Males and how they are portrayed in the media including in advertising

iptba

Recent newspaper piece:

Why are men on TV always such fools?

Bumbling, childlike and the butt of endless jokes, why are men constantly portrayed as idiots on television, asks Dominic Utton http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/10692423/Why-are-men-on-TV-always-such-fools.html

I thought this might be an interesting topic to discuss and explore e.g. are men often portrayed badly in the media, and if so in what ways.

I don't watch as much tv as many people these days but it seems that with ads anyway, it's more likely that a man will be negatively portrayed.

Christy42

Terrible journalism. The plural of anecdote is not data. Picks examples that show his point and ignores everything else. The point about Joey was badly made given Phoebe is in the same show and is frequently dumber. In fact none of the characters cover themselves in glory in the common sense department in it.

why are men constantly portrayed as idiots on television

... In sitcoms, he presumably means? The answer being, because it's what makes the show funny?

Walter White wasn't exactly slipping on banana skins and Vic Mackey from The Shield didn't go around getting pies thrown in his face.

But yeah, Del Boy did fall over, and Richie and Eddie from Bottom did accidentally set themselves on fire a lot. It's the theme of the show!?

newport2

iptba wrote: »

I don't watch as much tv as many people these days but it seems that with ads anyway, it's more likely that a man will be negatively portrayed.

Because the majority of advertising is targeted at women. Hence, man = f&$kwit, woman = smart, beautiful and saving the day.

In TV shows, a man being portrayed as an idiot is, by and large, found funny by some people and not by others.
In TV shows, a woman being portrayed as an idiot is, by and large, found funny by some people and not by others, while highly offensive by another large group.

iptba

newport2 wrote: »

Because the majority of advertising is targeted at women. Hence, man = f&$kwit, woman = smart, beautiful and saving the day.

I remember hearing a female marketing person complain in a radio interview about how women were portrayed in ads in the past e.g. as sex objects. She then went on to "explain" that portraying men in a negative light in ads was ok if women were the primary audience for the product. Seems like double standards.

Panthro

I heard an advert on the radio lately, 3 men chatting.
First guy says something along the lines of "My mam's great..she does my washing"
The second guy "My mam does my washing, and cleans my car"
Third guy "My mam doesn't do anything..she's paid a servant to do all the work"

(above is the general gist of the conversation)

The advert...This Mother's Day get your Mam a scratchcard for the Lotto.
..........
...............
..........
I'm sorry but Who in the name of Fcuk is the target audience here?!
Is the aim to guilt trip males who live at home into buying a Lotto card for their mother?! Do adult females not live in the home house too no?!

I thought it was one of the most stupid adverts I'd heard in a long time personally.
Good God, whatever gang of experts who sat around a brainstorming table and came up with that tripe as their latest advert campaign should rounded up and fired, rapid.

Piliger

Today in the Guardian: "Domestic abuse: over 50,000 in UK at risk of murder or serious injury". Not a single mention of the thousands of men that are at risk ...

I posted a comment consisting solely of " .... and no men ?"

It was moderated and removed.

There's the Persil ad when the wife tells the husband he looks like a clown because of the golf clothes he's wearing, and not in a playful way.
And there's a fashion magazine free with a paper I think this weekend and in the ad they mention that part of it is "how to dress your man". Yeah, a guy telling his girlfriend what to wear would be just fine as well I'm sure.

miamee

Piliger wrote: »

Today in the Guardian: "Domestic abuse: over 50,000 in UK at risk of murder or serious injury". Not a single mention of the thousands of men that are at risk ...

I posted a comment consisting solely of " .... and no men ?"

It was moderated and removed.

I haven't seen the article but based on your post, could the 50,000 have included men?

(Just asking the question, as I say I haven't seen it)

BrianD3

No nonsense car insurance ad with the bearded useless idiot mumbling about the "super delux bonus package" and then how no nonsense saved his marriage.

ancapailldorcha

My current house doesn't have a TV. When I moved in, I thought I'd have to get one sorted ASAP but now, a few months on, I'm so glad I haven't, socially acceptable misandry in advertising and TV shows being one of the main reasons.

ancapailldorcha

Piliger wrote: »

Today in the Guardian: "Domestic abuse: over 50,000 in UK at risk of murder or serious injury". Not a single mention of the thousands of men that are at risk ...

I posted a comment consisting solely of " .... and no men ?"

It was moderated and removed.

Sounds like something they'd do, unfortunately.

newport2

Piliger wrote: »

Today in the Guardian: "Domestic abuse: over 50,000 in UK at risk of murder or serious injury". Not a single mention of the thousands of men that are at risk ...

I posted a comment consisting solely of " .... and no men ?"

It was moderated and removed.

Of course it was removed, they're only interested in one side of most arguments. The Guardian is basically a woman's magazine, not a newspaper.

DamoKen

newport2 wrote: »

Of course it was removed, they're only interested in one side of most arguments. The Guardian is basically a woman's magazine, not a newspaper.

Have to say the Guardian has really lost it in quality control. Very biased, sometimes extremely so, unsubstantiated opinion pieces passed off as serious journalism seem to be the rule and not exception these days.

No idea what they're playing at but I gave up viewing it as a serious newspaper quite a while back. I like to read pieces that make me think, engage me, and if not persuade me to agree with the other point of view, to at the least grant it consideration and see it's merits.

iptba

miamee wrote: »

Piliger wrote:

Today in the Guardian: "Domestic abuse: over 50,000 in UK at risk of murder or serious injury". Not a single mention of the thousands of men that are at risk ...

I posted a comment consisting solely of " .... and no men ?"

It was moderated and removed.

I haven't seen the article but based on your post, could the 50,000 have included men?

(Just asking the question, as I say I haven't seen it)

Here's the first line of the article:

The number of women and children deemed at high risk of being murdered or seriously injured by their partners or ex-partners in England and Wales exceeds 50,000, figures obtained by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary reveal.

Piliger

"An attempt by the Guardian last month to obtain the numbers of women and children deemed at the highest risk of violence, through Freedom of Information requests, resulted in a patchy and diffident response. "

The Guardian was only interested in how many women and children. No interest in men whatsoever.

We may mock the Daily Mail but they at least shone a light on the true situation here. And let's face it, men are far far less likely to report it and therefore the true figures are likely much higher than any study finds, as evidenced by this article in the Independent.

" The British Crime Survey found that only 10 per cent of male victims of domestic violence had told the police, compared with 29 per cent of women. More than a quarter of male victims tell no one what has happened to them, compared with 13 per cent of women."

Yet the Guardian, along with most of the mainstream media, and SKYNews continue to totally ignore violence against men. Only last month SKYNews did a series of reports during the day on domestic violence. In all five reports, there wasn't a single mention of male victims. The picture was one of women as innocent victims, men as savage abusers.

jellyboy

efb

McCoys, KFC, Snickers, Yorkie all those ads treat men like morons who need this cr@p to reenforce their masculinity

speedboatchase

Can we just use 'Men' instead of 'Males'? 'Males' isn't a word.

ongarboy

Maybe not quite the same thing but I noted another double standard example on Dragons Den last night where Gavan Duffy put in an offer for a guy and girl who were promoting their hair product. I felt Gavan was very patronizing to the guy on a number of occasions. The duo pitching their product were a couple and Gavan firstly asked wasn't this the wife's idea and questioned the relevance of the guy even though he did have input in the pitch and answering the questions. Even at the end when the couple accepted his investment offer, Gavan said to the guy "ah, I'm sure we'll find something for you to do as well". I'm pretty certain he would not have said this to the girl if she was the less prolific of the two.

pwurple

Peppa Pig.

Daddy pig is an unmitigated fat idiot who is a laughing stock in every episode I've seen. I absolutely hate it.

While shopping for a child's birthday gift at the weekend, I realised that toys aimed at boys have just as much gender stereotyping as the girls ones. God forbid you don't have an interest in diggers or guns as a boy. The fear of being labelled a sissy is extremely pervasive for boys.

iptba

speedboatchase wrote: »

Can we just use 'Men' instead of 'Males'? 'Males' isn't a word.

"Male" can be a noun as well as an adjective, so technically one can have "males". I thought I'd use this heading so as to also include boys.

Ann Landers

Christy42 wrote: »

The point about Joey was badly made given Phoebe is in the same show and is frequently dumber.

And the two smartest characters are male, Chandler and Ross.

Interestingly, I read before that the show's creators didn't envisage Joey as being dumb but Matt LeBlanc put that spin on it himself in his audition and they went with it. He wasn't originally intended to be dumb.

But anyway, yeah, in advertising definitely, men are portrayed as eejits a lot of the time.

newport2

Ann Landers wrote: »

And the two smartest characters are male, Chandler and Ross.

Interestingly, I read before that the show's creators didn't envisage Joey as being dumb but Matt LeBlanc put that spin on it himself in his audition and they went with it. He wasn't originally intended to be dumb.

But anyway, yeah, in advertising definitely, men are portrayed as eejits a lot of the time.

Chandler was smart, but Ross was as thick as two short planks. Maybe not academically, but in the real world Rachel and Monica ran rings around him and I thought they were far smarter. In everyday life anyway.

Christy42

newport2 wrote: »

Chandler was smart, but Ross was as thick as two short planks. Maybe not academically, but in the real world Rachel and Monica ran rings around him and I thought they were far smarter. In everyday life anyway.

Not by much, both had their own issues. The point stands that picking individual cases doesn't give proper data.


There is also the issue that men tend to be the leads, so if there is a comedic element they are most likely to provide it.

newport2

Christy42 wrote: »

Not by much, both had their own issues. The point stands that picking individual cases doesn't give proper data.


There is also the issue that men tend to be the leads, so if there is a comedic element they are most likely to provide it.

I agree. That was my point, ie it's not as simple as saying the two men Chandler and Ross were the smartest in the show. They were all different with different issues.

On another note, why do you think men tend to be the leads in comedies?

Christy42

newport2 wrote: »

I agree. That was my point, ie it's not as simple as saying the two men Chandler and Ross were the smartest in the show. They were all different with different issues.

On another note, why do you think men tend to be the leads in comedies?

Ah sorry thought you were suggesting something else.

I think men tend to be leads on most shows which would make them tend to be leads in comedies. I meant they tend to be leads. If it is a comedic show or has an element of comedy the lead is the most likely to be the one looking stupid. There are exceptions to this obviously but most shows I have seen have male leads (possible selection bias there).

Middle Man

Piliger wrote: »

Today in the Guardian: "Domestic abuse: over 50,000 in UK at risk of murder or serious injury". Not a single mention of the thousands of men that are at risk ...

I posted a comment consisting solely of " .... and no men ?"

It was moderated and removed.

That's a real case of feminist bigotry!

When are people going to learn that to place any group of humans beyond question is a big no no? When are people going to learn that brushing any misdemeanors under the carpet is a big no no? It's only in recent decades that we made precisely the same mistake with the clergy - they were men of God, beyond question and would never do anything bad - now we have: Women are much more evolved than men, beyond question ("as men are stupid") and would never do anything bad - after all, they are the victims.

Is history rapidly repeating itself? :rolleyes:

Middle Man

jellyboy wrote: »

Now, I do think the very concept of women not being able to go on about their business without abuse by builders etc is a total disgrace - this is unfortunately a known thing but I seriously don't think all builders behave like that - certainly, the vast majority of men wouldn't think of doing such a thing. In any case, men that are clearly not like minded can also be abused by builders.

As for the ad, I object to the stereotypical apartheid of men and women depicting men as these idiotic monsters abusing innocent women (some looking quite shaken) with absolutely no in between. Seriously, all these anti-men and anti-women ads should be banned!

Pat Mustard

efb wrote: »

McCoys, KFC, Snickers, Yorkie all those ads treat men like morons who need this cr@p to reenforce their masculinity

There are a few huge multinational companies that produce a large number of the brands that are common in Irish households; Unilever, Nestlé and Proctor & Gamble. If these companies got the message that consumers didn't want to see annoying ads, then the ads would change.

I don't buy the products of companies who broadcast ads that I find annoying. If enough people thought the same way, then those three companies might pay attention.

I mainly shop at Aldi because of the quick in/out shopping experience without long queues, but avoiding P&G, Unilever and Nestlé is another bonus.

So if the ads annoy you, don't buy the products. Don't allow them into the house. Boycott them.

iptba

The Mustard wrote: »

There are a few huge multinational companies that produce a large number of the brands that are common in Irish households; Unilever, Nestlé and Proctor & Gamble. If these companies got the message that consumers didn't want to see annoying ads, then the ads would change.

I don't buy the products of companies who broadcast ads that I find annoying. If enough people thought the same way, then those three companies might pay attention.

I mainly shop at Aldi because of the quick in/out shopping experience without long queues, but avoiding P&G, Unilever and Nestlé is another bonus.

So if the ads annoy you, don't buy the products. Don't allow them into the house. Boycott them.

To have maximum effect, probably best to contact the companies and tell they one is doing this.