Reebok’s EasyTone Marketing Jumps on the Objectification Bandwagon

by gwen, Nov 15, 2009, at 10:42am

Ruth R. and Assaf N. sent in three commercials for Reebok’s EasyTone shoes. In the first one, the camera lingers on the woman’s butt, but we do see her as an entire person:

In two others, however, Reebok dispensed with any pretense and just focused on body parts:

Notice with that one that the point of looking hot is to both make men want you and to make other women feel bad about themselves.

And finally we end up with just talking boobs:

Reminds me a bit of how the Evony video game ads changed over time.

48 Comments

Tags: clothes/fashion, diet/exercise industry, gender, objectification, sex

Reliance on Public Transportation

Fun Competition Reinforces Class Hierarchy

Comments

Eduardo 11:39 am on November 15, 2009 | # | Reply

Hello there, first post. I’m searching for a forum in which serious discussion takes place, and so far this one looks interesting.

On the topic at hand, perhaps we could frame the discussion in the assumption that everything about the female sexual attractiveness is a social construct. I happen to disagree with this idea. Unfortunately, this seems to be a topic ripe for grand, sweeping statements.

I’m looking forward to reading substantiated arguments
Samantha C 1:02 pm on November 15, 2009 | # | Reply

one of my male friends was baffled by this commercial. I had to explain to him that, yes, in fact, the cameraman oogling your ass was supposed to be a selling point of the shoes…supposed to be a positive, not a negative. His head just about exploded.
Kelly 2:54 pm on November 15, 2009 | # | Reply

Kate Harding wrote about these commercials on Broadsheet. She watched one without volume, which I highly recommend. It renders the whole thing even more pathetic.
rachel 2:59 pm on November 15, 2009 | # | Reply

You should TOTALLY buy these shoes so your flabby ass can be transformed into a disembodied fetishized focal point, too! :rolleyes. I have only seen the first one tv, but the fact that’s a whole campaign of commercials makes it even more ridiculous.
thewhatifgirl 3:35 pm on November 15, 2009 | # | Reply

Besides the objectification, it’s pretty pathetic to me that the idea that the SHOES do the toning, rather than the EXERCISE, is just mind-boggling.
- conductress 8:23 pm on November 15, 2009 | # | Reply
  
  Yes. The second ad in particular. What thought process led to a commercial about workout shoes being advertised by a woman rolling around in bed?
  
  It’s no longer surprising to me that products that are marketed to men or are gender-neutral are marketed with this kind of imagery. But marketing products to women this way?! I think the advertising industry just jumped the shark.
  - Shana 12:12 pm on November 16, 2009 | # | Reply
    
    Yes because the ONLY reason a woman is concerned with her physical appearance is to sexually gratify a man…*sigh*
  - bobsfrankenbeans 11:50 pm on November 17, 2009 | # | Reply
    
    true! but… the second one was kinda hot… :/
Anonymous 3:55 pm on November 15, 2009 | # | Reply

With all the cringe worthy things that are going on here, I have to say it shocked me more that they used the word “butt” in a commercial. Seemed really weird, the heteronormative gaze is just so typical in so many medias. But yeah, Butt.
- Jeremy 12:59 am on November 16, 2009 | # | Reply
  
  Yeah, I was pretty disturbed by that as well. ‘Butt’ is a harsh-sounding word, what with it being one-syllable, 4 letters and having both beginning and ending plosives.
  
  I thought the first one was good at first, with the girl constantly seeming angry that the camera wasn’t looking at her face, but her last line killed it.
a 6:44 pm on November 15, 2009 | # | Reply

Yes, heteronormative male gaze, pretty neatly demonstrated with this ad to be honest. Actually, it all could be taken as a commentary on that topic in an ironical way, even though it is clearly not meant as such. Hopefully. This is probably one of the most obnoxious advertisements I have seen.

But yank companies will do or say anything in ads as long as it adds to the profits. And that is understandable because they are not bothered about rights of women or some underaged anorexia victims that take influence from ads like this. They just want to sell their products by whatever means possible. In more civilised societies portrayal like this would be illegal in advertising. So, let the yanks have their trash. I will be mad about it only once I see yank companies pushing terrible things like in other countries. Which they sadly often do. Yanks should truly stay in the yankeeland with their media trash.
- rachel 9:06 pm on November 15, 2009 | # | Reply
  
  Well, what can I say? We just brought the patriarchal bullshit with us when we migrated from other countries, namely England…
  - Anonymous 10:12 am on November 18, 2009 | # | Reply
    
    a – I am extremely curious as to what eutopian country you hail from. It must be a wonderful sexism, rasism free place and I just want to know how to immigrate there.
- Luey 10:06 pm on November 15, 2009 | # | Reply
  
  Yes, clearly this is just an American problem, and all Americans are uncivilized brutes who gather in the streets to cheer the objectification of women.
  
  Nice generalization there. Are there ANY countries where this ad would be illegal (on female objectification terms, NOT on female modesty terms)?
  - a 9:02 am on November 16, 2009 | # | Reply
    
    Surely there are such counties. Did you know that in most countries in Europe there are strict legislation of what kind of portrayal of things is suitable in advertising. Ad like this would be banned.
    
    But yes, american companies try to constantly push their ads with this type agenda in the market. As if it is not enough that each child in Europe already knows who Ronald McDonald in the age of three. I suppose we still need to have more of this americanised trash influence in our lives.
    - JenniferRuth 9:43 am on November 16, 2009 | # | Reply
      
      “Did you know that in most countries in Europe there are strict legislation of what kind of portrayal of things is suitable in advertising.”
      
      I’m European and I work in advertising. Which countries are you talking about?
      
      I can’t think of any country in Europe where this ad would be “illegal”
    - bobsfrankenbeans 11:54 pm on November 17, 2009 | # | Reply
      
      so basically, your problem is American ingenuity in general?
- bobsfrankenbeans 11:51 pm on November 17, 2009 | # | Reply
  
  so… what if the cameraperson was a woman? …oh, wait… i guess that goes back to that whole phallic advertising thing too… shucks.
- bobsfrankenbeans 11:52 pm on November 17, 2009 | # | Reply
  
  also, i’m impressed by your constant use of the word ‘yank.’
MJ 7:31 pm on November 15, 2009 | # | Reply

Talking boobs? The word ‘butt’ said in dignified narrator voice?
MJ 7:32 pm on November 15, 2009 | # | Reply

I’ve never considered the possibility of making one of my body parts jealous of another. This new vector of thought is alone worth the depravity of the ad, I think.
- bobsfrankenbeans 11:55 pm on November 17, 2009 | # | Reply
  
  or does it open up a new way of thinking? next there will be movies about the epic battle between T&A.
Tim 3:22 am on November 16, 2009 | # | Reply

Why did it “jump on the bandwagon” and not “continue the trend” or “perpetuate an archetype”
Eoin O'Mahony 4:16 am on November 16, 2009 | # | Reply

And in the second one, the use of unattributed, i.e. completely made up, percentages of the number of men who agree or who like the shoes (not the use to put them to) is simply hilarious. There’s not even an asterisk!
Kate 4:56 am on November 16, 2009 | # | Reply

I am repulsed by these ads. Ew.
Eneya 6:24 am on November 16, 2009 | # | Reply

To, to summarize:
We have a girl in tight short and the camera person can not stop focusing on it, being a total ass and highly unprofessional, rude and disrespectful.
BUT the girls was not… for instance mad, she was flattered. ’cause you know, all girls want to be perceived only as attachment to their legs/ass/boobs.
All women want to be perceived as sex objects period.
Due to the second ad in which is directly stated that 1st women do not want to exercise to feel good in their bodies, but to be noticed by men and 2nt, consequently, be envied by the women who failed to attract that attention to themselves being with different body types than the “normative”.
And last but not least, your boobs are talking!!!! (WTF??)
They are portrayed as jealous (using them to refer other women and their supposed reaction to your fabulous new BUTT and legs which you achieved by wearing pink boots, lying in the bed (????) or posing.

I imagine how the dialog about this was led.
“Hey guys, let us make a commercial towards women. We are selling boots, right? How can we appeal to women better?”
“Why not sell them boots made especially for them… you know, pink. All the girlZ love pink and will buy anything in pink.”
“Excellent idea… but… you know women are lazy. They are not going to do anything to help themselves and they do not care about their bodies, they do not sport just to please themselves. We need to make them to want to do that. How??”
“Well, we can tell them that it will make their butt look better only by wearing the boots. And that all will notice their butt, men will ooze, other women will be jealous and everybody will be happy!”
“What about homosexual women? And women who do not do things only because it will attract males?”
(Dead silence in the room)
“Oook, let’s begin the the ad. And do not forget all the important things the final piece should be.:
1. Mysogynic
2. Objectifying women
3. Portraying them as sex toys
4. PINK!!!!
5. Male gaze
Ok? Let’s do this!!”

Or at least something very similar to that, I am sure.
By from me, I am going to fetch my axe and meet some people.
See you around.
Eduardo 3:24 pm on November 16, 2009 | # | Reply

There are some seriously sexy curves in those ads. I wonder if we could talk to the model: “-OMG I FELT, LIKE, TOTALLY HUMILIATED AND OBJECTIFIED!!!” but perhaps that’s not the case. Is it always about the “evil, evil male gaze”?
- KD 3:32 pm on November 16, 2009 | # | Reply
  
  When you’re the one being gazed at, yes. Let’s remember:
  
  One of the main benefits of privilege is the ability to be unaware of the inequality around you.
  - Eduardo 4:06 pm on November 16, 2009 | # | Reply
    
    I’ve been gazed at on several occasions. And I remember when two women (they looked drunk, though) started blowing kisses. Didn’t bother me in the slightest. It was actually very flattering, and I wish that would happen to me more often!
    
    You refer to it as objectification, but I see it more as admiration. Expressing my physical attraction to a woman (e.g. the one in this ad) would be seen by you almost as an act of aggression. Am I right?
    
    The woman in the ad could be the next Stephen Hawking, but it’s rather difficult to appreciate a woman’s great personality from a short commercial. I for one enjoy the sight of an attractive woman.
    - KD 5:18 pm on November 16, 2009 | # | Reply
      
      Eduardo, all of your points are perfectly valid. The concept of “the male gaze” isn’t about men being evil, or the assumption that there is something wrong with being attracted to women, or admiring them. I can understand why it might appear to be an attack on your healthy sexuality, but let me assure you that it isn’t.
      
      The male gaze refers to the problematic way that women are presented as existing for the consumption of men, to the degree that women internalize this and form a split identity around puberty – one part of a woman views herself as an individual, while another part learns to view herself as if she were a man looking at herself. It goes beyond merely being aware of one’s looks, and becomes a separate, intrusive, omnipresent part of one’s consciousness.
      
      The problem with the male gaze is that it assumes all viewers are men, and if they aren’t, they must force themselves to pretend that they are. In this video, women are forced to think of themselves as body parts, not a person, and how men will enjoy looking at those body parts. They are urged to base their self worth on how much those body parts will appeal to a man. The message is that women exist only to be looked at.
      
      That is not to say that men’s looks aren’t important to them. They are. But a man can also look to the media and find that the overwhelming majority of men are presented as human beings first, that talk and think and act, and looks, while necessary for an actor, are secondary.(Okay, unless you’re Robert Pattinson.) Actors act, and actresses are looked at. Men and women are presented throughout media in a similar manner.
      
      One example of the male gaze is the exhibit that presented the seven deadly sins, and Lust was a writhing, naked woman. Why is that the universal concept of lust, when *my* idea of lust involves a naked man? Or how about, when I complain about the scantily clad women in media, people say “sex sells” — when my concept of sex involves, again, a naked man? Because of the male gaze. But the billboard near my school is an even better example: On it, a man is portrayed in mid-leap, reaching for a goal. The woman on the same billboard is standing still, head tilted down, with a “come-fuck-me” look on her face (she’s a singer). The man is acting, following ambitions and living in his body like all human beings do, and the woman is inviting the (male) viewer to use her. This is the most common portrayal of men and women in media.
      
      This is different than incidentally finding a woman attractive while she’s in the course of doing regular human activities. It’s one thing to find a woman beautiful as she walks, or talks, or exercises – it’s another thing to stick the camera on her butt and leave it there, and it’s really problematic when that becomes the *only* way we view women.
      
      While you are comfortable receiving attention from women, keep in mind that women experience the world differently. Women live in a sexually hostile environment. While you probably feel completely in control of your body and might have difficulty imagining it being touched in a way you wouldn’t like, women are told from day one (because of the male gaze) that our body belongs to someone else. We “save” it for marriage. We are aware that men can, and might, take it from us through force. We are taught to dress the right way and act the right way to prevent attracting the attention of a man that might try to rape us. We have to be aware of where we are at night, or what our husband/brother/male friend might be doing to our daughter. In that context, what might seem like a compliment to you can be experienced as just one more unwanted advance, or even a threat, by others.
      
      As you said, the woman in this video may not have felt objectified, but the point isn’t how she felt, but how it affects all of us.
      
      Don’t feel bad for checking out the butt on that cute girl as she walks by, but question why your media won’t show anything else.
      - Carissa 6:52 pm on November 16, 2009 | #
        
        This is a fantastic comment. Thank you.
      - hoshi 10:35 pm on November 16, 2009 | #
        
        thank you for that wonderfully detailed comment. ^_^
      - b 2:39 am on November 17, 2009 | #
        
        This is fabulous! Thank you so much!
      - bobsfrankenbeans 12:01 am on November 18, 2009 | #
        
        Can lesbians posses the “male gaze”? Since many, undoubtedly (I’ve seen it!!), gaze at other women in such a light… I think that this view of other people as sexual objects has far surpassed gender and sex… are we all just demoralized pervs? or is it just my generation?
      - thewhatifgirl 2:24 pm on November 21, 2009 | #
        
        This is probably the best comment I have ever read on the Internet.
    - Rebekah R. 5:19 pm on November 16, 2009 | # | Reply
      
      It’s admiration when you can see and appreciate physical attractiveness, but it becomes objectification when you either cannot look past that or hold it up as an ideal above others – both of which happen in this ads. The women portrayed are reduced to only the parts of their body that will either be “improved” by the shoes (such as the butt) or are simply normally objectified (breasts).
Erik 3:31 pm on November 16, 2009 | # | Reply

Those videos, especially the last one, are NSFW. Can you please put them under the jump?
P 7:01 pm on November 16, 2009 | # | Reply

Of course, no one has commented yet on how the ad also jumps on the bandwagons of easy, effortless fitness and “toning” (a physiologically meaningless concept).
- Wow 11:37 pm on November 16, 2009 | # | Reply
  
  This blog has become more about outright political correctness and some demand of equality throughout society than a deep sociological analysis.
  
  All I see is a race-war, gender-war, sexual-orientation-war…It is ridiculous.
  
  Now – I am going out on a limb here…but this is only based on past experience…to bet that most, if not all of you who keep complaining about this stuff…are liberals, being on the left side of the spectrum – more specifically (in all probability) democrats.
  
  But let me tell you what I think – many of you seem more intolerant than opposing viewpoints than the people you seek to vilify. Step up and take some flak people – you’re not angels because you have some pipe-dream of political correctness.
  - a 6:25 pm on November 17, 2009 | # | Reply
    
    I think the point of this blog is to express moral outrage about pictures that communicate dispreferred messages. Usually there is fairly good argument present but sadly often it is just the biggot-type of moral hypocrisy political correctness ala USA. Yes, I find it sort of terrible that even in these liberal mind the typical yank moral double standardism runs deep.
    - bobsfrankenbeans 12:07 am on November 18, 2009 | # | Reply
      
      again with the yanking!
  - thewhatifgirl 2:31 pm on November 21, 2009 | # | Reply
    
    Those “wars” were here long before I or anyone else here came along.
    
    Let ME go out on a limb here and guess that you are a middle-class white male who has never had to experience any of the denigration that we talk about here so much or at least has never been quite bright enough to notice it if it did happen.
    
    Lol, I love the “intolerant of intolerance” argument. So I’m supposed to be okay with people treating me like I’m a piece of meat? Thanks but no thanks, I’d rather stick to “political correctness” where there’s at least a CHANCE that I’ll get treated as more than tits-and-ass.
Eduardo 6:09 pm on November 17, 2009 | # | Reply

@KD, thank you for your answer. Whenever this topic comes up, emotional and dismissive responses are the result (see Feministing.com). The internet desperately needs more analytical people like you, and if you happen to be a woman, then even more so (breaking with stereotypes, and all that). Am I the only one “bovvered” by the increasingly populist tone? That’s one of the reasons I like the series Bones so much. It doesn’t show women who are idiotically sentimental (He’s just not that into you), manipulative (Bride Wars) or shallow (Sex and the City, Confessions of a Shopaholic), or even all three (Cougar Town). But I digress.

“And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil’s gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man.”

I guess this covers why temptation or lust are so often depicted as women. This attitude toward women has been around for a long, long time. Actually, it is still around:

“[…] an altar overrun by women, songs written to please a woman’s sentiments (“You are my everything,” etc.), an ethos of pacifism and self-surrender, all of which serves to render the men who still frequent the churches passive and emasculated.

But he doesn’t even get close to the nail when he tries to hit the cause for the calamity.

Quite extravagantly Podles places the principal responsibility for this process of feminization on St. Bernard of Clairvaux, the rise of scholasticism and the expansion of female monasticism. His rationale for such fantastic claims is simply too complicated to enter into here. There is convoluted twisting and turning through Platonic influences and Aristotelian dichotomies.

In the end he never finds the simple solution to the present-day astonishing crisis of the feminization of the Catholic Church. He fails to see the obvious, that this process is a direct consequence of Vatican Council II.”

http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/m015rpFeminization.html

Basically, the idea of women having the same rights are perceived as a destabilizing factor. So much for religion.

Back to the topic of objectification; do you think that everything about how we perceive women is the result of a social construct? There are female physical characteristics that are directly related to sexual and reproductive functions, whether we sexualize them or not. Actually, a lot of human behavior is based on underlining the differences between the sexes, and this goes beyond a mere desire to be fashionable. I’ve always found this debate fascinating, because hard science is usually brought into the mix to go along with a healthy dose of speculation.
- bobsfrankenbeans 12:11 am on November 18, 2009 | # | Reply
  
  “Basically, the idea of women having the same rights are perceived as a destabilizing factor.”
  
  this is a bit off topic, but i found this statement rather reminiscent to the cries made today about homosexuals (and queer individuals of all kinds).
KD 8:30 pm on November 17, 2009 | # | Reply

Thank you for what I’m sure was meant as a sincere compliment, but my sociological (and feminist) training can’t help but question if the hierarchy of reason over emotion isn’t essentially a gendered issue as well? The best thing my first sociology professor, an ex-public criminal defense lawyer that had seen his share of hell, taught me was that outrage and grief are acceptable, even natural, responses to social problems. I’ve seen too many people suffer, and I refuse to give up the passion that has given me, because it is useful. Ironically (?), it was my current female sociology instructor that told me she didn’t care if anyone in her class was a feminist or not, but whatever we believed in, we had better be able to back it up with a logical argument. It might also be worth mentioning that sites like feministing are established for solidarity as much as real discussion. I doubt anyone that is not already well-versed in the topic would find open arms, or even patience, which seems to be one of the major barriers between feminism(s) and the rest of the world.

“I guess this covers why temptation or lust are so often depicted as women. This attitude toward women has been around for a long, long time.”

Major religions have undoubtedly had an influence, but it’s a little too simple as an explanation in itself, especially since we see similar gender divisions in pagan societies. One of the more popular sociological theories at the moment is that women’s sexuality has been strictly controlled for so long for the purpose of legitimacy of heirs. When people began to form societies and amass land and wealth, men needed a way to be sure of their paternity. The only way to do that was through monogamous marriage, but more specifically, it meant that women had to be controlled so that they would have sex with only one man at a time. Yet, men (like all people) wanted to have sex before marriage, and with different partners. This led to the construction of the virgin/whore dichotomy of women. Men needed “pure” women to have children, but they also needed “bad” women to have sex outside of marriage. The whore is both necessary and reviled at the same time, an easy scapegoat for the transgressions of those with more status than her. As men have controlled society, language, and even the manner of sex for so long, is it any wonder that temptation and lust looks like the whore? If women had been the dominant gender until now, it might be the other way around.

“an altar overrun by women, songs written to please a woman’s sentiments (“You are my everything,” etc.), an ethos of pacifism and self-surrender, all of which serves to render the men who still frequent the churches passive and emasculated.”

While this is interesting, I sadly don’t have a background in Catholicism, or any religion, really, so there’s nothing I can say on the subject, except: 21% is considered feminization? Really? It brings to mind the back of my Fruity Cheerios Cereal box, which pictures 18 boys and 4 girls. In my experience, people are so used to looking at men that any more girls than that would probably freak them out.

As far as the construction of our perception of women, I’d say that it is as socially constructed as anything else. There are female physical characteristics directly related to sexual and reproductive functions, just as there are for men, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we find them intrinsicly attractive. An examination of the different beauty ideals throughout history and the world show us that. While the greeks and romans loved beautiful, young, athletic boys, they found big penises goofy and oafish, more suited to animals. Their ideal men had small, dainty organs. I’m sure you’ve heard of Japans former love for women with tubular shapes and the back of the neck, and how large-breasted women were considered unattractively shaped because they couldn’t fit the tube form. (So much for the “boobs look like butts, so naturally sexy” theory.) Or what about the high, bald brow of the Elizabethan era? Or our founding fathers, sporting their muscular calves in shorts and hose? Or the jewish russian women that practiced sitting so that they appeared to have a double chin?

Maybe there’s something “naturally” attractive about men and women, but history shows that if it even exists, it’s easily overwritten by social scripts, and I doubt we’d ever been able to single it out. Sexuality has a lot to do not only with the society in which we are raised, but our formative experiences in life, and – I don’t know how we could tell – biology.

“Actually, a lot of human behavior is based on underlining the differences between the sexes, and this goes beyond a mere desire to be fashionable.”

Gender roles are popular, undoubtedly. People like roles, need them. They structure life, provide a model for children to learn, and in the case of gender roles, have provided a neat division of labor for a long time. But roles are also in a constant state of change, and personally, I hope gender roles continue to close the gap between men and women, in terms of who is allowed or not allowed to do certain things. Research shows that separate but equal doesn’t work in practice – societies with the greatest amount of equality between men and women are those where household work, labor outside the home, and childrearing are shared. In other words, the more different the roles, the more unequal; the more similar, the closer men and women’s status to one another.

Anatomy considered, men and women are a lot more similar than they are different. If you were to look at a chart, you’d find that there’s a greater difference between individuals, and the differences between the genders, as groups, are slender. My husband is far more emotional than I am, and my sister is far more logical than I am. Life is filled with these little instances of individuals proving themselves more varied in relation to one another, rather than to the binary gender.

And that’s not even getting into the social construction of gender/sex itself…!
bobsfrankenbeans 12:21 am on November 18, 2009 | # | Reply

I am curious to hear your thoughts on the obsession with binary categorical systems. perhaps the most unsettling of them being the male/female one which has led to so much mutilation of both body and mind.

With culture comes categorical hierarchies which are born from communication. If I’ve learned anything from my years of studying humanity – socially, genetically, evolutionarily…etc. it’s that you can’t have ‘hello’ without ‘hell’
Emily 5:56 pm on November 18, 2009 | # | Reply

I think this advertisement objectifies women. If you do too, please sign this petition and share your thoughts!

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/boycottreebokshoes
Amy Jonason 11:41 pm on November 20, 2009 | # | Reply

These ads really rankled me. For those Facebook-savvy users out there, I made a Facebook group that I’d love for you to join. It’s called “Hey, Reebok: You Sell Shoes, Not Boobs!”

I’m not trying to build a massive counter-campaign here, I just want to be able to contact Reebok and tell them how many people agree with me that this campaign is tasteless and degrading!