'Pamela Anderson's risqué advertisement promoting vegetarianism has proven just a tad too sexy — even for the famously sultry City of Montreal.
'The former Baywatch star, an outspoken animal-rights activist, has been denied a permit to hold an event launching her newest animal-rights campaign.
'In the advertisement, Anderson's bikini-clad body is covered in marks that mimic a butcher's diagram — with parts of her flesh marked up with words like "breast," "round," and "rump" ...
David St. Hubbins: They said the album cover is a bit sexist.
Nigel Tufnel: Well, so what? What's wrong with being sexy?
David St. Hubbins: Sexist, Nigel
I don't find this particular ad poster any more racy than what I see on buses,in the metro or in stores EVERYDAY.
She's making a statement..I get it... as do most people.
If you're going to ban this ad for being too racy,I suggest banning 90% of all ad campaigns because this is nothing new..This is as old as the hills...Unfortunately,sex sells and these days sex also is capable of selling ideas.
Has anyone seen the anti-smoking lobby's ad campaign in France?
This is much ado about nothing.
Cool way to get sexy pics on Babble. Congrats!
It's no sexier than a lot of magazine pictures - indeed, not as suggestive as many.
The problem is with what she's suggesting: not sex but cannibalism. The same thing that might make it effective also makes it disturbing - especially to people who want to sell advertising space to Burger King.
This saving of the world we're all on about... it's never gonna be allowed to happen, is it?
Unfortunately,sex sells and these days sex also is capable of selling ideas.
You call this "sex"!? Wow.
Bravo to Montréal for refusing to licence this degrading ad.
Who or what is being degraded?
Okay, my earlier attempt to bring mirth to this topic has failed.
alan and absentia, you're missing the point.
The ad is sexist, objectifying, and diagrams parts of a woman's body in a sexualized way. It's sexist. And by the way, an ad can have fully clothed women in it and also be sexist. This is a classic move by PETA.
And an old move. PETA's done this many times before, including a cabbage-bikini with Ms. Anderson. They do it because it causes a "fake controversy" and it's effective to get their message out, using sexism.
Neither racy nor controversial, this is simply boring old sexism.
oh
Unfortunately,sex sells and these days sex also is capable of selling ideas.
You call this "sex"!? Wow.
Bravo to Montréal for refusing to licence this degrading ad.
I thought the point of this ad was to be degrading? Which is a nice change from the thoughtless degradation of many ads. If the point is to bring attention to the degredation of animals through the visual degradation of a human, well, I think this ad accomplishes it.
I'm not a huge fan of PETA, or Pam Anderson, but I think the ad is fine, and gets the message across.
Yiwah, my impression is that PETA isn't that smart.
Okay, my earlier attempt to bring mirth to this topic has failed.
alan and absentia, you're missing the point.
The ad is sexist, objectifying, and diagrams parts of a woman's body in a sexualized way. It's sexist. And by the way, an ad can have fully clothed women in it and also be sexist. This is a classic move by PETA.
And an old move. PETA's done this many times before, including a cabbage-bikini with Ms. Anderson. They do it because it causes a "fake controversy" and it's effective to get their message out, using sexism.
Neither racy nor controversial, this is simply boring old sexism.
So your argument would be, PETA is not actually conscious enough of the sexism involved?
I'm not familiar enough with their ads to weigh in outside of my first impression of the ad in question.
Would it be less sexist if the ad in question had a man marked up similarily? In your opinion. I asked myself that, and immediately leaned towards yes, because while men are also sexualised in the media, it's not in the same way as women.
What about a child? eep...that would have been even more disturbingly effective.
Which brings me to this question, as I type whilst thinking...the intent of the advertiser...how important is it, do you think? For example, say PETA was a group that had really strong non-sexist politics that were well known...and they put out the same ad and justified it in a comprehensible manner. Would that change the ad, or are mainstream views so entrenched that no matter what, it's going to be seen as propping up sexism? Would the impact of the ad be qualitively the same as the same ad put out by a group that was totally clueless on the issue of sexism? Do we judge the end product on a stand alone basis, or within the context of the intention of the message? These are general questions I'm asking myself at the same time as posing them to you and the community at large.
Yiwah, my impression is that PETA isn't that smart.
Lol, scrolling through some of the other ads you've provided the link for, I tend to agree. Though I've always had that impression.
You know the action taken where activists wrap themselves up in cellophane like meat? Do you think it's meant to be titillating, or is it impossible to send the 'commodification of animals is hypocrisy' message in that way because of the underlying societal issues surrounding perceptions of women's bodies?
I wondered the same thing about a man - clad and inscribed similarly, even the tiny top - sharing the poster.
I think i already know the answer to Yiwah's other question: intentions do not count. Legal enforceability depends on absolute definitions, absolute judgment, absolute confidence in the rightness of that judgment - no grey areas, no exceptions. I realize that doesn't always happen in real life, but this case was evidently clear-cut.
I don't presume to define anyone's 'ism; i'm only a little bit concerned about everyone's personal freedom.
Sexism works in one direction, to marginalize women.
If one defines sexism as discrimination based on gender, given the historical and continued imbalance of power between men and women, men can't be victims of sexism. If there was a man in an ad that was deliberately sexually objectifying his body, and there are many ads like that (here's just one), it's not sexist. It's objectifying, even dehumanizing, but not sexist.
I also think you're over-thinking this, Yiwah. 
The intent of the advertiser (in this case, a non-profit group) is to garner attention to the product/cause/issue. And to, at some point, make you hand over some money. Using garden-variety sexist portrayals of women's bodies isn't new. Or even interesting.
For feminist ads that sometimes use images and photos of women in them, check out Bitch Magazine. The print version has some ads, all non-sexist. I'm not sure if those same ads appear online.
Legal enforceability does not in fact depend on absolute definitions or judgment. Not by any stretch of the imagination. This decision is a clear example of a judgment call. There is really no legal issue here unless PETA wants to start arguing freedom of expression, which would be fairly easily tempered by the equality provision of s.15 of the Charter.
I can see the argument that this ad is sexist, and that this is the message that is being opposed. I'm fine with that decision.
Sexism is a live issue, so it's not something we can mock as though it's a bygone problem. If the commodification of the human body were as shocking as it should be, this ad would probably have a powerful impact. However, that's not the case, which is why I think in this case the medium messes with the message.
I 'over-think' a lot, Maysie...though it's not really over-thinking (she over-thinks), it's more like...something gets me thinking and my thoughts carry me in other directions.
I thought the point of this ad was to be degrading?
Maybe if Pam Anderson didn't spend her entire life in the advertising world showing women as objects of recreation and consumption for men (and not in a critical way), then this ad may not have been quite so offensive.
Or, if the photo had been somehow intended to expose and condemn the objectification of women, I might have viewed it differently.
Clearly, that's not the case. And in Québec, it's possible that we're somewhat more sensitive to humiliation and commodification of women than they are in (say) Pam Anderson's home country.
Legal enforceability does not in fact depend on absolute definitions or judgment. ...
I was being a teensy bit ironical there. Over-thinking a peripheral issue, probably.
I don't actually believe this ad, whether shown or suppressed, ignored or argued-over, equalized or not, would make the least difference in weaning people off cattle.
The purpose of the ad is to raise money for PETA. Like any other unprincipled advertiser, the methodology used is "whatever works". In this case, as throughout our society, a woman's body fits that bill.
Maybe if Pam Anderson didn't spend her entire life in the advertising world showing women as objects of recreation and consumption for men (and not in a critical way), then this ad may not have been quite so offensive.
Or, if the photo had been somehow intended to expose and condemn the objectification of women, I might have viewed it differently.
Clearly, that's not the case. And in Québec, it's possible that we're somewhat more sensitive to humiliation and commodification of women than they are in (say) Pam Anderson's home country.
All good points.
Also, though I was aware of it before moving to Quebec, I still find the nation-level discourse interesting :D
The opposite of P. Anderson's PETA photo?
Unionist...
are you serious? You know full well that sexuality sells everything from beer to shampoo.
Do you not remember the old PETA campaign against the fur trade?...'I'd rather go naked than wear fur'?
And what exactly is Pam Anderson known for? Her acting skills?..Can she sing?...Can she play a musical instrument?..(There's probably indeed a bad joke that can be inserted there)....Can she dance?..(Poles don't count)...No.
She's made a career out of being a 'sex symbol'
Hence,this was not in any shape or form degrading to Pam Anderson..She was using her 'sex symbol' image to make a point...And MOST people get it.
As for 'degrading' ad campaigns,you see FAR worse and blatantly degrading and 'racy' ads everyday on television and billboards.
Perhaps the city of Montreal was trying to protect local meat industries.
al-Q...Is that Andre Agassi?
If so,I read (although you can't believe everything you read),that he broke up with Brooke Shields because she ate ham.
If that is true,what the hell is he doing draped in meat?
Unionist...
are you serious? You know full well that sexuality sells everything from beer to shampoo.
Alan, I was questioning your use of the word "sex". Sex is good. Treating women like commodities is evil.
Hence,this was not in any shape or form degrading to Pam Anderson..She was using her 'sex symbol' image to make a point...And MOST people get it.
I'm a nice person, but frankly, I don't give a damn about Pam Anderson. Her filthy antics are degrading to women.
As for 'degrading' ad campaigns,you see FAR worse and blatantly degrading and 'racy' ads everyday on television and billboards.
Ah, I see. And Hitler was worse, too. So I should be happy, right?
Perhaps the city of Montreal was trying to protect local meat industries.
Perhaps. If so, they accidentally did the right thing. Better than deliberately doing the wrong thing.
Unionist...
are you serious? You know full well that sexuality sells everything from beer to shampoo.
Do you not remember the old PETA campaign against the fur trade?...'I'd rather go naked than wear fur'?
And what exactly is Pam Anderson known for? Her acting skills?..Can she sing?...Can she play a musical instrument?..(There's probably indeed a bad joke that can be inserted there)....Can she dance?..(Poles don't count)...No.
She's made a career out of being a 'sex symbol'
Hence,this was not in any shape or form degrading to Pam Anderson..She was using her 'sex symbol' image to make a point...And MOST people get it.
As for 'degrading' ad campaigns,you see FAR worse and blatantly degrading and 'racy' ads everyday on television and billboards.
Perhaps the city of Montreal was trying to protect local meat industries.
Um...you seem to be missing an important point.
Pam Anderson is a 'sex symbol' yes...but that does not make her portrayal less sexist or degrading to women. In fact, as has been pointed out, her status as a 'sex symbol' in fact reinforces the fact that the portryal can't really be anything sexist.
"Sex sells" isn't an argument against sexism, it's a description of one of the ways in which sexism is manifested.
Hitler?...Really?
Wow,I don't know how a bikini clad woman turned into a fascist dictator.
I was merely pointing out that this kind of marketing exists in almost every ad campaign of almost every product or PSA's,etc...
Frankly,Pam Anderson-esque women do not appeal to me very much,so I'm not,by any stretch of the imagination,interested in seeing her campaign posters.
I just find it hypocritical that this ad is deemed 'racy' , 'risque' , 'offensive', 'sexist' and/or 'degrading' when there are ads plastered everywhere the eye can see that perpetuate sexist stereotypes WITHOUT a redeeming message of any sort.
alan, the message is irrelevant. Thinking that IF there's a message that somehow mediates the sexism is, um, wrong.
Sexism is sexism.
*Sigh*
I'm not the one who has made sex-- sexist stereotypes in particular--lightning rods for every marketing campaign under the sun.
Obviously,this doesn't just appeal to the lowest common denominators of society...Apparently,this motivates consumers to buy the said product or pay attention to a cause..Or they wouldn't use it to sell products or ideas.
Don't shoot the messenger.
I'm not the one who has made sex-- sexist stereotypes in particular--lightning rods for every marketing campaign under the sun.
No, you aren't. You're the one who appears to say we should acquiesce in it, and not oppose it fiercely every time it rears its head. You have actually managed to be more tolerant of sexist degradation than the City of Montréal. Trust me when I say that's no mean feat.
Obviously,this doesn't just appeal to the lowest common denominators of society...Apparently,this motivates consumers to buy the said product or pay attention to a cause..Or they wouldn't use it to sell products or ideas.
No kidding. What a revelation. Lots of people are influenced by the basest and most vile of propaganda. Thanks for the info!
Don't shoot the messenger.
Don't be the messenger. Tell us what you think of the message. That's what this board is about.
Perhaps this thread is in the wrong forum?
Now...apparently, at least according to some, I am not up to speed on the new fangled feminist positions of the 2000 set, so I really need someone who is up to speed, to explain to me, how they can believe that a sexy photo of a woman is sexist, as it commodifys women, while selling/buying sex, the ultimate commodification, is not?
Afterall, should prostitution ever become legalized, just what do "today's" feminists think is going to be used to sell the commodity of sex, other than very scantily clad females? Will it be okay then to have scantily clad pictures selling sex everywhere, as it will no longer be a commodification of women, and sexist?
...it seems to me; holding such a view that Pam's picture is sexist, while believing prostitution should be legalized is more than a bit hyprocritical, at the worst, or a discontinuity of rational thinking, at best.
Nope don't think so....
Jesus Christ,Unionist...You'd figure that Pam Anderson was posing in a bikini surrounded by the stock piles of skulls collected by the Khmer Rouge and that somehow I've been posting hate mail.
Your reaction is OVER THE TOP..Much like your reaction to this particular campaign.
I guess I'm mature enough to see a woman in a bikini without snickering like Beavis & Butthead.
Lighten up.
Personally I have no problem with the ad.
People are complaining that the ad commodifies human beings. The entire point of the ad is that we commodify animals and that animals are like human beings. The ad is a thought experiment that asks us how we would feel about commodifying human beings in the same manner. Most of us don't realize we do, and so most become unfortable.
There are far racier ads on public billboards and STCUM buses throughout Montreal, those who think rejecting the ad is motivated by feminist sentiment among civil servants are out to lunch.
I'm sorry...but has the argument now become entrenched in the idea that 'there is sexism elsewhere so this isn't sexism'?
I'm not following that logic.
There are far racier ads on public billboards and STCUM buses throughout Montreal, those who think rejecting the ad is motivated by feminist sentiment among civil servants are out to lunch.
Really. So why do you think they rejected the ad? You think Montreal politicians are prudes? Have you read any of the material on this?
I'm sorry...but has the argument now become entrenched in the idea that 'there is sexism elsewhere so this isn't sexism'?
I'm not following that logic.
It's important to understand why the ad was rejected, that helps to understand the forces at play.
There are far racier ads on public billboards and STCUM buses throughout Montreal, those who think rejecting the ad is motivated by feminist sentiment among civil servants are out to lunch.
Really. So why do you think they rejected the ad? You think Montreal politicians are prudes? Have you read any of the material on this?
It is self-evident to anyone who has been in Montreal that the people in charge of approving ads are anti-feminism. A bikini-clad woman promoting club-med (perhaps it was another travel agency) painted onto an STCUM bus that drives around the city is a common sight. Sexual commodification, 40 feet across.
They are definitely not prude.
What it comes down to, most likely, is that the ad's powerful mesage resonated with them and made them uncomfortable. They didn't really understand or want to understand their discomfort, so they fabricated the pretense that they're feminists. It's not unusual for people in power to run to anti-racism or anti-sexism when they need an excuse on demand.
Either that, or as Alan Smithee suggests they didn't want to offend Burger King.
************************
Let me know when fashion companies that employ cheap women labour in the third world are banned from buying up ad space from our pseudo-feminist city hall in Montreal.
Clearly, that's not the case. And in Québec, it's possible that we're somewhat more sensitive to humiliation and commodification of women than they are in (say) Pam Anderson's home country.
Jingoism.
Sigh.
500_Apples, I did strongly suggest that you read and inform yourself instead of just speculating. This was not about some paid ad in a magazine - it was about a street event, on municipal property, which required city permission. And the decision was taken with the approval of women's advocates.
Lydya Assayag, for example, director of the Québec Women's Health Action Network, hailed the move (my translation) as follows:
There is advertising which stigmatizes women in a role unequal to men. We consider this ad as sexist. It is an eminently sexual pose which reduces the woman to a permanent sexual offering.
As I say, the standards in Québec may be different from those in the U.S. To support the more enlightened attitudes toward equality of women and men in one's own society is not jingoism.
The fact it commodifies a human being as a thought experiment is the point of the ad.
Do you also believe it should be illegal to write a novel with slavery in it?
This ad doesn't so much objectify women as it depicts objectification of women.
I guess I'll just repeat myself:
Maybe if Pam Anderson didn't spend her entire life in the advertising world showing women as objects of recreation and consumption for men (and not in a critical way), then this ad may not have been quite so offensive.
Or, if the photo had been somehow intended to expose and condemn the objectification of women, I might have viewed it differently.
Clearly, that's not the case.
So no, 500_Apples, I don't think it should be illegal to write a novel with slavery in it. But for you to suggest that Pamela Anderson's salacious photo ops "depict" objectification of women is approximately equal to saying that the actions of U.S. slaveowners "depicted" slavery.
I'm not sure why we're debating something as fundamental as this, but what message do you think a child - female or male - gets from an image like this?
Now, if PETA and Pam were actually intelligent enough to create a double ad, about the commodification of women though the breaking us up into body parts, and glossy objectifying images, it might have been worth the continued social normalization of the idea that all women are is body parts. However, they would have had to have gotten a different model for the pose, as Pam has made her career and money off of selling a commodified aspect of herself.
Exactly - I just wasn't able to find the words to explain that. Thanks, remind.
Jesus Christ,Unionist...You'd figure that Pam Anderson was posing in a bikini surrounded by the stock piles of skulls collected by the Khmer Rouge and that somehow I've been posting hate mail.Your reaction is OVER THE TOP..Much like your reaction to this particular campaign.
Noooo...I think you have the progression order wrong in whose over the top.
There is no doubt that this a sexist ad campaign, much like all PETA's are, and Montreal feminists were quite correct in their assessment of its attributes, but then they are also very consistent with their positioning on the commodification and exploitation of women.
I guess I'm mature enough to see a woman in a bikini without snickering like Beavis & Butthead.
Got nothing to do with snickering and everything to do with the continued dehumanization of women, through the objectification of our body parts.
Now, if PETA and Pam were actually intelligent enough to create a double ad, about the commodification of women though the breaking us up into body parts, and glossy objectifying images, it might have been worth the continued social normalization of the idea that all women are is body parts. However, they would have had to have gotten a different model for the pose, as Pam has made her career and money off of selling a commodified aspect of herself.
...though I have to admit some feminists may perhaps be in a like mind with you Alan, and could well see it your way. Afterall there should be nothing wrong with Pam selling her body image that feeds sexism, because they believe in the selling of the whole body itself, for constant sexual uses, which is a maximum position of objectified and commodified. Thus Pam's picture should mean little to them.
Lighten up.
Personally, I am pretty serious about this type of sexist activity that normalizes the objectification of women into constant objects of sex...so...I take adomishments to "lighten up", to be quite sexist and patriarchially privileged.
ETD to Add: though one might literally say that Pam could be surrounded by the ghostly figerative skulls of all the dead women who have been murdered because we have been objectified and dehumanized through sexist objectification.
You know what it means don't you when a woman is dehumanized? It means that men are the only "humans" that exist, in men's minds, and everything else is "useable" and disposable, even women.
And you know, we women actually only just became humans 82 years ago.
So, pardon us, if we are sensitive about being dehumanized and imaged as just things for constant sexual use.
What is the story with some of you people?
You're so quick to judge people when they don't see eye to eye with you.
I'm a sexist?
OK,I do not see anything wrong with this campaign..As I said,I get the POINT of this campaign.
I also stated MORE THAN ONCE that ads for products AND PSA campaigns such as this one notoriously use sexuality or something of shock value (particularly in the case of ad campaigns such as the one Pam Anderson is pursuing)
My point was and is that if you're going to get into a huff and puff over this particular ad,WHERE is this outrage toward all the billboards which litter our buses,metros and any large canvas all over our cities that depict sexist and objectifying images of women EVERYDAY?
I have not read the Montreal Mirror in a while,but I remember the American Apparel ads that graced the back of the newspaper which depicted half naked women on all fours or with 'props' like phallic-like suckers..I even saw an American Apparel ad with girls who couldn't be older than 16 in sexual poses and situations...Not only was this sexist,degrading,objectifying and a blatant perpetuation of stereotyping..But it also was partly child pornographic...AND there is NO redeeming quality or statement...It was a proverbial meat market advertissement.
And that is my point...We all see MUCH worse EVERYDAY but we condemn an ad that uses sexuality to make A POINT.
I suggest you get busy labeling and condemning the ad execs who objectify women to solely sell a product...Wouldn't THAT be EXPLOITATION??
Just asking...
alan, talk about judging people....
as you are new here, you apparently have not seen the campaigns we have waged against american apparel...
plus you continue to be absolutely sexist while believing you are not.
Alan, no one got into a huff about it except you. Todd opened this thread to report that the city had declined a permit to use public property for this. You misunderstood and thought someone had "banned" the ad, and went on to defend it - by saying it's not as bad as others - and you continue to do so.
The ones who made a "big huff" about this incident was not the city - it was Pamela Anderson and her handlers - because she makes huge $$$ off this kind of controversy.
And thanks very much for reminding us that this isn't the only example of sexist objectification in our society. You must be thinking that someone here had forgotten that. Personally, I don't think it's a good idea to soft-pedal misogyny or any other crime by reeling off all the worse crimes happening elsewhere.
This is my first Babble post and felt compelled to respond on anything PETA. They do animal welfare a huge disservice. their antics are as I see it counter productive. They turn many people off. I have worked with many SPCA workers and not one has ever had a good word to say about PETA and I don't blame them
OK..The ad was turned down by the city and not banned---my bad.
Lost in all of this is the fact that I'm being called a sexist--which is patently untrue--because I understand that Ms Anderson was trying to make a statement,hence this campaign is not in the same ball game as ads you see everyday on our buses,metro,in stores or on billboards and that was my point.
Why was that my point? Because I had to defend myself for not seeing this particular ad as any more racy,risque,offensive,sexist or objectifying than anything we see advertised everyday.
I was not trying to be Captain Obvious...I was defending myself and just reminding all of you that there are bigger fish to fry.
P.S. You made a good point,Unionist...Pam Anderson has made a career AND a fortune out of selling her ' assets' ...As I pointed out in an earlier post,the woman is not reknowned for her acting,dancing,singing or anything except her image as a ' sex symbol'
As much as I'd like to believe the motivation of this ad is her undying love for animals and her commitment to animal rights,she is a product of Hollywood and there is not much of anything real or sincere in that town.
And for the record,I have NO INTEREST in seing these ads and I couldn't care less about them...I was trying to defend the STATEMENT and the MESSAGE...Just like I defended the campaign for atheist ads on our buses about a year ago.
That is all.
And you do know that feminists have been told there are more important battle for decades, right Mr. Not Sexist?
