I... I don't get it.

Oh, wait, I didn't notice the Obama button. Too subtle for me, Axe. I'm used to having your sexism be blatant and in my face.

Axe body spray smells so bad, its scent might disorient me long enough to vote for McCain.

Axe is awful. Women will not react to anyone wearing it. (Except with disgust.)

I wear Chanel, and perfect strangers will stop me in public to compliment the scent.

Women, (and men!) like people they are attracted to to smell good, not rancid.

Can the 14 year old boys who buy/steal/wear Axe vote? Is that a new demographic I haven't heard about yet? Also, props to Ann for covering the Axe beat. It's tought, but somebody's gotta do it.

olivia, that's so funny. Jessica and I are always joking that Axe is my "beat." Sad but true...

Off-topic re: Hitchens: Why does he look like John Lovitz's character from The Wedding Singer?

I'm not seeing the sexism.

Female beauty products are marketed as helping women attract men.

Male beauty products are marketed as helping men attract women.

I just learned this, so I thought I'd share.

Axe & Dove are owned by the same company.

Here's what they say about Axe:
Adventurous & unconventional
"We've also taken the brand into a number of new areas, including shower and hair gels. Our award-winning ads and marketing are equally adventurous. In Colombia, for instance, a female Axe Patrol visits bars and clubs, frisking guys and applying body spray. Unconventional media channels are also being used."

And on Dove:
Taking action
Over the last few years, Dove has focused on delivering products that inspire women to enjoy their own beauty and individuality. As part of our Campaign for Real Beauty, the Dove Self Esteem Fund (DSEF) was launched in 2004 to demonstrate our commitment to the brand's mission 'to make more women feel beautiful everyday, by widening today's view of beauty and by inspiring women to take great care of themselves.' The DSEF aims to educate and inspire young girls through a series of tools and workshops which ultimately protects and nurtures their body-related self-esteem and enables them to become fully realized adults."
www.unilever.com

I'm so disturbed.

Jesus Harold Christ on rubber crutches. The regular Axe commercials are bad enough. The usual Hillary-related sexism is worse. Put them together and it's a shit-storm or simple-minded misogynistic drivel.

I would also like to point out that my [male] former roommate wore Axe, and not once did I ravage him in an uncontrollable, animalistic, horny rage.

Yup, LucyBell, we've mentioned that before: here and here.

I don't think that Axe should be confined to one writer, I think an Axe Special Task Force should be developed using UN grant money.

4:14, what's sexist is that it suggests women are so easily swayed by the smoothness of a dude smart enough to wear Axe that they abandon all ambitions and principles under the spell of its magic.

I cannot help but think their lawyers must have recommended against this ad...

Hahaha, and by "4:14," I mean daoist. This is what happens when I spend too much time making anonymous comments on above the law...

As someone who's been frustrated by Hillary-related sexism in the past, I kinda chuckled at this one.

The point is, it's supposed to be funny because the idea that such a thing would happen would be absurd. If they were serious, they'd tell Obama to load up with Axe and go give Clinton a hug.

I know that the line is fine between sexism and humor sometimes, and there's also the context that she's taken crap from day one (and been brave and tenacious in dealing with it). And yes, Axe wearers are moronic 14-year-old boys. But I'm just not seeing it here.

As Jezebel said, this is also incredibly insulting to Obama, because it implies he'd wear this shit.

I'm so sick of this Hillary bashing, especially the sexism part of it. Whoever you want to vote for fine, but with Hillary the sexism that goes along with her is just outrageous and no one seems to think it's a big deal.

It is so a big deal. It's really made me a more in your face radical feminist. I used to be a polite tea and crumpets feminist, but now I see that doesn't work. And people truly do not get it.

Browne

Law Fairy-

Right, and I understand that. My point is, though, that when you look at the converse situation we've got ads telling women that if they simply wear this perfume or that pair of underwear they'll leave guys slack-jawed in awe. It's really just the same sort of marketing.

And it works. Everyone wants to be attractive to whichever gender they prefer.

Like Jeff pointed out, the power in the ad stems from the absurdity. If it really were sexist, the ad simply wouldn't work. "Of course women are simpletons who can be manipulated via cheap cologne! But why would Obama want such an ugly one?!?" What a crappy ad. It's because Clinton is such a great symbol of powerful women that the ad works, and whoever wrote the ad is recognizing that fact.

daoist, those are some serious mental gymnastics you're doing there.

So, daoist and Jeff, it's actually a compliment that Axe has stripped her of her political principles, because if she wasn't such a powerful woman, she wouldn't need to be taken down a peg or two?

Riiiight. That's not sexist at all....

Your problem is that you're not bothering to consider this from a female, non-privileged male point of view. This ad is attacking the most important aspect of who Hillary is - her political career and campaign for the Presidency - and suggesting that male sexual potency is so great that she would abandon that entirely.

It's actually really fucking disgusting. As bad, in it's own way, as the women-as-animals ads they've done previously. I hope she fucking sues their asses.

Speaking of Hillary Sexism Watch, I find the Huffington Post delivers sexist anti-Hillary essays and headlines pretty reliably. Today something about "sister frigidaire" is featured. Granted, this references a nickname she has disclosed from her school days, but the basis of the nickname itself is sexist and appropriating it seems an attempt to legitimize it. (The author decries Hillary's reaction to the "pimping out" Chelsea comments, as if it somehow stifles free speech - that old chestnut from privileged white men who get scared they someday may not be able to say whatever they want, whenever they want about women, people of color, etc.) I know Feministing is tight with HuffPo, but please don't turn a blind eye to the damaging rhetoric they put out there.

Not every little slight is a concerted effort be men to keep you in your place.

Clinton doesn't need to be taken down a peg; that's not what I was saying at all.

The ad only works if you have respect for Clinton. If you don't, the ad just doesn't make any sense at all. I haven't seen a good answer to that point.

I think it's important to point out sexism wherever it is, but at some point you've got to be reasonable. The same sort of tactics are used to sell products to women. It's not sexist if they do it to both genders! That's the very definition of not-sexist.

Daoist, that's preposterous. It works better if you have no respect for Clinton. It only serves to make you shistey if you do respect her.

No, the ad "works" because, like all other Axe ads, it appeals to the basest assumptions about women as objects to be won over sexually, by whatever means appears to work. And please - "not every little slight is a concerted effort by men to keep you in their place"? How would you characterize a relentless slew of personal and sleazy, sexist attacks on the first really viable female candidate for president ever? That's not a concerted effort to keep women in their place? Riiiight.

Your problem is that you're not bothering to consider this from a female, non-privileged male point of view.

This is the kind of ad that by its nature means different things to different people. My immediate response was similar to that of daoist and jeff: It's only funny if it's absurd; it's only absurd if in fact Hillary Clinton is an admirable person. I took the ad to be saying, facetiously, "Axe is so powerfully sexually attractive that it has power over even someone as impressive as Hillary Clinton." It assumes that the viewer shares this estimation of Hillary Clinton as an impressive and admirable person. Since Axe targets mainly heterosexual males, it makes sense that they picked the only currently prominent woman of the major presidential candidates.

Now, if you respond to the ad differently, then that's your reaction. It's not like Axe wasn't asking for it. This ad is subtle, and lends itself to interpretation, and Axe has a history of ads that are sexist in ways very similar to the way in which a lot of people here interpret this one. And perhaps I'm atypical as a man; perhaps most men would interpret this as taking her down a peg; I don't know. But if you're trying to judge the ad based on what it says, rather than how it makes you feel subjectively, I hardly think the point of view of the intended audience is an inappropriate one to consider. I think it makes perfect sense to think of it from a "privileged male point of view," since those are the people toward whom the advertiser had in mind when writing the ad.

Benquo, most ads have a privileged male point of view in mind when targeting their ads. That doesn't make them less offensive. There are fashion ads that depict impending gang rape or women being violently dominated. Just exactly whom do you think the ad execs had in mind for as the target audience for those? If we think of those from a privileged male point of view, then maybe that's just sexy, and not at all offensive. The point is, the entire world considers the privileged male point of view, and that's exactly the problem. The ad is making fun of Clinton's femaleness, and there's just no way around that.

haha law fairy, you are outed! (i also frequently author anonymous comments on above the law--god what a cesspool!) i'm glad to know when i see one of the other (few) rational, feminist-leaning posts, it might be from you!

Kissmypineapple,

I agree that it doesn't excuse sexism to say that it's just pandering to the audience. If the content is sexist, then it doesn't matter morally whether or not the target audience is sexist.

The meaning of this ad, though, is highly allusive, and depends on the viewer making a lot of connections. I think that when we're ascribing a point of view to an ad, it is usually fair to judge it by its intended content, and in this case that depends on whom we think the target audience is and what assumptions they bring to the ad.

I also agree with you that the assumption of the privileged male point of view, and consequent insensitivity to how women are likely to interpret the ad, is a problem. That problem, however, is a separate issue. It is a problem, no matter what message the ad sends to its target audience, that this ad sends a very negative message to many women. So while true, it doesn't necessarily have any bearing on the ad's primary message.

An analogous case from my own experience would be the word "crusade." Plenty of people describe advocacy for what they consider admirable causes as "crusades," and themselves or their heroes as "crusaders." Because of the way I was raised, I tend to think of the many massacres of Jews and Arabs in Germany and the near East (and the destruction of Constantinople) rather than, y'know, fighting for a good cause. But that's something I bring to the word, not something people generally mean by it. So while their usage is insensitive, it would be wrong to accuse them of asserting or implying the meaning that I'm thinking of, simply because I'm thinking of it.

then it doesn't matter morally whether or not the target audience is sexist.

To clarify: it shouldn't affect moral judgments about the ad whether or not the audience is sexist; of course it should affect our judgment of the audience.

I think it's important to point out sexism wherever it is, but at some point you've got to be reasonable. The same sort of tactics are used to sell products to women. It's not sexist if they do it to both genders! That's the very definition of not-sexist.

Sorry, daoist, I missed where there's an ad for women's perfume or underwear that makes Obama wear a "Hillary" campaign button. In fact, I'm having a hard time trying to imagine anyone ever making an ad like that.

Riley, ahhh, busted! I knew there was at least one more out there ;)

Ha, should have known that the reminder to men to consider this ad from a non-sexist, yea even 'female' point of view, would be a red flag to the bulls. Yes, yes, your manly perspectives are SO appreciated. What's that? You just think it's funny and harmless? No way! So glad you've made that clear, we silly women never could have guessed.

I'll say it again, since you didn't read it or ignored it the first time: stripping a powerful woman of what makes her powerful (her political career) is SEXIST. It doesn't matter that it's a 'compliment' she's so powerful in the first place. THIS AD TAKES THAT AWAY FROM HER!

stripping a powerful woman of what makes her powerful (her political career) is SEXIST. It doesn't matter that it's a 'compliment' she's so powerful in the first place. THIS AD TAKES THAT AWAY FROM HER!

Last time I checked, she's still a senator, has the respect of millions, a powerful political apparatus, and hundreds of delegates. This ad seems to be doing a piss-poor job of taking anything away from anyone.

Or did you mean "takes [...] away" in a different sense? If so, it would be nice of you to explain what you mean.

I'm not seeing the sexism.

...because she is a politically powerful woman and we'd never see an Ax ad with, say, Dick Cheney wearing an Obama pin after an Axe-heavy handshake.

Let's just call Axe what it is from now on -- Eau De Douchebag.

The other day I parked my car and a man parked three spaces down from me got out of his car. And I could smell the odious oder of Axe already! And then I had to share an elevator with this dudely dude. Luckily he got off at the third floor and I didn't have to ride up to the 22nd with him.

Oh, and there's an McCain version, as well.

I'll try to be more specific about what I'm having trouble understanding. If I see an ad for, f'rinstance, an energy drink, that promises implicitly but absurdly that those who drink it will be able to fly, that doesn't actually suggest to me that flying is a more trivial task than I previously thought it was; the contrast between the promise and reality is too great for the promise to be taken seriously. Similarly, it seems to me as if the promise Axe makes that it is attractive enough to convert Senator Clinton into an Obama supporter in the primary is too absurd to be taken seriously, and amounts to a hyperbolic expression of Axe's appeal rather than a meaningful diminution of Clinton's commitment to her career.

What is wrong with that analogy?

"Last time I checked, she's still a senator, has the respect of millions, a powerful political apparatus, and hundreds of delegates. This ad seems to be doing a piss-poor job of taking anything away from anyone."

I am really finding it hard to believe you do not understand this, but on the tiny chance your question was in good faith: in this ad, Senator Clinton abandons a political career of many years making, and a quest for the Presidency that she has worked incredibly hard for, because of male sexual potency. She abandons all her principles because Obama smells hot (yes its fucking insulting to him to to imply he'd use the stuff, but she's by far the bigger victim here).

Now, you are right that in REALITY she is still powerful. Hurrah, Axe ads cannot yet alter space and time. But the reality of the AD, which is what we're discussing here, is really sexist.

What if they'd put her drooling on her hands and knees in front of him? You'd agree then that it was sexist right? Even though in reality she'd still be a respected politician?

Well why don't you accept that stripping her of her political principles is as sexist as stripping her of her clothes?

(Note: to be fair, stripping her in her underwear would probably be more sexist, as it would be a double whammy of clothes and political principles. But I make the analogy in the hopes that you'll realise that suggesting women abandon long-fought-for and well-deserved goals in the face of sexy man smell is really fucking insulting and sexist).

(And another note: The analogies you try to draw with other ads is only further reinforcing the impression that you don't actually care about recognising sexism when it's in front of you at all. You are approaching this from the wrong angle - an angle which is honestly really blinkered by privilege. Axe's desire to advertise their product does not excuse sexist treatment of Clinton. Sexism is not acceptable hyperbole. Just try, if you can, looking at this from Clinton's/women's point of view.)

"Last time I checked, she's still a senator, has the respect of millions, a powerful political apparatus, and hundreds of delegates. This ad seems to be doing a piss-poor job of taking anything away from anyone.

Or did you mean "takes [...] away" in a different sense? If so, it would be nice of you to explain what you mean."

Actually, I just read this again and I think I was way too kind to you. There is no way that in good faith you do not understand that when I said the ad stripped her of her power, you did not understand that that means in the context of the ad.

So are you a moron, or a troll?

A moron, apparently.

Look, of course I suspected that you meant "takes away" in the context of the ad; I said as much. But I didn't understand exactly what you did mean until you explained it. Since I didn't understand what you meant, I was not confident that I know what you didn't mean either.

Some people really are stupid about some things and need them spelled out. Of course it's not your job to educate every ignorant person you come across, and I thank you for taking the time to show me what I couldn't see in that ad, but there was no need to assume bad faith.

I think my error was in drawing too sharp a distinction between background and content. Your examples helped me understand, by making the ad's sexist assumptions more vivid; if it's wrong to say it, it's wrong to imply it.