Chicagoist: You Guys Would Be Sexy If "Neanderthal" Was Considered A Turn On

Isabella

Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:55:51 -0600

Wow. I've been abroad for a few weeks now, but randomly decided to check out the goings on in sweet home Chicago, and I'm both pleased and horrified that I did. What pigs! I used to find Roeper fairly attractive, but alas, no more. I personally think the ads are fantastic, but like some of the articles said, many men I know really find them repulsive. As said in some of the comments, our standards of beauty are really quite jaded, and actually quite hypocritical. I used to be one of those skinny, no breasts, no hip model types (and also anorexic to boot), and I'm now in the "average" weight catergory, with some damn good curves. I get considerably more attention from men now than I did when a twig, so I'm always miffed by many men's attitudes to models. More kudos to Dove though. They have great ads, and they're the talk of the town(s).

Paul

Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:45:39 -0600

Chicagoist: "Chicagoist isn't taking a political, fat-acceptance stance here." It'd be nice if ya did. In any case, yes, the largest woman is a size 10 and the average American woman is between a 14 and a 16. And in any case, Richard Roeper is a schmuck.

Tyler

Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:32:47 -0600

Thank you for this--you are so tight on the money. And by the way, I love those Dove ads.

jen

Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:07:46 -0600

coldchili - no way the largest woman on there is only a size 10... no way. but i agree, with the average size being a 12 (last i heard), having a size 16 woman on there would be far more appropriate in showing diversity.

Brenda

Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:38:21 -0600

Re: Zwecker... I suppose the only reason ads with supermodels are bearable to him is that they look, by and large, androgynous. If he squints real hard they probably look like tall skinny boys.

TT

Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:23:23 -0600

Thank you, Thank you, for your shots at Roeper. He's such a smug little bastard!

I know

Fri, 22 Jul 2005 05:56:44 -0600

Um, Bill Zwecker is gay. He used to be the partner of architect, Jeff Case; and has been with Tom Gorman for years. They appear regularly at public events. Bill, however, was once married to an heiress of the Bunn coffee fortune. He once referred, on TV, to being married as "been there, done that." Maybe it was his experience as a gay man being married that he is referring to when he looks at women in their unmentionables -- regardless of their body shape.

BooBoo42

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 23:09:17 -0600

Hey, does anyone know if Richard Roeper or Bill Zwecker have significant women in their lives?

pk

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:44:11 -0600

Great post. Would be best ever, but you went a little easy on Zwecker -- Let me give you a little help: Bald, pudgy, bags under eyes... and was so moved by such criticisms that he felt the need to be photographed on a treadmill. proving that he had been on a treadmill, um, once. it's pretty clear how stupid the channel thinks its audience is. this is one of the major reasons i consistently ignore chicago's local media. they're an embarrassment to the population.

Zak

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:36:30 -0600

In response to SA- We are going to be bombarded with advertising regardless, right? There's no changing it. Why not, have a little appreciation for a minor positive gesture on behalf of the blood sucking scoundrels who peddle the cures to in adequacy? I mean...this debate has gotten needlessly over blown...but why not tip your cap and acknowledged that these ads are more positive than, say, the ads for Axe Body Spray. It's a minor concession on their behalf, but they're gonna hock shit anyway...

ColdChilli

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:20:38 -0600

Channel 5 did a better job in their morning Water cooler buzz. They mentioned the largest woman was a size 10. that's barely an average sized woman. think if they put in a size 22 woman.

deb

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:25:41 -0600

SA - you are apparently more caught up in this campaign than anyone. Brenda - way to go getting recognized on the news. all the men who commented on this blog in favor of the ad - way to speak up and make us women feel good. you seem to really relate. xoxo as for the columnists, what jerks. imagine how annoying it would be if you had to watch tv and see ads where guys all look like ken dolls walking around. i think that would give you eating disorders for sure. i am an "average" sized girl and i find the campaign quite refreshing. oh, gotta go - i'm running out to buy my dove firming lotion!

So-Called "Austin Mayor"

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:15:54 -0600

Great post. Would be best ever, but you went a little easy on Zwecker -- Let me give you a little help: Bald, pudgy, bags under eyes...

Erin

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:30:41 -0600

Josh, actually I think you make a really accurate point and it's one a lot of people are making. I believe I heard this morning that these women wore something from a size 6 to 12. What is average tends to vary, but I think it's size 14. At any rate, contrary to what Zwecker believes, being overweight or of larger girth, for lack of better phrasing, doesn't mean you're not in shape or not fit.

Mr. Smith

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:23:01 -0600

Brenda, way to stick it to Zwecker.

Mr. Smith

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:20:52 -0600

Brook, Chicagoist isn't fat. Just big-boned. And lacking firming cream.

josh

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:12:55 -0600

Evils of advertising and all that aside, am I the only one that doesn't quite see these chicks bodies as "average"? Sure shape-wise they don't conform to what we typically get in print, tv, film, but the actual physical condition these chicks are in is not entirely average. They all look fairly fit which I don't think is exactly common. Am I wrong?

Joel

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:58:13 -0600

I hear a flower bed was ravaged! OK, like I said, I think we mostly agree but we're just going in parallel lines here...it doesn't make me a sheep and it doesn't make you an Adbusters reader (sorry about that low blow). I respectfully bow out before this reaches 70-some comments.

some asshole

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:53:29 -0600

and for the record, the fact that this debate is getting coverage on network news (see above) kind of proves my point. guess that's one less story on real issues CBS has to do. maybe they'll get lucky and a cat will get stuck in a tree. ok. i'll stop now.

some asshole

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:49:32 -0600

obviously not. but i've been hearing so many people around town blabbing about this stupid fucking ad campaign for so long it's making my brain melt. you've got to respect the folks at dove for creating a campaign that has done exactly what they wanted it to do. and you have to be a little bit saddened that we're so easily drawn in. i just see, across the board, a real drop in people's ability to think critically. and all these silly "you go girls" and "it's about times" are as asinine as paying for the right to serve as some fashion guru's bill board. we're all guilty, myself included. i just think that in a city like chicago there are plenty of interesting trifles that don't revolve around ad campaigns.

Joel

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:42:06 -0600

I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying, I just gotta wonder why it's bothering you so much...it's a post on a blog that deals mostly in trifles, which is what this is. I don't think it's an issue that's obscuring Rove or Roberts or Iraq or London in the public's consciousness.

Brenda

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:39:55 -0600

Looks like my response to Bill Zwecker really got to him: http://cbs2chicago.com/video/?id=14267@wbbm.dayport.com

some asshole

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:37:53 -0600

i post here regularly, pk. but thanks for the zinger.

some asshole

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:34:14 -0600

ouch brook l. ouch. you want my screen name?

pk

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:32:54 -0600

is there some best-troll-ever award you're going for here?

some asshole

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:29:56 -0600

i don't read anti-commercial magazines that cost 30 bucks a copy and are printed on high gloss paper. adbusters is the biggest crock of shit of all. i don't use lye soap or believe in anarchy. i'm a pretty normal guy all things considered. i like baseball, booze, and have nothing against creature comforts. that doesn't mean i don't get sick to my stomach when people talk about ad campaigns. i don't give a fuck if you buy dove soap. go with god. but for the love of god, can't people find anything more interesting to talk about that the response in one of the most pathetic excuses for a newspaper in the country to a stupid, cloying ad campaign?

Brook L

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:22:44 -0600

I'm not sure which Chicagoist insecurity is more obvious and entertaining- the regular "We're as cool and important as NYC and LA!" or "Just because i'm fat doesn't mean i'm not beautiful!"

Stephen

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:22:12 -0600

Wait, there's no Santa Claus?

Joel

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:22:06 -0600

Again, that's an awfully cynical view of humanity...most people (admittedly not all) take advertising (and hell, most culture/society) with a grain of salt. People are not as "undereducated" as you're condescending to. Nobody here has put Dove on a pedestal, in fact, the ad campaign itself is pretty irrelevant to what I understood the post's intent to be: the fact that some of the bigger talking heads in town seem to still carry around cro-mag frat boy ideas about what's "acceptable" with women's bodies in the media. I mean, if you want to go on solely reading Adbusters and crummy homemade anarchist zines while washing yourself with lye soap you made yourself in your basement, go ahead, rage against the machine man, but things in mainstream society aren't as bleak as you're painting them. It's just a fucking soap commercial.

Capt. AWESOME

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:15:54 -0600

i always thought roeper was gay.

chopped liver

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:11:55 -0600

RE: Fat dudes in sitcoms with hot ladies. Pretty unrealistic sure but mainly because on those shows they aren't portrayed as "Well to do". I've seen plenty of pudgy, frumpy rich dudes with hot ladies.

Julene

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:10:09 -0600

I'll admit to being shocked that they used real women - good for them. Let the Sun Times reporters keep their fake women that they ogle at strip clubs as the real women they want. It only proves their shallowness. But what do I know - I'm just a girl.

some asshole

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:08:58 -0600

and i'm saying that every ounce of breath used to talk about advertising is a victory for the people who are turning this country, and the world, into a mess of over-entertained, under-educated consumers whose sole fuction in life is to accumulate and discuss products. i just can't believe that people are trying to act like this means anything at all. if they thought they'd sell better using crackwhores, it'd be "dove: goes great with a rock!" if they thought they could sell their worthless products using a giant pile of dookie it'd be "dove: it's the shit." to congratulate them on successfully targeting their demographic belies your intelligence. their actions aren't good any more than some dumbass columnists cracking stupid jokes about it is bad.

Joel

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:02:47 -0600

Who here has said Dove's motives are 100% pure for doing this, or even that this is some incredibly ground-breaking campaign? No one. Hell, the writer even calls it a "useless beauty product" right in the piece. SA, of all people in this thread, seems to be the one buying into the cynical idea that everyone's too dumb/sheep-like to see that this is indeed advertising. All anyone's said is that it is indeed nice to see "real women" in a beauty product advertisement, which is what everyone ackowledges it is, and that it's ridiculous for media types to be disgusted by it.

some asshole

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:43:45 -0600

the data was taken into account for sure. suit 1: these girls will eat this campaign up, no pun intended. especially when we pretend we're doing it to fight anorexia! suit 2: don't you think it's cynical of us to use the very problem of female self-image we're claiming to rail against to sell people beauty products they don't need? suit 1: huh? suit 2: i mean we've done all this research on women's insecurities and eating disorders and so on to sell them products that are designed to be used by women who aren't comfortable enough with themselves to go out with skin firming lotion on. suit 1: get the fuck out of my office. oh and annette? Annette (over the intercom): Yes sir? suit 1: please escort this man out of the building. and by the by, lay off the donuts. you're looking a little chunky in that skirt today. Annette: Yes sir. DOVE: Singlehandedly ending anorexia in america by putting ordinary women in advertisements!

pk

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:30:51 -0600

the ads were developed here in chicago, by the way, at ogilvy and mather. i did a bit of custom typography for it a few years ago when it was still in development, and i still think it's one of the best campaigns going. in response to the guy above who wonders if dove really does care about real beauty: yeah, they actually do. there was a HUGE amount of research done on the ad campaign that was kept readily available at the agency. the research contained numbers like the percentage of women who'd consdered themselves anorexic at one point or another.

eddie

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:23:34 -0600

Those chicks look hot. They really do. As for the 3 zoolander amigos, they hardly represent your average guy. One is incapable of having any relationship last, one is in the closet (allegedly) and the other is a.....not sure, never heard of him. I like the Ads- chub worthy, indeed.

Erin

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:01:41 -0600

Heh. Joel, you're cracking me up.

Dave!

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:55:52 -0600

I like the ads, too... I actually didn't notice them until my wife pointed them out. And you know what, I think it's a damn shame that using pictures of actual, average women in an ad is garners so much attention is a really sad commentary on our society. I thought they were all still quite pretty. So what the fuss?

Joel

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:52:01 -0600

Wow, up until now, no one's ever exposed me to the insidious evils of advertising! Here I thought they had only my personal interests in mind. Thanks for opening our eyes, SA!

some asshole

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:46:15 -0600

baaaaah. baaaah. look out flock. dove's coming down to your pasture with sheers in hand.

Anna

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:29:15 -0600

Our nation's standard of beauty is pathetic. These women are GORGEOUS and I love looking at them when I exit the train every morning. I don't care what Dove is selling - it's absolutely joy-inducing refreshing to see normal women in ad campaigns. Hooray for it!

Joel

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:26:54 -0600

Am I "playing right into Dove's hands" by eyeballing a "real" beauty's curves every morning? Sure. But I wanna spread the news, that if it feels this good bein' used, Dove can keep on using me..(high-hat)...til they use me up.

NotSoHealthy

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:20:59 -0600

I think it was those kids from apprentice who came up with this ad campaign right? S.A. is right on, anybody who talks about this or writes about it, or thinks about it, has just sold another ten bottles of skin firming lotions from Dove.

jen

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:14:12 -0600

kind of reminds me of an article i saw a while back re: fat dudes in sitcoms dating hot ladies. see: king of queens, that awful jim belushi show, drew carey (though i do love drew carey), etc. i wonder if any of these three "gentlemen" have a problem with slovenly beer-drinkin' men such as those being the lead character in prime-time broadcast network sitcoms dating/married to young, thin, attractive women. and not looking at broadcast tv - tony soprano! at least nate & brenda on 6FU are both equally hott.

Joel

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:11:44 -0600

Me four. Knockin' me out with those American thighs.

some asshole

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:11:13 -0600

personally i can't believe that people are getting worked up about: a) an ad campagin b) some shitty columnists at a shitty paper's reaction to said campaign. guys, the sun times is a total joke (though they do break the occassional chicago corruption story) to begin with, and "columnists" should be assumed to be morons generally speaking. there are only a handful in the country that know their head from their ass. second, why in the hell would people be worked up defending an ad campaign. don't you realize their choice to use "big" women, and these are hardly hippos we're talking about, was all about building sympathy with a certain portion of the female population. and you're playing right into their hands. if you think dove gives a fuck about "real beauty" any more than i give a fuck about dove's real beauty campaign, i've got a bridge i'd like to sell you.

Erin

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 08:58:08 -0600

My husband was ten shades of pissed off that they made it out that it was a man vs. woman thing. He HATED what they had to say.

Johnny

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 08:57:17 -0600

Me three. Man o man, is Bill Zwecker asking for a little critical assesment or what? Although I gotta say, based on "the manboy who replaced Siskel"'s previous articles, I can't say I'm surprised by his comments. He's always seemed like someone who doesn't really like woman (not to be confused with the concept of being gay).

jocelyn

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 08:52:59 -0600

i love them...but i'm disappointed to say that i see them, and i still gawk. i still find them shocking every time i see them. i still go: holy shit. that woman is big. and then i look again, and i go NO SHE ISN'T. she's actually really fucking normal. she's just not supa supa ridiculously i will never never never be that fucking thin. that's what makes me sad. that i'm going... is that woman big? overweight? fat? and then i'm like: god. i've been so warped. sad.

Mr. Smith

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 08:39:35 -0600

Me too, Christian. Singrid, Stacy...if you're ever in town...

Christian

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:53:58 -0600

...what I found really gross about the whole ST "article" is how they painted as a clear delineation between men & women's tastes. There was no male voice to counter those aforementioned meatheads' barfing. All the women interviewed for the article gave a positive, all the men gave it a negative. WTF ST? As a man, I like those ads.