Rivers using glamourised violence against women to flog clothes and shoesThis image is from the latest Rivers catalogue advertising “10 deadly deals”.
The woman, in fishnet stockings and stiletto heels, is situated under a couch with only her stockinged legs in view. Rivers is the latest company to promote the idea that dead women are sexy. Nothing like a female corpse to sell some product, right Rivers?
In an apparent attempt to make cardigans (like this one right) seem risqué and edgy, Rivers engages the concept of dead women as the new black. Rivers products have been questioned for their lack of quality but the company’s ethics must be questioned as well. 
As Collective Shout documents, this is not the first time members have taken Rivers to the Advertising Standards Board.
I’ve written about this trend to appropriate violence against women as a hot new source of creative advertising possibilities too many times now including ‘You look so good in blood: violence is like so hot right now’ . In December Collective Shout identified some of the worst offenders of sexploitation and violence and asked that you cross them off your Christmas list .
Fiona T, a former River’s employee, spoke out about her feelings in a comment on Collective Shout’s site:
As a former employee of Rivers who was once very proud to say that I had worked for such an upstanding and down to earth Aussie company as Rivers, I find myself disappointed and at times disgusted by the turn Rivers has taken with its advertising. The advertising once was witty and carefree. Unique and amusing. Now it is often repulsive and shocking. Please tell me who was behind the thinking that dead women in thigh-high fishnets and stillettos is going to be a good way of selling clothing & footwear. I know there are many family men amongst the decision makers there at Rivers (at least there used to be). Tell me how you would feel if your daughter was seeing a man who thought that the image of a sexed up woman dead under a couch was appealing? Why try to perpetuate this hideous ideal that a victimised woman is sexy. Why not promote the ideal of strong, smart, powerful women, as I’m sure many of the women in your target market (not to mention your employees and families) are.
Turn it around, Rivers. Make me proud again.
Fiona T
Alice from River’s responded that the cover was “not intended to cause offence” and wished my colleague Melinda Liszewski a “great day”.
Alice, we could possibly have a “great day” if your company wasn’t trivializing violence against women. A scourge on the planet, violence against women is not funny, amusing or fodder for advertising. What Rivers is doing is a deadly deal for women.
Boycott Rivers. For details on how to complain visit Collective Shout.
5 Responses
I am shocked beyond words.
I see we’re getting the same old tired comments on the Age article about this.
“Maybe she’s just looking for something under the couch. Maybe she tripped and fell.”
Yeah, I’ll concede that’s a possibility. Although if that’s the case, then Rivers needs to sack its marketing department because the title “Deadly Deals” confuses the issue somewhat. Perhaps, if we’re meant to believe the model really tripped and fell, they should have called it “Clumsy Deals”?
Then there’s the old standby, “You feminists have no sense of humour. Get a life.”
Actually I do have a life. I have a very nice life. But I happen to think my life, and the lives of lots of other people, might be a bit better if violence against women weren’t so mainstream and normalised that it’s totally okay to use it in a ‘witty’ advertising campaign.
And how about this one? “This ad is not going to make anyone want to go out and commit violence against a woman.”
Well, firstly, no one has any way of knowing that, any more than we have any way of knowing that it WILL make someone want to commit violence against a woman. Really, this is not about whether the ad will influence someone one way or the other. It’s about linking sexiness with violence against women, normalising it, and then using that eroticised violence to sell something. Notice that the model isn’t wearing beige slacks and comfortable flatties. She’s wearing fishnets and shiny high heels – of course it’s meant to be seen as sexy. It inextricably links sex and violence and tries to make us see it as something normal rather than something shocking and horrible. It’s the slow, steady drip that’s dangerous – an ad here, a song there, a movie over here, and suddenly violence against women is ordinary, everyday, unremarkable… and sexy. Violence against women is something that happens in real life EVERY DAY. It’s not sexy, it’s not normal and it’s not a joke.
And finally, “You wouldn’t be whinging like this if it were a man in the ad.”
Yes, I would. I don’t like violence against men either, nor do I think it should be used to sell anything. However, it’s interesting that it’s NOT a man in the ad. In fact I can’t think of any recent examples of advertising that eroticises violence against men. Perhaps this is because violence against men is not yet so normalised that advertisers are willing to eroticise it for fear of the outrage and shock it might cause. What a pity that violence against women is not treated the same way.
The usual excuses/justifications for constantly portraying women as eroticised dehumanised objects is this ‘You wouldn’t be whinging like this if it were a man in the ad.”
In fact this claim is precisely why it is always women who are portrayed by popular culture and this includes advertising companies as ‘dehumanised eroticised objects’ because our male supremacist society reinforces the belief that only men are human. So that is why we are never subjected to images of men shown as eroticised dehumanised sexualised commodities – because they are human and therefore must not be reduced to dehumanised sexualised commodities. But – women are not human are we – we are just disposable objects who can be exploited for corporate profit and at the same time these companies know their promotion of such images will not be seen as ‘endorsing/promoting male hatred and male contempt for women.’ After all such images of women are just ‘sexy’ are they not – rather than deliberate dehumanisation and male contempt.
Then too there is the fact men continue to be the ones who hold individual and group power and that is why their views/their definitions of what is and is not ‘hatred or contempt for women’ is widely accepted as valid and true. But these definitions are male-centric because if a man is not routinely photographed as ‘dead’ in a suitably sexually submissive pose then according to the male-centric view no human was subjected to dehumanisation because the human was not male.
But we mustn’t forget that such propaganda constantly portraying women as dehumanised sexualised commodities works and within a very short time women as well as men accept such dehumanised images as not ‘harmful’ but normal. After all this is what women are – they are men’s dehumanised sexual service stations and so unless we challenge these degrading images, such propaganda will continue because no human was subjected to dehumanisation were they?
It is but a tiny step for one dominant group to accept the lie that other subordinate groups are not human, as evidenced by racism and yet because men continue to refuse to accept that women like men are human, this means such degrading images of women are perceived as ‘humorous or ironic’ rather than deliberate promotion of women-hating and misogyny.
l’m not sure what to make of it as l see both sides of the argurment,but l do know this: Using women{and men} in degrading,humulitating ways for the almighty dollar,is despicable. l recently had a shot at kmart for using cheap cotton from Ubekestan’s slave farmers to make singlets which then were displayed by models in various poses. l told kmart lift their game. Kmart told me that they do a through check on all items of clothing.Any that come from slave traders,they do not use. That l do not belive for one second! So l am very wary about purchasing clothing from Kmart. Rivers people take note!! Thank God for Collective Shout!!l encourage you to keep up what you are doing and thank you for letting us know these things.
As a family violence counsellor I believe this is an offensive advertisement by Rivers and putting down women and being disrespectful to all the women out there. This is a common cultural belief planted again and again by some men that women are worthless and a way to say that they are only good for “@$%#” and Most men argue in counselling sessions and totally blame women for all their fault; they don’t want to take responsibility at all. This is one way of promoting that sort of violence against women and encouraging men to be Male Chauvinist. I am a male, totally against this ad. I do not see any sense of humor in it.