“I do not think it means what you think it means.”
There has been some discussion over the past couple of days on the feminist blogosphere regarding this Target ad, depicting a woman spread-eagle on a target with her crotch where the bullseye would be. It’s been on my mind because the conversations that have spawned from this are not deviating from the standard script of discussing the objectification of women in other media forms, including videogames, so I thought I would take a moment to address some of the ‘defenses’ more thoroughly.
First of all, I don’t think that this ad is the most horrible piece of misogyny ever put up on a billboard, far from it, in fact. However, the important thing to remember is that it exists within a larger framework. One thing that we are encouraged to do is to look at each instance of objectification of women in the media as some sort of separate, special instance, and weigh the merits of the depiction without the context of a larger fabric of women as something to be consumed. Antifeminists and their apologists spend a lot of time attempting to break apart the links that can be determined from the patriarchal society in which we live; declaring that correlation does not mean causation (sometimes even when it does) and attempting to isolate ‘the thing itself’ as the only relevant topic of discussion. The fact is that we are bombarded daily with extremely objectifying, often violent depictions of the female body in the form of advertisements. This Target ad, while not the worst offender of an industry that all too often depicts women as carved-up body parts, is still trafficking in the same imagery and subtle inference that other, less-subtle ads have gotten away with for a long time.
Take, for example, this DeBeers ad:
I remember seeing this ad on a train platform a few years back and my jaw positively dropping at the implication. Diamond ads have always been obnoxious enough as it is–quite possibly the worst injection of consumerism into the romantic narrative there is–but this one went far beyond the cloying “prove how much you love her by shelling out a bunch of money for an objectively worthless rock that was probably mined with slave labor” message. Rather, the injection of violent imagery into the advertisement was beyond simply non-sequiter. It seemed to actually be addressing the sort of man who associates “romantic love” and “beating the shit out of people a la The Green Hornet.” As I had pointed out on a Pandagon thread–it might as well have read “She won’t press charges for you breaking her arm if you get her a pair of these.”
One refrain that I keep reading over and over again in these discussions is one of “intent.” For example, one commenter at Feministing writes of the Target Ad “Looking at the ad, I don’t think the intention was to put the model’s crotch in the center of the bulls eye. I think it was more towards maing sure the model was physically centered on the target. If the center of mass, her torso, was in the bulls eye, her legs would be outside of the outer ring and she would look off center in the target.” A similar dismissal of intent was raised regarding the DeBeer’s ad, and feminists in the gaming sphere are no stranger to the “that’s not what they meant, you’re just reading into it!” defense. The point is that the problem is with our perception and not with the depiction’s reality.
The simple fact is that advertising is a far too lucrative and powerful industry for this kind of argument to be effective. Whilst in college, I was talking to a friend about urban legends, particularly the penis in the background of the cover art for Disney’s The Little Mermaid. She dismissed it as preposterous, the result of hyperactive perverted imagination. As someone who worked the advertising department for a major NYC financial firm, she explained to me a universal law of copy imaging, whether they be ads, or packaging design, or logos. They all go through rigorous scrutiny by a large group of extremely qualified advertising-savvy individuals who pay special attention to not only the appeal of the image, but also the potential problems. It is very rare for something as obvious as a big ol’ dick to just “slip by” without one person in the group pointing it out. At some point in the process of reviewing the Target ad, someone would have pointed out that the eye is drawn to the woman’s crotch. At some point in reviewing the DeBeer’s ad, someone would have pointed out that the ad could be seen (even tongue-in-cheek) as an endorsement of domestic violence. This is what they are paid to do–failure to screen for these problems could result in scandal and boycotts. So when Target proposes an ad for a woman making snow angels that just happens to put her vulva in the center of the bullseye, or DeBeers declares that buying a diamond for your wife is just like knocking her around but in a tender, loving way–someone in the department is going to point that out somewhere down the line. At that point, the company has the option of either listening to or ignoring the issue (a simple matter of risk management). If they choose to ignore, it’s very often because resolving the problem of the ad would neutralize the ad’s very intent. But they cannot claim ignorance on the matter–if they do, they are admitting to all of their clients (or the headquarters) that they are incompetant at their jobs. (As for The Little Mermaid, while there is something vaguely phallic going on back there — it certainly isn’t a healthy knob as there appears to be some sort of growth or bump on it, and I suspect that my friend was ultimately right on this one.)
I doubt I will be throwing up my hands and declaring that I will never shop at Target again over this ad, but it does bother me that the one-two punch of isolation and apologia for this sort of imagery is as prevalent in our discussions as it is.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:01 am
The intent of that DeBeers ad is a total mystery to me. What exactly are they trying to say there? The disturbing “DV lite” interpretation is the first, and only, thing that comes to mind.
This is a subjective call, but I could see something relatively subtle like the Target ad getting past even intelligent people every now and again, while the DeBeers ad’s sexism is way too obvious to allow for that explanation.
If the Target ad were just an honest mistake, it seems like it’s going too far to claim that that means they’re “incompetant at their jobs”. What would determine that, at least in my mind, is whether or not Target does something about this ad once its subtext is made clear to them. I’m not holding my breath…
January 21st, 2008 at 8:13 am
Hello!
That’s the point: I doubt these people are incompetant. And while not everyone at the agency or department that thought this ad up is necessarily going to immediate leap to “OMG we just put her vag in the bullseye” someone had to have noticed it and spoken up during the ad’s review because failure to consider these things this day and age is incompetance because it could result in the ad backfiring. These people aren’t minimum wagers — they’re paid a ton of money to look for this stuff, and a failure to notice it (even if the decision is to proceed “on target” forgive the pun) is basically telling the client “we don’t deserve your money.”
It isn’t so much about original intent; it’s about what you do once the issue is raised. The original ad writer and photographer had probably intended to create a well-balanced depiction of a woman making snow-angels on the Target ad. There’s nothing wrong with that. But when the photos came back, someone had to have looked at it and said “uh, guys…” and pointed out the potential problem of it. A meeting was called at that point to determine if the depiction was potentially offensive enough that it would result in boycotts, and they decided that no — most people wouldn’t pick up on it (and I dare say most people won’t), or that the person who wrote up the ad was “too powerful” to be censored for something so subtle, or any number of bullshit corporate reasons to allow this sort of thing to go through. The point is that there is a culpability in the matter beyond simply a lack of original intent.
January 21st, 2008 at 9:11 am
I’m one of those who believes that it was intentional. I know my graphics professor is always sharing anecdotes about subconscious sexual messages in ads (”The McDonald’s logo reminds us of boobs, which reminds us of food”, etc. etc.) and always encourages us if something like that shows up in our work, intentional or not.
January 21st, 2008 at 4:43 pm
I agree that original intent doesn’t change much about the Target situation as it stands now. Either way, the ad is there, and it’s still sexist. However, everyone commits unintentional sexism every now and again. As long as it’s really unintentional, and as long as it’s sincerely corrected, no biggie, right?
Unless they fix the ad, though, they really are just a bunch of incompetent jerks.
January 21st, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Why do I get the idea that we’re arguing from the same side of the fence?
Apart from the fact that it appears that they have no intention of fixing the ad, the incompetance comes not from the fact that someone commited unintentional sexism, but in the failure of the committee to properly vett the ad with the cursory examination to check for sexism (or racism, or homophobia, or whatever).
January 21st, 2008 at 9:12 pm
I find all the talk about ‘intent’ interesting, and for a couple of reasons. First, it assumes that *everything* we do, we *intend* to do. Nothing just kinda… happens. And second, it assumes that if we didn’t intend whatever terrible consequence, we can’t be held responsible for it. Which… bizarre. And third, and this is particularly important in this case, it assumes that the only possible way for something to be sexist is for someone to *intend* it to be so. And that *their* perception of the situation *counts* for more: it is the ‘reality’. The fact of the matter is, lots and lots and lots of sexism and racism and homophobia and ageism and ableism and so on happens without people being conscious of it, and often without ‘intent’. Why this should mean that those things don’t exist is bizarre.
Also, one of the things about ad development is that it works from appeal - and this is not a straightforwardly conscious matter. I suspect that the positioning of the girl on the bullseye wasn’t straightforwardly conscious - it just looked ‘right’ to the ad writer. Balanced. Provocative. Sexy. Without much thought about what was positioned where, or the fact that women were being positioned as prey. You’re right, it should have been picked up. Perhaps it was, but as you say, the point is that the appeal is precisely what’s problematic. And intent, in the end? Why would it matter? The ad just joins a thousand others being sexist, reiterating a context that keeps positioning women in the same way…
January 21st, 2008 at 10:29 pm
“Oh, everybody does it now and then, what’s the biggie” is also right off the standard menu of dismissive responses, DSimon.
January 22nd, 2008 at 8:02 am
Wildly — I think that, as Genetic Mishap pointed out — oftentimes intent IS there even if it seems a little silly on the surface. But what I was trying to say is that even if the original ad copywriter and photographer didn’t intend to be sexist by putting her crotch in the bullseye (consciously or unconsciously), there was still a point in the ad’s vetting process where the sexism would have been noticed and addressed, and then there is a moment of intent where those concerns were ignored and the ad was sent along.
January 22nd, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Mythago, what I’m trying to get at is that “it’s just an accident” can be a reasonable defense, but only if the person making that defense then goes and actually fixes their mistake. Without that crucial second part, then saying “whoops, my bad” does just end up as a dismissal of the charge of sexism rather than a way of addressing it or properly disputing it.
January 22nd, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Er, to explain further, since looking back at my comment it seems a little Bingo-ish…
I think it’s reasonable to give some leeway for accidental, minor sexism that’s corrected for later. But, I’m not trying to say that sexism is magically canceled out with an apology and withdrawal. That justs provides a big loophole whereby people say whatever sexist crap they like and then just “apologize” for whatever they’re called on.
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:28 pm
I doubt its was an ‘omigod we didn’t see that until it went to print’ moment when the add was released. As a graduate with design background, you micro manage every friggin’ detail of an add to the point of obsessive compulsive disorder and placement of everything is one of those compulsions. We spent hours tweaking the micro-millimeters between the shapes inside individual letters, so something like a bulls-eye on someone’s crotch is no ‘oops’. And a bulls-eye shape has so much visual weight in design, you handle it with caution. Its meant to draw the viewer’s attention to where you place it. Having been racked over the coals for font choices and kerning, there is no way in graphic design hell you can say, ‘I didn’t see that’.
January 23rd, 2008 at 3:18 am
Trackback: FAQ: What is “sexism”? « Finally, A Feminism 101 Blog
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Oh, I don’t disagree, MightyPonyGirl. It’s just that when we continually reduce these things to intent, it’s all too easy for someone to claim ‘they didn’t mean it’. And besides, that tends to mean that whoever has greater privilege in the situation ‘decides’ what the ‘real’ meaning is: this is why it’s so despicable when a white persons says they ‘didn’t mean’ to be racist, and therefore they weren’t - they’re saying that *their* reading of the situation counts for more than the other person’s, and probably, being white with the mass of white culture behind them, it will… There needs to be space for saying something is sexist without that sexism being denied just because it wasn’t intended. Intent shouldn’t be the deciding factor, and it’s lack doesn’t equate to innocence; that’s all I meant.
I totally agree on the bullshit ‘due process’ thing, though; it happens a lot and it’s unacceptable.
January 26th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Hello, Ponygirl. Hope you don’t mind my checking in — you’d said on another thread that folkses like me would “leave after this and never return”… and while I don’t exactly know why that would be wrong, I didn’t want it to be true of me. So, I looked around at some other posts and found this one interesting. I’m afraid that this reply will turn out to be nearly quarter-sized.
We could talk about how important “intent” is in any given message, (a very interesting topic) but instead I think I’d like to try to challenge this a little more head-on. It seems my fate to play the bad guy, here.
Let’s say that the ad’s sexual innuendo was intentional — that her crotch was placed in the bullseye, because her crotch *is* the bullseye.
What then? Why would that be bad?
You’d said: “The fact is that we are bombarded daily with extremely objectifying, often violent depictions of the female body in the form of advertisements. This Target ad, while not the worst offender of an industry that all too often depicts women as carved-up body parts, is still trafficking in the same imagery and subtle inference that other, less-subtle ads have gotten away with for a long time.”
If we agree that the Target ad is being sexually suggestive, then I think that’s really as far as we can go. Objectifying? Perhaps. But not violent in the least (unless you’d like to suggest that since the “target symbol” has its roots in archery, we subconsciously associate it with violence… but I’d find that to be, well, stretching). Not only is that Target ad not the “worst offender,” but the ad is so unconnected with violence that it doesn’t deserve to be associated with the term “carved-up body parts” like you do in that sentence. The design has nothing at all to do with violence, but instead depicts a happy, attractive woman at play (a pretty woman making snow angels is about as non-violent an image as I can muster). If she becomes a sexual target, then it is sexual… but how does it have to do with violence, as you’ve insinuated? I do not equate sexuality with violence, and I hope that you do not, either.
I believe that men and women are equal. I also believe that men and women are sexual, and that there is nothing wrong with acknowledging this fact. There are times when I want to be respected as a deep, thinking, multi-faceted human being… and there are times when I want my fiancee to treat me as nothing more than a sexual object. Being human, I am many things, and one of those things is a sexual being; at times, a target for others’ sexual desires. I neither feel threatened by this, demeaned by this, nor diminished in my other roles.
I agree that there would be a societal problem if women were *only* seen as objects of sexual gratification, but I do not believe that to be the case. In advertising, and elsewhere, I feel that we get to see women in just about every capacity imaginable. I do not feel that it is any slight against women en masse, or in particular, to play off the fact that they can *also* be sexy. And, were I in the business of trying to sell products, I’d probably use that too, because it seems to me that the adage is true: “sex sells.”
Finally, I don’t think that sexual objectification is necessarily a “feminist issue”; I’ve seen numerous ads over the years that have had men in sexually suggestive situations, reducing them to an object of desire, or whatever. If there are ads that present both men and women as being sexual objects, then aren’t men and women equal in that respect? If we dislike the use of sex in advertising, shouldn’t that go beyond the particular gender involved? But why should we dislike the use of sex?
They advertise to use using sex because, far from disliking it, we *love* it, and buy products more when those products are associated with sex. Sex is human, appealing to both men and women. I see nothing necessarily sexist in an advertisement that sexually portrays a woman, just as I see nothing necessarily sexist in an advertisement that sexually portrays a man. Such advertisements *could* be sexist, depending on their context and overall message. But, with regard to the Target ad in question, I see that it can be considered sexual… but I do not find the sexual content to be either sexist or violent.
January 28th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Oh lucky us.
Tyler — you’re not a feminist, you don’t know the first thing about feminism, what exactly gives you the authority to declare that sexual objectification isn’t a feminist issue?
You don’t fight alongside us when we declare ads to be objectifying and denigrating of men, but you come out blazing when we declare ads to be objectifying and denigrating of women.
You announce that you believe men and women are equal but put absolutely no action behind your words. It’s like me saying I declare that my house should be clean without actually wheeling out the vaccuum.
Follow the damn links in the article if you need a primer about why sexual objectification of women in advertising is a bad thing. I’m not here to spoon-feed you.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Tyler, every post you make is about how we nasty, over-emotional feminists are all wrong what upsets us isn’t bad in the slightest. Rape, violence, objectification, degradation, abuse and every other topic we’ve touched on you’ve dismissed outright or apologetically defended or told us is perfectly fine and dandy and we shouldn’t worry our pretty little heads about. How do you get the impression you have a positive attitude about men and women with this behavior?
A target symbol is aggressive. Why? Because it is something you AIM A WEAPON OR A HARMFUL ACTION AT. So when it placed or someone’s primary sexual organ, it has a negative connotation. The least offensive and I use that term lightly, is ‘guys, stick it in here’, at worst its ‘you should be hurting this’.
Google the White Ribbon Champaign and find their site. Learn something about men (AND women) who really, truly want violence against women to stop. Talk or write to them and read up on how to really have a positive and healthy attitude towards equality.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
http://www.whiteribbon.ca/
There, I did the work for you. Now you have no excuse.
January 29th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Ponygirl:
“you’re not a feminist”
I didn’t know you were the certifying authority.
But seriously, I never claimed to be a feminist — I only said that I believe that men and women are equal, which I do, however you may feel about that. Based on conversations I’ve had with self-proclaimed feminists over the years, I long ago stopped believing that being a feminist, and believing men and women to be equal, is always the same thing.
Honestly, though, I’m disappointed that you seem to turn every disagreement into a barrage of snarky attitude and personal invective. I came to your blog with earnest disagreements, and a sincere intention to discuss the issues you’ve raised. Here, I thought we were talking about the Target ad, but your reply seems to suggest otherwise.
I’m sure that this post will only earn more of the same from you — I don’t really have reason to expect otherwise — but you might look to tone down your hostility some in the future, especially with people whom you don’t really know. I mean, if it’s actually your intention to ever show others why you might be right about certain things and why they might be wrong, to “change someone’s mind,” or the world, or something like that, I suspect you’ll have better luck by being a bit more generous and civil. The scorn you’ve shown in your replies disinclines me to truly consider what you have to say — it just leaves me feeling defensive — and I think most people react in a similar fashion.
Dungeon Keeper:
“every post you make is about how we nasty, over-emotional feminists are all wrong what upsets us isn’t bad in the slightest. Rape, violence, objectification, degradation, abuse and every other topic we’ve touched on you’ve dismissed outright or apologetically defended or told us is perfectly fine and dandy and we shouldn’t worry our pretty little heads about.”
This seems so very far from what I’ve written here, that I can only wonder. I said that I don’t think that the Target ad suggests or promotes violence, and that sexual objectification applies to both men and women, and is therefore not necessarily a “feminist” issue, and that using sexual imagery to sell products is not necessarily a sexist or bad thing to do.
This is not the same thing as calling you nasty or over-emotional, or saying that rape or abuse is “fine and dandy” or anything of the sort. Maybe other people you’ve discussed these kinds of matters with feel that way, but I’d appreciate it if you’d refrain from putting words in my mouth to make your point.
I want violence against women to stop. I also want violence against men to stop. I just disagree with you that the target symbol connotes violence in the ad we’ve been discussing. I hope you’ll agree that someone can disagree with you on that *without* that person being either anti-female, or pro-violence, or anything like that.
January 29th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Tyler — if you’re feeling that I’m not arguing in good faith then maybe it has something to do with the fact that you aren’t here in good faith and I have better things to do with my time than attempt to change the mind of an obvious troll. I could point out that despite your assertions that you believe “men and women are equal” you cannot even do the most basic of mental stretching to… say… try picturing the ad with a MAN spread-eagle with his crotch in the middle of the target. Why do we never see this sort of thing? Oh right, because men’s bodies aren’t being set up for sexual consumption as a way to move product. And yes, when it’s completely lopsided where women are ALWAYS seen as sexually available and objectified and men are rarely if ever seen in similar capacity, it’s not quite as simple as “turning us on.” But since you’re too busy looking for excuses as to why it’s OK to portray a woman’s vulva as a target, and do all sorts of yoga-moves in order to completely miss the point, I don’t really feel like it would serve any good to try to make you feel comfortable here or somehow “play nice” with you. If you can read “First of all, I don’t think that this ad is the most horrible piece of misogyny ever put up on a billboard, far from it, in fact” and decide that I’m being some shrill man-hating feminist strawwoman then the problem is not mine. However, if this site is going to be a safe haven for women who have experienced sexual violence in their lives, they don’t need you in here braying about how mean I am because I have zero tollerance for your thinly-veiled rape apologia.
I’ve dropped the ban-hammer for less. I have absolutely no problem taking the likes of you out of comments.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Maybe i should start a Troll Hall of Fame and Tyler would be one of my first inductees.
I carped about the ad on Feministing, because of its content.
January 29th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Tyler - well, you obviously didn’t follow the link and talk to some men and women who really want to stop violence towards women who could’ve helped set you straight. But you can lead a troll to water and only hope a billy goat knocks him off the bridge I guess.
Mighty One, yet another ‘right-click’ or ‘drop and drag to the portal’ opportunity awaits. I’ll by you a round at the casino afterwards.
Joan1984 - A Troll Hall of Fame? I don’t think we’d ever find enough room for such a thing. It’d be bigger than a small continent by next week.
January 30th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Waaay ahead of you. I just deleted his last message — it was absolutely precious. Same high-school debate team faux-maturity, same intellectual dishonesty and bad-faith arguments. He complained that “he didn’t know” that this blog was set up to be a safe haven for women who had experienced sexual violence, as if that sort of this must be explicitly defined as the blog’s highest purpose, instead of, y’know, a feature of the blog. Because showing compassion and respect for women who have been victimized is some sort of hipster boutique philosophy that needs its own alt channel instead of a good way to approach life, I guess.
We won’t be hearing from him again.
January 30th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Have an ale on the house, Mightiest of Pony. (Just don’t play cards with the dark angels - they cheat too well, and hold your nose when the bile demons are around.) The back of your hand must be worn out from all he ‘right-clicking’ you have to do to keep this place running.
Funny , the White Ribbon Site has a section that tells people talking to women about these sort of issues how not to behave, and Tyler managed to do all the things they strongly advise against in every post. That takes some sorta talent, but not the kind you should be proud of.