The adverts listed in the smoosh article seem to conflate female sexuality with objectification of women I would argue that a woman has the right to use her sexuality in a way that is to there advantage. I consider it sexist to censor women and there sexuality in such a way. This is not a simple matter as many advertising firms do use the the sexual objectification of women as a meketing ploy, some of these adverts do some don't. Some use the image of female sexuallity and the strength that gives them.
Going though the adverts:
Got Milk/PMS: I would agree that there is sexist suggestion in this. The idea tha women are incapable of rational and or reasonable thought while experiancing PMS is wrong. So yes sexist.
Hunky Dorys: This one is more difficult yes the women are clearly sexualised in this advert, But they are portrayed playing a male dominated sportand. All in All I think this advert portrays women sexually for the benefit of a crass pun and probably does fall down on the side of sexist
BK 7"My initial response to this was also that the woman was being portrayed in a sexist way with the, with the obvious nod to felatio and a woman looking in shock/awe at a oversized phallus/ but then I thought about the opposite advertisment. If an attractive man was was pictured looking in awe at a pair of watermelons then the advert may also be considerd sexist. possible more so as the advert would directly equate female wort with the size of there breasts. So looking at it the other way maybe this advert is sexist maybe it suggests that the primary judgment of a mans self worth is penis length. I'm pretty certain the woman here is not being objectified (well no more than any person in an advert)
Che first off sorry about the lack of accent but screw it. I do not see how this woman has been objectified at all, yes the woman is extreamly sexulised but this seems to be her choice, to me the woman in the advert is strong and aware of her sexuallity, she has not cowtowed to the traditinol meek woman and is not afraid of her feminiity and is prepared to do what she want to get where she wants. In this case she is advertising for suiters by offering out phone numbers with an enticement of her bueaty in this way she can have a series of men competing for her affection. So this image puts the woman in the position of power.
Dale Wurfel OK I think this is sexist but possible not for the imdiatley obvious reason. I would consider the frannkness of the woman and how comfortable she can be with her previous sexual encounters shows a strong woman, the suggested lack of competion a healthy response to sex. I do have a problem with the effective equation of this woman with a car. This advert is weird the catch image and suggestion are fine but the attepmt to tie it to the product changes it from a portrayel of a strong sexually liberated woman to a sexually objectified woman. saddly sexist.
BMW The suggestion that a man could find a machine more sexually desireable than a woman is not inhearently sexist (well maybe it is in that it portrays a subset of men as materiaLastic). Apprillia adverts did it better though the inclusion of a seminaked woman (without a face) probably tips this into sexist.
Stil VodkaWithout context this advert is difficult but the suggestion of russian brides, who are culturally seen as thing that are bought and the idea of a woman as a gift (perminatly) does seem to equate to slavery. Possible sexist but I think far more alarming than that a brand thought slavery (of any description) a suitible topic for a joke to base there brand on. Sexist but so much more wrong than that.
Vouge Vanity A woman is being held down and brutalised by law enforcment officers. Unless the the idea was that the cause of this was she was a woman, or that the officers had a right to do this because she was a woman then I do not see this as a problem. In fact the image I see is of a woman who has defied unjust authority and is being unfairly brutalised for it. Preasumable she knew this could happen before doing whatever it is she did she is a rebel fighting an authoritarian regime and would have understood the risk involved. she is a strong woman deserving of praise. of course this being vouge her crime was probably wearing somthing "avant guarde" and pretty incosiquential in the western world. but hyperbole and advertissing have shared a sheet since advertising was first trying to figure out how rto make notes.
AudioOne Yes this one is bad of course women can use consumer electronics, not funny, not clever, deffinatley sexist.
MadisonAvanue:
Yes however mutch I would love a life of screwing/sleeping and cooking the suggestion that this is what women do is sexist. moving on
Niccola Finetti: Strong woman who presumable used her sexuality to get what she wanted (good) sadley what she wanted was money (bad) so that she could preen herself, the desire to be beautiful is odd certainly not one that women monopolise, the question is why If its to impress her husband then thats fine if he does not expect it and/or would recipricate the effort. If it's to impress other women thats bad but not sexist. if its to impress men then why is it because she gets gets power by exploiting her sexuallity (good), or because she craves male attention (bad). I don't know if this advert is sexist unless it is from a full campaighn wich clarifies these issues then I don't see how anyone could get a definitive answer. I say a mirror for sexism not sexist.
PETADifficult one for me this I don't like Pamela Anderson and I don't lke PETA. But the advert is clever, it puposfully represents a woman as a peice of meat in order to disgust and stop people objectifing animals. This is not trying to lower women this is trying to raise animals on par with humans (an aim anyone fammiliar with PETA will know to be long standing). The use of PA celebrity just shows the power a woman can obtain by exploiting her feminiity.
The one with the bags: No idea whats going on here although the sybolism of packing and being beneath male shoes make me feel this is objectifing woman -- sexist
fluid: Justification of man on woman domestic violance definatley sexist.
Nikon: Women there for enjoyment of person with male finger. sexist.
Dr. Pepper 10: This is essentially a simple reverse psycology trick the primary market for diet soda is women (Diet coke and Tab both failing to get men to associate with the brand - Pepsi max and Coke zero having heavly market to men. As sexist as the yorkiee ads this is to encorage woman to disregard the advert, not sexist
Kitadol: As got milk living with a menapausal woman is in no way like going though was (I imagine, never been in a warzone). --sexist
Woman in bag: I think I swa this fisrt time - it was an advert for a sale suggesting a person who is exhausted after a period of shopping the usage of a woman fits the cultural sterio type that in genral woman shop more than men. enforces gender stero types bu not sexist.
Naked woman Irons trousers: Many people will probaly disagree with me that the nudity of the woman is not sexist. I see this as a confidence thing. she is confident in her body if clothes are not practically needed and she feels comfortable why cover herself. The fact that she is ironing a man's trouser while he idally reads a paper is sexist so yeah the ads sexist.
DMAX: This is increadibly sexist suggesting that the reason a man would get a wide angle lens is to serruptiously photograph womens cleavages while prentending to snap pigins. Oh where talking about adverts that portray women in a negative objectified way - no these women are enjoying a plesent day in a field talking althoughthey may be happier if the pervert with a cammara left.
Donor: More difficult as it it suggests the woman is unobtainable due to beautey and therefore beauty is the promary jusde of a woman. But in terms of casual sexual encounter looks mean a lot. This woman has taken power from her figure and I don;t think this ad can be considerd to objectify her any more than the person being advertised to - worrying but treats men and women equally so not sexist (although it would be nice to have an opposite ad with a attractive man on for balance.
Diamonds: This advert seems to be suggesting the only thing a man can offer a woman is expensive shiny things. If thats the case the power balance seems to be firmly stacked for the woman. If a man needs to spend $1000s of dollars so a woman will stick around then she has almost all the power.
I would say 11 of these are out and out sexist. thats 50%. that means that 50% of the examples you held up I disagree with and think that the suggestion that that any female sexuallity is inhearently sexist shows more about you than the advertising industry.
