The Hunky Dory Ads

donfers

I can empathise with taconnol to a certain degree here... now don't get me wrong we'll have to agree to disagree with regard to the crisp ads but I know how it feels to be the "unfashionable" voice/opinion in a place (Tgc) where the majority hold the contrary view and it takes a lot of patience, strength of character and integrity to confront whatever the groupthink is.

If this issue was debated in TLL I'd like to think someone like Zulu or CDfm would present the alternate view with as much insight and gusto.

Maguined

taconnol wrote: »

No I don't agree that men place more emphasis on physical attractiveness than women. I think men like to think this is the case but I've seen very little evidence for it, other than general messages from the media that it is the truth.

In fact, a study carried out in the US (And discussed by Malcom Gladwell in his book 'Blink' asked men and women to list traits of the opposite sex in order of preference consciously. Men put attractiveness first and women put sense of humour. But when the preferences were tested subconsciously, women also put physical attractiveness first. Men and women are both told that physical attractiveness is more important for men and their decisions can be impacted by that. It doesn't change the fact that in reality, both genders have it at the top of their list.

Thats a good point and i would actually agree that i think men and women both rate physical attractiveness as highly important as each other but i would argue about how willing both genders are to admit this. I think in society is far more acceptable for a man to admit how attractive he finds women. A simple example is looking at the personal issues forum, there are frequently posts from women who find a man attractive but are afraid to make the first move, there is still a hang up with making that first move despite the fact nobody would condemn it and the vast majority of men have even expressed praise at this idea in the posts so it is actively being encouraged but despite all this the women still are reluctant to make that move and instead sit back and hope the man does it first.

So while both genders are attracted to the other as much men are much more open and willing to express that openly and so advertisers latch onto that idea and tailor their adverts to appeal to their target market.

taconnol wrote: »

Yes but you see women are used to sell things to women AND men. So we end up with a media saturated with sexualised images mainly of women. Just go to today's copy of the Metro and flick through it. There is one sexualised image of a man and EIGHT women!:

http://e-edition.metroherald.ie/2010/05/13/


I see your point but I would have an issue with the wider prevalence of these images so would not agree with the opinions your set out for women above. I don't particularly have a problem with nudity but I do have a problem with advertising when it is mainly only one gender, when the use of nudity is mainly gratuitous and when it mainly portrays images of women that are totally impossible to achieve. Research has shown that these images have far more of a negative effect on youth (male and female) when the youth do not have access to images of normal bodies. For example, these images do not cause such problems among self esteem in youth in Spain where nudist beaches are common and young people can see what normal people actually look like.

Yes there is more sexualised images of women than men but as above i think thats because men are willing to express that desire openly. In my own workplace for example there were plenty of men willing to come in and turn around to another man and say "did you see that Hunky Dory add? yeah she is bloody gorgeous isnt she" but there are less women willing to come in and say the same about an add with beckhams crotch in some tight white armani's, there are some that do it yes, but much less, and they are not looked down or scolded at all by anyone, on average men are simply willing to express sexual attraction on a physical level more openly than women are and hence advertisers use this.

Just because there are more sexualised images of women than there are of men does not make things unfair or sexist in my opinion, both have an equal opportunity to be displayed by advertisements, an advertisement companies are not known for their high morals, if they genuinely thought that having heavily sexualised images of men all over their ads targeted at women would increase sales you and i both know that they would be doing that from tomorrow onwards, they are not sexualising men to the same degree as women because they have some hidden agenda or they feel it is inappropriate, they don't do it because they don't feel it will sell as well.

Thats good for spain that they have nudist beaches but just because we dont have that opportunity does not mean it is a good idea to restrict such tame sexualisation as appears in the Hunky Dory ads in my opinion. Women have as much opportunity to express their attraction to the male physical form as much as men do, and if they start doing it as often as men do then i guarantee the advertisement companies will be all over it, but just because it is not as common as mens displays of attraction does not mean it is right or fair to limit ads aimed at men so that they are equal in number to womens, to me that sounds like the government acting as a parent who gives their two children an ice cream and if one kid drops his then the parent takes the other childs ice cream and throws it to the ground so that they are both equal.

Macha

donfers wrote: »

I can empathise with taconnol to a certain degree here... now don't get me wrong we'll have to agree to disagree with regard to the crisp ads but I know how it feels to be the "unfashionable" voice/opinion in a place (Tgc) where the majority hold the contrary view and it takes a lot of patience, strength of character and integrity to confront whatever the groupthink is.

If this issue was debated in TLL I'd like to think someone like Zulu or CDfm would present the alternate view with as much insight and gusto.

Thanks donfers, I was sweating it a bit earlier! You're a tough crowd.

Ah I enjoy debating in here with people who don't agree with me at all.

Maguined

donfers wrote: »

If this issue was debated in TLL I'd like to think someone like Zulu or CDfm would present the alternate view with as much insight and gusto.

True but then they could also be told that their views are not welcome seeing as the forum is for womens views which is why I am glad that approach is not applied to this forum as even if i am debating with taconnol i definitely welcome her expressing her opinion and it is much better her views are welcomed are debated rationally rather than dismissed outright due to her gender.

Thanks for keeping the topic going with your views i disagree with taconnol

Macha

Maguined wrote: »

So while both genders are attracted to the other as much men are much more open and willing to express that openly and so advertisers latch onto that idea and tailor their adverts to appeal to their target market.

Indeed, but my argument would be that advertising can work to reinforce these messages and attitudes. You'd be amazed sometimes at what you see when you look out for it. For example if any of ye have ever seen Italian TV, it's just astonishing - women's breasts popping out all over the place, plastic surgery, dyed blond hair, women coming on in tight clothes for no particular reason at all. To Italians, this is the norm - for me, and I'd say most Irish people it's a real shock!

Maguined wrote: »

Just because there are more sexualised images of women than there are of men does not make things unfair or sexist in my opinion, both have an equal opportunity to be displayed by advertisements

Absolutely. It's very possible that there were some female advertising executives behind the ad campaign.

Maguined wrote: »

Thats good for spain that they have nudist beaches but just because we dont have that opportunity does not mean it is a good idea to restrict such tame sexualisation as appears in the Hunky Dory ads in my opinion.

You see my issue with the ads (and the general trend) is three-fold:
1) it's mostly women (this is changing)
2) it's a very sexualised form of nudity
2) it's a very narrowly defined idea of beauty.

OK we get more naked men up there to solve no 1) - I don't really see this as a great idea because I genuinely think that these ads can have a negative impact and I certainly don't want men getting the same sort of hang-ups & insecurities that so many women suffer from.

And you're still left with issues no. 2 & 3. Now I'm not so bothered by nudity per se (nudist beaches, whatever etc). It's the appearance of these images to the near exclusion of all other types of images that can cause the damage. That is why, as I argued earlier, these issues are not so keenly felt in societies where non-sexualised and non-hyper perfected images are also available.

Edit: Magiuined, I agree it's a shame sometimes about the tone taken with men in TLL (that's why I like to sneak over here so often..)

Maguined

1) This will happen over time, but as this is coming from advertisers it will not be a case of them making the first move, they will not release a bunch of ads displaying more of the male form to appeal to women that might not sell as well now but will mean further down the line because of these adverts more women are comfortable openly displaying their attraction to the male form so the future ads will sell more. What will naturally happen will be the other way around, the more open current women are about their attraction to the male form the more the advertisers will view it as a viable market and so create more of these ads. Its the basic law of supply and demand, demand has to be in place in order to justify the supply, you don't make more adverts to appeal to women with the use of a sexy man until more women want them. This will happen over time, adverts using sexy women were not always allowed, for years it would have been considered taboo and only slowly has the boundaries been pushed out more in society creating more of a demand hence the advertisers delivering the supply.

2) True it is a very sexualised form of nudity but is that really a bad thing? To be honest I wouldn't be surprised if the reason the spaniards have better self images of themselves and less pressure around their own body is not more down to the fact that the country is warmer hence on an average day people wear less and so the form of both genders is more openly on display, Spain is a big place and very few places have a nudist beach nearby compared to the population as a whole. Seeing people wearing much lighter and clothing showing off the physical form on a daily basis is probably more influential than a couple of days on a nudist beach.

3) True also but thats because in advertising you are trying to get as much of the market as possible and so if you are advertising using a sexy image of a woman you are going to use a slim, big busted blonde in all likelyhood while if you want to use a sexy image of a man chances are he will be tall, dark and handsome with rippling muscles and probably rich as well. Putting up a short, fat and flat chested woman for the Hunky Dory ads would probably appeal to some people, but not as many as possible so its not worth their while just as the guy in the maltesers add was not a short, fat and hairy arsed man popping chocolates into his mouth.

By overly restricting the sexualisation of both forms in the media would cause more harm than good in my opinion. The problem is that you don't want young girls and boys looking at these adverts and feeling **** about themselves that they cannot live up to these lofty standards, hiding that problem and pretending the issue is not there is not addressing and resolving the issue at all, if there is a fire in my kitchen i do not close the door so i can watch my tv in the livingroom in peace without the fire disturbing me, out of sight is not out of mind, i need to resolve the issue by putting out the fire. Even if you banned every single sexy advert in the world kids and adults are not going to instantly feel content in themselves, they will still look at other of their gender around them in society and compare themselves, why does this girl get more attention from guys? is it because she is prettier than me or has bigger boobs? guys will ask the same question only because some guys are taller and stronger than them etc. The solution is to teach kids (and adults!) who they are, how they look, and even how they look compared to everyone else around them.

Its the same thing as that quote Trocaire or some charity used to use "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for the rest of his life", instead of banning these sorts of tame sexualised adds i think it would be far more benefit to society to spend our efforts teaching people to accept their own bodies.

BumbleB

I really dislike Feminism , Feminism is Racism .I am an equalist , Feminism is extremism in its undistilled form ,all extremist organisations have an agenda usually unbeknown to the individual and it rarely is for the better good of the individual.

The whole feminism idealogy was orchestrated by a man .Its a guess but I'm pretty sure of that .
The whole of society is designed to disempower people ,divide and conquer approach .

It's engineered so that we don't cop, on and all races ,religions ,sexes and ideals gang up together and overthrow the governments and live the way we should be living. There is no choices ,all paths lead exactly the same way ..... Ta C did you ever stop to comtemplate what exactly is feminism all about ?. Is it really about liberating women ?.


I found this video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkVWz0uXiEA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZAuqkqxk9A&feature=related



and this one ,this is very good , as this details how Edward Bernays manipulated women to smoke for the first time under the lie of liberating women.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awO2gvQSJRE

Macha

Maguined wrote: »

This will happen over time, adverts using sexy women were not always allowed, for years it would have been considered taboo and only slowly has the boundaries been pushed out more in society creating more of a demand hence the advertisers delivering the supply.

I accept that advertisers are not going to rock the boat, as such, but that doesn't negate the negative impact that these ads can have, when taken as a whole. Also, advertisers are notorious for holding onto stereotypes long after the reality has changed so I'm not sure whether a shift in the social reality of women expressing their desires for men will necessarily result in a corresponding shift in advertising trends. I think it's more likely that, as I mentioned earlier, advertisers will realise that money made off men's insecurities is just as good as the money made off women's insecurities.

It's interesting you mention old adverts because sometimes you'd be amazed at the stuff in them that contrasts to norms in advertising today. A selection of my favourite:

These days this ad would definitely be aimed at women and talking about calorie content


Mmm not so far off Hunky Dory's tack!


Just as men are no good at home, so women are no good in the office


I just love the text in this one "Men are better than women!"


I mean, just look how NON-girlified she is. No skirt, no pink, no make up, just a kid playing:

Maguined wrote: »

2) True it is a very sexualised form of nudity but is that really a bad thing? To be honest I wouldn't be surprised if the reason the spaniards have better self images of themselves and less pressure around their own body is not more down to the fact that the country is warmer hence on an average day people wear less and so the form of both genders is more openly on display, Spain is a big place and very few places have a nudist beach nearby compared to the population as a whole. Seeing people wearing much lighter and clothing showing off the physical form on a daily basis is probably more influential than a couple of days on a nudist beach.

Oh yes, the nudist beaches was just an example - generally people wear less clothes there. But I do think the use of sex to sell things can go over the top and sometimes it gets really ridiculous, for example when it's used to promote breast cancer awareness - so..inappropriate..

Maguined wrote: »

3) True also but thats because in advertising you are trying to get as much of the market as possible and so if you are advertising using a sexy image of a woman you are going to use a slim, big busted blonde in all likelyhood while if you want to use a sexy image of a man chances are he will be tall, dark and handsome with rippling muscles and probably rich as well. Putting up a short, fat and flat chested woman for the Hunky Dory ads would probably appeal to some people, but not as many as possible so its not worth their while just as the guy in the maltesers add was not a short, fat and hairy arsed man popping chocolates into his mouth.

Ok but who decided that tall slim, big-busted blondes are the only version of female beauty in Western society? In Jamaica it's fat, pale women.

Maguined wrote: »

Its the same thing as that quote Trocaire or some charity used to use "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for the rest of his life", instead of banning these sorts of tame sexualised adds i think it would be far more benefit to society to spend our efforts teaching people to accept their own bodies.

Yes, I agree that education is very important.

Stheno

taconnol wrote: »

Indeed, but my argument would be that advertising can work to reinforce these messages and attitudes. You'd be amazed sometimes at what you see when you look out for it. For example if any of ye have ever seen Italian TV, it's just astonishing - women's breasts popping out all over the place, plastic surgery, dyed blond hair, women coming on in tight clothes for no particular reason at all. To Italians, this is the norm - for me, and I'd say most Irish people it's a real shock!

I'd be the same, I spent one Christmas in Italy and was amazed and yes shocked at the tv there!

taconnol wrote: »

I accept that advertisers are not going to rock the boat, as such, but that doesn't negate the negative impact that these ads can have, when taken as a whole. Also, advertisers are notorious for holding onto stereotypes long after the reality has changed so I'm not sure whether a shift in the social reality of women expressing their desires for men will necessarily result in a corresponding shift in advertising trends. I think it's more likely that, as I mentioned earlier, advertisers will realise that money made off men's insecurities is just as good as the money made off women's insecurities.

It's interesting you mention old adverts because sometimes you'd be amazed at the stuff in them that contrasts to norms in advertising today. A selection of my favourite:



Ok but who decided that tall slim, big-busted blondes are the only version of female beauty in Western society? In Jamaica it's fat, pale women.


Yes, I agree that education is very important.

On the first point, goes to show not much progress has been made in terms of women in advertising.

Secondly, I have always wondered that, what does tall, slim and big boobed have to do with the sense of beauty, it's purely sexualised imo.

Finally, I would also agree that education is important, one has to learn to enjoy how one looks, male or female. One thing I wonder at is the susceptability of younger generations to me (late thirties) to advertising, given it's increasing prevalence in recent years, and how greater access to technology has influenced stereotypical images being acceptable as the norm in advertising.

Maguined

I think it has actually been attributed to Hugh Heffner, his personal taste in women was tall busty blondes and so they got more pages in Playboy than anyone else and advertisers went to Playboy to figure out what "men" want.

I have no evidence to back that up I think I read it in another forum.

But does it really matter what the current benchmark for beauty is ? if it was short fat women it would still be the same except the slim tall women would be the ones feeling hurt because they don't conform, it doesn't matter what the benchmark is, the media are going to pump that out as that is what they think the people want, that is their job after all.

Yes ads can have a negative impact on people but so does every other competitive attribute, ads for expensive gadgets and clothes and cars make poor people insecure that they cant compete with rich people, ads for colleges and jobs make less intelligent people feel insecure they cant compete with the intelligent.

A university discriminates against less intelligent people, they have points and choose who they allow in based on this criteria, retail shops discriminate against the poor because they often way overcharge products beyond normal profit margins to try and keep the product exclusive and a lifestyle accessory etc. So every day people have to compare and compete their attributes to everyone else around them so why are looks so different ?

Instead of someone looking up at an advert of some sexy woman/man and feel bad because they dont look like that, they shouldn't demand the ad is taken down, they need to mature a little and realise that people are different and not to begrudge other peoples gifts whether they are physical or mental.

citytillidie

Going back to TV you just have a look at all the Sitcom's every single one of them have a female in a dominate rule able to manipulated a man to do what she wish.

The womans husband's in these shows are often shown as lazy dumb fat guys.

Here is an article about Glee and this

Glee’s Madonna episode – you are all misogynists!
Saturday, April 24, 2010
By John Murtari

I was surprised not to see any articles on MND about the expose on female dominating teenage boys (and men) on the latest episode of Fox’s Glee. For all of you who think there is progress in overcoming male stereotypes in popular culture — think again! The teenage boys, and their patriarch teacher, were reminded of their domineering attitudes toward women!

They even used ‘misogyny’ in the script — and you thought the American public couldn’t understand big words. Overnight it became one of the popular searches on Google! Want to get fired up? Here is the link so you can watch the episode. Since it was on Madonna (who we are told is a real feminine cultural icon) they needed to have soul-searching in the episode. Sorry, you men lose again!

Honestly, all I could do is laugh. I’ve watched every episode and for the most part I thought it was textbook of how men are manipulated by women. Three of the major story lines were about a wife trying to trick her husband into believing she was pregnant, and a pregnant teenager trying to mislead the school’s Quarterback that he was the father, instead of the real, less desirable, dad. Oh, and how could I forget the female cheerleader coach who sleeps with the school principal for purposes of blackmail!!!

I was a “child of the 60s” when Women’s Lib became a household word. We were equal and the girls could give as good as they got! I thought the purpose of high school was to have your self-esteem attacked by your peer group? I’d almost forgot the old lingo, the girls would call us MCPs! (Male Chauvinist Pigs). I guess it was okay to assault self-esteem if your cause is just.

Macha

Maguined wrote: »

But does it really matter what the current benchmark for beauty is ? if it was short fat women it would still be the same except the slim tall women would be the ones feeling hurt because they don't conform, it doesn't matter what the benchmark is, the media are going to pump that out as that is what they think the people want, that is their job after all.

Well, why do we have to have such a narrow definition of beauty? And why does that definition have to be so far away from what is achievable for women? I do not believe that this idea coincides with what men genuinely find attractive. It's largely a fabrication.

Maguined wrote: »

Yes ads can have a negative impact on people but so does every other competitive attribute, ads for expensive gadgets and clothes and cars make poor people insecure that they cant compete with rich people, ads for colleges and jobs make less intelligent people feel insecure they cant compete with the intelligent.

Yes, I think ads can be very dangerous. For one thing, they create manufactured demand and fuel our overly-materialistic consumer society, which our planet simply cannot sustain (even for us wealthy few).

Maguined wrote: »

A university discriminates against less intelligent people, they have points and choose who they allow in based on this criteria, retail shops discriminate against the poor because they often way overcharge products beyond normal profit margins to try and keep the product exclusive and a lifestyle accessory etc. So every day people have to compare and compete their attributes to everyone else around them so why are looks so different ?

I don't think your comparisons above are accurate.

Maguined wrote: »

Instead of someone looking up at an advert of some sexy woman/man and feel bad because they dont look like that, they shouldn't demand the ad is taken down, they need to mature a little and realise that people are different and not to begrudge other peoples gifts whether they are physical or mental.

This has nothing to do with maturity. Firstly, adolescents and children will always exist and they will not have the tools to fully filter these message. And if an adult suffers from low self esteem, the advice that they should grow up is not really very helpful. Moreover, I think people need to realise that not even these women look like they do. As Cindy Crawford said "I wish I looked like Cindy Crawford".

Maguined

taconnol wrote: »

Well, why do we have to have such a narrow definition of beauty? And why does that definition have to be so far away from what is achievable for women? I do not believe that this idea coincides with what men genuinely find attractive. It's largely a fabrication.

We as human beings don't, we all have what we are attracted to and what we are not, generally we don't even get a choice about it, you either like it or you do not, Ads by their very definition do, they only have finite time, space and cost to achieve their goals, the most effective way to do this is to reach out to as many of their target audience as possible so they appeal to the most general of terms in that target audience so they pick those stereotypes that appeal to the majority.

Of course it does not coincide with every mans definition of what he finds attractive but i will bet you all the money in the world that the Hunky Dory ads appealed to more men than a short, overweight woman would, so why would they choose to have that on their ad over the stereotype of a slim pretty blonde? that just doesnt make sense.

taconnol wrote: »

Yes, I think ads can be very dangerous. For one thing, they create manufactured demand and fuel our overly-materialistic consumer society, which our planet simply cannot sustain (even for us wealthy few).

True the desire for anything in life can be dangerous when that desire is not tempered by reality, this is part of being an adult, sure i wish i looked like Brad Pitt but i don't and accepting this is something I have to do just like I have to accept the fact I am not a millionaire, I am not a rockstar with a fancy car or a movie star with a million fans, I am just an average guy.

taconnol wrote: »

I don't think your comparisons above are accurate.

Why not? do people not compete on intelligence? are leaving cert students not constantly under terrible pressure and some of them cant cope so they commit suicide over this pressure? it doesn't end at the LC, this sort of pressure to judge yourself over your intelligence will be with you the rest of your life, just as your appearance and how much money you make also will be. To be worried that sexualised ads create unrealistic expectation that women cannot live up to and not to worry that these same women will be judged by other attributes is not realistic.

Do you honestly think women only ever worry about their appearance? do you not think that a woman will sometimes worry that she might not also worry if her intelligence, sense of humour, job, social class etc might not also be judged by a male?

The difference is that people accept they will be judged by other attributes but for some reason they want appearance to be excluded by society which is just not going to happen.

taconnol wrote: »

This has nothing to do with maturity. Firstly, adolescents and children will always exist and they will not have the tools to fully filter these message. And if an adult suffers from low self esteem, the advice that they should grow up is not really very helpful. Moreover, I think people need to realise that not even these women look like they do. As Cindy Crawford said "I wish I looked like Cindy Crawford".

I do believe it is a case of maturity, it reminds me of the Columbine shootings when everyone in the media wanted to blame it on Marilyn Manson, yes lets blame rock music and not the parents of the kids. Adolescent and children will have to develop the tools to filter out these messages, its part of being an adult. I don't see how throwing a blanket over every sexy ad will help an adult with low self esteem either? the issue is their low self esteem not the high amount of sexy ads, if all the ads in the world disappeared they would still have low self esteem as they know they would still be judged by their appearance to every other human being around them.

I think men know that those photos are photoshopped and not realistic, it is only ever women that claim that men view them as realistic, it does not matter if it is not real, their function is not to be real, its the same as complaining that some dashing handsome male in a soap opera is setting an unrealistic expectation of suave charm because its not real, we all know its not real.

BumbleB

taconnol wrote: »

This has nothing to do with maturity. Firstly, adolescents and children will always exist and they will not have the tools to fully filter these message. And if an adult suffers from low self esteem, the advice that they should grow up is not really very helpful.

Where exactly in the feminism agenda does adolescents and children come in? .Feminism is all about women and only women .

citytillidie

taconnol wrote: »

I accept that advertisers are not going to rock the boat, as such, but that doesn't negate the negative impact that these ads can have, when taken as a whole. Also, advertisers are notorious for holding onto stereotypes long after the reality has changed so I'm not sure whether a shift in the social reality of women expressing their desires for men will necessarily result in a corresponding shift in advertising trends. I think it's more likely that, as I mentioned earlier, advertisers will realise that money made off men's insecurities is just as good as the money made off women's insecurities.

It's interesting you mention old adverts because sometimes you'd be amazed at the stuff in them that contrasts to norms in advertising today. A selection of my favourite:

These days this ad would definitely be aimed at women and talking about calorie content


Mmm not so far off Hunky Dory's tack!


Just as men are no good at home, so women are no good in the office


I just love the text in this one "Men are better than women!"


I mean, just look how NON-girlified she is. No skirt, no pink, no make up, just a kid playing:



Oh yes, the nudist beaches was just an example - generally people wear less clothes there. But I do think the use of sex to sell things can go over the top and sometimes it gets really ridiculous, for example when it's used to promote breast cancer awareness - so..inappropriate..


Ok but who decided that tall slim, big-busted blondes are the only version of female beauty in Western society? In Jamaica it's fat, pale women.


Yes, I agree that education is very important.

What about this ad if your bring in old ones? I remember this advert been in magazines when Galaxy Carmels 1st came out

Zulu

Maguined wrote: »

A university discriminates against less intelligent people... ...retail shops discriminate against the poor...
So every day people have to compare and compete their attributes to everyone else around them so why are looks so different?

This is actually an excellent point! ...and hands up who hasn't prejudged an exceptionally good looking person as dumb!

We don't clamor to defend the sensibilities of the less-intelligent; we don't clamor to defend the sensibilities of the less fortunate. It appears that there is particular focus on defending people on the grounds of "looks". Why?

Is this evidence that somewhere in the dark recesses of our minds we value "looks" more than any other quality & hence it threatens us far more?

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that this is in fact the case. As far as our Neanderthal urges are concerned; as far as our animal instinct is concerned, in a males eyes, women compete on beauty. That is to say, man judges women on beauty. This isn't a bad thing; its nature. However, modern man isn't the animal he was. Beauty plays a part, but it's not the big picture. Studies have shown that "attraction" is based on a number of factors - one being, believe it or not, your immune system. (In a blind test all subjects picked the smell of the person with an immune system most diverse to their own.)

So. Why is it that feminist groups fight to silence any advertisements aim at our neanderthal urges? Why only focus on this competitive factor?

Is it because it harks to is an element of our physiology that they do not understand & hence fear? Is it because they seek to level the playing field for all women? Is it because they actually value it more than any other quality? Or is it because they feel that a similar add is far more destructive to their daughter/society than
Riahannas video Rude boy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e82VE8UtW8A

Pussy Cats Dolls video when I grow up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0K46C82v9o

Christina Agullarias video Dirty:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaWX3LSK8UA

lets face it the real fight isn't the Hunkey Dorey add, it's the music videos!

And has there been any thought to a final outcome? Say we successfully ban all such adverts, are we not then removing the choice of the model to pursue her chosen career?

Sorry for the rambling post - I'm thinking on the fly/out loud. Great observation Maguined!

Macha

Maguined wrote: »

Of course it does not coincide with every mans definition of what he finds attractive but i will bet you all the money in the world that the Hunky Dory ads appealed to more men than a short, overweight woman would, so why would they choose to have that on their ad over the stereotype of a slim pretty blonde? that just doesnt make sense.

I'm not disagreeing with the logic of the advertising companies: I'm pointing out the negative impacts of their work. But the above is not entirely true. Research has shown that men consistently find women who are heavier than those that appear in advertising as more attractive than their slimmer counterparts. This is evidence that advertising companies are not just interested in appealing to what men find attractive but also imposing a specific and somewhat unnatural idea of beauty on society. After all, where do we get a large part of our ideas of what our society considers beautiful? The media. It's all well and good sitting a young girl down in school one day and telling her it's all nonsense but she is still going to internalise the messages that are given to her by the society around her for her whole life.

Maguined wrote: »

True the desire for anything in life can be dangerous when that desire is not tempered by reality, this is part of being an adult, sure i wish i looked like Brad Pitt but i don't and accepting this is something I have to do just like I have to accept the fact I am not a millionaire, I am not a rockstar with a fancy car or a movie star with a million fans, I am just an average guy.

No, I'm not saying the desire for anything in life is dangerous. I'm saying the unrealistic expectations for life, as promoted in many ways in advertising, are unhelpful and can actually be damaging.

I'm not sure why you want to put this all down to being an adult. A few years ago Coca Cola decided to stop advertising for a month - they noticed a significant drop in sales. Was it because people didn't know about Coca Cola? No, it was because advertising creates artificial demand. Are the people who are influenced by advertising not adults or not mature? No, they are human beings and human beings are influenced by advertising. If they weren't, these companies would not be spending the huge amounts of money that they are.

Another example of this from Malcolm Gladwell again. 7Up changed the colour of their packaging to make it more yellow. They were flooded with complaints that the drink had been made more lemony, despite the fact that they had not changed the recipe at tall. Were these people stupid? No, they were human.

Maguined wrote: »

Do you honestly think women only ever worry about their appearance? do you not think that a woman will sometimes worry that she might not also worry if her intelligence, sense of humour, job, social class etc might not also be judged by a male?

My issue is that the message of these adverts and others is that women are mainly going to be judged on their appearance. In effect, their main value or asset in this society is deemed to be their appearance and this is what makes appearance different from intelligence/sense of humour etc. I'm sure that women worry about all those other things but the message from our media is that women will mainly be judged on their appearance - and I'm not just talking about by men, I'm talking about by society.

If you look through adverts in say the Metro or even collectively through media, you'll see the vast majority of the adverts focus on women's appearance, not their sense of humour, job etc. This goes some way to explain why women spend so much money on their appearance, are more at risk of suffering eating disorders and being unhappy with their bodies. I mean, this is a story that just repeats itself and is getting worse:

A survey has found just one per cent of young women are "completely happy" with the shape of their body.

One in ten have taken drugs to try and achieve their ideal weight.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1180855.stm

I never said it was only women who worry about their appearance and an increase in male eating disorders and compulsive exercising (eg in the gym to bulk up) but it still remains largely a female problem.

Maguined wrote: »

The difference is that people accept they will be judged by other attributes but for some reason they want appearance to be excluded by society which is just not going to happen.

No, that is not accurate. Because the messages are that whatever else a woman is going to be good at, she must be attractive. Look at male and female newscasters and TV presenters. Generally, the women are younger, slimmer and more attractive than their older, less attractive male counterparts. Look at the official gender policy in Wimbledon, where lower-seeded but "conventionally" attractive players are put on Centre and 1st court, while the top female players who are not as conventionally attractive (eg Serena Williams) are often put on smaller, less important courts - this is official Wimbledon policy that applies for women but doesn't apply to men.

I'm not complaining about the fact that some women are considered more attractive than others. I'm complaining about the message in our media that women must be attractive to be considered successful in our society.

Maguined wrote: »

I do believe it is a case of maturity, it reminds me of the Columbine shootings when everyone in the media wanted to blame it on Marilyn Manson, yes lets blame rock music and not the parents of the kids. Adolescent and children will have to develop the tools to filter out these messages, its part of being an adult. I don't see how throwing a blanket over every sexy ad will help an adult with low self esteem either? the issue is their low self esteem not the high amount of sexy ads, if all the ads in the world disappeared they would still have low self esteem as they know they would still be judged by their appearance to every other human being around them.

Yes, education is important but children start taking in these messages at a very young age and I think you underestimate the power of social norms. It isn't a question of throwing a blanket over every sexy ad, it's about having some balance in the message that we give children. It isn't just about the sheer number of sexualised images of young women out there, it's about the lack of alternative messages.

A fitting sports example: Research was done in 2008 on the images of women in the sports pages of newspapers. Never mind the fact there were very few, the researchers found that there were actually more sexualised images of women, such as posing at sport events or in adverts than female athletes. I remember commentary around the Beijing Olympics complaining that the female swimmers' breasts were so small..! It is endemic to the point that we don't notice it anymore.

Maguined wrote: »

I think men know that those photos are photoshopped and not realistic, it is only ever women that claim that men view them as realistic, it does not matter if it is not real, their function is not to be real, its the same as complaining that some dashing handsome male in a soap opera is setting an unrealistic expectation of suave charm because its not real, we all know its not real.

You would think that Maguined, but do you remember the image of the "plus-size" model who posed naked in Glamour magazine last year? There was a small roll of fat on her stomach and the outcry about how disgusting she was, was just astonishing. A few male quotes:

The fact is she would look far more attractive if she didn't have the unsightly roll of fat. She should try eating a little less and doing just a little more. Normal does not equal fat. End of.

It's not the stomach fold that catches my eye, it's her enormous legs that almost look like they've been Photoshopped on as a joke. Scroll up in your browser until you can only see the top half of the photo. Lovely isn't she? Now scroll down to just above the aforementioned fold, and it seems like a completely different model has been used. Look at those thighs!

To all of those saying everyone has that kind of fat stomach - GET SOME EXERCISE! I'm not an athelete, a teenager or a catwalk model, but there's no fold of fat at any angle on my stomach and my waist os 11 inches smaller than my hips - this is what is known as healthy. The reason - i don't eat too much and i exercise every day. Trying to normalize an unhealthy appearance, be that ultra skinny or fat, is dangerous.

There is very clearly a significant section of society that believes that having a body fat level above 15% for women is not natural! I'd note that the last one seems to be from a female and as such I would consider her to be reinforcing the prejudice against larger women (and exercising every single day is a little extreme..)

Nevyn

None of that music get played in my home, and if it were to come on the tv/radio can be turned off, you can't turn of bill boards and bus shelters.

CDfm

Thaedydal wrote: »

None of that music get played in my home, and if it were to come on the tv/radio can be turned off, you can't turn of bill boards and bus shelters.

And as King Canute demonstrated you cant stop the tide coming in :pac:

cowzerp

taconnol wrote: »

My issue is that the message of these adverts and others is that women are mainly going to be judged on their appearance. In effect, their main value or asset in this society is deemed to be their appearance and this is what makes appearance different from intelligence/sense of humour etc. I'm sure that women worry about all those other things but the message from our media is that women will mainly be judged on their appearance - and I'm not just talking about by men, I'm talking about by society.

The message is buy Hunky Dorys crisps and is clearly aimed at Men and Feminists who where bound to make the ads more interesting than they are, the way they got attention was by putting very attractive women on there posters, the best thing is there not wafer thin models, there healthy fit looking girls-this should be applauded.

Men like looking at attractive females-this is natural and not due to the media telling us we do! The girls where payed for the service they provided and im sure dont feel exploited, if women have a problem with these type of ads showing women wearing more than can be seen on a summers day in the beach then i'd suggest they do 1 of the below.
1, gouge there eyes out as they will be very unhappy through the summer
or
2, Dont accept job offers if your offered a job on an ad as thats your business and your choice if you do and for you would be the right thing to do.
3, Get over it as these type ads will never go away as long as men want to see them and Feminists boost there ratings with there irrational rantings

cowzerp

Thaedydal wrote: »

None of that music get played in my home, and if it were to come on the tv/radio can be turned off, you can't turn of bill boards and bus shelters.

You can look away or close your eyes if its that big a problem to you, or you can look at them and say thats a silly ad and im not going to buy there crisps.

looking at the ad will not hurt you, i promise.

Mr. Presentable

There were girls :eek:

All I saw was salty snacks..........mmmmmmmmm, snackelicious

WindSock

Maguined wrote: »

True but then they could also be told that their views are not welcome seeing as the forum is for womens views which is why I am glad that approach is not applied to this forum as even if i am debating with taconnol i definitely welcome her expressing her opinion and it is much better her views are welcomed are debated rationally rather than dismissed outright due to her gender.

Thanks for keeping the topic going with your views i disagree with taconnol

Rational mens views are also welcome in tLL. Aggressive ones aren't afaik.

Nevyn

I am not buying thier crisps. I have been a huge fan of hunky dory crips due to how they have always been pretty perfect as far as I am concerned as a product, in terms of being irish, taste, crunch the whole shebang and what the brand was, a good irish product and a pretty local one as at the time I was in Finglas and Largo foods was only up the road in Ashbourne. They were always the crisps bought for the household and I've not bought a single packet from when the ads came out and won't be for the forseeable future.

CDfm

If you dont like the ad dont buy the product - but I wonder if it will stop you buying other products with other non pc messages. (Thats rhetorical BTW) :pac:

What I think is really sad is that you get a group like the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre claiming to help both female and male victims and they come out with this "all men are bastards/predators" drivel.*

Leopard and spots -anyone.


*thats not critcising their work for female victims just pointing out that the spokesperson has shut the door on male victims coming forward

Maguined

Thaedydal wrote: »

I am not buying thier crisps. I have been a huge fan of hunky dory crips due to how they have always been pretty perfect as far as I am concerned as a product, in terms of being irish, taste, crunch the whole shebang and what the brand was, a good irish product and a pretty local one as at the time I was in Finglas and Largo foods was only up the road in Ashbourne. They were always the crisps bought for the household and I've not bought a single packet from when the ads came out and won't be for the forseeable future.

Are you also going to be banning Maltesers from your house for their equally if not more sexualised adverts?

Carlos_Ray

Thaedydal wrote: »

I am not buying thier crisps. I have been a huge fan of hunky dory crips due to how they have always been pretty perfect as far as I am concerned as a product, in terms of being irish, taste, crunch the whole shebang and what the brand was, a good irish product and a pretty local one as at the time I was in Finglas and Largo foods was only up the road in Ashbourne. They were always the crisps bought for the household and I've not bought a single packet from when the ads came out and won't be for the forseeable future.

I on the other hand forgot all about Hunky Dorys until this ad campaign and have actually started buying them again. Swings and roundabouts.

Just out of interest. What do Women here think of the puppet (team-America like) diet coke advert? Do they feel the strings on the female puppets are restricting to women? Perhaps the advert, instead of selling diet coke, is actually a message to males telling us to tie up women and rape them??

Or what about the cash for gold advert with the woman asking people to send in their gold?? Maybe the ad (on a subliminal level) is actually telling men to give women gold....(for sex).

Or what about the lynx advert? Perhaps its advising males to wear lynx as it will help us in our life long quest to attack women??

Can we really trust males after they watch such ads???

Nevyn

Maguined wrote: »

Are you also going to be banning Maltesers from your house for their equally if not more sexualised adverts?

I think the last maltesers as I saw was eating them with straws, which I didn't find to be over sexualised, but they are not a product which is found in this house anyway.

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Just out of interest. What do Women here think of the puppet (team-America like) diet coke advert? Do they feel the strings on the female puppets are restricting to women?

Horrible ad all together, again not a product which is found in this house,
if it was a smart commentary about wooden headed people who let themselves be manipulated like marionette by marketing of large corporations, fair enough but all it does is make me want a flame thrower.
(burn my pretties burn)

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Perhaps the advert, instead of selling diet coke, is actually a message to males telling us to tie up women and rape them??

There is a bondage kink subculture in which the sub is made into a marionette
for the master to use, but really you are over reaching there.

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Or what about the cash for gold advert with the woman asking people to send in their gold?? Maybe the ad (on a subliminal level) is actually telling men to give women gold....(for sex).

Or it's an ad aimed at idiots who have been leaving beyond their means.

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Or what about the lynx advert?

The lynx/axe ads some to be some of the most crap ones there are, at this stage I am not surprised at how low they will stoop, where I was with Largo Foods. I guess it's a case of Brand betrayal when you expect a brand to stand for certain values and for it's advertising to be a certain way and then it changes that becoming something you find to be a personal affront and so the trust in the brand is eroded.

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Perhaps its advising males to wear lynx as it will help us in our life long quest to attack women??

Dude if you think having consensual sex with woman is attacking her you got more issues then I ever wanted to know about

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Can we really trust males after they watch such ads???

Yes, unless they are marketing exes or in advertising.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv_Xq8cEbG8

Zulu

<snip> nevermind

Zulu

Thaedydal wrote: »

None of that music get played in my home, and if it were to come on the tv/radio can be turned off, you can't turn of bill boards and bus shelters.

But you can't stop it being played outside your home; you can't stop it being played in shops.

Similary: you can prevent the Hunky Dory ads from entering your home - but that clearly isn't good enough, is it not?