Reebalk

A friend of mine recently got upset about the following ad from Reebok:



While it does somewhat perpetuate the objectification of women, it's hardly the worst example of it. Yes, the concept of a guy being unable to keep his eyes off a woman's ass is disgusting in many ways. However, the woman in the ad is cool, confident, commanding, and seems to have a very positive self-image. Yeah, sure, the ad leads us to believe she's like this as a result of having a nice posterior due to her use of their shoes, but these are generally good qualities to have, and it is far from portraying her as a submissive object at the mercy of mens' desires.

There is admittedly something wrong with our culture when women feel that they have to use their bodies to even the playing field; however, that is something intrinsically wrong with society, and expecting Reebok to adhere to a different set of standards to advertise their products is ridiculous. To get angry over this ad, one should be expected to admit that every commercial advertising shampoo, makeup, or any other beauty products is inherently offensive for suggesting, however subtly, that women need to look "beautiful" to be accepted by society.

That's a sound argument on a basic level, but it somewhat contradicts my view of feminism, which is that it's about choice. This includes the choice to be a housewife or stay-at-home mom, the choice to get plastic surgery, the choice to wear makeup and other beauty products, and yes, the choice to wear Reebok sneakers in order to tone your ass so that men will stare at it. I'm not in any way suggesting that women belong in the kitchen or need to look dolled up for their husbands, but if they choose to do it, that's their prerogative. So as long as that woman in the Reebok commercial seems to be in control of her choices, who are we to judge what shoes she wears?