Anyone seen the donedeal ad?

Scioch

py2006 wrote: »

This has been said before, but it clearly needs to be said again:

Men will not be offended by this kind of ad jokes in general. It is the obvious double standard that some are pointing out.

Fixed that for ya. If the only thing you have to be offended about is the fact that people are not offended then the problem lies with you and not with the ad.

the_syco

py2006 wrote: »

Men will not be offended by this kind of ad in general. It is the obvious double standard that some are pointing out.

This.

=-=

If a joke can be made about a man, why can't the same joke be made about a woman? Oh, that's right; it's too equal... :rolleyes: :pac:

py2006

LordSmeg wrote: »

Fixed that for ya. If the only thing you have to be offended about is the fact that people are not offended then the problem lies with you and not with the ad.

Who said I was offended?

py2006

Maguined wrote: »

And has been pointed out numerous times it is not a double standard if men don't take offense.

Eh, what? I don't think you understand.

If the ad was referencing a woman:
a) It most likely wouldn't get aired.
b) If it somehow did, it would be taken off air fairly quickly because you can't degrade women (jokingly or not), which is only right.

The above doesn't happen when it is a man. Thats the double standard. Being offended or not has nothing to do with it.

Scioch

py2006 wrote: »

Who said I was offended?

Sorry I meant if the only issue with the ad is that people dont have an issue with it then there is no real issue with it.

py2006

LordSmeg wrote: »

Sorry I meant if the only issue with the ad is that people dont have an issue with it then there is no real issue with it.

Too many issues in that sentence! :eek:

But yea, you are right! Normally this ad would go unnoticed. But its the kicking and screaming that goes on about similar ads that brings it to the forefront.

Scioch

the_syco wrote: »

This.

=-=

If a joke can be made about a man, why can't the same joke be made about a woman? Oh, that's right; it's too equal... :rolleyes: :pac:

Because in this particular instance the reverse roles would come too close to a rather serious problem in human trafficking for sexual exploitation. Thats a real issue, selling husbands isnt.

For men viewing that ad I see little to take issue with, its a joke based on something we have all encountered to some extent blown up to unrealistic proportions to make it absurd and humorous. A similar ad in relation to a woman is playing up the man's attitude to the annoying nagging wife. Not selling her.

You cannot ignore gender to try and force equality because life and experiences are not identical for everyone. Certain issues affect some more than others and you have to be sensitive to those things.

Scioch

py2006 wrote: »

Eh, what? I don't think you understand.

If the ad was referencing a woman:
a) It most likely wouldn't get aired.
b) If it somehow did, it would be taken off air fairly quickly because you can't degrade a women (jokingly or not), which is a fair point.

The above doesn't happen when it is a man. Thats the double standard. Being offended or not has nothing to do with it.

But its not a double standard because they are not equal things.

One doesnt relate to a real issue while the other does. The double standard is in the treatment of women and human trafficking not the fact that one can be joked about and not the other.

Maguined

py2006 wrote: »

Eh, what? I don't think you understand.

If the ad was referencing a woman:
a) It most likely wouldn't get aired.
b) If it somehow did, it would be taken off air fairly quickly because you can't degrade women (jokingly or not), which is only right.

The above doesn't happen when it is a man. Thats the double standard. Being offended or not has nothing to do with it.

A Adds targeting women have been aired.
B If it gets taken off that is because numerous complaints have been made.

Being offended has everything to do with it, if men are not complaining about an add (because they are not offended) why should it be taken down?

py2006

Maguined wrote: »

A Adds targeting women have been aired.
B If it gets taken off that is because numerous complaints have been made.

Being offended has everything to do with it, if men are not complaining about an add (because they are not offended) why should it be taken down?

I was referring that particular ad.

If it is wrong to degrade, sexualise, ridicule women in advertising then it should be the same for men. That particular ad wouldn't be allowed to be aired in the first place if it was focusing on a woman. It would not even get to a stage where women could complain.

Maguined

py2006 wrote: »

I was referring that particular ad.

If it is wrong to degrade, sexualise, ridicule women in advertising then it should be the same for men. That particular ad wouldn't be allowed to be aired in the first place if it was focusing on a woman. It would not even get to a stage where women could complain.

Plenty of adds that target women in such a way are aired. The Hunkys Dory's add was aired, the Club Orange best bits was aired. Burger Kind great escape adds were aired. Plenty have been aired. SOME adds have been pulled because ENOUGH people complained about them.

If ENOUGH men complain about the done deal add it would be pulled but NOT ENOUGH men complain as the majority of men do not get offended by them.

py2006

Maguined wrote: »

Plenty of adds that target women in such a way are aired. The Hunkys Dory's add was aired, the Club Orange best bits was aired. Burger Kind great escape adds were aired. Plenty have been aired. SOME adds have been pulled because ENOUGH people complained about them.

If ENOUGH men complain about the done deal add it would be pulled but NOT ENOUGH men complain as the majority of men do not get offended by them.

Having an attractive woman in an ad is different to trying to sell a woman to another man and asking 'is she a goer'. Surely you can see that?

Maguined

py2006 wrote: »

I was referring that particular ad.

If it is wrong to degrade, sexualise, ridicule women in advertising then it should be the same for men. That particular ad wouldn't be allowed to be aired in the first place if it was focusing on a woman. It would not even get to a stage where women could complain.

py2006 wrote: »

Having an attractive woman in an ad is different to trying to sell a woman to another man and asking 'is she a goer'. Surely you can see that?

You said degrade, sexualise or ridicule. Hunky Dory's definitely sexualised women and possibly degraded women for some. Club Orange was the same, definitely sexualised and possibly degraded. Burger King Great Escape add definitely ridiculed women by showing them as controlling and overbearing. Yorkies not for girls could be considered ridicule.

You made the claim these adds would not be aired in the first place, I think that opinion is completely false as adds that degrade, sexualise or ridicule women have definitely been shown. If they get pulled after been shown is a separate issue.

Different yes, wrong or a double standard not at all.

Scioch

py2006 wrote: »

Having an attractive woman in an ad is different to trying to sell a woman to another man and asking 'is she a goer'. Surely you can see that?

Thats not the point though. The point is that adds that are seen to degrade women have been made and only pulled if they offend a significant amount of people.

Selling a woman as a possible sex slave wouldnt be seen as funny because it would be related to a real issue more than some played up spousal attitude. There is nothing to tie it back to being funny other than pure shock value (which even that wouldnt work). Selling a husband is not the same as selling a wife so how can they be treated similarly ?

py2006

Maguined wrote: »

You made the claim these adds would not be aired in the first place, I think that opinion is completely false as adds that degrade, sexualise or ridicule women have definitely been shown. If they get pulled after been shown is a separate issue.

Different yes, wrong or a double standard not at all.

Again, I am referring to the ad in question. :rolleyes:

Scioch

py2006 wrote: »

Again, I am referring to the ad in question. :rolleyes:

And the point being made I think is that it isnt wrong as it doesnt offend anyone. And it doesnt offend anyone because people see the humor in it.

Comparing it to a woman being sold doesnt just shift the gender its shift the entire way it will be viewed because the joke wont be an unrealistic situation it will be a very realistic and horrific situation.

py2006

LordSmeg wrote: »

And the point being made I think is that it isnt wrong as it doesnt offend anyone. And it doesnt offend anyone because people see the humor in it.

Comparing it to a woman being sold doesnt just shift the gender its shift the entire way it will be viewed because the joke wont be an unrealistic situation it will be a very realistic and horrific situation.

I understand your point, but wife selling isn't all that prevalent in Irish society! Not that I am aware of anyway! :eek:

Perhaps it happens in other parts of the world.

Scioch

py2006 wrote: »

I understand your point, but wife selling isn't all that prevalent in Irish society! Not that I am aware of anyway! :eek:

Perhaps it happens in other parts of the world.

Human trafficking and sexual exploitation is what it will be linked to which does happen in this country.

Maguined

py2006 wrote: »

Again, I am referring to the ad in question. :rolleyes:

So stop making the claim that such adds targeting women would not be aired if you refuse to accept comparisons from other adds, because that just makes total sense.

py2006

LordSmeg wrote: »

Human trafficking and sexual exploitation is what it will be linked to which does happen in this country.

Yep that is true. There are also incidents of little children being kidnapped and used in perverse movies including young boys. I can't remember the particular incident but there was a story a couple years ago where a couples boy was kidnapped and they reckon the saw an image of him a few years later on a child pornography site. Very distressing indeed.

py2006

Maguined wrote: »

So stop making the claim that such adds targeting women would not be aired if you refuse to accept comparisons from other adds, because that just makes total sense.

Ok this is the last time I am going to address you. That particular ad, I believe, would not be aired with roles reversed.

Other ads with attractive or scantily clad women have been aired yes. So has the David Beckham ads.

Maguined

py2006 wrote: »

Ok this is the last time I am going to address you. That particular ad, I believe, would not be aired with roles reversed.

Other ads with attractive or scantily clad women have been aired yes. So has the David Beckham ads.

And that is based on what evidence? because I have pointed out other adds that sexualise, degrade or ridicule women that have been aired you where you are summing up your opinion that this specific add would not be aired if the roles were reversed?

You are basing it on nothing.

Scioch

py2006 wrote: »

Ok this is the last time I am going to address you. That particular ad, I believe, would not be aired with roles reversed.

Other ads with attractive or scantily clad women have been aired yes. So has the David Beckham ads.

But the roles reversed doesnt work because that attitude is not prevalent in society. It wouldnt be seen as funny it would be seen as cutting too close to a serious issue. Same as selling the kids would even though I'm sure every kid has been threatened with being sold by their parents when you cause them grief.

Its funny only when people are assured of what the humor is and that it will not be viewed as anything else. Selling the husband doesnt relate to anything in society other than the attitude of a frustrated woman wanting rid of her "useless" husband and doing it in a funny way.

Selling a woman wouldnt be made not because it wouldnt be seen to be degrading the woman but because it can be related to other things in society such as sexual exploitation. So its not double standards its two completely different scenarios.

iptba

LordSmeg wrote: »

Its funny only when people are assured of what the humor is and that it will not be viewed as anything else. Selling the husband doesnt relate to anything in society other than the attitude of a frustrated woman wanting rid of her "useless" husband and doing it in a funny way.

Slightly tangential but I think it's interesting how somebody in general would be more inclined to say a man or male spouse was "useless" than a woman or female spouse.*

I find the statistics on how women are much more likely to initiate divorce interesting, with slightly more than 2/3 of them being initiated by women in the US anyway, and "among college-educated couples, the percentages of divorces initiated by women is approximately 90%". (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce)
I have heard some men complain that their ex-wives said they were simply bored or didn't find the man interesting anymore. And Warren Farrell describes men as the disposable sex, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Male_Power .

---

* That's my impression. I'm sure some people can/may disagree. Some research did show, "Unemployment Can Spell Divorce for Men, But Not Women"

The possibility of losing your job is bad enough. But for men, unemployment status can also make it more likely their wives will divorce them, a new study finds.

http://www.livescience.com/14705-husbands-employment-threatens-marriage.html

Scioch

When I said the wife may see the man as a useless husband I was pretty much referring to the role of the man in the household. Useless in the way he helps or contributes at home.

Its a little bit dated now I think but still holds a lot of sway in popular opinion and culture. Take most sitcoms/programs of married couples, the man after doing his days work just wants a beer and to be left alone and forgets to take out the garbage or fix the shelf or whatever. The woman gets increasingly frustrated about having to push him into pulling his weight around the house. And when he skives off for a round of golf she hits the roof and throws him out.

Its been done to death in TV and this ad just puts a twist on it.

iptba

Just watching an episode of the Bill on RTE Player (10/7/2012, Model Murder part 2; around 4:15)

Men are like dogs, Jo, if you pat them on the back once in a while, they become a lot more cooperative

DonQuay1

donfers wrote: »

Posts like this are precisely the problem and the one above asking me if it made me feel less like a man

no doubt, we are all wonderfully well-adjusted folk here right , yet i just feel bad for the increasing numbers of men with feelings of low self-worth, the increasing numbers of suicides etc. who see that stuff like this ad is basically regarded as OK and if someone objects then they are told to "get over it" or their masculinity is questioned simply because they are highlighting a huge failing in the media culture - the largely uncontested constant maligning and mocking of men

Am i saying ads like this make men commit suicide? Absolutely not

Am I saying that the acceptance of ads like this and responses to questioning it like "get over it" contribute to a growing feeling of worthlessness and alienation among some men? Yes I am, I have sympathy for them and I don't like that ads like this are deemed fair game - that's it.

Umm .... I think the comment 'get over it' ... is a 'code blue' here!!

http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/

iptba

DonQuay1 wrote: »

Umm .... I think the comment 'get over it' ... is a 'code blue' here!!

http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/

Wow, that's some list.

I find it easier to have a "hard neck" by taking part in internet discussions - it's much easier to not be put off by any such attempts online, and then learn how to spot them quickly in r/l debates.

iptba

The Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland ruling:

http://www.asai.ie/complaint_view.asp?CID=999&BID=48

Bulletin 12/4
Batch No. 209
Ref 18851
Product Miscellaneous
Advertiser DoneDeal.ie
Agency
Medium TV and Radio

Complaint

The complainants objected to the suggestion of a human being sold in the advertisement. While many of the complainants recognised the intended humour in the advertisement they did not consider it was appropriate to manipulate this topic for commercial gain in an advertisement.

Complainants considered the advertisement to be offensive on grounds of sexism and gender inequality. They also objected to the depiction of the male in the advertisement because they said it was demeaning, crude, derisory, discriminatory and unacceptable.

Some complainants were of the view that the advertisement trivialised human trafficking, slavery and prostitution.

Other complainants commented on the national male suicide figures and considered that the advertising portrayed men as pet-like, useless or inferior and such degradation was unhelpful to this situation.

2006 Code
2.15 2.16 2.18

2002 Code


Response

The advertisers considered that it was firstly important to set out that the campaign was intended as a piece of comedy. They said that the humour in the ad relied on the absurdity of the situation and the punch line explicitly stated that “you cannot sell or buy your husband on DoneDeal”.

They said that the objective of this campaign was to raise awareness about the DoneDeal website in a humorous way and to reflect the fun and quirky brand personality of DoneDeal.

They explained that DoneDeal was a young, indigenous company based in Wexford and that this was their first major advertising campaign. They said that they pride themselves on their equitable nature and that they always endeavoured to give back to Irish society. DoneDeal operate a charity of the Month initiative where they designate a charity every second month to receive €1 from every ad placed. Over the last two years over €250,000 has been raised through this initiative.

The advertisers said that they apologised sincerely if the ad caused offence. They said that it was not their intention to upset viewers because such offence would be contrary to their beliefs and to what the company stood for. They reiterated that the single campaign objective was to create awareness and ‘talkability’ in a humorous fashion.

The advertisers addressed the complaints under the following Code sections:

2.15
As per the above, the advertisers said that the issue of selling husbands wasn’t a widespread societal issue in Ireland and the situation depicted in the campaign was therefore completely absurd and unrealistic. They did not encourage this type of behaviour. They considered therefore that the advertisement was not offensive to men.

2.16
They said that the advertisement depicted two characters in a comic situation which was not in any way meant to be taken literally. They pointed out that the ad actively discouraged people from taking the ad literally or seriously by explicitly stating “You cannot sell or buy husbands on DoneDeal”.

They said that in advertising, brands would often step into an unrealistic world to illustrate their point in a humorous manner. When the ad was created they specifically set out to portray a situation that was sufficiently absurd and extreme so that viewers would not take it at face value. The ad had tested well with their panels and at no stage of consumer testing had such concerns been raised.

They provided the following examples in other advertising campaigns which they said used the same humour mechanism.
• Snickers “Divas” advertising
• Lynx “Island” advertising
• McDonalds “Moisturiser” advertising.
In these examples, they contended that the advertisers focus on product features, then exaggerate them and use the dynamics of gender to a humorous effect. While they did not question that some people were offended by the ads, they said given the subjective and arbitrary nature of advertising, they felt that the ads had been well received by the vast majority of viewers because they were not taken literally.

They also pointed out that a woman was being shown selling her husband in the ad, which was making an extreme and irrational decision. They again reiterated that the overriding message in the ad was that you can buy and sell almost anything on DoneDeal except husbands. They made sure to stress this point and restore reality at the end by explicitly stating “You cannot sell or buy husbands on DoneDeal”.

2.17
They said that the storyline in the ad did not put the characters in the same situation and it did not portray an outcome that was dependant on the characters gender. They therefore did not consider the campaign was in breach of the gender equality principle.

They considered that while the wife in the advertisement could have been classified as ‘bossy’, the situation was so extreme and comical that it couldn’t be taken literally.

2.18
They did not consider that the advertisement had subjected any beliefs, rites or practices to ridicule. And given the humoristic tone and the absurdity of the situation, they did not consider the advertising could have been genuinely hurtful to men.

Finally they said that they had received a lot of positive feedback from viewers who felt that such a piece of comedy brought a bit of relief in the current economic climate. They submitted a copy of such a letter to the ASAI Secretariat for their reference.

Conclusion
Complaints Not Upheld.

The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaints and the advertisers’ response.

The Complaints Committee acknowledged that human trafficking was a real and serious issue concerning both males and females both nationally and internationally. They were also aware of national male suicide figures which showed that the rate of death by suicide was four times greater in males than females.

They considered however that the situation portrayed in the advertisement was so unrealistic, it was not intended to be an endorsement of a particular type of behaviour. The noted the advertisers’ assertion that in explicitly stating that the selling of husbands was not permitted on DoneDeal clarified the humorous proposition of the advertisement.

The Complaints Committee took account of the volume of complaints received regarding the advertisements however, on balance they did not consider the advertisements were in breach of sections 2.15, 2.16, 2.17 or 2.17 of the Code.

GarIT

I suppose that's an acceptable outcome. The ad is rarely shown anymore anyway.