I think we can all remember a time being in the car and your parents singing songs from when they were younger. For some kids it’s embarrassing, some it’s funny, and some willingly sing along. I was a singer. My brother on the other hand would ignore us and roll his eyes with embarrassment. The song Lola by the Kinks was always a family favorite. The catchy toon and repetition of Lolaaa made it easy to remember and hard to get out of our heads. This past weekend, however, the song came on and my dad started singing. When I heard the final line this time around “But I know what I am and I’m glad I’m a man. And so is Lola” I realized the song is about a transgender woman.  

I went home and listened again while looking at the lyrics. Upon doing this I realized the only lyrics I’d known all these years had been the chorus! The rest of the song contains some really hurtful, offensive, and untrue information about transgenders! After this, I did more digging and went to watch the music video. Here I witnessed even more disapproving messages that you couldn’t get from the lyrics alone.

The music video illustrated like a comic book clearly depicts the main character’s (the singer’s) negative view of Lola and other transgender people. In the whole song, he is singing about how he has been deceived and lied to about her identity. He doesn’t accept that Lola has transitioned into a woman at all. Instead, he feels as though she (Lola) is actually a man and is lying to the public appearing as a woman. He introduces this idea of being lied to first through coca-cola. 

I met her in a club down in old Soho

Where you drink champagne and it tastes just like Coca-Cola

The singer does this again later in the song where he talks about the artificial candlelight.

Well, we drank champagne and danced all night

Under electric candlelight

In both of these lines, he points out that everything is not what it seems in this club. The champagne, which is typically high quality and expensive, tastes like a cheap soda. While with the next line he brings to our attention that the candle is fake, getting us familiar with the idea that he is being lied to in this club. He then moves on to talk about Lola.

The lines “But when she squeezed me tight, she nearly broke my spine” and “I can’t understand why she walks like a woman and talks like a man”

These lines are greatly offensive to all women. Who is this singer to suggest that women can’t be strong and give a tighter hug? Or who is he to say the feminine tone of voice must be a certain pitch and if you don’t meet that pitch you “talk like a man”. And then within the next line began the additional hurtful messages not heard in the lyrics, but shown in the music video. 

The line reads “She said, Little boy, won’t you come home with me?” Lola is asking the singer to go home with her, but the music video depicts the singer for the first and only time as a doll/puppet. To me, this imagery was extremely disturbing. It felt like the singer was suggesting that Lola was taking advantage of the singer and keeping him there against his will. Like he has no say, he’s under Lola’s control. 

The next line again doesn’t read offensively but is paired with the music video, showing the underlying rude message the singer implied. The line reads: “But when I looked in her eyes, well, I almost fell for my Lola”. The image shows the singer and Lola with switched hair colors and in the singer’s right arm he holds a box labeled Turkish Delights.

Now I thought this was odd that the Turkish delights were labeled because nowhere in the lyrics are they mentioned, and it seemed odd to specify that in a low detail cartoon comic book image. This prompted a google search “What do Turkish delights mean? ” According to google, they are a gelatin pastry usually dusted with a bit of icing sugar. Seems innocent enough. A second search: “What do Turkish delights symbolize?” and there it was. The truth behind how he viewed transgenders. The Turkish delight symbolizes evil sin and temptation. Implying loving Lola, the transgender woman is evil and a sin, even though it is tempting. 

As the song is coming to a close another lyric reads: “She said, Little boy, gonna make you a man”. This line again made me feel as though the singer was claiming she took advantage of him. Calling him a “Little boy” and not asking for consent just saying she will make him a man feels creepy in the way the singer has framed it. When in reality the singer just doesn’t want to be held accountable for being attracted to a transgender woman. 

The song closes out with the line I said earlier: “But I know what I am and I’m glad I’m a man and so is Lola”. The singer then repeats Lo-Lo-Lo-Lola until it eventually fades out and the song ends. That final line solidifies he still sees Lola as a man, despite the fact that she is not. Granted this song did come out in the 1970’s so transgender people and knowledge was in little supply the song is still unacceptable. Despite the song being dated, it still feeds into the hurtful and incorrect stereotypes of transgender people that we deal with today. I can’t believe these hurtful messages went undetected by me through so many years of listening to this song! But alas, the ugly truth of the singer’s view on transgender people will never be forgotten.

(Both images were screenshots of the music video. The link to the music video can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CzrYXcXweI

Throughout Grey’s Anatomy’s , Shonda Rhimes seems eager to write and direct episodes that highlight pressing social justice issues and challenge gender and racial stereotypes. While many of her episodes tackle social issues regarding race, gender, sexuality, mental health, drug use, she also includes a lot of representation of marginalized groups. Many of her episodes showcase people across all marginalized groups taking on the empowering and glorified profession of surgery. 

Specifically, an episode in the 14th season highlights stereotypes about women in relation to mental health issues such as anxiety and depression. This episode mostly features Miranda Bailey, an African American woman who is also Chief of Surgery at Grey Sloan Memorial Hospital. Dr. Bailey is an inspiring figure not only for her admirable work ethic and striking leadership abilities, but also for representing groups particularly marginalized in society: she is black, fat, and a woman. 

In this episode, Dr. Bailey confidently claims that she is suffering a heart attack, seeking medical attention at Seattle Presbyterian Hospital. Despite providing her professional opinion and self-diagnosis to the medical staff treating her, her suspicion of a heart attack is relentlessly shut down by doctors who are white, cis-men. Bailey stays loyal to her own professional judgment and requests that she speak to the Seattle Presbyterian’s Chief of Surgery, Dr. Maxwell. Maxwell immediately dismisses Bailey’s belief that she is suffering from a heart attack. He looks at her with sympathy, places a comforting hand on her shoulder, and assures her that his medical opinion is correct. This effectively portrays the harmful stereotype that women are inherently less intelligent than men. It reinforces the idea that women don’t belong in professions where many urgent, important, and high-pressure decisions must be made with utmost skill and knowledge. Maxwell, who actually holds the same position as Bailey in hospital authority, quickly assumes invalidity in her opinion and overlooks her judgment confidently. As a white, cis-man with an intensely glorified job, he feels he holds authority over Bailey, whose blackness, fatness, and identification as a woman devalues her skill and judgment as a highly qualified surgeon.

To make matters worse, Maxwell then suggests she consider mental-health related factors that could be the cause of her physical discomfort. “Do not go down that road with me,” she says. Maxwell continues to ask Bailey about “big stressors” and her history of mental illness. Bailey quickly recognizes that Maxwell’s inference is based solely on stereotypes that women are unable to handle their emotions and anxiety. Bailey asserts her confidence as a black woman who deals with OCD, claiming that she views it as a piece of her story rather than a disadvantage.  Refusing his inference, she requests a new doctor. This scene shows Bailey resisting the socially ingrained idea that women are more mentally and emotionally immature and unstable compared to men. Too often, women’s heart disease is overlooked as merely a manifestation of anxiety or stress. This emerges in relation to the overarching idea that white men are inherently stronger, smarter, and better prepared for success than women of color.

Unfortunately, rather than upholding Bailey’s request for a new cardiologist, Maxwell refers Bailey to a psychiatrist, who is also a white cis-man. He speaks to Bailey in a condescending tone, insisting that he help “treat” the mental issues he believes are causing her physical pain. He describes her as a woman “who has a big job with a lot of responsibilities,” who “manages life and death scenarios on the daily,” “has a history of mental illness,” and has “limited coping skills.” His assumption that someone like Bailey could not possibly handle the stress that comes with such a highly respected and important job feeds into the belief that such positions belong to white men. It reinforces the stereotype that only white men could ever qualify for such an intense, emotionally strenuous, extraordinary profession; this is because society has held the idea that only they have the mental capacity and qualities to handle and deserve such a responsibility. 

The title of the episode, “Don’t Fear the Reaper,” contradicts the episode’s message in an abstract and interesting way. The title originates from a song written by Buck Dharma, a member of a band called Blue Oyster Cult. The song is basically about the inevitability of death and how it shouldn’t be feared. It’s less of a comment on the gender and racial stereotypes of the episode and more of one on the humanity of the situation she is in. The “death” aspect reflects Bailey’s grueling work life and stressful home life. The title insinuates that Bailey should surrender to the forces weighing her down, such as the inevitable stress of her job and as an individual part of intersecting marginalized communities. It implies that despite how secure and empowered she is in herself, she must allow herself to succumb to the natural struggles of life. While this episode title represents the humanization of Bailey, it also places greater emphasis on her struggle, which reinforces negative stereotypes about people like her. This tainted message takes away from the episode’s message on gender and racial stereotypes. Although this message does tie into Grey’s Anatomy’s overarching theme of the imperfectness of humanity, it dulls the episode’s commentary on more pressing social issues.  

Overall, the writers successfully tackle stereotypes about women regarding anxiety and heart disease. Miranda Bailey, a fierce and resilient black woman who is Chief of Surgery at Grey Sloan Memorial Hospital, is known for speaking on issues concerning gender, race or sexuality stereotypes. The writers of Grey’s Anatomy utilized such admirable qualities of her character to effectively comment on the harmful gender and racial stereotypes that are ingrained in our society.  

In this ad by Lumin titled Mansplaining How To Avoid Dull Skin, we see a man trying to convince another man to pay more attention to his skin and to use their moisturizer. At the beginning of the ad, the man is looking in the mirror when a hand pops out and offers him skincare, at which he says skeptically, “skincare… for men?!”. The man who gave him the cream then goes through all the reasons why he should be using the skincare product and taking care of his skin, most of the reasons relating to being masculine and being attractive. He says that skipping skincare is like skipping leg days (and shows a man with skinny legs), he points at all the problems with the man’s skin, and at the end of the ad, the man is convinced of the need for the product and is shown using it, the other man saying to him, “We got this, I’ll spot you”.

 This ad incorporates lots of prevalent ideas about gender norms and expectations. In US society today, women are typically expected to put more effort into their appearance than men in terms of skincare – this ad is trying to market their moisturizer to the male market using certain gendered advertising strategies to market a typically feminine product to a masculine market. The title of the ad plays on the idea of mansplaining, which was first used in the comment section of an article from 2008 called “Men Explain Things To Me”, and is used when men explain things to women in a condescending manner and with the assumption that the women is ignorant of the topic. The man in the video claims that “skipping skincare is like skipping leg day”. The advertisers are assuming that most men work out and would appreciate a fitness reference. In saying this, they are comparing skincare to something more stereotypically masculine in order to dissociate it from femininity to make it seem more acceptable to be used by men. They show a man with skinny legs working out his arms, to instill fear into men that it’s just as bad to have bad skin as it is to have skinny legs. This brings in the idea of body image, and how toxic masculinity tells men that they need to be muscular and strong in order to be attractive, worthy, and manly. The ad uses words like ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ to play on common insecurities of men and guilt men into feeling like they are actually less masculine by not paying attention to their skin. The man in the video shown as the one with ‘skinny legs’ is also shown in all pink clothes and using pink weights. This is another way that they make this man resemble femininity, thus relating not taking care of your skin as something that’s bad because it makes you look more girly. With this logic, they’re saying that being girly is an inherently bad thing and something to be embarrassed about, whereas it should be normalized for men to wear pink and do things that may be considered girly and be proud of it. This ad is shaming men who may prefer to embrace the feminine aspects of themselves and tells men that they need to be manly in order to be respected by others and that men who are not hyper-masculine are failing as men.

This ad also brings up what we saw in the Poretsky and Everts readings in which they discuss how companies have created problems and insecurities in order to sell a product to solve that problem. In this case, men are told that they should be worried about having dull, wrinkly skin, and that this cream is something that they need to buy in order to be more attractive. The man in the video seems to have not cared about these aspects of his skin before, and now will spend money to fix something that Lumin has deemed a problem, not himself. In these ways, this simple, 30-second advertisement has very deliberately and blatantly played into gender stereotypes and marketing strategies that perpetuate stereotypical ideas of ‘masculinity’ and create insecurities in order to sell a product. In addition, all of the settings shown within the ad tell the viewer something about class and wealth, as all of the rooms and fixtures are expensive and fancy looking. This may be a way for the advertisers to make it feel like people who use this cream are fancy and wealthy, and so anyone who uses it will also come across this way.

It is also noteworthy that Lumin’s ads feature many men of color, non-white men, and racially ambiguous men. It is impossible for us to know whether this diversity is due to genuine race-blind casting or simply an attempt to appeal to the growing public awareness of the lack of diversity in advertising in order for the company to appear woke.

The whole Lumin skincare line is advertised as being specifically for men, which relates to other posts I’ve seen online about examples of things being unnecessarily gendered so that they can be advertised as ‘for men’ or ‘for women’. The whole Lumin skincare line is advertised as being specifically for men, which relates to other posts I’ve seen online about examples of things being unnecessarily gendered so that they can be advertised as ‘for men’ or ‘for women’. Companies then use different marketing strategies for the two so that they appeal to each gender in different ways. These gendered products are completely unnecessary and are simply ploys for the companies to make more money by perpetuating gender norms and stereotypes. I would be interested to see the scientific evidence (or lack thereof) of what makes these “men’s” products different from women’s products, as they claim substantial differences between men and women’s skin on their website. Personally, I see no need for products to be different from one another in accordance to gender, but plenty of people buy into the need for such products. Where do these gendered products leave non-binary people, gender-fluid people, transgender people, and anyone not within the gender binary? They are left with needing to choose either the male product or the female product.

International product advertisements are oftentimes the subjects of laughter for people around the world due to the presence of many cultural references or jokes that simply don’t translate well. Although these advertisements may not necessarily bring upon waves of international sales, they still usually manage to bring about fun conversation and good times. However, in the case of a viral advertisement for Qiaobi, a Chinese laundry detergent company, the only feelings being brought out of viewers are confusion and disgust. The advert, created to target Chinese audiences, was intended to be an outlandish, comedic take on just how effective Qiaobi detergent is at fighting dirt and grime to provide the most pristine clothes possible with every washing cycle. Ironically, all the advertisement has done is drug the company’s name through the mud. In a decision that can hopefully be defined as an ignorant, uninformed mistake instead of a prejudiced attack, the company decided that the best possible avenue for displaying the product’s cleaning power was to wash the melanin off of a black man. If this jumps out at you as being completely inappropriate and offensive, then congratulations; You’re at least not a blatant racist. Unfortunately, this advertisement is, in addition to some of its misogynistic elements.

The advertisement opens with an appearance of normalcy as it focuses on a young Chinese woman putting a load of laundry into a washer. However, the peaceful scene is immediately interrupted by the entrance of a black man covered in paint who stares at the woman provocatively before catcalling her. This scene is already triggering as it seems to paint catcalling, an offensive, misogynistic practice that many women, unfortunately, have to experience, as acceptable. Delving deeper into the scene, one can easily see how it upholds the racist idea that black people are sexually deviant, predatory creatures. These notions date all the way back to the Jim Crow era South where they were adopted by the white populace, still reeling from their defeat in the civil war, in order to accuse black men of rape and justify public lynchings.  This allowed the Southern community to put fear in the hearts of the local black populace while simultaneously supporting the power of the white authority in America. Unfortunately, these sentiments did not remain in America and have instead infected the cultures of countries across the globe. This can be seen in India where skin lightening creams are heavily marketed as the only way for women to be attractive or in countries such as Venezuela where the media is dominated by fair-skinned women. In addition to these issues, the scene itself is just unnecessarily triggering. Women experience harassment continuously in our problematic society, and this is only made worse by the trend in media to continuously use situations such as this just to add drama. Honestly, why does a commercial about laundry detergent need harassment to get its message across? Surprisingly, the woman beckons the man forward and seemingly reciprocates his attraction but instead shoves the man into the washer, before turning it on. I can honestly admit that I am a big fan of cartoonish violence in the right context, but I can’t help but feel uneasy about the image of a black man being roughly forced into a washing machine. The washing machine runs for a few seconds and then through some manner of tv commercial magic, the man exits the machine. However, when he exits the washing machine, he is now a fair-skinned Chinese man, much to the woman’s approval. We the viewer are then reminded that this is somehow supposed to be a commercial for laundry detergent when the company the logo appears on the screen as their signature jingle plays. This scene highlights the largest, most glaring issue within the ad, which is that it pushes the narrative that blackness is tied with impurity and filth while on the other hand whiteness is connected to purity and cleanliness. This sentiment is not a new one as it has been used to justify and further prejudice against all colored peoples.

Racism and colorism run so deeply in our society as humans that even our vocabulary reflects it. For evidence of this one only needs to delve into the pages of a dictionary of the English language. In the entry for the word “black”, we see definitions such as “dirty” and “characterized by hostility or angry discontent”. On the other hand, under the term “white” we see definitions such as “free from moral impurity” and “favorable”.  

Advertisements such as this one only serve the purpose of further ingrain these notions into our vocabulary and minds. It’s glaringly obvious why this advertisement went viral and rightfully received its badge of notoriety. One has to wonder; how did the advertisers think viewers with black skin (that doesn’t come off) would feel? Or did they simply not care?

If you’ve been on TikTok in the past week, you’ve most certainly heard the voice of iconic actor, artist, socialite and former dominatrix Julia Fox explaining how her role as director Josh Safdie’s muse for the film “Uncut Gems” compares to her relationship with Kanye West. Fox was recently the guest on Alex Cooper’s podcast, “Call Her Daddy,” where she spilled the tea on her (now former) relationship with Kanye, participation in sex work, and dived into sensitive topics of substance abuse, sexual assault, and her upbringing in the East Village. Immediately after the release of her podcast episode, TikTok was blowing up to the tune of Fox’s unmissable vocal fry and uptalk, pronouncing “uncut gems” as “uncut jaaams.” Countless celebrities, social media influencers and small creators have been using her voiceover in their own videos, poking fun at Fox’s voice and statement. 

As someone who has always been told my voice is too “feminine,” too “gay,” I argue that turning someone’s voice and pronunciation into a punchline is not only hurtful, but typically reinforces sexism and homophobia. Vocal iterations are a critical identifying variable of our gender and ethnocultural perception by others. If you hear a voice without any context, you may subconsciously identify that voice with a specific gender, sexuality, race and class. In our perception of others’ voices, we tend to make large assumptions about their background and experience. These assumptions are the foundation of stereotyped accents. People love critiquing others’ accents. There is a phenomenon, an obsession, with contrasting British and American or Northern and Southern (USA) accents. There exists an eroticization of voices which are unique or different from one’s own. This fascination creates space for judgment and assumptions about one’s character, experience and background. Ultimately, for feminine-presenting folx, voices are hypersexualized and criticized. Fox’s vocal fry is one example of a vocal iteration criticized for its perceived sensuality and ignorance. Vocal fry and uptalk are typically associated with the “valley girl” accent and stereotype made famous by the Kardashian family. Young women predominantly use vocal fry and uptalk either due to environmental vocal influences, cultural choice or due to social inhibitions. Due to the patriarchal structure of society and a history of mansplaining, women often end their statements on a higher register, as if they are asking a question. In our society, women ask the questions and men know the answers. (sidenote: In highschool, I recognized the same occurrence in my voice when my Debate coach suggested that I had a slight British accent. I associate my uptalk with an upbringing of patriarchal mansplaining in my family and community and people questioning my sexuality and masculinity. I always had something to prove and was therefore never sure if I was hitting the nail on the head in my statements.)

While the Kardashians are a brilliant, iconic, hard-working group of women, criticism of their “lack of talent,” perceived lack of intelligence and media-espoused hyper-sexuality have created a harmful association between them and the Valley Girl. Youtuber “marinashutup” explains in her video for Everyday Feminism, “Why do Women Talk Like Kim Kardashian?” that women who use vocal fry are perceived to be less educated, gold diggers or reliant on “daddy’s money” and unprofessional. This vocal stereotype has harmful implications for feminine-presenting folx. According to the same video, a study by Duke University found that employers are 86% more likely to hire a feminine-presenting candidate without vocal fry than a candidate with vocal fry. This statistic shows how assumptive people are towards other’s voices. When this level of discrimination exists against predominantly young, white women, the implications of vocal discrimination across racial and class categorizations is likely to be significant. 

Turning vocal fry into a meme reinforces the idea that these vocal iterations are nothing more than a joke and that the words they carry are insignificant. The popular focus on Fox’s vocal fry has left her experiences and emotions to be nothing more than a TikTok meme. This suppression of intelligence and valid experience is universal for people with vocal fry and uptalk. As a result, life-threatening incidents of sexual assault which disproportionately threaten women go unbelieved. Additionally, knowing that they are unlikely to be believed, people with vocal fry and uptalk are discouraged from reporting violence against them. Fox speaks about this experience in “Call Her Daddy.” After coming out that a former romantic and business partner had sexually assault her at his nightclub, many of her friends and those in her community of the Lower East side did not believe her. She remembers being called “dramatic,” a typical stereotype of the Valley Girl vocal fry. Fox recounts the second time she was assaulted, but still today has not identified her attacker. She blames her experience the first time with her inability to come out after the second. This is a blatant example of how women are so often discouraged from reporting sexual violence. It is empowering that she was able to defend herself the first time, but when her community turned their back on her voice, she was silenced.

When Peloton dropped a holiday ad right before Christmas 2020, they expected it to be received as an ad showing a husband gifting his wife a Peloton bike for Christmas because he loves her. However, Peloton received major backlash for their commercial, as it was received in the complete opposite way that it was intended. 

The commercial starts off with a man gifting a woman, who the audience can assume is his wife, a Peloton exercise bike. When she gets onto the bike she says, “A little nervous, but excited. Let’s do this.” The commercial then shows the woman doing daily Peloton sessions and taking selfies and videos during every single one, while also explaining how she is surprised that she has been doing it everyday (and even getting up at 6 a.m.). As evident from the photo above, there is a constant look of fear in the woman’s eyes. She is also very obviously grimacing, which suggests that she is uncomfortable. She looks scared that she is not going to get approval from her husband if she does not use the bike he got her, so she makes sure to document the whole process as proof. She does not look excited about the bike, and looks like she is being forced to exercise. Because the commercial was not understood by viewers as the creators intended it to be, the grimace on the woman’s face heightened the negative parts of Peloton.

For the whole commercial, she is unsure, timid, and shy, all while acting like she needs approval from her husband (which is why she started the workouts in the first place). The commercial pans to an instructor shouting her out and the woman saying “She just said my name!” All of these clips are then compiled into a documentary that the woman created to show her husband how grateful she is for the gift. She thanks him by saying, “A year ago, I didn’t realize how much this would change me. Thank you.” 

The controversy within the commercial comes with the claim that it’s sexist. The husband wanted his wife to get in shape so he gave her a peloton to “force” her to work out, and then, when she shows him the final video, he looks satisfied with the transformation. The other controversy within the commercial is how the woman is portrayed. There are many scenes in the commercial where you can see her big eyes with a look of fear in them. She is constantly taking videos of her on the Peloton to prove to her husband that she is using it, while also saying that she is surprised that she is still going, which means that she is feeling the effects of working out and is exhausted. At the end of the commercial, she compiles her videos to show to her husband. After her husband sees the video, he just gives her a smile and no other words of affirmation.

This Peloton commercial and its choice of actors proves further stereotypes and standards that society places on women. At the beginning of the commercial, the woman was not working out and was surprised to get a Peloton, which is obvious through her surprise when her husband gifts her one. She was timid while working out and is still timid at the end when she shows her husband the video that she made. The woman in the commercial is also already a healthy weight. She is what society would consider “skinny,” and society believes that if a person is skinny, they are healthy. However, she is still seemingly forced to work out by her husband, which further supports the impossible standards that society puts on women’s bodies. Women will never be able to achieve a “perfect body” and will always feel like they have to work to achieve a body that others will find attractive, even when they are already at a healthy weight.

The commercial also completely skews why people decide to workout. The Peloton commercial portrays the woman as only working out because her husband thinks that she should. When she starts using the Peloton, it’s obvious that she is “out-of-shape” and trying to get into a schedule for working out. She is trying to figure out how to use the bike, while also visibly struggling in all the classes. It makes it seem like she is doing it for him, and not just for herself.  While some women work out because they want to change their appearance others workout because it helps their mental health. This Peloton commercial puts forward many toxic ideas about women’s workout culture. 

The previously mentioned ad is not the only problematic ad that Peloton has released. The majority of Peloton commercials are considered controversial. Peloton creates their ads to be targeted towards a certain demographic, which is the group of people who can afford a fifteen hundred dollar exercise bike. As evident in the photo above, Peloton commercials almost always include a skinny woman on her Peloton bike, which has a designated platform in her well-decorated house. The snapshot above includes a thin white woman on her bike in front of a wall that is all windows, which can lead a viewer to infer that she is well-off. Peloton’s CEO John Foley even said that Peloton’s target demographic are “people who have children, live in suburbs, have nice homes, they have the money and space but don’t necessarily have time.” The majority of people in the commercials are also white. All of these factors put forward an unrealistic expectation of what people’s peloton experiences are going to be. It also gives off the impression that everyone riding a peloton has to be a “put-together rich person.” This is further complicated by the majority of the commercials including white people. Does this mean that Peloton’s vision of a “well-off” person is a white person?

Broadcasting exclusively skinny women working out can make fat people feel like a Peloton is not meant for them. It can also create unrealistic body standards for people working out on Pelotons. If Peloton is broadcasting skinny white women as the ideal Peloton users, other Peloton users could use this as unrealistic and unhealthy goals that would turn their workout journey into more of a “self-hate” journey than a “self-love” journey, all while trying to get their bodies to look like the ones they see in commercials. 

Peloton tries to put forward a “life-changing” experience with their workout machines, but they are not successful– but this could all be part of their marketing scheme. Leaving viewers feeling insecure and feeling desirous can lead to more business for Peloton. Their commercials leaves viewers feeling insecure about their own bodies and workout routines, all while projecting harmful ideals about body types, along with certain demographics of Peloton users. 

References:

Peloton Commercial: https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/12/3/20993432/peloton-new-commercial-horror-movie

CEO Quote: https://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/08/pelotons-race-for-home-cycling.html

Photos: https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/12/3/20993432/peloton-new-commercial-horror-movie

Peloton Commercial Song – Indoor Exercise Bike