Shoes

[slemslempike]

The F Word just linked to this Harvey Nicks ad. It is obviously vile in many ways. It plays to a very specific discourse of femininity, it makes the men into headless pieces of meat, the sole black man is second from last desirable, the shoes are UGLY...

But the part that really annoys me is that THERE IS NO LINE. We are meant to infer that it goes up to the right, but really, it could be opposite, or squiggly or zig-zag, or any such scientific term. But it is not showing us anything. And people are goig to use this to say "oh, silly women, you're getting all het up over nothing, the ad isn't saying that trainers make you undesirable or that fat men are automatically ugly, you're making it say that with your own silly stereotypes! You're the baddy here!"

I hate them.

Though it has reminded me that I wanted to post pictures of my new boots. I love them.

Comments

[spiralsheep.livejournal.com]

So... if the missing line went from bottom left to top right then that'd mean that gay men who spend a lot of time in the gym are also keen drag queens in their spare time? Whereas less fit transvestites prefer comfy slippers?

(If I stopped laughing I'd start crying.)

[slemslempike.livejournal.com]

Maybe it's a straight line, and all the men wear fluffy slippers. Or it's a straight vertical line, and the third guy from the left owns them all.

[spiralsheep.livejournal.com]

I like your second suggestion best.

Possibly all those men are being pilloried for spending their money on shoes instead of buying fancy pants? Or maybe it illustrates the fact that the shop sells a variety of shoes in large sizes only and merely one style of underwear in a variety of sizes?

Interestingly, I prefer bodytypes (from left) 2 and 4 but I'm not keen on any of the shoes. This clearly confirms my suspicion that I'm not this ad's target audience.

[slemslempike.livejournal.com]

I rather like torso number three , and could only possibly bear to wear shoes two and four, and would only ever choose to wear two, if there weren't any actually nice trainers available.

Basically, I don't think Harvey Nicks wants us in their shops.

[ankaret.livejournal.com]

That is too small for me to see what's going on properly, which would probably have been good for my blood pressure if I hadn't clicked through links until I found a bigger version.

I am profoundly uninterested in shoes and I prefer men with heads. I do not shop at Harvey Nichols. There is probably a correlation somewhere.

[slemslempike.livejournal.com]

Men....with heads? You're an uppity demanding feminazi, aren't you?

[teenagelogic.livejournal.com]

That is the most ridiculous advert I have ever seen. Things like this make me sick...

[slemslempike.livejournal.com]

They don't know science!

[teenagelogic.livejournal.com]

But they do know how to generate humorous comment threads in feminists' internet journals, clearly.

[slemslempike.livejournal.com]

Maybe that's their advertising strategy - get feminists being sarky about it, then we'll forget about the advert (because there's always a new outrage), but later on we'll see a sign for Harvey Nicks and remember the laughter...and buy ugly shoes. Yep.

[teenagelogic.livejournal.com]

Either that or you'll see the sign, remember the laughter, and go out and decapitate six men. It's fifty-fifty, really.

[slemslempike.livejournal.com]

Hee! Risky business...

[owl]

Buy a pair of Harvey Nicks shoes and get a headless bilateral amputee for free!

[slemslempike.livejournal.com]

Are the pants optional?

[owl]

We could write and ask.

[ex-rita.livejournal.com]

All I see in that hierarchy of shoes is most comfortable to least comfortable. The higher up the shoe, the less likely you are able to escape from headless zombie men.

[slemslempike.livejournal.com]

Possibly it's a thing from "useful for running away" to "useful for stabbing predator with heel".