?

Log in

Is it sexist though? If it were a picture of a woman in bra and… - B. Henderson Asher's Moments of Mirth [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Listen in, listen Ian!

[ website | Flickr ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

[Apr. 2nd, 2011|12:22 pm]
Listen in, listen Ian!
Sexist advert?

Is it sexist though? If it were a picture of a woman in bra and pants being used to advertise an unrelated product I'd agree, but it's being used here to advertise the bra and pants. There is the body image issue, but I'd say that applies to men as well (admittedly to a far lesser extent). Calvin Klein are unlikely to use me to advertise their pants, but they'll use this dude:



Discuss.
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: amuchmoreexotic
2011-04-02 11:25 am (UTC)
What you're missing is that she has a ready meal in her minge.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: absinthecity
2011-04-02 01:05 pm (UTC)
PMSL at this.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: the_alchemist
2011-04-02 11:50 am (UTC)
If you google images for "Marks and Spencer underwear ad", then the first twenty-five images consist of:

- 19 pictures of sexy ladies looking sexy
- 2 pictures of women's underwear not on a woman
- 2 pictures of men's faces (Jeremy Paxman and Robert Pattinson)
- 1 picture of a woman's face
- this(!)

So given that they sell underwear for both sexes (and looking further down the results, men's pants seem to be modelled by a silver mannequin cut off at the thighs), I think I agree with the graffiti artist that M&S's underwear advertising is sexist nonsense.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: classytart
2011-04-02 06:47 pm (UTC)
But what comes out on top of a google search is informed by what other people chose from the results, not just by what M&S put out there. So while it's fair to use the plastic male mannequins versus actual women models, the rest is down to other people, not M&S.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: shereenb
2011-04-03 08:44 pm (UTC)
what is notable on their website is mens underwear is modelled by manaquins and womens underwear is modelled by people even though we only see the same amount of body

I've noticed that before, and feel it's imbalanced. Why is it ok to see real female bodies selling underwear, but not real male bodies? Why should school age boys be the ones to get a thrill from their Mum's Freeman's catalogue and not school aged girls?

But, in response to the question Tim asked, I don't think the advert is sexist. I'm not delighted with idealistic airbrushed bodies, male or female, being thrust at us less perfect specimens, but that's a problem wider than M&S.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: publicansdecoy
2011-04-02 09:18 pm (UTC)
I don't think it's sexist.

-x-
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: iansymes
2011-04-05 04:34 pm (UTC)
What the fuck is wrong with that man's belly button?
(Reply) (Thread)