Anyway, I don’t see anything wrong with it personally. PMS is not something that strikes every woman, and the commercial didn’t insinuate that it is. Not ALL the women in the town were on some kind of crazy bitchy spree, just this one. Its something that happens to some woman, and that is a fact, and the commercial was saying milk can avoid that. What is maybe up for critique though, is that the majority of her victims were men (except for Snow White), insinuating maybe that women with PMS become man-hating lesbians.

As far as the beauty thing, well, Alex already summed that up well enough.

The content of the “Spanx” post didn’t offend me either. I am offended by having to see my boss’ underneaths in a professional work place. Everyday. But I am not offended if she wears Spanx or padded bras or whatever… it’s her personal choice. I just don’t want to see it through her sheer blouses.

I think this ad used a witch in a way that was lazy and, as such, really accessible and effective, rather than offensive. A witch is an evil, nasty, necessarily female character from popular culture and is always identified with being generally cranky or repugnant, if not evil. Is it a fair assessment of how women act during their periods? No, of course not, and I don’t think people equate the hyperbole with the reality in any really meaningful way beyond “Oh, I get what they’re trying to say.” It’s an exaggeration to make a point simply.

In that sense, I don’t find this ad offensive. As for the witch becoming “beautiful,” well. People are going to pay more attention to an ad that features an aesthetically pleasing protagonist. There’s no doubt that, subliminally or not, this ties in with some sort of message that “Drinking milk will make you beautiful!” but if I took issue with that, I would also have to take issue with the idea that “X brand laundry detergent will make you beautiful!” or “Eating a McDonald’s salad will make you beautiful!” or “Going with Geico will make you beautiful!” Which, I mean, I DO take issue with, but such is the not the focus of my particular argument at this time.

My issue revolves around the idea that it seems more acceptable for women to berate, bash and belittle other women, whereas if it’s a company or an industry, or even one, lone man, doing the bashing, it’s always, and easily, called on as being wrong, offensive or harmful. So, my question here is not so much about the nature of the ad industry, but rather: Why aren’t women held more accountable for the damage we do to one another, on an individual and interpersonal level?

All sarcasm in this post aside, I can’t quite reconcile the reaction to this ad as “woman hating” when its message is predominantly, as I see it, one of helpfulness and health (calcium helps combat mood swings that make you uncomfortable, depressed, angry and unpredictable during PMS, even if it does so with what might be seen as an unsavory and, frankly, lazy depiction of females) and the less-than-supportive (I will refrain from making a bra pun right here: _____ ) reaction to the “Spanx” post.

So, it’s not at all acceptable for Big Business or an ad agency or Them, whoever They may be, to make a comment on women or make a suggestion as to what may help women, but it’s somehow permissible if women … critique one another?

I’m just not sure I’m able to process the disparate nature of the reactions to these two posts.