Why is this Pamela Anderson ad supposedly “sexist” and “degrading” to women? It’s not sexist, degrading objectifying etc. to all women. The only women being overtly objectified are Pamela Anderson and the woman with her in the advertisement. Is that “degrading?” It’s a subjective opinion; and that’s up to you to decide.
Pamela Anderson signed up to be objectified in this ad. Just like she’s done her entire career. How is this exploitative? It’s exactly what Pamela Anderson and others like her have spent decades doing for a living?
As you can see, the TV advertisement featuring ex-Baywatch star Pamela Anderson is no different at all from what Danica Patrick does for Go Daddy. I don’t see why it’s been banned for being sexist and degrading to women in the United Kingdom. The commercial, for web hosting firm Dreamscape Networks, has the actress chairing a meeting of men before her assistant poured cream into a cup of coffee while showing her cleavage.
It’s not exactly wholesome. It’s certainly not high-brow. It’s anything but socially progressive. It does nothing to help gender equity. But to call it degrading and misogynistic is to say the same thing about all of the Danica Patrick Go Daddy ads. And pretty much everything Pamela Anderson has done in her career. Jenny McCarthy, Carmen Electra, Jessica Simpson, Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera etc. If you want to think that way, I could understand that. It’s a totally legitimate point of view.
But this Pamela Anderson ad is no worse that anything else she’s done. It’s actually pretty tame by her standards.
Paul M. Banks is the owner of The Sports Bank.net. He’s also an author who also contributes regularly to MSN, Fox Sports , Chicago Now, Walter Football.com and Yardbarker
Banks has appeared on the History Channel, as well as Clear Channel, ESPN and CBS radio all over the world. President Barack Obama follows him on Twitter (@PaulMBanks), like him on Facebook