sexist advertisment


Tweet source

Advertisers Boycotting Bill O’Reilly Ignored Years Of Offensive Comments

He has a long history of making racist, sexist remarks on air.

“Advertisers are fleeing “The O’Reilly Factor” following revelations that several women received a collective $13 million in settlements after accusing host Bill O’Reilly of sexual harassment.

But O’Reilly, who has worked at Fox News since the network launched in 1996, was a source of controversy long before The New York Times published its bombshell report on the accusations against him. The anchor has a history of making racist, sexist or otherwise inflammatory remarks — none of which prompted companies to pull advertisements from his show.

Here’s a look back at some of O’Reilly’s worst moments in his 20 years at Fox News.”

Read the full piece here


So many people that attempt a gender-reversal in which to objectify men instead of women do it completely, totally wrong. Showing images of muscular men flexing their muscles is not sexual objectification. It doesn’t accomplish the objective of reversing the gender roles of men and women. And it fails to give men the slightest taste of what it’s like to be a woman surrounded by sexually objectified images of women.

The factors that make images of women sexually objectifying are the stripping away of human qualities and the removal of agency. Images of hyper-sexualised, objectified women affirm the sexual availability and violable status of women. In ads, they conflate the characteristics of the woman with the characteristics of the object being sold, thus relegating the woman to an object. Just a picture of a naked or partly naked attractive person does not an objectifying image make. Sweaty, hairy men fresh from the gym are subjects of their environments, not objects.

You don’t see fashion photographs of helpless, bruised men lying near garbage dumps that vividly suggest brutal victimisation. You don’t see used car ads depicting ~sexy~ men’s bodies with jokes about being able to enjoy the man even though you’re not the first to have him. You don’t see awareness campaigns about testicular cancer that focus on SAVE THE BALLS and lament the loss of manliness after orchiectomy.

If you want to do a proper gender swap to give men an idea of how sexual objectification affects women, you can’t just switch out feminine women and insert masculine men, as if femininity were not an inherent component of sexual objectification. What the fashion and advertising industries do to women, you have to do to men. Get rid of the fucking muscle men. Get a pretty face skinny boy and put him in makeup; impractical, feminine-coded clothing; and a pose that looks explicitly like he wants to get spanked. If men squirm in discomfort when they see it, you know you did it right.

Some idiot: Adverts aren’t hypersexualized! You feminists are so dramatic!! How about focusing on the REAL ISSUES!!

Tv advert: *Has Charlize Theron strutting through an expensive mansion stripping herself naked* J’adore!

Me: *looks into the camera like I’m on the office*


“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.”

 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

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. 

Ever refuse to use a product because their ad campaign just rubs you the wrong damn way? Like obviously there’s racist or sexist advertising but what I mean is when its less overt.

Like Panera bread and their “good clean food” nonsense. The phrase “clean eating” just grates on me so much. Like unless you dropped your chicken nuggets on the floor, they aren’t more “dirty” than a 9$ cup of soup and you aren’t “dirty” for eating it. Is it ill advised to eat nothing but chicken nuggets? Sure, but eating them isn’t some filthy guilty moral failing. Idk. Its not a big deal at all but it bugs me every single time I see it.

“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”