Sexism on television

Feathers

JamJamJamJam wrote: »

I don't think that objectification of anybody is okay, but because men and women are coming from different places in society, and because the amount of female objectification is far higher than that of men, sexual objectification of women is a much more urgent problem.

Doesn't urgency though imply limited resources, so you deal with the more pressing need? It's not about expending extra effort, it's about applying the standards equally to all ads.

In the same way that if we had ads that were derogatory of black people & decided they shouldn't be shown on TV, we wouldn't keep showing derogatory ads about Asians until we got a flood of complaints in; instead the same metrics would be applied across the board for all races.

Zulu

JamJamJamJam wrote: »

By this I mean that male objectification isn't rife in the media, and a small amount is unlikely to cause society overall to reduce men to sexual objects.

Eh what? How can you claim this? Where is you objectificationometer? I would suggest that male objectification exists every bit as much as female objectification, and that you are simply trivialising it. I see media aimed at women objectifying men, and vise verse. Perhaps you manage to ignore female-centric media?

Particularly since the media tends to take a very male view from the start, rather than a neutral view.

How so?

Women's objectification, which is far more common,

Is it? Really? Or is it just more "established"?

is related to the higher rates of female harassment victims, higher rates of female domestic abuse victims and the high level of rape experienced by women.

This is extremely tenuous. At best. But perhaps I misunderstand. When you say "higher rates of female whatever", do you mean higher by comparison to male (I hope not)? If so, how do you justify this?

Especially when we see males not reporting; when we so focus groups and funding being pointed towards scrutinising female issues but not male.

I don't think that objectification of anybody is okay, but because men and women are coming from different places in society... ...sexual objectification of women is a much more urgent problem.

Ah right, so it's acceptable to ignore a crime, because....

Evil triumphs when good people do nothing.

Frankly (and I accept you are playing devils advocate) it's attitudes like this that do far more harm to equality than good.

newport2

JamJamJamJam wrote: »

Sort of just playing devil's advocate here, but the comparison to a workmate being paid more might be more complete if we said that your better-paid workmate also needs the money really badly, but you're getting by okay!

Would you be happy with your colleagues getting twice what you're on if your boss said "They need it more than you" to you in your review? Whether this was true or not, I don't think you would be, nor should you be and that's the point. Whether it's worse or better for either, double-standards still shouldn't be applied.

Anyway, as previously stated, men being portrayed as stupid and useless with children would bother me a lot more than them being objectified.

Guyanachronism

JamJamJamJam wrote: »

Sort of just playing devil's advocate here, but the comparison to a workmate being paid more might be more complete if we said that your better-paid workmate also needs the money really badly, but you're getting by okay! By this I mean that male objectification isn't rife in the media, and a small amount is unlikely to cause society overall to reduce men to sexual objects. Particularly since the media tends to take a very male view from the start, rather than a neutral view. Women's objectification, which is far more common, is related to the higher rates of female harassment victims, higher rates of female domestic abuse victims and the high level of rape experienced by women.

I don't think that objectification of anybody is okay, but because men and women are coming from different places in society, and because the amount of female objectification is far higher than that of men, sexual objectification of women is a much more urgent problem.

However, non-sexual, physical violence against men in the media is everywhere and that isss a major problem. I always think of the scene at the start of Pirates of the Caribbean 1, when the Pirates raid the town where Elizabeth lives, and tens or hundreds of innocent men are beaten or killed, and one of the pirates finds Elizabeth and slaps her across her face, and only then violence becomes a problem!

I think you have a point, female sexual objectification is so pervasive that it's a more serious issue but I do there are problems with the depiction of men, it isn't sexual objectification, that's rare and what does occur is either tongue in cheek (yoghurt ad with fireman, minstrels ad) or clearly made by men (diet coke ad, multiple women drooling over one man). The issues isn't to remove all sexual objectification (it's fine in moderation, when applied equal, human body is a wonderful thing) but diversify the depiction of both genders.

The main problem for men from my POV is the depiction of male gender roles, self worth and value is seen from the ability to get women (Paco Robanne ad is the real offender at the moment) amass wealth or be really manly. You never see men eating yoghurts or having stomach problems. There is even ads that appeal to the notion of "being a real man", what ad has the tagline "man food for man stuff". All mens toiletries have to be sold as if they're industrial grade tools, anyone see the lynx sponge? it looks like part of a chain saw. These depictions of men is the equivalent of things targeted at women being pink and frilly.

Icemancometh

Guyanachronism wrote: »

I think you have a point, female sexual objectification is so pervasive that it's a more serious issue but I do there are problems with the depiction of men, it isn't sexual objectification, that's rare and what does occur is either tongue in cheek (yoghurt ad with fireman, minstrels ad) or clearly made by men (diet coke ad, multiple women drooling over one man). The issues isn't to remove all sexual objectification (it's fine in moderation, when applied equal, human body is a wonderful thing) but diversify the depiction of both genders.

The main problem for men from my POV is the depiction of male gender roles, self worth and value is seen from the ability to get women (Paco Robanne ad is the real offender at the moment) amass wealth or be really manly. You never see men eating yoghurts or having stomach problems. There is even ads that appeal to the notion of "being a real man", what ad has the tagline "man food for man stuff". All mens toiletries have to be sold as if they're industrial grade tools, anyone see the lynx sponge? it looks like part of a chain saw. These depictions of men is the equivalent of things targeted at women being pink and frilly.

I don't have a problem with the Yorkie ad (that's the man fuel for man stuff). I think it's a nice riff on action movies' OTT nature, and something we've all done (as in carrying all the shopping in one go). It's the type of ads that just parrot the "aren't men useless" tag lines. The Bord Gais ad in particular pisses me off.

eireannBEAR

Guys firstly white men and then all men are being attacked from all sides of society by the ubber liberal media(who funnily enough are run by white men).
Our group has most of the worlds power and it gave minorities and women just enough power to attack us,this is to be expected. wages and laws should be equal,car insurance should be equal,an irish citizen born or unborn,male or female should be equal.

It would drives you insane as it would be relatively easy to enforce mutual equality in a country such as ireland.

Guyanachronism

Icemancometh wrote: »

I don't have a problem with the Yorkie ad (that's the man fuel for man stuff). I think it's a nice riff on action movies' OTT nature, and something we've all done (as in carrying all the shopping in one go).

You can see the humour in the yorkie ad but not in the minstrels and yoghurt ad with the firemen?

The use our product and be manly is a persistent and I think harmful trope.

Icemancometh wrote: »

It's the type of ads that just parrot the "aren't men useless" tag lines. The Bord Gais ad in particular pisses me off.

As other posters have pointed out, ads about domestic stuff is insulting to both sexes. O lads leave it to the women, they know their way around the house.

Guyanachronism

Zulu wrote: »

Eh what? How can you claim this? Where is you objectificationometer? I would suggest that male objectification exists every bit as much as female objectification, and that you are simply trivialising it. I see media aimed at women objectifying men, and vise verse. Perhaps you manage to ignore female-centric media?

We should pick a window of time for viewing TV and see how many cases of male sexual objectification we can pick out compared to female.

Zulu wrote: »

How so?
Is it? Really? Or is it just more "established"?
This is extremely tenuous. At best. But perhaps I misunderstand. When you say "higher rates of female whatever", do you mean higher by comparison to male (I hope not)? If so, how do you justify this?

Again if you walked around taking note of advertising and other messages, which do you think you would see more of sexy women being used to sell something or men? I particularly like the Sunday Independent magazine constant mocking of the use of Irish models in the most bizarre promotion campaigns.

Zulu wrote: »

Especially when we see males not reporting; when we so focus groups and funding being pointed towards scrutinising female issues but not male.

Evidence please? Where is this phantom funding coming from?

Zulu wrote: »

Ah right, so it's acceptable to ignore a crime, because....

Evil triumphs when good people do nothing.

Frankly (and I accept you are playing devils advocate) it's attitudes like this that do far more harm to equality than good.

You get a little crazy here. Maybe you should just focus on mens issues rather than making it a men versus women thing.

Panthro

Mod Note:

Guyanachronism wrote: »

We should pick a window of time for viewing TV and see how many cases of male sexual objectification we can pick out compared to female.

No, we shouldn't.
Let me make this perfectly clear to you, this IS NOT a comparison thread between the two sexes, it IS a discussion on male sexism on television, ONLY.

Guyanachronism wrote: »

You get a little crazy here. Maybe you should just focus on mens issues rather than making it a men versus women thing.

Tone back on the attitude here and now or I'll take action.
No more warnings.

Icemancometh

Guyanachronism wrote: »

You can see the humour in the yorkie ad but not in the minstrels and yoghurt ad with the firemen?

The use our product and be manly is a persistent and I think harmful trope.



As other posters have pointed out, ads about domestic stuff is insulting to both sexes. O lads leave it to the women, they know their way around the house.

Don't know the yoghurt ad, but the minstrel ad is fine by me. There is an element of subjectivity to all this of course.

Moreover, I don't agree that the ads are equally offensive. Certainly women are pigeonholed, but at least they're displayed positively. Men are depicted as useless and clueless in most ads.

Icemancometh

<After a couple of muddled replies to this thread, wanted to put together a more coherent version of my thoughts>

I'm not bothered by ads which use male sexuality or objectify men to sell products. Don't really take notice of them to be honest (well I'm not the target audience mostly). Man is a sexual creature, and if advertisers want to use that to shift products, don't see why it should be off limits.

I find that most ads that have a male character, tend to have him as gormless (and that's being kind). The Bord Gais ad, the Done deal ad. There's and ad for some financial product with a classroom thought by a kid (a boy in fairness). Of course the woman knows the answer and the man can't get anything right. In an culture where boys are consistently doing worse than girls in the classroom, we have that reinforced in the media. If you were to draw your impression of Irish men from advertisements (and admittedly, no one does, and it forms a small part of pop culture), it would be a thoroughly negative one.

awec

This post has been deleted.

Henry9

I see there's a big push in some quarters to tone down the more 'aggressive' tone of stand up comedians towards women. In particular the 'rape joke' element seems to falling out of fashion. Frankie Boyle isn't on TV anymore, and Jimmy Carr was heckled quite vigorously about it (amongst other things) at a gig in London recently.
The thing is, the 'rape joke' has been a staple of comedy for decades.

I can remember a scene from the Simpsons where Sideshow Bob collects an award while in prison. It's awarded by Krusty the Clown who says 'Don't drop that thing in the shower Bob!'.
What's that? Oh right a punchline about forced sodomisation. In a cartoon. Which you might see at lunchtime on some channels.
Outcry? No.

The same happens on HIGNFY quite regularly. If the story is about a white politician or public figure being sent to prison for fiddling expenses or what not, you can be sure the punchline will be about the showers, or being 'married' to a cell mate etc etc.
i.e. you can look forward to regular raping while you're there.

Recently Conrad Black was on and the presenter made the joke TO HIS FACE. I can't imagine a female politician being on and being joshed about the male prison guards raping them every night.

Henry9

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not just Don't Tell the Bride, any young guy brought up watching TV is told that however mental a woman goes about a wedding it's perfectly acceptable and sure **** it, who needs savings?

That's because it's HER BIG DAY. It's the mans job to pay for it, put up with put downs from all and sundry, and indulge every mood swing and unreasonable request.
Because women are all emotional you see.

tsiehta wrote:

There have been several male judges on America's Next Top Model.

Yes but they're probably gay which gives them immunity because
a) they're not heterosexual
b) Gay men are sooooooo bitchy or something

cantdecide wrote:

I remember watching Grey's Anatomy because a housemate was a fan for a while. I'm not a big TV fan and was happy to stare at the TV at that time of evening. I don't have examples or evidence. I don't even remember the characters but I just remembering the women were mostly portrayed as proactive go-getters and the males were shown as spineless, fickle or borderline sociopathic. It got too annoying too quickly so I went for evening walks instead!

They just know their audience is all.

Anyway advertising isn't more sexist towards one or the other, I think it's equally bad in it's own way towards both.
I mean if it works (and it must do if they spend so much on it) then we're all pretty much morons.
Razor blades and yoghurt, say no more.

iptba

Advertising is a lot about playing on people's insecurities. Men and women can be on average more insecure, for one reason or another, about different things, so both can be targeted. However, away from such scenarios, there seems to be not infrequent gratuitous negative portrayals of men.

tsiehta

Henry9 wrote: »

Yes but they're probably gay which gives them immunity because
a) they're not heterosexual
b) Gay men are sooooooo bitchy or something

Of the 5 male judges that have been on America's Next Top Model, two are straight, two are gay, and I could not find data on the other in my 5 minutes of researching. Funnily enough, it appears that straight men are harshly criticizing women's looks on TV viewed by millions, and our feminist indoctrinated society hasn't been losing it's mind and crying sexism.


Oh, and by the way:
a) Can a man not be interested in fashion without you making assumptions about their sexuality? This is quite ironic in a thread about sexism against men.

b) What do you mean by "soooooo bitchy"? This comes across as homophobic and dismissive of gay men.

c) Are we talking about sexism or anti-heterosexual prejudice (lmfao) now?

cantdecide

The Karcher window cleaner ad. Male window cleaner comes to wash the windows and is outdone by the clever woman with the clever gadget... which all professional window cleaners will adopt forthwith* leaving Mr.Man with a stupid look on his face.














*not

Sulla Felix

cantdecide wrote: »

The Karcher window cleaner ad. Male window cleaner comes to wash the windows and is outdone by the clever woman with the clever gadget... which all professional window cleaners will adopt forthwith* leaving Mr.Man with a stupid look on his face.

I find that ad quite ironic, because as we all know* it'll be the man in the house who fills the shed with useless gadgets on a regular basis.

*yay, stereotypes :P

py2006

Take Me Out is probably the perfect example of the double standards in the media and entertainment industry when it comes to sexism and objectification. Yet this is a popular program among you women and most would not see an issue with it. And yes, roles reversed and there would be HUGE offence caused.

I was watching Coronation Street (I think) one day and and basically two female characters were mocking at the suggestion that the male characters penis was/could be very small.

In that show, you will notice that nearly all the male characters are dim and pathetic and the female characters are all strong.

Panthro

Mod:
Posts deleted.
Can ye please stay "On Topic" for the shyts n giggles, and not turn the thread into the Male vs Female thread?
Cheers.

GalwayGuy2

Hmmm, should we start including sexism in other forms of media? Such as books?

You'd be surprised how many YA authors seem to hold sexist beliefs.

D'Agger

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Hmmm, should we start including sexism in other forms of media? Such as books?

You'd be surprised how many YA authors seem to hold sexist beliefs.

Seeing as we're struggling to keep things OT as it is, I'm going to go with the below:

Mister R

I actually thought about this today before seeing this thread. Having watched some "gritty" dramas recently I realised that in some of them the men are always portrayed in a totally negative way. In What Remains currently airing on the BBC aside from the Copper (even he's questionable) every male character is either a sexual deviant or keeping a woman locked up for 5 years.

In The Fall the majority of male characters were negative, the killer, policemen who drops their pants at the drop of a hat, men running prostitution rings, and men who beat the crap out of prostitutes. One male cop seemed ok but that was it and don't be shocked if he does something ridiculous in season 2. On the other hand Gillian Anderson was some female social justice warrior along with her sidekick female partner and cool doctor friend.

Now I totally see how other dramas are sexist to women like Mistress the US version but that show is also aimed at women in some strange way despite them all being idiots. But in regard the gritty dramas I mentioned above I don't see why the men have to be such negative character and the females so super strong or victims. In the 70s/80s US TV made Cagney and Lacey, Bionic Woman and Charlie's Angels without making the male characters totally deplorable but the women were still the stars who got the bad guys week on week. Maybe its a US/UK difference in current TV production but its something I've noticed more than I used to.

miamee

Another "aren't men all thick" t.v. ad, this time for the Lottery. I couldn't hear all of it but the basic premise was girl on beach in exotic location calls boss to say she is 'sick'. Boss asks what is wrong with her now, she says "it's eh Women's Problems" and he tells her to take as long as she likes and hangs up the phone as soon as possible :rolleyes:

It's doing neither sexes any favours really but particularly the man as he is portrayed as clueless, embarrassed, doesn't ask for a doctor's note or whatever. Maybe you'd have to see the ad to understand what I'm trying to say He is basically her 'big thick' boss and isn't she very clever for winning the lottery and taking some sneaky time off from her silly boss for a holiday, etc.

Mister R

I saw it. Apparently men can't comprehend women's problems and brush it off anyway they can, its actually something that has popped up on a few TV shows too. Woman says she has "women's problems" and the guy gets awkward and ignores any previous problem or issue he had.

I haven't encountered many women doing that so I dunno if that is the case or not in the real world. I'd imagine most women won't just blurt that kind of thing out though either.

SeventySix

I think the ad is equally sexist against women, portraying them as shameless liars, lazy and devious. She is exploiting the fact that her boss is uncomfortable talking about periods. It is not something I have ever heard of a professional woman doing, its embarrassing to think that people think that working women act like that.

Guyanachronism

Anyone see the new ad for google tablets or their OS or whatever. It's a student, afraid of public speaking, starts researching, watching famous speeches etc. eventually building up the courage to speak in front of his class. It's quite heart warming and relatable.

I just think it's stupid how the ad ends with a female student eyeing him, with the last scene being him looking up "how to ask a girl out". Surely the achievemnt of over coming a fear and suceeding is sufficient without having to also get the woman?

The persistent message of measuring self worth through female attention is stupid and potentially harmful.

D'Agger

Guyanachronism wrote: »

Surely the achievemnt of over coming a fear and suceeding is sufficient without having to also get the woman?

The persistent message of measuring self worth through female attention is stupid and potentially harmful.

I think you're looking too much into it tbh - the girl gives the guy a smile and he wants to ask her out - google helped him with his previous fear, why not help him get over this.

I don't think there's an agenda or subliminal undertones of men needing the attention of women to get by etc.

Flaker

Mister R wrote: »

I actually thought about this today before seeing this thread. Having watched some "gritty" dramas recently I realised that in some of them the men are always portrayed in a totally negative way. In What Remains currently airing on the BBC aside from the Copper (even he's questionable) every male character is either a sexual deviant or keeping a woman locked up for 5 years.

In The Fall the majority of male characters were negative, the killer, policemen who drops their pants at the drop of a hat, men running prostitution rings, and men who beat the crap out of prostitutes. One male cop seemed ok but that was it and don't be shocked if he does something ridiculous in season 2. On the other hand Gillian Anderson was some female social justice warrior along with her sidekick female partner and cool doctor friend.

Now I totally see how other dramas are sexist to women like Mistress the US version but that show is also aimed at women in some strange way despite them all being idiots. But in regard the gritty dramas I mentioned above I don't see why the men have to be such negative character and the females so super strong or victims. In the 70s/80s US TV made Cagney and Lacey, Bionic Woman and Charlie's Angels without making the male characters totally deplorable but the women were still the stars who got the bad guys week on week. Maybe its a US/UK difference in current TV production but its something I've noticed more than I used to.

I have to say I actually think you're wrong on your points on both these programs.

In What Lies Beneath, one of the "sexual deviants" is a woman and one of those who keeps another hidden is a woman. Can't say too much more without giving away the plot.

Also, in The Fall, Gillian Anderson's character drops her pants as easily as any of the men. She's cold, unfeeling, obsessed - shades of the killer in there maybe?

I just don't think it's all black and white in those examples you gave.

Mister R

In The Fall her sexual promiscuity isn't presented in a negative manner but both of her male colleagues are, mainly cause they're married but because her character gives these feminist speeches every now and again her inappropriate behaviour is apparently fine. When women have sex "like men" they're praised but when men have sex like men they're hated on so apparently now only women are permitted to screw around in TV-land and get praise whereas men must now play moronic jocks or cuckold husbands.

I get on independent TV shows are designed for women cause advertisers know women spend more but its ridiculous how bias TV (especially British TV) has become to the point where the only way a female character is "bad" is if she attacks or is in conflict with another woman whereas the men are always evil, weak or moronic nowadays.

In What Lies Beneath you've got the journalist/rapist, cheating shoe salesman, creepy sex obsessed son, creepy teacher who is hooking up with the ex-student. The negative female character is a lesbian who are hardly know to ever receive positive portrayals on TV, most lesbians are portrayed as bitchy and harpy while wearing Armani trouser suits. I think this show however was less deliberate in its pro-woman anti-man agenda than The Fall which hasn't one male character who could be considered likable or positive.

Its why I love Game of Thrones so much, characters are individual and develop in a somewhat realistic manner despite it all being fantasy it seems those people might actually exist in the real world. The show has a good mix of personalities and character traits which is missing in most modern formulaic dramas.