Very interesting thread at the always intriguing Feminist Law Professors blog discussing the images below and asking whether they are “Mocking Sexism or Mocking Feminism?”
The text in both ads (for Eram, a French shoe company) says (more or less): “No women’s bodies were exploited in this ad.”
Given the parallels noted by many scholars between the exploitation of animals and the exploitation of women (perhaps most insightfully by Carol Adams in The Sexual Politics of Meat), I wonder why the use and abuse of animals in and out advertising has not come up in the discussion. The irony and controversy embedded in the statement that no women’s bodies were exploited in the making of the ad stems from the juxtaposition of the cross-dressing beefcake shot (a loaded term from an animal perspective) and the ostrich wearing boots likely made from others of its kind. The subtext, as I read it, is that multiple animals were exploited in the making of the ad but that’s okay because it’s funny and feminists should lighten up. Is it really ok? And why would that be funny?
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: advertising, animal abuse, animal ethics, animal law, animal rights, animal suffering, animal welfare, animals, animals in advertising, carol adams, exploitation, feminism, sexism, sexual politics of meat, trophy hunting, women, women and animals in advertising, women in advertising |