Anyone seen the donedeal ad?

That's it exactly. Imagine if there were college courses which provided Men's Rights Studies and we campaigned for equal rights - how quickly would it be shot down?

Tigger

donfers wrote: »

good man

took me 2 minutes to fire off a complaint - i hope more do it


this is nothing to do with "a sense of humour bypass"

the ad is not funny, it is offensive to men, it crosses the line, I am not a serial complainer, this is the first time in my life I have ever taken the 2 minutes it takes to fire off a complaint, enough is enough with these kind of ads where basically it seems it's fair game to portray men as absolutely anything - this kind of sexist guff should not be tolerated

It isn't funny it's stupid and there is a radio ad that goes with it on todayfm
But it's not sexist it's just stupid

Nothing to complain about in my opinion

Pawwed Rig

There was a thread here a while back about discrimination against men. Discussed at some length was the portrayal of men in the media as gormless simple minded creatures. This add is a prime example of this.
Having seen the add I would not say I am outraged by it but I can see it as a continuation of this negative portrayal of men.



I remember hearing on Newstalk there a couple of years ago that the confusion on the role of men that kids see in real life and what they see on TV is a contributing cause of stress and depression and ultimately suicide for young men. So where one person sees adds like this as harmless fun I see it as lazy advertising by a marketing company that has not much imagination and is ultimately damaging.

iptba

Gran Hermano wrote: »

It looks like the advert goes against the ASAI code

Decency and Propriety

2.15
A marketing communication should contain nothing that is likely to cause grave or widespread offence.

2.16
Marketing communications should respect the dignity of all persons and should avoid causing offence on grounds of gender, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race or membership of the traveller community.

2.17
Marketing communications should respect the principle of the equality of men and women. They should avoid sex stereotyping and any exploitation or demeaning of men and women. Where appropriate, marketing communications should use generic terms that include both the masculine and feminine gender; for example, the term 'business executive' covers both men and women.

The more people who lodge a complaint the better
http://www.asai.ie/complain.asp

Got my letter from the ASAI today acknowledging receipt of complaint. This is my first one on these grounds.

That_Guy

People complaining about people complaining. Love it.

The ad doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's just a bit of humour.

I was more offended by those "he drives, she dies" road safety ads.

Maguined

donfers wrote: »

good man

took me 2 minutes to fire off a complaint - i hope more do it


this is nothing to do with "a sense of humour bypass"

the ad is not funny, it is offensive to men, it crosses the line, I am not a serial complainer, this is the first time in my life I have ever taken the 2 minutes it takes to fire off a complaint, enough is enough with these kind of ads where basically it seems it's fair game to portray men as absolutely anything - this kind of sexist guff should not be tolerated

With all due respect donfers you don't get to decide what is offensive to men, you get to decide what is offensive to yourself. I laughed at the done deal add just as a I laugh at jokes targeting women.

Please Kill Me

I thought it was/is the funniest ad I've seen in ages. Yeah, I know - if it was reversed, the bra burners would be up in arms over it, but so what, it is what it is, a feckin' advert that IS actually funny!

Snowie

Sauve wrote: »

Yeah I've seen it, it's obviously a joke, intended to be seen as such.

it is not joke its sexist :mad:


:P

donfers

Maguined wrote: »

With all due respect donfers you don't get to decide what is offensive to men, you get to decide what is offensive to yourself. I laughed at the done deal add just as a I laugh at jokes targeting women.

of course i don't, we can play the pedantic game of semantics all day if you like, i could stick "in my opinion" in every post but it gets a bit tiring so apologies to all those who thought I was speaking on behalf of all men, the meaning i was aiming for was that in my opinion i thought the ad was offensive towards the male gender ( i don't think this necessarily assumes i speak for all men).....others of course can disagree and say it's just a laugh, get over it etc. - the reason it is offensive and sexist, again just in my opinion, is not so much the content of the ad itself which although i don't find funny at all - i could take it or leave it if the same (lack of) standards were applied across advertising demographics, the reason it is offensive and sexist towards the male gender in my opinion is that simply if the situations were reversed there would be a huge outcry, we either accept this kind of guff across the boards or we say it is unacceptable across the boards, i.e. double standards and hypocrasy are the key issues here rather than judging the ad on its own merits

what we should not accept is giving the ok to see men demeaned in this way (regardless of how humourous some may find it) versus the fact that there would be zero chance of this kind of ad being broadcast if the gender roles were reversed - why do we seemingly have a different set of rules for how we can portray men in advertising versus women, surely this is the very definition of sexism

but yes of course we can take the easy option and laugh it off, dismiss it etc etc., but i still think an issue needs to be addressed,as i said the ad in itself doesn't bother me too much - it's more the double standard that is at play

du Maurier

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvjYuIBy-oQ

iptba

du Maurier wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvjYuIBy-oQ

Not exactly sure what your point is.

One guess is that men should be "strong and silent" i.e. don't complain. Seems a way that can lead men to being walked all over.

Feeona

I think this ad is funny. I don't think it makes the man look stupid-he looks like the only sane one in the whole ad! I also think that if the reverse was done there would be lots of complaints for the reason that follows : A man being described as a real 'goer' would be seen as virile, a stud, energetic, young. A woman being described as a 'goer' would be viewed as a slut, not suitable mother material, whore etc. Added to this is the history of women selling sex, brutality from pimps etc and the negative imagery that accompanies this also.

If there was an ad depicting a man trying to sell his wife with the idea that she doesn't nag much, lets you out with your mates, isn't bossy etc, I'd think it hilarious because it shows the kind of relationship that usually exists between a man and a woman. I think that comments that refer to wives as 'trouble and strife' and 'the ball and chain' are funny too, a harmless way of letting off steam.

Saying that I do hate ads that show men to be simple minded creatures who find it difficult to understand the inner workings of an air freshener :rolleyes:

du Maurier

I'd say you are sure by what was indicated. But it's not really to do with the strong, silent type outlined - it was more to do with the type of person at the other end of the scale. I understand the OPs sentiment, but he did ask if he was overreacting, and I think he was.

iptba

du Maurier wrote: »

But it's not really to do with the strong, silent type outlined - it was more to do with the type of person at the other end of the scale. I understand the OPs sentiment, but he did ask if he was overreacting, and I think he was.

Well, I'm glad there are some men who will stand up and fight if they think there is a double-standard with regard to how men and women are treated, with men be treated worse. I think the men who are more wimpy are men who never do so.

FanadMan

Gran Hermano wrote: »

It looks like the advert goes against the ASAI code

The more people who lodge a complaint the better
http://www.asai.ie/complain.asp

Come on - it's an ad that's very funny. In fact I think it's better than most of the stuff RTE put on. It was made to show that DoneDeal sell anything.

Just because it may go against the ASAI codes doesn't mean that people should complain - it's all a bit of fun

Maguined

donfers wrote: »

what we should not accept is giving the ok to see men demeaned in this way (regardless of how humourous some may find it) versus the fact that there would be zero chance of this kind of ad being broadcast if the gender roles were reversed - why do we seemingly have a different set of rules for how we can portray men in advertising versus women, surely this is the very definition of sexism

but yes of course we can take the easy option and laugh it off, dismiss it etc etc., but i still think an issue needs to be addressed,as i said the ad in itself doesn't bother me too much - it's more the double standard that is at play

I agree if a similar add targeting women existed there would be outrage and this would mean numerous complaints and possibly having the add removed. I do not think this is right though, I would label anyone that would be offended by such an add targeting women as having no sense of humour. As such I do not think just because such an add targeting women would be removed that automatically we should complain and campaign to have this male bashing add removed.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

FanadMan

donfers wrote: »

good man

took me 2 minutes to fire off a complaint - i hope more do it


this is nothing to do with "a sense of humour bypass"

the ad is not funny, it is offensive to men, it crosses the line, I am not a serial complainer, this is the first time in my life I have ever taken the 2 minutes it takes to fire off a complaint, enough is enough with these kind of ads where basically it seems it's fair game to portray men as absolutely anything - this kind of sexist guff should not be tolerated

How can you say it's offensive to men? Saw it a couple of nights ago in my local with about 15 men watching it - everyone laughed and not one person made any sort of complaint or got offended. :rolleyes:

DarkJager

Same old **** as usual, sexual discrimination in the advertising code is just a ****ing in joke to whoever wrote it. Transfer the premise of the advert to a reversal of the sexes and there would be uproar about it promoting "prostitution", because that's exactly what it is. Advert doesn't amuse me a single bit and is typical of the one sided advertising allowed in this country. Donedeal can make an advert about a wife selling her husband to another female but we can't have Hunky Dorys displaying females in their adverts? **** right off.

donfers

Maguined wrote: »

I agree if a similar add targeting women existed there would be outrage and this would mean numerous complaints and possibly having the add removed. I do not think this is right though, I would label anyone that would be offended by such an add targeting women as having no sense of humour. As such I do not think just because such an add targeting women would be removed that automatically we should complain and campaign to have this male bashing add removed.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

i agree with you

but people here are getting too focused on the content of the ad itself rather than the ridiculous double standards at play in the advertising industry

people who post on here saying they weren't offended by the ad and thought it was funny are slightly missing the point in my view

i think the ad illustrates the hypocrasy in the advertising industry and as I said I would urge the advertising authority to either

a) adopt a more relaxed attitude to adverts and let almost everything go regardless of if it upsets the so-called humourless bra-burning types or whiney mens right types

b) apply a consistent method in how they censor adverts i.e. don't let ads portray men in a way that they wouldn't allow for women and vice versa

so far, it seems to be they are doing neither a or b and pandering to the so-called humourless bra-burning types while letting men continue to be portrayed as either dullards, oafs, morons, prostitutes, strippers or whatever it may be (all this may or may not to be funny/offensive to you but again I say that this not the point, the point is not so much the content of the individual ad, it is the context within which the ad is permitted or not and how the criteria for letting ads go or not seems to be applied inconsistently depending on if the subjects are men or women)

DarkJager

donfers wrote: »

i agree with you

but people here are getting too focused on the content of the ad itself rather than the ridiculous double standards at play in the advertising industry

people who post on here saying they weren't offended by the ad and thought it was funny are slightly missing the point in my view

i think the ad illustrates the hypocrasy in the advertising industry and as I said I would urge the advertising authority to either

a) adopt a more relaxed attitude to adverts and let almost everything go regardless of if it upsets the so-called humourless bra-burning types or whiney mens right types

b) apply a consistent method in how they censor adverts i.e. don't let ads portray men in a way that they wouldn't allow for women and vice versa

so far, it seems to be they are doing neither a or b and pandering to the so-called humourless bra-burning types while letting men continue to be portrayed as either dullards, oafs, morons, prostitutes, strippers or whatever it may be (all this may or may not to be funny/offensive to you but again I say that this not the point, the point is not so much the content of the individual ad, it is the context within which the ad is permitted or not and how the criteria for letting ads go or not seems to be applied inconsistently depending on if the subjects are men or women)

Totally agree with your points. Take the RSA advert 2 years ago "He Drives, She dies". You cannot get more sexist than telling one gender that letting the other gender drive you will result in your death. But still, they rejected all the complaints as it was an issue of "public safety". If the ASAI or BAI can't objectively look at adverts and see the bull**** in them, then they should both be scrapped in favour of a completely impartial and unbiased group who will review them, regardless of who the advertiser is or what the intention of the advert is.

iptba

DarkJager wrote: »

Totally agree with your points. Take the RSA advert 2 years ago "He Drives, She dies". You cannot get more sexist than telling one gender that letting the other gender drive you will result in your death. But still, they rejected all the complaints as it was an issue of "public safety". If the ASAI or BAI can't objectively look at adverts and see the bull**** in them, then they should both be scrapped in favour of a completely impartial and unbiased group who will review them, regardless of who the advertiser is or what the intention of the advert is.

The useful thing about complaining is they have to give a reason. They can't use any sort of for-the-greater-good argument with a company like this.

If a complaint like this, and maybe a few others, was successful, it could send a message to the advertising industry (and companies who employ them). TV ads are expensive and having to re-do them is not something companies would generally like to have to do.

Jason Fly

I guess that if it was a man selling his wife. It wouldn't last long

Gran Hermano

Jason Fly wrote: »

I guess that if it was a man selling his wife. It wouldn't last long

If the person for sale, and subject to ridicule in the advert, was anything but a white heterosexual male it wouldn't last long.

JOEOLEARY

donfers wrote: »

of course i don't, we can play the pedantic game of semantics all day if you like, i could stick "in my opinion" in every post but it gets a bit tiring so apologies to all those who thought I was speaking on behalf of all men, the meaning i was aiming for was that in my opinion i thought the ad was offensive towards the male gender ( i don't think this necessarily assumes i speak for all men).....others of course can disagree and say it's just a laugh, get over it etc. - the reason it is offensive and sexist, again just in my opinion, is not so much the content of the ad itself which although i don't find funny at all - i could take it or leave it if the same (lack of) standards were applied across advertising demographics, the reason it is offensive and sexist towards the male gender in my opinion is that simply if the situations were reversed there would be a huge outcry, we either accept this kind of guff across the boards or we say it is unacceptable across the boards, i.e. double standards and hypocrasy are the key issues here rather than judging the ad on its own merits

what we should not accept is giving the ok to see men demeaned in this way (regardless of how humourous some may find it) versus the fact that there would be zero chance of this kind of ad being broadcast if the gender roles were reversed - why do we seemingly have a different set of rules for how we can portray men in advertising versus women, surely this is the very definition of sexism

but yes of course we can take the easy option and laugh it off, dismiss it etc etc., but i still think an issue needs to be addressed,as i said the ad in itself doesn't bother me too much - it's more the double standard that is at play

Donfers, offence is not given, it's taken. I would suggest that you get down off your soapbox, trying to influence others that they should be offended by what is plainly an obvious attempt and a fairly good attempt in my opinion, to be a humerous advert.

Instead, i think you should have a look yourself and try to understand why you personally took offence to this ad?

Oh and it is not as you say "offensive and sexist towards the male gender". As i said before, it is only offensive to people who are offended by it, namely yourself.

DarkJager

JOEOLEARY wrote: »

Donfers, offence is not given, it's taken. I would suggest that you get down off your soapbox, trying to influence others that they should be offended by what is plainly an obvious attempt and a fairly good attempt in my opinion, to be a humerous advert.

Instead, i think you should have a look yourself and try to understand why you personally took offence to this ad?

Oh and it is not as you say "offensive and sexist towards the male gender". As i said before, it is only offensive to people who are offended by it, namely yourself.

Humourous my bollox. Can you not see the double standard here? Female selling her husband to another woman who asks "is he a goer?" then puts him in the boot of the car at the end of it. Now for a second, let's reverse the sexes. Man selling his wife to another guy who asks "is she a goer?", then buys her and puts her in the boot of the car. Is it so funny with that scenario played out?

The advert is about as humorous as ass cancer, and when you swap the roles around, you see the sinister undertone to it. But of course, it's only a man being portrayed as a gormless being for sale so it's ok and "funny". No wonder they can get away with this ****.

Jason Fly

Gran Hermano 12+1 wrote: »

If the person for sale, and subject to ridicule in the advert, was anything but a white heterosexual male it wouldn't last long.

yes, definitely. But it's not good as it is....

donfers

JOEOLEARY wrote: »

Donfers, offence is not given, it's taken. I would suggest that you get down off your soapbox, trying to influence others that they should be offended by what is plainly an obvious attempt and a fairly good attempt in my opinion, to be a humerous advert.

Instead, i think you should have a look yourself and try to understand why you personally took offence to this ad?

Oh and it is not as you say "offensive and sexist towards the male gender". As i said before, it is only offensive to people who are offended by it, namely yourself.

1. offense can be given and taken - it's called communication, are you honestly telling me if i told somebody "go funk yourself, you are a total moron" that unless they took that as being offensive that I had not been offensive lol

2. "get down off your soapbox" - this is a discussion forum, it's for people to express opinions - this soapbox smear lacks imagination and most of all common sense

3. you say I am "trying to influence others" which kind of contradicts your first point where you say offense can only be taken, but magically of course when I supposedly try to "influence" people it can be given

4. thank you for you advice that I should ask myself why I should look at myself and understand why I took offense from it. Have you thought about becoming a psychotherapist? Ok I have done that and I haven't found any dramatic stuff at all for you, no history of problems with women or being treated badly as a child or anything like that I'm afraid, I even lay down on the couch and everything and still nothing - only thing I could come it was that I dislike blatant hypocrasy

5 returning to the point that two people have highlighted and taken out of context suggesting that I apparently speak for all men that they should all be offended by this, misleading I'm afraid, let's see what I actually said before you

first i said

"I personally think the ad is crass, not funny at all and offensive to men"

then I clarified even further

"we can play the pedantic game of semantics all day if you like, i could stick "in my opinion" in every post but it gets a bit tiring so apologies to all those who thought I was speaking on behalf of all men, the meaning i was aiming for was that in my opinion i thought the ad was offensive towards the male gender ( i don't think this necessarily assumes i speak for all men).....others of course can disagree and say it's just a laugh, get over it etc."

note the difference between my personal belief that the ad is offensive to men versus what you seem to be implying which is that all men are offended by this ad - that's called a straw-man

oh and incidentally I am far from the only one offended by this, anyway thanks for your post, your first post in four months from an account with three posts, let's do this again sometimes

K-9

DarkJager wrote: »

Humourous my bollox. Can you not see the double standard here? Female selling her husband to another woman who asks "is he a goer?" then puts him in the boot of the car at the end of it. Now for a second, let's reverse the sexes. Man selling his wife to another guy who asks "is she a goer?", then buys her and puts her in the boot of the car. Is it so funny with that scenario played out?

The advert is about as humorous as ass cancer, and when you swap the roles around, you see the sinister undertone to it. But of course, it's only a man being portrayed as a gormless being for sale so it's ok and "funny". No wonder they can get away with this ****.

Irony can be lost on some.

iptba

Apart from the initial immediate response to my complaint in the post, I haven't heard anything since.

I was looking at the ASAI site and saw the following:

http://www.asai.ie/complaint_view.asp?CID=950&BID=46

Secretariat’s Note:

Subsequent to formally requesting a response from the advertisers on the complaints received, the Secretariat wrote again to the advertisers and informed them of the volume of complaints that were being received and requested that the advertisers take interim action to withdraw the advertisement. This request was made without prejudice to the consideration of the matter by, and eventual decision of the Complaints Committee. The Secretariat also noted that the approval granted by Clearcast had been withdrawn.

Possibly something to remember for the future i.e. a way that volume can matter, and a way to get swift action from the ASAI.

I wouldn't be surprised if the final ruling is reported in the media. It will all be anonymous of course - I complained about something else before (a health claim).

ChannelNo5

From a womans point of view chaps, I can quite see the point the OP is making and you are indeed 1000% right. If the gender roles were reversed in this ad it would be long gone and rightly so.
My first thought on seeing this ad was, this is going to upset some people! But to my surprise this is the first discussion i have seen.

I won't be objecting to it with advertising standards as we have our own battles to fight but i would support any man who who finds this offensive and i'm really surprised at the men rubbishing the OP's concerns. "It's funny, get over it" No woman would dare say that to another if the ad were reversed.:cool: Personally i think this ad should be removed but you guys need to make this happen. They do this because they can!