Holy moly. Who could be the target audience for that?
Probably wasn't that shocking, I wouldn't think, though crass even by the standards of the time. (A friend of mine used to keep a pretty large archives of late 60s / early 70s-era advertising and I can remember running across images almost as overt. Airline advertising, which was mostly about the stewardesses, was especially insulting.)
Well, now we know what happened to the real-life person who served as the inspiration for the Thundercats' Cheetara.
I would definitely buy those pants if they were available and so advertised today. Not only that, I think they'd be big sellers.
5: I would definitely buy those pants if they were available and so advertised today.
The slacks themselves are nice, but the advertising would turn me off. Nothing says "we take you for an idiot" quite like an ad that combines safari allusions with walking-on-a-woman imagery.
Another great entry from the era: Old Spice... for pedophiles! (The Spanish produced much better advertising in the 70s, I think.)
DS gets it exactly right at 3. It would not have been intended as outrageous, the agency would have intended it as funny. There would have been a fair amount of outrage, the agency would have acted all innocent and claimed (possibly genuinely) not to understand what all the fuss was about.
The usual suspects would have rolled out the usual tropes about humourless feminists in exactly the same terms as they always do.
But the ad is obviously facetious, it even gives you a telling, indulgent but patronizing expression on her face just to reassure you, and hers is the only face in the ad. The psychology of ads remains similar today, although clearly we do heavy-handed irony and "just kidding" differently today.
I think that the Old Spice ad linked to in 7 is way creepier than the Leggs one.
10- yes, because the pants ad is obviously facetious, whereas the Old Spice ad is, I think, entirely serious. Which makes it seriously creepy.
Christ. Something Awful had a thread full of ads like that recently, though most of them weren't quite so bad.
AG [Alberto Gonzales / Attorney General] says he was also tied up with National Meth Awareness Day and other things during that period of time.
Meth Awareness can be pretty tricky all right. My own Meth Awareness periods often produced uneven and erratic performance. This explains a lot.
First, that dude is skinny. No guys look like that in ads anymore. But I get the sense that was the aesthetic for awhile. Probably all the smoking.
Second, dude, the ad is disturbing. Maybe the patriarchy is to blame for everything, after all.
All of this is reminding me of Nora Ephron's classic essay/interview with the marketing guy behind FDS. I'm at work and don't have a link, but it may be on some place. I can't remember who published it. Maybe Ms. or some magazine like that.
It would not have been intended as outrageous, the agency would have intended it as funny.
Much like offensive ads work today. Does anyone remember the argument we had about the biting-the-woman-in-the-candy-bar ad?
13.---I caught that line in the hearings, too. Hilarious.
Can't say it looks much worse to me than the Lynx ads (deodorant - is it called something else over there? Ace? can't be bothered to Google).
It's called Axe, and I agree with you. Except that those ads are directed at teenage boys, and this pants ad is directed at adult men, who are not addressed by advertisers in quite this way anymore.
Ah, Axe. Very manly. Teen to twenties, I guess. And yeah, married men are supposed to be all 'new men' these days I suppose. Though how they suddenly get that way after spending the previous ten years being encouraged to act like morons, I'm not sure.
The general idea from our advertising and sitcoms is that after age 25 or so, a man's infantile desires for hot chicks are replaced by infantile desires for beer, meat and sports tickets.
Though how they suddenly get that way after spending the previous ten years being encouraged to act like morons, I'm not sure
Because you're expected to know better, and not to take it seriously, throughout. Most teenage boys I know can easily tell the difference between an ad and reality, although of course there will always be some who can't.
My first reaction was, Mr. Leggs? As in, Leggs the pantyhose brand? That adds an element of weirdness to the whole thing.
adult men, who are not addressed by advertisers in quite this way anymore.
Au contraire, my friend. Does no one remember the Simply Palm campaign?
a man's infantile desires for hot chicks are replaced by infantile desires for beer, meat and sports tickets.
Commonly sold by associating them with sexy women.
Oh, that's ridiculous. How do ads featuring a artistic shot of a nude woman compare to an ad extolling the virtues of having a woman to "walk all over?"
28 was me. Although that "An Acquired Taste" ad on the first page you linked is pretty much just as bad, and appears to have a date of 1992 on it.
28: Do you mean the palm ads? Hm. Subtext there is "in the palm of your hand." Get it now?
What's remarkable about the Leggs ad isn't the sexism (candy bar ad, 'you poke it you own' beer ad, Axe ads); it's just that it looks like the Frankensteiner creation of some mad ad exec.
"Okay, boys, we need to make these trousers look manly, real fucking mean like I am businessman and I will rip you up."
"Tigers are manly."
"Right thinking, I'm thinking on a tiger rug....I like it keep it coming, keeping it manly what do manly men do?"
"Uh, they get the girls?"
"Too overdone, too over done. Girls' always in the frame nagging him what to wear. Not sexy, not mean. Not the powersuit."
"So the guy's a real ladykiller..."
B, you're such a troll.
But I'm off to swim, so there's no need to defend yourself.
And remember: presumably the Leggs Trousers ad was also not seen as sexist by a lot of people back in its day. It's a li'l hard to recognize sexism when it's "just" using contemporary sensibilities.
Troll, my ass. The post asks "would this have been seen as shocking in 1970?" Comparing it to contemporary ads by which most of us are not shocked is one way of answering the question.
Don't drown.
If only Cho hadn't seen this ad ... [weeps].
What I'm saying is that the "As an executive businessman type, you are entitled to a brainless bimbo" idea is not nearly as common now as it was back then in the "I'm Janet. Fly me." era. This is one of the accomplishments of feminism, and goes along with the new paradigm by which people marry people of similar educational and career status.
33: If this ad was produced in 1970, it was almost certainly playing off real or imagined fears of resurgent feminism in the target audience. It's much more hostile than the airline ads, which were merely objectifying, not homicidal. Teh sexism was quite jovial, generally, until challenged.
the palm ads are sexist b/c there are still no palm ads hawking beautiful nude men. it's the asymmetry that makes them sexist.
the old spice ad is creeping me out b/c when i was a kid i would always buy my mother chanel and my dad old spice for mothers/fathers day. (my poor dad. i'm pretty sure he doesn't even like cologne, but somehow i got the idea that he did, and he dutifully accepted the gift and splashed it on for a few weeks.) i wonder if this ad is actually, in fact, targetted at little girls trying to come up with father's day gift ideas.
34: Agreed that sexism hasn't gone away, but question your methodology. Finding ads in 2007 that are shocking won't tell whether that ad was shocking in 1970.
There were some weird ads back then. A friend studies paramilitary groups, and so she has a collection of paramilitary literature. Magazines with ads in the back, where the ads are either a) silhouettes of lynchins b) logo-heavy manly print or c) topless chick with a gun. No comment on it, either. Going to Rhodesia? This topless chick with a gun knows what you should use, bounty hunter.
The Simply Palm ads differ in that there is a subtext there, whereas woman-as-a-tiger-pelt is... whatever the opposite of a subtext is. The boot-licking ad in B's second link rises to pretty much the same level of crassness, though. Demeaning in a way that simple sex or nudity isn't.
36: Less common, but still around. And there's certainly anti-feminist backlash ads these days too, but I won't go looking for more links.
I will say, though, that if Apo'd just call himself a feminist, we'd invite him to the meetings and then he could learn this stuff for himself.
The Palm ads are obviously problematic; I was just trying to say that I thought that it's different from the Leggs ad in kind and not just degree. I couldn't put my finger on just how but it seems that mcmc has nailed it. Hurrah!
38: I always thought there should be more male nudity in popular media, but I figured that this would be more a gesture of fairness to gay men than heterosexual women.
40: Woman-as-palmtop-device is subtext?
whatever the opposite of a subtext is
Text. I thought this joke had been used often enough (Buffy, Barcelona) that everyone knew it.
44: I'm agreeing with you. From 30, Subtext there is "in the palm of your hand." God, there's just no pleasing you harridans.
"Our product is desirable like a skinny submissive woman" is the subtext, innit?
37: Agree about feminism being part of the context, and that jovial was sort of the irony of it's day: a way to make a statement with an escape route.
Nonetheless, I read the cut-and-paste quality, the way the slacks, head and rug are to be seen as not really going together as part of a genuine lightheartedness, of a pose intended to be seen as a pose and not taken seriously.
46 to 46. As to the harridans remark, what can I say: we're as demanding as Blackberries.
if Apo'd just call himself a feminist, we'd invite him to the meetings
Another reason I decline the label.
48: That the ad was meant as "humour" is rather besides the point, right? Of course nobody was literally saying you should skin women and step on them. So what?
I think the subtext is that the Palm, like an attractive woman, is best manipulated by a pen-like tool.
Here's your Airline Nostalgia. This one takes the cake, I think.
50: More fool you, then. Mr. B. always says he took honors English rather than honors physics in h.s. because that's where the girls were.
I think the subtext is that the Palm, like an attractive woman,
...is expensive, hard to read, and breaks easily.
53: I believe we have established what you are, sir. The question we are now exploring is, "what am I?"
55: Indeed, what I need most in my life are more meetings to attend.
50: Shame you won't come to the meetings. They're like one h0tt slumber party, only with bra-burning.
If Ogged is really dying for '70s pants, Sansabelts are still around. They won't get him invited to the meetings, though.
41: Remember that scene in The Matrix?
(Disc inserted, whirring noises) "Whoa! I know Susan Faludi!"
You should have seen what they wanted her to smell. It wasn't a glove, I can tell you that.
57 made me laugh hard after a squint and a reread.
Sure -- but nicely renovated.
64: Didn't we have a policy about never using that name, even in the most innocent of contexts?
66: *uncomprehending Tim Allen-style grunt*??
43: I'm sure an advertiser could sell me a lot of junk if he made clever enough use of a topless Takeshi Kaneshiro.
I am actually extremely suggestible and weirdlly vulnerable to advertising---one of the reasons I don't watch TV much--but usually not in the way the advertiser intended. For example, the Absolut Pear snake commercials that were preplaying on the Daily Show online player for a while were driving me mad, but not for pear vodka. I actually woke up early the next day to make sure I'd have time to stop in downtown Berkeley to buy myself a pint of Bosc Pear Gelato. There was a car commercial a few years ago that sent me on a kick of buying sunflowers.
64: Didn't we have a policy about never using that name, even in the most innocent of contexts?
No.
...is expensive, hard to read, and breaks easily
I think, perhaps, we were led astray by B. The ad is not just sexist, but racist! I think the ad is meant to sell Palm's to Asian male engineers in the Bay Area. The standard method of selling products is to associate the product with an idealized, v. attractive member or the target audience. But no one at Palm's ad agency can imagine an attractive male Asian engineer, so they opted for the closest substitute: a demure, submissive white woman.
I'd like to troll B back by saying that I don't think the Palm ads are objectionable at all, unless you want to say that using naked women in advertising is always objectionable. Palm was competing with Windows CE, which was a bloated, slow, jumble of an operating system, and Palm's competitive advantage was that it was spare and elegant. And lots of geekoids do think of their gadgets in the same aesthetic ways that regular people think of bodies or art, and the ad tied together the message of simple elegance with beautiful form and did it in a way that was sure to grab our attention.
And lots of geekoids do think of their gadgets in the same aesthetic ways that regular people think of bodies or art, and the ad tied together the message of simple elegance with beautiful form and did it in a way that was sure to grab our attention.
Also, sticking an attractive woman next to a product to sell to geeks is not exactly a novel concept. But I'm sure yours is the better fit.
71: Women = aesthetic objects. Nothing sexist about that atall. Nope.
74: I think you dropped an "only."
And of course, geeks = boys; women don't buy technology.
Female geeks are lesbians or bi-sexuals. I've seen movies to that effect.
74 but we do appreciate each other as aesthetic objects, and theoretically at least this is compatible with acknowledging each other as subjects.
I won't defend the palm ads, mostly because of the submissive pose. However I will defend the practice of using sex to sell product as at least sometimes compatible with feminism.
I'd like to break up the Cultural Studies seminar to page Joe Drymala: Joe Trippi just joined the Edwards campaign.
But no one at Palm's ad agency can imagine an attractive male Asian engineer,
blah. I'm getting a little sick of that joke. Until a few days ago Palm's agency was AQKA, which has offices in Singapore, Shanghai, and San Francisco. Doesn't need to imagine hot male Asian engineers--lives in their prime stomping grounds. If they hesitate it's because they're convinced the wider market can't imagine it. Hopefully Young & Rubicam will be more leaders and less followers. I look forward to getting my Takeshi PDA ad soon.
Wow. Holy shit. After I publicly threw my endorsement over to Obama, too.
"break up" s/b "briefly interrupt"
As you were.
Wow. Holy shit. After I publicly threw my endorsement over to Obama, too.
WTF?!?! Your support of Edwards is one the four reasons I nominally support him! When did you switch?
78's fine. But Ogged's inability to differentiate between sexist and sexy is idiotic.
80: Whistle. Invoking actual evidence of the actual people involved in a decision in the course of baseless speculation about their motives. Assessed a five pulling things out of of your ass on topics which you're unqualified to speak penalty. Repeat first down.
80: Your taste in Asian men is abominable. That Jin guy on Lost is better looking; so's Chow Yun Fat.
83: I sort of second Tim. Joe D, when and where did you throw your support to Obama?
Tim, I'm torn, man! I think Obama can't win, but he's the most exciting guy in the race. Just the idea of him is exciting. And he's started taking some serious stands on controversial issues, including Palestine, which no one else will touch. I still love John Edwards and believe him to be the most likely nominee (as Yglesias said recently, if you have a 3 way race, and one person is leading in money, and one person is leading in national polls, and one person is leading in Iowa, pick the person leading in Iowa). But I can't help but be thrilled by a viable black candidate. I was way skeptical at first, but I've caught the fever.
88: Dude, will you please stop fucking with my emotions? I'm feeling very electorally vulnerable right now.
he's the most exciting guy in the race. Just the idea of him is exciting. . . .I can't help but be thrilled
Toldja.
My endorsement hasn't wavered, Tim.
Obama is too wimpy on healthcare.
The more I pay attention to the candidates the more enthusiastic I become about Edwards.
93: You're one of the other four, Apo. I do find myself strangely drawn to the jug-eared man in the ebony suit, though.
Did I say endorsement? I meant erection.
However I will defend the practice of using sex to sell product as at least sometimes compatible with feminism.
It will be a long time, if ever, before it's compatible with tech products, where the phenomenon of booth bunnies is alive and well, and tech companies are completely clueless about how to sell their products to women.
I wasn't bothered by the Simply Palm ads, partly because of the subconscious Edward Weston associations and partly because there are so many tech ads which are much worse.
98: Your refusal to draw a sharp mind/body distinction is very feminist of you.
I do find myself strangely drawn to the jug-eared man in the ebony suit
It would be racist of me to say it's probably voodoo, wouldn't it?
One example does not a counter-trend make.
Who's misinterpreting, me or B?
Counter-trend? I was throwing it out as an example of egregiously sexist tech ads.
99: Booth bunnies! I couldn't think of the term. Apparently, it wasn't "CES babes."
If you guys read Twisty, you'd understand that not giving head, whatever the context, is inherently feminist.
OMG, you're right. I'm SO FEMINIST that I interpreted the woman's face as meant to reflect the "you," and thought the ad was aimed at women.
Once in my life I don't assume sexist conspiracy, and I'm WRONG. Never again.
and I'm WRONG
We cut you slack, though, because you're a girl.
Dollars to donuts (what does this phrase mean, anyway?) 109 is going to come up the next time ogged lists referring searches.
84: It hadn't previously seemed to me that you thought differentiating between "sexy" and "sexist" was so simple.
108: Cut me and I'll have you arrested.
109: Sex shouldn't be a reward for my good behavior, B.
112 - What's wrong with being misogynist?
Wait, I fucked that up.
114: Oh, sure it should. After all, there's no reason to believe you'll ever earn it.
I for one would like to see the rollout of a series of ads modelled on the Palm ones, featuring only men, for the Wii.
I would like to see this for reasons of gender equity, not infantile humor.
117: Never say never. What are your rates again, and do you sell fractions?
Dollars to donuts (what does this phrase mean, anyway?)
Legacy of a long-ago time when the two weren't worth approximately the same amount.
a series of ads modelled on the Palm ones, featuring only men, for the Wii.
Don't crack your TV screen! Use the scrotumband.
122: Top scorer at Wii dribbling! HE'S GOING UP FOR THE DUNK!
Stop with the muffinormativity, Biohazard.
115: I, of course, make a point of consulting the robust feminist consensus on the topic.
118: I would like to see this for reasons of gender equity, not infantile humor.
Linear Western thinking, man; both are worthy goals! Luckily, 3Com's sense of humour is well-established. (They also really liked the Napalm Pilot.)
125: Okay. I'm going back to savoring Gunilla Knutson saying "Take it off, take it all off" in 1966.
do you sell fractions?
Women aren't just a collection of body parts, sexist.
But I finally collected all the body parts! Are you telling me it was all for nothing?
124: I think that's right. The way I've heard it is 'ten bucks to a donut', so it sounds like the donut is just a zero in a bet.
No, you can make a little shrine down in your basement and take them out and fondle them every now and then.
No, you can make a little shrine down in your basement and take them out and fondle them every now and then.
Definitely calling the cops, right now.
That'll teach me to drop something on the keyboard while a comment is posting.
Thursday night in Apo's basement: "why yes, I love Jenga!"
I love Edwards for energy and climate change. He's the man. I also love combination of community service with campaigning. None of this ephemeral style bullshit in picking my candidate. No Maureen Dowdiness for me.
86: Chow-Yun Fat is hot, but too old for me; I do not watch TV and do not know this Jin of whom you speak. Please note that I brought up Takeshi *before* the topic was Asian men---he's part of my taste in portfolio in men generally, not relegated to some specific Asian box.
129: Haven't you seen that old feminist favorite, Frankenhooker? You need a bunch of lightning rods and stuff.
You guys are all overlooking the real reason why this ad would never be used today: the tiger-skin rug. I mean, come on, PETA would have a boycott up and running in seconds.
In high school, I had sex on a zebra skin rug, which seemed like it would be really exotic and sensual, but it turns out zebras are very much coarse and itchy and not remotely soft.
139: God, that is so retro. Was it on someone's rec room floor or was it next to a glass coffee table and surrounded by black leather and chrome furniture?
he's started taking some serious stands on controversial issues, including Palestine
When did Obama do this? As far as I can tell, he hasn't taken any serious stand on Israel/Palestine at all; he's just acknowledged that yes, Palestinians are actual human beings who are suffering a great deal. That's nice, but it's not even the bare minimum I require of a "serious stand" on the issue.
He's just acknowledged that yes, Palestinians are actual human beings who are suffering a great deal.
On the one hand, even Paul Wolfowitz has done that. On the other hand, it's a very controversial thing to say, and Wolfowitz was booed.
