sexist advertisement

anonymous asked:

Was John that much a dick...? I'm getting a lot of John hate these days, on internet etc... I know he wasn't the peace and love guy everyone tries to remember him like... i know all the "racist and homophobic" things aren't true but are those "bad father" things true ? Did he ever hurt (physically) Cyn or Yoko ...?

Ok, that’s not an easy question. 

I’ll try to be as more cautious as possible. 

The thing is: John had an aggressive personality, since he was a child. I think it was his way to hide his insecurities and fragilities. I’m not defending him, I’m just saying it’s a matter of character. Said that, I think what is important is to understand in which society John lived and was raised. He lived during the 40s and 50s, a strictly sexist and homophobic society. All the movies he watched were about men hitting women, it was something he probably saw often, cause for the society of that time it was a ‘normal’ thing to do. I don’t know exactly in which year but reading Lewisohn book John talked about this problem, it must be around 70s cause Yoko is in the interview too. And he said that since he was a kid he was reaised that way, he watched Humphrey Bogart hitting women on the telly, he saw sexist advertisements, everything around him was like that. Because society was like that.And he was influenced by it.

 Mimi and Julia were outsiders, just like all John’s aunts. Five strong independent women: Mimi was a strong, clever, independent woman who didn’t want to get married to depend on a man. Julia was the same, despite all the troubles she went through, she was a very lovely and kind woman who just followed her heart and had very bad luck with men who left her alone, and for that reason considered a woman with a ‘sin’ by society. She could play the banjo which was such an unusual thing for that time because most women were allowed to cook and stay at home, society didn’t have a great considerations of them. And that’s how John was raised. Only later in his life he realised his errors. He revealed that he was influenced by the movies he watched and by the sexist society to see that behaviour as normal. And it was something he regretted later and tried to correct. That’s why later in his life he tried to share as much peaceful messages as possible, cause it was his way to correct himself and his behaviour, to forgive himself for what he had done. 

Still, I’m not defending him cause it doesn’t mean that all the men who were raised during that era hit women. George Harrison didn’t, neither Ringo. But, I’m quite sure that there was a very low consideration of the woman, therefore, an aggressive personality like John thought it was a normal thing to do. 

And same goes for the racist problem. Talking about the articles that floated around some months ago about John mocking disabled people and called him a racist, the whole story about this ‘problem’ is this one: When he was about 12 or 13, after school he went to the bus stop with his friends and he saw a group of disabled people on the street, men on wheelchairs, people with amputated arms. It was very common to meet them during that time, they were people who experienced the War. 

And John’s reaction to it was to laugh. He did the same when his uncle George died. He locked up in his room with his cousin and they started laughing until their stomach had cramps. I’m not saying it’s normal but I’m none to judge the way someone reacts to a relative’s death. It was probably his way to hide his suffering, since uncle George was the closest person ever for him during that time and his death caused him lot of stress and panic attacks. Once he said to Pete ‘I’m starting to think I’m a jinx’, he seriously believed it.

 Later, during the Beatles era, the spactic episodes were common, and I don’t think he did it cause he hated disabled people. He felt angry at the world and he picked on those he perceived as vulnerable. I can’t remember who said it, probably Pete Shotton, that in class lots of kids used to mock disabled people and they didn’t even know what they were doing. Ok, they were kids while John was a grown-up in his 20s during the Beatles era, still I think that history and 60s society must be taken into consideration. Never forget that mothers of disabled children were coming up to the Beatles and asking them to just touch their child’s hand in the hopes that it would cure the child’s ailment. The front row at their concerts was always full of kids in wheelchairs almost as though they were waiting to be annointed by the Beatles sweat. Soon this became a horrifying experience for John.

In 1972 he put on a concert to benefit disabled children. It was his way to do something right and correct his past immaturity. He even wanted to make a whole album of the show for charity but it never happened until 1986, after his death. Also, planning a charity concert wasn’t something so popular in the 70s.  

I don’t think it was his intention to be cruel to women or to disabled children. John Lennon was not an angel or the peace and love myth today media shows us. Forget that. He was a genius who had a hard childhood and went through lot of traumas that gave him a tough and troubled personality. He did mistakes that he recognized later in his life, trying his best to do good actions to correct the wrong things he had done in the past. 


“Watch Vir Das’s take on modern day sexist advertising in this hilarious new video for HE Deodorant and join them as they take a refreshing stand against such meaningless objectifications with the launch of their new variant, HE RESPECT.”

“Are YOU beach body ready? “Yes because I have a body and it can go on beaches.”

As seen in London 

A Guardian article from last week criticizing the sexist campaign:

Am I beach body ready? Advertisers, that’s none of your business

“Brands will continue their sexist advertising tactics for as long as we let them – it’s time to resist”


 5 TED Talks That Will Change The Way You Think About Feminism (From Bustle)

“Faith & Feminism” by Dr. Al Anoud Al Sharekh

“A Teen Just Trying to Figure it Out” by Tavi Gevinson

“The Dangerous Ways Ads See Women” by Jean Kilbourne

“How Islam Made Me A Feminist” by Zena Agha

“Plus-Size? More Like My Size” by Ashley Graham


“I can’t type.  I don’t take dictation.  I won’t sharpen pencils.  I can’t file.  My boss calls me indispensable!"—Xerox 914 commercial, 1960s 

I can’t blame anyone for being more curious about my relationship status than my career, as I too have been guilty of doing the same with other woman. After all, we are all taught through expertly crafted commercials and advertisements that it is of upmost importance for a woman to get a ring put on her finger.

Perhaps it’s time for society as a whole to re-evaluate what aspect of women’s lives we put the most value on.

#234 Because of the Facebook sex-change.

Sick and tired of having weight-loss and shoe adverts showing up on the right side bar of her Facebook account and clogging up her news feed, Malin Nävelsö from Sweden decided to take matters in her own hands.

What did she do?

She changed her sex on Facebook from female to male.

What happened?

All the weight-loss and fashion ads disappeared. They were replaced by ads informing her about products such as travel to exotic destinations, mortagages, different types of insurance and surround-sound equipment.

Because men don’t need to lose weight and women don’t travel. 


CW: Eating disorders and body-shaming

In this Subway commercial, we have three coworkers, two female and one male. One of the women asks how her companions could be eating burgers. The other woman replies that it’s no longer summer, so they can eat what they want. First woman informs them that no, they must continue to try to keep their weight low because Halloween demands tons of “sexy” costumes from women. 

There are two different ideas at play here, and they intersect in interesting ways. 

  1. In order to wear sexy costumes, you must be a certain size or weight. 

  2. It’s Halloween, and for women, costumes must be sexy. 

Let’s start with the first one. 

In advertising, we already have lots of seasonal campaigns that capitalize on the idea that you must lose weight for certain periods of time. Around New Year’s Eve, food and diet companies hit hard on New Year’s Resolutions. A few months later, commercials encourage you to diet in order to get a “bikini body” in time for summer. The only time corporations want you to eat without reservations is Thanksgiving and Christmas seasons, apparently, and probably only because they know it’s better for you to eat and feel guilty, then flock to their products, then to try to stop you from enjoying the holidays and the food traditions that go with it. 

External image

In a way, it’s kind of brilliant to take advantage of women’s insecurities by extending the seasons in which we need to diet. And by brilliant, I mean completely nefarious. But there’s one important message that is being conveyed by this commercial: only certain types of bodies can wear “sexy” outfits, like bikinis and “sexy” Halloween costumes. And that type of body is thin. 

When you tell your audience that they must be thin to wear sexy costumes, you are shaming larger bodies. You are saying that large women (and other genders) cannot be sexy simply because they are large. 

Of course, this isn’t a new idea. The media has been pushing this message on audiences for years, whether it’s by labeling average-sized models as “plus-sized,” or by photoshopping slices off of model and celebrity bodies in magazines, or by having most of mainstream Hollywood look a certain size (while relegating larger actors to tropes revolving around their weight). 

External image

New or not, the same phenomenon happens: we begin to believe that fat bodies are never attractive, which eventually evolves to fat bodies do not deserve to be attractive. This comes from the idea that larger people are only the size they are because they are lazy or undisciplined …. which diet advertisements definitely contribute to. After all, if you had only eaten Subway sandwiches instead of whatever wrong food you ate, you’d be skinny, right? 

The truth is, size does not determine attractiveness, or worthiness of attractiveness. Size definitely doesn’t determine if someone is lazy or undisciplined or unhealthy.

And you absolutely do not have to be a certain size in order to wear a Halloween costume (or bikini). If a large woman wants to dress as a “foxy fullback,” she has every right to.

Moving on to point #2.

Recent years have given way to another ludicrous phenomenon: the sexy Halloween costumes.

It’s not just that there are more sexy Halloween costumes. It’s that every regular costume has a ridiculous “sexy” pairing; the “regular” ones are usually marketed for men while the “sexy” ones are targeted at women.

Sexy Scooby-Doo

External image

Sexy Bacon

External image

Sexy Lumberjack

External image

And it starts younger and younger, and suddenly skeleton costumes are no longer gender neutral for boys and girls, but needs to be feminized and sexualized:

External image

For more examples of sexist Halloween costumes, check out this Tumblr

There’s nothing wrong with having sexy versions of Halloween costumes. For many individual women, it can be a chance to show creativity, have a unique costume idea, and even experiment a little with their sexuality in a way that they feel comfortable. It may be that many women use Halloween as a time to help them feel sexy, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

The wrong part happens when costumes aren’t marketed as “regular” and “sexy,” but as “male” and female.” The wrong part happens when it’s difficult for women to find Halloween costumes that are made for them but not sexy. And it’s absolutely wrong to start sexualizing Halloween costumes for children. With this commercial, Subway is contributing to the idea that Halloween is a time when women must dress provocatively, that instead of dressing up in costumes that are fun, creative, or spooky, they should be dressing in a way that makes them appealing to men. That point is emphasized by the joke at the end of the commercial, in which the sole man dresses up as a Viking to go along with the woman’s Viking Princess Costume, and he requests to see her wear that one again.

These two arguments might seem kind of confusing. First I’m saying that women of all body types should be able to wear sexy outfits if they want to, then I’m saying it’s wrong for Subway to push sexy outfits on women. Here’s the bottom line: all women (and men) should dress the way they want to without feeling outside pressures, such as advertisements, telling them how to dress. If they want to dress sexy, they should be able to without feeling shame. And if they don’t want to, they should also be able to without feeling shame!

No matter what your size or Halloween costume sexiness levels, have a happy and safe Halloween!  


‘This Oppresses Women’ Stickers Give Body-Shaming Ads The Edit They So Desperately Need

A women’s group is using a vintage sticker to call out sexist advertisements around New York City – and the result is pretty damn awesome. Some NYC residents have noticed “This Oppresses Women” stickers placed on top of various ads for “beach bodies,” “buttock enhancements” and breast augmentation on New York subway cars and in subway stations.