As reported by Smart Company:

(Rachael) Adamopoulos claims Goodman harassed her regularly, touching her buttocks on several occasions and making suggestive comments about her breasts, according to a report inFairfax.

Don't pay for Sexploitation this holiday season

Actually, we're pretty sure they are

We laughed out loud when a Collective Shout supporter sent us a scan of the latest Rivers Catalogue. Have they really created a catalogue cover just to have a go at us?

[Update: complaints dismissed following appeal to independent reviewer]

Complaints against Rivers '10 deadly deals' catalogue cover have been upheld by the Advertising Standard Board.

Collective Shout had exposed Rivers eroticisation of violence against women last month after supporters found the catalogue included with their local newspaper.

Our supporters began writing to Rivers  and to the ASB to voice their objection to the use of violence against women as a marketing tool.

As posted on Melinda Tankard Reist's blog.

How encouraging it is for those of us involved in trying to make things better for women and girls when men stand with us and want the same. Readers will remember when David Ould took on Loveable for its objectifying advertising. Now No To Violence Male Family Violence Prevention Association has taken on Rivers for glorifying violence against women in its advertising, confronting the company for being part of cultural support systems for violence against women. Here's their letter as posted to Collective Shout's site:

From Melinda Tankard Reist's blog

The Age has covered our protest against Rivers for appropriating the image of a dead woman in fishnet stockings and stilettos on the front of a catalogue headed "10 deadly deals" as described on the Collective Shout website and here. I was amused to see River's spokesman describe our interpretation of the catalogue cover as "weird and draconian".

So if we weren't meant to interpret the woman as being dead - murdered even - why the heading "10 deadly deals"? Is she merely under the couch searching for her missing purse? The damn remote? Or playing hide-and-seek badly? If she tripped and fell wouldn't the heading be '10 clumsy deals'? If we've got it so wrong, why doesn't Rivers tell us what they meant to convey with the image and wording?

Here's Michelle Griffin's piece which also mentions some of our other actions against eroticised violence against women in advertising. We can't be blasé about this trivialisation of violence against women.

Rivers uses 'dead' women to sell clothing

We were recently alerted to the front page of River's latest catalogue, '10 deadly deals.' We have previously written about Rivers' objectification of women here. It seems River's have decided that even 'dead' women are to be objectified and used to sell products.

Tell Rivers what you think of their new approach to advertising

[UPDATE] The Ad Standards Board has dismissed complaints - Read determination here.

We have received several emails from Collective Shout supporters about the latest Rivers Catalogue.