Quizno’s Sandwich Envy

Share on Tumblr

Quizno’s has a new product on the market: Flatbread Sammies. I just saw a commercial for them which didn’t make me want to run out and try one. If you want to see it yourself, you can at the Quizno’s website.

For those who don’t want to go there, the commercial stars two women sitting on a park bench. One woman is lithe and tall and model beautiful. She’s eating nothing. The other woman is average looking, short and mildly curvy. She’s eating a Flatbread Sammie. The supermodel woman stares at the other woman and we get to hear her thoughts, which are, to paraphrase, “Look at her, she’s getting so much enjoyment from that sandwich. That should be ME!” and then she flips her hair and stares some more. Finally and abruptly, she says out loud to the sandwich-eating woman, “I hate you.” At this, the sandwich eating woman doesn’t look upset. No, she looks amazed and gets a little wondrous smile on her face as she says, “Really?”

Now, if I thought the only message was that the sandwich looks sooooo fantastic it causes people without one to envy people with one, I wouldn’t have a problem with this commercial. The fact that the non-eater is very slender and supermodel beautiful while the eater is average sized, average looking is where I come to the problem. I think I’d be equally bothered if the roles were reversed, because either send a message that one of the women feels she needs to deprive herself while the other indulges without that pressure.

After all, if someone truly and simply wants a sandwich, there’s a solution: she can go BUY ONE FOR HERSELF. No jealousy or hatred required.

Don’t even get me started on the wondrous, happy reaction the “normal” woman gives at learning a gorgeous woman might have any kind of envy for her.  

Maybe I’m just on a kick where everything even remotely anti-fat gets on my nerves, but the sub-layer this thirty second ad really highlights what I feel is a pretty big problem when it comes to women and their self-images. 

(And no, trolls, I didn’t sit down and think about this ad in order to come up with this interpretation. It’s fairly obvious.)

Comments

  1. says

    Don’t even get me started on the wondrous, happy reaction the “normal” woman gives at learning a gorgeous woman might have any kind of envy for her.

    Aw, but I want to get you started on it! Because it’s bugging the hell out of me. It’s just such a reaffirmation of the social pecking order, in which non-beautiful people are supposed to be thrilled when beautiful people take notice of them, let alone envy them.

    It’s also affirming that women by nature catfight. I’ve lived in Los Angeles over 12 years, and I am a nice-looking woman surrounded by slim, beautiful women. I eat yummy stuff in front of them. I have even on occasion been chummy with famous, gorgeous men in front of gorgeous, slim women who were interested in said men. I can’t recall a single time one of these women has been remotely ungracious toward me, no matter what I had that she didn’t.

    If it doesn’t happen here, then it doesn’t happen anywhere. Or if it does happen somewhere, that place is more screwed up than Los Angeles, which is pretty dire.

  2. Gategrrl says

    Well…except that I’m one of those ordinary women who *would* be perplexed, indeed surprised, if one of the “beautiful people” (male or female) would acknowledge me at all. Heck, even another ordinary person, I’m not discriminatory that way.

    It is a silly commercial for sure. If it had a skinny woman snarfing one of those minisandwiches down, and a plumper woman staring and getting huffy because she’s on a diet and can’t eat it I agree, I don’t think the message would be much different. In either case – the one shown or the reversal – it shows one woman being jealous that the other one can eat whatever she wants.

    It’s a day and night contrast to the long-running campaign of Carl’s Jr, which shows commercial after commercial of young guys and hearty working men slurping their way through enormous drippy hamburgers. I picture women in the Carl’s Jr ads, and it works for me. I picture men in the Quizno’s new ad, and I just don’t see it working. If the Quizno’s ad featured men, the final shot in that commercial would show the two guys slurping away at their messy sandwiches together.

    But the jealousy part? Works for me either way – but it’s what the final shot is that makes the difference in the final perception of those ads.

  3. says

    Well…except that I’m one of those ordinary women who *would* be perplexed, indeed surprised, if one of the “beautiful people” (male or female) would acknowledge me at all.

    I can understand that, but it’s one thing to be surprised someone notices you and quite another to respond to an unprovoked “I hate you!” with a breathless, fawning “Wow! Really?” as if it’s your lifelong dream to win the envy of a beautiful person.

    And I think there are so many reasons why you can’t picture men in those roles. For one, there’s no reason a man in our society would deny himself a sandwich – no one ever, ever has suggested men should strive to be underweight. For another, men are always portrayed as eventually realizing the object over which they’re fighting isn’t worth it, and they’ll just be buddies instead (while women are portrayed as so petty they fall out with other women over the slightest thing).

  4. Julie says

    I hate this commercial. To me the whole thing is practically promoting eating disorders. Anything that would show one who is envious of another eating in that manner is not saying she is jealous because she can’t go buy her own sandwich, she is jealous because the woman is eating the sandwich. We have enough in the world that focuses totally on looks that we don’t need commercials, especially food commercials making things like this. It’s disturbing and quite frankly very triggering for someone who is recovering from an eating disorder. I hate this commercial so much, everytime I see it I get so angry and just feel like contacting Quiznos’ advertising rep.

  5. says

    It’s also affirming that women by nature catfight.

    Yep, and I don’t think it’s possible for me to be any more sick of this than I am.

    This whole commercial is based on the premise that women can choose between “gorgeous” and “happy”. In order to make sure they can’t have both, first we define what “gorgeous” is as thin and smooth skinned and whatnot, and second, we define what “happy” is (in food terms) as “indulgent”, meaning rich, fatty, and plentiful. And then we scrutinize food choices within that framework, making sure women are constantly aware that this is the choice they’re making and reminding them of what they’re losing when they choose one or the other (neither of the women in this commercial is actually satisfied with the half of the coin that she gets).

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m hungry.

  6. sbg says

    Aw, but I want to get you started on it! Because it’s bugging the hell out of me. It’s just such a reaffirmation of the social pecking order, in which non-beautiful people are supposed to be thrilled when beautiful people take notice of them, let alone envy them.

    I had a difficult time putting my reaction to this commercial to words, for some reason. The whole set up just pisses me off more, the more I think about it. Either way I look at it, whichever role is played by whichever woman, it still looks the same to me.

    If I thought for even a second that it was really about the stupid sandwich, I’d have no worries.

  7. sbg says

    It’s a day and night contrast to the long-running campaign of Carl’s Jr, which shows commercial after commercial of young guys and hearty working men slurping their way through enormous drippy hamburgers. I picture women in the Carl’s Jr ads, and it works for me. I picture men in the Quizno’s new ad, and I just don’t see it working. If the Quizno’s ad featured men, the final shot in that commercial would show the two guys slurping away at their messy sandwiches together.

    Yep, I can’t gender flip it, either. It really isn’t about the sandwich at all, because clearly the woman without one could just go purchase one if she really wanted it that pleasure so much.

  8. sbg says

    We have enough in the world that focuses totally on looks that we don’t need commercials, especially food commercials making things like this. It’s disturbing and quite frankly very triggering for someone who is recovering from an eating disorder. I hate this commercial so much, everytime I see it I get so angry and just feel like contacting Quiznos’ advertising rep.

    I hadn’t thought of it that way, but you’re right. People, women in particular, I think, have such a love/hate relationship with food as it is – I can’t imagine the impact something like this would have on someone recovering from anorexia. :(

    Here’s Quizno’s contact info, in case you wanted to jot a quick email. It certainly couldn’t hurt to let them know about negative reactions.*

    *I’ve wondered if this happened to that atrotious Clearasil commercial, with the teenaged boy hitting on his friend’s mother in a very sleazy fashion…

  9. sbg says

    I can understand that, but it’s one thing to be surprised someone notices you and quite another to respond to an unprovoked “I hate you!” with a breathless, fawning “Wow! Really?” as if it’s your lifelong dream to win the envy of a beautiful person.

    Precisely. I have such a hard time deciding which part of this commercial pisses me off the most.

  10. sbg says

    This whole commercial is based on the premise that women can choose between “gorgeous” and “happy”. In order to make sure they can’t have both, first we define what “gorgeous” is as thin and smooth skinned and whatnot, and second, we define what “happy” is (in food terms) as “indulgent”, meaning rich, fatty, and plentiful. And then we scrutinize food choices within that framework, making sure women are constantly aware that this is the choice they’re making and reminding them of what they’re losing when they choose one or the other (neither of the women in this commercial is actually satisfied with the half of the coin that she gets).

    Thank you for expressing it so much better than my attempt. I sometimes cannot find the words. Boo on Quizno’s.

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m hungry.

    LOL.

  11. MaggieCat says

    I hadn’t thought of it that way, but you’re right. People, women in particular, I think, have such a love/hate relationship with food as it is – I can’t imagine the impact something like this would have on someone recovering from anorexia. :(

    Quizno’s seems to be making a habit of commercials that do just this. I don’t think they’ve had a commercial that didn’t offend me on some level since they got rid of the furry singing…. things. The creepy and offensive talking baby, the one with I complained about in that forum post, now this.

  12. pg says

    Or you could view the commercial as saying it’s ok to be normal size. The “model” woman has obviously been twisted emotionally by her desire to conform to a certain look and is envious because of it.
    Regular woman = happy and satisfied
    Model woman = Twisted, envious and probably hungry

  13. says

    Or you could view the commercial as saying it’s ok to be normal size.

    Except that the regular woman seems so desperately happy when the model woman says “I hate you”, which makes it seem she still seems to need the approval of others to be happy. (Granted, it would be an improvement if the people who judge us all developed more reasonable criteria, but why should we be judged by them at all?)

    If the regular woman just smirked knowingly or said “Get your own” or something – anything but that “I’ve been waiting all my life for this moment” response she gives – then I think I would agree with you.

  14. Douglas A Hayes says

    Several comments have referred to a jealousy of the “normal” woman by the “pretty” woman. The observable fact is that the “pretty” woman literally expresses not jealousy but “hate.” The commercial thereby conflates hate with (mere) jealousy, normalizing hate as a remark upon and as part-and-parcel of envy.

    In a reality wherein “pretty is and handsome does,” the “normal” woman is masculinized by doing the eating while the “pretty” woman “hates.” This “hate” is less an action or doing than it is a state of being (“pretty”), thereby setting up an analagous situation wherein the “pretty” woman hates the masculine (defined by recalling the vivid and incipid Carl’s Jr. ads wherein eating is a messy/masculine endeavor), feeding into the division of (the mythic “gap” between) the genders/sexes, perpetuating the patriarchal fear of women as the species of hate, simultaneously alluring and hateful of that which it lures (i.e., the vagina with teeth, eating not sammies but the masculine). Thus not only are the genders/sexes divided against each other, but the feminine is divided against itself and forced into a state of constant, irremediable dissatisfaction; a state of self-hatred.

    The socio/economic/political context of all this is that although the “normal” may not be “pretty,” we can all be consumers by living vicariously as the “universal he,” consuming with renewed vigor when our consumption is remarkably despised, hate being honored with the (re)mark of jealousy, the awe directed toward the haves by the have nots (because, after all, the purpose of the commercial is to sanctify a commodity).

    A slight rewriting of the conclusion of the commercial may have made it more feminine-affirming had the “I hate you” been interpreted as “I am hungry,” wherewith the “normal” woman responds by offering the “pretty” woman half the sandwich that the pretty woman accepts, tempering the hatred/jealousy with compassion and proving once and for all that eating is not the exclusive domain of the masculine.

  15. Lex says

    I don’t understand why they would want it to come across that the “thin, beautiful” woman wouldn’t be able to eat one of their sandwiches. Are they specifically trying to advertise this sandwich as being unhealthy?

    I find it amusing how many commercials can go by without notice, but things like this just pop right out. One might argue that people are being supersensitive and picky, but the fact that only a select few commercials illicit such a negative response is contradictory to that. What are their marketing gurus -thinking- when they do stuff like this.

    A commercial that bothered me a fair bit recently. It was a Gillette commercial, advertising their new men’s deodorant. Starts off showing different electric gadgets… “men are always looking for the newest technology”.. and it goes on about how advanced this deodorant is .. it does this little fictional “spread out” where it shows a gate (it STOPS odor).. a clock (for a long time) .. and something else. At the end of the commercial, the man walks out of the room leaving his deodorant on the counter… a woman walks into the room, the deodorant “spreads its technological glory” and the woman is STARTLED and -screams-. Really kind of blatantly said “men are good/adept/interested in technology, and women are afraid of it”.

    Irked me to no end. People really need to think about this stuff before they broadcast it around the world.

  16. says

    I’m reluctant to engage this discussion at this point, but in an attempt to actually *discuss* the points raised (such as they are):

    Douglas A. Hayes:

    A slight rewriting of the conclusion of the commercial may have made it more feminine-affirming had the “I hate you” been interpreted as “I am hungry,” wherewith the “normal” woman responds by offering the “pretty” woman half the sandwich that the pretty woman accepts, tempering the hatred/jealousy with compassion and proving once and for all that eating is not the exclusive domain of the masculine.

    “Slight” rewriting? What you don’t seem to get (or maybe you do, and the layers of sarcasm are thicker than even I imagine) is that we’re not *actually* here sitting around thinking about how wonderful the world would be if only advertisers were “woman affirming”, showing women sharing and caring and warmly embracing each other. We’re talking about traps and dichotomies that are depicted as “the way the world works”, including the message that being pretty is really, really important to women, to the point that they sacrifice their own happiness in order to be “pretty”, and that it’s just status quo to assume that we “hate” each other based on these kinds of shallow characteristics.

    “Tempering the hatred/jealousy with compassion”? WTF?

  17. sbg says

    “Slight” rewriting? What you don’t seem to get (or maybe you do, and the layers of sarcasm are thicker than even I imagine) is that we’re not *actually* here sitting around thinking about how wonderful the world would be if only advertisers were “woman affirming”, showing women sharing and caring and warmly embracing each other.

    The layers of sarcasm were pretty thick, and I have to applaud you for responding. I tend to have little patience with comments that say very little using many, many words. Almost as little patience at those comments that call me fat and stupid.

    We’re talking about traps and dichotomies that are depicted as “the way the world works”, including the message that being pretty is really, really important to women, to the point that they sacrifice their own happiness in order to be “pretty”, and that it’s just status quo to assume that we “hate” each other based on these kinds of shallow characteristics.

    Yep. Can’t say much more than that. ;)

  18. sbg says

    I don’t understand why they would want it to come across that the “thin, beautiful” woman wouldn’t be able to eat one of their sandwiches. Are they specifically trying to advertise this sandwich as being unhealthy?

    I’ve often wondered this about all of their advertisements. I figure that the sandwiches don’t look even remotely healthful, so they don’t bother pretending to be anything but tasty.

    At the end of the commercial, the man walks out of the room leaving his deodorant on the counter… a woman walks into the room, the deodorant “spreads its technological glory” and the woman is STARTLED and -screams-. Really kind of blatantly said “men are good/adept/interested in technology, and women are afraid of it”.

    That’s an awful message, and completely bollocks.

  19. Douglas A Hayes says

    Purtek wrote:

    What you don’t seem to get (or maybe you do, and the layers of sarcasm are thicker than even I imagine) is that we’re not *actually* here sitting around thinking about how wonderful the world would be if only advertisers were “woman affirming”, showing women sharing and caring and warmly embracing each other.

    I don’t know if this is a willful or an accidental misquote and mischaracterization of my comments, but I do know that “feminine-affirming” is not synonymous with (and is not to be confused with) “woman affirming.” Semantically, the feminine is associated with that compassion (just as the masculine is associated with competition), whereas women are associated with that compassion only through the feminine. Woman is distinct from the feminine because a particular woman may be compassionate or hateful or just plain hungry (just as any person can be).

    What I was trying to demonstrate is that instead of basking in the glow of being hated or of operating in an economy of jealousy, the one woman could have transmuted (tempered) the hatred of the other woman and her own respondant pride at being so hated/envied through a display of compassion and by so doing would have deflected from the (divide and conquer) tactics of the patriarchal status quo to reunite the women/persons in a common endeavor (eating). Such a depiction of and comment upon the reality wherein this commercial takes place (which is presumably our place upon this planet, in this culture, at al fresco lunches, etc.) may actually contradict and confront the message that the commercial does portray and the reality that it does confirm and perpetuate.

    Ancillary (but by no means less salient or relevant) to my interpretation of the commercial is the aesthetic (“pretty”) question to which you most forcefully respond. There really is no “pretty” with ontologic status beyond what we make it to be and to mean. I merely used the designations (and always in quotes) of “normal” and “pretty” as I found them already in place when I arrived here. Just as appropriate, I argue, could be the designations “have” and “have not” wherein my rewriting of the scenario depicts a contestation of the “traps and dichotomies” of buyer/seller economies amongst two women (without names).

  20. says

    Also… did anyone attempt to race-flip this rather than gender flip it? I can’t really see it even occurring to anyone to make a commercial like this featuring two women of color and I’m trying to figure out why I can’t imagine that.

    Because being skinny and beautiful doesn’t get you nearly as far in this world if you’re not also white?

    Because women of color are less brainwashed to think they have a nice place in this society if they just behave and do as they’re told?

    And, of course, because marketers are as stuck in “white is default” as anyone else, and it rarely occurs to them to put people of color in a commercial unless they have a specific reason for doing so.

  21. Douglas A Hayes says

    sbg wrote

    I tend to have little patience with comments that say very little using many, many words.

    Sorry, but I don’t work in soundbites.

  22. sbg says

    Sorry, but I don’t work in soundbites.

    I don’t expect anyone to, I just have a longstanding love for brevity. I’m of the school that if you can make your point in clear, concise language without sacrificing intelligence, that’s what you should do. ;)

  23. says

    Sorry, but I don’t work in soundbites.

    Nor do we. The criticism is more about the word:content ratio than it is about the actual number of words.

    And I equated “feminine-affirming” with “woman-affirming” in your last comment because, frankly, I find the whole thing rather non-sensical. When you say that those things are “semantically” associated with the feminine, what you ultimately mean is “culturally” (and I do have a pretty solid understanding of the relationship between semantics and the idea of mutually agreed-upon, culturally defined meaning), which is the same as the connection between “feminine” and “women”.

    This site is about the desire to break those molds. Continuing to call “nurturing” “feminine” and competition “masculine”, even if you (disengenously, imo) attempt to remove the male/female associations from those, is *not* actually emerging from the box, whether you’re affirming, degrading, or both.

    There really is no “pretty” with ontologic status beyond what we make it to be and to mean.

    If you think this has escaped my notice throughout my lifetime, or that this was the problem with the comment that made me feel so “forceful”, I suggest reading a lot more prior to making any further comments.

  24. sbg says

    I think you have a problem. You’re trying to apply logic to a commercial. Sure the reaction from both of them is illogical, but honestly aren’t all commercials?

    I doubt ad execs would agree with you. There’s got to be a fair amount of logic used when devising an ad, or do you think ads are being put out there in the vaguest hopes they’ll appeal to any demographic? Whether the logic is sound, fair and unbiased, however, is debatable.

    I’m not likely to dine at Quizno’s anyway, as I haven’t eaten fast food for years, but I would be more inclined to try if their ads weren’t flagrantly offensive on several levels and through several simple interpretations.

  25. Ian says

    sbg,

    I was not saying that the people that create commercials do not use logic. I was saying that in the commercials themselves logic is completely suspended. In many advertisments they present things that have absolutely nothing to do with the product they are trying to sell, so logically they make no sense, but of course, since it’s a commercial it doesn’t really matter if it makes sense or not.

  26. says

    Ian,

    Since you haven’t been particularly aggressive or dismissive, we haven’t deleted your comments yet, but before commenting further about how commercials, television shows and movies “don’t matter”, please check out the site guidelines and mission statement. If you still disagree, then this is likely not a place where you’re going to find much discussion that appeals to you.

  27. Douglas A Hayes says

    Purtek wrote:

    I equated “feminine-affirming” with “woman-affirming” in your last comment because, frankly, I find the whole thing rather non-sensical

    So the adjective is the noun and grammar is non-sensical? Talk about disengenuous. What I am attempting to do, if I am attempting to do anything, is remove the masculine/feminine associations from the male/female distinctions (using the Quizno’s example which involved two women). Thus, I’m working less directly upon the semantic than I am upon the syntax and grammar through which the semantics operate and fit together and, yes, mean much like the title of the article attempts to do.

  28. says

    Okay, this is the last time I respond, because you’re clearly trying to bait me here.

    It’s pretty telling that you equate me finding your comment non-sensical with finding grammar non-sensical.

    What you’re saying, from a linguistic perspective, is meaningless. If you want to separate characteristics that are associated with the feminine from being associated with women, don’t use words (like, say, “feminine”) that are morphologically, semantically and culturally related to women in association with those concepts.

    What is so disengenuous about your comments–and congratulations for successfully baiting me this far and distracting from the content of a great post and what had been a good discussion–is that you’re invoking these high level concepts in order to distract from the fact that what you’re saying encourages the continued association of nurturing with femininity and really doesn’t do much to dismantle the offensiveness of this advertisement.

    I’m certainly done responding to you, and I’m inclined to start deleting your comments if you aren’t willing to actually have a discussion that involves both listening and presenting your opinions in a way that suggests you’re open to dialogue.

  29. says

    In any event, let’s close that line of discussion and move on.

    SBG said earlier that the portrayal of BOTH women bothered her, and I’ve spent most of my time thinking about just the average woman (perhaps because she’s who I relate to). But now I’m thinking about how horrible this commercial makes the “beautiful” woman out to be.

    As I said earlier:

    I’ve lived in Los Angeles over 12 years, and I am a nice-looking woman surrounded by slim, beautiful women. I eat yummy stuff in front of them. I have even on occasion been chummy with famous, gorgeous men in front of gorgeous, slim women who were interested in said men. I can’t recall a single time one of these women has been remotely ungracious toward me, no matter what I had that she didn’t.

    I originally offered this as evidence that women don’t catfight the way commercials like this suggest, but it’s also evidence that beautiful women don’t handle privilege the way the commercial implies by having the average woman immediately interpret the “I hate you” as envy rather than hostility.

  30. sbg says

    I originally offered this as evidence that women don’t catfight the way commercials like this suggest, but it’s also evidence that beautiful women don’t handle privilege the way the commercial implies by having the average woman immediately interpret the “I hate you” as envy rather than hostility.

    We’d spend an awful lot of time fighting amongst ourselves over stupid things if we actually lived the stereotypes presented in this commercial, wouldn’t we? The fact that we don’t suggests how bogus it really is. I’m not without envy – who hasn’t wished they could look like, be like, have as many friends as, etc. as someone else? The point is, those mild twinges of envy don’t often result in plain old hatred.

    And I still think the sandwichless woman should have just gone and got herself one. What a difference her saying, “Screw the scale.” and going to Quizno’s instead of “I hate you.” would have made here. Then we’d have been spared the “normal” woman’s reaction, too.

  31. says

    I originally offered this as evidence that women don’t catfight the way commercials like this suggest, but it’s also evidence that beautiful women don’t handle privilege the way the commercial implies

    I’ve been trying to figure out how to phrase some of my thoughts around this as well. I get a lot of comments on what I eat/how I look. Specifically, I’m a vegetarian, and people who find out tend to react with things like “no wonder you’re so thin”.

    I *hate* comments like that, because there is nowhere for me to go that really gets me out of the layers of assumptions–that being thin is great, that it requires sacrifice, that *vegetarianism* is a sacrifice, possibly even that I choose not to eat meat in order to get/stay thinner. Honestly, I would must rather be able to just eat, and if we have to talk about what I’m eating or not eating, beyond “yummy vs. not”, let’s talk about where/how/by whom it’s grown and packaged, not about whether it’s going straight to my hips.

  32. says

    I think I figured out what’s bugging me. I was wondering why they don’t want to show a beautiful woman BREAKING HER DIET because their sandwiches are that good. The only answer I can come up with: they are targeting women who aren’t slim, and their gimmick is to give them permission to feel good about themselves and imagine that skinnier women envy them.

    I simply don’t get this commercial because I don’t crave having people envy me. I’d rather they didn’t, since it tends to lead to ugly behavior. But the stereotype persists that women are all about vanity and envy.

  33. Douglas A Hayes says

    Purtek wrote:

    If you want to separate characteristics that are associated with the feminine from being associated with women, don’t use words (like, say, “feminine”) that are morphologically, semantically and culturally related to women in association with those concepts.

    Point taken. And at that I would like to revise my original post wherein I used the semantic “feminine-affirming” to read “social-affirming” with which I mean to emphasize the empathetic or communal as opposed to the selfish or individual. This revision, I hope, will cast a different glow upon the word “compassion,” universalizing it and avoiding its unfortunate and traditional association with “feminine,” because without a modicum of compassion there would be no social to either affirm or disconfirm. And by disavowing “feminine-affirming,” I mean also to moot Purtek’s comment that:

    you’re invoking these high level concepts in order to distract from the fact that what you’re saying encourages the continued association of nurturing with femininity and really doesn’t do much to dismantle the offensiveness of this advertisement,

    and to broaden the “association of nurturing” with society. For, indeed, the commercial is more offensive and upon more levels than just the level of “normal” and “pretty” women. I contend that the commercial would be no less offensive or dismantled if recast, for instance, with a Wall Street broker and an orphaned Iraqi child.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.