I have never been to Farmville or Café World or CityWhatever so I have no idea how they work. But I want to create my own online universe. It will be a museum, no, it will be a whole village: an online world ‘housing’ the vast collection of media messages that are degrading to women. Hey look, a picture of a woman’s ass. Members could live in the various apartments, museums, cafes, stores, theaters, and schools where women are sold, displayed, minimized, belittled, objectified …or are just plain missing. Oh, she lost her Chapstick. And they could do their, whatever they do in online universes – work, farm, drink, eat, chat.
Of course, such a collection could only exist online, because there isn’t a building big enough to hold the real accumulation.
Welcome to the Visitor’s Center! Upstairs is the Liquor Advertisements Wing. I wonder where she lost it? Across the street, the Music Lyrics building. And adjacent to that, the Movies and Television compound.
No, wait. I will organize it according to degradation type instead of media type. On this street we have the planned housing development of “Women Licking Objects.” Whoa! Check out her ass! Over here, the ghost town of “Missing: Significant Roles for Women” (which includes, of course, the government buildings, churches, big business boardrooms, and TV & movie studios.) Gosh, where IS that lost Chapstick? And of course the shopping mall of “Fetishized Female Body Parts.” Yes, my village will reach to the horizon in every direction, a whole city of buildings filled with sexist advertising, music, books, movies and media of every kind.
But why would anyone visit my online world, anyway? Don’t we go online to experience an alternate reality? Chapstick! Woman’s Ass! Have you ever gone through a day without being bombarded with any sexist messages or images? Some of them are right out there, nothing subliminal about them – see exhibits A through Z on the Rap Lyrics floor. Lost. Chapstick. Ass. Others try to be subtle and sneaky (please take the audio tour in the Museum of Advertising). Unfortunately, the use of women’s bodies to sell everything from beer to books has become so pervasive that we almost don’t see it anymore. Hey, I bet I know where the Chapstick is!
So when we see it – what do we do about it? Well, I would encourage you to take Chapstick up on their bold-print offer to “Be Heard at Facebook.com/chapstick” except I’ve tried that: they delete any comments even remotely questioning or critical. Hmmmm. What asses.
Because Chapstick continues to delete our comments, Reel Girl started another FB page Butt seriously, Chapstick. Please visit and be heard.
Read Melissa Spiers’ follow-up to the ChapStick controversy: No Comment! A Commentary on the ChapStick Story
New found respect for Chapstick. My advice to the author, get your distorted back side to the gym and stop hating.
Pingback: Top 10 Social Media Catastrophes | Social Media Strategies Summit Blog
This is really interesting, You are an excessively skilled blogger. I’ve joined your feed and sit up for in search of more of your great post. Also, I have shared your website in my social networks
I think it’s a brilliant ad considering everyone looses their chapstick and ask the same question.
Another classic case of people making a big deal out of nothing.
I don’t really get why the Ad is offensive. It’s not a great photo but its not offensive.
well you can be proud you stirred up a lot of feminist lip moisturizing controversy over a non offensive advert. This is why our world is crippled to put anything out there in fear that an overly sensitive blogger is waiting to plaster their ‘victimized’ nonsense all over a major company’s FB page. that’s what i find offensive. i would have deleted it too.
i bet it all started when the company devilishly snuck their way into that Katy Perry song. cherry chapstick. girls kissing girls. can you believe the nerve!?
I don’t understand how this is offensive. I think it’s a brilliant ad considering everyone looses their chapstick and ask the same question.
Honestly, the chapstick ad doesn’t offend me in the least…
What does offend, and truly shocks and saddens me to my core, is the plethora of hateful, crude and misogynistic comments left here by some very small and confused men.
Don’t you [seemingly toolless] tools realize that YOU’RE the ones creating the very ‘feminist hysteria’ that then bleeds over into such silly things as ranting about a woman’s butt in an ad?! If people didn’t think like you* then maybe women like Melissa and Margot wouldn’t be so quick to jump on the I’m-offended-by-any-portrayal-of-female-sexuality-other-than-my-own train.
But as long as there’s men* (in developed, 1st world, DEMOCRATIC nations–meaning: there’s no excuse NOT to know better) claiming the blogger must be fat or ugly or single or whatever other nasty assumption you make regarding her physicality, women will continue to feel judged, demoralized and even paranoid about what messages men [or ads] are sending.
By focusing on and attacking her imagined looks, you are proving the very point she protests. Idiots.
* Joey, Fred johnsen, Kyle, tacos, Morgan, to name a few…
Hi, I haven’t been replying anywhere on Margot’s blog because it was made clear to me a few days ago that I’m not welcome.
But now that you’re calling me out by name, and to be honest I really don’t have the time at the moment to skim through 131 messages, I’m going to have to lay it out on the line and ask: What have I, specifically, said that would create the very feminist hysteria that then bleeds over into such silly things as ranting about a woman’s butt in an ad?
I’ll tell you right now, very frankly, that I meant what I said about identifying with Margot as another parent who is concerned about media messages. I thought we could find common ground there. We can’t, because it turns out it’s really true what people say about feminists, they’re feminists first and everything else second — you have to agree with what they say, even when they get outraged over silly things, or else you’re given just so many chances to repent and then you’re exiled. You just proved it yet again. So…no, I’m not going to say feminists need vibrators, or anything like that, but it’s absolutely clear to me that what feminists do need, is to learn to say “I can appreciate that person’s opinion even though I disagree with him/her.” Particularly when the disagreement is over something the feminist finds offensive that the other person does not. From what I see so far, this is not the case.
And if that is not the case, then in my book feminists are responsible for every conflict they have with anybody. It’s not possible to have a civil conversation with someone who takes the attitude of “You must agree with me or I’ll write a windy screed about you not being a decent person.” So…point to the example, if you can.
Pingback: Crisis Management and Finding a Balance
The woman in the ad is being treated as an object, not a person. How often does an ad show a part of a man’s body (eg torso, ass) but not his face?
Chapstick may not have *meant* it that way (but, wait, the woman is young and slim and blonde and wearing skintight clothes! hmm) but if so their PR team is a bunch of fucking idiots. They need to admit the mistake and learn from it.
“How often does an ad show a part of a man’s body (eg torso, ass) but not his face?”
Um, the stereotypical plumber’s crack?
Okay, looks like we have a new rule: If you can’t see a person’s face but you can see other body parts of that person, then that person is not being treated like a person and is being objectified.
With all respect Karen, I submit this doesn’t hold up. Easily more than half of the television ads for womens’ beauty products, violate this rule you just made up. Hair products show hair, eyelash products show eyelashes, Nair showed legs, of course…so does Haynes. Need to haul that one back to the drawing board.
Men are “objectified” in ads all the time. You must not look at magazines that much.
Pingback: Learn from ChapStick: Don't Delete that Comment | John Quinn's Brainhorn
2 Universal Truths:
attractive women buy goods that are advertised by attractive women.
unattractive women who can’t buy a date protest advertising that involve attarctive women.
Pingback: Chapstick Does Media All Wrong | Teach Media
Fuck You. why does this woman’s ass bother you so much? it is impossible to NOT see people’s asses all the time. how could you possibly fucking care about this? in what way does this picture make women unequal? in what way does a picture of a fully clothed woman looking f
Pingback: Chapsticks SUCKS « I AMedia
It does astonish me how some people get personal and furious when people criticise advertising.
Are they people who does not think big business can do any wrong, or are they hoping from freebies from Chapstick?
Oh, andNewCanaanIndependent, if you think there is no such this as negative publicity, I would recommend reading about Gerald Ratner.
Even if you don’t want to stop buying Chapstick because of the ad, wouldn’t it be great to stop buying Chapstick just to annoy the people who are sneering at Melissa?
I’m not furious, but all I can do is speak for myself.
First thought in my head…and I have to wonder about anybody else who doesn’t have this thought in their head, first & foremost…is: Okay, let us grant for the sake of argument that this ad needs to be taken down because it’s offensive. What else has to go? There’s no nudity here. The “objectification” argument is a falsehood, since the consumer is clearly intended to identify with the woman looking for her Chapstick. But the ad needs to go, so we need to establish the criteria by which ads must be banished according to similar objections.
All women have butts. So the rule must be, you can’t show them. Well to be realistic, it’s about dignified positioning. So okay…all women, in all ads, regardless of what the product is, have to be dignified.
Does the same rule hold true for the men? Hah! Obviously not. Just take a random sampling. There’s a whole lot of crap to be sold to people who are ready to buy things if they just see the “man of the house” portrayed as a moron. Margot doesn’t take similar offense at that…although examples are everywhere. So the complaint ends up looking one-sided and, therefore, more than a little bit foolish. I’ve sided with her before on other things, but to be candid about it, this one’s just silly.
Wow people are retarded. I bet if it was a mans ass nobody would give a damn. Let me say something loud and clear for the record. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT SEX THE PERSON IS!!!!!!!!! WOAMN OR MAN DOESNT MAKE IT ANY MORE OR LESS OFFENSIVE. Stupid feminists who think a picture of a womans ass is offensive meanwhile these are the same women who probably where clothes that flash their cleavage and show off their bodies yet a clothed woman with her ass in the air in an ad is too obscene!!!!! get a life. Look at all the ads and commercials that have ever been around. Tons of them rage with sexual innuendos and derogatory messaging but yet no one really seems to complain about those!!!! I highly doubt that any woman who looks half way decent would really care about an ad like this. Basically what im saying is that all you ugly females out there, guess what? Its not our problem you look the way you look or weigh as much as you weigh so dont get all tensed up over a stupid ad.
Any woman who gets offended by this stuff are women you wouldnt want to be seen with in the first place!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I agree, the ad is offensive. Just one more reason that I don’t like chapstick.
Pingback: Caught in PR firestorm, ChapStick issues an apology | They're talking. Are you listening?
Pingback: Advertising fail: ChapStick «
Pingback: House of Eratosthenes
Pingback: Cracked Me Up
Really? There is enough genuinely offensive advertising to focus on – not sure why you’d bother getting worked up by this. I don’t particularly like the ad, but as a woman, I feel neither offended nor degraded, objectified, belittled or patronised. There are other things more worthy of your energy.
If I lived in your village, this whole rant of yours would be an advert for anti-PMT tablets. And that I would be offended by, because I actually don’t get irate and irrationally upset by non-existent slights by ‘the man’, only real ones.
Pingback: 3 Social Media Horror Stories — Janet Fouts - Social Media Coach
Wow..it’s funny how people get easily offended in ads and in fact, they should take a look at themselves. FYI…the person in the ad is actually a guy. People are always looking to find some negative saying to others ideas. Hint….our society is being a little bitch and complaining too much.
What stuns me is the overwhelming negativity, derision and contempt for someone expressing their own opinion on a private blog. Women ARE used exploitatively in advertising. Yet someone calls bullshit on that, and everyone attacks? “She’s not getting laid,” “she’s throwing a hissy fit,” “she’s probably ugly,” “she’s just trying to get page views,” aren’t there more important issues?” Seriously? These are intellectually lame reactions to someone’s point, which was ALSO about comment deletion.
Nothing changes unless people notice there’s a problem and say something. Whether or not you agree with their opinion or the significance of the problem, we’re all entitled to expressing our opinions, including those of you who don’t see the problem and don’t think it’s worthy of a blog post. What’s saddening is that most of the responses are simply personal, emotional attacks rather than rational arguments – many of the most emotional ones are from men.
Look in your compact mirror – indeed.
The only sad thing here is that Chapstick caved to Margot’s silly whining. There is nothing offensive or demeaning about this ad, the “offense” lies in the delusional mind of this attention whore of this blogger. What about the 90% of ads and sitcoms that portray men as hapless dopes, unable to cook a meal or tie their shoes without their all knowing, ever wise wife (yet oddly these idiot men are always somehow able to hold jobs as architects or engineers to bring home the bacon to that adoring woman) Is Margot “offended” by that?
I am with you Margot. This ad needed calling attention to. I am disheartened by the comments you have gotten and wondering why so few of your readers realize that it is not this or that one ad, but the whole culture of advertising that you were calling attention to. Which does objectify women’s bodies–and which therefore contributes to the insensitivity that we have towards women’s problems more generally. Good for you!
Brilliant marketing campaign with a huge PR aftershock! Brilliant!
Thanks to the pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-forever-the-victim sexists out there, Chapstick / Pfizer has scored $10’s of millions in increased consumer awareness for the cost of a single advertising campaign.
Noting the faux uproar, Chapstick / Pfizer will attempt to ameliorate those offended by the first ad as follows:
A second phase of the campaign will reprise the set-up of the first ad but will feature a similarly posed “Michelle Obama-esque” gender neutral female in relaxed fit jeans, a plaid flannel work shirt and thick-soled Doc Martins showing neck & arm tat’s, a little flesh overlap at the waist and the hint of a tramp stamp on her exposed lower back and upper buttocks.
That’s sure to be an ad that keeps on working overtime for the brand.
Brilliant!
Pingback: Facebook Fail: Chapstick Turns Discussion Into Disaster | The Realtime Report
There are women in this world who suffer untold horrors and discrimination because of their gender. I don’t think this hardly sexual ad was really worth making a fuss about.
Erik, that’s a very good point, and something I was thinking myself.
The problem with people who get so radically offended about something like this, is that it takes the focus AWAY from the real issues women face in life.
It’s like “hey, we know women are brutalized every day, in every country. we know they are raped, beaten, tortured, enslaved, every day. but this Chapstick ad is sooooo offensive that this is the kind of treatment of women that needs to stop NOW!”
I personally think that a woman’s body is beautiful, and she should be able to do with it as SHE pleases. If she wants to strut around in a bikini, or wear a burka, it’s her choice.
NO ONE should be able to make the choice for her, including those self-satisfied know-it-alls who won’t rest until the rest of us think exactly the way they do.
Someone telling me what to do, that’s what offends me. As a woman.
“Someone telling me what to do, that’s what offends me. As a woman.”
That should offend you. As a human.
What a terrifying world we have created for ourselves…. The opinion of one does not equal the opinion of all, and most certainly is not any more or less important than anyone else’s opinion. If you choose to feel offended by something–anything–then fine. But how dare you attack anyone else whose opinions aren’t the same as yours!? The comments on here are just sickening: that we should all be offended by a BUTT!? FYI: Everyone has a butt! If you feel the need to read more into it, I can’t stop you, but I will say that it can’t be healthy to be so easily outraged by such small things in life… Your life must be so painful. This picture is meant to be awkward, funny, and relatable. I’d like to see you search for a Chapstick behind your couch without putting your butt in the air!!!
Hey Margot, did you ever stop to think that maybe it was just an ad that YOU and several other overly politically correct individuals took too far?
Don’t think that by having ChapStick “apologize” means that you changed something or made an impact because really, they only responded because people like you made a fuss and blew up their facebook for no apparent reason.
Funny thing about this ad is (I’m a guy), I looked at it…and I didn’t really think “wow a girl’s ass!” but rather, I looked at it and thought “what’s this about?” and read the words. Kinda funny to me actually because I lose my ChapStick all the time.
“*Gasp* someone actually thought the ad was relateable, and they’re a guy?”
I’m pissed that people like you continue to ruin my ability to actually ENJOY something without wondering what the politically correct backlash is going to be. I’m sure this would NOT be a problem if a guy was in the same position with his shirt off. You’d probably enjoy that, I’m sure.
Your quest to create “equality” is squandered by your attempts to call out everything you perceive as “sexist” rather than actually striving for equality in the workplace, athletics, etc. You are trying to create a world where women 1) can’t do what they want in the first place. 2) Have to worry about wether or not they are constantly being taken advantage of. 3) Aren’t allowed to show ANY skin or be shown in anything other than the seated position in fears of being called manipulated by the “male pigs.”
Wise up and realize it’s 2011. I’m a guy and really, most of us aren’t brainwashed to believe women are inferior or bred to hate/degrade women.
Get a life. It’s just a picture of a fully clothed woman. I could understand the fuss if she was naked or close to it. As long as people continue to devote such massive amounts of time to trivial and insignificant things, such as a chapstick ad, the real problems of the world will continue to rage on.
You’re absolutely correct. Seeing a woman’s hindquarters clad in jeans is incredibly tittilating and will send males into an uncontrollable frenzy of sin, preventing them from getting into heaven. I support your call to force this hussey and all other women into burkhas, and end this horrible violation of people’s rights.
Much ado about nothing. While negative comments should not be deleted, someone decided it was a good idea and they were. This made the situation worse.
Really anything and everything is offensive to somebody these days, it’s just that people can now more easily complain, and be heard. Others just roll with it and here you go. The ad is at best childish, but just not offensive unless you want it to be. PC does sometimes run rampant, this is proof of it.
idiotic!
Pingback: #BadAds – Chapstick Ad Gone Bad | TopicPls
So Margot gets her 15 minutes on the back of Chapstick, shows that she must be a cold fish, best left to rot, and if I was Chapstick, I would fire my social team…
That said, please all you “it’s sexist and you’re clueless” I think you need to pull out your compact mirror and take a hard look at your self. Was the ad aimed at you, probably not since no one will want a kiss from you, and I would hazard a guess that your A$$ end is probably not all that great either.
Complaining on FB? Really? I am offended now that Margot posted such a sexist picture, how could she, you are even worse then the Chapstick folks, they at least pulled the ad down, butt you felt it should stay up until the END (_|_)
Margie, You women are so cute when you try to be big girls! Now that you’ve had your fun, leave the real world to the men and get your cute little butt back in the kitchen, where you obviously belong.
Pingback: Where Did That Chapstick Go? « The Julianna Michigan Show
Pingback: Pucker Up - Chapstick Ads on Facebook Trigger Overzealous Feminazi Revolt.
It’s pathetic blogs like this that make the case against everyone having a voice. I’m buying as much Chapstick as possible from now on.