Reply to Letter About a Sexist Ad

I wrote a letter to a company about their sexist ad. And I got this reply:

Dear Mr Clinton.
Thank you kindly for your email. I am glad our TVC has got your attention.
I am quite surprised by your reaction though, as our supposed all male creative team (consisting of 3 women and a gay man with years in creative advertising) don't really fantasize about this at all, however I will pass on your thoughts.
As for my two nephews who you refer to as gross, over weight and ordinary looking, I will also let them know your thoughts. What gives you the right or even the inclination to make these types of judgements on others.
I'm not sure where the issue lies. The point that you have completely misunderstood the commercial or your view that my cousins are ugly.
These are scientistss studying the behavior of people outdoors. Women and men studying other women, men and children. And before you make reference to the kids, they are my own, so be very careful with your choice of words.
And since when does TV in marketing or in movies depict how life works.
If we had it our way we would of told our real message about our revolutionary new sunscreen that allows our bodies to naturally produce vitamin d whilst protecting us from the dangerous rays of the sun. But no. The lovely powers to be at ASMI wouldn't allow us, so this is what we had to come up with.
So if you wish to complain, it would help all of us if you did so towards ASMI and then you wouldn't have to view our supposed sexist commercial.
I wish you all the best in 2015 and hoping your vitamin D levels rise throughout the year.
Yours in kind
Mathew Collett
Solar D
Vitamin D Friendly Sunscreen

I looked up ASMI. They're an industry body responsible for setting the standards of medical claims in advertising. You see, Solar D claims to allow your body to produce vitamin D--something sunscreens often prevent. The funny thing here is that ASMI is an industry body, that is, it's self-regulation, and these kind of bodies are notoriously relaxed about standards but even they didn't think that this claim should be made.

part of the problem sociopolitico

It seems the plot has somewhat thickened. Nonetheless, I ignored this irrelevant point and responded thusly:

Dear Mat
Thank you for your reply.
What gives me the right to make these types of judgements on others? The TVC is highly superficial, I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies. You were already judgmental in who you chose to cast: you chose a beauty pageant winner. You're offended that I'm objectifying your nephews and you can't see that you've done this to women already. We can't comment on how men look, can we? Just women.
But you missed the point about what was so gross about them: their leering.
I understand that they are scientists. What I don't understand is why women have been deliberately cast because of their physical beauty but men were cast because they were free that day. And why did you think ogling was a good idea? Binoculars are not a scientific instrument and the two leering lifeguards aren't pretending to be scientists.
As for TVC and film not reflecting real life, you're right. It doesn't reflect real life. It just places an expectation on women that they should be objects and that they should appreciate the privilege.
Kind Regards
Clinton Barnes

Our dear friend Mat hasn't replied, yet.