Kingsmill Fruit and fibre advert complaint

[ZigZagWanderer]

This may have been mentioned before but I would like to know how I go about making a complaint about an advert that I have found inappropriate. I really think it exploits teenage girls.

I'm leaving this thread too Tethers.
I don't know what you want our teens to do, they're not allowed to hitch their skirts up (like you admitted you did), instead they should just do what we say.
It ain't going to happen, they'll follow the trend of their peers.
And a minority of creepy men will look at them as sexual objects, but sadly, it seems, so will some ardent feminists.
Burkhas for all I think, after reading this thread.

This is not about what teenagers will or will not wear. Or us or anybody else telling them what to wear.

It is about a company which is aiming to sell its product (bread) to a family market. With a bit of 'oh look how healthy this is - it's got fruit in it' thrown in .
And to promote that message, apparently a teenaged girl in a Britney Spiers outfit is required.

I know fine well that teenagers will wear whatever they jolly well please, and that is how it should be, but not a single one of them decide this in a vacuum. They might think they are all rebellious, but really sadly the girls with the short skirts are just conforming to expectations .
And women in burkhas are conforming to societal pressures as well - not the same thing of course, but just sayin'...

Again though, Pacific, did you dress to conform with your peers and piss off your folks when you were a teenager?
Because to me that's pretty much what the ad is saying.
And in ten years time we'll still see pretty much the same thing.
There will always be a battle between teens and their parents, I think the ad is sweet and funny and saw no sexual connotations at all until I came on this thread.

mutny if the actress was short, overweight with stumpy little legs men wouldn't letch as much would they. If at all.

I was short, overweight and still have stumpy legs - pleanty of letch recieved though.

Tethers, you may do better if you didn't feel the need to insult people who don't agree with your rigid view. Just because it's what you believe doesn't make it right

This is exactly why I hid all the feminist boards. The whole I'm right and you are an ignorant fool attitude.

I maintain that if you look at that ad and see SEX then you are the one with the problem. If you see a girl dressed like that and think they should cover up to conform with your views then again, you are the one with the problem.

As I see it, the fact that, if she wants to, a girl can wear a short skirt without being locked up/attacked/whipped by the state or whatever is a sign of freedom - they can wear what they want. That is empowerment. Not "Oh, you mustn't wear that as it is a sign of a patriarchal society"

As an aside, if they are dressing like that to attract male attention - so what? Is that not what we are meant to do as a species?

If you think Kingsmill are using some kind of male sexual fantasy to sell bread then you are rather odd.

Soup, please point out where i have insulted anyone. Also, show me where I have told anyone they mustn't wear anything.

Do I believe I'm right? Of course I do. Just as you believe you're right when you cite the wearing of miniskirts as a sign of female empowerment

But yes, I said I was out. Jelly, wall, etc.

Shelley i was waiting for that :o

I don't have kids teenage or otherwise but I have to admit this ad leapt out at me. Whilst actually relatively mild i think it is designed to be evocative of britney. The girl looks older than a school girl too. She is actually 18 so could 'just' about be wearing uniform for school however she looks like an adult wearing uniform to me and adults normally only wear uniform to appear sexy so it does have that connotation. I think this was a very knowing choice on the part of the brand and that is why it feels a bit exploitative to me. Ok not on a par with the Taliban gunning down school girls I get that, however, I don't think the ad would stand out if the girl was 13 and very obviously a child.

No amount of advertising will alter the fact that Kingsmill bread tastes horrible.

She looks like a sixth former to me, and so could be anything under 20 (some kids need a 3rd year in the sixth form)

This is going to be discussed on The Wright Stuff today.

I don't see any teenage girls going to school like that in my area.

And I don't really see the need for having a young girl in a sexy outfit to advertise bread. It is using sex to sell imo.

This is on Wright Stuff shortly.

Complainers get your opinions in now!

Just as you believe you're right when you cite the wearing of miniskirts as a sign of female empowerment

Actually I said that the right to wear whatever you like is a sign of female empowerment but feel free to twist it to fit your agenda. Historically, females have been told to cover up, now they have the freedom to wear whatever they want. If my daughter grows up with the confidence to wear whatever she wants without anyone telling her what she should be doing or trying to say they know why she is doing it then great. I will have raised a strong, empowered female.

And if you don't think that making snide comments about nailing jelly to walls and that it would take too long to explain things etc is insulting then that says a lot really.

Men don't tell me what to do. Ever. Except if they happen to be my boss. They don't tend to presume to have that right.

Why is it then that uptight women feel they have the right to dictate what other women think,say,do and wear?

Is that exactly the point of feminism? I feel far more judged by women than I ever have by men.

Soup, thank you for conceding that I have not told anyone what to wear. I will concede that the jelly and taking too long to explain comments were a little snide, I am quite frustrated that anyone believes some of the things they profess to.

You said:

"As I see it, the fact that, if she wants to, a girl can wear a short skirt without being locked up/attacked/whipped by the state or whatever is a sign of freedom - they can wear what they want. That is empowerment."

You see, I disagree. It is not a sign of empowerment at all- please correct me if I am 'twisting things to fit my agenda'. I am only going on the points you raised; Imagine a group of schoolgirls. What they want to wear, not what anyone has told them to, not parents, not boyfriends, not magazines, not TV, not the state, is likely to be very different from one another, right? Free of all external influences?

If you take a group of 1500 teenage girls, and they all exert their free will and wear whatever they want, can you explain why they dress almost identically to one another? Fashion is powerful, and what I am saying is that fashion is tailored to the heterosexual male gaze.

This is not about anyone telling anyone what to wear- that is polarising the argument. I am telling nobody what to wear- I may even wear miniskirts myself- but I am asking us to be honest about why we wear them.

Alis, I have searched the thread and I really can't see any 'uptight women' dictating what other women think, say, do and wear.

You are as free to pander to the narrow patriarchal version of female worth and beauty as I am.

This is all very well, but what's the bread like?

Oppressed

There are an awful lot of gay male fashion designers, and women, so I'm not sure I entirely take the point about it being designed for the heterosexual male gaze.

And I don't see what is wrong, per se, about wanting to be attractive to the opposite sex, or the same sex, even as a teenage girl. It's life, basically!

bread's not all that nice by all accounts heath. Never tried it myself-I bake my own using the Kenwood Chef that doting hubby bought me

See, what makes me uncomfortable about this ad is that it blurs the boundaries. The school uniform is normally a sign that the wearer is a child. When it is worn by an adult the meaning is changed. I'm probably influenced here by the fact that 6th forms near me either don't wear uniform or wear a suit. This is why, to me, the female looks far too old for the role.

The second thing that makes me uncomfortable is that I suspect that the brand/ ad people (men????) knew darn well what they were about here. It may be a bit cynical but I imagine this being discussed as 'one for the dad's.' This isn't girls making their own minds up in a truimph of feminism, it is manipulation.

As I mentioned up thread, there are bigger issues in the world, however, my visceral reaction to this was that it was a tad creepy. It stands out which is an ad job done and this makeshift suspect the motivation.