REVERSE Sexism in ads

overdriver

Sexism isn't ok when women do it... Have you seen the little bits before Cornation Street where the woman won't share her chocolate with her boyfriend and is teasing him with it, then snatching them away? Wonder how that'd go down if the shoe were on the other foot??

Zombienosh

reverse sexism pfffffft
man thats everywhere, and thats life......

quad_red

be equality?

What you're talking about is sexism - whether it's by or against women is irrelevant.

eggshapedfred

its the fundamental rule of advertising:
men are stupid, women are smart

(though maybe that should be :
men are lazy, women are gullible....i dunno)

SprostonGreen

This has been going on for ages, its wrong.

Classic example is that ad for mortgages or some bank, Dad goes to the creche to pick up junior and starts pondering about the future, knocks on the window to draw attention to the kid. The creche lady brings out the actual son.

Of course our man would be too stupid to recognise his own son.

seamus

SprostonGreen wrote:

This has been going on for ages, its wrong.

Classic example is that ad for mortgages or some bank, Dad goes to the creche to pick up junior and starts pondering about the future, knocks on the window to draw attention to the kid. The creche lady brings out the actual son.

Of course our man would be too stupid to recognise his own son.

Yeah I thought that was a bit stupid alright. They spend most of the ad with him thinking about his son's future, trying to create a obvious sense of love for his son, then try to say he wouldn't recognise him. :rolleyes:

The fundamental thing here is that men don't complain. Men are 90%* less likely to take offence to anything, and if they do, they'll rarely show their righteous indignation. Women, on the other hand, particularly older women, are much more sensitive and easier offended and tend to bitch and moan about any of this kind of thing.

Female stereotypes have been bitched and moaned out of advertising. Male stereotypes haven't been. And since advertising is mostly aimed at women, male stereotypes and the latest Cosmo flavour of the month quick-fix fad or women's issue will be used to manipulate them.

As a man, I delight in that I have the strength to flick when the ads come on, whereas women don't. If there's no alternative to ads, it's up and coffee time.

*May not be a real statistic

Matthewthebig

It is the same in music videos. Some all female black garage group, Can't remember name, had some guy tied in his boxers to a chair and they were dancing around taunting. If it had been the other way the video would have been banned. Another perfect example is the cover of Smell The Glove by Spinal Tap. It was considered offensive so had to be made completely black!

simu

SprostonGreen wrote:

This has been going on for ages, its wrong.

Classic example is that ad for mortgages or some bank, Dad goes to the creche to pick up junior and starts pondering about the future, knocks on the window to draw attention to the kid. The creche lady brings out the actual son.

Of course our man would be too stupid to recognise his own son.

It's offensive to both genders imo because it pushes the stereotype that men aren't "good" with babies and suggests that this comes more naturally to women. Well, they don't say it directly but we assume that the child must have a mother too (given that ads usually stick to the status quo - whenever they break the mould, they do it very ostentatiously to show how amazingly modern the company must be) and it must be the mother who's getting saddled with most of the baby-work as surely, the father would recognise it straight away if he was looking after him 50% of the time the child wasn't in the creche.

I'm not actually offended at the ad because I have a life and all but it's fun breaking ads down and showing how they could be construed as being offensive to a given group, no?

Next: how Barry's tea ads are offensive to iguanas.:)

rubadub

quad_red wrote:

be equality?

What you're talking about is sexism - whether it's by or against women is irrelevant.

Exactly, being sexist against men in the media and advertising is so extreme/normal these days that many young people could rightly presume "reverse sexism" refers to being sexist against women. If half of the ads were reversed you would see boycotts all over the place.

I was unfortunate enough to see some of janet street porter in action on that celebrity show. If a man had said most of her stuff in reverse I doubt it would have went to air, she is a misandrist of the highest order, if any of the guys had said some of her comments in reverse I'd say she would have slit their throats in the night.

SprostonGreen

simu wrote:

It's offensive to both genders imo because it pushes the stereotype that men aren't "good" with babies and suggests that this comes more naturally to women. Well, they don't say it directly but we assume that the child must have a mother too (given that ads usually stick to the status quo - whenever they break the mould, they do it very ostentatiously to show how amazingly modern the company must be) and it must be the mother who's getting saddled with most of the baby-work as surely, the father would recognise it straight away if he was looking after him 50% of the time the child wasn't in the creche.

I wouldnt have seen it that way, but yeah, it makes sense. Bloody banks, they rip us off and then patronise us.

I think this can all be settled if just kill yer man from the Harvey Norman's radio commercial.

Pigman II

overdriver wrote:

Sexism isn't ok when women do it... Have you seen the little bits before Cornation Street where the woman won't share her chocolate with her boyfriend and is teasing him with it, then snatching them away? Wonder how that'd go down if the shoe were on the other foot??

I find (and I suspect it's due to conditioning and copied behaviour?) that most women who watch soaps already have an (at best) tenuous grasp of reality anyway. So let them have their 30 seconds where they can believe it actually isn't a male dominated world.

overdriver

Let's complain anyway, just to annoy the producers. Where's everybody's sense of mischeif gone? Women would complain like a shot.

Victor

SprostonGreen wrote:

"creche lady"

???

overdriver

What I mean is, unless we want our sons to grow up in a world where they are regarded by women as inferior, we have to get off our behinds and stop stereotypes evolving.

We don't see it as a serious enough issue, but men have lost their traditional roles. Now every advert you see sends the message, "women clever, men dumb". Why is that ok? It's not. Remember the Punto ad where the girl drives around her boyfriends possesions like a lunatic, almost knocking them over, smirking away confidently while he stnds there with his hands to his head in despair? Reverse it and its mental cruelty to women, you know? Its an appalling double standard. Young men commit suicide in their droves every year because they feel worthless. I'm not saying ads directly contribute to that, but it seems the only ads men "star" in these days are the ones where kids get knocked down by cars.


So why should we allow the media away with it? Women had a similar struggle in the 50's and 60's. Nowadays it wouldn't do to see a woman draped across the bonnet of a car, but we can see a women flirt with a builder while her boyfriend sleeps on in the passenger seat.

0utshined

Matthewthebig wrote:

It is the same in music videos. Some all female black garage group, Can't remember name, had some guy tied in his boxers to a chair and they were dancing around taunting. If it had been the other way the video would have been banned. Another perfect example is the cover of Smell The Glove by Spinal Tap. It was considered offensive so had to be made completely black!

What's wrong with being sexy?

Invader Zim

overdriver wrote:

What I mean is, unless we want our sons to grow up in a world where they are regarded by women as inferior, we have to get off our behinds and stop stereotypes evolving.

Cop on.

They won't. It is and always (due to biological constraints) will be a male dominated world.

Men know this, that is why the ""reverse sexism" ad's are tolerated.

IV

Hugh Hefner

What biological constraints are you speaking of? Men seem to be the ones on the downhill: Sperm counts down, average size down, women able to have a baby without males (as long as they have a girl).

Luckily we still lead most professions due to the fact that mens' brains are more suited to specialising in one thing and being great at it than womens' which multitask more but are generally worse at any one particular thing than the main males in that field.

simu

Hugh Hefner wrote:

average size down,.

Really? :eek: Do you have linkage?

Luckily we still lead most professions due to the fact that mens' brains are more suited to specialising in one thing and being great at it than womens' which multitask more but are generally worse at any one particular thing than the main males in that field.

That's a pretty vague explanation plus what you're saying is that women can't excell at things - I disagree.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

women can excell at things, but women generally even when they do excell at one particular thing are still far better at multi tasking than most men. We just can't do it. One thing at a time.. please

simu

Where are people getting this?

I've only ever heard it mentioned on some ad on TV so I don't take the theory all that seriously.

Hugh Hefner

simu wrote:

Really?That's a pretty vague explanation plus what you're saying is that women can't excell at things - I disagree.

No I'm saying in general/on average. They can excel but a man's brain is better designed to excel in one area e.g maths.

simu wrote:

Where are people getting this?

I've only ever heard it mentioned on some ad on TV so I don't take the theory all that seriously.

It comes from the old hunter gatherer humans. Men would do the hunting (a somewhat specific thing) while the less physical (although they were far more physical than male body builders today) worked on all the home workings e.g. cooking, child raising.

I'm not being sexist, it'a the way it was done. Ask an archaeologist.

overdriver

Invader Zim wrote:

Cop on.

They won't. It is and always (due to biological constraints) will be a male dominated world.

Men know this, that is why the ""reverse sexism" ad's are tolerated.

IV

It's already happening. You try saying its a man's world after you've been to a family court, for instance. See how equal we are there.

simu

Hugh Hefner wrote:

No I'm saying in general/on average. They can excel but a man's brain is better designed to excel in one area e.g maths.

But maths itself is made up of lots of different areas...

ixoy

simu wrote:

Where are people getting this?.

I've heard it too but can't tell where. I think men are better at spatial co-ordination, reading stuff like maps etc.

I still think the original post has a point. I've always bitched about a Boots ad I saw a few years ago. In it, when the man sees a woman wearing Boots makeup, the effect punches him - the man is seen flying through the air, smashing into a window or being "punched" down the stairs. I'd wonder how it'd have gone down if the Lynx Effect caused a woman's face to be punched and have her smash down stairs or through a car window...

simu

Hugh Hefner wrote:

It comes from the old hunter gatherer humans. Men would do the hunting (a somewhat specific thing) while the less physical (although they were far more physical than male body builders today) worked on all the home workings e.g. cooking, child raising.

I'm not being sexist, it'a the way it was done. Ask an archaeologist.

Do you have linkage tho?

Plus, how does this tie in with actual brain physiology?

RuggieBear

Hugh Hefner wrote:

Ask an archaeologist.

I believe they will all be busy on the M3 for the next few years.....

Hugh Hefner

simu wrote:

Do you have linkage tho?

Plus, how does this tie in with actual brain physiology?

No I don't. Find it yourself.

It ties in because we evolved doing those things so our brains adapted and became suited to those things (and still, for the most part, are).

ixoy

OK simu I got this from the Wall Street Journal url="http://www.careerjournal.com/columnists/workfamily/20030321-workfamily.html"]link[/url a respectable publication:

While many people believe women are better multitaskers and the notion has been advanced in recent books, the differences may be more cultural than cognitive. In interviews, several top neuroscientists and cognitive psychologists said there isn't any proof of female multitasking superiority. "I don't know of any evidence of that," says Roger Gorski, a professor of neurobiology at the University of California, Los Angeles, whose pioneering studies revealed structural differences in men's and women's brains.

In animal research, male rats have actually proved somewhat more single-minded. Duke University professor Christina Williams found female rats learn multiple cues to navigate a maze, scanning both the landmarks of the maze and its geometry, or angles and distances. But male rats don't bother to learn more than one cue -- the geometry. The study suggests females may multitask better in spatial-navigation tasks.

Yet among human subjects in multitasking studies, University of Michigan psychology professor David Meyer says, "the two sexes typically come out about the same, on average." Even among air-traffic controllers, the Top Guns of multitasking -- of whom nearly one-fifth are women -- researchers don't see differences, says the Federal Aviation Administration's Carol Manning.

Larger, more rigorous studies would be needed to prove any gender differences, says Jean-Claude Dreher of the National Institute of Mental Health, co-author of a multitasking study last fall in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.

One possible basis for the widespread belief in female superiority, Dr. Meyer suggests, is that women get more practice multitasking on the Second Shift. Also, consciously or not, many men choose not to multitask at home. Shawn Faunce can multitask just fine on the job, running multiple computer applications at once. But the Fairfax, Va., programmer says, "I'm less results-oriented in my personal life." By the time he gets home, he tends to relax and focus on one thing at a time.

So it appears to be a myth... Do you feel better Simu?

simu

I'll get around to it.

But until then I'd rather not believe in uber-vague generalisations.

simu

ixoy wrote:

So it appears to be a myth... Do you feel better Simu?

Wow, better than ecstacy reading that.

Hugh Hefner

ixoy wrote:

<the article>

Right so. Men are better at doing one thing and equal at multitasking. I'm happy. LOL.

Syth

I agree with wjhat most people have said, sexism should eb wrong no matter who does it.

GuanYin

Hugh Hefner wrote:

What biological constraints are you speaking of? Men seem to be the ones on the downhill: Sperm counts down, average size down, women able to have a baby without males (as long as they have a girl).

Luckily we still lead most professions due to the fact that mens' brains are more suited to specialising in one thing and being great at it than womens' which multitask more but are generally worse at any one particular thing than the main males in that field.

:rolleyes:

I don't even know where to begin correcting you....

Hugh Hefner

Yeah so, back on topic. The advertising industry's casual sexism is wrong and can get annoying. I try to take no notice but maybe I should be more indignant.

Aoibheann

re multitasking: women may or may not be better at it. Thing is, we're not as lazy so we tend to actually try and do more things at once.

also re one task: no way are men better at just one task. That is complete bull****. Yes, it is. Don't try and argue with me. I will not stop.

simu

Ads pander to stupidity a lot (sexist ads being one subgroup of a larger group of stupid ads) but surely they must also lose customers by annoying the more intelligent ones? Why don't they try to make intelligent, witty ads that also look cool enough to impress those too stupid to understand all of what's going on?

Hugh Hefner

Because we are a minority.

Invader Zim

overdriver wrote:

It's already happening. You try saying its a man's world after you've been to a family court, for instance. See how equal we are there.

:rolleyes:

Thats the way it's always been.
It's only reacently been highlighted because more men now take in interest in their sprogs.

overdriver

Invader Zim wrote:

:rolleyes:

Thats the way it's always been.
It's only reacently been highlighted because more men now take in interest in their sprogs.

Cultural change again! I've done the stay-at home (work nights) dad thing, and the supports aren't there if you're male. If you're a single mum, you're a hero, if you're a single dad, there's something wrong with you...

But to get back to the topic, we SHOULD complain loudly when we see it happening in ads, just to keep the playing field level.If you see something that would cause uproar if it were reversed, e-mail the ITC. People's views are influenced by the media, tv in particular, more than ever before these days. Men are constantly being depicted as stupid, hapless, intellectually inferior. . Its not on, even if its the "way its always been".

For instance, I've been in the toilets in a nightclubs where women think its ok to come into the gents if the ladies is full. Try it the other way round, see what happens. I was in Break For The Border one night and the gents was full of girls queueing to use the cubicle. They were taunting and jeering the guys at the urinal over willy size etc. Why is it ok for men to have no privacy and not the other way round? Ad to that that the guys couldn't take a dump with the lines of women at the one cubicle there...

Ads are one aspect of this trend we CAN have an inpact on, if we complain enough. You know?

Victor

overdriver wrote:

e-mail the ITC.

Or the ASAI even www.asai.ie

overdriver

Victor wrote:

Or the ASAI even www.asai.ie

Cool. The Coronation street thing is not an ad though, so the advertising standard people moght night be the right avenue. I'll get back to you later!!!

Kingsize

its very easy to get something like an advert banned all it takes is a couple(i.e.4 or 5 reasonable comments all making the same point from different sources) of complaints,just dont go over the top when you complain, remember the madonna book "sex" ? i think there were 3 complaints about it & that got it banned!!go on do it!!
incidentally have you ever noticed that most of the blokes portrayed in tv soaps are a bit if not embarrisingly thick?coronation st is the prime example a female character may be portayed as a little dim but not dim enough not to be able to function (candice in corrie emily in emmerdale/little mo in eastenders for example)Whereas male thickos are congenitally F*cked by their stupidity (kirk,tyrone,les,roy,the two baldwin pretty boys,).this is just another example of the same thing, why does it happen?are men thick or just thick skinned?

rubadub

overdriver wrote:

For instance, I've been in the toilets in a nightclubs where women think its ok to come into the gents if the ladies is full. Try it the other way round, see what happens.

Yes I always wondered why they go mad, its not like they have their piss flaps hanging out at a urinal that some guy is going to see. Imagine the guys looking under doors and jeering them about their overly hairy kunt.
Best I ever saw was in the old USI bar about 10 years back now, some girl burst in infront of a guy to the cubicle, the guy went in next door did a turd on a piece of paper and hurled it in at her. Well deserved, the perverted bitch (well thats what would be said of a man if he went to the ladies)

overdriver

rubadub wrote:

Yes I always wondered why they go mad, its not like they have their piss flaps hanging out at a urinal that some guy is going to see. Imagine the guys looking under doors and jeering them about their overly hairy kunt.
Best I ever saw was in the old USI bar about 10 years back now, some girl burst in infront of a guy to the cubicle, the guy went in next door did a turd on a piece of paper and hurled it in at her. Well deserved, the perverted bitch (well thats what would be said of a man if he went to the ladies)

True enough. Its a double standard that you wouldn't actually get to see anything if you ventured into the ladies', but i've heard screams like there were a pride of lions loose, when some poor sap wanders in by mistake, while

I play music for a living, and have recieved flak for using the ladies' jax from female staff while we're setting up and there are no punters in. Like I'm going to spread some sort of male disease or something. The ladies' loos are always plusher, bigger etc etc


Balance that against the fact that the gents at the end of any given night is awash with p*ss, and you can say fair enough...

overdriver

Kingsize wrote:

its very easy to get something like an advert banned all it takes is a couple(i.e.4 or 5 reasonable comments all making the same point from different sources) of complaints,just dont go over the top when you complain, remember the madonna book "sex" ? i think there were 3 complaints about it & that got it banned!!go on do it!!
incidentally have you ever noticed that most of the blokes portrayed in tv soaps are a bit if not embarrisingly thick?coronation st is the prime example a female character may be portayed as a little dim but not dim enough not to be able to function (candice in corrie emily in emmerdale/little mo in eastenders for example)Whereas male thickos are congenitally F*cked by their stupidity (kirk,tyrone,les,roy,the two baldwin pretty boys,).this is just another example of the same thing, why does it happen?are men thick or just thick skinned?

Thats right, too. Take Malcom in the middle, strong woman, bumbling man, same with Hyacinth Bucket, etc etc

Gurgle

The advertisers are pandering to the 'women are smart men are dumb' line because the ads are aimed at women maybe ?

Not that women (neccessarily ) spend more money than men, but they spend it on different things.

In an average year, I'd spend a couple of hundred on computer bits, another couple on motorbike bits and another couple on clothes. My wife would get through more money between clothes, makeup, hair 'products' (I don't know what most of them are), skincare, etc etc etc

The point is that the money she's going to spend is up for grabs by whoever can convince her that their product is better than exactly the same thing without the cocoa butter. What I buy is determined by what I need (want), the only factor being where I can get it cheapest.

So advertising budgets are better spent if they're aimed at women.

overdriver

So advertising budgets are better spent if they're aimed at women.[/QUOTE]

Agreed, but does that mean that the ads themaselves should be allowed to show men in a poor light, and thus engender that opinion in women? Do they HAVE to do that to sell tampax? Here's another example: two smug wagons in the cinema "trick" the big dopey bloke into surrendering the armrests of his chair, so they have two and he has none. they settle back in their seats smugly smiling while he looks bewildered "duh! How did that happen?" Turn it around gender=-wise and Nell McCafferty is on your doorstep howling like a banshee.

Get a few of these banned boys, and they'll have to re-think their sexist ways. An ad is expensive, so it will hurt them in the pocket in the long run, despite the "ban-it-and-its-news" factor. Ban enough of the ads and it WON'T be news, and they won't indirectly benefit from it either.

Gurgle

overdriver wrote:

Get a few of these banned boys, and they'll have to re-think their sexist ways. An ad is expensive, so it will hurt them in the pocket in the long run, despite the "ban-it-and-its-news" factor. Ban enough of the ads and it WON'T be news, and they won't indirectly benefit from it either.

Shhhh, keep really really quiet and look at it this way:
Naked men are starting to appear in mainstream ads now, we don't complain. Let the women get used to it, then when the naked women start appearing in ads, they can't complain.

Oh god I'm so immature

jor el

Gurgle wrote:

Naked men are starting to appear in mainstream ads now, we don't complain.

Yeah, isn't that the LaCoste ad? Full on naked man standing there. Why can't there be naked women in ads here? They have them in a lot of other European countries like France, Italy, etc. Check out Tarant on TV for a few examples.

As for sexism towards men in ads, I guess men withe don't watch or don't care about the ads. I know I try not to watch ads, they're usually complete bollox aimed mostly at women, so I've no interest.

Zulu

Invader Zim wrote:

Cop on.

They won't. It is and always (due to biological constraints) will be a male dominated world.

Men know this, that is why the ""reverse sexism" ad's are tolerated.

IV

You should be given a medal ...for spouting crap.

Zulu

Invader Zim wrote:

:rolleyes:

Thats the way it's always been.
It's only reacently been highlighted because more men now take in interest in their sprogs.

...and a certificate. Naturally, men years ago didn't care about their children. :rolleyes: ....or took less interest in their children. Thats why men never wanted children until reciently. It's a mirical the human race survived - just as well everyone loves sex.