Trailer for That Awkward Moment.
At 1:05 there’s an exchange between a couple after sleeping together for the first time that promotes an extremely unhealthy male view of sex. Pushing the idea that boys and men shouldn’t wait to have sex with women simply because they’re male is absolutely not cool, especially when it’s being used for the sake of comedy.
The Spring/Summer 2014 ads for Suitsupply are full of bikini-clad models surrounding a single sharply dressed man. Others include women wearing wet button-down shirts, bikini bottoms and nothing else.
“After so many months of freezing cold and snow, you may have forgotten what summer even looks like,” Suitsupply founder and CEO Fokke de Jong says on the site. “Our vibrant new collection should serve as a welcome reminder of the warmer days ahead. Plus, the way we shot it ought to put a smile on your face.”
The company also has an uncensored, NSFW version of the campaign on its website. In these photos, the models simply forgo their bikini tops.
“It’s a shame your advertising technique is so sexist, because your clothes are actually quite nice. But I guess if you can’t sell men’s clothing without showing naked women, you probably need to start making some nicer looking clothes,” a critic wrote on Suitsupply’s Facebook page.
But the menswear brand claims it doesn’t see the ads as sexist.
“It’s obviously people having fun. It’s a summer atmosphere. It’s a party,” marketing director Jeroen Joosens told the Daily News. “Of course there is some sexual tension there because the women are sometimes less dressed than the men, but we don’t dress women.”
Joosens said the ads are an exaggeration with some humor and fantasy mixed in, but he doesn’t think the pictures represent inequality and he doesn’t view them as demeaning or disrespectful.
“I didn’t see any controversy in this, to be honest. It is girls in bikinis having a good time and dancing. And they find themselves a well-dressed guy,” he said.
As for the uncensored ads, Joosens said they are “beautiful” but the company didn’t put them in the forefront out of respect for cultural differences when it comes to nudity.
“It’s there is you want to see if and it’s not there if you don’t want to see it,” he said.
This isn’t the first time Suitsupply has been criticized for its misuse of women to sell suits. Its 2010 “Shameless” campaign, which featured skimpily clad models with their legs spread, was banned from Facebook after the photos were “deemed offensive.”
Women in politics continue to face sexist double standards, and Senator Elizabeth Warren discusses “A Fighting Chance” and the need for political reform.
What seems to be a groundbreaking advertisement—ruined with the ending of “you’re not you when you’re hungry.”
What message was this supposed to send, Snickers?
In 2014, the cheerleaders revolted. This January, rookie NFL cheerleader Lacy T. kicked things off when she filed a class action lawsuit against the Oakland Raiders, alleging that the team fails to pay its Raiderettes minimum wage, withholds their pay until the end of the season, imposes illegal fines for minor infractions (like gaining 5 pounds), and forces cheerleaders to pay their own business expenses (everything from false eyelashes to monthly salon visits). Within a month, Cincinnati Bengals cheerleader Alexa Brenneman had filed a similar suit against her team, claiming that the Ben-Gals are paid just $2.85 an hour for their work on the sidelines.
And Tuesday, five former Buffalo Bills cheerleaders filed suit against their own team, alleging that the Buffalo Jills were required to perform unpaid work for the team for about 20 hours a week. Unpaid activities included: submitting to a weekly “jiggle test” (where cheer coaches “scrutinized the women’s stomach, arms, legs, hips, and butt while she does jumping jacks”); parading around casinos in bikinis “for the gratification of the predominantly male crowd”; and offering themselves up as prizes at a golf tournament, where they were required to sit on men’s laps on the golf carts, submerge themselves in a dunk tank, and perform backflips for tips (which they did not receive). The Buffalo Jills cheerleaders take home just $105 to $1,800 for an entire season on the job.
I was looking for earplugs to help concentrate while writing essays and studying for exams and stumbled upon this “helpful” product. Sleep Pretty in Pink is manufactured for women like I, who need the feel of a “silky soft texture" to help me out with my "plight". The description reads, "Every night, millions of women experience interrupted sleep due to the annoying and frustrating sounds of snoring and noises.”. Acceptable; everyone has trouble sleeping due to noises and there’s a theory that women are more susceptible to high pitched noises (unproven, but I digress) but wait for it “Get Sleep Pretty in Pink tonight and rediscover the exuberance of healthy, happy, rejuvenating sleep (…) An effective remedy for snoring husbands”.
There we go, so apparently, I need specially designed pink earplugs with a silky, soft texture to remedy my annoying husband’s snoring. Of course, I wasn’t perfectly fine with regular, gender-neutral earplugs; I needed specially made versions for my sensitive, pink loving ears. And of course I couldn’t want ear plugs to block out my noisy neighbours, the construction outside, my friend sleeping over or any other natural occurring noise that might be around; I need them to block out my husband since I’m in a heteronormative marriage and I definitely wouldn’t have a wife.
This reminds me of the feminine pen ,BIC, came out with a while ago; since women are unable to handle the regular, gender-neutral writing utensils, we need a pen made just for our delicate hands. Which is incredible b.s. There is no difference between men and women’s use of writing instruments and hearing tools. I like pink and I like silky textures but that doesn’t mean there’s not some guy who would say the exact same thing. Why is it that because I am girl, I’m marketed to with these light, “pretty” colours and given flowery descriptions for basic tools? Look at any product that’s not marketed to women, and you’ll see description of the features and the usefulness; look at a feminine product and you’ve got a description of how it will make you feel and what you’ll rediscover. At the end of the day, it’s just a pair of earplugs but it’s the message that it sends to people that gets me.
This is a comical response to the Dr. Pepper 10 ad I just posted. These ladies got it right.
Absolutely ridiculous that gender stereotypes exist in the first place—even more ridiculous that they’re being assigned to sodas.
Thanks, Chio, for telling me what I’m allowed to eat and what I’m not allowed to eat.
Calzedonia, the italian producer of stockings/clothes, thought it is a good idea to use images of half naked women to advertise their stockings. The idea is neither new nor creative and goes along the line of other non-creative ad campaigns that rely on getting attention through exhibiting half naked female bodies.
The casual excuse they use is that sex sells, even though it is not really sex that is selling but the satisfaction of heterosexual male gaze. Even though it is today more common to advertise also exposed and sexualized male bodies, the majority of ads show half/naked women. Partly to give men something to look at, partly to give women something to identify with.
Some would argue that it’s a freedom of choice, that it is models’ choice to be or not to be on this ad and that there’s nothing wrong with that. But in a world, where women still get paid less for the same job we can’t talk about freedom of choice. We have to talk about inequality and discrimination.
We can’t talk about free choice and equality when our society socializes women to be pretty, not have too much of an opinion and constantly remind them with the images likes the ones above, that they are objects of sexual satisfaction for men.
Sexist images like these of Calzedonia, are harmful. They are trying to normalize the objectification of women, their transformation into sexual objects, to the point that we don’t recognize it anymore. That we take it as a norm, as something not worth making any fuss about.
The reality behind it is, that it is this kind of images that perpetuate hate towards female bodies. This hate affects women as well as men: both start adopting and accepting this images as a norm. As a consequence women find it harder and harder to accept and love their own bodies and are trying to look more like the bodies on images. Because the society tells them this is who they are.
Most of straight men, on the other hand, take female nudity as something they are entitled to. It surrounds them, it is on advertising, on billboards, on TV, in culture and art, it is a part of their privilege. As a result respect towards women is decreasing and there is a strong connection between thinking you are entitled to something and not taking no for an answer. It’s a small part of a much larger problem called rape culture.
These photos were taken in Ljubljana in October 2013.