January 24, 2007
Go Home Already: Forget Paris
>> Is Smith Point Burning? If only Billy Frick were still around to ask the question. [Wonkette]
>> Regular Flickr contributor techne has a problem with a new Breast Cancer awareness campaign ad, pictured right. Her words: "I strongly object to this ad. To put this extremely violent message on a young woman's headless torso sends an implicit message condoning violence towards women. I very much doubt that you intended to use the imagery of one killer of women in your fight against another killer of women. Please discontinue this ad campaign and offer an apology to the community." What do you think of the ad?
>> A dog with a spray-painted pink heart and stripe can turn your frown upside down? We suppose that's one way to look at it. Another would be that some people are really, really mean to their pets. [And I Am Not Lying For Real]
>> Hey great. We might get an official state quarter. That would totally make up for the fact that we're still not represented by a single vote in Congress. Well okay, it's kind of completely awesome, but still. Give us that vote, Congress! Oh, and what should the design for the D.C. quarter look like? This should be fun.
Photo by techne
|
After reading the flickr comments for the picture, I think they missed the intent. I think the idea the advertisers were going for were going for was to reverse the roles. That faceless woman, representing all women, is wearing a wife beater which indicates SHE will be delivering the beating. She's also in a somewhat aggressive stance, not holding her hands up in defense.
All in all, they were trying to stop cancer and not advertise toothpaste so I'd cut them some slack.
I was thinking about that ad today on the way to work. I think the poster and commenter Todd have good points, and I don't really have a position on the offensive/not status of the ad, but it is remarkably unorthodox to use a sexy (if overtly badass) female image to advertise efforts against breast cancer.
My thought was: Are they trying to appeal to men and 'girl-power' feminists with this? And what does it say that it's in D.C.? Clearly the intent was good, and I'd not assume the worst about the motives and intended message of breast cancer prevention/cure organizers.
Sommer, I really don't think that dog has any idea (or cares) what it looks like. Dogs can't see color, so it's not like its buddies are gonna make fun of him ... and it makes people want to stop and pet him -- attention like that, dogs love.
I don't think techne's point was that the ad was *intended* to be condoning violence against women, it was that the ad uses a woman's breats as a billboard for a list of violent words with the point of the ad listed very very small at the bottom. A headless female torso with a litany of media of abuse (beating, punching, killing) in large type that is possible to be read at a distance with the object of the abuse in such small type that until one gets close enough to read it you are left with the torso as object is poorly thought out. Why not an image of a woman *actively* meting out this beating (hitting a punching bag? kicking an image representing cancer?) rather than having it be plastered (passively, receptively) across her breasts? I don't think she is saying their intent was abusive; rather, she is saying that the form is extremely poor and should be reconsidered.
What Dr. B said.
i actually kind of like the ad - on first look, it screamed badass WOMAN to me. those are her words; she's not just passive. i can certainly see how it could easily be misread, but i don't think its actually dangerous.
animal cruelty, not because its friends are going to make fun of him, because i am.
can't we just have text on our quarter - "the bitch set me up"? they'll probably choose something lame, like the washington monument.
I once took this Feminist Studies class, which I thought was a huge load of horse sh**, but that's another story. But one of the points the instructor kept trying to make, and I felt, kept trying to make me buy, was that ALL images of headless, limbless female torsos were in essence objectifying women.
I've never agreed with her "argument" and I for one have seen plenty of images of female torsos that are both beautiful and (in case you hadn't already guessed I was a woman) empowering.
I haven't seen this ad in person, but I'll agree with other commenters that her stance, her costume and the words on her torso say more about fighting cancer than they do about making her an object to be oggled. Nor does she look like a woman who's taken a beating or wouldn't fight back. What about the Komen insignia in the corner?
I've always considered myself a feminist and there's nothing wrong with this ad. As much as we're trying to make the statement that this 'killer' should be dealt with, we're also trying to lighten a very heavy mood. I'd hope there are some cancer survivors out there who would agree.
Sometimes people just need to lighten up and take it with a grain of salt. Relax, it's just a billboard.
It's not just a billboard, that's the problem. It's a mass-circulated image of a woman in a confrontational stance with the words "Punch it, strangle it, kick it..." across her chest. As if that is what you'd do to an uppity woman. That's a dangerous, irresponsible and shocking message to be sending out to the masses, especially from an organization so devoted to improving women's health and saving their lives.
I think this ad is simply poor execution, but the bottom line is that it focuses on extreme violence and a woman's body, not grrrl power against disease. Techne's right. I'm going to follow her lead and send a message to Komen asking them to discontinue the campaign, and I'd encourage anyone else who is disturbed by this to do the same.
I don't think the ads condone violence against women at all. That's like saying pictures of Iraqi war victims suggest that war is cool.
I think the ads are wayyy too agressive, but it's clear that they're drawing a parallel between violence against women and cancer against women.
but that's meant to shock, not meant to promote violence. I cannot imagine viewing it that way.
Don
I think the ad is very poorly executed. The disembodied torso does nothing to get the point across. All in all it seems really disjointed. I think that's why people are drawing negative feelings from it.
Just imagine if they had the same shot only with her wearing boxing gloves, or boxing gloves hanging over her shoulder. Would totally have tied the image and words together nicely.
I think the folks who do PETA's ads, which often draw on offensive subtexts and then exploit the controversy they generate, apparently just found a new client. That's too bad. I don't know that it's worth outright moral condemnation--they clearly understand the social injustice legacies and issues Techne raises, as that's exactly what they're exploiting--but it's certainly worth a flaming bag of poop delivered to their front door.
This ad is an outrage.
I disagree that the woman is standing in an "aggressive" pose. If, instead of a "wife beater" she were wearing, say, a couture dress, she would be in the exact same pose you see at the end of a runway during a fashion shoot. "Look at my body. Look at what is on my body."
As it were, what is on her body happens to be a series of violent and dehumanizing phrases about what some omniscient "we" will do to breast cancer. This woman has no head, and clearly is not speaking; who, then, does this "we" refer to, and how is this woman implicated? Are we going to beat, strangle, and spit-on the cancer right out of her breast?
I'm not sure why the topic of fighting cancer needs to be "lightened up" but there's nothing light or fun about this ad. And what about the Komen logo up in the corner? That's the last thing I saw, and that is an intentional design function. If I were walking down the street--as the ad is designed to be viewed--I would first see headless woman's body, then a lot of violent words, some smaller ones that are hard to read (and who has time to stop and read? I don't even try to deciper what it says in pink on the photo above!), and way in the corner, away from everything else, and small, is a Komen logo.
Obviously, we (citizens, politicians, researchers, and so on) need to take an aggressive stance regarding cancer; this ad just wasn't the way to suggest it.
I saw this ad from the bus this morning and thought it was offensive. Is this the only way to make people pay attention to a type of cancer specific to women? A billboard that screams sex (or at the very least - "look at my hot body")? Anyway, the message didn't sit right with me, and I didn't even make the violence connection.
Apparently the new comment system can't link back to my blog as it used to, but you can reach it through clicking on the picture. I clarified my position there last night (although Dr. B's take on it is pretty similar to mine).
The pink text is actually the funniest. It says "And not horror movie dead, but really, really dead." It's the most revealing about their intent/target demo, I think. And the hardest to read.
I don't think Komen at all intended to condone violence, which is why in my letter I said "implicitly condone". And I don't see the relevance of intent. If you search DCist for "you can change" you'll find the discussion about the gay conversion group's ads that were in the Metro this summer. Exodus have the very kindest of intentions, to help people they think are sick--are the ads therefore not objectionable?
The Iraq war analogy is an interesting one in light of how the images from the war have been controlled. Flag-draped coffin and soldier funeral photographs have effectively been banned. Why would a government bother to do such a thing if they didn't fear that the images could have changed public opinion? Public opinion has changed anyway, but with those images in papers every week, it might have happened a lot sooner--before the 2004 election perhaps. What J's prof was trying to get into her head was that images have a power to shape our perceptions at a level below our awareness. Gender studies, media studies, etc. classes exist to teach us how to pay attention to this level of consciousness and realize how we are being influenced. As for empowerment, don't you think a photo of a woman DOING something, expressing her power, would have been more empowering than one of a woman just standing there? Even doing something as minor as flexing that svelte bicep?
I'm not threatened by the idea that other people may not be offended by this ad. I think about this stuff very differently from most people, I know the world doesn't always agree with me, I'm not calling people wrong if they disagree with me, and I'm not on a mission to convert anyone. I appreciate the additional perspectives I'm getting from this thread (I simply could not see it as empowering in any way until I read some of these comments, and while I still don't personally see it that way, I can see how others would). That said, I deserve the same respect from those who disagree with me. Your "lighten up" is uncalled for, J. You can disagree with me without belittling; look at all the other comments for examples.
LIGHTEN UP FOLKS!!!!!!!!! IMO there's nothing wrong with this add! I though it was very effective. A good rallying cry!
techne said, " Exodus have the very kindest of intentions, to help people they think are sick--are the ads therefore not objectionable?"
Actually, Exodus does not have the very kindest of intentions. If they did, they would not resort to lies and distortions about gay people as well as their own success rates, nor would they advocate discrimination against gay people and lobby against anti-bullying measures in schools. Their ads are objectionable because they very much do NOT have the kindest of intentions. Further, their billboards were not trying to advertise any caring services, but rather to reinforce the meme that gay people choose to be gay and thus don't deserve equal rights (which is why the placement of the ads coincided with legislation to deny gay people that equality). So EXODUS is not at all comparable to Komen's ad.
techne also said, "I think about this stuff very differently from most people"
I think that is the key to the whole shebang, though. How does the AVERAGE person interpret the ad? For example, I see posters here referring to the sexy and sexualized woman---but the woman does not look very sexy or sexualized to me. She seems pretty average. There's no overemphasis on her breats or curves, nor is her clothing revealing or provocative. Even the characterization of it being a "wifebeater" threw me for a loop; it looks like just a sleeveless shirt to me. Devoid of the context of being on a stereotypical hillbilly or New York Italian, a "wifebeater" is just a sleeveless shirt. I think the average person would be more in line with how I see that billboard, because the average person is not going to be swayed to think violence against women is okay because of a defiant statement against breast cancer. The average person is smart enough to get the point of the ad.
More than that, I have a problem with folks trying to find issues where they don't really exist, because doing so dilutes efforts to confront the actual problem of violence against women. There are plenty of examples of the real thing, there's no need to stretch so far to find things to confront.
Sure the intent was abusive. We get that even if the person who wrote the ad doesn't. When you hear how some former slave owners defended their actions with stories of how well they treated their slaves, you don't say "oh well then" because they didn't understand they were just talking about a different flavour.
Why be an aplogist for this?
Are we ALL looking at the same ad? Someone please explain to me the "confrontational" qualities of this woman's body! You can't even see her facial expression nor her hands. If anything this LACK of information is what supports the figure as the "receiver" of abuse in this ad and the words further support it. Listen. Don't kid yourselves. It's simply a blatantly poor use of image and just because it's being used by SGK doesn't make it ok. It's clearly a poor judgment call on their part. Anyone who says "lighten up" under this call of foul play is clearly blind, not only, to the physical, social and political powers that are bound to breast cancer but the importance to transcend the blissful state of being the "average" person and acknowledge WRONG when and ANYWHERE they witness it.
Once an ad is posted all over a city, it's no longer an issue of the "intention", it's an issue of the actual human response to it. I understand what the Komen foundation is trying to say, and the message, ideally, is an empowering one. But I also know this: the first time I saw the poster, I was walking alone in my neighborhood, and all I saw was the torso of a woman with "strangle it" written across her breasts. It made me feel unsafe. I'll tell you what my neighborhood doesnt need: more images of sex and violence.
I think this ad campaign was a terrible mistake, and sad misuse of the organizations funds.