Comments on: “No Women’s Bodies were Exploited in this Ad”

By: Andrea

Andrea — Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:46:10 +0000

it´s good. But I still think of the bodies in that kind of shoes…

By: Tre

Tre — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 06:55:22 +0000

I don’t see a jab at women in this ad, but at people who say that women who take off their clothes to sell shoes are exploiting women are ridiculous. If it makes you remember an Ad, whats the problem? They’re fucking shoes. The guys want them sold, and they look great on this guy, and the boots well, I wouldn’t buy them lol… I think people need to step back and realize an ad is an ad… want to be a feminist, empower women monetarily and make sure they are more involved in this Age Of Reason. Screw the pasts definitions and deifications of stereotypes of overlord advertisers. If you don’t remember the ad, why would you go into their stores?

By: Lili

Lili — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:25:02 +0000

The ad of the naked man with just shoes on is moking and answering to previous ad by Le Coq Sportif, with the same shot but with a woman.

By: Sara

Sara — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 23:04:03 +0000

on a late response to Po Cassidy “The ostrich is by far the most liberal of the two” – it probably is the less considering those shoes probably ARE made of other members of the same species and animals are far more repressed than women or men have ever been.
I do agree with Betty that it is a clever marketing campaign as it makes feminism seem ridicule and pretends women exploitation in ads is a thing to not be worried about – and at the same time is jokes “see, men can sell shoes too!” – yeah but the whole point is that no-one should be objectified to sell whatever the hell they’re selling this time.. men or women (and yes, I’m guessing we all admit we like looking at either one or the other naked – that’s exactly why they use naked/semi-naked/erotic images – but that still doesn’t make it right).
Personally I find it wrong to use men, women or animals to sell shoes or whatever else they want us to wear… there re so many amazing, creative, genius campaigns/ads that don’t need to resort to a no-brainer such as sexually-filled images and still manage to not offend anyone… why not put that degree to use? x

By: zeeshan

zeeshan — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 04:16:51 +0000

they would rather concentrate on what the ad is about than trying to create a different impression with it…may be they just wanted to be innovative…

By: xoas

xoas — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:31:22 +0000

over-analyzing… all of you, no exceptions.

By: Sanju

Sanju — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:30:29 +0000

I think what this means is that if we aren’t expoiting women, we have to exploit something else, and if not that, then something else. Society is sad. Visit my website for the new world order solution.

By: Giselle

Giselle — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 21:37:02 +0000

It’s funny, I think is was the main point in this campaign. Don’t take it so serious.

By: resmc

resmc — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 18:31:08 +0000

This may be reading too much into it, but I suspect – like most shoes, sadly – the bodies of both women & men were exploited in producing the footwear show on each image …

By: Xiphactinus audax

Xiphactinus audax — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 22:47:46 +0000

Incidentally, the ostrich is also male.

By: Keesean

Keesean — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 18:38:03 +0000

No matter how cheap or limited their budget may have been, the underlying concept is an artistic statement ( the company’s intentions are irreverent )

Art is measured by the reaction it produces, and these ads (even though they are by no means louvre worthy) made me think about something bigger than shoes.

By: Feminist Law Professors » Blog Archive » Mocking Sexism or Mocking Feminism?

Wed, 31 Dec 2008 00:52:36 +0000

[...] Via Sociological Images. [...]

By: ex-Ad exec

ex-Ad exec — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 12:16:30 +0000

Seriously, don’t worry about it. Its the oldest trick in the book – they’re just trying to stretch a small advertising budget further by trying to stir up a bit of controversy. You can easily tell by how unclear which side of the fence it is that they sit. That way they get the best of both worlds – the free advertising in the media and on forums such as this and an easy way to backpedal out of it should people really get offended. They’re not even being that clever, so how about we don’t give them another seconds airspace…?

By: Livetta

Livetta — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 04:47:24 +0000

I think, as Betty put it so well, they they are trying to play the court from both sides, to point out the exploitation and make a jab– I mean, they’d win either way. The non-obvious thing about the emu, though, is that it can be taken as a jab at PETA, too. “Aucun corps de femme n’a été exploité dans cette publicité,” but the bodies of an animal and of a man were. The emu, interestingly, is not sexualized the way the man is– I recall oddly sexualized anthropomorphic horses and dogs being sold as toys for young girls (some posts back), so I don’t think it’s as strange a thing to notice as it might appear at first thought.

By: Alaska

Alaska — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 23:42:59 +0000

I’m pretty sure the message is “Fine social watchdogs, have it your way. We won’t use women in our advertising. The shoes still look damn good.”

Just to clarify, I’m not trying to be facetious here. I actually think that’s the message.