Pepsi Pulls Ad Accused of Trivializing Black Lives Matter

What really gets me is the hijab veiled girl is now the token muslim representation. From Nike to Pepsi, the hijab is how muslims signify diversity. God forbid, we ever come across a non-hijab wearing moderate muslim woman.

This diversity for the sake of diversity is misleading. The hijab girl can't be next to the feminist girl, or LGBTs. Those values are diametric opposites. Islam condemns the latter.

 

I totally agree. It kind of presents the fundamentalist Islamic representation of Islam as the face of all Islam. It's a disservice. I wish they wouldn't stereotype that way.

The idea of tolerance and diversity isn't that we show how tolerant we can be of the stereotype.

 

Pepsi made a dumb ad, got roundly mocked on Twitter, late night talk showsetc, and then pulled it...bc it would impact their profits

Didn't really have anything to do with BLM, but I guess any excuse to trivialize their cause is good enough for a lot of assholes out there.

 

It's all for show anyways.

 

BLM was created through a hashtag, no shock they would try to claim ownership of their message through that medium. Still a lot of unwarranted self importance and imagined slights on their part. There also seems to be a broader resentment or disdain of institutions and popular culture in general, did civil rights advocates clamor this much for authenticity or openly accept references and endorsements from popular media?

 

Maybe not offensive, but jeez, how dumb do marketing agents feel we are, as a populace?

The ad is beyond cheesy and trivializes real issues. Whether you agree with BLM or not (I'm more into "all lives matter"), the idea that Kylie Jenner can defuse a situation (involving attractive protesters wearing designer clothing) by handing a young cop a Pepsi is just incredibly stupid.

Now thinking, the only thing I find offensive about the ad is the stupidity marketers assign to us.

 

1. The chick in the hijab is hot. Everyone in that ad is, but especially her.
2. The hijab-wearing feminist that Republicans love to criticize, Linda Sarsour, marches with pro-choice advocates, LGBT advocates, and feminists of all kinds, while also being sympathetic to Sharia. I'm not intimately familiar with her philosophy or anything (I've only had to learn about her because of our social purists) but it looks to me like at least one person has found a way to reconcile these supposedly diametric opposites.

Eh, let's not call it conceit. They have a nonprofit whose mission it is to bring awareness to issues around justice for black people. Like all advocacy groups, they have a survival instinct that compels them to find opportunities to create media impressions and reinforce awareness. It's not anything other advocacy groups wouldn't do.

 

This bit pretty much nails it. And it's probably exactly how it all went down, LOL...

 

There is no reconciliation, only hypocrisy. Sarsour self-proclaims a progressive islamic feminist, yet presents hijab as a choice and even a woman's right in Islam rather than a symbol of control and oppression. Then, she also claims to support LGBT rights and pro-choice, which are explicitly condemned in Islam.

Here's the thing, her views may be genuine and progressive, but Islam is not. Therefore, she has to resort to mental gymnastics to get to her conclusion. I have no problems in what she supports. I applaud muslim women being more progressive. However, you can't present a revisionist version of Islam as part of the argument to support your claims.

 

You have a very absolutist worldview.

 

It's just a stupid ad.

 

You mean the hijab is how PEPSI signifies diversity (i.e. by a stereotype).
Lots of Muslim women do not wear hijabs and they also support things like gay marriage; I know some of them. If you want to say "But the Quran blah blah" why don't you look in the Bible and see what it says about menstruating women: complete horseshit.

Muslim women are free to wear hijabs or not and support LGBT or not, regardless of your opinion or mine.

 

1. Actually the Quran is not why muslim women wear the hijab. The Quran only calls for women to dress modestly. It's the Hadith later codified into Islamic law as Sharia, which forces women to wear a symbol of control and oppression. The validity of the hijab is often debated among Islamic scholars. Some suggest it was meant in one particular Quranic verse only as a way for Muhammad's wives to shield from harassment in public.

2. There is no freedom of choice given to women. It's indoctrinated at a very young age. There is family, societal, and peer pressure to adopt the hijab. Those who do not wear the hijab, are able to so because their family is more liberal and allows it. Therefore, there is no great emancipatory claim for women in Islam not to wear the hijab. No woman has ever petitioned successfully in Islamic courts, the right not to wear a hijab.

3. Again, Islam condemns very explicitly LGBT and I'm not just referring to the Quran, but the Hadith, the Sharia, the Fatwas - all of it. You cannot claim to be a Muslim and ignore the elephant in the room. Cherry picking beliefs and values in Islam is strictly prohibited.

 

The only way you know if a woman is Muslim is if they have a hijab or something similar. If it was a PSA no one would complain about the woman wearing a hijab. How else are you suppose to make it clear the woman is Muslim?

For all you know there could be 5 other Muslim women around her.

 

OK, I think we're in agreement that some Muslim women do not have to wear hijabs.

Cherry-picking beliefs is strictly prohibited in every religion.

 

faux squared is 16 outrage

or is it in the words of the late great Moses Malone:
faux,
faux,
faux?

 

1. Some westerners have told me the hijab it's a symbol of control and oppression. Some Muslims, including Muslim women, have told me it's not. Probably, some people are forced to wear it and others choose to wear it. I'm not getting involved either way. If Muslim women need some foreigner to come rescue them, it should be some other country besides mine that bombs them to hell.

2. For me, it's wearing pants where I have no freedom of choice. It's indoctrinated at a young age. I have a lot of family, social, and peer pressure to wear pants. Courts aren't sympathetic to me not wearing pants -- they don't even let me address the judge unless I'm wearing pants. The worst part about it is I'm forced by society to indoctrinate my own son. He's young, but he knows he doesn't want to wear pants. He tells me "pants are boring!" He wants to be free. I want him to be free. But, I know if he doesn't learn to fall in line, society is going to come down on him like a ton of bricks. Companies won't employ him. Girls will shun him, boys will ostracize him. He'll be harassed by cops. So I tell him he has to wear pants, at least short pants. I won't let him go to school or go outside to play with his friends without them. My son hates it, but what is a father to do in this oppressive pants-wearing society?

3. Christianity also condemns homosexuality, yet Christians find a way to love and support homosexuals. Same with Judaism. Why is it you can claim to be Christian or Jewish and hold this view that seems to outsiders to be contradictory, but you can't do that with Islam?

 

Yep, that was spot-on.

I thought this one was also awesome