Offender: One-A-Day Teen Advantage Vitamins

Media Outlet: Commercials airing nationwide and products on store shelves

The Offense: Bayer, the maker of One-A-Day Teen Advantage, is peddling sex-specific vitamins that claim to promote healthy muscle function for him (in a blue and green box) and healthy skin for her (in a pink and orange box).

NOW's Analysis: According to the One-A-Day website, among the the "top health concerns of moms and teens" are the fact that teenage girls need to have healthy (read: aesthetically pleasing) skin, while teenage boys should have healthy muscle function. In case potential consumers aren't picking up the difference, the vitamins come in color-coordinated boxes, the pills themselves have been dyed pink or blue, and "for Her" and "for Him" appear on the boxes in fonts that were clearly chosen to convey feminine or masculine vibes.

In reality, most of the actual ingredients of the two products are the same, working toward the same ends: supporting a healthy immune system, bone strength and energy. The issue here is not the contents of the pills, but rather the way in which these differences are marketed. The message sent to girls is that looks are paramount, and by contrast, their own strength is unnecessary or irrelevant. Likewise, boys are encouraged to be active and adventurous -- there's even a Major League Baseball logo on the boys' box, while the girls' box features a breast cancer awareness ribbon. But, why shouldn't girls be concerend with having healthy muscles? And surely boys would like healthy skin, too, right?

While having sex-based differences in nutrition is understandable -- women typically need more iron, for example -- the method of packaging and advertising that Bayer employs is insulting. Not to mention, promoting these sex stereotypes to girls and boys during their teenage years lays a foundation for a lifetime of buying into rigid gender roles.

Take Action: Write to One-A-Day Vitamins and Bayer and tell them what you think.

Jess Hobbs, NOW Communications Team, September 10, 2009

More offenders in : Media Activism, Advertising, Objectification of Women, Television, Internet

Rank this item with our Misogyny Meter: Currently 2.68/5 1 2 3 4 5 i

Spread the word:

Offender: Google AdWords department

Media Outlet: Google

Offense: Google AdWords no longer accepts ads for abortion services in the following countries: Germany, Poland, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Peru, France, Italy and Spain.

NOW's Analysis: When you search for something on Google, in addition to the search results, Google displays ads related to that term. This advertising vehicle, called AdWords, helps businesses attract customers and it can help searchers find products and services they may be interested in. A search on the term "abortion" should bring up links to websites that use the term and paid ads for services, such as clinics. But not in the 15 countries listed above.

The countries affected by this update in policy seem to have been chosen almost at random, representing a fairly broad range of political climates. Feministing contacted Google to get to the bottom of this, and a spokesperson offered little enlightenment beyond saying that they "made the change to ensure our policy was fair, up-to-date, consistent with local laws and codes of practice."

Google claims not to take a side on the "emotive subject" of abortion; however, it's curious that this change in policy happened at the same time Google decided to start accepting ads from religious organizations that "aim to educate and inform" or advance a position on abortion legislation. Reproductive rights groups may also place "factual" or "campaigning" ads on Google in those 15 countries; the ban is on ads that might actually direct women to specific abortion providers. Though Google attempts to offer neutral territory in the war on reproductive freedom, the fact that a conscious decision was made to withhold reproductive health care information from women in 15 countries certainly suggests anti-choice leanings.

Take Action: Write to Google and tell them that women in all countries should be able to view ads from abortion providers. Thanks to the Dutch non-profit Women on Waves for bringing this to the attention of women's rights groups around the globe and organizing a petition effort.

National Organization for Women, July 23, 2009

More offenders in : Advertising, Reproductive Rights, Internet, Media Hall of Shame

Rank this item with our Misogyny Meter: Currently 2.42/5 1 2 3 4 5 i

Spread the word:

Offender: Carl's Jr.

Media Outlet: Online video competition open to the public

The Offense: Fast-food chain Carl's Jr. is currently holding a contest entitled "Hot Chicks Eating Burgers," which promises a grand prize of $1,000, an all-expense paid trip to Las Vegas, and a chance to be in an upcoming commercial for the hottest chick eating a burger.

NOW's Analysis: The fast food industry seems increasingly determined to use the hypersexualization of women as an avenue to peddle their bargain burgers. In the traditon of its previous commercials featuring Paris Hilton and Padma Lakshmi eating burgers in outrageously sexy ways, Carl's Jr. has launched the "Hot Chicks Eating Burgers" contest. The webpage for the contest touts two videos: The first is a minute long segment of a woman sensually consuming a burger, whose actions range from inviting looks at the camera to deliberately sucking a slice of pineapple from the sandwich. The second is the most recent famous "hottie" endorsing Carl's Jr., Audrina Patridge, eating a burger while on the beach in a bikini. Once that video ends, the famous Carl's Jr. tagline, "More than just a piece of meat," appears with overwhelming irony above a link which reads "Click here to see more of Audrina being hot."

This form of advertising is particularly dangerous, since not only does it encourage the objectification of women within the media realm, but it actively seeks to cultivate self-objectification in the average woman. By issuing this contest, Carl's Jr. actually pits women against one another to see who can be the most provocative, sensual, sexual object possible, all to the end of selling burgers.

Take Action: Tell Carl's Jr. and Hardee's, the two sponsors of "Hot Chicks Eating Burgers," what you think of their "contest."

Jess Hobbs, NOW Communications Team, July 11, 2009

More offenders in : Advertising, Objectification of Women, Sexist Piggery, Media Hall of Shame

Rank this item with our Misogyny Meter: Currently 3.14/5 1 2 3 4 5 i

Spread the word: