This one’s simple. Watch this New Zealand Air safety video. It was recently pulled, possibly in part because of objections that it sexually objectified women. The video, shown to passengers before take-off, was even the target of a Change.org petition, which one again shows that many U.S. citizens don’t comprehend freedom of speech, and think that the U.S. is a monarchy, perhaps because the President often seems to be under that delusion himself. Now the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQDip9V49U0
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz for a slow week in ethics (so far):
Is this video disrespectful to women, in bad taste, vulgar or inappropriate?
In the succinct words of Julia Roberts as Erin Brockovich: “They’re called boobs, Ed.”
And they are everywhere, and a lot more gratuitously displayed than here. Airlines have a problem getting passengers to pay attention to the safety instructions ( here’s Jerry Seinfeld making some trenchant observations on the dilemma), and having beautiful women in bikinis do the chore is as good a solution as any. Even the critics, prudes and boob-o-phobes must have been paying attention. Harm: minimal to none. Benefits: enough. The video passes utilitarian muster.
It’s also funny. I particularly like the Hawaiians in the dugout demonstrating the crash position.
________________________
Pointer: Fred
Facts: ABC
Ethics Alarms 
“Is this video disrespectful to women, in bad taste, vulgar or inappropriate?”
No.
Saying otherwise would require (Disclosure: I clicked on and watched with what may be charitably described as more than causal visual interest) that I accept the fact that I’m a boorish, sexist lout who has no concerns whatsoever with the promotion (means be damned) of safe air travel.
I reckon one out of two ain’t so awful bad, is it?
I thought it was cute and quite clever. Not sure what the big deal is.
I thought it was clever and a lot more entertaining than the one I saw. I only regret there weren’t more hunks than the rowers for the women who’d like some eye candy to enjoy too. Since we aren’t willing or interested in non-swimsuit models for women, go whole hog and use male models a greater proportion of the time.
I have a hard time finding anything, in which women voluntarily participate, disrespectful of all women. If in fact it does objectify women in a sexual manner then I must ask why these women seem so happy to do so.
Ultimately all female empowerment derives from their ability to say yes or no to any potential action in which they are asked to be involved. These women agreed and were paid a negotiated price for their services. To deny them the right to say yes or no reduces their power to control their bodies or intellect as they choose. I for one cannot reconcile why women’s groups find such behavior objectionable. More importantly, I do not understand why these groups believe that somehow males have forced them into accepting these roles. How is this any different than when women writers cast the male as either a boorish lout or the viral handsome protagonist. If a male chooses to be cast in a negatively light that’s his right.
To suggest that these women, and others like them, do not know that they are being used to exploit their sexuality is condescending in itself to these women. Of course they know. All women know that being sexy draws the attention of most males and other females. If this were not the case no women in her right mind would destroy her feet wearing 5 inch stiletto heels to make her legs look long and lithe, wear very short skirts in the dead of winter, or spend countless dollars on creams, lotions and potions to maintain their youthful sexy appearance.
I do recognize that dressing provocatively and suggestively will draw negative attention from the unwanted suitor but such attention is inevitable unless the women choose to dress only for wanted suitors in private and wear burkas when in public. Please do not misunderstand this as me rationalizing boorish male behavior or excusing sexual assault because of the way a woman chooses to dress. I only mean that women cannot expect not to be objectified sexually when they choose to create that visual appearance themselves.
Women and men who feel that such a display sexually objectifies women are correct, but it is far more disrespectful of women to suggest that those that willingly enter into such an agreement are ill-equipped to make such decisions on their own and need to behave in a way that someone else determines to be appropriate.
When I flew Air New Zealand again last month, I thought it was quite humorous, actually. If you are familiar with the typical innovative, and typically Kiwi-style upbeat humor that these air safety videos have employed over the years, you’d realize that this one is in line with the rest of them…. the All Blacks air safety video, The Hobbit air safety video and others. “Cheeky” is a typical Kiwi trait, as evidenced in this series of videos. As far as I am concerned, the reaction to this video is a litmus test for presence or absence of humorless, vituperative political (=sexual) correctness, for which I have no tolerance, for, as the late Charlton Heston said, “Political correctness is tyranny with manners,” and, as G K Chesterton noted, “Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.”
I think you are spot on in every respect.
Peter:
You are absolutely correct. I took the following factors into consideration:
1. It is for Air New Zealand.
2. It celebrates New Zealand’s beaches and casual attitude (latitude?).
3. The add clearly states it is honoring Sports Illustrated 50th Anniversary swimsuit edition, with recent and past swimsuit models.
4. It has beaches and what goes nicely with beaches? Dugout canoes!
5. It is a safety video with Sports Illustrated Swimsuit models (see No.3).
6. There is nothing sexist or degrading to women.
7. It has humor and, by golly, look at those beaches!!!!
8. There are no sharks (which is a good thing – I hate sharks!).
The ad/video is ethical in all respects. All-in-all, it is a clever, appropriate and light-hearted video conveying pre-flight safety information that every passenger has heard and mostly ignores because, unless you are a toddler, if you don’t know how to operate a seat belt, you have no business being on a plane! On a recent flight, the flight attendant did a similar thing by making light of the safety instructions. The passengers laughed and applauded. That set the tone for a most enjoyable flight to Denver from Houston.
jvb
I can see the criticism. Not so much because the safety spot is pornographic, or even close to it, but because it so aggressively caters to the male gaze that it probably turns just as many women off as I gets men to pay attention to it, so the utilitarian argument is rather moot. If at least half of your audience is presumably women, they probably should have thrown in quite a bit more male eye candy to balance things out. Otherwise the implicit message is that women don’t matter, except as objects to viewed (but apparently are never the viewer?) Nor am I certain that I would small children absorbing that message either.
Do women avert their eyes or turn away in disgust when they see attractive women models? I did not know that! So it is also anti-gay video, too!
Geez, I don’t know. I’m a straight chick and I found the spot delightful. I was smiling the whole time I watched it. Yes, the women are beautiful, the beaches are gorgeous, the little kid is adorable, the scene in the dugout canoe is a hoot, and, by the way, just a reminder that Christie Brinkley is 60! SIXTY! (You go girl.)
Yes—Christie is unethical.
Do women avert their eyes or turn away in disgust when they see attractive women models? I did not know that! So it is also anti-gay video, too!
Do guys? What would be the harm in adding in male eye candy? Otherwise, like I said, many women would rapidly conclude, “I’m not the audience for this ad”, and start paying more attention to their phone, or gazing out the window. It is definitely an ad for the straight male, which is fine as a general concept, but since a safety ad is supposed to be for a much more general audience, why not be more inclusive?
No harm…it’s just not what they decided to do. And if they used the Muppets, you’d say, “Why not the Care Bears”? When you pick one approach, it doesn’t mean that alternative approaches are being disrespected. It’s a theme. Including every theme is called a mess…especially when the political correctness fascists take aim. Where’s the sexy Asian? The differently abled? The transgendered? Why no hot old ladies? Nothing for chubby-chasers?
Agreed that it is a theme, and the theme is, “hey guys, look at these boobs!” Which as you have pointed out, is a time-honored theme, but probably inappropriate for a safety video aimed at a general population not comprised solely of adult straight males. Not only are you excluding half of your (captive) audience, you are also condescending to the selected audience, with the implication that the only way to capture their attention is to flash boobs in their face (and at that point, are they paying any attention to the models’ words?).
I get what they were going for, but it just didn’t really seem very thought through. The backlash was pretty predictable.
Men and women react differently to visual stimulation – men are more easily stimulated. Thats why most visual media favors the sexualization of women. You could craft a tv spot that encompasses the full LGBT range of sexual preferences, but in the real world, the audiences you can target are limited by your time and money. Men offer the biggest return on that investment so focusing on them is hardly objectionable. And youre being extremist when you say that the other half is being excluded.
Ah, but this is not an ad to convince people to buy something. This is an ad so that in the event of an emergency, people will be safe. If you were really trying to engage as many people as possible (bang for your buck), why not include male eye candy? Just swap out one or two of the female models, and include some guys. You don’t even have to craft new lines or anything else. This way you deftly engage your female audience (just look at all the hoopla over hot felon guy if you really believe women don’t like their eye candy), and you don’t waste time or money defending yourself in the media, or completely abandoning the spot, which is what ended up happening.
At least give your female audience members some indication that they were a thought as consumers, rather than merely an item to be consumed. I think that is where a lot of the hostility to this ad comes from.
why not include male eye candy?
*************
I’ll tell you why: because men don’t like it.
Half of them don’t like it because they don’t like feeling physically inferior to a guy that is super fit and shaped, good looking or, (God-forbid) sexually endowed, if there is nudity involved. They also don’t like their wives or girlfriends comparing them with the model/stud. (Even though women have had to suck it up since the end of time.)
The other half of them are afraid they will somehow “turn gay” if they like the looks of the attractive guy/model.
Having answered that, I will tell you what is wrong with the video.
It paints an unrealistic ideal of the female body that young girls will be influenced by.
Maybe not in the context it is being used right now since how many teen girls are on flights to NZ.
But…in other instances, a young women sees this content and immediately starts comparing herself.
This is harmful and leads to a host of problems.
And it’s not just the bimbo women who are unrealistic, it is fashion models, as well.
Don’t listen to me, do some reading on it yourself.
I’d like to suggest all these perfect female bods make women feel inferior in the same proportion, or higher than these male viewers would feel inferior. Why should they be protected from that? If these guys don’t like being compared all the time, then why would their wives? If we aren’t willing to stop exploiting/self exploiting the perfect bodies then it should be done more equally. IfI get compared negatively to Christie Brinkley, then there should be similar swimsuit models to compare in a bit like this for the ganders so we can share the experience.
I think the male pool boy that Brinkley had was definitely eye candy for women and was likely the most suggestive part of the video…. and even that was tame.
” it probably turns just as many women off ”
You have to be pretty insecure to feel threatened by a swimsuit model, and that’s what I think a lot of this is.
Alrighty. Let us then follow the logic of your statements. Let’s say your supposition is correct. Let’s say that some women are threatened by swimsuit models in bikinis.
Given that information, would it be ethical for a company to give out what they say is vital safety information in a deliberate manner which leads potentially half of the population to actively tune this vital safety message out, raising the risk that injuries could subsequently occur? Is ethical for a company to require its captive customers to fight against their insecurities and disgust to receive a safety message?
Deliberate misrepresentation, first of the argument, then of reality: Hes not saying all women are, he saying some might be, nor would all women react that way even if he were.
Worst case scenario, some women are offended and distracted, most arent, and most men are actively engaged. On the balance thats a win.
Is ethical for a company to require its captive customers to fight against their insecurities and disgust to receive a safety message?
*************
Aer Lingus used to act the whole demo out silently.
Very entertaining.
But then, I always found the name of that airline offensive…
You’ve never visited the comments section of a women’s clothing retailer, or other places women post, have you? Coldwater Creek started to use models instead of using thumbnails of the clothing pieces on a white background. Their Facebook page blew up with women in fits of anger posting about how ‘Those models don’t represent ME!’ ‘Those models look like they could use a good meal’ ‘I like to eat, guess I shouldn’t buy your clothes’ on and on for hundreds of posts. It was crazy…then you have the feminist ‘You’re trying to force a body image on me!’ crowd. Yes, there are a lot of insecure women out there who are disturbed to the point of anger by seeing pictures of model-fit women.
The most ridiculous example of this kind of thinking was a post and answer by two women *who have never seen each other* discussing how often women’s lingerie should be washed ‘…I always change my bra after I work out at the gym’ ‘You just want to brag about how in shape you are! ‘
So for me it’s not a stretch to assume that some (not all) of the grumbling is because of this kind of mindset.
You have to be pretty insecure to feel threatened by a swimsuit model
**************
Sort of like a teen girl?
Unethical.
The scene in which they distinctly state “do not inflate the flotation device until you’ve exited the aircraft” is undermined by the safety demonstration of the symbolic stewardess inflating her flotation device and then jumping off the deck (symbolic airplane) into the pool.
This kind of communication contradicts itself and could lead to unecessary casualties in an emergency.
Were there supposed to be other issues with this bit for us to find?
I see what you did there, well played. *golf clap*
I think its more unethical to suggest that in the event of a water landing, you have a prayor. The whle flotation device section is a sham, but you can’t blame the lovelies for that.
Never mind the subtle societal message that it is ok to ignore your immediate duties to fulfill fleeting sexual lusts such as canoe rowers consistently did.
I get so confused these days. Would this be slut-shaming? That’s bad. But that’s only when the women choose to dress and act like this, which these women… didn’t choose? Or, they did choose for themselves, but because there are men involved, that empowered act is… misinformed?
Ok. If a beautiful woman appears to be beautiful, that’s good and confident, unless she’s agreed to be paid to be beautiful, in which case she’s being exploited. We don’t want women to be exploited, so, good-looking women should… hide their beauty? We should use only non-attractive women (who are being courageous and confident by embracing their natural beauty), even if it means that people don’t pay as much attention, and the effectiveness of the ad is reduced…
Actually, the only way I can see this being offensive at all is the presence and participation of males. If there were no males involved in this process, there would be no charges of ‘exploitation.’ Males are bad, right? But misandry doesn’t exist…
I give up.
You are looking at all the inconsistencies and confusions and fallacies of the grievance industry all wrong.
Let me simplify it for you:
Are you a white male?
Yes?
You’re wrong. And probably evil.
I get so confused these days. Would this be slut-shaming?
*********
I don’t think so.
Slut shaming is for those who have committed a slutty ACT.
Factual observation: This is nowhere near the first time that New Zealand Air has done something… edgy… in their air safety videos.
My personal favorite is this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-Mq9HAE62Y .
(And yes, that’s body paint.)
Purely factual elements aside, I see nothing in this video that’s *particularly* bad, or that stands out… at least more than the popularity and cultural notoriety of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue, anyway.
I’m sure you weren’t intentionally channeling two rationalizations there—“It’s not the first time” (a variation on “everybody does it”) and “It’s not the worst thing.”
Actually, though it uses the SI models (and there was certainly an ad tie-in), the safety video isn’t even on the same ethical plane (HAR!) as the SI swimsuit issue. The latter is purely gratuitous, allowing SI to become a soft- porn magazine once a year, with no genuine nexus to its mission and purpose (yeah, yeah, girl watching is man’s favorite sport…we get it. Blechh.) the video, in contrast, does not use the sexual pulchritude gratuitously, but to make passengers watch old material with amused and eager eyes,
Do you think passengers are actually processing the content of these videos or are they just looking at the beautiful women?
Jeez, Beth, how entranced do you think guys are by that stuff? They’ve seen it before, about a million times by the time they are 21. In real life, 3-D…you have a point. But bathing beauties giving out information will be heard as well as anyone else.
I think they might be entranced by supermodels. I have no opinion on this subject whatsoever — except to note that people on planes are weird. Remember that I got stuck next to Mr. Masturbating once — I wonder if he only flies this airline now?
If they were watching the women they got the wrong idea on when to inflate the flotation device.
RE the two rationalizations you mention…
(1) No, but taking a single incident and treating it as isolated when it’s part of a consistent pattern of behavior is problematic on several counts. The relevance of this doesn’t have anything to do with the act itself — it has to do with the nature, character, and competence of the criticism and commentary.
(2) There’s a reason why I compared it to the existence of the Swimsuit Issue rather than the publication of it.
The issues I see are broader, having to do with the way that our society treats and depicts women’s sexuality. I suppose the ad could be used as an example of the broader problem, and the ad does contribute to it, so a case can be made that it’s unethical… but singling it out in this sort of manner says more about the people commenting than it does about the act they’re commenting on.
But the same people who object to the safety video have also been complaining about the SI issue from the beginning, so a comment like “it isn’t like this is the first time” is likely to make their heads explode. Part of the problem is that they are often the same people who argue that prostitution should be legalized (because women should be free to debase themselves sexually for money if they choose to use their body that way) but the SI issue is offensive (because a magazine is paying women to do considerably less involving their bodies for considerably more.)
There is a large difference between “revealing” and “hypocritical”, Jack. I don’t question the sincerity of the critics. I question their competence, perspective, rationality, work-ethic, and self-control.
Or, to put it another way, this has all the hallmarks of a hysterical, knee-jerk reaction.
As with all political correctness complaints, I doubt the sincerity. It’s a power play as often as not, and consistency isn’t on the radar.
Not sure why this video was deemed offensive by anyone. Some people are just overly sensitive and just look for problems when there are none.
Is this video disrespectful to women, in bad taste, vulgar or inappropriate? In an absolute sense, no. In the context of a flight, it might not have been the best choice.
The Sport’s Illustrated Swim Suit edition is undeniably about tantalizing its readers. However, with a magazine, if you are not interested in the content, or find it personally distasteful, you have the option of not buying the it. On a plane, where you are already crammed and sitting atop other passengers, adding a video that might make a minority even more uncomfortable seems unnecessary.
This isn’t to be prudish so much, but to encourage decorum in public. A previous article/comment here touched upon this topic, complaining of passengers not wearing courteous clothing on planes, such as sleeveless tee-shirts that allowed sweat onto neighbors. Perhaps in flight emergency preparation videos might model behavior and attire appropriate for air flight, rather than model the latest fashion in swimwear…
Valid point: it’s a captive audience. You still don’t have to watch.