I noticed this a few weeks ago and sent in a complaint to the relevant organization. Very quickly, I received a friendly and thoughtful reply generally stating that they just wanted a humourous image so as to catch people's attention, and did not mean to devalue anyone.

While I believe that the message we are reading was indeed unintentional, I think that that is pretty much the point we are making - devaluing women into nothing more than objects to be looked at is so common and so accepted that many times we don't even notice we are doing it. I recommend others to email the BC Cancer Agency and let them know how you feel.

I'm torn by images like this, breast cancer awareness campaigns, even the over-the-top examples for which PETA has become famous.

All of the "problematic" issues granted, there's a fact that women's (and men's!) bodies are beautiful and "positive sexuality" remains worthy of promotion in our otherwise "you're not good enough" media landscape.

For me the central question in image analysis - one which I think PETA's ads are most problematic - is whether it's so reductive to a sexualized body that it impedes more humanizing interpretations.

In this specific example, the text "The World Needs Women," demonstrates a clear intent to do more than promote the mythology of the statuesque female form.

Oh, THANK YOU. I live in Vancouver and I keep seeing that ad, but I'm always in too much of a rush so I can't get a name to look up and complain to.

"If we didn't have women to objectify, who would we ogle?" doesn't ring true for me. To accept that, one must view Botticelli's "Birth of Venus" as an objectification of women. It's problematic for me. I see it as a masterpiece full of beauty, grace and dignity.

The underlying fault with this advertisement is the idea that this plump, demurely posed male image is intended to be seen as clownish, laughable, unattractive and unmanly. The message is that only certain very narrow and rigid body types (and gender roles) are "acceptable". The premise on which this designer created the ad wouldn't work if it were a stereotypical "buff" male image instead of a feminized overweight one. Personally, I don't find this body unattractive so the advertisement was an immediate failure for me and would be to anyone who doesn't buy the current definition of beauty.

In this instance it is fat people being made "other". Ridicule and hatred of fat people is so ingrained in our culture that it can be right in your face and difficult to see because it is so accepted. People buy the idea that fat is unhealthy and that "those darn fatties" are willfully fat or pitifully ignorant. And no matter what the headlines tell you, the science DOES NOT support either of those assumptions as uniformly as we are lead to believe.

The ad seems to have disappeared and been removed from the link.

Wow, thanks for featuring this one - it's been annoying me every time I see it here in Vancouver, which is frequently. It is initially visually arresting, but the message isn't even working; it makes me think BC Cancer is a sexist agency, and I find myself becoming irritated thinking about the ad every time I think about getting a pap smear.

I saw a chap today in a T-shirt with a picture on it of lottery balls. Above the picture it said "Cancer is a lottery" and below it "Check your balls." I can't find a picture, but I did find a British TV ad that uses the same pun.

I thought the shirt was a. witty and pithy, and b. interestingly different from the way women's cancer screening is usually presented, which is as a duty we owe to others rather than someothing of direct benefit to us.

Link to ad goes nowhere. Fix please? I'd really like to see the ad, sounds interesting.

Here is the cached version:
http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:dI1oMlJ1WoMJ:www.bccancer.bc.ca/paps+http://www.bccancer.bc.ca/PPI/Screening/Cervical/media/PAPAwareness/default.htm&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

The human body is beautiful only when idealized and objectified.

"the birth of venus" does not objectify women, sorry.

Thanks for the help, Ashley. I added it to the post.

I know the link was viable when I first put the post up. I'm not sure what's going on over there, if anything.

Direct link to ad image: http://www.bccancer.bc.ca/NR/rdonlyres/A78DBC69-11A4-40E9-86D3-7EBFD6FC258B/36237/BCCancerBanner_160x600.jpg

or

http://tinyurl.com/kpe68y

I read this when the site was down and the cache wasn't up. I was expecting much worse. The birth of venus celebrates women in a way that isn't exploitative or overly sexualized. I think the ad is appropriate and effective.

The Birth of Venus doesn't objectify, but this ad does. It's possible to take something innocent or even empowering and turn it into objectification. This ad pretty much exemplifies that.

how the hell does this objectify women? my read: without women, we'd lose some beauty in the world...and be stuck wih joe from jersey...funny... and i'll definitely remember the ad. perception bias much?

Todd, yes, that is their point. But that point itself is objectifying because it suggests that women exist for others rather than for themselves.

"Without women, we’d lose some beauty in the world…"
implies
"...so the bad thing about YOU DYING would be that WE wouldn't get to look at you."

Also WE (the world) only encompasses men.

@missprimm and @todd; but that's not what the ad says. It *says* "The world needs women."

It *shows* the Roman goddess Venus (of love, beauty and fertility) as a big guy with a mustache, visually turning the ancient myth on its head.

I'm not suggesting your interpretations aren't possible, buts it's certainly one among many, isn't it?

By choosing to use the imagery of the birth of Venus, this advertisement is, more or less, telling women that the beautiful ones among us are the ones worth saving. It implies that our appearance is worth more than the differences we can make through our actions. That's not objectifying?

I mean, they could have used, say, Rosie the Riveter and -- without any modifications to the image -- used the same "punchline" and, to me, it would have had a much greater impact.

It *shows* the Roman goddess Venus (of love, beauty and fertility) as a big guy with a mustache, visually turning the ancient myth on its head.

It's not as if there wasn't an equally classical male god of love and erotic desire, anyway.

@Elena How would using the Eros image have worked with the message?

Interesting thought though: Would the "gag" (and critique) still work if this was a prostate cancer awareness ad with a woman's figure Photoshop'ed over Eros?

@maotsedan: My point is that the ancient myth, despite general misogyny in Greek and Roman societies, at least acknowledged male beauty in parallel to female beauty. Eros would not have worked with this ad in either breast or prostate cancer versions because it hinges on the twin pillars of heteronormativity and the male gaze.

(By the way, it is interesting that the iconography of Eros/ Cupid has changed from an attractive young man with wings in classical times to the sexless infant Cupid of today)

as a 25 year old gay man! I'm a little shocked that everyone on here is looking so far past the point of the ad. Stop and admire the comical side of it and don't judge the image. Yes the ad clearly has a half naked man and YES he isn’t pretty, don’t you think that was done intentionally?

I feel that the unflattering man symbolizes that if women don't get pap tests then we'll be missing the most beautiful thing in the world and that’s all of you! WOMEN!!!

And Lisa stop labeling yourselves (women) as objects because in this day in age the only people in NORTH AMERICA who considering women as objects are you. I don't see women protesting and commenting on the Underwear ads of Calvin Klein, where men are an object? I also don't see how diet pills and skinny women have anything to do with BC cancer. I didn't know proper dieting these days is considered cancer!!

I don't know much about marketing but you can see that a lot of thought was put into this ad to make sure they don't degrade women and hurt the feelings of people like you. But because you cant find any real fault with it, a negative interpretation of to this ad came through.

I'm not trying to poke harm to the women’s rights but sometimes its just ridiculous. I feel that women these days are equal or even stronger then men which makes me proud of them.

I'm bothered by how comments directed at an ad that clearly indicates; "women beautiful, men ugly" focus solely on the objectification of women; when men are objectified as well, and in a more negative context.

If an add was placed indicating that we need to save men, because otherwise we'd be left with only women to make money; would you feel more insulted for the men or the women?

I am a heterosexual woman, and I do find this guy nice and attractive.

Which seem to mean, that I'm a PERVERT.
:)

Where are these ads displayed?
I live in Vancouver and I've yet to see them.
Actually, I work in a doctor's office where we often display posters from the BCCA about Paps and mammograms and PSA tests, etc. If they sent us a poster like this, I would not put it up.

I've seen this ad and thought it was rather clever, actually. Everyone in this thread seems to remember this ad quite vividly and that is the point of this campaign. When we have women's issues as serious as cervical cancer and women are still not getting regular paps, the message about screening needs to be memorable and effective. While it may be problematic that a less positive representation of female beauty was used (eg. "Joe from Jersey" as a parody vs. the original, which would have been fine), would we be saying the same thing if this was an image of a masculinized Mona Lisa, fully clothed? I don't think the ad claims that only beautiful women are worth being saved as much as it claims that all women are beautiful since this condition concerns all women. Also, let's consider the intended audience (this is probably not in a man's washroom, I assume)- the unattractive man then becomes the punchline to this "joke" advertised to women in hopes of grabbing their attention.

@Cute Bruiser: Yes, Rosie the Riveter would have been another great image to use but I feel like it's been re-appropriated so many times that it doesn't pack as much of a punch.

@Annebonannie: I think you're right. The more problematic assumption is that people who are overweight are represented as laughable and unhealthy.

wow, now that's what i call a transphobic, misogynist, gender policing advertisement.

MissPrism hit the point exactly. Pap smears aren't good because they'll save your life, they're good because then men will be able to look at your boobies.

I guess there's something wrong with me cause I think he's kinda cute, probably because his body is very much like my boyfriends:)