bookoffears (![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} bookoffears) wrote,@ 2005-02-27 20:10:00 |
|
A letter of complaint to Bell Canada
Before I'd had a chance to go through the junk mail I collected from my mailbox and deposited in the front hall, a friend of mine brought this ad to my attention.
Her two teenage daughters had seen the ad, and all three of them were outraged.
Once I had a look, I was so upset, I started writing a miniature essay on why I felt this ad was so very offensive to women. That essay turned into a letter of complaint I later e-mailed to Bell Canada Communications and their Customer Care Department.
Below is the text of the message.
**************************************
Hello BCE Communications and Customer Care,
I am deeply shocked and offended by Bell Sympatico's recent print advertisement depicting a grade-school-anatomy-like picture of a woman with all pictorial references to the female reproductive system (breast and pelvic regions) cut out. The advertisement includes the caption"You'll do anything to protect your kids from inappropriate content. So will we."
The picture is reminiscent of the sort of diagram that young people would be shown during sexual health education classes and depicts the circulatory system and bone and muscle structure under "transparent" skin. Aside from the aforementioned cut-out regions on the female figure, there are six small surrounding illustrations labelled Liver, Heart, Uterus, Brain, Ovary, Kidney. The picture of the uterus and ovary have been cut out as well.
The reason this ad is so deeply offensive is its strong misogynistic tone in proposing to parents and children that the female body is an inappropriate thing, in and of itself, which must be censored and against which children must be protected. In the advertisement, the female body is depicted in a clinical drawing of the type used to educate children in schools; a nondescript female form with its arms at its side. Similar drawings may be seen in a pediatrician or family doctor's office.
While there are many expected, out-dated, misogynistic depictions of women that could equally have been quite unfairly paired with the discriminatory term "inappropriate," (such as a woman in revealing clothing, a strong successful woman in business attire, a woman in the scientific professions, etc...), the use of such a clinical figure is the very thing that makes the ad so particularly offensive and surprising.
The ad suggests that the figure represented is inappropriate because it has female reproductive parts. The figure in the ad is not engaging in any behaviour that could possibly be considered inappropriate / sexually explicit. It is simply standing. It is not performing any indecent act. It would be difficult to successfully argue that the ad is meant to suggest that the figure is inappropriate simply because it is nude, and not because it is female, and therefore not misogynistic and discriminatory. Note that it is only a female figure which appears in the ad; how could this not have been a conscious decision in designing this ad? Why not a male figure alongside it with his breast and pelvic regions cut out as well?
Does the male form enjoy reverence and protection that the female form does not? The lack of similar treatment of male reproductive organs in the advertisement underscores this precept as well as reinforces an unnatural over-sexualization of the natural female form, since, even in its most clinical representation, it is perceived as something "inappropriate," which may connote a range of conclusions such as "lesser," "wrong," and "dirty." Does the male body somehow enjoy a higher status as an "appropriate" organic machine because it is not of the "inappropriate" sex that bears and feeds children? This notion, could, in turn, demean and render abhorrent various female biological functions.
Terming female reproductive organs "inappropriate" denotes a derogatory subjective judgement of all females based on physiology, from which a woman can hardly divorce herself with ease. The notion that she should have to remove her breasts, uterus, ovaries, and vagina, in order to avoid her "inappropriateness" is ridiculous and dangerous.
Note also that the female figure is not simply nude, she is transparent. The structures of her circulatory and musculoskeletal system are visible. This is not an image that is typically intended to excite, arouse or scandalize; if it were, it is extremely unlikely that such diagrams would be taught in schools. The significance of the composition of this image is the inference that "even" in the most clinical, natural, state, female reproductive organs, and therefore females, are inappropriate.
The irresponsible reasoning behind this type of ad could promote serious emotional conflict, emotional abuse, and physical abuse. Further, another serious problem with this advertisement is that may arrive in the home undetected or unexpected, such as in the case of bulk mail or inserted in a newspaper, for example. What happens when people view such an ad?
Imagine the case of a pre-pubescent young girl who views this advertisement. The message she may receive is that her body is made up of inappropriate parts, simply because she is female.
Imagine the case of a pre-pubescent / pubescent boy; he may receive the message that there is something "inappropriate," "wrong," or "dirty," with females.
In the case of a pubescent girl; she may receive the message that her inappropriate body is developing in further inappropriate ways. Imagine a similar girl who suffers from not-atypical body-image related anxiety or depression who receives such a message and may then self- harm her "inappropriate" body.
Imagine the case of parents who discover their children have viewed this ad without their knowledge? It is certainly conceivable that some parents might not wish their children to view the nude human form, whether male or female. It is likewise conceivable that some parents would feel that this ad promotes negative attitudes toward women and would have preferred not to have their children exposed to such material, or to have been present to discuss it with them.
Imagine the case of the woman who is being abused emotionally by a partner who feels that her female status makes her a second class person, if a person at all, and is encouraged in those beliefs by this material. Imagine how the female survivor of sexual or physical abuse might react to this advertisement. Worst of all, imagine the case of a woman who is being physically abused for the same reason, and this ad prompts her abuser to inflict violence on her by mutilating her "inappropriate" body.
The Bell Canada Enterprises web site espouses a commitment to "vibrant, strong, safe communities from sea to sea," "strong relationships with the communities where [they] do business," and a dedication "to supporting initiatives that help Canadian communities succeed." Regarding this issue, even in the best possible case of a shameful oversight by marketing, it must be recognized that this advertisement demeans Canadian women and promotes hate against them.
As a company that prides itself on community commitment, I urge Bell Canada Enterprises (on behalf of Bell Sympatico) to offer, at the minimum; an acknowledgment of understanding of the negative impact that this advertisement has on women and their families on the whole, an apology to consumers who may have been exposed to this material, and immediate withdrawal of this advertising campaign from all markets.
Before I'd had a chance to go through the junk mail I collected from my mailbox and deposited in the front hall, a friend of mine brought this ad to my attention.
Her two teenage daughters had seen the ad, and all three of them were outraged.
Once I had a look, I was so upset, I started writing a miniature essay on why I felt this ad was so very offensive to women. That essay turned into a letter of complaint I later e-mailed to Bell Canada Communications and their Customer Care Department.
Below is the text of the message.
**************************************
Hello BCE Communications and Customer Care,
I am deeply shocked and offended by Bell Sympatico's recent print advertisement depicting a grade-school-anatomy-like picture of a woman with all pictorial references to the female reproductive system (breast and pelvic regions) cut out. The advertisement includes the caption"You'll do anything to protect your kids from inappropriate content. So will we."
The picture is reminiscent of the sort of diagram that young people would be shown during sexual health education classes and depicts the circulatory system and bone and muscle structure under "transparent" skin. Aside from the aforementioned cut-out regions on the female figure, there are six small surrounding illustrations labelled Liver, Heart, Uterus, Brain, Ovary, Kidney. The picture of the uterus and ovary have been cut out as well.
The reason this ad is so deeply offensive is its strong misogynistic tone in proposing to parents and children that the female body is an inappropriate thing, in and of itself, which must be censored and against which children must be protected. In the advertisement, the female body is depicted in a clinical drawing of the type used to educate children in schools; a nondescript female form with its arms at its side. Similar drawings may be seen in a pediatrician or family doctor's office.
While there are many expected, out-dated, misogynistic depictions of women that could equally have been quite unfairly paired with the discriminatory term "inappropriate," (such as a woman in revealing clothing, a strong successful woman in business attire, a woman in the scientific professions, etc...), the use of such a clinical figure is the very thing that makes the ad so particularly offensive and surprising.
The ad suggests that the figure represented is inappropriate because it has female reproductive parts. The figure in the ad is not engaging in any behaviour that could possibly be considered inappropriate / sexually explicit. It is simply standing. It is not performing any indecent act. It would be difficult to successfully argue that the ad is meant to suggest that the figure is inappropriate simply because it is nude, and not because it is female, and therefore not misogynistic and discriminatory. Note that it is only a female figure which appears in the ad; how could this not have been a conscious decision in designing this ad? Why not a male figure alongside it with his breast and pelvic regions cut out as well?
Does the male form enjoy reverence and protection that the female form does not? The lack of similar treatment of male reproductive organs in the advertisement underscores this precept as well as reinforces an unnatural over-sexualization of the natural female form, since, even in its most clinical representation, it is perceived as something "inappropriate," which may connote a range of conclusions such as "lesser," "wrong," and "dirty." Does the male body somehow enjoy a higher status as an "appropriate" organic machine because it is not of the "inappropriate" sex that bears and feeds children? This notion, could, in turn, demean and render abhorrent various female biological functions.
Terming female reproductive organs "inappropriate" denotes a derogatory subjective judgement of all females based on physiology, from which a woman can hardly divorce herself with ease. The notion that she should have to remove her breasts, uterus, ovaries, and vagina, in order to avoid her "inappropriateness" is ridiculous and dangerous.
Note also that the female figure is not simply nude, she is transparent. The structures of her circulatory and musculoskeletal system are visible. This is not an image that is typically intended to excite, arouse or scandalize; if it were, it is extremely unlikely that such diagrams would be taught in schools. The significance of the composition of this image is the inference that "even" in the most clinical, natural, state, female reproductive organs, and therefore females, are inappropriate.
The irresponsible reasoning behind this type of ad could promote serious emotional conflict, emotional abuse, and physical abuse. Further, another serious problem with this advertisement is that may arrive in the home undetected or unexpected, such as in the case of bulk mail or inserted in a newspaper, for example. What happens when people view such an ad?
Imagine the case of a pre-pubescent young girl who views this advertisement. The message she may receive is that her body is made up of inappropriate parts, simply because she is female.
Imagine the case of a pre-pubescent / pubescent boy; he may receive the message that there is something "inappropriate," "wrong," or "dirty," with females.
In the case of a pubescent girl; she may receive the message that her inappropriate body is developing in further inappropriate ways. Imagine a similar girl who suffers from not-atypical body-image related anxiety or depression who receives such a message and may then self- harm her "inappropriate" body.
Imagine the case of parents who discover their children have viewed this ad without their knowledge? It is certainly conceivable that some parents might not wish their children to view the nude human form, whether male or female. It is likewise conceivable that some parents would feel that this ad promotes negative attitudes toward women and would have preferred not to have their children exposed to such material, or to have been present to discuss it with them.
Imagine the case of the woman who is being abused emotionally by a partner who feels that her female status makes her a second class person, if a person at all, and is encouraged in those beliefs by this material. Imagine how the female survivor of sexual or physical abuse might react to this advertisement. Worst of all, imagine the case of a woman who is being physically abused for the same reason, and this ad prompts her abuser to inflict violence on her by mutilating her "inappropriate" body.
The Bell Canada Enterprises web site espouses a commitment to "vibrant, strong, safe communities from sea to sea," "strong relationships with the communities where [they] do business," and a dedication "to supporting initiatives that help Canadian communities succeed." Regarding this issue, even in the best possible case of a shameful oversight by marketing, it must be recognized that this advertisement demeans Canadian women and promotes hate against them.
As a company that prides itself on community commitment, I urge Bell Canada Enterprises (on behalf of Bell Sympatico) to offer, at the minimum; an acknowledgment of understanding of the negative impact that this advertisement has on women and their families on the whole, an apology to consumers who may have been exposed to this material, and immediate withdrawal of this advertising campaign from all markets.
