What ISN'T wrong with this violence against women awareness campaign?

Via Ads of The World

This is a real shame, in every sense of the word. I quite liked last year's "You Are Not a Sketch" campaign for this client, Star Models of Brazil, by an agency called Revolution.

But this one? Not. At. All.

Via Ads of The World

Let's ignore the fact that it wasn't translated well into English. (Interestingly, the same campaign on Coloribus gives a different version: "It was the cleavage" and "It was the behaviour") I can't seem to find any Portuguese versions, which leads me to suspect that the agency, Revolution Brasil, created them specifically for international Web sharing.

But these are only shareworthy for how misguided they are. The assumption, that the woman in the middle of each ad is the type of person the viewer would assume was "asking for" sexual violence, and the two on the sides are not, is trying to push a point that no victim is to blame. But in doing so, it uncovers the agency team's prejudice against certain women and in doing so simply reinforces the idea that religious people, mothers, and soldiers are "better" than women who dress "slutty" or dare to have tattoos and pink hair. (WTF is that anyway? An indication that she's rebellious?)

This is not the way to address serious problems, which are commonly known in the present dialogue as "slut shaming" and "victim blaming".  You may be sick of those words, but they represent concepts that clearly are not getting through to everyone. Especially in the ad industry.

The evolution of branding, as seen in three U.S. elections

Via Wikipedia

Remember this? It's hard not to. Artist Shepard Fairey's homemade poster became the symbol of Barack Obama's first successful Presidential campaign in 2008. In branding terms, it summarized all of the promise of a new, more positive, empathetic and diverse United States, after eight years of President George W. Bush. It was President Obama's brand.

What made it new and interesting, to a branding nerd like me, is that it was not a "top-down" brand. It incorporated Mr. Obama's face, his official "O" logo, and one of his campaign themes. But in bringing it together in sharable, emotive and graphic form, Mr. Fairey created a meme that could be passed around the emergent social mass-media, remixed, and "owned" by just about anyone. It became Barack Obama's brand not because his campaign team said it was. The brand was what his fans (and enemies) said it was. Branding had made the leap from autocracy (monolithic, professionally-designed brand properties with thick standards guides and "brand cops") to democracy (grassroots, evolutionary and widely distributed). Social media were key to President Obama's political success.

When the mid-term election of 2010 came, the right wing of the United States had caught on to idea of ground-up, populist, branding. And so we saw the rise of the Tea Party movement.  But things had changed already. Branding a political movement had become not a matter of developing one powerful with emotional resonance for supporters to rally around. Instead, it was a broad idea that encouraged individual expression.

As you can see from this page from a Google Image Search, the various Tea Party organizations use a variety of symbolism and messaging. The original movement was one of constitutional literalism and drastic reduction in both taxes and government spending. This old-school conservatism, however, was soon swamped by a plethora of popular "culture war" ideologies taken from fundamentalist Christianity, such as visceral opposition to abortion, the science of evolution, and equal rights for homosexual people, as well as various anti-immigrant, pro-gun and other right wing issues. It became not one movement, but many.

Which brings us to the election that just happened. In 2012, social media have evolved to the point where any person — or idea — can become famous and powerful simply on its own merits.

Early on, organizations such as Planned Parenthood identified the potential for young women to be a significant factor in the election. As a large and established NGO, they took many of the traditional paths to advocacy, such as spending $5,086,007 on political action — most of which went to opposing Tea Party and other ultra-conservative candidates. (They achieved the highest return on investment, 98.58%, of any Political Action Committee in the election, according to TPM.)

Planned Parenthood also engaged in extensive social media campaigning, creating "Pillamina" (a birth control pill mascot who followed Mitt Romney's campaign to highlight reproductive freedom) and a branded campaign, Women Are Watching.

But underneath all the big guns booming the feminist message, two truly spontaneous brands emerged that, in my opinion, really turned out the female voters for President Obama.

One was just three words:

As the election approached, this catchphrase from 2010 gained new life on Twitter as a hashtag. Suddenly, it attached to every news item about Republican politicians who made outrageous comments about birth control, abortion, rape, and women's sexuality in general. It became such a powerful brand that opponents started using it too.

The other branded idea that emerged resulted from a single comment by conservative radio comedian Rush Limbaugh, about a young female law student who was denied the right to speak at a congressional hearing on contraception:

"What does it say about the college co-ed [Sandra] Fluke who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex -- what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex."

"Slut"... the word had already been successfully appropriated for the women's movement by Toronto's (and soon the world's) Slut Walk movement. Now the self-branded "sluts" turned their anger on the politicians who would challenge their reproductive freedom. Facebook cause pages with names like "Rock the Slut Vote" and "This Slut Votes" suddenly appeared, attracting legions of followers. On every online social platform, there was a constant flow of political "slut" memes, statements and articles.

Like the Tea Party movement, this was not a single organized movement, but many individuals, brands and interest groups that interacted loudly online. Unlike the Tea Party, the #waronwomen and "slut" brands achieved far more unity in their voice and objectives. The focus was simple: reproductive freedom, choice, and support were women's rights. With a single purpose, feminists were able to expose and ridicule some of the Tea Party's most extremist rogues and tie them to Romney/Ryan campaign through the traditional brand strategy of consistent messaging, followed by proof points. And they seemed to have made a real difference.

While exit polls showed that women in the United States supported both President Obama and Governor Romney at an almost even split (55% vs. 45%) among unmarried women, who make up 23% of voters, President Obama was favoured by 67%.

It is widely reported that a political groundswell of (often young) women won the election. Here's how a writer at Christian Men's Defense Network summarized the results (from BoingBoing):

The famous “gender gap” isn’t really a gap based on gender. The right overwhelmingly wins older and married women. The “gender gap” should more accurately be called the slut vote.

Obama appealed to rich white sluts by forcing someone else (the Catholic church, in this case) to pay for their birth control, and by scaring them about alleged threats to their ability to take advantage of Planned Parenthood’s services (Planned Parenthood being conveniently located in the minority part of town, of course, so as to provide anonymity to visiting white girls whose white girl friends never go over there–except to visit Planned Parenthood themselves). This created a wedge issue in the suburban community that allowed Obama to play more strongly there than he might have if the election ended up purely about the economy or the national debt. 

One thing one has to remember about women, especially slutty ones: They usually don’t make decisions based on reason. So all the Obama administration had to do was scare them that Mitt Romney was going to take away their birth control and their access to abortion. The fear for them is that, without birth control and abortion, they might actually get pregnant and have to give birth. That is scary not simply because of the economic burden of having a child (since, hey, they can get all kinds of cash and prizes if that happens), but because if that happened then everyone would know they’re sluts, and their image as daddy’s pure little snowflake princess goes out the window.

Three elections, with three very kinds of branding playing a major role in motivating voters. When the next (mid-term) election comes in 2014, it will be interesting to watch how the lessons learned in the past three will be applied to creating the next big brand in American politics.

This is why the world needs FEMEN

With their headline-grabbing tactic of demonstrating topless, the women of Ukraine's FEMEN movement can seem like a novelty act. But believe me, they are deadly serious.

And one of the main reasons they came into existence, a few years ago, was to fight against the way Ukrainian women are perceived and treated — not just in their own country, but around the world.

This year, the focus of their anger has been the 2012 UEFA European Football Championship (Euro 2012), which will be co-hosted by Ukraine and Poland. Like many other major sporting events, Euro 2012 is expected to arouse a boom in prostitution as local women offer to "service" foreign soccer fans.

The potential for widespread exploitation and abuse of women is even worse in Ukraine, which is a well-known European destination for sex tourism.

How well-known? Check out these two ads:





In both cases, the idea that Ukrainian women are Europe's sex toys is simply taken for granted.

FEMEN's founder, Anna Hutsol, told New Europe:

“I don't know what type of people will come or how they see our country, but if they think it is a 'brothel country', how will they behave with young women on the streets? You know, our girls dress quite liberally, which is usually not accepted in a European country, and to some could seem as a sexual call . This will also influence the behaviour of the sport fans. Thus, we need drive home the message: 'Yes, Ukrainian girls usually dress like this, but they are not prostitutes.'”

Women re-appropriating their own sexuality. It's a thing now, with worldwide movements like Slutwalk and Rock The Slut Vote. But before them were these half-dressed Ukrainian women, shivering and screeching against a system that tries to keep them down. Let's all hope in never does.

Condom brand boards the "slut pride" bandwagon

It's a great idea, really. From the incident that led to Slutwalk's creation to Rush Limbaugh's recent verbal incontinence, there has been a strong will to reclaim the "slut" label foe a generation of sex-positive feminists.

Sir Richard's Condom Company knew a good meme when they saw one. This is a prophylactic producer with a cause. For every condom sold in the first world, they donate one to a free clinic in developing countries, engaging local artists and activists to brand them in culturally relevant ways.

Now, Sir Richard's has wrapped itself in the slut pride movement, launching the campaign site "Sluts Unite":

Sure, it's a money making ploy as well. But I like it, myself. Cynical or sincere, I think the only way to improve sexual health and dignity for everyone is to engage in a more natural and unashamed sex-positive dialogue.

For Sir Richard's, the front line is social media. So they have created a wide variety of avatars for people to use in the fight to make "slut" less of a dirty word:

Sure, there are people who object to this. I get it. But change should be a little unsettling.

Tip via AdRants.

Slutwalk and the complex politics of activism

Photo by Ivy Cuervo

I wrote a lot about Slutwalk earlier this year on Osocio — from its inception and inaugural march in Toronto to its spread around the world.

The whole thing started as a visceral reaction to one cop's poor choice of words when addressing women, that they "should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized". The women who organized it simply wanted to take to the streets and express their rage against victim-blaming by authorities.

From the beginning some critics noted that Slutwalk appeared to be a movement of privileged white women, noting that the participants did not reflect Toronto's famous diversity. Nonetheless, the movement spread as slutwalks sprung up, in localized versions, as far afield as India.

But the criticisms continued, hitting a crescendo with polarized reactions to a NYC Slutwalker's decision to quote Yoko Ono's early feminst slogan (via John Lennon, who wrote a song about it):

The Racialicious blog noted, "But can you appropriate a term like nigger if your body is not defined/terrorized/policed/brutalized/diminished by the word? Can we use it in a context that is supposed to belie gender solidarity, without explicitly being in racial solidarity? I think not. And I am not alone."

Last month, a partnership of activists representing black women's issues in the US and Canada wrote An Open Letter from Black Women to the SlutWalk in which they explained why they felt excluded by the movement:

"We are perplexed by the use of the term “slut” and by any implication that this word, much like the word “Ho” or the “N” word should be re-appropriated. The way in which we are perceived and what happens to us before, during and after sexual assault crosses the boundaries of our mode of dress. Much of this is tied to our particular history. In the United States, where slavery constructed Black female sexualities, Jim Crow kidnappings, rape and lynchings, gender misrepresentations, and more recently, where the Black female immigrant struggle combine, “slut” has different associations for Black women. We do not recognize ourselves nor do we see our lived experiences reflected within SlutWalk and especially not in its brand and its label.

As Black women, we do not have the privilege or the space to call ourselves “slut” without validating the already historically entrenched ideology and recurring messages about what and who the Black woman is. We don’t have the privilege to play on destructive representations burned in our collective minds, on our bodies and souls for generations. Although we understand the valid impetus behind the use of the word “slut” as language to frame and brand an anti-rape movement, we are gravely concerned. For us the trivialization of rape and the absence of justice are viciously intertwined with narratives of sexual surveillance, legal access and availability to our personhood. It is tied to institutionalized ideology about our bodies as sexualized objects of property, as spectacles of sexuality and deviant sexual desire. It is tied to notions about our clothed or unclothed bodies as unable to be raped whether on the auction block, in the fields or on living room television screens. The perception and wholesale acceptance of speculations about what the Black woman wants, what she needs and what she deserves has truly, long crossed the boundaries of her mode of dress.

We know the SlutWalk is a call to action and we have heard you. Yet we struggle with the decision to answer this call by joining with or supporting something that even in name exemplifies the ways in which mainstream women’s movements have repeatedly excluded Black women even in spaces where our participation is most critical. We are still struggling with the how, why and when and ask at what impasse should the SlutWalk have included substantial representation of Black women in the building and branding of this U.S. based movement to challenge rape culture?"

What's interesting about this letter is the assumption that Slutwalk was some kind of carefully organized and branded American movement that had gone forward without full consultation.

In a response posted today, the Toronto organizers tried to set the record straight:

"SlutWalk Toronto has endeavoured from the beginning to not operate outside of our knowledge and experience, which for us has meant doing our best to not cross geo-political boundaries or speak for communities and SlutWalks outside of our home city of Toronto. We are not a formal NGO, or non-profit organization, and what has happened across SlutWalks as a movement to date has been a collaboration. While SlutWalk Toronto as the inaugural SlutWalk is often looked to as the ‘head’ of SlutWalk, we are not involved with organizing other SlutWalks and we are not structured to oversee and determine what all of SlutWalk will look like. We do not envision our activism as a hierarchical dictation of our ideas upon others, whether across Canada or across the world. In recognition of this, SlutWalk Toronto is committed to engaging with our community here in Toronto for direct feedback, so that we can hear more from people in Toronto what criticisms, concerns, feedback and ideas they have, and how they’d like to see SlutWalk Toronto move forward and evolve as we hopefully move collectively towards organizing our second year in 2012. We’ve been having many conversations and exchanges to better understand the experiences and criticisms of people within our own city and outside of Canada and now we would like to turn these conversations into actions to make SlutWalk Toronto better, more anti-oppressive and more inclusive."

In other words, they are not responsible for what women in other cities do with the "brand" because it has been given away freely. They don't even have a structure or formal organization. They did, however make broad promises to do everything they can to be more open and inclusive.

Personally, I found both letters full of polite attempts at trying to be respectful of each other, but at the end of the day every Slutwalk organizer has to make a decision about what they want to say. The message, in Toronto and in other early Slutwalks, was all about the word — and concept of — "slut". It was a re-appropriation of women's sexual identities, in public, to make the point that sexual dress and behaviour should never be seen as an invitation to sexual violence.

Slutwalk may not be about branding, but I am. And I think they need to hold their ground on this one. Just be what they are, and say what they set out to say. If that message attracts supporters from only some socioeconomic and cultural groups, so be it. Nobody can be all things to all people. Instead of one anti-victim-blaming-movement that has its message determined by a completely diverse committee, the activist world is more enriched by many movements that clearly and concisely express a diversity of views. There is no need for everyone to agree.

Take FEMEN, from Ukraine. They do their feminist and anti-corruption protests topless because they say that it's the only way to get noticed. Other feminists, worldwide, might applaud or denounce their sexualization of activism. They don't care. They just do their own thing and find allies along the way.

In my opinion, "solidarity" is overrated in activism. It means compromising the complexity of your unique vision to create the appearance of a hive mind. Just look at Occupy Wall Street's struggle to agree on why they're camping out in the first place. Everyone has their own ideas about what's broken.

Agreeing to disagree on some issues, while still teaming up to take action towards reaching common goals, is far more respectful of human diversity. Even if, to quote Facebook, "it's complicated".

F'd Ad Fridays: Soup For Sluts

Slutwalk Toronto shared this packaging on their Facebook wall:

I did a little googling, and it is real. (And, I assume, cheap, fast and easy.)

You can buy it online at Neatoshop.

Slutwalk Presents: Slutwear

Slutwalk Denver, having joined Slutwalk Toronto's global movement against sex assault victim blaming, are now merchandising their cause with a line of clothing at CafePress.

While I clicked expecting (okay, "hoping") to see a line of really revealing attire, they have instead chosen to emphasize their movement's slogans on more traditional casual clothes. (It being cafepress and all...)

Here are some examples:

And the soon to be classic:

Why is it on the... ummm... back?

All proceeds from this shop will go directly to funding SlutWalk Denver. Any leftover funds will be donated to RAAP, a Rape Crisis Center in Denver, Colorado.

Learn more about Slutwalk's origins at Osocio.

F'd Ad Fridays: Teen Sexting PSA edition

This video is by Think U Know, and Australian NGO that educates youth and parents about digital safety.



Why is this PSA for a good cause "effed", you might ask?

I'll allow Hoyden about town to answer:

"What I see here is one girl being held responsible for the behaviours of a whole bunch of people: her classmates, her arsehole of a love interest, her teacher. And by holding her responsible, we get to skip out on their responsibility for their own behaviours, and we get to skip out on how misogyny shapes these reactions. The shithead who forwarded her text on is just behaving as boys do, right? (And certainly the ‘look how bad she has it for me, she sexted me!’ only underlines the bizarre binding together of sexual conquest and hierarchies of masculinity). The arsehole who assesses her body and then approves, knowing that approval is shaming. The ridiculous letter advising her to ‘wear black tomorrow’, seeking to shame her further. The stares and shame of her classmates and teacher."

It's a classic "blame the victim" mentality. Might serve as warning to girls, but it hardly explains to the boys (and other girls) how sharing stuff they know they're not supposed to is morally reprehensible and can land them in jail.

Also, a cameraphone in the bathroom is never a good thing.

Thanks to Slutwalk, for sharing.