Anti-Male Advertising

Ayla

Following on from the Knor ad thread, I saw this stock photo used on a yahoo news article and couldn't believe my eyes (the news article was regarding first date no-nos):

firstdatemain.jpg
http://uk.match.yahoo.net/edito/index.php?mtcmk=080405&name=5/118/2863-conversation-killers.html

There would have been a massive uproar if the models had been portraying the opposite roles (ie: the man "playfully" striking the woman) - and rightfully so. But it happens time & time again - it's ok to portray men as useless, or lazy, or childlike, but god help the advert company who tries to do the same for women.

As a woman, I actually find the likes of this image at least as disturbing as when it victimises women - like it's ok to belittle men.

Even though we all mostly know better these days it's sort of what we grew up with, certain sexes in certain roles. It absolutely rife in advertising. It sure doesn't make it right but it doesn't seem to be becoming less prevalent.

Some people embrace these societal roles and then actively portray them and others despise those same roles and put effort into avoiding them. I don't see much changing in the near future to be honest, sadly. There's a lot of hyper sensitivity around the issue too, some of it misplaced at times.

Dubhlinner

Did you complain? Someone did cos they've changed it to a non violent one.

Catari Jaguar

I saw billboard ads with half dressed farmer type lads for Bachelors peas. How come that's ok but the Hunkyt Dory rugby girls isnt???

Quick, someone complain to the Metro!

Morag

cherub rock wrote: »

I saw billboard ads with half dressed farmer type lads for Bachelors peas. How come that's ok but the Hunkyt Dory rugby girls isnt???

Quick, someone complain to the Metro!

Have seen that, got any links?

dfx-

Ayla wrote: »

But it happens time & time again - it's ok to portray men as useless, or lazy, or childlike, but god help the advert company who tries to do the same for women.

I don't usually buy into the whole advert complaining thing or the influence of advertisements, but the ad in Britain for Walls Sausage Rolls/Sausages where the endline is "but he can't express himself, because he's just a bloke" really bugs me

Morag

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2012/04/12/weve-come-a-long-way-since-barney-and-beany/

Ewwwwwwwwh!

bronte

Ugh.

Those ads where men are "simple minded idiots" who can't wash clothes really piss me off.
That colour catcher sheet one wrecks my head.

Ickle Magoo

The subtle and subliminal anti-male ads are bad enough...what surprises me is how blatant advertisers can be and get away with it, certainly Vs the same ad if the genders were reversed. There seems to be an unwritten rule that men are fair game to insult and belittle.

This ad was up in my local chemist over mother's day :eek::eek::eek: - and yet I've looked and found no big outcry about it...

Logical Fallacy

None of those farmers in that link look like farmers. Where is the farmers tan? What farmer has pasty white forearms to match his pasty white chest?

None.

Farmer's sons maybe. College boys no doubt.

As someone with a healthy farmers tan that was burnt on to me in my youth I am appalled.

As for men in advertising...great article on cracked about it here. I know it's a humour site, but they tend to bang on the money for a lot of stuff.

Caraville

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The subtle and subliminal anti-male ads are bad enough...what surprises me is how blatant advertisers can be and get away with it, certainly Vs the same ad if the genders were reversed. There seems to be an unwritten rule that men are fair game to insult and belittle.

This ad was up in my local chemist over mother's day :eek::eek::eek: - and yet I've looked and found no big outcry about it...

I saw that too, I actually could not believe it. I'm not one to pay much heed to ads (like for example I didn't really care about those Hunky Dory ones, clearly the outcry was what got them the publicity they wanted) but I thought that poster was unbelievable!

panda100

cherub rock wrote: »

I saw billboard ads with half dressed farmer type lads for Bachelors peas. How come that's ok but the Hunkyt Dory rugby girls isnt???

Ayla wrote: »

it's ok to portray men as useless, or lazy, or childlike, but god help the advert company who tries to do the same for women.

As a woman, I actually find the likes of this image at least as disturbing as when it victimises women - like it's ok to belittle men.

I completely and utterly disagree with the above. Women are constantly belittled in advertsing and there is no outcry about it. Take Yorkie Bars or Mc Coys, whom think women are not 'tough' or 'cool' enough to eat their products, and blonde women or spoilt daughter have been the butt of stupid jokes in adverts for years.
Do I disagree completely with gender stereotyping in adverts?Of course.But to say that its only men who get portrayed unfairly in advertising is 100% untrue.


I agree that there is more outrage when sexualised images of women are used in adverts, because I think women are just sick of constantly being potrayed as mindless,sexual objects.I know I'm sick of it. When I saw the Hunky Dorys advert I was so angry, because I am a women who love sports, and I am angry that female athletes only seemed to be valued for their bodies. There seems to be a backlash against the use of our bodies being used constantly to sell crappy products, a backlash that I wholeheartedly encourage.

lazygal

One thing I have noticed with ads is that the fluffy nice parts feature a woman, then the 'information' is conveyed by a male voiceover. As I'm pregnant I've naturally been paying more attention to ads for baby-related products and often the main part of the ad has a woman cuddling a baby, with a male voice at the end giving the actual information of the ad. I can't think of specific examples but this annoys me, like woman can be the 'draw' but only a male voice can provide the real data in an ad. I heard this pointed out by a sociologist on a radio show a while back and its amazing how often it pops up, like in ads for cleaning products, food or other 'feminine' products a woman is shown using the product but the voiceover is often male.

Logical Fallacy

panda100 wrote: »

I completely and utterly disagree with the above. Women are constantly belittled in advertsing and there is no outcry about it. Take Yorkie Bars or Mc Coys, whom think women are not 'tough' or 'cool' enough to eat their products, and blonde women or spoilt daughter have been the butt of stupid jokes in adverts for years.
Do I disagree completely with gender stereotyping in adverts?Of course.But to say that its only men who get portrayed unfairly in advertising is 100% untrue.

They didn't say that only men get unfairly portrayed, they said there tends to be more outcry when it's women, which is a valid point. It's not often you get a big public reaction to the portrayal of men in an ad, and an ad will rarely be pulled because it's deemed offensive to men. Racist, sexist towards women etc will happen, but not really a "this makes men look like morons" angle.

It is undoubtedly as simple as men in large numbers don't complain about the ads. Why? I have no idea, I imagine most don't care, and those that do might think complaining won't change anything.

One thing I have noticed with ads is that the fluffy nice parts feature a woman, then the 'information' is conveyed by a male voiceover. As I'm pregnant I've naturally been paying more attention to ads for baby-related products and often the main part of the ad has a woman cuddling a baby, with a male voice at the end giving the actual information of the ad. I can't think of specific examples but this annoys me, like woman can be the 'draw' but only a male voice can provide the real data in an ad. I heard this pointed out by a sociologist on a radio show a while back and its amazing how often it pops up, like in ads for cleaning products, food or other 'feminine' products a woman is shown using the product but the voiceover is often male.

As far as I am aware people respond better and retain information better when it's associated with the opposite sex...so I think this may be the reason for the above. It's actually a pretty interesting aspect of advertising when you look at ads like the Lacoste Pour Homme ad with the dude strolling around naked.

It's a mans product, but the ad is aimed at women. From the good looking naked guy to the male voice over it's hard to see how that ad is supposed to be impactful to blokes...because it isn't. It's supposed to be impactful on the kind of woman who buys after shave for her boyfriend as a present.

Medu

panda100 wrote: »

I completely and utterly disagree with the above. Women are constantly belittled in advertsing and there is no outcry about it. Take Yorkie Bars or Mc Coys, whom think women are not 'tough' or 'cool' enough to eat their products, and blonde women or spoilt daughter have been the butt of stupid jokes in adverts for years.
Do I disagree completely with gender stereotyping in adverts?Of course.But to say that its only men who get portrayed unfairly in advertising is 100% untrue.


I agree that there is more outrage when sexualised images of women are used in adverts, because I think women are just sick of constantly being potrayed as mindless,sexual objects.I know I'm sick of it. When I saw the Hunky Dorys advert I was so angry, because I am a women who love sports, and I am angry that female athletes only seemed to be valued for their bodies. There seems to be a backlash against the use of our bodies being used constantly to sell crappy products, a backlash that I wholeheartedly encourage.

I think you are missing the point of those adverts...

There would have been a massive uproar if the models had been portraying the opposite roles (ie: the man "playfully" striking the woman) - and rightfully so. But it happens time & time again - it's ok to portray men as useless, or lazy, or childlike, but god help the advert company who tries to do the same for women.

I am probably going to get slapped back for this but guys are less sensitive about these things. Women are rarely the physical aggressor so images like that won't mean much to us- my initial reaction was that she was going to break her wrist throwing a punch like that! As for the more general stereotyping of men and women I would assume that women make more noise about it as women want to break away from those stereotypes more than men as they can be more damaging.

MistyCheese

panda100 wrote: »

I completely and utterly disagree with the above. Women are constantly belittled in advertsing and there is no outcry about it. Take Yorkie Bars or Mc Coys, whom think women are not 'tough' or 'cool' enough to eat their products, and blonde women or spoilt daughter have been the butt of stupid jokes in adverts for years.
Do I disagree completely with gender stereotyping in adverts?

I agree that it is unfair to women when they are portrayed in a fiercly negative light in advertisments but I also agree that it's unfair on men when men are portrayed in this manner.

I don't think that if something is unfair or derogatory to one group of people that the answer is for that group of people to do the very same thing to another group of people.

Wompa1

I don't really care when guys get put down. I don't take it personally. It's also pretty difficult to act outraged when society dictates you are in the social group (white, straight male) that has it the best in the world. If we complain it would likely be met with outrage because of how people in other social groups perceive they are treated worse. So no point getting cut up about it.

Ickle Magoo

I don't think that's reserved for white, straight men tbh...even just a quick read of this forum would show you that whenever women here complain about how they portrayed or whatever they are met with a barrage of whataboutery...I don't think that's a good enough reason to just throw in the towel and accept the status quo tho...

Wompa1

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't think that's reserved for white, straight men tbh...even just a quick read of this forum would show you that whenever women here complain about how they portrayed or whatever they are met with a barrage of whataboutery...I don't think that's a good enough reason to just throw in the towel and accept the status quo tho...

Yeah I know, just in my experience. There's a lot of people from other social groups that are very defensive and passionate about defending themselves, it seems like we're the bad guys and the main oppressers at times.

A little anecdote. I remember being very young and really disliking some song back in the 90's because the lyrics were something about all the guys falling over themselves for this girl and I thought it made men seem like all they were after was women. I had told an ex about this before and it was explained to me that it actually exploited women because it was making it seem like women were sexual objects and the song was most likely written by a guy :rolleyes:

Ickle Magoo

For many years things were firmly weighted towards straight white men but I think it's a misconception that it's still that way, certainly not across the board as it once was. In some respects the pendulum has swung the other way and the historic view of men as the dominant aggressors appears to justify some "pay back"...I don't view my seven yr old son being given negative messages about men because women didn't get the vote until nearly 40yrs after men or because page three girls still exist as acceptable - and it's something that should & needs to be challenged.

For the record, I stated my surprise/dismay at the advert I snapped at my local chemist. The ad was taken down shortly after tho that may have more to do with their next advertising phase than anything I said...

Logical Fallacy

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

For many years things were firmly weighted towards straight white men but I think it's a misconception that it's still that way, certainly not across the board as it once was. In some respects the pendulum has swung the other way and the historic view of men as the dominant aggressors appears to justify some "pay back"...I don't view my seven yr old son being given negative messages about men because women didn't get the vote until nearly 40yrs after men or because page three girls still exist as acceptable - and it's something that should & needs to be challenged.

For the record, I stated my surprise/dismay at the advert I snapped at my local chemist. The ad was taken down shortly after tho that may have more to do with their next advertising phase than anything I said...

Absolutely. Negative imagery is already having a massive impact on men.The below article highlights how men can feel a lot worse about how they look than women, and it must be coming from somewhere.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/jan/06/body-image-concerns-men-more-than-women

In some aspects men can be on the receiving end of this kind of thing a lot more than women at the moment. I think while women have had it harder in the world of advertising than men for longer they have also had time to fight their corner and become aware of the way that advertising can be used to try and have an impact on them and diminish their self image. It's kind of a newer thing to men and at the moment you can't turn on the TV or open a magazine without seeing some guy with 6% bodyfat and big pecs smiling at you.

Rothmans

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Absolutely. Negative imagery is already having a massive impact on men.The below article highlights how men can feel a lot worse about how they look than women, and it must be coming from somewhere.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/jan/06/body-image-concerns-men-more-than-women

In some aspects men can be on the receiving end of this kind of thing a lot more than women at the moment. I think while women have had it harder in the world of advertising than men for longer they have also had time to fight their corner and become aware of the way that advertising can be used to try and have an impact on them and diminish their self image. It's kind of a newer thing to men and at the moment you can't turn on the TV or open a magazine without seeing some guy with 6% bodyfat and big pecs smiling at you.

That research appears to be EXTREMELY skewed. Over half of the respondents were gym members, almost five times the national average. Given that, it is bound to be a hell of a lot more likely that this particular bunch of men will be more concerned by their body image as evidenced by them being gym members! If her survey sample reflected a more balanced and proportionate cross-section of men, the figures would undoubtedly be a lot lower.

pickarooney

Wompa1 wrote: »

I don't really care when guys get put down. I don't take it personally. It's also pretty difficult to act outraged when society dictates you are in the social group (white, straight male) that has it the best in the world. If we complain it would likely be met with outrage because of how people in other social groups perceive they are treated worse. So no point getting cut up about it.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't think that's reserved for white, straight men tbh...even just a quick read of this forum would show you that whenever women here complain about how they portrayed or whatever they are met with a barrage of whataboutery...I don't think that's a good enough reason to just throw in the towel and accept the status quo tho...

Is this whataboutery about whataboutery?

Ickle Magoo

Posting just to make a dig and adding zip to the discussion - doesn't it ever get boring...?! :rolleyes:

panda100

I read this blog post today and it really reminded me of this thread: http://nothingbutawordbag.wordpress.com/2012/04/22/gendered-marketing-really-gets-on-my-tits/

py2006

This thread is quite refreshing. Recognition of inappropriate or silly gender representation of males as well.

Having said that, men in general really don't care about these sorts of things. I actually believe the same goes for a most women (if they were really honest about it).

At the end of the day, they are just silly ads. People rarely pay attention to them or even watch them. They are not meant to be an indicator of reality or how we must live our lives or what our attitudes should be towards each other etc. They are supposed to grab attention to a product by attempting to be either humorous or out of the ordinary. Some work, some fail.

newport2

py2006 wrote: »

Having said that, men in general really don't care about these sorts of things. I actually believe the same goes for a most women (if they were really honest about it).

At the end of the day, they are just silly ads. People rarely pay attention to them or even watch them. They are not meant to be an indicator of reality or how we must live our lives or what our attitudes should be towards each other etc. They are supposed to grab attention to a product by attempting to be either humorous or out of the ordinary. Some work, some fail.

You're right, men don't really care that much about them, or at least I don't.

My concern about the way men - and women - are portrayed in ads is how they affect childrens perception of things. If young boys are consistantly seeing "funny" ads where Daddy can't do anything around the house, arrives home with the wrong child, etc I think this is quite likely to influence what they see as men's role in society and how they perceive themselves, whether they are conscously aware it does or not. The same applies to young girls in relation to how women are portrayed.

starling

newport2 wrote: »

You're right, men don't really care that much about them, or at least I don't.

My concern about the way men - and women - are portrayed in ads is how they affect childrens perception of things. If young boys are consistantly seeing "funny" ads where Daddy can't do anything around the house, arrives home with the wrong child, etc I think this is quite likely to influence what they see as men's role in society and how they perceive themselves, whether they are conscously aware it does or not. The same applies to young girls in relation to how women are portrayed.

I think you're right, we don't really realise just how much advertising and media affect children and send them damaging messages.

By the way all those ads that portray men as clueless about housework or childcare are sexist, but IMO one of the reasons why there isn't a bigger outcry from men is because they are reinforcing traditional gender roles i.e. "Men don't know about this stuff, it's women's work!"

I think anyone who finds an ads offensive should speak up about it, though a lot of people seem to be a bit short-sighted about it. Like, is an ad implying that a man can't work the washing machine or whatever really as damaging as an ad that portrays women in a sexist way, when women still suffer serious negative consequences from being portrayed as and treated as sexual objects?

I still hear men going "But what about THAT Diet Coke ad" as if one ad where women look at a man with his shirt off is equal to literally MILLIONS of ads where women are objectified, belittled, given new reasons to feel like they or their bodies are not good enough, or told that it's their job to do all the housework and childcare even if they work outside the home. Like, really, I am sorry but I just find it hard to believe men have it so bad.

newport2

starling wrote: »

I think you're right, we don't really realise just how much advertising and media affect children and send them damaging messages.

By the way all those ads that portray men as clueless about housework or childcare are sexist, but IMO one of the reasons why there isn't a bigger outcry from men is because they are reinforcing traditional gender roles i.e. "Men don't know about this stuff, it's women's work!"

I think anyone who finds an ads offensive should speak up about it, though a lot of people seem to be a bit short-sighted about it. Like, is an ad implying that a man can't work the washing machine or whatever really as damaging as an ad that portrays women in a sexist way, when women still suffer serious negative consequences from being portrayed as and treated as sexual objects?

I still hear men going "But what about THAT Diet Coke ad" as if one ad where women look at a man with his shirt off is equal to literally MILLIONS of ads where women are objectified, belittled, given new reasons to feel like they or their bodies are not good enough, or told that it's their job to do all the housework and childcare even if they work outside the home. Like, really, I am sorry but I just find it hard to believe men have it so bad.

I think the main reason there isn't outcry from men is that men don't really view themselves as a group. What something unfair happens to a man somewhere it doesn't bother other men. They only really care when something directly affects them or those around them, family etc.

I think ads showing men as too stupid to use washing machines etc do more harm to women than they do to men, because it just reenforces the notion that this is "women's work".

I never said "men have it so bad" and don't think that, I literally just voiced concern about how these ads make children - male and female - perceive themselves and their roles in life.

py2006

starling wrote: »

I still hear men going "But what about THAT Diet Coke ad" as if one ad where women look at a man with his shirt off is equal to literally MILLIONS of ads where women are objectified, belittled, given new reasons to feel like they or their bodies are not good enough, or told that it's their job to do all the housework and childcare even if they work outside the home. Like, really, I am sorry but I just find it hard to believe men have it so bad.

That ad had quite an impact at the time and that is more the reason it stands out in mens minds when this debate arises. I am sure there are countless more but as I said earlier men in general are not bothered by this and don't keep mental notes about them but the double standard in the debate brings it up.

To add, that Diet coke ad had a bigger impact than most. I recall at the time there were numerous instances in offices etc where some women would all go "Diet Coke Break" every time a particular man would walk by. All good natured I presume but a perfect example of what the OP was outlining.

starling

newport2 wrote: »

I think the main reason there isn't outcry from men is that men don't really view themselves as a group. What something unfair happens to a man somewhere it doesn't bother other men. They only really care when something directly affects them or those around them, family etc.

Excellent point

newport2 wrote: »

I think ads showing men as too stupid to use washing machines etc do more harm to women than they do to men, because it just reenforces the notion that this is "women's work".

Agree 100%

newport2 wrote: »

I never said "men have it so bad" and don't think that, I literally just voiced concern about how these ads make children - male and female - perceive themselves and their roles in life.

No I was only quoting you cause I totally agreed with you about ads affecting children. The rest was just general stuff wasn't getting at you:o

Blisterman

Speaking personally. I've never been bothered by ads or TV shows or anything which portray men in a negative light, because I see the ads as saying "that guy is stupid" rather than "all guys are stupid".

Tropheus

I always use the "if the shoe was on the other foot" rule. If a woman was to look as stupid as the male in the ad, would it get air time? For a lot of what I've heard, the answer is, most likely not.

panda100

Snickers ad is really pissing me off at the moment.The one where men turn into women and 'diva's when they get hungry and all moany. Bit of an unfair stereotype of women.

Feathers

ksimpson wrote: »

I always use the "if the shoe was on the other foot" rule. If a woman was to look as stupid as the male in the ad, would it get air time? For a lot of what I've heard, the answer is, most likely not.

I think that the "so easy even a man can do it ads" are deemed acceptable is because they are 'satire' of the 1960s 'even a woman can open it' type ads. A reversal of an expected message can be a really clever advertising plot, but this one has been done to the point it's no longer funny or remotely 'edgy'. Doesn't seem to bother the script-writers though!

(Off-topic: But then there are plenty of ads that I would love to have been a fly on the wall for the pitch — "OK, so we're going to have this tortoise going around with a can of Diet Coke on his back voiced by Colm Murphy". "Brilliant! This is just what we were looking for!" How did that happen?)

fullstop

panda100 wrote: »

Snickers ad is really pissing me off at the moment.The one where men turn into women and 'diva's when they get hungry and all moany. Bit of an unfair stereotype of women.

This thread is about the opposite

smash

I noticed recently that the Minstrels: Sophisticated Silliness ad is back on TV a lot. I wonder how it would go down if it was two men commenting on female strippers with a tagline of "Sophisticated Silliness"?

Sonics2k

panda100 wrote: »

Snickers ad is really pissing me off at the moment.The one where men turn into women and 'diva's when they get hungry and all moany. Bit of an unfair stereotype of women.

I reckon that was more of a joke about Joan Collins being such a renowned diva and always acting up.

I wouldn't think that was a stereotype about women at all, more about the diva attitude and connecting it to Joan Collins.

panda100

Sonics2k wrote: »

I reckon that was more of a joke about Joan Collins being such a renowned diva and always acting up.

I wouldn't think that was a stereotype about women at all, more about the diva attitude and connecting it to Joan Collins.

There is also another advert using Aretha Franklin, so its not isolated to Joan Collins. Maybe they would have used a male superstar,but apart from gay superstars like Elton John, I can't think of any who would be associated with the word 'diva'. Its a very gendered term that is only associated with women, and in the context of this ad, and in most other contexts it is a word with derogatory connotations.


I know this thread is about the opposite, but I am being hard pushed to think of any current adverts out at the moment that are anti-male? The fact that posters on here are still bringing up the diet coke ads as the main example, an ad campaign that happened a decade ago now, leads me to believe that anti-male advertising really is not half as prevalent as we are being led to believe in this thread.

I guess the 'proud sponsors of mums' ads can be seen as anti male to a certain extent, as it reinforces women as the primary child carer?

panda100

panda100 wrote: »

I guess the 'proud sponsors of mums' ads can be seen as anti male to a certain extent, as it reinforces women as the primary child carer?

I have to say those irritate me as if mums are the only ones who always stay at home while the guy comes home in his suit, and the mums are the only ones who could care about kids and their nutrition

smash

panda100 wrote: »

but I am being hard pushed to think of any current adverts out at the moment that are anti-male?

Most boots adverts! they portray males as being weak and childish.

Sonics2k

panda100 wrote: »

There is also another advert using Aretha Franklin, so its not isolated to Joan Collins. Maybe they would have used a male superstar,but apart from gay superstars like Elton John, I can't think of any who would be associated with the word 'diva'. Its a very gendered term that is only associated with women, and in the context of this ad, and in most other contexts it is a word with derogatory connotations.


I know this thread is about the opposite, but I am being hard pushed to think of any current adverts out at the moment that are anti-male? The fact that posters on here are still bringing up the diet coke ads as the main example, an ad campaign that happened a decade ago now, leads me to believe that anti-male advertising really is not half as prevalent as we are being led to believe in this thread.

I guess the 'proud sponsors of mums' ads can be seen as anti male to a certain extent, as it reinforces women as the primary child carer?

I'm honestly quite 'meh' on the whole Anti-gender complaints people come up with.

The Hunky Dorys ad didn't bother me in the slightest, at least no more than the various ads with men doing the same thing did.

The campaigns certainly exist (on both sides), but I think it's more down to advertising and sex appeal than any real discrimination against a certain gender.

I don't complain about Ryan Reynolds arse hopping across my screen during an ad for some aftershave about it being sexist or sexual, just that it's a bloody stupid ad that makes no sense.

As for your Diva comment, well yes. It has always been associated with women (along with prima donna), because it stems from the old Opera singers, and has always traditionally been associated with women like Joan Collins, and to an extent Mariah Carey.

PrincessLola

ksimpson wrote: »

I always use the "if the shoe was on the other foot" rule. If a woman was to look as stupid as the male in the ad, would it get air time? For a lot of what I've heard, the answer is, most likely not.

OK, so what I'm about to rant about has to do with white male privilige just a warning, I think people should look that term up.

The 'shoe on the other foot' arguement is inherently flawed.
Men and women, in terms of their standing in society, are not on the precise opposite sides of the same coin. There can be no 'reverse sexism' only a different kind of sexism against men. Furhermore, men generally have the privilige of not having their entire gender judged by the actions of one, whereas if a woman does something stupid very often you get the likes of afterhours threads saying 'Irish women are spoiled stuck up bints, ect..'
It is never going to be as simple as 'but if this were a woman' or 'if this were a black person' or 'if this were a Muslim' because there can be no equivalent.

And for those worried about the impact on the ads on young boys, I agree with you that they can be damaging. I cringed when I saw that ad where the woman smacked the man really hard.
But keep in mind that white males are also the heros, main characters, ect of 90% of mainstream movies/tv shows. Your son is going to see people of his race and gender representing the hereos of virtually all films.
White women too, are represented more than other ethnicities. Personally I'd spare more thought for young black girls and black boys who grow up watrching this media where they are mostly the sidekick characters

Sleepy

The one that really annoys me, and yes, I've actually complained about it is the "So I slapped him" radio ad for a South Dublin pub. It makes out that all men are interested in nothing but football, beer and food, suggests we all cheat on our partners and that it's okay for a woman to assault a man (whilst portraying the "harassed" girlfriend as an irritating bitch who loves running down her boyfriend during her "girly" chats....

grr...

panda100

PrincessLola wrote: »

But keep in mind that white males are also the heros, main characters, ect of 90% of mainstream movies/tv shows. Your son is going to see people of his race and gender representing the hereos of virtually all films.

And lets face it in real life too. From politics to sport to religion to business you just have to buy any newspaper or flick on any news channel to see that men dominate most prestigious positions in society.

What I do think is dangerous is adverts that depreciate the role fathers play in their children lives.This is a cause for concern for both men and women, as children are the responsibility of both parents and not just mothers.

smash wrote: »

Most boots adverts! they portray males as being weak and childish.

Thats only because there so focused on selling their anti-firming,anti-wrinkle and anti-ageing creams at women.As well as reminding us how inadequate we are compared to airbrushed models and celebrities. I think you should be thankful that you don't have beauty ads targeted at you.

Sonics2k wrote: »

The Hunky Dorys ad didn't bother me in the slightest, at least no more than the various ads with men doing the same thing did.

What various ad's of men doing the same thing? I must have missed the ad's of Brian O'Driscoll and Paul O'Connell posing seductively in their underwear? When sports men are used in adverts its because they are renowned athletes in their sport,they are not just token sex objects. Yes I know the David Beckham adverts will be mentioned here.However, David Beckham is a world wide renowned professional athlete, bit different to the tokenistic sex objects of the Hunky dory girls.
Real women athletes are rarely used in advertising.Mainly because most women athletes are not recognisable as womens sports are virtually ignored in western society. Also, many female athletes do not live up to what advertising exec's view as being 'sexy' so they hire in models instead.

Logical Fallacy

PrincessLola wrote: »

But keep in mind that white males are also the heros, main characters, ect of 90% of mainstream movies/tv shows. Your son is going to see people of his race and gender representing the hereos of virtually all films.
White women too, are represented more than other ethnicities. Personally I'd spare more thought for young black girls and black boys who grow up watrching this media where they are mostly the sidekick characters

Yeah, but this may not be a good thing. "Hero" is a nice word but in the dynamic of a narrative it is far more loaded.

There is always a huge amount of people who basically need to carry them to their goal, hell...even John McClane was an alcoholic, emotionally closed off tossers who couldn't even be honest and open with his wife.

I'd happily see a more even split of the lead protagonists in most major movies, because the vast majority of them are terrible role models.

newport2

PrincessLola wrote: »

OK, so what I'm about to rant about has to do with white male privilige just a warning, I think people should look that term up.

The 'shoe on the other foot' arguement is inherently flawed.
Men and women, in terms of their standing in society, are not on the precise opposite sides of the same coin. There can be no 'reverse sexism' only a different kind of sexism against men. Furhermore, men generally have the privilige of not having their entire gender judged by the actions of one, whereas if a woman does something stupid very often you get the likes of afterhours threads saying 'Irish women are spoiled stuck up bints, ect..'
It is never going to be as simple as 'but if this were a woman' or 'if this were a black person' or 'if this were a Muslim' because there can be no equivalent.

And for those worried about the impact on the ads on young boys, I agree with you that they can be damaging. I cringed when I saw that ad where the woman smacked the man really hard.
But keep in mind that white males are also the heros, main characters, ect of 90% of mainstream movies/tv shows. Your son is going to see people of his race and gender representing the hereos of virtually all films.
White women too, are represented more than other ethnicities. Personally I'd spare more thought for young black girls and black boys who grow up watrching this media where they are mostly the sidekick characters

The shoe on the other foot argument might not be perfect, but it's the one generally used to determine whether racism or sexism is happening in the first place. How else can you determine if your race or gender is being treated differently than other races or genders without putting the shoe on the other foot?

While reverse "ism's" mightn't be an exact match in a lot of cases, this often comes down to opinion. Some people have no problem with all female clubs but do with all male clubs, others would see this as hypocritical. How will equality ever be attained if people use the "but it's different for us" argument when defending the fact that the other gender/race is also treated in a similar manner?

Men don't get their entire gender judged by the actions of one? Most men would be afraid to pick up a crying child fallen in the street these days because of how they will be perceived, to name just one example. Believe me, it's a horrible feeling to have to ignore a crying child and have to keep your distance from children in general because of the actions of a few. Who does child custody generally go to because men are judged by default to be worse parents?

Keep in mind that white males are also the villians, assaulters, cheaters, etc of 90% of mainstream movies/tv shows. Your son is going to see people of his race and gender representing the b*****s of virtually all films.

I'd agree with you on black boys and girls.

Ickle Magoo

PrincessLola wrote: »

OK, so what I'm about to rant about has to do with white male privilige just a warning, I think people should look that term up.

The 'shoe on the other foot' arguement is inherently flawed.
Men and women, in terms of their standing in society, are not on the precise opposite sides of the same coin. There can be no 'reverse sexism' only a different kind of sexism against men. Furhermore, men generally have the privilige of not having their entire gender judged by the actions of one, whereas if a woman does something stupid very often you get the likes of afterhours threads saying 'Irish women are spoiled stuck up bints, ect..'
It is never going to be as simple as 'but if this were a woman' or 'if this were a black person' or 'if this were a Muslim' because there can be no equivalent.

I don't agree with the comment that men aren't judged by the actions of one - there are entire hallmark sections, book store corners and films dedicated to "men" or what being a man should mean. I'd also add that posters are not divided evenly between the genders or age-groups and the volume & content of posting often reflects that.

I think sexism is still acceptable to a degree - against either gender - while racism, homophobia, etc, is now generally deemed unacceptable. It's usually fairly obvious that the threads/posts which claim to make comment on all women are posted either tongue-in-cheek or by those who actually know so few women well that they are unintentionally advertising their own immaturity/ignorance.

PrincessLola wrote: »

And for those worried about the impact on the ads on young boys, I agree with you that they can be damaging. I cringed when I saw that ad where the woman smacked the man really hard.
But keep in mind that white males are also the heros, main characters, ect of 90% of mainstream movies/tv shows. Your son is going to see people of his race and gender representing the hereos of virtually all films.
White women too, are represented more than other ethnicities. Personally I'd spare more thought for young black girls and black boys who grow up watrching this media where they are mostly the sidekick characters

See, up until I had a son I'd have completely agreed with you, not just about under-representation of differing races and ethnicities...but having spent 7yr looking at life through my sons eyes, it's actually incredibly difficult to find positive, wholly positive, role models for boys that aren't just a caricature of every archaic male stereotype going.

py2006

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I think sexism is still acceptable to a degree - against either gender - while racism, homophobia, etc, is now generally deemed unacceptable. It's usually fairly obvious that the threads/posts which claim to make comment on all women are posted either tongue-in-cheek or by those who actually know so few women well that they are unintentionally advertising their own immaturity/ignorance.

I agree sexism is accepted or perhaps ignored to a certain degree. I personally never considered sexism towards men till I read some posts on Boards. I knew it was there but I never gave it any thought. But then again, quirky humour (good or bad) in relation to the sexes in ads does not bother me in the slightless, they are just silly.

PrincessLola

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't agree with the comment that men aren't judged by the actions of one - there are entire hallmark sections, book store corners and films dedicated to "men" or what being a man should mean. I'd also add that posters are not divided evenly between the genders or age-groups and the volume & content of posting often reflects that.

I think sexism is still acceptable to a degree - against either gender - while racism, homophobia, etc, is now generally deemed unacceptable. It's usually fairly obvious that the threads/posts which claim to make comment on all women are posted either tongue-in-cheek or by those who actually know so few women well that they are unintentionally advertising their own immaturity/ignorance.



See, up until I had a son I'd have completely agreed with you, not just about under-representation of differing races and ethnicities...but having spent 7yr looking at life through my sons eyes, it's actually incredibly difficult to find positive, wholly positive, role models for boys that aren't just a caricature of every archaic male stereotype going.

But what about children of diffetrent ethnicities? You really think a white child has it the hardest? They don't, I'm white too, but I just think we should think and check our privilige first. You don't think other groups are made inro caractitures much more often?
As for male role models, I'd have thought the likes of Sperman, Spiderman, Ben 10 and all the other white male heros (which is most heros) would count?
The whole reason people think white guys get the worst represenmtation is because they get pretty much MOST of the representation. Having a character be male is like the default setting.
You can't bring sitcoms into this, they are made for ADULTS and don't exactly portay women too nicely either.

And you don't think there are books and magazines telling women what it is to be a woman? You don't think women get their bodies policed on a daily basis (case in point the under-arm hair AH threads and AH threads about fat women).

Anyway I stand by what I said, there is no reverse-sexism only a different kind of sexism. We cannot pretend we live in a bubble that isolates us from historical contexts.

twinQuins

PrincessLola wrote: »

But what about children of diffetrent ethnicities? You really think a white child has it the hardest? They don't, I'm white too, but I just think we should think and check our privilige first.[...]

I hope you'd only ever say that to someone whose life history you know intimately. Because saying it to someone you don't actually know is just so, so very presumptuous.
Someone is white but they could also be gay, struggling to make ends meet, have come from an abusive upbringing...

Saying "check your privilege" says a lot more about you and your prejudices than it does about the person you direct it at.

Relatively OT, I know but I'm sick to the back teeth of that insipid phrase.