Florida Family Association wishes American Muslims a Hateful Christmas

OMG TERRURISTS!

Jezebel writes that American home-improvement chain Lowes has pulled its advertising from TLC's reality show All-American Muslim after complaints from the Florida Family Association.

According to TLC's online preview:

"All-American Muslim follows the daily lives of five American Muslim families in Dearborn, Michigan, one of the most established and largest concentrations of American Muslims in the country. Each episode offers an intimate look at customs and celebrations, as well as misconceptions, conflicts, and differences these families face outside and within their own community."

 In other words, it is offering a peek beyond the xenophobia, to portray the diverse people behind the faith.

This infuriates the Florida Family Association, who sent out an alert to all their members to e-mail TLC with complaints:

"The Learning Channel's new show All-American Muslim is propaganda clearly designed to counter legitimate and present-day concerns about many Muslims who are advancing Islamic fundamentalism and Sharia law.  The show profiles only Muslims that appear to be ordinary folks while excluding many Islamic believers whose agenda poses a clear and present danger to liberties and traditional values that the majority of Americans cherish."

My. Oh. My. Can't you just feel the love of Jesus Christ throbbing in their veins? The FFA's mission statement is to "educate people on what they can do to defend, protect and promote traditional, biblical values." (Apparently, "love thy neighbour" ain't one of these.)

Lowe's gave the lamest excuse ever for giving in to fundamentalist pressure:

"Individuals and groups have strong political and societal views on this topic, and this program became a lightning rod for many of those views. As a result we did pull our advertising on this program. We believe it is best to respectfully defer to communities, individuals and groups to discuss and consider such issues of importance."

Way to go, asshats. Spineless and callous is no way for a brand to go through life.

Predictably, some public figures are calling for a boycott of the cowardly brand, including Democratic Senator Ted Lieu, who is calling for a Christmas boycott of Lowe's. He says, "The show is about what it's like to be a Muslim in America, and it touches on the discrimination they sometimes face. And that kind of discrimination is exactly what's happening here with Lowe's."

LOTS of room for improvement in this brand.

Related: Buzzfeed's 25 Dumbest Comments On Lowe's Facebook Page About “All-American Muslim”

More hysterical censorship from the UK

Source

This transit ad, from the UK's Marks & Spencer chain, has been banned by the kingdom's ad regulator for being too sexy.

From their ruling:

"We noted the complainants’ concerns that this ad, displayed on buses, was likely to be seen by children. We considered that most children viewing the ad would understand that the poster was advertising lingerie and, as such, the models would not be fully clothed. We considered that the pose of the woman lying on the bed was only mildly sexual in nature, and as a result was unlikely to be seen as unsuitable to be seen by children. However, we considered that the pose of the woman kneeling on the bed was overtly sexual, as her legs were wide apart, her back arched and one arm above her head with the other touching her thigh. We also noted that the woman in this image wore stockings. We considered that the image was of an overtly sexual nature and was therefore unsuitable for untargeted outdoor display, as it was likely to be seen by children. We concluded that the ad was socially irresponsible."

If you read this blog, you know my stand on this. Using sex to sell everything is just lazy. Objectifying women in ads is insulting. But those are my opinions, not things I want regulated.

I honestly believe that we, as consumers, need to decide for ourselves what we are willing to tolerate from advertisers. Sexual exploitation of women in ads is so commonplace, in ads aimed at both men and women, that I'm surprised it has any breakthrough potential at all anymore. My 7-year-old son, just last weekend, was stopped in his tracks by a larger-than-life POP poster at Sears showing a woman in see through underwear. But that stopping power wears off. (In his case, he just blurted out "booby covers!" and laughed.)

You can choose to complain to a business about their ads. Or you can choose to not do business with them. You can choose to complain to the owner of the media. But this knee-jerk banning that's happening with the ASA in the UK really seems over the top to me. Plus, it only works into the offending advertisers hands by giving people a reason to take notice of their ads.

Generally, in social marketing, we feel that it's more effective to recognize and reinforce good behaviour than punish and shame bad. Imagine if organizations like the ASA put more of their efforts into celebrating the advertisers who are "socially responsible",  giving them the free PR while the naughty ones languished in the oversaturated sexy soup of the ad landscape. Wouldn't that be nice?

Via The Drum and The Telegraph

"Degrading" Lynx ads banned in UK

According to Adfreak, a series of online ads for Lynx (Axe) deodorant have been banned by the UK's ad authority for implying that "using the advertised product would lead to more uninhibited sexual behaviour" and concluded, "we therefore considered that the poster would be seen to make a link between purchasing the product and sex with women and in so doing would be seen to objectify women."

While I find the ads juvenile and tasteless, I'm not sure I buy the ASA definition of how women are objectified in the ads. For example, in the ad above there is no doubt in my mind that the model, Lucy Pinder, is being sexually objectified. But I don't think it's Lynx's laughable claim that it will get you laid by ladmag models that does it. It's the way the model presents her T&A to the camera with a porno stare, with the joke about premature ejaculation. (Which I find pretty funny, given the youthful target market.)

I'm sure anti-rape groups will also be outraged at the implication that it's okay for a man to "lose control" when he sees a woman sexualized like this. But in context of the other ads in the campaign, the pun is made more clear:

I just find the ads irresponsible and degrading to their young male masturbathlete target market as they are to the model (who is at least getting paid). But I still think banning them is the wrong idea. Better to just expose this crap for what it is — lazy, sexist advertising.

Nude activism continues to take over the internet

First PETA. Then FEMEN. Then, last month, Egyptian blogger Aliaa Magda Elmahdy posted naked pictures of herself online to protest sexist oppression.

Now it's Chinese supporters of dissident artist Ai Weiwei who are dropping trou for a cause.

According to Shanghaiist,  Ai Weiwei announced Friday that Beijing police were now investigating his assistant Zhao Zhao for "spreading pornography online" for posting a picture of the artist with four female models, all nude. (Link)

The site, "Listen, Chinese Government： Nudity is not Pornography" is packed with homemade nudes from both well-known outspoken Chinese cewebrities and well-wishers.

What I really love are the group shots censored with AWW faces:

There is no doubt that this will get attention. Naked people always seem to, no matter how many billions of artistic, scientific and erotic nude pictures are available at the stroke of a Google. But as the shock value diminishes with the increasing ordinariness of seeing other humans in their altogether, will the efficacy of the tactic also fade?

I guess we'll just have to see. But as long as places like Egypt and China (not to mention many Western democracies) continue to harshly fight the normalization of naked displays of the human body, there will still be someone to scandalize.

(Thanks to FEMEN for the tip)

Egyptian blogger exposes herself for freedom (nudity)

We are used to seeing all kinds of nudity in the West. But in the Muslim world, it is much different. Even fairly secular countries censor nudes in art as well as advertising.

20-year-old Egyptian blogger Aliaa Magda Elmahdy wants to change that. Last month, she started a new Google blog, called "Nude Art" which features full-frontal nudes of herself and an unidentified male, as well as a cat and some artsy underwear and embrace shots.

They're not great art shots. They look like 1940s amateur pornography. But like that, what they do have is a certain authentic and defiant naïveté from someone who wants to own her own body in a culture than denies that freedom.  The most political of the pictures features self-censorship: “The yellow rectangles on my eyes, mouth and sex organ resemble the censoring of our knowledge, expression and sexuality,” she explained.

“I have the right to live freely in any place… I feel happy and self satisfied when I feel that I’m really free,” she said.

Nothing particularly shocking to jaded Western internet eyes. But in Egypt, where the post-Tahir atmosphere is one of increasingly conservative religious influence, this is practically treason.

The responses on the blog on Twitter (#nudephotorevolutionary) are in both English and Arabic. One negative comment is translated as “a desperate act of social political suicide by a young woman”. And another: “We are defending secularism from innuendos & then we get this #NudePhotoRevolutionary Stop shocking people to the point of repulsion.”

But the comments also show that there is a new generation, globally informed, who want more than an end to political oppression. They want total freedom. Said one English commenter:

"I'm very impressed and inspired by your courage. The revolution in Egypt needs to be a catalyst for greater freedom of expression. If somebody wants to wear a hijab they should be free to do so without facing discrimination but you must also be able to express yourself any way you choose without fear. It's your body and it's entirely up to you how you choose to express yourself."

Is this how a sexual revolution begins?

Link and Arabic translations via Almasri Ayoum
Tip via FEMEN

FEMEN find a new home on Google+ (painted nudity)

Ukrainian topless activists FEMEN, who seem most at home on old fashioned Livejournal, have never really felt welcome on Facebook. Since their main protest tactic is to take their shirts off and fight with police, it's not surprising that the prudes at Facebook often delete their photos and even ban the group.

Well, now they're testing the waters on Google+. So far, the new social network (unlike Google property YouTube) has not been particularly censoring of content. It will be interesting to see how FEMEN make use of the freedom.

Although, since they update in Ukrainian, I may need Google Translate as well.

No! Lola! — Marc Jacobs ad banned in the UK

Adweek reports that the controversial campaign for Marc Jacobs' Oh! Lola!, starring 17-year-old American actress Dakota Fanning, was banned by the ASA.

From the ruling:

"The ASA understood that the ad had appeared in publications with a target readership of those over 25 years of age.  We noted that the model was wearing a thigh length soft pink, polka dot dress and that part of her right thigh was visible.  We noted that the model was holding up the perfume bottle which rested in her lap between her legs and we considered that its position was sexually provocative.  We understood the model was 17 years old but we considered she looked under the age of 16.  We considered that the length of her dress, her leg and position of the perfume bottle drew attention to her sexuality.  Because of that, along with her appearance, we considered the ad could be seen to sexualise a child.  We therefore concluded that the ad was irresponsible and was likely to cause serious offence."

I agree that the ad is irresponsible. But there is a big difference between being offended and wanting to censor. This is where I often find the British regulator crosses the line. According to its ruling, "four readers challenged whether the ad was offensive and irresponsible as it portrayed the young model in a sexualised manner." Four!

Way to go, ASA. The ad would have gone away soon, because it is only one of many of its type. But this ruling will only help Marc Jacobs and Coty, the perfume manufacturer, and for all the wrong reasons. The ad was sleazy, especially since it features an underage actress who—like Brooke Shields before her—has been the disturbing focus of ephebophilic interest since she was 12. (She also played many sexualized roles in movies and ads at a tender age.) Now that the ad is certified perverted, it will capture the interest of a whole new audience.

Stiffy's Vodka forced to change its name to something less penile

According to The Drum, a UK brand of flavoured booze Stiffy's Vodka has had to re-brand in response to a complaint by competitor Molson Coors Brewing Company that the drink’s name was “overtly sexual reference, or a comment about the alcoholic strength of the drink”. They made this complaint to The Portman Group, which is the self-regulating body for alcohol producers.

The report is kind of fun reading:

"In considering the complaint, the Panel noted that ‘stiffy’ was a common slang term for an erection and considered that the brand name therefore had strong sexual connotations.  The company, Stiffy’s Shots Ltd (trading as VC2) maintained that the brand name had been chosen because ‘Stiffy’ was the nickname of a person involved in the development of the drink; it had not been chosen for its sexual connotations.  The Panel acknowledged that while the company may not have deliberately set out to link the product with sexuality, the brand name alluded to sexual success and accordingly found the product in breach of the responsibility Code."

Molson-Coors also complained that the candy-themed flavours "Jaffa Cake" and "Kola Kubez" were aimed at minors, but that was not upheld. The company, in consultation with Portman Group’s Advisory Service, has agreed to change the brand name to "Stivy’s".

Me, I would have complained about false advertising. Because if there's anything that won't give you a stiffy, it's too many sweet teenybopper wobble pops.

And for the love of God, never do a Google Image Search for "Stiffy's"...

Fundamentalist book reviews: Walmart Edition

A YouTube user calling himself "GodGunsGutsGlory4KJV" has taken it on himself to expose Walmart's secret plot to turn America's children over to witchcraft, satanism, and possibly even liberalism with morals-destroying books DISPLAYED IN PLAIN VIEW while the Bibles are on the bottom shelf.



In case you aren't sufficiently impressed by his righteousness, he liberally (sorry, "conservatively") peppers Bible verse art cards throughout the video.

The other issues he tackles in his online video series are "chem trail" conspiracies, vaccination (he's against), television the literal truth of the King James Bible and "those who are giving their child over to the filthy lucre of modeling or hollywood!"

It's really good to see this guy doing so much work to protect our children. (Except for his, who he seems to keep ignoring and losing track of at Walmart.)

Starbucks falsely accused of racism?

This poster, via Gawker, appeared recently in Starbucks locations in France to remind customers to watch their valuables. A group called SOS Racisme complained that it was racist, because they saw the man portrayed as a brown-skinned  stereotype of a pickpocket. Starbucks took them down.


A simple case of successful activism?


Depends how you look at it. And whether or not you have seen the other poster in the series:

Do you read this illustration of a smiling woman as a portrayal of a criminal? Or do you see her as a potential victim?


Here's the problem. France, like many other once-homogeneous nations becoming increasingly multicultural, has a serious racism problem. It's so bad that apparently groups who specialize in speaking out against it see even an innocent portrayal of a brown person through a racist lens.


These people are both, obviously, supposed to be customers. The man is presumably a student or a young worker, with his casual attire, backpack, smartphone, wallet and laptop. The woman is perhaps a little older, carrying a purse (although that may be my prejudice peeking through).


There is nothing to see here, really. In context, it is clear that the illustrator, agency and client were just trying to reflect France's modern diversity in positive portrayals of customers. And it backfired horribly.


Should Starbucks have tried to defend itself? Or is this kind of discussion best avoided by PR-vulnerable brands?

F'd Ad Fridays: Unfortunate condom ad copy

Brisbane Times reports that this condom ad is drawing complaints from parents who don't like seeing pictures of sexy body-painted models so close to their kids' schools.

The complaint came via the Australian Christian Lobby's Wendy Francis. The uptight Ms. Francis has previously lobbied (unsuccessfully) to get a gay-positive safe sex PSA poster banned.

This time, however, she hit on an actually point. She insisted that the bus shelter ad is sexually offensive and contained no positive message about safe sex.

While I see nothing offensive about the imagery (condom ads should promote pleasure and fun) the headline is not very responsible. "Zero or Nothing" may be a clever play on words that implies it is the only acceptable way to cap the Jimmy, but the implication of barebacking as the alternative is not exactly public health friendly. Not a great move for this category.

British insurance company hits PR paydirt with banned ad

The Guardian reports that a British insurance firm has been busted by the Advertising Standards Authority for an ad that is "degrading to women".

They post it in censored form, but the ASA paints us a picture: "Underneath was a picture of a woman wearing only men's boxer briefs and holding a D-SLR camera to each breast."

So here's an artist's impression:

([ ])([ ])  

The company's defence was the classic "we're equal opportunity exploiters!"

"Versatile Insurance Professionals Ltd (Versatile) said Aaduki were well known in the photographic market for the ‘Aaduki Boys’, a group of male models used to advertise the brand at exhibitions and conventions and who also featured heavily in their marketing campaigns. They said they had run a series of ads across the specialist photographic press featuring the male models in their trademark blue shorts, which were designed to amuse the reader with ‘tongue in cheek’ innuendo much like the Carry On films from the 1970s. Versatile provided copies of the ads in the series, which they believed were suggestive and naughty without being obscene."

"Versatile said the idea behind the “Confused and don’t know where to look ad?” was that they now had a girl wearing the blue shorts instead of a boy, and aimed to engage the male photographer that did not normally find their ads attractive. Versatile said they did not believe the ad was sexist or degrading to women, and pointed out that many photographic magazines featured female models, some of whom would be completely naked and a large number of whom would be topless. They said they believed the ad was no more suggestive than models in the tabloid press. Versatile argued that the ad needed to be viewed in the context of the other ads in the campaign, and that rather than being sexist or degrading to women the ad actually addressed the inequalities of their previous advertising that had focused on the male models."

Whatever. The fact is, there is no downside to this ruling for Aaduki. The target market of "amateur photographers" (don't ever GIS that) would have been unfazed by the nudity and suggestiveness of the ad, and even if they thought it was tacky they'll see the brand as a victim of nanny state censorship now.

This is why censorship in advertising usually has unintended consequences, making heroes out of what are really unimaginative and vulgar advertisers. Better to expose their tactics and mock their cynicism, in my opinion. Education, not bannination.

Thanks to @adsoftheworld for sharing the link.

F'd Ad Fridays: Who wouldn't want to lick a big scoop of Schweddy Balls?

One Million Moms, that's who. This sub-brand of the hateful American Family Association takes issue with Ben & Jerry's newest goofy ice cream flavour:

The ice cream is based on one of latter-day Saturday Night Live's funniest (and most puerile) sketches, starring Alec Baldwin at his deadpan best:



But why watch? The Million Moms are happy to describe it to you in lingering detail:

The name originated from a Saturday Night Live skit featuring Alec Baldwin as Pete Schweddy, owner of a holiday bakery called Season's Eatings. "There are lots of great treats this time of year," Schweddy says. "Zucchini bread, fruitcake, but the thing I most like to bring out at this time of the year are my balls."

He then explains that he sells popcorn balls, cheese balls, rum balls—balls for every taste—and the ball puns proceed for about four minutes. Ben & Jerry's chose to go with fudge-covered rum and malt balls for their flavor. The skit culminates in Baldwin stating that "No one can resist my Schweddy Balls."

Neither can they, obviously. However, they are calling for a boycott of Ben & Jerry until "they refrain from producing another batch with this name or any other offensive names or you will no longer be able to purchase their products."

Their last "offensive" ice cream name, according to the Moms, was "a special edition of Chubby Hubby called Hubby Hubby last year which celebrated gay marriage."

Yes, the ice cream brand is amusingly f'd. But there's nothing funny about the effing AFA.


via BoingBoing

A Photoshop disaster in the House of Commons

This is a little off blog topic, but my last post regarded sex and politics, and this is too ridiculous not to share.

This is the official profile page for one of Canada's new MPs, Rathika Sitsabaiesan. The honourable member was elected in the riding of Scarborough—Rouge River on May 2, standing for the New Democratic Party.

Do you notice anything strange about her picture?

Let's blow it up a bit:

Contrarian reader Mark Austin thought it looked a little odd, and was able to find the original at OpenParliament (it has since also been replaced):

As a 29-year-old Millennial woman, The Honourable Ms. Sitsabaiesan probably felt the top she wore to her portrait sitting was just fine. It is fine, as a matter of fact, and no different than what any other woman would wear in a modern business situation.

But somebody thought otherwise. Whether she herself had second thoughts, or whether someone behind the scenes at the House of Commons had a moment of extreme prudishness, the completely awful photoshop cleavage-ectomy has now made the pages of Jezebel.

And that's far more embarrassing than seeing the modest bits of your Member of Parliament's breasts.

Nonetheless, I post this to mock prudishness and bad Photoshop—not the rookie MP, who has taken on a thankless job in public service that I would never want. I wish her and her colleagues the best of luck in the new session.

Lou Reed/Metallica poster banned from London Underground

It must feel like the good old days for Lou, being banned for being too "street".

Animal's Marina Galperina reports that posters depicting the cover of the new Lou/Metallica album, Lulu, have been banished from the Tube. Not for the armless and nippless bust, mind you, but for featuring lettering that looks too much like graffiti.

This can be nothing but good publicity for the album, to be released this Halloween.

So far, I'm not sure it's sounding like a great combination of talents:

Bieberpocalypse shows epic failure of user-based moderation

I've written plenty about the idiocy of Facebook's policy of acting instantly on any complaint about inappropriate content, whether justified or not, and leaving the victimized user to prove they were wronged. It has been used by prudes to complain about non-sexual nudity, by political movements to ban social ad campaigns they disagree with, and who knows what else?

Well, YouTube has a similar policy of "yank first, ask questions later." And this policy was used today by a troublemaker called iLCreation who made an unsubstantiated copyright claim on every single Justin Beiber video on his official Vevo channel — leading to their wholesale removal — according to TMZ.



That's right. Even that awful video with over 600 million views got removed because an anonymous user made a claim against it. And boy, were his fans mad.

Relax, Beliebers. He's back online now.

But considering the unbelievable power that Facebook and YouTube have put into the hands of every single internet loser with a chip on his or her shoulder to stifle argument and destroy multi-million dollar marketing campaigns, maybe it's time to put smarter moderation in place?

I'm just saying.

Castrating the fertility tree

L'albero di Fecondità ("the tree of fertility") is a fascinating piece of medieval art history and/or political propaganda that was unexpectedly uncovered in the central town fountain of Massa Marittima, Tuscany, at the turn of this century.

This is what it looked like:

Source

If you click to enlarge the image. you'll note something rather odd about the fruits of this tree:

Yeah, that's right. It's a penis tree. Uncovered during restorations, it was hailed as a glimpse into the medieval world of political insult (note the German eagles — then representing the Holy Roman Empire and its Ghibelline faction) in flight, while a group of women look on. The women have also been interpreted as witches performing a ritual in which severed male members were placed in birds' nests. Yeah, mediaeval artists were weird.

When first discovered, the fresco lay underneath a layer of whitewash, and the penises had been plastered over with inoffensive flowers. But that was not to be the last indignity the work was to suffer.

This summer, after years of restoration, the fertility tree was re-opened to the public. Art historians were not impressed. The restoration team were accused of fading out the phalluses, and in some cases, gelding them:

The Daily Mail reports:

Chief restorer Giuseppe Gavazzi denied there had been any intention to remove the penises that have disappeared and said: 'It's possible that the aggressive nature of the chemicals used made them disappear.

'It was not a deliberate act. People have to remember that the fresco was already in a very poor condition when we started work on it and the restoration was carried out accordingly.

It's difficult to find "after" photos online, but La Nazione had this screencap:

"Good Catholics Use Condoms" ads blocked in Spain

Jezebel reports that this ad campaign, slated to run on Madrid's transit system during Catholic World Youth Day, was banned by either city authorities or by the media company (they're not yet sure which):

Catholics for Choice are a group who want to encourage sexual and reproductive choices — including open sexuality, contraception, abortion and IVF — within Catholicism.

While the Pope has taken a somewhat surprising harm reduction stance on AIDS and condom use, there is obviously a great deal of gap between CFC's goals and the Vatican's hard line on sexual issues.

Nonetheless, CFC have been at it since 1973, and continue to strive for a world "where all women and men are trusted to make moral decisions about their lives."

The Spanish language version follows.