Instead I'm going to talk about something that's been causing a bit of consternation amongst people I know. You may be offended by the content.
You may be aware that Diesel, as in the clothing company, have recently had this campaign on the go:
The fuss this has been causing is that the campaign apparently objectifies women. Additionally, in the windows of the shop branches (or, at least, the one nearest me in Glasgow) there are pairs of jeans suspended in the window demonstrating various sexual positions. The use of red writing in the slogan also give connotations of the Red Light District, we are led to believe.
To me, however, the protest is deeply flawed. The trouble is, the women in the posters are not all topless. They either have on bra tops, or where they are topless, their breasts are mostly obscured by their arms or otherwise. The men are the ones that go topless in all the images.
My flat mate was recently in the uni library and was checking her email to receive a message about this from the university's women's group. Unfortunately, the girl sitting next to her - your typical militant feminist stereotype, broad-shouldered, heavily pierced and short-haired - was looking over her shoulder and commented how disgraceful it was, and how sexist the campaign was. My flat mate pointed out that the women are not all topless, but the men are, and that could amount to objectification of men. This girl responded that there was no such thing as objectification of men. This is, of course, bollocks. If you can objectify women you can objectify men. My flatmate pointed out to this girl that of course men can be objectified (example: Heat magazine's 'Torso of the Week' feature), and that surely to say otherwise was sexist. This girl was so appalled at being accused of sexism she stopped what she was doing at her computer, logged out and stormed off in a huff.
The thing is though, if it discriminates against women, then it also discriminates against homosexuals and other races. It is just your typical white, straight high street campaign, not all that different from many others. If anything, I'm more disgusted by the fact that the girls are unnecessarily skinny, and that all models have 'perfect' bodies. Yes, I gripe about this regularly. I take a 16-18 in high street brands (and I've never bought Diesel; usually New Look). I'm 5'5, I weigh 12-13 stone and I take a 36GG in bra size. Yes, that was probably too much information. What I'm trying to say is that a lot of high street brands do use slim models for their campaigns, which is disconcerting.
Plus, Diesel are not the first brand to use sex as an advertising campaign. Look at Ann Summers; they do it regularly. When I walked past one of the branches in Glasgow city centre last night on my way to the pub celebrating the demise of big D, the latest ad campaign featured a Playboy bunny ensemble. Surely that's an example of objectification too? As is featuring lingerie models in the windows of Bravissimo and La Senza?
What I'm saying is, I feel there are those who regularly blur the line between feminism and reverse sexism. Feminism is not a bad thing. A lot of stereotypes are held about feminists; we're all lesbians, we don't like sex, we hate men, we can't cook. All bullshit. Every woman - straight or lesbian, black or white, blonde or brunette, old or young - is a feminist. You show me a woman who says she isn't a feminist, I'll show you a liar. All women are feminists; it's almost compulsory. Some, however, are more feminist than others. It is the militant feminists who actually undermine the feminist mission more even than chauvinists do; they seem to fight for the superiority of women over men rather than gender equality, which should be the real aim.
PS I should like to point out that I don't buy Diesel - not to boycott their campaign, but because their jeans don't accommodate my thighs.
