Looking at the ad, I don't think the intention was to put the model's crotch in the center of the bulls eye. I think it was more towards maing sure the model was physically centered on the target. If the center of mass, her torso, was in the bulls eye, her legs would be outside of the outer ring and she would look off center in the target.

It looks like she is a snow angel, but even I can see through Target's BS. The pictured ad is so appalling, that I am at a loss for words right now.

I don't think it is just a matter of symmetry. I just don't see them doing this same ad with a male spread-eagle on a bullseye.

I work in advertising, and I can promise you that given the level of hashing out through concept meetings and seemingly endless proofing rounds that goes on in my job, this was not lost on anyone at Target. Probably a few people stood up and said, "Um, can we even...?" but they were ignored. Anytime anyone in my agency notes a possibly offensive tone or image, they're listened to. But we're a small company and our clients are local, so we have to be careful. Target doesn't care if it pisses off a few ladies because they're an international monstrosity beholden to none. In this case, you're talking about a sexist image, not one of child abuse or something like that. Plus the gal is smiling. Yay, denigrate my vagina. So they don't see the harm.

For the first time ever, I really just don't see it. The ad seems pretty innocuous to me.

Wait...Target doesn't respond to comments from "non-traditional media outlets?" Where exactly has Target been for the past three years, you know, when the bloggsphere suddenly exploded into public awareness?

Yeah, saw this a couple days ago. First thought, nothing too suspish, then when the fact that the model's vag is the center of the freaking target is pointed out to me, I can't see anything BUT that. So basically, I don't know what to think. But I really do think it had to be a deliberate act, which like Jessica, does make me puke a little (in my mouth).

Here's my email to corporate:

Your Times Square billboard is reprehensible - and as a "core guest" I take exception to comments about non-traditional media NOT reaching me. I am in traditional media and read online publications all the time. I have seen at least four sites sites with this stupid ad and the responses to online journalists that deny any sense of responsibility for it. I will be spending hundreds of dollars a week at other stores in the future. Those that don't think it's OK to center a woman (and her privates) on a target/logo.

First thought, nothing too suspish, then when the fact that the model's vag is the center of the freaking target is pointed out to me, I can't see anything BUT that.

Hee hee. That was totally my response too! Feministing, et al, have given me such a dirty mind :). At least she's overage?

I don't think it is just a matter of symmetry. I just don't see them doing this same ad with a male spread-eagle on a bullseye.

I'm totally waiting for this version to roll out now . . . I wonder how guys would react to themselves depicted as the vulnerable sexual object? Maybe Target will spark a substantive national conversation! . . . then again, maybe not.

A) Snow angels without any...snow?

B) Why did the angle have to be like that? Like someone is looking up her crotch rather than directly at her?

C) Maybe reading too much into this part, but all that red...seriously, I keep picturing red stains...

D) Maybe not reading too much into the red - stains - after all and simply making the connection that a target is something you shoot at...

On further inspection, this model looks like she is pinned, not even that she is laying on the ground, but that she is pinned, and hanging, and reminds me of shit like those dartboard boobs or whatever that product was...

What if the angle was altered, so that you saw her directly from above? I feel like I'm *getting* a crotch shot in this pic. That's most of what makes me feel so uncomfortable. The red and white isn't helping.

I really don't think this is an intentionally misogynistic ad...

I've commented here before and usually my comments are in support of the post. I consider myself an adamant feminist of the radical-leaning variety. But I do believe anyone offended by this ad is seriously overreacting. I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would be offended by that ad.

My first thought was 'snow angle centered in target' too. Then I thought - 'wait - no snow. Is that one of those cartoonish trampoline things used to catch people falling out of a building?' But then why would she be dressed for snow?

There isn't any good explanation for this other than someone started with 'centered snow angel' and then chose to ignore 'vag as target'.
Naive? Stupid? Intentional? Who knows.

Uh, its either intentional, or Target is wasting a lot of ad money on a pants-on-head stupid agency that doesn't do a tenth of the symbolism review that their competitors do.

Somehow, I doubt it's the latter.

I do believe anyone offended by this ad is seriously overreacting.

I'm of two minds about this myself. I'm not really upset about the ad like I was, say, about the Wal-mart underpants, but I also think it's fair game to be analyzed from a feminist perspective. Whether or not it was intentional, the choice of visual imagery is important to read and assess critically.

So, no, I'm not going to write to the company and complain, but I am interested in asking critical questions :).

I work for Target, so hopefully I won't get fired for posting my objection with this ad, but here it goes. I don't think this ad was intentionally violent, but the sexually objectifying nature of her vagina right in the middle of the bullseye is obvious. This ad tells me, "Bring your penis, and wallet, to Target!" (I assume this ad was meant to subtly draw men into the store and not lesbian women, because everybody is still so heterocentric)
So, violent? Maybe, but not intentionally. Sexually objectifying and offensive? Definately, and intentionally.

This reminds me of a TV ad a while back for some, was it a herpes medication?

Right where the commercial went from its introduction to actually talking about how you could use their medication to control your herpes, there was a woman kinda singing "take charge" and a woman on screen kicking (as if she were kick-boxing) toward the viewer in such a way that what it effectively was was a crotch shot.

People said I was a perv for pointing this out. I felt that it could not have been a coincidence.

I love writing complaining letters. They are so important and well deserved.

I wrote:

Dear Target,

I would like to inform you of three essential facts about my self.

A) i am a "core guest." i shop at Target more than once a week and rely on your stores to supply me with daily essentials from common household products, to Ming Tsai frozen foods and Target Brand cereals.

B) I am more easily reached through "non-traditional media outlets" than other media outlets which you falsely seem to assume i have more access to or interest in.

C) I would not like my vagina used for target practice of any kind as your current ad campaign implies a target shopper enjoys.

As a company that tends to fall on the "good" side of the ethical fence, i imagine you should know what you need to do.

Sincerely,

Kate
a guest who may have overstayed her welcome.

Honestly? I was more pissed at their attitude toward "non-traditional media" than the ad itself. The ad? Meh. Until I thought about it. And realized that more than a few people had to sign off on it - and KNOW that it was a problem.

Their response to my email is below:

Dear Sybil Mcguire,

I'm sorry to hear you're disappointed with our billboard ad, but I hope you'll accept our apologies.

As our Target guest you expect great products at a great value, and we want our advertising to send the same message. That's why we try to represent our merchandise in a manner reflecting our company philosophy and image as a family-oriented store, while serving many guests with diverse tastes and interests. Of course your thoughts and comments are a big help to us; that's why I'll be sure to let our Advertising executives know what you've had to say.

Have questions or want more information? Give us a call at (800) 440-0680. You can also drop by the Guest Services Desk at any store, or visit us on Target.com. Either way, we're here to help!

Thanks for shopping with us. We hope to see you again soon at Target.

Sincerely,

Kristen
Target Guest Relations
www.target.com

It's a Target ad - they probably thought it was a brilliant idea (since it's winter) to have a girl in white (color that goes well with red, and winter-y) making a snow angel on their logo. If things like that offended me I would spend a lot of time writing a lot of letters.

I knew that trawling myspace pages and cafepress shops would come to no good.

I have to say that I am a lot more annoyed by the response to the email about "non-traditional" media outlets than the ad. The ad IS stupid and ill-conceived, but hello, I would imagine that a lot of those young hip core customers that Target seems to be aiming for get information and news from the internets as opposed to watching the 6:30 news with their grandparents.

This one doesn't seem worth being outraged. I've seen far more sexist ads go by completely unnoticed and un-freaked-out-over.

Even if the vag at the center of the target was unintentional (which I doubt, given the level of scrutiny that I'm told goes into ads), that crotch shot is preeettty blatant. I didn't notice the whole target-center issue at first glance, but I definitely had a little twinging reaction to the camera-oriented spread-eagle.

Weren't there countless Golden Age Wonder Woman covers where she would be strapped onto some sort of bullseye, with a dart or a spear or whatever pointing at her nether regions? Nothing new under the sun...

I'm sorry, but yes I think this is an overreaction. We can't call every image sexist just because someone could see it as sexual innuendo. That's probably true of most images in our society. There could be so many reasons why they took the picture from that angle. And maybe someone in the room said "Hey, do you think...," but in the end they agreed that most people would see a girl making a snow angel in clothes she bought at Target. There are real cases of sexism and misogyny in advertising (http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/wavlength/archive/2007/12/is_ad_for_dell_computer_sexist.shtml). I just don't think this is one of them.

sybann - I got the EXACT same response, but mine came from Sherri.

What does it mean when blatant misogyny is the "company philosophy" of a "family-oriented store?"

i agree with annajcook. i'm not offended by the ad at all, but it's valuable to analyze advertising from a feminist perspective. i don't think this was done out of intentional misogyny, but examining why the advertisers chose this (or any ad) is interesting to me.

i think being shocked and appalled at the ad and picking it apart intellectually are two different things and the former here seems a bit much.

Eh.

It seems to me like they were going for a winter themed snow angel. The vagina in the bullseye and the resulting possible interpretations are interesting, but I'm skeptical that that's how was intended or that most people read it that way.

After reading this post I do find the ad a little creepy. If it's aiming for sexual undertones I certainly don't think it's working.

annajcook: I wonder how guys would react to themselves depicted as the vulnerable sexual object?

I often see this argument against the sexualisation of women. Most guys don't care beyond the fact that they don't particularly like having images of sexualised men shoved in their face. But that's a matter of taste and doesn't have much of a place in a moral debate. They certainly don't claim it someone harms the gender as a whole.

YogiDanielle: (I assume this ad was meant to subtly draw men into the store and not lesbian women, because everybody is still so heterocentric)

That's because life is heterocentric. While individuals are equal regardless of their sexuality, homosexuality is in a minority and will rarely elicit equal representation. Of course I see nothing hetrocentric about the ad and I'm sure Target doesn't care about the sexuality of the people who shop at their stores.

I don't know, at first I thought it was supposed to be a modern take on the Vitruvian Man. Except something was off. I don't know it it's just the photo (taken at street level, I presume), but I think it's the tilt towards the crotch that makes it the focal point of the ad. Not so much that the vulva is centered.

"That's because life is heterocentric. While individuals are equal regardless of their sexuality, homosexuality is in a minority and will rarely elicit equal representation"

Desipis: so does that mean it's okay for Blacks or Asians or any other minority to not receive equal representation because life is "whitecentric" ?

I often see this argument against the sexualisation of women

To clarify (not sure if you thought I was arguing against the ad on these grounds), I'm not necessarily opposed to the ad, or to depicting adults sexually in public spaces (HOW they're depicted is, of course, totally debatable).

My point was that we're used to seeing women's sexually in advertising not so much guys. You point out that guys might be uncomfortable with seeing men depicted sexually; I think most women are pretty inured to all but the most egregious examples of sex-as-advertising when women's bodies are involved. I think that double standard is fascinating.

A guy version of the ad could potentially be really interesting, from a feminist and political standpoint . . . whereas the woman version just seems, well, normal. A guy version might get people to think about sexuality, vulnerability, subjectivity, etc. But that's clearly my really geeky women's studies self talking, not a Target ad executive :).

I've seen this before, and honestly, I didn't notice it. But maybe it's because she's dressed, and they have people doing jumping jack like moves in their commercials, and I don't obsess about vaginas...

Wow, glad you picked up this story. I was tempted to write to Feministing to ask, "What do I do with all this hate mail?" after I spoke out about the ad here in Minneapolis/Home of Target. (The news station called me after I wrote a post on it.)

So now that YOU brought it up, what do I do with all the hate mail? I'm sure you've heard it all, but I got some good ones.

"I'm not really upset about the ad like I was, say, about the Wal-mart underpants, but I also think it's fair game to be analyzed from a feminist perspective. Whether or not it was intentional, the choice of visual imagery is important to read and assess critically."

I fully agree that media should be critiqued from a feminist perspective. But I still have yet to figure out why anyone is offended. I do not see any sexual objectification here. Sorry, I just don't see it. All I see is a woman in winter attire on a logo that just happens to be the company's real live logo. She doesn't look objectified to me; she looks like she's having fun.

"So, violent? Maybe, but not intentionally. Sexually objectifying and offensive? Definately, and intentionally. "

How? Really? Just HOW?

"C) I would not like my vagina used for target practice of any kind as your current ad campaign implies a target shopper enjoys."

I seriously think it's just a matter of symmetry. Nothing more. I really don't think they are attempting to perpetrate vaginas as targets.

I often see this argument against the sexualisation of women. Most guys don't care beyond the fact that they don't particularly like having images of sexualised men shoved in their face. But that's a matter of taste and doesn't have much of a place in a moral debate. They certainly don't claim it someone harms the gender as a whole

You don't really make your point. You're trying to say that because things are X, then definitionally morality has nothing to do with them. Um, really? People are selfish. Does that make selfishness automatically moral? I mean, if the fact that men perceive things and act a certain way is ITSELF evidence that this isn't a moral issue, then how is ANYTHING a moral issue? Anything that anyone does is somehow justified from his or her perspective. That doesn't make it *objectively* justified.

Did it ever occur to you, for instance, that maybe there are more consumers out there than just men, and that maybe they might have different preferences, and that maybe those preferences are being steamrollered to make way for straight men's preferences? No reasonable person could suggest that a discussion of advertising and sexuality is devoid of moral content.

If you read any work by Wilson Bryan Key, such as Subliminal Seduction, nothing is an accident.
My only second idea is that the entire woman is on the target - they just want to "Bag" women in general.

well said, law fairy.

i'll also add along those lines that perhaps part of the reason most men wouldn't be offended by seeing men sexualized is that men haven't been relegated to the "sex class" in society since forever and male sexuality doesn't carry with it all the cultural connotations of sexism, abuse, etc. that have stemmed from a history of reducing women to objects and treating them like second-class citizens.

It's not her vagina that's in the center of the target; it's her vulva. Vagina is internal.

I don't really see anything wrong with the Target logo. I guess I can see how her body position could be more than mildly sexually suggestive(spread eagle and smiling at the person looking at her. But then again, she's obviously imitating a snow angel.

I don't feel like puking a little, I suppose.

Eh. I don't know about this one. I think that it's sad that, as people have mentioned, that this made it through all the levels of marketing and such. On the other hand, there are tons of WAY worse ads out there. I am also way more disturbed by the response they gave about non-traditional media.

About the "not commenting" to non-traditional media thing: What about just commenting to a customer? Why would you have to call and say you were reporting for this or that blog or news source? Why not just call, get ahold of an executive or PR person, and ask a question about the ad?

I don't know what I think of the ad. I have never thought of it like that, to tell you the truth.

LawFairy: People are selfish. Does that make selfishness automatically moral?

No, but it does indicate that any argument that is based on an assumption that people aren't selfish is somewhat flawed.

I wasn't trying to mount a comprehensive argument about the morality of sexual based advertising, just pointing out that the "men wouldn't like it if it happened to them" argument is somewhat flawed.

rileystclair, I agree with how you describe the reasons why women generally object and men don't. I just think the issue would be best tackled through the liberation of female sexuality via the disassociation of female sexualisation from female exploitation. Such default association is a case of internalised sexism that is common in both genders, and internalised sexism is something I understand Feminists are generally against.

Personally the problem I have with modern marketing is primarily to do with the first order harm it causes through direct manipulation of it's targets, rather than the second/third order harm through reinforcing sexist stereotypes.

I don't have a problem with it. I'm not sure I get the ad, I mean is she supposed to be in the snow making a snow angel or something? I dunno, but I don't think it's sexist.

As someone who's been in a fair few photographs, I have to say that her positioning just seems like an attempt to create some sense of balance with regards to the bulls-eye.

If she was positioned any differently, her arms and legs wouldn't fall within the white frame. (Her head appearing outside of it seems like a matter of the perspective only.) You see something devious and well-planned here, but all I see is that someone told her, "Sit down in the bulls-eye. Okay, now spread yourself out like you're doing snow angels! Great! Now, look like you're having lots of fun!"

I mean, if anything ... we should blame evolution for putting our crotches near the center of our bodies. Not Target.

I don't like the ad. It makes me really uncomfortable.
What's also interesting is people's idea that it's "not as bad" as other ads of women in the media, so that makes it okay. Whether you're offended by the ad or not, to call it "less bad" suggests that it is a little bad. And so why should it be okay? Has the fact that we have come to expect offensive images made us lower our criterion for which ones will pass?

Personally the problem I have with modern marketing is primarily to do with the first order harm it causes through direct manipulation of it's targets, rather than the second/third order harm through reinforcing sexist stereotypes.

Frankly, I don’t understand this. Sexism (and, rest assured, there’s more than just “reinforcing sexist stereotypes� out there…some of it is out-and-out misogyny) IS the “first order of harm� marketing causes (or at least one of them). As a matter of fact, it’s harmful to a full 50% of the population…why is it secondary to you?

ShelbyWoo: Frankly, I don’t understand this. Sexism (and, rest assured, there’s more than just “reinforcing sexist stereotypes� out there…some of it is out-and-out misogyny) IS the “first order of harm� marketing causes (or at least one of them). As a matter of fact, it’s harmful to a full 50% of the population…why is it secondary to you?

Firstly I'd like to point out that there is plenty sexualised marketing that exhibts the male form, so it's got nothing to do with the issue only affecting 50% of the population. I think that the imbalance is primarily due to the historical social taboo of sexualising the male form, and that in time people will become just as comfortable with male sexualisation.

Secondly I'd like to point out that the first order effect of marketing is to get the fool to part with his money. More specifically to exploit ones sexual desires to sell an unrelated, otherwise unwanted product. Something which causes direct harm to the target through loss of money, as well as to the community through wastage of resources.

The enforcement of a stereotype only occurs through repeated use of the same sexualised messages and the residual build up of the themes within. The second order comes in because a stereotype itself does not cause harm (accurate acknowledgment of the majority) but rather the harm is created through the misapplication of the stereotype (projection of the majority onto the minority).

I think my lack of offense at this particular ad comes from my inability to see the Target logo as an actual target.

At this point I've seen so many print and tv commercials that are composed entirely of different sizes of red/white circles that I see this sign and it doesn't actually phase me that the model is on anything other than the Target logo. I see the difference between this ad and many others where the models aren't necessarily positioned directly at the center of the crosshairs, but I also don't watch the commercials and realize that the hundreds of targets walking across the screen looks remarkably like a shooting gallery of overly happy teens.

Really I'd have to agree with several others that Target's response to 'non-traditional media' was the disturbing part of this story.

Firstly I'd like to point out that there is plenty sexualised marketing that exhibts the male form, so it's got nothing to do with the issue only affecting 50% of the population.

Oh, please. You and I both know that’s just not true. There is some marketing that sexualizes men, but it’s rare and it’s even rarer that it depicts them in demeaning or degrading ways. No so for women. Sexualized advertising of any kind disproportionately features women. Therefore, it disproportionately affects 50% of the population.

The enforcement of a stereotype only occurs through repeated use of the same sexualised messages and the residual build up of the themes within. The second order comes in because a stereotype itself does not cause harm (accurate acknowledgment of the majority) but rather the harm is created through the misapplication of the stereotype (projection of the majority onto the minority).

Did you miss the part about how there is much more than just reinforcing of stereotypes going on? Plenty of marketing out there is demeaning and degrading toward women, well beyond “reinforcing stereotypes.� The harm comes from it being constant, which, in turn, normalizes it (and, again, men do not experience the same degree of this, not anywhere close).

More specifically to exploit ones sexual desires to sell an unrelated, otherwise unwanted product. Something which causes direct harm to the target through loss of money, as well as to the community through wastage of resources.

It's bothersome that you seem to be more worried about someone's wallet than human women. Besides, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t complain about how sex sells without condemning the selling of sex. Stop allowing sex and, more importantly, women to be treated as a commodity and, voila, your problem is solved. Something that is beneficial to women, benefits society as a whole. Imagine that.

There is some marketing that sexualizes men, but it’s rare...

It's not rare. Not from my experience.

... and it’s even rarer that it depicts them in demeaning or degrading ways.

I cannot understand how images that sexualise women and glorify the female form can be so frequently interpreted as demeaning or degrading.

The harm comes from it being constant, which, in turn, normalizes it

I happen to thing demeaning males to the level of sexual animals jumping at anything with a set of tits is quite harmful? Additionally the male can experience a more direct sense of exploitation as it is he who has be swindled out of goods. Of course it works the same in the reverse too.

It's bothersome that you seem to be more worried about someone's wallet than human women.

Somewhat of a side effect of arguing with right wing economists. Sexualised marketing exploits factors of people's humanity to extract wealth from them. The most affected by such exploitation are the lowly educated and least wealthy, which all too often will be women. I hope that helps you understand why I think might be a feminist issue.

You can’t complain about how sex sells without condemning the selling of sex.

Sure I can. "Sex sells" is an unwanted, unconsented sexual interaction (manipulation). "Selling sex" is a sought out consented interaction (or at least the subtype of "selling sex" that I support)

What's also interesting is people's idea that it's "not as bad" as other ads of women in the media, so that makes it okay. "Whether you're offended by the ad or not, to call it "less bad" suggests that it is a little bad. And so why should it be okay? Has the fact that we have come to expect offensive images made us lower our criterion for which ones will pass?"

Because the people calling less bad are afraid to disagree, or feel pressured or otherwise compelled to agree, even tho they really dont.

Plain and simple - a lot of sheep visit this site and try to agree because they feel it is the right thing to do. The article isnt less bad, or bad at all.

"But I still have yet to figure out why anyone is offended. I do not see any sexual objectification here. Sorry, I just don't see it. All I see is a woman in winter attire on a logo that just happens to be the company's real live logo. She doesn't look objectified to me; she looks like she's having fun."

But see - that is just it- a slew od other ads that didnt appear sexual in nature were pegged by the hardliners here as sexual since the woman "looked scared" or could be construed as "detached".

She is not in fear - she is smiling, having fun, looks like a ton of fun to do.

Target's logo is a target - she needed to be centered on it.

I dont think this is nearly as sexist as Jessica Valenti referring to groups of men as sausage fests.

i dont find this offensive either.

i mean, i totally see how people could and as others have mentioned i think it's important to scrutinize it from a feminist perspective but i think it comes down to the fact that she is in the position of making a snow angel and dressed in the type of clothing that one would wear to do such a thing. now, if her apparel were a little different and she was laying there with her arms behind her head, vag at the center of the target, i don't think it would be a question at all if this were offensive.

I think it's just weird. I don't know about offensive.... but definitely weird.

I don't see why target would love this image enough to make it a billboard. That obviously means something.... vag is always the goal, the destination.. everyone wants the vag right? Fucking ridiculous.

I don't know. Isn't it possible that saying "Fuck this vagina," if that is indeed the message behind the ad, isn't actually the same as advocating rape? Don't the feminists opposing this ad seem like hysterical, repressed, anti-sex control freaks who are giving feminism a bad name?

Okay. You guys do realize that Target is a store for women, right?

Oh, sure, it claims to be a department store, it advertises with both men and women in its ads, and maybe 20% of the people you see in the store are men. But Target's primary demographic is young, hip women, young, hip mothers, and older women and mothers who want to send the message that they're young and hip (or who just don't want to shop at Wal-Mart.)

Let me tell you a story. I went in to Target to buy my husband a wallet. We were in a big rush because he was going to get on an airplane and had lost his original wallet; we'd just come from the DMV to replace the ID in it. My husband can't see well, so it's my job to find things quickly, and finding a wallet quickly counts. Fortunately I knew that Target sells the wallets in Accessories right near the front of the store.

Except they don't. It turns out they sell *women's* wallets there. To get a plain, un-frou-frou, boring, man's wallet, you have to go all the way to the back of the store to the men's department. Unlike more upscale department stores, which actively market to men by making a distinct-looking men's section and putting it near one of the entrances, Target's men's section looks just like the rest of the store and is all the way in the back beneath a flight of stairs in a back room with a sign on the door saying BEWARE OF THE LEOPARD. Okay, no, it's just all the way in the back, the rest is hyperbole. But my point is, men's things are in a ghetto. "Accessories" means "women's accessories". Men's accessories turn out to be in the ghetto for men. This is not a store that would want to say "Bring your penis and your money here!" Unlike most of the world, where men are the primary and women are the afterthought, men are the afterthought at Target.

(Also, they have a huge housewares section but their hardware is sadder than Wal-Mart's, their auto section sucks, their sports section is great but markets equally to men and women -- which I *like* in a sports section, don't get me wrong, but it means they expect disproportionate numbers of women shoppers, and their electronics section is also pretty crap. All the things our culture says men are supposed to care about and want to buy, Target is weak on or ghetto-izes or outright doesn't have. It's like a store for women to shop for themselves and their kids and while they're at it pick up a thing or two for their boyfriend or husband, not a store men are supposed to shop at themselves.)

Now consider this. Target is, well, a target. Their logo is a target. *They* are the target. So putting a vagina on a target to imply "we're targeting vaginas" or "you can target a vagina" makes no sense. *They* are the target. If anything this ad says "We're your vagina!" Which makes no sense.

Finally dressing a woman in *snow* gear is not exactly sexy. She's not wearing skin-tight clothes or showing skin, she's wearing attractive winter wear. Which means she isn't saying "You can have sex with me" but "You can look attractive like me." The market is *women.*

So the fact that her vagina is sitting right on the bullseye is probably a coincidence based on the fact that she's making a snow angel and she has to be balanced properly on the logo. Seriously, unless you can think of a reason why a store that SELLS AND MARKETS PRIMARILY TO WOMEN would want to show off a vagina, and a fully-clothed vagina attached to a person wearing snow gear at that, I think you have to put this down to accidental.

Well analyzed, Alara. Though some of those things you described are sexist in and of themselves, it seems like a fair analysis.

I just can't see this image as a deliberate threat. Again, it looks like a woman, enjoying herself (but not in a sexual fashion), dressed in good-looking (but not sensual) clothes, making a snow angel. Yes, there's no snow, but that's so you can see the symbol.

If you look at the placement of the feet and hands you'll see there was really no other option for centering her on the corporate logo. And as far as the angle of viewing goes, I think it's pretty clearly meant to make the viewer feel like they are standing near the model, rather than hovering over her like a ghost (bird's eye).

So, deliberate Target: Vagina? Not so much. Target: women who might want to spend money on winter clothing? Yeah, that's it.

Now, whether or not it should have been stopped after the concept stage by someone analyzing the image and determining it might be offensive...that's another matter entirely.

-Nick

The fact that the woman in the ad is fully dressed is part of the problem. Even though she is fully dressed and winter-bundled, her body is still sexualized for consumption through her position, the angle of the photo, the background scenery and even her smile.

Also, the fact that her demeaning sexualization is ambiguous is also problematic. Perhaps it's not a matter of her body being sold to men, as many posters have argued, but her objectification is still being sold to women, creating a reality where women who view the ad come to so revere their opportunity to be likewise sexualized they will go and but target products.

and to all those who seem to think photographic aesthetics can defend this image, you are wrong. Every aspect of this image was carefully chosen and designed. her position, expression and every detail were carefully orchestrated to create this image and all the messages it sends. Target has some of the most creative graphic designers working on their generally classy and stylized ads, they did not need to resort to this tripe.

Kate,

I think I've realized why the two equally feminist sides of this discussion can't really see eye-to-eye.

I look at her position, the angle of the photo, the background scenery, and even her smile...and see nothing sexualized about it.

Her position would make any kind of intercourse difficult at best, and most likely painful for a potential partner. The angle of the photo is similar: we aren't looking directly between her legs, in an "approach vector." We're off center. The background scenery is a corporate logo, and one that is far from sensual in any fashion. And her smile, and facial expression in general, does not seem to be sexualized at all. No come hither smile or eyes, no look of surprise or mild fear. I would call it more childlike joy. Certainly doesn't look like orgasmic rapture to me.

Basically, I just don't see anything about the photo as sensual at all. No matter how I squint and try to get myself upset about it. *shrug*

I acknowledge that someone else could see it as sexualized...I was just explaining why I can't.

-Nick

"The fact that the woman in the ad is fully dressed is part of the problem. Even though she is fully dressed and winter-bundled, her body is still sexualized for consumption through her position, the angle of the photo, the background scenery and even her smile."

I'm sorry. There isn't anything sexual in the slightest about that photo. Nothing. Anyone who sees a sexualized, objectified woman in that photo is seriously reaching. The simple act of taking a picture of a woman with her legs spread is not automatically sexual. Women do spread their legs for reasons other than sex and consumption.

"The fact that the woman in the ad is fully dressed is part of the problem. Even though she is fully dressed and winter-bundled, her body is still sexualized for consumption through her position, the angle of the photo, the background scenery and even her smile."

I'm sorry. There isn't anything sexual in the slightest about that photo. Nothing. Anyone who sees a sexualized, objectified woman in that photo is seriously reaching. The simple act of taking a picture of a woman with her legs spread is not automatically sexual. Women do spread their legs for reasons other than sex and consumption.

"The fact that the woman in the ad is fully dressed is part of the problem. Even though she is fully dressed and winter-bundled, her body is still sexualized for consumption through her position, the angle of the photo, the background scenery and even her smile."

I'm sorry. There isn't anything sexual in the slightest about that photo. Nothing. Anyone who sees a sexualized, objectified woman in that photo is seriously reaching. The simple act of taking a picture of a woman with her legs spread is not automatically sexual. Women do spread their legs for reasons other than sex and consumption.

Let me offer up something that I thought about after living in Britain for a couple of years. (This is relevant, stay with me).

In the UK, there's been an ongoing hysteria about children. Famously, a guy who was a pediatrician got his house attacked because the semi-literate mob thought he was a pedophile.

Now, one of the issues that arose was an art exhibit that involved pictures of the artist's kids and in some spots they were naked-- just like three year olds automatically do half the time. (The artist took pictures after giving them some funky masks to play with -- but whatever, it's a long explanation).

The pictures were immediately declared obscene (in a legal definition) and the cops show up at the Tate gallery. Long legal battles ensue.

Now, what struck me about that, and this ad, and the reactions to it was the same thing that was brought up in London. That is: are we, by our obsession with the dangers of pedophiles, starting to see everything in the same way they do? Are we looking at the world through a pedophile's lens, sexualizing things that we shouldn't be?

This ad made me think of that because of the reactions to it. I wonder if, as feminists, (or those who agree with them) we start to sexualize images ourselves, because we get so used to being outraged at it? Do we start to become just like the misogynists?

I mean, I could argue that everything is a sexualized image if I wanted. (Remember all those stories of subliminal messages in ads? The hidden orgy in the french fries kind of thing?)

I don't think it's at all obvious that the image was deliberately placing the woman's vagina in the center of the photo, in the spread-eagle pose (that is, in a way to call to mind that kind of shot) because no matter how I place the woman in front of the logo her genitals are going to be near the bull's-eye.

That said, I do understand what people are seeing. But saying that Target spends a lot on ads doesn't tell you much because even the best ad agencies misstep, (remember the black and white ads for the video game system-- Sony was it?). Also, sometimes even the photographer or designer might not be aware of his/her own subconscious biases and aesthetics. It wasn't until many years afterwards, for instance, that I noticed my own issues in old drawings I did in school -- they were far from obvious to me when I did them, and nobody pointed them out at the time.

I dunno, maybe I am just outrage-fatigued and that's my problem.

I think it's obvious that the leg spread is deliberately centered, but it seems (to me) to have been an aesthetic choice on the part of the photographer. I'm not sure much calculation went into the sexual aspect of the shot, but I'm sure it was vetted and discussed before it was published and they decided to go with it anyway.

I wish there was also a version with a man in the same position, but there isn't. I think that if there's a sexist element to this shot, it's in that nobody would conceive of a male model in this position but women are expected to contort themselves oddly for advertising and art all the time. It's as though women are expected to be more malleable as models (and, by extension, as people) than men, and the result is a wealth of shots of women in every imaginable position while almost every male model stands straight and looks right at the camera. I think that's interesting and worth discussing.

[nitpick]
Technically, her thigh, not her genitals, is in the center of the bulls-eye logo...
[/nitpick]

I'm just curious if anyone who was offended would have been if the model was male? I just think it's sad that people are looking for things to get offended at. I see the ad as a woman mimicking making a snow angel on a Target logo, not a woman on a target. I think this discussion is actually the first time I have ever thought of the Target logo as a target. As a feminist I understand the knee jerk negative reaction that so many people have to the term feminist. When we spend so much of our time getting outraged at every perceived slight we're making things more difficult for ourselves, not easier.

I agree with hokwei. As much as I love feministing.com, and agree with most of the articles and am glad they were brought to my attention, I feel that some things, like this article, are looked far mor einto than they should.

I think the ad would look awkward if her butt (or vag if you see it that way) wasn't in the middle of the Target symbol, it would look awkward and unsymmetrical. At least she is fully clothed, unlike most ads featuring women.

ok this is just as stupid as those complaining that santa clause 'ho ho ho' greeting is sexist

Personally, I find this an innocent ad, if extremely tacky, and that people are reading too much into it. As for the lack of a male version, I'll throw out that snow angels are seen as playful and childish, something more appealing to females than males, which is an issue on its own but quite exploitable in a marketing sense.

Oh brother. I just did the measurements and hey guess what? My "vag" (ugh thanks for that) is exactly in the middle of my body. So I guess we should all write angry letters to... god?

ok this is just as stupid as those complaining that santa clause 'ho ho ho' greeting is sexist

...Which turned out to be a hoax.

...Next?

No it wouldn't!!! Here is a link to a pic of DaVinci's Vetruvian Man:

http://www.success.co.il/knowledge/images/Pillar8-Thought-and-Art-Vitruvian-Man-Leonardo-da-Vinci.jpg

You'll note that it is not his penis centered in the circle. It's his belly button. If the model was centered on the target her belly button would be centered. They've made her appear centered by shooting her from an angle that also just happens to make the viewer look straight up into her personal area.

It's amazing to me that people can't see that. Is it the biggest deal in the world? No. But it isn't imaginary. She isn't centered. Her genitals are. The shot is about her genitals.

Jesus! This is advertising! People don't know they do this shit?

I think the ad would look awkward if her butt (or vag if you see it that way) wasn't in the middle of the Target symbol, it would look awkward and unsymmetrical.

No it wouldn't!!! Here is a link to a pic of DaVinci's Vetruvian Man:

http://www.success.co.il/knowledge/images/Pillar8-Thought-and-Art-Vitruvian-Man-Leonardo-da-Vinci.jpg

You'll note that it is not his penis centered in the circle. It's his belly button. If the model was centered on the target her belly button would be centered. They've made her appear centered by shooting her from an angle that also just happens to make the viewer look straight up into her personal area.

It's amazing to me that people can't see that. Is it the biggest deal in the world? No. But it isn't imaginary. She isn't centered. Her genitals are. The shot is about her genitals.

Jesus! This is advertising! People don't know they do this shit?

I haven't mastered quotes, as you can see.

I think the shot is about her genitals if you want it to be about her genitals. Yes, you are looking up into her crotch if you are standing below her. This would be true if she were in any standing position but legs and feet together. It's a billboard, meant to be viewable from a distance, not really intended to be seen from directly below. If she were doing something other than simulating making a snow angel, such as running or something, would you still be outraged? Also, as I asked earlier, would you be as upset if it were a man? I doubt it.

Billboards in Times Square are not meant to be seen from a distance--there isn't any distance because buildings get in the way. Billboards in Times Square are pretty much meant to be seen from right there.

I thought that this was probably just a coincidence and no big deal until I found myself in Times Square the other day and looked up and was smacked in the face with this ad. When you see it towering above you at 100 times life-size, there's no real question: you're staring straight at her crotch which has been put smack in the middle of a bull's eye.

Consider an ad that put a man on his stomach, reading a book or something, with his ass right in the middle of a bullseye. That would simply never happen. Why? Because the overtones would upset men.