So happy to report some good news.
U.S based women’s protest movement UltraViolet led a massive protest against rapper Rick Ross and his endorsement deal with Reebok, prompted by his lyrics in the Rocco song ‘U.O.E.N.O’., about drugging a woman and having sex with her without her knowledge.
Ross’s segment on the song featured spiking a woman’s drink with the drug MDMA, also known as Ecstasy or molly:
Put molly all in her Champagne
She ain’t even know it
I took her home and I enjoyed that
She ain’t even know it.
Only 13-months-old, UltraViolet harnessed a groundswell of protests that forced Reebok to end its relationship with the rapper. Much of the action took place through social media, resulting in a mammoth 90,000 signature petitions, 10,000 phone calls and 2000 tweets.
Protest outside the Reebok store in Manhattan (NYT)
Here’s an email I just received about the campaign’s success.
Dear Melinda,
YOU just dealt a big blow to rape culture.
Thanks to 100,000 UltraViolet members and our allies who spoke out, Reebok just ended their endorsement deal with Rick Ross, the rapper who brags about raping a woman on his recent single. The 90,000 petition signatures, 10,000 phone calls, 2,000 tweets, the letter signed by 500 rape survivors, and the nearly 100 people who rallied at Reebok’s New York City flagship store sent a clear message: we won’t stand for a company that rewards rape.
And Reebok listened. In fact they issued a strong statement, saying “We are very disappointed [Ross] has yet to display an understanding of the seriousness of this issue or an appropriate level of remorse.”1
When a company does the right thing, it’s important that we thank them–so we’re going to send them a thank you card, signed by thousands of UltraViolet members. We’ll also send the card to the press to help Reebok get good publicity for taking a stand against rape. Can you sign the card?
Sign the thank you card to Reebok.
This isn’t just a blow to Rick Ross–it’s going to have an impact on how companies like Reebok choose their spokespeople in the future. We showed companies all over the US–and all over the world–that rewarding rape is not just wrong, it’s a bad marketing strategy.
After Todd Akin, Rick Ross, Steubenville, and far too many similar stories, it’s clear we have a lot of work to do together to end rape culture. But right now, we need to take a moment to thank Reebok, and show companies everywhere that if they stand up for women, it will pay off. Can you sign the thank you card?
Thanks for speaking out,
Nita, Shaunna, Kat, Malinda, and Karin, the UltraViolet team
Remember Rick Ross’s part in a behind-the-scenes clip for the Kanye West Monster video which showed him eating a plate of meat between the spread legs of a dead woman? Collective Shout, Adios Barbie and others joined together in a global campaign against the Monster video which was described as a rape scenario set to a soundtrack – and won. MTV refused to screen it.
See also: ’32 overlooked rape lyrics in rap’
4 Responses
I tried to post a Thank you on the Reebok link, but it requires a US Zip Code. Is there any other way of doing it from Australia?
Thanks Ruth. A number of us outside the U.S have found that 90210 works quite nicely!
I demand Reebok publicly state it is responsible for promoting and condoning vitriolic male hatred towards women.
Reebok awarded Ross a very lucrative contract and yet Reebok is claiming ‘we aren’t responsible -don’t blame us males who own this company!
I won’t be thanking Reebok for something they should never have undertaken in the first place. But then Reebok is only interested in profit and having males promote vitriolic male hatred of women is a very successful marketing strategy!
Just because Reebok decided it was in its corporate profit interests to appear to ‘submit’ to feminist demands doesn’t make Reebok an ethical company.
Don’t be fooled by Reebok’s marketing tactics – they will continue to have campaigns which degrade women because male hatred of women is so popular and exploiting mens’ hatred for women is very, very profitable.
Great points Jennifer. You are right. They shouldn’t have done it in the first place and yes, it doesn’t automatically make them ethical if their motives were fear of loss of profits.