« But The Attacks on Hillary Weren’t Motivated by Sexism | Main | Mittmentum! »
Target: Vagina!
By Jeff Fecke | January 14, 2008
If you live in the United States, you’re probably familiar with Target, the discount big box retailer that bills itself as something of the anti-Wal-Mart.
Target has had a reasonably good reputation for charity and treating their employees well (they’re non-union, but they don’t seem to take the same glee at screwing employees over that Wal-Mart does), and as a Minnesotan I’m required by law to love them, as they are headquartered in Minneapolis. And generally, I do, at least since they stopped denying women contraception.
But this ad, located in New York City’s Times Square, is a reminder that Target dithered a long time before making the right decision on contraception, and a reminder that Target doesn’t exactly view women as full equals. And Target’s reaction, when called on it, is simply laughable.
I mean, it’s not exactly subtle, is it? Yes, yes, I know I’m overly sensitive and such, but the model’s crotch is centered on the bulls-eye. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to recognize that this message is not so much subliminal.
Steve Hall at AdRants says: “Would it have been that hard to place the image of the woman so her upper body was in the middle of the target rather than her…um…crotch? Seriously. Perhaps the initial concept had her playfully face down in a pile of snow emblazoned with her ass in the middle of the Target logo but someone at Target said, ‘We don’t do doggy style at our organization. Flip her over please.’” And that seems about right.
Amy Jussel at Shaping Youth actually called Target to find out if they would comment on the ad. Parents for Ethical Marketing notes what happened next:
After seeing a photo of the Times Square Billboard, Amy wrote about it on her blog. She also called the media people at Target Corporation, left her concern, her contact information, and a request for a call back. This is what she got:
Good Morning Amy,
Thank you for contacting Target; unfortunately we are unable to respond to your inquiry because Target does not participate with non-traditional media outlets. This practice is in place to allow us to focus on publications that reach our core guest.
Once again thank you for your interest, and have a nice day.
P.E.M. asked if Target would turn down a request for information from “non-traditional media outlets” located in Minneapolis, and my friend and colleague Paul Schmelzer is trying to find out. Certainly, I’ll let you know what he discovers, but in the mean time, if you, like me, are one of Target’s “core guests” and a consumer of non-traditional media (and, obviously, you’re at least one of them) then you might want to let Target know that these publications happened to reach their core guests — and that we’re not particularly happy. You can fill out a form online to express your displeasure, or you can call them at 1-800-440-0680.
Topics: Feminism | 9 Comments »
January 14th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Get a grip. Just because you can’t stop looking at (fully clothed) little girls in a sexual way doesn’t mean that everyone else is a sick pervert liker yourself.
January 14th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Uh…okay. That’s certainly an interesting way of denying reality. The fact that multiple other sources seemed to note the same thing I did must mean all of us are sick perverts but you. Congratulations on your moral superiority and your strong defense of the patriarchy.
January 15th, 2008 at 1:58 am
Well, she’s not a little girl. But besides the explicit nature of the advertisement, how about you elaborate a bit on how this is different from other uses of sex and women’s bodies to sell pretty much anything.
January 15th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Seriously, how to hell is that sexually explicit? So 3 people out of a 1,000,000 people thinks its explicit and it makes the news….What has to US become?
January 15th, 2008 at 8:26 am
I think this is an example of how some folks out there are just looking for a reason to complain. There is a simple eplaination as to why the target is not moved up, if it were moved up the entire logo would be out of the picture and since there is no text on the billboard with the company name it makes sense not to remove the logo for branding reasons. I doubt anyone in the marketing department thought: “Lets make this add about sex or a shot at women.” This hyper-sensitivity of our society is out of control!
January 15th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Ridiculous. Lisa, you should use your energies to tackle real problems, not manufacture issues that simply are not there. You didn’t see the snow angel? If you lack the perceptive skills to notice that…why in the world are you involved in any type of public disussion? I’m sure you mean well but how about picking your battles lady. I could find a hundred causes for you to fight that are much more clear than the Target ad, which is simply not as you see it.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Looks like she’s making a snow angel to me, especially with her head lifted off the ground. The “problem” is that the still image caught her at the extreme of her movement which does look a little embarrassing even in these times.
I guess someone is always going to be offended, but wouldn’t a true feminist assert that a women _should_ be able to be seen legs apart without a sexual connotation?
I am frequently impressed by feminists’ exhortation of “sexual liberation” on the one hand, and their Victorian (or even Puritan) values of sexuality on the other when there’s a chance that a nasty man might enjoy just looking at a woman:
“That young lady should keep her legs together! Otherwise she’ll be inviting men to have unholy thoughts…of buying winter crap at Target”.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Jeff normally I find myself aligned with your reasoning, but on this specific observation, we diverge. To be fair, I can see how the ad could be viewed as sexual, but given the season, how the model is dressed, and the position of her limbs, I’m thinking they’re going for ‘making a snow angel’ here.
Change the background to a Target logo in the sand, her outfit to a one-piece and post this ad in the heat of summer, and I’d be much more inclined to buy your ‘poor taste’ argument..
January 17th, 2008 at 11:15 am
I’m more concerned with their refusal to respond to “non-traditional media outlets.” Isn’t this the same company that was recruiting kids to talk them up on myspace and facebook? Nice try, Target. Regardless of what you think of the ad, Amy’s inquiry deserves more than a cop out response.
And if I may elaborate for a moment, I’m becoming more anti-Target by the day since my BF worked at one of their stores in the last year. Their treatment of hourly employees was deplorable. Walmart gets the bad pub but Target is no saint. Hopefully Minnesotans will wake up soon and hold them accountable.