Sexism Sells: Axe Commercial Edition

Misogynistic advertising keeps pushing the limits, and it’s time for us to push back. It seems that numerous advertising agencies have taken a page from the recent Atlantic Monthly article announce “the end of men.” They have responded by demanding that men rescue their apparently fragile masculinity by reclaiming their everyday purchases from the conniving womenfolk, in everything from take out food to soap. While each of these advertising campaigns brim over with enough misogyny for a complete doctoral thesis, it is the Axe ad campaign I find most troubling.

In the unlikely event that you’ve been lucky enough to escape their advertisements (I would find this surprising; personally, the other day I had to walk under an large Axe cardboard archway display in order to buy my own girly shampoo), they can be summarized easily: a 20ish slightly dorky white guy applies an Axe product, which instantly makes every woman around him unable to resist him, sometimes to possibly violent ends.

The women in the ads, of course all white, skinny, etc., etc., might possibly be individuals at very beginning, but all of their free will is quickly overridden by the singular desire for the male main character. These women, working tirelessly towards a single, collective end, seem like characters out of some of our scariest movies: zombies, cult members, victims of electronic brain implants, and other groups of people who have lost the ability to think for themselves. In one ad, the man applies the spray and turns into chocolate, and as he walks around town women literally cannibalize him, taking large bites of his various body parts. In another ad hordes of women stampede through the landscape, bikini-clad and barefoot, all converging on one man who, of course, smells of Axe. As with most of their ads, it seems more likely that the women will rip his arms off than have sex with him, so out of control is their desire.

These terrifying ads are made to appear silly – that’s what makes them insidious. Most viewers will watch, maybe chuckle, turn the channel, and allow the positive associations with the Axe brand sink in. When women object, saying that these ads depict women as brainless sex objects, we’re written off as just more feminists with no sense of humor.

We’re not laughing because it’s not funny. These advertisements support rape culture in two main ways. While the ending is never shown, it is always left to the viewer to assume that the woman/women have sex with the man. That the women were supposedly under the influence of this magical Axe scent and therefore were never able to consent to sex is of no concern. All that matters is that men who, it is strongly insinuated, normally have no chance of getting laid, have some hot sex with some hot women. Additionally, the ads poke fun at the very concept of women raping men. Sure, says the commercial, the women assault the men, but what kind of man would turn down having sex with a hot woman, no matter what the conditions? (Answer: not the kind we’re ok with)

It’s nothing new that there’s a sexist advertising campaign going on. It’s not even new that there’s an egregiously, disgustingly sexist ad campaign going on. What’s different about Axe and similar ad campaigns, what makes it absolutely essential that American society reject them, is that the sexism is blatant and unapologetic. The goal of these campaigns, just beneath selling the product, is selling sexism. They are about men claiming what is rightfully theirs, and in Axe’s case, this means women, specifically sex with women.

MTV 2010 Movie Awards

I chose the MTV Movie Awards for background noise as I settled in for a night of putting together my Ikea chest (My third Malm, but that's another story). I have a feeling I'm not the only one who gets these awards confused with MTV's infamous Video Music Awards, or VMAs. I did some "research" on Wikipedia to clear this up. The VMAs started in 1984. This was when the channel was brand new (it started in 1981), back when video was killing the radio star, not the reality star killing all of the creative people in Hollywood. The Movie Awards didn't start until 1992, which, fun fact, was the same year the Real World first aired. Otherwise known as the year the music died.

Ok, I'm sorry, I'll stop mangling song lyrics. My point, which has been made many times before, is that MTV used to be truly cutting edge. Madonna's performance of "Like A Virgin" at the first VMAs is a classic moment in US pop culture. Clearly my research is not in depth enough to back this statement up, but I have a feeling that the Music Video Awards were just created as a ploy to try to get ratings for another "alternative" awards show.

Of course I shouldn't remotely try to grapple with all of my thoughts on MTV at once, but it did host one of my favorite shows, the animated series Daria. Daria was nerdy, awkward, shy, painfully smart, had a kick-ass artsy best friend, and they were pretty much better than anyone else, adults or kids, boys or girls. In short, I worshipped her. She also had a little sister, Quinn, who was a popular airhead. At some point MTV forgot that Quinn was the butt of the jokes and started believing her and her kind were more important than the Darias of the world.

The VMAs every year still make a pathetic attempt to be cutting edge, elude to being the home of Daria, not to mention Bevis and Butthead, but the shock value of edgy, skimpy clothes, unrehearsed stunts, and iconoclastic performances have disappeared in a world where each reality show flounders so constantly to find a new edge (little people making chocolate! Sisters bikini waxing each other!) that we don't remember what scintillating feels like anymore.

So VMAs meek sister show, which I don't think ever tried to be much more scandalous than having a "best kiss" category, has become so empty that the entire show is just ad layered on ad. The presenters? All there to promote their movie that's out, or their movie that's coming out, or their movie that we haven't heard about but they're building up suspense for. Or maybe they're there to promote a new album. Whatever it is, they're there to promote something. The entire show seemed to be just one big ad for the Twilight series, from the Twilight stars' close ups at the very top of the show, to the finale of the show: a "sneak peek" at the preview for the next movie. I normally can't stand how even good actors turn in achingly hollow performances reading their lines in the "banter" that happens between presenters in other awards shows, but at least in other shows they're there, nominally, for the sake of being there, for the honor of presenting the award. No one was there for the sake of being there, except for maybe the fans, but seeing as there were absolutely no shots of them, I'm not convinced they were even there.

I thought that there was going to way too much in the show for me to write about it all. But it was just incredibly boring. There were of course lots and lots of penis jokes, bathroom humor, and, of course, sexist jokes (also the seemingly now obligatory two straight women kissing), but not much to write home about. The stand out to me was Aziz Ansari as a pretty amusing host, something I've rarely seen pulled off.

The only truly interesting thing was the absence of reality TV. There was every kind of celebrity in attendance, even Shaun White, the Olympic gold medalist. But I didn't catch a glimpse of a single reality TV star, or any reference to reality TV at all. In another twist I can't quite figure out, the producer of the show, Mark Burnett, is the same the British producer who introduced that special competitive breed of reality television to the US, starting with Survivor. Come now, wouldn't it have been entertaining for him to bring in one of the many washed up musicians turned reality stars such as Flava Flav or Brett Michaels? After all, isn't an awards show just another reality show?

Perhaps, just perhaps, Burnett thought that the only way to wring any last drops of surprise out of the show was to go retro, and actually celebrate (mostly incredibly bad) art; in essence, the be a regular awards show. I think the show was such a failure because the great allure of an awards shows used to be getting to see celebrities not perform, supposedly getting some glimpse into who they really are. Watching these shows, we don't feel special, like someone has slipped us a back stage pass, anymore when we get to see something that seems behind the scenes. We assume and demand it, it is in everything we read and everything we watch.

Stay tuned, I'm sure, for the MTV Reality TV Show Awards.

You're Cut Off (entry one)

Oh my goodness. VH1 has a new show that definitely is in the running for one of the shows that perpetuates the most negative stereotypes of any show ever. It's called "You're Cut Off." I've only been able to stomach watching a few minutes, and my brain is still processing the layers and layers disgustingness, so these are just my first thoughts. The premise, as with ever so many reality shows, involves lots of women living in too close quarters with too much alcohol. As far as I can gather all of the women are very rich, but none independently. I thought the cut off bit was just that they were made to go with their ridiculous amount of money for a bit, but I think supposedly their "benefactors," as the host called them, pretty creepily, cut them off, and only the winner gets to be taken back into the folds of wealth. Maybe? I can't really be bothered to figure it out, and it's not like anyone cares.

There's a bit of a (yes, I do remember this entire show name) Flavor of Love Girls Charm School Starring Mo'nique quality about it, as there's a woman host, the model of lady like behavior, who is there to teach these out of control women to be lady like. As with Mo'nique's show, the audience and host watch in horror, horror!, as the contestants behave "badly," with a capital B, if you know what I mean. The explicit purpose of both shows is for these women to be put in their place. In reality show's amazing capacity to get lower when you thought they were at the bottom, there is an explicit purpose to their training, other than being functional members of society, which is to be properly demure and grateful to their "benefactors" (I'm assuming mostly meaning boyfriends, husbands, and fathers). Can you see what I'm talking about people? The levels of sexism are just unending! The women in this show act so horrendously mean, spoiled, and generally unappealing that it is practically impossible not to be drawn into the premise and very badly want them all to be knocked down a peg.

As always though, it's not just the premise that's a problem. Just in these few minutes I got to see enacted not only pretty much every negative stereotype of women in general (backstabbing, overly sensitive, nosy, etc. etc.), but also black women (the black women are particularly vicious). I also was treated to a discussion of old versus new money, a Jewish woman wearing some shirt involving being proud to be a JAP (jewish american princess), and a van full of women being terrified of being driven to a spa that is in a neighborhood that has, *gasp*, barbed wire. Then they enter the Asian spa where all of the Asian staff is standing waiting for them, and of course the show plays some of that stereotypical Asian music that seems to be legally required for most shows to play when any Asians appear on screen.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, was all in one segment between commercial breaks. I'm assuming I'll have more to write about this, but it's just possible that it's beyond even my limits and I'll never, ever, see or write about it again.

To Catch A Predator

Somehow last night there was nothing on TV, even by my incredibly low, low standards. I'd maybe watched a minute or two of To Catch A Predator before, so I decided to check it out. Before I get into it I just need to take a minute to appease my inner grammar nerd. Why are we using the infinitive form? Wouldn't "catching" be more accurate? Surely it's not an instructional show on how to catch a predator. Seeing as I'm at a loss to find any deeper meaning in this mystery, I'll move on.

Before even watching the show I had a problem with its premise. Just in case anyone has been living under a rock for a while, the show is essentially a filmed sting operation. Someone working for the show (no doubt a poor intern) has the unenviable job of posing as a teenage girl and finding older men to have very explicit sexual conversations with, and then getting them to agree that they meet up to have sex. The man shows up at the house she told him to go to, at which point the host literally emerges from behind a curtain to confront the man about his intentions. Any kind of entrapment of course offends any good progressive, but I feel that in this particular case, the argument for the intent to commit a crime is especially weak. One of the men objects that what he said online and what he would actually do in real life are different. Now, do I think he actually showed up to have a wholesome time bowling with this fake girl? No. But I think he has a very valid point. Anyone who has ever talked online with a stranger in any situation knows that part of the appeal is being able to create a persona who is as different from you as you want, and being able to say things you would never say in real life. Not that I had a lot of love for our justice system to begin with, but I find it deeply disturbing that having an internet conversation and then showing up at a specific location is apparently grounds for arrest.

While I find hosts of any reality show rather annoying, I think the existence of one in this show is the core of why it's so problematic. If the host didn't exist, the show would consist of one man after another showing up at a house and being arrested. That's pretty boring TV though. So the host shows up. But what is his purpose? As I mentioned earlier, the content of the online conversations is very sexually explicit. Before we meet the man, the host reads the most lascivious parts to us, as the screen presents us with a picture of the man above the written text. Cut to the men walking in the house. The host always asks why they are there, at which point they always lie, giving him an opportunity to read the sexy bits aloud again from the conversation. Once he is done doing that, he asks leading questions such as, "you came here to have sex with her tonight, didn't you." In case the audience hadn't gotten it, some gross, naughty illegal sex was just prevented from going down.

This show is a great example of how television does a horrible job at differentiating what sexual things should be treated as excitingly sexual. The men tend to be in their 30s (from little bit I watched), and the girls are about 15. The girls initiate the conversations, the girls begin the flirting leading to the conversations about sex, and the girl suggests a meet up. The show is apparently unequivocal that the man's intentions are bad, because it is statutory rape, but it is simultaneously selling sex.

I'm always shocked at how little Americans understand and agree on what rape actually is. How old is old enough? What if she didn't say no? What if she was drunk? What if she changed her mind in the middle? What if she's just plain lying that it happened? And then, of course, what if she actually wanted it? That last question is what drives To Catch A Predator. I'm not a person who believes, as some do, that there is "grey" rape. It is or it isn’t, and the act of sex should be considered entirely different from the act of rape. The problem with statutory rape, morally, is that it is conditional on the ability of each different girl to consent. It can be so hard to tell which it was, because we cannot see inside the girl's brain. I think there are definitely 15 year olds who can consent to having sex with a 24 year old (these were the ages in on of the cases) but there are also 15 year olds who are not mature enough to give true consent. So when you're generalizing about 15 year olds and sex, there is an inherent lack of clarity on whether it is rape or not, which makes it appear to be a gray area. I absolutely believe that exactly because it is so complicated there should be laws against statutory rape, but laws and morality are not always the same thing.

So when To Catch A Predator makes this generalization, it plays on this grayness. The draw of the show isn't about the predators, it's about the titillation of sexy school girls. You (the predator, and the voyeur) know it's technically wrong to have sex with them, but is it really wrong wrong if they say they want it?

Americans love catching bad guys. Why are there so many crime dramas on TV? So they can introduce us to a despicable character who they give us just enough time with to hate before they relieve us by catching the bastard and putting him away for good. That is part of what is work here. Everyone knows pedophiles are the worst of the worst, that in prison pedophiles get ganged up on because even other criminals are disgusted by them. So, as in crime dramas, To Catch A Predator sets us up with a criminal to hate. Who wouldn't want to catch a predator? The show pretends that the explicit details presented over and over are there to show us how very bad these men are, but it’s just too gratuitous for that to be the case. What they really do is make us, probably not consciously, think about sexy teenagers having sex. It intentionally blurs the line between rape (bad!) and sex (very hot!), so that the show can capitalize on two things Americans really love at once: catching the bad guy, and sex.

The more we allow the blurring of this (solid) line, the more we encourage rape culture, by allowing the potential for rape to seem sexy. I could write a completely other post on how Law and Order SVU captures its viewers with the sexiness of rape and other sexual crimes.