Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

IKEA (Saudi franchisee) removes all the women in Saudi catalogue

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    mikhail wrote: »
    Really? It's such a minor issue that it doesn't even provoke outrage, and it's so obviously wrong that no one disagrees particularly. What on earth are you discussing? This is just onanism.
    To clarify, I took your post in the context of the replies posted here (where I failed to see any outrage). If you were referring to outrage as found in external sources, I apologise. Onanism? 90% of Boards threads, I'd have thought!


  • Options
    #33
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    The cynic in me thinks the apology arriving now is backed by financial concerns rather than ethical ones. They have probably decided that the backlash from their customers in the liberal west would cost them more than an apology and taking down the online catalogue long after the Saudi customers got physical copies without the offending gender.


  • Options
    #34
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,265 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    The cynic in me thinks the apology arriving now is backed by financial concerns rather than ethical ones. They have probably decided that the backlash from their customers in the liberal west would cost them more than an apology and taking down the online catalogue long after the Saudi customers got physical copies without the offending gender.
    I find I have two reactions to this.

    1. Well, duh.

    2. More cheerfully, Ikea may be entirely profit-driven, but if the ethical reaction of their customers and potential customers means it's in Ikea's financial interests to change their practice, that's still an ethical win, isn't it?


  • Options
    #35
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,387 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    The cynic in me thinks the apology arriving now is backed by financial concerns rather than ethical ones. They have probably decided that the backlash from their customers in the liberal west would cost them more than an apology and taking down the online catalogue long after the Saudi customers got physical copies without the offending gender.

    All the talk is of 'airbrushed' and 'photoshopped' and 'Saudi franchise' as if this was some rogue subsidiary who decided to do their own thing. Funny how when the toothbrushing woman was 'photoshopped' out, there was no trace of her whatsoever, but the lighting in some other parts of the image changed slightly :rolleyes:

    It's bollocks, it's plainly obvious that there were two sets of images taken at the time, one for Saudi the other for the rest of the world. It's pretty hard to imagine how that could be done without the knowledge and approval of HQ in Sweden.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #36
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,265 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    ninja900 wrote: »
    All the talk is of 'airbrushed' and 'photoshopped' and 'Saudi franchise' as if this was some rogue subsidiary who decided to do their own thing. Funny how when the toothbrushing woman was 'photoshopped' out, there was no trace of her whatsoever, but the lighting in some other parts of the image changed slightly :rolleyes:

    It's bollocks, it's plainly obvious that there were two sets of images taken at the time, one for Saudi the other for the rest of the world.
    Nah, if that was the case you'd expect the poses of the other people in the pictures to change slightly, but they don't.

    Besides, photoshipping is easier and cheaper than posing and taking two sets of near-identical pictures. Why wouldn't you photoshop this?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I find I have two reactions to this.

    1. Well, duh.

    2. More cheerfully, Ikea may be entirely profit-driven, but if the ethical reaction of their customers and potential customers means it's in Ikea's financial interests to change their practice, that's still an ethical win, isn't it?

    I guess if the only hope of making big business more ethical is to force them to do so with the threat of financial punishment it is. The naive utopia would be one where they do it because they know it's right but I'm not silly enough to expect it even if I do vocally long for it.


  • Options
    #38
    Undergod
    Registered Users Posts: 2,858 ✭✭✭Undergod


    edanto wrote: »
    Comparison pic

    Especially cause of the way we stone women who wear anything more than a bikini.


Advertisement