In response to PepsiCo’s recent disregard for the dignity of women, as evidenced by their sexist marketing techniques, I would like to see the removal of Pepsi products from our campus.
PepsiCo recently came out with a new iPhone application to market their Amp Energy drink. The application is titled “Amp Up Before You Score.” What’s its purpose? To allow application users to select from 24 different stereotypes of women depending on the user’s mood, then provide tips and tricks on how to “score” (because apparently, women are more akin to flavors of ice cream than actual people).
As if Pepsi thought that wasn’t quite demeaning enough, not only do the types include “Married”, but the caption below “Sorority Girl” says “This shouldn’t be a problem.”
And then we have the proverbial cherry on top: the application actually encourages users to “keep a list” of their conquests, and brag about them. Take a look at this excerpt from the application information on iTunes.
Here’s how it works:
1. Identify Her Type
Got your eye on a girl, and aren’t sure how to get started? Pick out her profile, flip the card, and study up quick with a cheatsheet on the stuff she’s into, with lists, links and some surefire opening lines. (Surefire to what, we won’t say.)
2. Keep a list
Get lucky? Add her to your Brag List. You can include a name, date and whatever details you remember.
3. Brag
You got it? Flaunt it. Keep your buddies in the loop on email, Facebook or Twitter.
In response to criticism of the application, PepsiCo offered this “apology” via Twitter, “Our app tried 2 show the humorous lengths guys go 2 pick up women. We apologize if it’s in bad taste & appreciate your feedback. #pepsifail.”
I, for one, do not find misogyny humorous. Nor do I find it compatible with our University Mission, Vision, and Convictions Statement, which with respect to dignity it states “We respect the dignity of each person and value the unique contributions that each brings to the greater mosaic of the university community.” With respect to diversity it states “We strive to create a vibrant diverse community in which, together, we work for a more just and inclusive society.”
As a university, the way in which we conduct business should be a reflection of our values. Who we choose to do business with says something about our ethical standards. Continuing to do business with PepsiCo is tantamount to an endorsement of their company and consequently their marketing methods. I hope the University of St. Thomas can do better than that. Please remove Pepsi products from our campus.
Sincerely,
Kathryn Pogin
Thanks Kathryn. Obviously the other option to Pepsi is Coke and they have had their own issues with conducting business in line with what we teach at St. Thomas but your point is well needed. All business must be held accountable by their consumers-St. Thomas has an excellent position as a main supplier of not only Pepsi but many products to call attention to violations in business practices and bogus products such as the one you described. But, if all we do is keep distancing ourselves from the unmoral how are we using our education to create the moral? In this case the power of people calling for change caused Pepsi to rethink their actions. This is what St. Thomas could have done but also what they can continue to do. We can call on Starbucks to provide fully Fair trade coffee, call on the administration to use Bio diesel etc etc. The “change our world” part of the overused St. Thomas mantra can really be a rallying cry to improve ‘big business’ so that ‘big business’ is no longer associated with bad business. After all the money we keep pumping into that business school we better be using it to improve something… :P
While I respect your opinion I find it completely one sided. Yes, we all know that there are some things that are not in good tastes with the advertising that is on today. And this one just seemed to hit home with a bunch of females. You fail to see this from a male perspective or even a dating/love perspective.
Let me describe how this app could possibly work, some introverted guy who hears about the app wants to give it a go. He is about to approach some women and wants to know more about them so he can get to know them better. Instead of just being rejected off the bat. Is that really sexist? If so wouldn’t dating books be sexists? or even anyone asking for advice on how to pick up a girl? Is ALL of that sexist?
If so, why not ask the tech guys at stthomas to ban all of these websites, ban websites that are on self improvement or help guys in the dating game? Or even ban the use of playful banter while on campus, sexual innuendos (that aren’t in good taste for females) – all of this is going to happen on a college campus. Should women magazines that have tests on them that determine what kind of girl or guy you are be banned from campus aswell?
If you could get a cheat sheet on how to meet the right guy, or what to say to him, or what kind of guy is he? Would you not take that opportunity to do a little research on it?
Dan- I don’t think the problem here isn’t that the application is trying to give guys advice on how to talk to women, the problems are that a. the stated intention for talking to women, b. the manner in which it suggests men talk to women, and c. the implications this has for the measure of male success.
The application doesn’t suggest that men should go out looking for love or even a date; it gives you tips and tricks on how to “score.” Even that word in itself is problematic- to score is a colloquial phrase meaning to obtain. You don’t obtain people, you obtain objects (and women are not objects to be obtained). The fact that the application provides you a place to list your “scores” and then means to brag about them, suggests that this isn’t about finding a relationship- it’s about hooking up with women at random.
With respect to giving advice on how to approach women, the application goes beyond that. If you select the “tree hugger” type, you’re equipped with a carbon footprint number and crib notes on how to be a hippie. These aren’t just tips on how to open a conversation, these are tips on how to dupe someone into thinking you already share the same interests.
Further, the types of women you can select from are indicative that this isn’t just about hints on how to talk to women of different personality types. One of the categories is rebound girl (and she’s pictured holding ice cream with makeup running down her face so apparently you should get ‘em while their down), one of the categories is married (and aside from the obvious ethical problems, this leads to a more nuanced implication if it is meant to be a personality type that married women no longer retain their own identity), and one of the categories is twins.
And I don’t think the application is only demeaning to women. The video advertising the app says “If you’re anticipating a successful night…” and in the iTunes description of the app Brag function it says “You got it? Flaunt it” as if the measure of a man’s success is the enumeration of his sexual experiences. If I were a man, I’d be insulted by that.
And I think that fact that Pepsi apologized via Twitter is a testament to the fact that they’re not taking complaints about this application seriously, and if they were wouldn’t they have pulled the app from iTunes? To add insult to injury, Pepsi created a new Twitter tag (#pepsifail) and added it to the end of their apology, presumably on the reasoning that any publicity is good publicity.
Dan, as a fellow male, I have to respectfully disagree with you. This application that Kathryn pointed out is a far cry from a self help book. In reality, it is a cheap, materialization of women. “Sorority girl=this shouldn’t be a problem”?! That is not only sexist, but quite degrading. It erodes the integrity of the female person. This application is not going to be used by some introverted guy who has dating problems. In the scenario that it was used by a guy such as this, wouldn’t it be providing a very shallow, materialistic point of view on dating? This whole thing is a reflection of a society gone awry…this application is promoting the materialization of females and turning them into nothing more than sex symbols. Kathryn, thank you for bringing this to our attention. It is a reflection of the ethics and values of PepsiCo…and not exactly a good one at that.
“all of this is going to happen on a college campus.”–rethink this. Think of all the situations that involve dating and women and sex etcetera that you’ve been in. When someone degrades a girl or girls or women in general, you have some basic choices: support it, don’t support it or ignore it. Would all of this happen (to the degree it does) if you did not let it happen? I think what Kathryn is pointing out is what are the consequences of these choices you have in these situations? More specifically, how drastic of a measure do we need to take to NOT support a company’s clearly sexist advertisement?
Sure, this isn’t exactly tasteful like a delicious Dr. Pepper, but it could be worse. Have you ever seen European advertising featuring women? I only agree with you because i’d rather have Coke anyway. You’ve got to find something actually WORTH protesting… I mean.. unless you want to file a sexual harassment suit against the company…
I realize where you are coming from, but I feel like you’re looking into this way too much. As I stated earlier, should commercials degrading women on television be banned? On another similar topic, should PSP’s (Playstation Portable) be banned from campus because of their ads?
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/07/04/ad-critic-sonys-racially-charged-psp-ad/
Or should we remove dell monitors from all of our classes because of this ad?
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/wavlength/archive/2007/12/is_ad_for_dell_computer_sexist.shtml
Where should St. Thomas draw the line to what is appropriate or not? Should they start censoring everything that may have a commercial that degrades something? Should certain things not be on sale on campus because of their advertising? (such as women magazines)
Dan- there’s a couple of distinctions I’d like to make. First with respect to PSPs, St. Thomas doesn’t have an exclusive contract with them making them the only provider of gaming systems on campus (this also applies to women’s magazines). There’s a difference between allowing something on campus which leaves the choice of consumption strictly to individuals and has little to do with the university itself, and actually engaging in a business relationship with a company as a university (and in the case of Pepsi, an exclusive one). Secondly, with respect to the Dell ad, there’s a pejoritive conotation of sexism in the ad, but they don’t come straight out and say “buy our computers to hook up with lots of women, ’cause that’s what makes you cool,” whereas Pepsi doesn’t seem to have any qualms about this. I’m not saying I like the Dell ads, but as a matter of degree, it seems less offensive. And again, we don’t have an exclusive relationship with Dell- we have Macs on campus.
you could always just not buy pepsi if you think that their business is all about sexism. What you’re not thinking about is that by doing something like this, they’re not declaring that this is Pepsi’s stance on all things related to the matter. They apologized for it already. Did you know that not everyone agreed that Obama should have been president? People like pepsi. Not because they said something you find sexist, but because of their products. I just don’t see your argument having any pull in the issue of whether or not we should continue offering pepsi at St. Thomas.
Tony, I’m sorry but when you come out with a product, you are basically supporting it. I don’t think it is ethically or morally a good business decision to create a product that represents something that you do not believe in. A simply apology does nothing if no action is taken (assuming that Pepsi did not remove/change the app).
And I think the point that Kathryn is trying to make is that St. Thomas, which “respects the human dignity of all people,” should not support a company that comes out with an application that is completely degrading and demeaning to women. This injustice is in every respect a contradiction to the University’s core convictions.
While I completely agree with you Kathryn and commend you for writing this letter, I question how realistic it is for St. Thomas to completely change their vendor for something like this that SEEMS to have little direct impact on the UST community.
This is another example of one of the most common marketing strategies: “SEX SELLS.” I’m not trying to defend Pepsico’s advertisement or pick sides here, but it just shows how materialistic the society we live in today is.
While I can understand Ms. Pogin’s opinion, I must disagree with her proposed resolution.
St. Thomas “respects” the human diginity of all people,” and nothing PepsiCo does or does not do will affect that. In each of its endeavors, as a univeristy and a business, St. Thomas should strive to maintain its moral and ethical code. However, when another company does not meet that self-applied standard (in this case, St. Thomas’ standard for St. Thomas) there is little logic in dissolving business dealings with them. This response seems akin to giving someone the “silent treatment” we have probably all performed as children. There are much better responses than this, for instance, asking a PepsiCo representative to come address student concerns with this advertisement.
St. Thomas’ influence on the world should be affected through the education of students. It should not come about by the ability to wave a metaphorical money wand at any problem with which it disagrees. While there are obviously some distasteful aspects of this application, that is a farcry from “misogyny” or sexism. This application in no way advocates nor provides the means for someone to forcfully assault a woman. If a few words from an application result in a woman sleeping with a man she just met, there are problems far greater than this application. More useful than fighting this application is educating women against all forms of verbal manipulation. So that when the next company puts out such an application, we will rest comfortable knowing it will have no affect on woman.
Lastly, it is relevant to state that the contract St. Thomas holds with PepsiCo establishes the Beverage Fund. I am not going to excuse one negative act for one positive. However, the equipment and such that the Beverage Fund has provided for the St. Thomas students has been extremely helpful. It will continue to provide students with a higher quality of recreation and education for as long as the contract is maintained.
I find it interesting that so far the only people who have responded to this letter, except for Clare Naughton, are all male. Some of the responses chide women for finding this offensive. I don’t think men have the right to tell women what is offensive to them as women. Some of them suggest that the ad, while in bad taste, is not so offensive that it should be cause for institutional concern. What if the app had been blatantly racist? What if the app had grouped people of color using social stereo-typing? (How to “score” with an Asian woman or a Latina, for example, using the crudest stereotypes of these groups?) I suspect there would be more outrage on campus. Why aren’t we outraged for all of the women, then, that this app seems to target? Why would someone sugest that Kathryn’s outrage is either out of place or overblown?
Sorry Brett, but I’m going to have to disagree with your second paragraph.
While I also won’t go as far to say that it is misogyny, I would say that (from what I’ve read about the application) it is sexism. The point isn’t that the application “provides ways to assault women.” In fact if that were the case, I think everyone would be on Kathryn’s side. The point is that the application advocates for and conforms to the gender roles created by our society where men continue to dominate. This application specifically turns women into objects for men to take home at night, add them to “their list,” and brag to their friends about their “accomplishments.”
Along with that, I completely disagree with how we should be “educating women against verbal manipulation.” I find two problems with this statement: 1) Instead of going to the source of the problem, we are telling women to let the problem exist and develop a “hard head” for this type of injustice. Instead of changing the problem, we are saying this is how the world is, so deal with it. 2) Why do we need to be only educating women? It’s not the fault of women that they continue to be oppressed. It’s the fault of men. Instead of only educating women on the issue, we should also be educating men on what it means to be a man. We should be educating men on what it means to hold all the power and privilege in our society today. And we should be educating men on what it means to be an ally to all women.
Last comment just out of curiosity, would ladies be offended if the app told girls how to “score” with a guy? Would a guy be as offended by this as women are?
If this was a “How to Score with a Man”, it’s simply blow over as a humorous joke.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLcgFo0CPss
Is this commercial humorous? Does it make you laugh at all? What if they replaced Justin Timberlake with a woman? Would you be offended? Would it still make you laugh?
Addressing the points brought up by Mr. Kor and Ms. Carvalho:
I would not suggest only educating women nor would my opinion change if the categories being demeaned changed. Eliminating the effectiveness of a problem is in essence eliminating the problem. In addition, the effects of such a solution are longer lasting. I’ll agree with you every step of the way that it is the men (in this situation) that need to be held accountable for trying to “score” with women based off of stereotypes. If you agree with me on that point, I am confused on why we are focusing on PepsiCo and not them.
In summation, I DO NOT think Ms. Pogin was wrong for bringing attention to this application, I believe that their are better ways to address it than to cease doing business with PepsiCo.
“As a university, the way in which we conduct business should be a reflection of our values. Who we choose to do business with says something about our ethical standards. Continuing to do business with PepsiCo is tantamount to an endorsement of their company and consequently their marketing methods. I hope the University of St. Thomas can do better than that. Please remove Pepsi products from our campus.”
Awesome! So we get rid of Pepsi, and all the loyal Pepsi purchasers (myself included) who want to have Pepsi, Mountain Dew, Amp, etc. will just walk right on over to Super America instead of use the machines on campus! Of course, then we’ll have to pay more for our tuition to make up for the shortfall. But it’s not like it’s that expensive, not a pressing issue for us, right?
I tend to agree with Kathryn here. The University of St. Thomas could send a strong message by cancelling their contract (and stating the reason why). That’d be terrific!
This is a perfect opportunity for “loyal Pepsi purchasers” like David to ask themselves why they are loyal to a company that engages in these type of practices. Sure you can easily get your Pepsi products some place else, but the more important issue Kathryn raises is about the principles behind our actions–why support a company that violates our principles?
I’m not throwing away my support for a company because of a freaking iphone App! Do you guys realize what you are getting upset about? An IPHONE APP! Amazing!
Dave (is it alright if i call you dave?) I think we’re in the same boat here… I don’t think pepsi was trying to tell people “hey! we’re sexist as hell! Thats what we’re about!”
Dave is fine. But I totally agree. Pepsi employees a LOT of people, how many could have honestly even known about this app when it was published? Probably a very tiny percentage. Most of the higher-ups (CEO, CFO, etc.) even higher management probably hadn’t even heard of the app until the news caught the story.
And here we are considering boycotting Pepsi?? You have got to be kidding me!
I sense someone’s nursing a victim complex here…
Wow! I’m surprised how quickly the quality of the writing and, more sadly, the quality of the arguments have degenerated. Let’s stay on topic and drop the unqualified psychological assessments.
Welcome to the blogosphere, Dr. Laumakis. That’s kinda how life is here on the webtubes. :P
@Brett: Unless you’re pulling an http://xkcd.com/326/ there, you mean “effected”. Sorry; grammar nazi on patrol. More importantly, I disagree with your larger point. What PepsiCo here has done is indeed an act of sexism. In fact, it is one of the clearest acts of invidious stereotyping I have seen in recent years. PepsiCo perpetuated strongly negative stereotypes about women, nurtured man’s perverse inclination to use women as objects, and provided tools intended to facilitate that objectification (the brag list and notification system). Imagine if this service were ever actually used – it is a tool *designed* for no other purpose than to help men take advantage of women, and then compound the evil by degrading them more, in perpetuity, after the deed is done.
To the second point: is not only optional but morally obligatory for St. Thomas to “wave its money wand” to oppose social injustice. By paying tuition to the school, which in turn hands PepsiCo a big pile of money through the beverage contract, we the students help pay for the culture of death. Then, through the Beverage Fund, the culture of death pays us money to fund organizations like Students for Justice and Peace, ENDOW, and Students for Human Life — whose express purpose is to oppose exactly this sort of thing. We rob Peter to pay Paul. That just ain’t right. It’s also incredibly dumb.
Certainly, St. Thomas’s primary means of “changing our world” is through the education of morally responsible leaders, and, in general, St. Thomas should not imagine itself a social justice advoacy organization, because it isn’t — it IS, as you point out, a university first and final. Nonetheless, it is a necessary *condition* of the education of morally responsible leaders that said morally responsible leaders-in-training aren’t forced to pay to help *undermine* social justice and the dignity of women. I don’t want to see UST pretending it’s a great big chapter of Catholic Charities, but it can’t pretend that it’s just a university and nothing else it does with its actions or monies has moral consequences.
Now, of course, there is another problem with Ms. Pogin’s solution: Coca-Cola is apparently a much more serious violator of social justice principles — instead of an offensive iPhone app, it seems to be involved in some murders in South America. Which is obviously a bit more serious. So I don’t see the solution of “dump Pepsi; switch to Coca-Cola” as a useful one in this circumstance. At the same time, we should not ignore Pepsi’s actions here — and we should reject immediately Brett’s proposed “dialogue” with Pepsi so they can “address concerns.” Pepsi made its position quite clear in its Tweeted non-apology: they don’t care. They know how to say that real nice, but they don’t care, and no amount of “dialogue” will change that. No talking; we must act.
How about we just end exclusive beverage contracts entirely and give students a free market for beverages on campus? That pushes the moral decisions onto the students, and frees the entire community from implication in the social evils committed by the beverage corps. Is that a reasonable proposal?
the problem I see here, is that, ok, yeah, the pepsi app is probably sexist. The thing is, they’re appealing to what people want. Like it or not, that’s how society is. Should we be supporting it? no. Should pepsi be advertising this way ? no. But there are still a lot of people out there who ARENT offended by the app. They don’t see it as a big moral issue, they see it as a joke app (have you SEEN how many fart apps are available for purchase on the app store?) maybe we should be mad at Apple for allowing this to ever be put up for sale. or maybe we should be blaming the advertising department. Or maybe we should be blaming ourselves for letting things get this way in the first place. I think pepsi’s appology wasn’t genuine, but i don’t think you can expect much more. Let’s just switch to Shasta….
Tony- The fact that some people aren’t offended by it isn’t a justification. Help me out here, I’m not clear on why you’ve stated clearly that we shouldn’t be supporting it, but earlier you implied I should just get over it. If we shouldn’t support it, then we shouldn’t support it. By buying their products, we’re supporting them. They associate their sales with their marketing tactics, i.e., if you want to send the message that they’re marketing shouldn’t be supported, the best thing to do is to stop buying their products, consequently decreasing sales.
And I agree, I wasn’t surprised that Pepsi’s apology (or lack thereof, noting the operative IF) wasn’t genuine- but the only reason not to expect more is if we as consumers just let it slide. If we decry this as sexism (and that’s what this is all about), then we can send Pepsi the message that their status quo isn’t good enough.
I realize lots of people think the app is a joke, and I should just get over it. Here’s the deal: 20-25% of college women will be sexually assaulted during their college career. Do you think this would still be the case if it wasn’t so socially acceptable to objectify women? The fact is that this mentality is a big deal, with real and serious sociological consequences. Yes Pepsi said this meant as a joke, but no that doesn’t make it ok. That’s like saying “I’m not racist but…[insert racist joke here].”
And yes Tony, that’s how society is. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t try to change it.
I think what we’re trying to do now, is stop something our parent’s parent’s parent’s started long ago. And i feel like the reason that many women are assaulted is because there’s sick people in the world. There’s still a lot of us in the world who can choose good over bad, and can recognize the difference. What it boils down to is this. Will the university do anything about this incident? Probably not. Will pepsi do anything about this? Probably not. So it comes down to having this argument for the sake of arguing. I’m all for equal rights, and not objectifying women, etc. but i feel like there’s better ways of bringing about change than complaining that some stupid iphone app is sexist and that we should therefore cut off all ties with pepsi. I honestly just don’t care enough about what a soft drink company is telling me to think. I’ve got a conscience, and a brain, which puts me above their marketing.
Well, I’m not sure what you’re going for when you say that “our parent’s parent’s parent’s started” this long ago… First, yes sexism is deeply rooted in history. Second, why is this relevant? If you’re saying that this doesn’t have anything to do with us, or it’s not our fault, because it’s historically rooted, I’d have to say perhaps the originating cause isn’t our fault, but perpetuating it is. If you’re saying that we can’t stop it, how about slavery? Yes slavery still happens, but huge strides have been made in eradicating it despite it’s historical origination. If you’re saying the effects of sexism aren’t as big of a deal now as they were in the past, sure but they’re still very real now (for example, even among college educated men and women, women do not receive equal pay for equal work, and the statistics get worse if you’re a woman of color).
With respect to there being better ways of bringing about change, I presume (and correct me if I’m wrong) you’re referring to the fact that there are larger instances of sexism out there I (and all the other people on campus who are upset about this) could protest. Are there bigger things I could be worrying about? Sure. But if someone breaks their arm, would you suggest they not put a cast on it, because after all there are people out there dying of cancer? That said, while this may be a “stupid iphone app,” I think the fact that an international corporation like Pepsi, sees something like this is as acceptable marketing says something serious about the value we culturally place on women. If we choose to simply ignore it, then we’re tacitly condoning it.
And while you may have a brain and a conscience, that doesn’t necessitate that you’re above social or cultural influence. In fact, studies would indicate otherwise.
Excellent point made originally by Kathryn! I agree 100% with her and more so I think that James Heaney has provided the correct response and probably the only real, achievable “solution”. Let the individual consumer conscience decide. However, UST should at the very least make a big stink about it–I mean, look at the Archbishop Tutu public relations disaster–I’m sure some news could be made about it to work for UST for once.
Also, as to the Pepsi fund: the Pepsi fund monies are a complete joke. It is actually very little money to begin with and it cannot be used for anything practical. For instance, the fund’s rules stipulate all kinds of things that impede it from being used for anything that would be purchased normally. In other words, the Pepsi fund monies can only be “wasted” on something that wouldn’t otherwise be purchased by the students or Student Affairs. It’s kinda like the flex money spent at the C-Store at the end of senior year–you just buy things because you have the money to spend whether you need it or not.
I make two nitpicks about this thread, one trivial, and one critically important. First, James Heaney, what are you doing by writing “@Brett” ? This isn’t a twitter-logue; all of our first and last names are listed in full, instead of “interweb pseudonyms”.
Secondly, and of actual importance, I completely disagree with Corrine Carvalho’s statement, “I don’t think men have the right to tell women what is offensive to them as women.” I think her point about those men on this thread that are trying to persuade everyone else is that it is upsetting that they are essentially extending the very same sexism perpetrated by the Apple iPhone app. However, the actual wording of her statement is what troubles me. It makes it seem as if she is saying that men are actually different from women in some manner such that men and women cannot participate in the same fundamental way in shared human dignity. In other words, it is the same sexism present in the app, just reversed at men. That I cannot agree with in any way, and I don’t think she meant, in that statement, that men and women aren’t of equal dignity and in fact DO make decisions together (and specifically about men or women or both) about what is right and just treatment of all humanity.
I don’t even KNOW what I’m talking about anymore because this argument is going around in circles. Go ahead Katherine, complain all you want. I wish you the best of luck. All I’m saying is that some people have better things to do with their time, and personally, if I ever see this demon app, I don’t plan on becoming a sexist pig because of it. I don’t know if you watch TV, but there’s a LOT worse on there (provided to you FREE in every dorm room by UST!) that you could be mad about. Do we need to cut off our ties with Comcast as well? There’s so much garbage in this world already, you just found a new piece.
I just wanted to let everyone know that Pepsi pulled the app from iTunes, so thank you to everyone who helped make that happen!
At this point, it would be interesting to find out if PepsiCo switched ad agencies as a result. The brouhaha went beyond just UST you know. However, marketing majors take note on the consequences of advertising miscues, and the power of consumers to choose. Protests are simply marketing an opinion.
Wow, congratulations. You have accomplished nothing more than taking your time to complain about something that doesn’t affect you in any way. You seriously wanted to ban pepsi products because of a joke? If I spent the time to try and ban every advertisement that was sexist towards men I woudn’t have time for college.
ZOMBIE THREAD
Women are so hypocritical when it comes to sexism. The entire female population fails to realize that sexism towards men is rampant in the media. Males just choose not to complain and get worked up about it to the point of asking for a ban on the product.