriate for a family newspaper, to say the least.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Last week the Los Angeles Times Magazine ran an ad featuring a woman clad in saran wrap, with her nipples clearly showing. While the ad didn't offend me, I thought it highly inappropriate for a family newspaper, to say the least.
That is a bit risque for a "family" publication. Some "family" publications will go as far as showing a man's naked butt, but that's about it (the majority won't even go that far).
What was the ad for? Saran Wrap?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday December 14, @10:05PM EST (#51)
|
|
|
|
|
You know what? I don't even remember what the product was. I think it was booze. LOL It was on the back cover, if anyone reading this still has it lying around.
I would have been pretty upset if my kid had picked up the paper to get at the comics and had encountered that ad!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This ad is not fetishist. It is fetishist posturing. It is currently cool to pretend to be a fetishist. It's not selling an idea but rather selling a self imag" which you can put on or take off at will. Being it is not important, stylizing the lifestyle is important. Gravely important to those who desparately have to purchase a self image at any cost. This is the same banal ad mentality that brought us "heroin-chic" where women were supposed to make themselves look like outre rebels strung out on drugs; "independent" of the establishment, but who are really submissive little fashion slaves.
Yes, the current climate probably allowed this ad but I don't believe male-bashing is the message that is being sent. The message is the same as it ever was ... that to be cool and alluring you have to appear to be something you are not. How original.
Barf.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday December 14, @10:08PM EST (#52)
|
|
|
|
|
Good points. I went on their web site. I couldn't find this ad, but I did find several of those heroin chic ads, with models who looked like they were on the tail end of a weeklong bender.
I can kind of understand the druggie ads. You have to be a drug dealer to afford the prices those bastards have the nerve to charge for their shoes. LOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, the current climate probably allowed this ad but I don't believe male-bashing is the message that is being sent.
Oooohhhh, Lorianne. If it were up to you, *nothing* would ever be considered male bashing.
:-p
:)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Yes, the current climate probably allowed this ad but I don't believe male-bashing is the message that is being sent. The message is the same as it ever was ... that to be cool and alluring you have to appear to be something you are not."
Translation: 'Male-bashing isn't the REAL issue, THIS is the REAL issue -- pay no attention to that bleeding man behind the curtain!'
We see throoooough you, tootsie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday December 14, @11:07PM EST (#54)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I have mixed feelings about this one.
First I am inclined to think that this isn't a case of overt male bashing. It is probably offensive to some Americans because it is sexually suggestive. Since our culture is uptight about sex and feels it belongs behind closed doors it can create attention for the product being advertised (note: I don't feel sex belongs behind closed doors. I think sex should be more openly discussed and accepted.)
The only way I would consider this misandric is if they company did not print similar advertisements with women being submissive to a man.
In a larger social picture it is misandric because if a woman was portrayed as being submissive to a male in a similar ad there would be an enormous backlash from the radical-feminist community.
(note to Lorainne: If you want to read an excellent book on misandry(ie malebashing) try the new one "Spreading Misandry." It is an excellent look at the difference between equality and malebashing in media.)
As a whole I lean toward the non-bashing arguments more although everyone has their right to their own opinion.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nightmist___ I think other examples given on this site have been more convincing forms of "male bashing" as backlash (the sofa ad and the garbage bag ad come to mind). I look at intent. The intent is to portray an image of something that "cool" and sell it in the form of clothing. In this case it is fetishist domination. The trend toward fetishism as fashion statement has been prevalent in the last several years and includes things such as dog collars and nipples and genital rings. Most people who buy into this stuff have NO IDEA what the culture they are being sold as "cool" entails. They don't have to know... they simply want to be seen as "cool" without having to actually delve into the lifestyle.
This is the same thing as all the people who buy "tough guy" look Harley Davidson merchandise. They are buying an "image" which has been marketed to them as "cool". They are not going to go join the Hell's Angels... most of them have never even driven so much as a mo-ped.
The fashion industry is notorios for gleaning counterculture traits and selling them to straight laced American teens and young adults. I sincerly doubt their motivation was to "male bash" rather than to capitalize on the gulliblility of youth, which they've ALWAYS done. I agree it the domination image is disturbing (and should be) to males. However, young males are part of the gullible youth market which buys into the fashion industry manufactured images. For many of them, if the fashion industry says it's cool to like being trampled by a dominatrix (or pretend to like it is closer to the truth), they follow along like sheep. So do the young women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, young males are part of the gullible youth market which buys into the fashion industry manufactured images. For many of them, if the fashion industry says it's cool to like being trampled by a dominatrix (or pretend to like it is closer to the truth), they follow along like sheep. So do the young women
I don't completely disagree with your argument, but I *do* qualify it by saying I would tend to agree *if* Nine West specifically catered to fetishist clientele. From everything I've heard, they're simply a clothing store for women, and advertising agencies and marketers these days know that if you want to sell to women, you beat up on men. So, I think it was male bashing, hatred, pure and simple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nightmist___ I think you missed what I was saying. Nine West (or any other fashion business) IS NOT marketing to the fetishist clientele. That is much too small a market for them. What they are marketing is a counterculture "image". That is a fake portrayal of yourself as "cool". In some cases just pretending you're NOT shocked or offended by such an image as in the ad is enough to proclaim you "coolness".
Transgression is cool because the fashion industry says so. If male bashing is sold as cool, the sheep will bash men. Not because they want to, that would imply giving it some thought, but because it's cool.
I think you give people more credit than I do for thinking for themselves, especially young teens who are Nine West's market. Nine West is simply manipulating them. It makes no difference to Nine West how they do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transgression is cool because the fashion industry says so. If male bashing is sold as cool, the sheep will bash men. Not because they want to, that would imply giving it some thought, but because it's cool.
Aha. See, you just admitted that this particular ad could be male bashing, because male bashing is currently "cool." That said, I maintain that it is still male bashing and, whether "cool" or not, it is not to be forgiven.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the male bashing argument for the ad.
This is a prime example of the adoption of a deviant subculture into the mainstream. To think for a moment that people who see the ad are not aware of the BDSM culture is very naive. I would wager they are aware of the basic ideas of the ad: sex, female domination and male submission.
I think it is safe to assume that the vast majority of the women who will shop at the store are not into the BDSM culture. (I do not consider BDSM malebashing)
So it follows that if the majority of the cliental for this store are not part of the BDSM subculture then the ad must be using the female domination aspect of the subcultural to appeal to a wider population of nondeviant women. It cannot be just sex alone or the ad would have had a more broad or stereotypical presentation such as in Victoria Secrets ads. It only makes sense then that the ad incorporates the male domination aspect to appeal to the larger nondeviant female consumer population for some other reason. The only logical conclusion is by showing that buying the shoes you can literally "walk on men." By the simple fact that they do not have a similar ad that shows women being submissive to a man one must assume that they are attempting to show that this is not just an appeal on a sexual level but a larger social one its OK to metaphorically and literally stomp on men.
So while from shopper to shopper it might not portrayal male bashing as acceptable on a larger social level it does.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well said, TonyH. That's what I've been attempting to get at all along. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it follows that if the majority of the cliental for this store are not part of the BDSM subculture then the ad must be using the female domination aspect of the subcultural to appeal to a wider population of nondeviant women... The only logical conclusion is by showing that buying the shoes you can literally "walk on men."
How true it is. Well done analysis, TonyH.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you nightmist.
I should also note that after a more detailed look at the situation I change my vote. I have to conclude that the ad is male bashing in its current context.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"So while from shopper to shopper it might not portrayal male bashing as acceptable on a larger social level it does."
I still disagree. It portrays what one must currently pretend to be-- to be cool. As evidence I point to the fact that this "marketing" tool will soon fade away and a new "fake" identity will be foisted on young women (and men) by the ad industry.
Neither the fashion/ad industry nor the consumer have the slightest interest in "stepping on men" in the D/S sense or in the larger social sense. The fashion industry wants to make money. The shopper simply wants the cool image and is actually the "submissive" party. She "submits" to being a slave to the fashion industry, puting on an image at their behest, denying her own identity, which is quite ironic in this specific case, but nothing new overall.
I really don't think young women want to step on their boyfriends. However, they'll adopt that image if they're told that they must in order to be cool which in turn is a pre-requisite to getting a boyfriend in the first place.
Its twisted I agree. Advertising is like that. It tries to twist your self image around. This is why we see people who never venture anyplace more exotic than the zoo, wearing "extreme sport" and outdoor gear.
All the above IMO only, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I really don't think young women want to step on their boyfriends. However, they'll adopt that image if they're told that they must in order to be cool which in turn is a pre-requisite to getting a boyfriend in the first place.
I think you're still missing the point, though, Lorianne. We're not saying "young women want to step on young men." What we're saying is that such advertising gives young women the impression that *is OK* (or "cool," to use your words) to do so. That makes it male bashing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne: You make some valid points so let me expand upon the arguement I made.
You say, "The shopper simply wants the cool image and is actually the "submissive" party."
I will start here because I think you are only making my point more clear. Everyone knows the power of socialization and its ability to control the actions of people. The entire advertizing business is based on the need for people to "fit in" even the new trends that are trying to be different are just mass marketed versions of a deviant subculture. The whole idea of a subculture is to be different from the mainstream culture. This purpose is defeated once the mainstream culture adopts the music, dress or "lifestyle" of that subculture resulting in the evolution of greater degrees of deviance or the disappearance of the subculture.
The question remains, why did this ad pick this particular subcultural representation of men being submissive to men?
One reason could be, as you are suggesting, that this is the new popular "cool" image but what "cool image" are they selling is left unanswered. Is it sex or maybe just a BDSM lifestyle. One could argue that "sex sells" but that ignores the particular components of the this ad. If it was just an attempt at selling sex then why use THIS particular image when there are literally millions of others availaible.
An attempt at appealing to the BDSM component is also a potential factor. But This arguement fails to hold when one considers that the reverse image is not advertised (ie. a man dominating a woman or a woman dominating another woman. If sex is ruled out as a the major appealing factor you are left with the image of a woman stepping on a man.
The BDSM subculture lacks a large scale public appeal to warrant spending millions of dollars on. So if sex and BDSM are ruled out as major factors for picking this particular ad one must assume thare are other overriding factors why this particular image of a woman dominating a man or a man being submissive to a woman was choosen.
I submit that the best explaination for the image of a woman stepping on a man is that it is popular in American society today to empower women by degrading men. (The new book "Spreading Misandry" examines this topic in much greater depth than I can here.)
The only conclusion that can be drawn is the "cool image" that the ad is appealing too is not sex or BDSM but the specific image of female domination of men. In other words, Male bashing.
Feminist groups have for years made the same points with similar images about women being in submissive positions. the same arguement holds for men.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday December 16, @07:28PM EST (#74)
|
|
|
|
|
Um Tony:
I've seen figures that vary, so I'll give you the range: 3- 32% of Americans are into D/S to some extent. Now, I have no idea what the real rate in this range is; it even depends on how you define D/S. But even a 3 percent rate is quite alot of potential customers. Trust me, from what I've heard and seen: Selling to the D/S folks really pays off, at least if your talking clothes and accessories. I've been a customer myself.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
remo:Agreed but there are speciality stores that have a much wider variety of items. While I am sure that some of their customers are going to shop there I seriously doubt that the BDSM population is who this ad is targeted at. Once again I would point out that if the ad was aimmed at that population it would have attempted to broaden its audience to those women who are submissive as well as dominant. If a public display omits a portion of a population it makes one wonder why this portion of the population was omitted. The best example of this would be to substitute a race for the sex of the persons involved. If a White man was steping on a black woman there would be no doubt that a racial message was being portrayed, at least in American society. I can only assume that a similar message is being portrayed in this case.
I too have been a customer of similar merchandise but we are examining the portrayal of men here. I to think there are better examples of male bashing but I think this falls into the category, Although it is more difficult to analyze.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok Tony and nightmist, I concede that in the larger media, this ad dovetails with other "male bashing" trends. I still don't think it is the intent of the ad however.
I can't explain why they chose D/S imagery except that it is counterculture as you say. And the male dom image might have been considered non-PC or perhaps just passe and therefore not as cool.
"I submit that the best explaination for the image of a woman stepping on a man is that it is popular in American society today to empower women by degrading men." Tony
I'll buy this argument. AND in the same vein, the concept that no one can get ahead, succeed, prosper etc. unless it is at the expense of someone else. Win/lose vs. win/win or lose/lose. We've long held onto the win/lose paradigm in our society.
BTW d/s is not necessarily support the win/lose paradigm, so the ad agency who developed this ad shows how clueless they are on yet another level. This is REALLY off topic though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that particular subculture the submissive position is by choice. So in one way involves the empowerment by allowing the action to take place.
This particular ad is similar to the idea of individual racism and institutional racism. While a certain ad might not be sexist on an individual level it is still a part of the institutional sexism by supporting a stereotype that goes unchallenged by mainstream society. The whole point of this website is to challenge this status quo and increase awareness.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday December 14, @02:12PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
At 12/14/2001 01:35 PM we wrote - Customer Service brought your comments to our
attention in Marketing. Thank you for taking the time to let us know how you
feel about the advertisement. May I assure you that we at Nine West did not mean
to connote anything sexist. It was not about dominating men. But rather the idea
of dazzling them! We do appreciate your input and apologize for the offense.
Is that all? Not - we will take the display down? This is reflective of typical feminist hypocrisy: the medium does not support a highly sexist message (we are dazzling men...sic...) therfor it's OK to offend people because that is not what we meant.
The reverse would not be true if this were an ad with a man on top...
Feminism is sexism
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the email that I just sent to Nine West customer relations.
"I am writing about your sexist ad depicting a sexily clad woman stepping on a prone man. I understand that you have already responded to a complaint about this ad by stating that your idea is to 'dazzle' men with this display. I sincerely doubt that you would expect women to be dazzled by an ad in which the man's and the woman's situations were reversed.
"There are several Nine West stores in my area. I will do my best, during the next several days, to visit those stores and encourage men who work there to sue you for sexual harassment. The fact that you have already been notified of the offensive nature of this ad, and have indicated no desire to remove it, may well serve as evidence of your commitment to sexually harassing male employees."
If you're so inclined, feel free to borrow from this as you see fit.
Christina S., might you be able to go by the store that displayed this add and talk to the men who work there?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday December 14, @02:52PM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
The ad is about bondage and submission and they know it. This carries as much weight as Nixon saying he's not a crook, and Bin Laden saying he had nothing to do with 9-11. They don't want to admit that they are catering to the BDSM subculture. Stay tuned for some furious backpedaling in the coming weeks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To anyone who considers contacting one of the Nine West stores:
Now that I've had time to think about it, it seems clear to me that the intention of the security agent, who called me, as well as the store manager, with whom I spoke, was to create a threatening situation in order to deny me my first amendment right to object to an offensive advertisement.
State laws vary regarding recording conversations, so you'll have to be aware of what those laws are, but if you call one of the store's to complain, be prepared for a call from security. A recording of that call may provide proof that they were attempting to intimidate you to keep you from exercising your right to free speech.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State laws vary regarding recording conversations, so you'll have to be aware of what those laws are, but if you call one of the store's to complain, be prepared for a call from security. A recording of that call may provide proof that they were attempting to intimidate you to keep you from exercising your right to free speech.
Tennessee's law on recording telephone conversations is "one-party consent," meaning that as long as *I* know the conversation is being recorded, I don't have to tell the other party.
That goes for any other Tennesseans who view this site who feel like complaining directly to the stores.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
into any orifice of either gender and some people will become sexually aroused or inclined to come closer (enter the store). A stiletto heal is an old and famous equalizer for women. It doesn't take much strength to create a puncture wound with one.
That the audience is purported to be BDSM is a red herring as it is not acceptable practice for an angry 10 year old girl to put her mother's shoes, just like the ones the lady in the ad is wearing, onto her little brother's chest to make him stay out of the bathroom at 07:00 in the morning. The ad makes no allowance for such misunderstanding and is therefore a potential case of counseling or promoting a minor or all minors to commit an indictable offense, by making such an offense attractive or publicly permissible. The fact that they are using it as advertising is an admission that females are encouraged to engage in this practice.
Try to keep in mind that violence has been a catalyst or substitute for orgasms historically for psychopaths and psychotics or simply people with sexual dysfunction before they were identified as treatable or non-mystical disorders. That the practice is common place in cults or sub-cultures makes it no more acceptable for general consumption than does necrophilia, pederasty, pedophilia, mass suicide, or any other perversion masquerading as freedom of expression.
The audience for whom this add is intended is irrelevant. That the ad is in a shopping mall is very relevant. Shopping malls are a relatively "new world" Americas phenomena. They are based on access to cars and large areas of readily available reasonably priced real-estate, not something Europe is famous for. The comparison to Europe is faulty and lacks credibility as it is easier to control children's access to areas that might show such material. Also in many parts of Europe and Asia women have no rights equal to anything like they have in the USA Canada Australia Britain etc. So in fact an ad like this in Europe or Asia "is" pure fantasy as few women are free to put themselves in control of a man like they can here; it would just never be tolerated. So yes there are reasons that such an ad is inappropriate in the USA Canada Briton etc. yet fully acceptable to less gender enlightened (or sex enlightened if you prefer) societies.
Fathers if the women won't protect our children then we must make a stand and do so in their absence or omission.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday December 15, @11:21AM EST (#58)
|
|
|
|
|
DC:
Whilst I was sorry for what you have gone through in your past, don't you think its a bit MUCH to have the Government regulating violence between preteens?!
Your arguments for how such an ad incites and promotes violence by children or adults might seem to have relevence until you realize that under current law a loud voice can be considered violence. I wonder if we should ban angry or loud voices in malls , as well? I watched plenty of violent cartoons when I was growing up, and I've never been charged with assaulting anybody. But of course "we must protect the children". Half of mens problems the last 30 years have come from having that phrase used against us. We all know that men -- like rabies -- are harmful to children and other sweet things, don't we?
I'm sorry that you feel you need the government to protect you. Apparently you didn't learn the lesson about how it failed to protect you before.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you, Remo. A 10-year-old who decides to put on heels and attack her brother has some very serious psychological issues that go wayyyyyyyyyyyy beyond looking at an advertisement. I'll go so far as to say a child who commits a brutally violent act needs to be hospitalized immediately, before the kid kills someone.
I too thought of the violent cartoon analogy. Which violent movie inspired Ivan the Terrible? Which video game inspired Hitler? Which rock song was Elizabeth Bathory's favorite?
Evil people are just evil. Someone who goes off because they saw that ad, or because they watched "American Psycho," is someone who would have gone off anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evil people are just evil. Someone who goes off because they saw that ad, or because they watched "American Psycho," is someone who would have gone off anyway.
Yep. Of course, I must still point out that the ad in question is an expression of hatred for my sex and, therefore, something which I feel I should not be subjected to in public. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yep. Of course, I must still point out that the ad in question is an expression of hatred for my sex and, therefore, something which I feel I should not be subjected to in public. :)
Nightmist hits the nail on the head here, in my opinion. From an objective point of view the man is being "stepped on" by the woman. This is *not* something that needs to be seen in a mall. Nine West is a clothing store that caters to women. I'd be interested in their target age group. I'd wager it's something like "12-35".
"Let's teach the young women that it's cool to dominate and step on men so we can sell our clothing!"
Cute, isn't it?
Note to self: Sarcasm is highly ineffective against stupid people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So advertisements are not likely to cause children to act or think wrongly, but they are likey to cause adults to act or think wrongly and so we must protest their display.
that doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Try to keep in mind that violence has been a catalyst or substitute for orgasms historically for psychopaths and psychotics or simply people with sexual dysfunction before they were identified as treatable or non-mystical disorders. That the practice is common place in cults or sub-cultures makes it no more acceptable for general consumption than does necrophilia, pederasty, pedophilia, mass suicide, or any other perversion masquerading as freedom of expression."
For your information and anyone else who has not studied studied human sexuality to any great extent. There is an enourmous difference between BDSM and the violence you are talking about. The key difference in all these is consent of ADULTS. because you, or I for that matter, do not find something sexually arousing does not make it sick or perverted.
"Also in many parts of Europe and Asia women have no rights equal to anything like they have in the USA Canada Australia Britain etc. "
I disagree here as well. One of the problems Americans have is they tend to have a severe case of self-rightousness. Because you or someone else in our society thinks women in some other culture are not respected or don't have the rights you perceive as important does not mean they are not highly reguarded or do not have enourmous power in that particular society. For example mexican culture is historically "patriarcial" but it is a well known fact that women are the power behind the family. There are gender checks and balances in every social system that balance power if anyone takes more than a superficial glance at the situation.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just received this response from Nine West to my email objecting to their ad (see post #13 in this thread for the text of that email):
I am very sorry that my explanation was not clear. I did not mean that the AD was meant to dazzle men. Only that a woman's choice of footwear (by the woman IN the ad) can dazzle a man (the man IN the ad) and that the man IN THE AD was not being dominated but dazzled.
I very much apologize, even for the apparent offensiveness of my original response. No explanation of our original concept is meant to excuse the offense - only to communicate that sexist domination or harrassment was not our intent.
Thank you for taking the time to express your perspective and for caring about what matters.
It doesn't strike me as a nasty response. In any case, we've hopefully made at least a little impression.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like next time they will be a bit more careful about the ads campaigns they use. Gives one a little hope that a dent might have been made in the mountain of misandry.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just my 2 cents worth on reviewing this excellent dialogue on the Nine West Store Ad and what it implies.
I noticed in a couple of the replies that some view the ad as promoting female superiority and this is the misandric message.
I think what we should be concerned about is the notion of female supremacist beliefs. That is just because a female is a female and nothing more then she should be supreme in the social order. And since two things can not occupy the same space then that automatically leaves all males in the subordinate social role just because they are males.
There is nothing wrong with superiority per se.
We all strive to be superior to other people regardless of gender etc. "I got the job over the other job applicants because I was the suprior candidate" for instance. This is the good that comes out of fair competition. The best or the superior rises to the top for the benefit of all.
The problem we face is that of the female radfem supremacist view that just because of a biological difference you were born with you automatically are the alpha factor in any situation and you go to the head of the line regardless of individual merit.
That is in my opinion what this ad is saying, "you are a modern liberated female, ergo the whole male world is at your feet in humble subordination and you can do with it as you wish for your own self aggrandizement and profit!" And all you have to do is "buy our "tacky" snakeskin shoes to highlight your female supremacy. No other marketable skills or talents are necessary or required."
This is of course not the proper message corporate America should be sending to young impressionable women. It is condescending to women
and hurts them in the final analysis.
So women who buy into the misandric messages such as the Nine West ad promoted by the media and the new female supremacist(not supreme by merit mind you) super woman image are buying into a self delusional and destructive myth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A convincing analysis, Luek. It would be good if you could find the time to contribute more to this board.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
