babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » feminism   » I Am Julie

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: I Am Julie
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 22 February 2005 07:54 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I mentioned in another thread that these ads that have been on Toronto subways for a week or so now. So I did a google search on a few phrases from the ad, and came up with
this livejournal entry which is awesome, and this parody of the ad from the Canadian Women's Health Network.

I actually don't think it's a good thing to be obese, but these ads were offensive to me. Offensive because they suggest that you should be ashamed of stripping for your husband if you're fat. Offensive because they focus on the importance of fashion rather than the importance of health and strength.

And really, REALLY offensive because they are playing on women's insecurities about their looks in order to sell a fucking diet drug "quick fix".

I mean, if feminists want to open a dialogue about women's health, and focus on gaining strength through healthy eating instead of, oh, I don't know, making women feel neurotic and trying to get them to take fad drugs in order to be able to be skinny enough to please their men with lingerie, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

And it has particularly upset me considering that women have DIED trying to get skinny using pharmaceutical fad drugs and fad surgeries (stomach stapling and liposuction anyone?) and it's because of this very attitude that these asses are promoting - I have to get thin at all costs, the faster the better, and health doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that I can wear anything my teenager does, and that my husband likes my lingerie.

Argh argh argh!


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
spatrioter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2299

posted 22 February 2005 10:30 PM      Profile for spatrioter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I saw one of the ads, and I was just perplexed at the fact that you didn't know what it was advertising, or who paid for it.

Aren't there rules for indicating who pays for advertising, especially if it's pushing prescription medication? If not, why not?


From: Trinity-Spadina | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 22 February 2005 11:20 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I totally agree, Michelle. There needs to be focus on being healthy and in shape -- not for the sake of shape alone.

This is why I love my Kung Fu class -- not everybody is young and slim, but we're all getting more flexible and strong, which is what it should be about. I guess that's not sexy enough, though, eh?


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 23 February 2005 03:15 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Those ads are repulsive and remind me of another series for an acne drug + contraceptive pill with a woman's name a few years back - at first I thought it was about battered wives but it was about blotchy skin in the end... And thanks to Michelle for her googling prowess. But I wonder if the Canadian Women's Health Network, with its squarely "realistic" look at a typical woman's life, isn't overlooking our emotional needs? People, whether women or men, straight or gay, do feel the need to be attractive to our partner (of course the ad also assumes that Julie's spouse is a man, but that is no surprise...) The ad is playing on insecurities but I think those deep insecurities about no longer being attractive as we get on in years are very real and pre-date such ad campaigns. I think the reaction to them must be more affirmative of life, passion, and yes, being "sexy".
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 23 February 2005 04:41 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The ads say "Ask your doctor about Julie's story". I am wondering what kind of person will seriously say, "Hey, Doctor, tell me all about how Julie shed some pounds and stripped for her husband". And what doctor will then proceed to say, "Ah, yes, it's the such-and-such weight loss pill, (or whatever). I'll write you a prescription." My own doctor would probably have nothing but contempt for this kind of scheme and its advertising. But not all GPs are like mine.

[ 23 February 2005: Message edited by: Albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 February 2005 07:30 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I know. My GP would probably say, "How the hell should I know what Julie bought on her shopping spree, or what she does in bed with her husband, or how she lost weight?" But then, my GP's pretty cool.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 24 February 2005 11:51 AM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I see my doctor one every week or two...I'm tempted to ask her, just to see her reaction.
From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 24 February 2005 12:12 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Am I understanding this correctly? No one knows yet who is putting these ads up? It's some pharma company, but we don't know which? ???

Rebecca, maybe you should try asking your doctor, and then get back to us so that we can begin a public campaign.

Hi, my name is Julie, and today I met my husband at the front door all dressed up in Saran Wrap -- with nothing underneath!

Ye gods. I thought we'd laughed that one out of town thirty years ago. Maribelle somethingorother, wasn't she?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 24 February 2005 12:16 PM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I saw one of the ads, and I was just perplexed at the fact that you didn't know what it was advertising, or who paid for it.

Is the rule not something like: you can say the name of the drug, but not what it does, or you can say what it does, but not the name of the drug? So you get those ridiculous 'lifestyle' ads on TV, or this [s]bizarre[/s] vicious 'Julie' thing, and you're supposed to mystically deduce that a) this is a drug ad and b) I should really ask my doctor if Gleemonex or Nozulla or whatever is 'for me'. Feh.


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 24 February 2005 12:27 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As I'd said above, I suspect it is a bit of a teaser ad like the infamous "Diane" ads a few years back - http://www.diane.ca/ for a contraceptive pill that also controls acne - and evidently had a lot of serious medical drawbacks. Wonder if the drug companies will actually market a weight-loss pill named "Julie" - wouldn't put it past them.

Ah skdadl, I remember the Saran Wrap thing but not the name of the idiot who wrote that manual about putting the "spark" back in flagging relationships. There was a famous photo of the man wrapped in the same stuff and looking just as foolish.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
praenomen3
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4758

posted 24 February 2005 12:35 PM      Profile for praenomen3        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Generally how it works is that a pharma company's drug reps would have visited or contacted all the doctors in their sales area and pitched them on the relative merits of whatever the pill in question. Then, they'd start running ads to the general public, but since in Canada they can't directly mention the drug, the ad simply describes the condition or ailment and concludes with "ask your doctor." Since "your doctor" may well have been contacted already by the sales rep, s/he most likely knows what it's all about. It's the same message with PR stories posing as straight news.

The drawback with this approach is that the advertiser risks building awareness for the overall category- including his competitors - rather than his specific brand. Also, even if the ad does prompt someone to “ask their doctor” the doctors aren’t shills and are free to prescribe whatever they see fit, or nothing at all. It’s a gamble, but when the pharma company has something really big and unique like a Viagra, it does pay off.


From: x | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 February 2005 02:38 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, at first I couldn't figure out whether they were advertising a diet medication, a gym, or what. In fact, at first, because there was no name attached to the ad, I was wondering whether it was a new "controversial approach" public health notice, kind of like the stop smoking ones where they focus on "coolness" rather than health. But then I thought, no, that can't be it because usually they have the name of the funders on public health ads. And the first couple of times I saw it, I didn't notice the small print where it said, "Medical options available".

I saw another one on the way home last night.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mush
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3934

posted 24 February 2005 04:01 PM      Profile for Mush     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Not trying to hijack the thread, but perhaps one of you media-savvy types could tell me what those red and white ads about "the catch" are all about? I saw them all over the T.O. subway, on garbage cans, etc. last weekend.


From: Mrs. Fabro's Tiny Town | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 February 2005 05:19 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, I've been wondering that too!

The web site is http://www.curethecatch.ca but I have no idea what it's about because a few hours ago I tried to check it out, but it wouldn't open. I just got the "english/french" choice, and then the next page wouldn't load.

Oh, what crap. I just checked it out now, and it asked all those questions. I didn't answer ANY of the questions, and then at the end it said I have a mild case of "the catch" and that I should enter my e-mail address once they release the cure or something like that.

Um yeah, I'll get right on that!

[ 24 February 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mush
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3934

posted 24 February 2005 05:50 PM      Profile for Mush     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I gave them my all-purpose Hotmail account (for just such things). I'll let you know when I find out.

I had the thought that since one of the ads said that "11.5 million Canadians have the catch" that the catch might be the CATholic CHurch.

But then I wondered who would be trying to "cure it". That would be too much to ask.


From: Mrs. Fabro's Tiny Town | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 24 February 2005 08:27 PM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I just saw my first 'julie' ad on public transit today. I'm seriously tempted to culture jam it.
From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 February 2005 08:30 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, I'm tempted to make stickers with statistics about how many women were harmed by fen-phen since that's on my mind lately.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 24 February 2005 10:40 PM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yeah, I'm tempted to make stickers with statistics about how many women were harmed by fen-phen since that's on my mind lately.

Michelle, I should probably take this question over to your fen-phen thread, but it seems a one-of here that I'm curious about. Why would your "stickers", or any campaign speak only of the woman victims. There are hundreds of thousand, perhaps millions s of victims of fen-phen worldwide, and the best resarch I have found fixes about a third of them as men.

Does it somehow "ghetto-ize" and perhaps weaken the campaign against Wyeth and the complicit distributors to turn it into a feminist issue?


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Clare
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5079

posted 24 February 2005 10:47 PM      Profile for Clare     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm so glad that I'm not the only one having these extreme reactions. The ad I saw had a woman sitting with her wedding dress on but unzipped at the back. All it said was, "What would you do with a few pounds less?" and the ask your doctor line. I believe I stopped dead and said something like, "What the fuck?" I feel like we're going backwards sometimes.
From: Kitchener | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
speechpoet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3693

posted 25 February 2005 02:00 AM      Profile for speechpoet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hope this helps ease the thread drift: CureTheCatch.ca is registered to Lowe Roche Advertising out of Toronto. I believe the campaign is for Virgin Mobile, a cellular provider. That's the poop on a few discussion boards, and VM is definitely a client.

Re. the Julie ads, there are times when I'm ashamed to be in PR and advertising. This is one of 'em.


From: Sunny Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 February 2005 08:43 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by James:
Does it somehow "ghetto-ize" and perhaps weaken the campaign against Wyeth and the complicit distributors to turn it into a feminist issue?

Sigh.

The "I Am Julie" ads are exclusively marketed toward women. That's why I would focus on how many women diet drugs have killed or injured in the past. I wouldn't be doing it as a campaign against fen-phen, I would be doing it as a campaign against the sexist targeting of women in the I Am Julie ads.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 25 February 2005 08:56 AM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
I wouldn't be doing it as a campaign against fen-phen, I would be doing it as a campaign against the sexist targeting of women in the I Am Julie ads.

O.K., sorry, I misunderstood.


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 25 February 2005 12:02 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Geez I just saw the I am Julie ad on tv! My wife was all WTF? And when I explained what rabble was disccusing she thought the whole campaign disgusting.
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 February 2005 01:42 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh man, the ads are on TV now!?

Do the ones on television say who is behind them?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 25 February 2005 01:47 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Damn yeah they do but I didnt note it, I was too shocked at seeing it to be frank. But I'll watch at the same bat time tonite and see if its on (it was on the food network and/or the comedy/cartoon network)
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 25 February 2005 01:57 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I saw the ads on TV, too. I didnt' recall it saying who did them, though!
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Clare
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5079

posted 26 February 2005 12:11 PM      Profile for Clare     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The name of the drug is Xenical and here is the URL for the FAQ. It seems to be indicated for people with a body index mass of >30 who need to lose weight for health reasons like hypertension, etc. Not exactly who their ads are targeting.
http://www.xenical.com/hcp/3_faq.asp

From: Kitchener | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 26 February 2005 04:43 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Julie ads are for Xenical? Seriously? I remember the first time I heard a "regular" Xenical ad on television: "Side effects may include flatulence, oily discharge, more frequent bowel movements, and an inability to control them..."

Or:

"I'm Julie, and tonight I did something I haven't done since I was seven..."


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mush
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3934

posted 26 February 2005 05:43 PM      Profile for Mush     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

Sounds worse than "Olestra"!
(risk of "anal seepage")

I'll stay chunky, thanks.


From: Mrs. Fabro's Tiny Town | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 26 February 2005 05:50 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hmm speaking from a health perspective, a consistency of toothpaste would be the ideal stool

The things you read while waiting in the doctors office for a hand up my butt


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mush
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3934

posted 26 February 2005 06:14 PM      Profile for Mush     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'll take back anything I've ever said about doctors being paid too much.
From: Mrs. Fabro's Tiny Town | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
smokingeatingdrinkingprohibited
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7699

posted 26 February 2005 06:39 PM      Profile for smokingeatingdrinkingprohibited     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Sounds worse than "Olestra"!
(risk of "anal seepage")

My weight-obsessed friend brought back some Pringles from the US.

Oh yes! Right on the INGREDIENTS list: Olestra. We couldn't stop making fun of the anal leakage that was supposed to result. That stuff wasn't used in Canada, was it? Is it still in circulation?


From: Glasgee | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 07 March 2005 01:55 AM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I just got this email today:

quote:
According to the Globe and Mail (02/24/05) the "Julie's Story" ad
campaign is being funded by Hoffman-LaRoche to promote sales of their
pharmaceutical, Xenical (also known as Orlistat). Xenical is no magic
pill that simply melts the pounds away for those of us wanting to lose a
few, as the ads may suggest, but a prescription medication approved only
for the treatment of obesity.

What Xenical does to your body
Xenical works by preventing the absorption of dietary fats from the
foods you eat, with undigested fat removed through bowel movements. In
the process, the absorption of some important fat-soluble vitamins and
beta-carotene in the diet are blocked. So those taking Xenical must also
take vitamin supplements to get the essential nutrients they are no
longer able to absorb from the foods that they eat.

The most common side-effects of Xenical are the following:

Oily or fatty bowel movements (stools)
Increased number of bowel movements
Urgent need and/or inability to control bowel movement
Bowel movements that are orange or brown in colour
Gas with discharge
Oily discharge
Stomach pain
Irregular menstrual periods.
Xenical is also not recommended for those who are pregnant, planning to
get pregnant, breastfeeding, or who suffer from chronic malabsorption
syndrome or cholestasis.



From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 07 March 2005 01:57 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This sounds suspiciously like Olestra except that was an actual food additive.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 07 March 2005 02:01 AM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well I'm gonna start culture jamming the Julie ads. So if anyone sees stickers on the bus ads by Julie, it's me!
From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 07 March 2005 08:22 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've been meaning to do that too. And because of volunteer work that I do at odd hours of the day, I'm often on a train with no people in the car, or maybe just one person.

I just keep forgetting to make the stickers, that's all.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 07 March 2005 08:40 AM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If you want, you can give me your email address and I'll email you mine when I've made them.
From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 07 March 2005 08:47 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mandos:
This sounds suspiciously like Olestra except that was an actual food additive.

Well same idea. One replaces fat with something indigestible, the other makes fat indigestible.

My old dog once got the top off a jar of vaseline, which is likewise indigestible. The results on the floor were not pleasant.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 07 March 2005 08:50 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I saw a "je suis julie" ad on the bus here, so I guess we'll have to make some autocollants en français.

I have some friends who teach ESL and FSL in businesses and take public transport at odd hours. Would be a good project for the 8th of March.

I haven't seen such blatantly sexist ads here in at least a decade.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 07 March 2005 11:45 AM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
So those taking Xenical must also
take vitamin supplements to get the essential nutrients they are no
longer able to absorb from the foods that they eat.

I'm curious as to whether the supplementary vitamins/minerals are being absorbed, if fat isn't digested. Many vitamins can't be absorbed into your system without *some* fat. Calcium, for example. Osteoporosis, anyone?


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 07 March 2005 12:00 PM      Profile for brebis noire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And vitamin D, compounding the osteoporosis problem. You can get it through the skin, but not much in winter.
Not to mention that a person does need some fats and oils in her diet for basic metabolic needs.

From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 07 March 2005 12:04 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yup, exactly. What a great drug -- Hey, let's throw the body off balance, and then you'll lose weight! Great idea, make the body act like it's sick... Sick people get thin fast. Aren't they lucky?
From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trisha
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 387

posted 07 March 2005 01:08 PM      Profile for Trisha     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
An online friend of mine in Australia died of stomach cancer after using a medication very much like this. These ads are more than just wrong, they are dangerous. There will be doctors giving this medication to people who are not severely overweight because "thin is in". I wonder how many will have to die before this drug is removed.
From: Thunder Bay, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
mistress maude
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4130

posted 08 March 2005 12:18 PM      Profile for mistress maude        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I just found this hideous ad in the Edmonton Journal. I then I found out that it is an ad for Xencal or Orlistat. It is being marketed by Roche Laboratories. Patrick Cafone 973-562-2145 is the lead marketer. A friend suggested we barrage him with phone calls of complaint. I don't know, I am just so pissed off. And, I didn't realize it is all over.
From: Edmonton | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
mistress maude
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4130

posted 08 March 2005 12:22 PM      Profile for mistress maude        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I also just realized that today is March 8. WE ARE NOT JULIE!
From: Edmonton | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 08 March 2005 12:46 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What an awesome sticker slogan, mistress maude! That's the one.

And welcome to babble.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mistress maude
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4130

posted 08 March 2005 07:27 PM      Profile for mistress maude        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
FYI - This is the reply I received from my complaint to the Edmonton Journal:
The ad in question was placed by Hoffman LaRoche, a national pharmaceutical company. Pharmaceutical ads are subject to strict regulation. They can either describe a symptom (scenario) without product branding or brand a product without describing a symptom. The ad refers people to their doctor.

From: Edmonton | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
thiswoman
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8209

posted 09 March 2005 02:54 AM      Profile for thiswoman        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
One of the biggest problems about ads like the one you are describing (I haven't seen it anywhere yet in BC), is that women in general, regardless their age, are either slavishly over-exercising (exercise is very good and makes one feel extraordinarily vibrant, but too much of a good thing...), eating far too little for their energy needs, or obsessed with their ability to attract/keep a partner and literally killing themselves to be what they may never be (we are not all tall and lithe). When women are kept so occupied with these physical endeavors, men who wish to maintain their hegemony over women are very pleased not to have to 'compete' with them in the real world. It is time for women to realize that there is more in life than maintaining the cultural icon of the "beautiful woman." This is a game played by the media and is ultimately a lose/lose scenario because the rules always change. The best weight loss program in the world, should you wish to lose weight, is to see yourself as a valid person with a good head on your shoulder. When you look at this person in the mirror, the reflection that looks back is one that projects a self-empowerment and is not dependant on the opinion of others. You see the person, not the body.
From: Nanaimo, BC | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mary Anna
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8476

posted 12 March 2005 11:30 PM      Profile for Mary Anna   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hi, I am Mary Anna, and I'm new here as of yesterday.

What bothers me about the I am Julie ad, in addition to all that you've been writing here, is that men are only attracted to slim women.

A lot of men are attracted to obese women, and I can see why. Obese women are very soft and cuddly, like giant teddy bears,if you will.

My best friend is obsese. In fact, my two best friends are.

I am thin.

My Significant Other has a little round belly. And it does not shake like Santa -- it's just "there," and I love it.

I have no problems with men with bellies, little or big, but I am not attracted to men who are hugely obese. A little extra weight is nice, on men, to me.

Thin, athletic men are fine, too. But I love my partner, and only have eyes for him, for the record. He's probably 4" shorter than I am. And the issue is never raised as an "issue." Maybe it's b/c he's Latino? Anyway, I also understand that a lot of shorter men love big, tall women. Not something "the media" wants people to know, or do!


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
yankcanuck
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5582

posted 13 March 2005 12:07 AM      Profile for yankcanuck     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is what the LJ, Compasspoints, referred to above said re the company behind this -

"The sponsor of this ad is Hoffman-Laroche who make a weight-loss drug called Xenical. Check the specs on this drug. The side effects aren't very sexy."

Re: Julie ads
compasspoints
2005-02-25 17:57 (link)
http://www.xenical.com/hcp/3_productinfo.asp#5

Re "counter-postering" "I am Julie" - Do a search for "make stickers with your printer"
at http://www.google.ca/ to get started in
simple, easy and inexpensive methods to make stickers with a printer and labels.

[ 13 March 2005: Message edited by: yankcanuck ]


From: What wisdom can you find that is greater than kindness? | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 13 March 2005 07:08 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by thiswoman:
One of the biggest problems about ads like the one you are describing (I haven't seen it anywhere yet in BC), is that women in general, regardless their age, are either slavishly over-exercising (exercise is very good and makes one feel extraordinarily vibrant, but too much of a good thing...), eating far too little for their energy needs, or obsessed with their ability to attract/keep a partner and literally killing themselves to be what they may never be (we are not all tall and lithe). When women are kept so occupied with these physical endeavors, men who wish to maintain their hegemony over women are very pleased not to have to 'compete' with them in the real world. It is time for women to realize that there is more in life than maintaining the cultural icon of the "beautiful woman." This is a game played by the media and is ultimately a lose/lose scenario because the rules always change. The best weight loss program in the world, should you wish to lose weight, is to see yourself as a valid person with a good head on your shoulder. When you look at this person in the mirror, the reflection that looks back is one that projects a self-empowerment and is not dependant on the opinion of others. You see the person, not the body.

Women in general are slavishly overexercising? Are you kidding?

Sorry, but with rates of obesity -- and I don't mean just a little more body fat than the cover models, I mean clinically obsese -- rising in North American and Britain rising to epidemic proportions, overexercise does NOT seem to be the problem. I'd say overexercisers of either sex are few and far between in North America.

Men who "wish to maintain the hegemony"? Yeah, like there's this great conspiracy of men who are actively maintaining the hegemony. They meet in the dead of night to plot how to drive us to further nefarious heights of self-depletion. They're all in it, too -- ALL OF THEM!!!!!

I don't disagree that the best path to a healthy lifestyle is to start on the basis of self-worth, but until you start learning and practicing good nutrition and taking regular exercise, no amount of self-love is going to change your shape. I also think that most women are plenty smart enough to realize that there is more to life than measuring up to the icon of "beautiful woman", and that most of them do realize it. I find the suggestion that women in general don't get that to be condescending in the extreme -- as much or more so than any male bent on maintaining the hegemony.

[ 13 March 2005: Message edited by: Zoot ]


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
spatrioter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2299

posted 14 March 2005 01:32 AM      Profile for spatrioter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I saw an ad for Julie's story on the subway tonight. It said "Tonight, I gave my husband a striptease."

Someone posted a sticker underneath that said "Girl, make him apologize!"

Another sticker on the ad said "You are beautiful".


From: Trinity-Spadina | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 14 March 2005 10:50 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Someone posted a sticker underneath that said "Girl, make him apologize!"

Because somehow this is all a man's fault. It must be... right? Good grief.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Amy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2210

posted 14 March 2005 01:04 PM      Profile for Amy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

Because somehow this is all a man's fault. It must be... right? Good grief.



Yeah, actually, I find that particular response rather poorly thought out as well.


From: the whole town erupts and/ bursts into flame | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 14 March 2005 01:23 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ick quarter page ad for it in the Life section of the Star this weekend
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 20 March 2005 08:09 AM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bacchus:
Ick quarter page ad for it in the Life section of the Star this weekend

The Star wants to know if you would run the "I Am Julie" ads again.

So, you know what to do.

The worst part of it is that this drug is NOT for people who just want to lose a few pounds to fit into a new evening dress. It's only supposed to be prescribed to people with serious health-threatening obesity. Basically, these ads are asking people to ask their doctor to commit malpractice.

[ 20 March 2005: Message edited by: Doug ]


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 20 March 2005 08:26 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The ad has also turned up in the Grope and Flail, or at least I finally noticed it. I've been staring at the garter belt, trying to figure out whether she has it inside or outside her, ah -- is that a thong?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Digiteyes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8323

posted 20 March 2005 05:08 PM      Profile for Digiteyes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug:

The Star wants to know if you would run the "I Am Julie" ads again.

So, you know what to do.

The worst part of it is that this drug is NOT for people who just want to lose a few pounds to fit into a new evening dress. It's only supposed to be prescribed to people with serious health-threatening obesity. Basically, these ads are asking people to ask their doctor to commit malpractice.

[ 20 March 2005: Message edited by: Doug ]


C'mon, folks! In addition to clicking Yes/No on a poll, you can leave a message -- I think the messages will carry far more weight than the poll numbers.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582

posted 20 March 2005 05:45 PM      Profile for fern hill        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I just voted. "No" is running ahead of "yes" 77% to 22%.

Read the accompanying Star story. The publisher says that Canadian drug advertising rules treat readers like children. More of this "choice" crap!! Anybody read Doug Saunders in the Grope yesterday? Bloody good article.

[ 20 March 2005: Message edited by: fern hill ]


From: away | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
catje
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7841

posted 20 March 2005 07:48 PM      Profile for catje     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Amy:


Yeah, actually, I find that particular response rather poorly thought out as well.



It's a line from an ani difranco song

the marriage business is still run by men
like every business and everything
but she can sing
like a sonofabitch
make him twitch around his eyes
girl, make him apologize . . .


From: lotusland | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 21 March 2005 09:13 AM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I saw the ad in the Globe and Mail this weekend. Gah! Vaseline on the lens and the whole glamour bit... But you know how it is, we're all more sexy when the hard edges and imperfections are slightly blurred.
From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 21 March 2005 05:29 PM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I see the Star on-line poll is running 79% to 20% against republishing. Only 103 voters total though, so it may not have much impact.
From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 30 March 2005 08:37 PM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So I've been stickering the ads on buses in Vancouver. If anyone sees a sticker on a Julie ad on the #135, it's probably me!
From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Amy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2210

posted 30 March 2005 08:50 PM      Profile for Amy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've not seen the ads in Victoria (yet) but if I do, mark my word, they will be stickered!

Zoot, I just noticed this:

quote:
Vaseline on the lens and the whole glamour bit...

and I'm confused... I'm assuming it's a technique, but really I have no clue. Do you mind filling me in?

From: the whole town erupts and/ bursts into flame | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 30 March 2005 09:27 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"Vaseline on the lens" refers to a soft-focus technique used in film/tv and photography to give a sort of gauzy, dreamy look, often used on women who are being presented as attractive, desirable and glamourous. Do you remember the original Star Trek series? Nurse Chapple and other good-looking women were often shot that way in close-ups. I'm thinking of Star Trek mainly because they were so obvious with the use, better directors try to be more subtle with it.

Anyway, vaseline was used on lenses in the early days, but later on filters were developed to produce the same effect, so "vaseline on the lens" is really just a figure of speech.

When I saw the ad in the G&M, I noticed that they used a soft-focus, depth of field sort of shot, and it also looked airbrushed to me -- not even a goosebump! Very strange.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Granola Girl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8078

posted 31 March 2005 12:41 AM      Profile for Granola Girl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Omigish! Anchoress, I saw your sticker today on the #135 and nearly peed myself laughing!

"Today I wore an adult diaper to the beach for the first time....tee hee hee."

Good job, sistah! *gives the room high fives all round, but only ironically, because she knows deep down its corny*

But seriously, how did you make sure the bus driver didn't see you?

[ 31 March 2005: Message edited by: Granola Girl ]


From: East Van | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 31 March 2005 02:36 AM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

I've put up three or four of them, it's easy cuz the bus I ride has only the one ad, so I have a bunch of the stickers in my purse. I deploy them during my usual commute (I put up two today, one going downtown and one coming home), and so far no-one's said a word to me, lol. (Touch wood).

I have a great idea for a sticker for the stripper ad, but I haven't seen it on the bus yet.

I just hope no-one from Translink Security's reading this (please don't shoot me!).


From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
spatrioter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2299

posted 08 April 2005 10:19 AM      Profile for spatrioter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Now every time I see this ad, there's a 50% chance that one of them is stickered. In fact, I've been seeing a lot of subversive stickering of transit ads lately.
From: Trinity-Spadina | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mophead C. Joseph
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 324

posted 14 April 2005 09:51 PM      Profile for Mophead C. Joseph   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've been vandalizing the Calvin Klein ad with a scantily clad anorexic child.

eta: I mean, I vandalize the ad that has the naked child on it, I don't vandalize the ad with a naked child.

[ 14 April 2005: Message edited by: Mophead C. Joseph ]


From: recently escaped vast grey expanse | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca