Submit to the Research Blog
Know of a great article, video, photo to submit to the site? Just completed a project you think should be shared with our readers?
Related Posts
No related posts.
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Girl in the Photo on Portland Summer Advertising Smorgasbord
- Michael Mandiberg | Exactly what are you selling me? on Murky(ting) Water
- Michael Mandiberg | Give me my damn three feet! on You Don’t Need It – Stencil
- Michael Mandiberg | Ad Creep: Health Insurers Bribe Users of Facebook’s Mafia Wars on Ad Creep Hits the Bike Lanes
- Michael Mandiberg | Who owns & who controls public space? on James Howard Kunstler on Public Space
-
Most Popular of All-Time
- Oprah, baby, please let me DeTouch you… 25632 view(s)
- …The greatest love of all 8975 view(s)
- New Lauren Greenfield video on NY Times 3530 view(s)
- The Illusionists » Annals of Offensive Advertising: Nikon 3230 view(s)
- You Don’t Need It – Stickers 3148 view(s)
Tag cloud
bad deals history marketing add-art taxes prank justfollowingorders public space nyc ad creep san francisco chicago poster toronto thingsthatmakeyousayhmmmmm outdoor illegal advertising self-loathing grl consumer resistance hack you don't need it politics sticker AAAFFF humor greenwashing social marketing china online billboard los angeles the law how to art free aaaproject ads everywhere haha brands not creative video graffiti tv branding
9 Comments
This graffiti is sexist. The diamond industry is evil, but two wrongs definitely don’t make a right.
Please explain how it is sexist?
Dear Steve,
I think it is obvious that characterizing women as “whores” is hardly progressive. In this context, it seems to be used in a hateful manner to reinforce the tired “gold digger” stereotype–the assumption that a lot of women out there are greedy bitches who want the men with whom they are romantically involved to buy them fancy things in order to prove their love/earn sexual favors.
So what does this graffiti do to critique the diamond industry, or the advertising industry? How does it positively contribute to anti-corporate discourse?
@Pedal: so you’re suggesting this is an accurate portrayal of a woman’s (your?) “reminder of what forever looks like”?
And frankly, you’re the one making the assumption that “whore” implies “female”, and is thus sexist in this context. Beyond that, though, neither the graffiti nor the advert itself necessarily imply that all people/women are the target demographic.
It’s offensive, yes, but it’s not sexist. (If I had a penny for every time someone said something offensive..)
First, I see your point and absolutely appreciate the sentiment. I just wanted to know what exactly you were upset about. I’ll respond with a few more questions:
Is this graffiti saying that all women are whores?
Does mentioning the word whore make something sexist, or even necessarily about women?
Which is dealing with a stereotype, the ad or the graffiti? Is the graffiti introducing a stereotype, or responding to one? How does the graffiti impact the ads use of stereotypes?
Would the humor work here if it wasn’t as over the top?
Those of us who care about these issues (like we both do) need to find creative ways to point them out – better if we can wrap it all up in a joke. With a few strokes of a pen there’s an economy of means here that, grabs your attention, and turns a vapid diamond ad on it’s head. It does so in a way that, I believe, is more compelling than the original ad itself – though I would never phrase it the same way. If you want to battle sexism there are already messages out there that in bold, innovative, and compelling advertising that are representing the opposing view. One must avoid sounding shrill and righteous because not many will listen when given the choice between the two.
Last, I assume the readers of this site and most people have a level of intelligence that can read with nuance, understand the role of humor and how it works, and are going to interpret information with their own filters and subtlety. I assume that readers can see something that might be shocking, take what’s valuable from it, and leave the rest.
There are similar photos in this Sociological Images blog post -
“Resistance To Objectifying Advertising” http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/06/29/resistance-to-objectifying-advertising/
Cheers.
i don´t see this as sexist.
I simply see it as a good way to remind people that showing someone you care should be done on an emotional level, not by buying the largest piece of carbon you can´t afford.
two wrongs definitely don’t make a right? how about one wrong and one right? would this pair make wrong or right? or two rights… do they always make a right? )
btw, well put, dan.
wow…i guess it’s completely lost on everyone that diamond rings are generally given to women as engagement rings. doesn’t have to be that way, but culturally, that’s how it’s done. advertising relies on these cultural cues, as does the message scrawled on the ad. whores are not necessarily women, but generally that’s how the word is used, so it’s not a stretch to think (again, from our cultural perspective) that that is how it is meant. if one wanted to be more ambiguous, there are other words that would serve that purpose better. the choice of words in political/activist messages are never meaningless.
it doesn’t have to be saying that all women are whores to be sexist. it’s relying on a sexist stereotype that even the ad doesn’t explicitly call on.
humor is nice–when it’s not at your expense. alas, this is not funny. it’s just obnoxious.
i think the message we should all take from this is that just because someone agrees with your politics, doesn’t mean they can’t be sexist.