The Hunky Dory Ads

Klingon Hamlet

I think there's a big brouhaha over nothing.

The ads are amusing. All the debate is great for advertising.

I wouldn't be bothered if there were ads with semi naked dudes...pretty sure there have been and will be...what's the big deal?

Carlos_Ray

Kooli wrote: »

I'm not worried about the direct consequences on any individual, or perpetrated by any individual, of this ad.

My objection is that it contributes to a culture of laddish, sexist chauvinism that I am not comfortable with, and that belongs in the past. A culture that uses women as objects for men to leer at, and that does not take them seriously.

Thats fair enough, but the door swings both ways. The media is saturated with material that does the same to men. Its seems a bit hypocritcal for people to be so outspoken about this just becuase it happens to be women in the ads.

I don't know what your opinions are on the issue, but if you were also against the "ladette" culture that uses men as objects for women to "leer at" then I think your stance would seem more reasonable. However, it seems you want one rule for men and another for women. If this is the case, its simply not realistic.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Kooli wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're saying here - that I actually AM jealous? That I'm worried men will see me and think I don't measure up?

I'd think its possible that's what's happening on a subconscious level. Though I accept that claim isn't falsifiable. Its just what I think based on the lack of reactions to so many advertisements which objectify women. People have been saying its a different concept for shampoo/lotion but I just don't buy that. The only thing that seperates this advertisement from the rest is its association with a male dominated sport.

My objection is that it contributes to a culture of laddish, sexist chauvinism that I am not comfortable with, and that belongs in the past. A culture that uses women as objects for men to leer at, and that does not take them seriously.

You see, it just doesn't do anything of the sort. Men are going to leer at women until humans die out. We're programmed to do it.

And not beign taken seriously.... that's pathetic. By making that statement you're implying men actually don't realise these women aren't behaving normally. Give us some credit ffs.

I'm not stupid enough to think that any individual man is going to go out and rape because of this. I'm not stupid enough to think that any man is going to look from the poster to me and think 'No thanks love, you look nothing like her'. It's not as simplistic about that. It's about the bigger picture, and how we see women.

Why do you jump to the conclusion that we see these girls as a representation of women? I just can't understand that. The notion of it is acutally hilarious.

Macha

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

You see, it just doesn't do anything of the sort. Men are going to leer at women until humans die out. We're programmed to do it.

You're also brought up in a society that basically expects you to do so. Women are just as much interested in men physically as men are in women physically.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Why do you jump to the conclusion that we see these girls as a representation of women? I just can't understand that. The notion of it is acutally hilarious.

You already seem to have done a good job of internalising socially constructed messages, as above.

Kooli

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Thats fair enough, but the door swings both ways. The media is saturated with material that does the same to men. Its seems a bit hypocritcal for people to be so outspoken about this just becuase it happens to be women in the ads.

I don't know what your opinions are on the issue, but if you were also against the "ladette" culture that uses men as objects for women to "leer at" then I think your stance would seem more reasonable. However, it seems you want one rule for men and another for women. If this is the case, its simply not realistic.

I actually don't like that ladette culture at all, I think it's a bizarre and misguided attempt to redress inequality by taking the worst aspects of the opposite sex and attempting to emulate them, that does no one on either side any favours.

Yes the media has pictures of half-naked men. Not as many by a LONG shot, but I admit they are there. But most men don't seem to be offended by them. And by offended I mean a genuine emotional response of feeling offended, not a decision like 'Well women wouldn't accept that, so I am choosing to act offended to shed light on a double standard'.

And i think there are very good reasons for that - men and women are not the same!!
Women in history and across cultures have been objectified and at various times have been physically and sexually vulnerable. Women's liberation fought to see women's sexuality recognised, rather than just seeing it as a means to gratify men's sexuality. Women have fought to be judged on more than just their physical attractiveness.

Men have none of this battle in their history, so of COURSE they aren't offended when they see a naked man in an ad. It doesn't represent anything bigger to them. It's not an image they've been trying to shake off. It isn't disempowering.

And let me reiterate that it's not just nudity, it's gratuitous nudity (or near nudity) like the ad in question that has that slightly porn-ish look to it. (I'm NOT saying it's porn before anyone jumps on it, but I just mean that version of female sexuality - big boobs hoisted up and on show, wearing very little, smiling seductively into the camera etc.)

I think the comparison is completely meaningless.

It's like seeing an ad with a black man portrayed as a slave or as stupid, and saying "what are they getting upset about? What about that ad with the white man portrayed as a slave - you didn't see us whities getting our knickers in a twist over that one!"

I know it's not exactly comparing like with like, but I hope it's clear what I'm trying to say.

I may be verging on TL;DR here....

coffee_cake

I think one of them is pretty funny "are you staring at my crisps" and the rest are just meh.
I'm sure hunky dorys are loving all the publicity! Can't see what all the fuss is about tbh

Maguined

Kooli wrote: »

And i think there are very good reasons for that - men and women are not the same!!
Women in history and across cultures have been objectified and at various times have been physically and sexually vulnerable. Women's liberation fought to see women's sexuality recognised, rather than just seeing it as a means to gratify men's sexuality. Women have fought to be judged on more than just their physical attractiveness.

Men have none of this battle in their history, so of COURSE they aren't offended when they see a naked man in an ad. It doesn't represent anything bigger to them. It's not an image they've been trying to shake off. It isn't disempowering.

I disagree, the male form has always been as objectified just as much as womens, look at art down through the centuries, male physical attributes of strength and beauty have been always held up as standards right from the classic greek nude statues to the muscle magazines of today.

If you are a man you are expected to be tall and powerfully framed with rippling muscles. Men instinctively judge each other off their physical strength and height, with the taller stronger males generally getting far more female attention than a short skinny guy. Women have been judged over their beauty, men over their strength.

There has been no major difference between the objectification of men and women except the fact that modern men seem to accept this as part of nature, survival of the fittest, natural selection etc, while many woman reject this notion as unfair and want any sort of objectification stopped.

Men and women are objectified just as much in my opinion, just in different ways.

BumbleB

I like the ad and i like Hunky dorys for years.

I don't understand and will never understand this feminism stuff.


You go out on a normal Fri or Sat night there will be girls out done up to the nine, with masses of cleavage hanging out ,teasing all the boys capitalising on the very thing that feminists are ranting and raving about.

Lads mags and ads like this exist because they work , the girls are there to pose and the readership exists but is decreasing all the time and all this stuff about wars being fought for feminism ,exactly where ,I'd like to know , as how many women have actually given their lives for the cause of feminism .I only know of one ,it seems to me to only exist on boards like these .I've only met one feminist in my life .

If youre disempowered by the ad then thats really you're thing really, its more about you, than the subject material. I know plenty of ads that objectify men and I couldn't care less.

WindSock

I would say that those Adonis type males are more glorified than objectified, even in ads today, such as rugby Heineken/Guinness ads, the men are seen as something of a source of strength, to be revered and respected.
Do you think it is the same for the women? Do you think they are portrayed to be respected, or is the respect to be gained through the backslappish guffawing of 'oh I'd stick one in her'.

But if there is a respect there for the 'perfect' female form, then that is nice, sure don't we all find women pleasing to the eye? The problem is though, it is felt that that is all women are/were respected for. Through the ages, if a lad weren't good at sports and built like a brick shithouse, (which most aren't), then they still were respected for their opinions and achievements, no matter what they looked like. It is not the same for women. In fact, even the beautiful women weren't really respected now, were they? They were just a token for a man to use in order to gain respect from his peers.

Kimia

Why are people so weird about feminism? I take it to mean a belief in equality for both genders, and so I am a feminist. Both men and women can be feminist. It's not 'anti' men and it's not 'pro' women as far as I can tell.

I'm thinking that Hunky Dory's are just taking the piss to be honest. If a marketing department are using 'sex sells' genuinely as their strategy, they probably haven't gotten past Marketing for Dummies, or they are just lazy. But if they have decided to subvert the 'sex sells' appeal and deliberately put out gratuitous boob images that apologise to noone, then methinks we have reached advertising 2.0 which shows a new sophistication and appreciation for our new and evolving culture.

If they weren't taking the piss, then it reminds me of Mel Gibson in that film 'What Women Want' where he keeps generating the same tired ad creative (the woman in the bikini under the waterfall to sell EVERYTHING).
:P

CDfm

Kooli wrote: »

It's not OK just because it's a female demographic. It's OK because it's a completely different type of picture, with a completely different aim.

I'd also compare these ads to all those 'Irish Models' shoots where they are standing in a bikini on street pointing to a bike, or whatever represents whatever event they are supposedly advertising. .....I don't understand why that would be seen as jealousy? It's all nekkidness right? But the message, the underlying tone of the ads is different.

The message in the ads is buy crisps. So the line thats suggested here is that an image is only offensive with reference to its audience.

Your logic seems to be if an advert is aimed at women in a womans magazine its tasteful and if the same image appears in a mens magazine in a different context then it objectifies women and is pornographic or is gratuitous or whatever. If you define an image like that it is the image which degrades and not the context.

A lot of those images used to sell products to women do so with sex and nudity. The message behind the Radox shower ads -middle aged baritone and young woman nude. The message to men is wash and the message to women is be a hot babe with Radox.

Found this one

The hunky dory ads have nothing intelligent about them, nothing unique, clever, or original. They are a throwback to a stupider time, they are unimaginitive and they are degrading. .

They are a crisp advert and part of an adverising campaign.You can only measure its sucess or relative failure by the products name awareness by consumers or in terms of sales.

As Jack Dee once said on washing powder " I use new Skidmark to stop me smelling of ....."

If the brand name Skidmark was used to sell soap powder would we buy it -probably not. We buy soap powder cause we have happy housewives and giggling babies.

I saw a Cow & Gate Milk formula advert and the implication was it was full of vitamins and minerals without which your baby would not prosper. There was no , your baby will normally do better on breast milk , please use Cow & Gate responsibly.

donfers

They're crisp ads - get over it!!!!!

If this wasn't actually happening I'd believe it to be a hilarious satire on hardcore feminists

AARRRGH

This is my take on the adverts. I appreciate you may have a different opinion than me. Please don't take my post personally.

I don't have any problem with nudity or arousal or sexuality - they are as natural as eating and sleeping. I appreciate these advert may cause some women to have body image issues, but for the sake of progress and not becoming a backwards country, I would not want these sorts of adverts banned.

Personally I think it is offensive to women if you think these adverts are degrading, as that's like saying women aren't in control of their sexuality. Women should be allow flash their tits if they want.

Btw I don't like Hunky Dory crisps.

Carlos_Ray

Kooli wrote: »

Yes the media has pictures of half-naked men. Not as many by a LONG shot, but I admit they are there. But most men don't seem to be offended by them. .

But MOST women don't seem offended by these hunky dory adverts either.

Kooli wrote: »

And by offended I mean a genuine emotional response of feeling offended, not a decision like 'Well women wouldn't accept that, so I am choosing to act offended to shed light on a double standard'.

In my experience its usually feminism that operate according to this idea. I was just highlighting the hypocrisy. However "militant feminism" which most people find idiotic, could lead to a backlash, when men are fed up at the growing double standards in favour of women.

Kooli wrote: »

And i think there are very good reasons for that - men and women are not the same!!
Women in history and across cultures have been objectified and at various times have been physically and sexually vulnerable. Women's liberation fought to see women's sexuality recognised, rather than just seeing it as a means to gratify men's sexuality. Women have fought to be judged on more than just their physical attractiveness.

And they are judged on more than that IF THEY WANT TO BE. However, its a free world and a growing number of women endeavour to be judged purely on their looks. Look at the WAG culture, the celebrity cult of people like Jordan and Paris Hilton. These are people that a huge number of WOMEN look up to. They read about them in magazines, they buy their books, they follow their fashion. Some people see this as sexual liberation for women, others like you, see it as being objectified. Its a matter of perception.

Most Men desire women and most women like to be desired by men. The advert is just playing on this fact of life. Also, we all (men and women) judge each other firstly on looks, lets not pretend otherwise.

citytillidie

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

In my experience its usually feminism that operate according to this idea. I was just highlighting the hypocrisy. However "militant feminism" which most people find idiotic, could lead to a backlash, when men are fed up at the growing double standards in favour of women.

Like this article

How to Build a Man Bomb

Wednesday, May 12, 2010
By Paul Elam
We have seen it through the ages countless times before. Whether in the French Revolution, or the dense and decaying inner city enclaves of Los Angeles and Detroit, the suppressed outrage of marginalized populations can erupt into mob violence, setting buildings and entire cultures ablaze.

The same precursors are always there, though by tradition, and perhaps by design, we ignore them. The discrimination, oppression, bigotry and other human failings we justify or disregard are the tools in the Great Societal Bomb Making Kit; a kit that has been a permanent fixture in human civilization. It is as though the occasional burning city, streets littered with the dead, or even toppled governments are every cultures proof of human authenticity. And we ignore the ticking down of the timer until the body bags begin to fill.

Until it is too late. And now, in keeping with the annals of our rigorously ignored history, we are setting about the business again of orchestrating a future catastrophe. After a bloody revolution for our freedom, the scourge of slavery, an even bloodier civil war, and a civil rights campaign that we handled with police dogs, riot guns and water cannons, we have put ourselves right back on the course of an inescapable social crisis.

This time we are building a man bomb. And when this one detonates it could make the American race riots look like a Thanksgiving Day parade.


The misandric Zeitgeist, the system of feminist governance that most are sill loathe to acknowledge is about to head toward its inevitable and ugly conclusion, and the results of that will inflict another deep wound on the psyche of the western world.

In the men’s rights community, a minority in its own right, we have long lamented the cruel and destructive war that has been waged against men and boys for the past half century. We’ve shouted endlessly at a deaf world that we were on the path to destruction, and we have watched our predictions of men being reduced to indentured servants to a malicious matriarchy come true, even as society continues to dismiss and humiliate us for speaking.

The buzz words and catch phrases have gone largely unchanged. They are now part of the common lexicon for those no longer blinded by the wool of a matriarchal matrix being pulled over their eyes. VAWA, child support, Title IV-D, false allegations, family court corruption, paternity fraud, male bashing, assumed guilt, man bad/woman good paradigm, phony wage gap, phony DV stats, media bias, etc., etc., etc.. All these terms and more are familiar to men and women who have seen through this transparent culture of hate and into an awareness of the problems we face but do not acknowledge; problems we suffer from, but from which there is no relief.

Some have reacted with anger, some with hate, some with righteous indignation and others with resignation and hopelessness. But during these dark years there has been little public outrage, thanks to the benefit of human denial. For many men, it is always the other guy who gets raped in family court. It is someone else that lands behind bars on a false rape charge; some other unfortunate loses his career and reputation because the culture and the legal system assumes he must be guilty of whatever claim is made against him by a woman.

We have been a culture of head shakers, quick to say “tisk, tisk,” and move on about our business, blind and indifferent, because it is not happening to us.

But there are forces in play today that will almost certainly unleash a fury that few can comprehend, and that nobody wants.
A recent Wall Street Journal article, Meet the Unemployable Man, predicts that over the next several years, one in six men between 18 and 54 years old, or 18 million, will be unemployed, and unemployable.

That is 18 million men who will look for work and find none; millions of others who once carried briefcases or hammers and nails, but who will, in the days ahead, push brooms make French fries. There will be 18 million men who become the other guy. And that is in addition to the millions of other guys that are already walking among us.

In other times, this would just be a run of economic bad luck which would pass with better times. But all the indicators are that better times will not find these men.

The typical escape route from poverty is education. But that route, too, for men, is being cut off by the very forces that are the source of the problem. Men are now only 40% of college students, with the indicators pointing to even more drastic reductions in the future. College, like employment, will soon be a woman’s world.

And the 18 million men with nothing to do but worry and stagnate cannot be expected not to notice. And they may well begin to notice a great many things that they never did before, because they were happening to the other guy.

The ticking should be as thunder in our ears by now.

Oh, but wait, some might say. We can fix that. We can address what is happening to these men before their being marginalized and disenfranchised results in problems that no one can ignore.

We can, but it is not likely we will. Look at how the educational establishment is reacting to the proposed male studies initiative, an idea that actually would seek some answers. Men’s studies activists like Michael Kimmel and American Men’s Studies Association President Robert Heasley, are doing everything in their power to ensure men remain in trouble. These feminist ideologues appear roundly offended that any amelioration of these problems would come to men, and are proving it daily in word and deed.

The members of the matriarchy, like social terrorists, are partnering with and guiding government toward the inevitable explosion, and when it goes off, they will be the first to point the finger at men, even at MRA’s, for the fallout.

It won’t help them, though. Because whatever tragic end this comes to, it will not be at the hands of MRA’s, it will be in spite of our efforts to prevent it.

If the streets erupt again, as they have so many times before, they will be filled with average men who never heard of the men’s rights movement. They will just be poor men, many of them young and fatherless due to the current system, acting our their rage against a world that includes and idealizes women, but that treats them like social pariah.

They won’t be thinking of VAWA or domestic violence hypocrisies, because they will be in large part the same men who have denied these problems all along.

We may see them in a tax revolt, or a tea parties gone violent at some point in the future when things are much worse than they are now. Or they may not have any political affiliation at all. But one thing is certain, that many desperate men are not going to remain silent. They will act as men have always acted in similar circumstances throughout history. And during the process, they will be looking again at many things they have ignored in the past. There will be volumes of information, long ignored, that will suddenly make devastating and dangerous sense to them.

It is a testament to men, and an exposure of lies perpetrated against them by gender ideologues that we have come this last half century without blood in the streets. It has always been in men’s nature to take care of others better than themselves, and they have proved that with their silence in the face of so many constant abuses. Betting on that silence to continue when men are hungry is foolish.
It is possible that none of this will come to pass. I do not pretend to be a social prognosticator and I do not have a crystal ball. But I can add two and two and still get four, even in this crazy world. And I know that anyone, even men, if backed into a corner and kicked long enough and hard enough, will come out swinging. The 60’s were not just peace, love and dope. They were cities on fire and bodies on the ground.
And because of that I write this genuinely afraid. The men’s movement, the only bomb squad we have, had better catch on in grand fashion, I think. And even if it does, we better hope it happens before the society we live in finds itself at ground zero when the clock ticks down.

CDfm

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

But MOST women don't seem offended by these hunky dory adverts either.



In my experience its usually feminism that operate according to this idea. I was just highlighting the hypocrisy. However "militant feminism" which most people find idiotic, could lead to a backlash, when men are fed up at the growing double standards in favour of women.

+1

it does seem that a few people are dictating based on their views which are highly subjective

and maybe its just me but I see women being used here by posters like the royal "we" when posters mean they are offended personally.

Zulu

CDfm wrote: »

...it does seem that a few people are dictating based on their views which are highly subjective.

Thankfully.

Most people I know (read every single person in the real world I spoke to) didn't have any problem with the adds.

The few people I spoke to about the rape crisis complaint felt it was ridiculous. (and it's worth noting that even one of the more prominent feminists here appears to have distanced herself from that particular complaint)

The reality is that a minor sub-section of our society, with a disproportionate voice feels they are offended and objected. Society as a whole (is sensible &) has no problem with the adds.

Macha

CDfm wrote: »

and maybe its just me but I see women being used here by posters like the royal "we" when posters mean they are offended personally.

Of course offence is a subjective issue but dismissing the whole thing as relative is entirely unfair. If we were to take this stance, no advert could ever be deemed offensive and that certainly wasn't the stance taken on here by male posters over the "He drives, she dies" advert.

Moreover, there are some people, including women, who don't see what the fuss is about because they haven't thought about it. I spoke to a few women who at first didn't understand why I was annoyed but after I spoke to them about the issues, they understood. Not everybody thinks about the messages in the media and the wider impact that they have.

Zulu - who are you to speak for all of society and what they think? Judging from letters in newspapers, other discussions in the media and complaints submitted to the ASAI, there is most definitely a group of people who are not happy with the ads. I'm not sure on what grounds you have somehow decided that they are a "minor sub-section" (with the obvious insinuation that they should therefore be ignored). There are probably plenty more who hold the opinion but have not used any of those channels to express it. For example, I wrote to Largo Foods but I didn't complain to the ASAI. As it stands, the ads are being reviewed by the ASAI and we will see what decision they come to.

Zulu

taconnol wrote: »

Zulu - who are you to speak for all of society and what they think?

Nobody & everybody. I've as much right to speak for all of society as you do, however, it's worth considering that more people didn't complain than those that did.
Wouldn't that imply that the majority of society doesn't object?

If the majority of society was offended - what would the issue be?

cowzerp

Feminists are a pain in the hole, they dont want equal rights, they want Men to be inferior to women and not to act as men naturally where born to act like, Men and Women are not the same

I love women (my mother is 1) but feminists can stick it as far as im concerned-there really ruining the world for fair minded people and force there opinions down everyones throat with the same old lines over and over and i have also genuinely not heard 1 actual complaint from women i've asked about the ad, i'd be very suprised if anyone in ok shape and ok looking did have a complaint but as we're on the net and Pamela Anderson might be posting against these ads then my guess can stay that-a guess that insecure people who have issues are behind this negative campaign to stop these ads..

Maybe we should get up in arms about all the ads that make men out to be downright stupid, aimed at women.

WindSock

Kooli wrote: »

And by offended I mean a genuine emotional response of feeling offended, not a decision like 'Well women wouldn't accept that, so I am choosing to act offended to shed light on a double standard'.

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

In my experience its usually feminism that operate according to this idea. I was just highlighting the hypocrisy.

What do you mean by that, Carlos? How has feminsim operated on the 'blatent double standard so I'll feel offended because I feel I must' approach?

Because in my view, a lot of people are offended at the seeming hypocrisy, rather than the actual issue.

I am not sure where this feeling that hypocrisy has been larger than the issue itself, as regards to feminism.

Zulu

cowzerp wrote: »

...i'd be very suprised if anyone in ok shape and ok looking did have a complaint but as we're on the net and Pamela Anderson might be posting against these ads then my guess can stay that-a guess that insecure people who have issues are behind this negative campaign to stop these ads...

Perhaps you don't mean to, but veiled insults, &/or implying that poster are ugly really REALLY weakens your salient point, and the side of the debate you are on.

There's no need for it.

Macha

Zulu wrote: »

Nobody & everybody. I've as much right to speak for all of society as you do, however, it's worth considering that more people didn't complain than those that did.
Wouldn't that imply that the majority of society doesn't object?

I am not claiming to speak for all of society. Nor am I trying to dismiss the validity of the issue on the grounds of the how many people recognise it as so. It's another form of the argument to authority.

Of course more people didn't complain than did. Does this mean that they don't object? No, it means that they didn't complain.

cowzerp wrote: »

Maybe we should get up in arms about all the ads that make men out to be downright stupid, aimed at women.

Yes, you should! But according to your above logic, any man who complains is an idiot.

Zulu

taconnol wrote: »

I am not claiming to speak for all of society. Nor am I trying to dismiss the validity of the issue on the grounds of the how many people recognise it as so.

No I dismissed it earlier; I'm just making an observation. I'm entitled to do that - amn't I. This is the Gentleman's Club & not the Ladies Lounge, right?

Of course more people didn't complain than did. Does this mean that they don't object? No, it means that they didn't complain.

Are you suggesting they do object?

It's clear that the majority don't object. It's also clear I'll never be able to satisify the truth of that point to you.

Macha

Zulu wrote: »

No I dismissed it earlier; I'm just making an observation. I'm entitled to do that - amn't I. This is the Gentleman's Club & not the Ladies Lounge, right?

It's quite clear you're using it as grounds to further dismiss the issue.

Zulu wrote: »

It's clear that the majority don't object. It's also clear I'll never be able to satisify the truth of that point to you.

Where is your evidence that the majority doesn't object? As I said, there are probably many, myself included, who object but did not lodge a complaint, write to a newspaper or talk about it on the radio. Simply using the number of complaints through official channels as the total number of people who find the ad offensive is a methodology that is full of holes.

I can see why you want to believe that the majority doesn't object because, as I said, you're using it as grounds to further dismiss the validity of the issue, as if the number of people complaining is central to whether the ads are actually degrading, which it clearly isn't.

Zulu

taconnol wrote: »

Where is your evidence that the majority doesn't object?

Firstly I don't need evidence to express an opinion. Secondly, you have no interest in considering this from a inpartial position.
Thirdly, you never answered the question:
Do you believe that the majority of our society was offended?

Simply using the number of complaints through official channels as the total number of people who find the ad offensive is a methodology that is full of holes.

...and yet it's indicitive none the less. Couple that with a resounding similarity to the opinion expressed to you by every person you speak to & add to that common sense...

I can see why you want to believe that the majority doesn't object because...

Do you believe the majority does object?

BumbleB

The thing that really does my head in about feminists is that while they are taking the victim stance about everything ,they are (a lot of) women who shut their mouth ,put the head down and build very successful careers for themselves.

All of my life I have surrounded by women who are succesful ,my sis is a partner in a big law firm .My neighbour owns a chain of sucessful stores. My ex is a top manager in a hotel and thats only a few. I have no doubt in my mind that women are as capable of being successful in their professional life the only thing that holds them back is their lack of ambition.

And as for women and nudity in the media . I've never heard a woman in my life complain about it.

CDfm

taconnol wrote: »

Moreover, there are some people, including women, who don't see what the fuss is about because they haven't thought about it. I spoke to a few women who at first didn't understand why I was annoyed but after I spoke to them about the issues, they understood. Not everybody thinks about the messages in the media and the wider impact that they have.

Good Morning Taco.

The campaign against the ads does give mixed messages and the spokeswoman from DRC on the radio in the OP was just plain wrong about the rape issue -images like that do not promote rape. It was disrespectful to men and to her client group as provocative clothing is no excuse for rape. Very nunlike comment dont you think.

The girl in the advert and I googled it is built like a brick ****house and is healthy and there is not a tad airbrushed off her. She could probably throw me over her shoulder and dump me in a recycling bin.

On the other hand you have Danica McKellar (aka Winnie Cooper from the Wonder Years) using near nudity to empower "girl geeks" to study maths.

http://celebrities.ninemsn.com.au/blog.aspx?blogentryid=645545&showcomments=true

Absolutely silly logic IMHO -its book promotion innit?

Or Kate Moss and the anorexia slogan " nothing tastes as good as skinny feels"

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/supermodel-kate-moss-glamourises-anorexia-slogan/story-e6frfmqi-1225799957371

So why the controvercy over a crisp ad.

It seems to me if the ad was in a womens magazine it would have been accepted.

As it happens I am ambivalent about the ad and yes would have more of a problem with the skinny promotions.

So Taco -would you mind explaining it.

Macha

Zulu wrote: »

Firstly I don't need evidence to express an opinion.

Well, I'm glad we're all clear that it's merely an opinion of yours backed up with no evidence at all.

Zulu wrote: »

Secondly, you have no interest in considering this from a inpartial position.

On what grounds do you say that? Again, a less-than-subtle attempt to dismiss an opposing voice, based on little evidence.

Zulu wrote: »

Thirdly, you never answered the question:
Do you believe that the majority of our society was offended?

I honestly don't know - nobody does. But I really don't consider the fact central to whether the advert is degrading.

BumbleB wrote: »

The thing that really does my head in about feminists is that while they are taking the victim stance about everything ,they are (a lot of) women who shut their mouth ,put the head down and build very successful careers for themselves.

And they do so thanks to the efforts of past feminists.

Macha

CDfm wrote: »

Good Morning Taco.

Morning CDfm

I do not condone the comments by the Rape Crisis Centre or Kate Moss and I do not have to do so, in order to have a problem with the adverts.