This is a really interesting topic to discuss and, for me, one where there are actually a lot of sub-plots to the main story line.
This is the little trail of thought my brain is going on...
First, we are having a discussion around what is essentially a cartoon drawing of a lady. There is no real person involved, so what is the offence that is being created. We'll come back to this in a moment.
Then let's have a look at the scantily-clad women marketing approach, where the women have no direct bearing on what is being sold, i.e. tyres. Assume that the women know that their image is being used for this purpose (having them sitting on a bit pile of tyres is probably a good clue), who is right to deny them the choice to use their body in this particular way. Is this fair? Is this "feminism" to deny a woman the right to use her body as she chooses?
If we bring these two things together, I would argue that we can't honestly be offended at this superficial level - no women were harmed in the making of this advert. But behind this is perhaps a discussion as to what impact this has on a society as a whole, in other words does the continual sexualisation of women do more harm in the long-run. Personally, I believe it does - on the whole, everything I read says women appear find it harder to get recognition for their genuine talents. The tendency for men to discriminate against women because they are women (less capable, should be at home looking after the kids, attractive so has "sexual harassment case written all over it", etc.) is still rife. My wife faces it at work, being denied opportunity because she is female. Of course, there are instances where men face the same (I've made the point before about trying to get bar work as a student), but I would think they are a drop in the ocean compared to what women face. For me, it's these general attitudes that need changing and that probably means not seeking to reinforce this view of women mainly being an object of men's desire. Diet Coke need to do the same in reverse too (although probably have).
Partly related to all this, there was an interesting article on the BBC recently where they interviewed a Chippendale about whether there were double-standards in attitudes towards men and women. Ryan (I seem to recall being his name :unsure:) was quite eloquent in making two points:
- When asked about why women were allowed to touch the men and were encouraged to be a bit hands on: at the Chippendale's shows, women pay for a ticket and that is it. At female strip shows, there is more often a payment made to the women in exchange for a performance, which brings with it an implied right over the women. I found that consideration interesting, albeit not directly relevant to this discussion.
- When asked if all the sexual harassment stuff was going too far: his view was that you need to overshoot the mark of acceptability, and become too puritanical about it, so that we can then relax the boundaries back to a position that is comfortable for all. This made sense and probably a lot of what we'll see over the next few years.
