REVERSE Sexism in ads

overdriver

Nasty_Girl wrote:

Who the f*ck gets a year for maternity leave? My mother had three months with her last kid.
You are such a whiny baby.

"If you become pregnant while in employment in Ireland, you are entitled to take maternity leave for a basic period of 18 weeks"

"
Ireland is right down the bottom of the European league table of family-friendly nations however where paternity leave is concerned. There is currently no legal entitlement to Paternity Leave, paid or unpaid, in Ireland. "

From irishjobs.ie

QED

Nasty_Girl

overdriver wrote:

Again you call names rather than make a point of any relevance. Re-read my post. I didn't SAY that the maternity leave was a year, I said that you didn't need a year to get over stitches. or three months, for that matter. If we're going too fast for you, we can slow down and use smaller words.

Then WHY did you say "need a year"??
And you're not much better for making points of relevence either. You need at least a month before the baby shoves it's way out, that's counted in maternity leave too, you should know that. My ma was standin all day for her job so understandably that'd be hard to do at 8months. Do men need a month or so before the baby's born?

overdriver

Nasty_Girl wrote:

Then give more examples. My replies are to the one you quoted.

Then read the posts. There are several examples.

overdriver

Nasty_Girl wrote:

Then WHY did you say "need a year"??
Hyperbole : exaggeration for effect.

Zulu

Nasty_Girl wrote:

My da worked two jobs, (Actually so did me ma) and he managed to bond with us quite well.

Good for him. Wouldn't it have been better if he could have taken more time off? Do you not feel that it is important for a father to spend time with his children?

Nasty_Girl

overdriver wrote:

Nasty_Girl wrote:

Then WHY did you say "need a year"??
Hyperbole : exaggeration for effect.

exaggeration?? you mean.... your point was exaggerated? So the rest of your points could be exaggerated too?

overdriver

Zulu wrote:

Good for him. Wouldn't it have been better if he could have taken more time off? Do you not feel that it is important for a father to spend time with his children?

Clearly not. Don't you know that men are only good for paying bills, not minding kids?

Zulu

Nasty_Girl wrote:

Then WHY did you say "need a year"??
And you're not much better for making points of relevence either. You need at least a month before the baby shoves it's way out, that's counted in maternity leave too, you should know that. My ma was standin all day for her job so understandably that'd be hard to do at 8months. Do men need a month or so before the baby's born?

Thats a moot point - and it's ot.
Nobody is asking for paternity brfore the baby is born, but now that you mention it - it would be good to have time off just before the birth, to ensure you are there for your partner.

overdriver

Nasty_Girl wrote:

exaggeration?? you mean.... your point was exaggerated? So the rest of your points could be exaggerated too?

Not my point, the figure. You may pick out any of my points and I can assure you they're not exaggerated, given that it's the only one with a figure in that context. However, for you, this is actually a reasonable post. You didn't condescend or call names. Bravo!

Zulu

overdriver wrote:

Clearly not. Don't you know that men are only good for paying bills, not minding kids?

Well, in fairness, all the baby lark is really just for the girls. I mean - why bother get involved. It's just as well I can't get pregnant, cause I don't want a baby!

Nasty_Girl

Zulu wrote:

Good for him. Wouldn't it have been better if he could have taken more time off? Do you not feel that it is important for a father to spend time with his children?

But he did, maybe not when I was a tiny little baby, and yeah he worked 9 to 5, 6 7 8 9 and some weekends but he was always there for us and we have a great relationship as we do with our mother who also has two jobs, (I count her evening role as housewife as a job btw)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying fathers don't have rights, or men are inferior, I'm not a feminist, it is unfortunate that the tide is turning against men in the media but the ad before coronation street? Come on! You have to admit that's fairly tame!

BrianD3

overdriver wrote:

Sorry, Brian, that was my "bad", so to speak. It was intended to grab the attention of potential posters, without being absolutely grammatically or symantically correct. The correct term would probably be "sexism", as you point out.

That in itself is interesting. You felt that using the term "reverse sexism" would grab more attention than using the term "sexism". And you'd be right. Boards.ie is male dominated and presumably many of these males would like to discuss issues that relate to men. However if you had posted the thread title as "sexism in ads" rather than "reverse sexism in ads" I'd say a lot of guys would *assume* that the post was about negative stereotyping of women and take less interest in it.

BrianD3

Nasty_Girl

Zulu wrote:

Thats a moot point - and it's ot.
Nobody is asking for paternity brfore the baby is born, but now that you mention it - it would be good to have time off just before the birth, to ensure you are there for your partner.

Yes but my point is that isnt some of the 18 weeks quoted as "basic maternity leave" is because the pregnant woman can't work?? (if I'm wrong on this correct me) So ya can't really compare paternity leave with matenrity leave on the same level.

overdriver

Nasty_Girl wrote:

Then WHY did you say "need a year"??
And you're not much better for making points of relevence either. You need at least a month before the baby shoves it's way out, that's counted in maternity leave too, you should know that. My ma was standin all day for her job so understandably that'd be hard to do at 8months. Do men need a month or so before the baby's born?

I fail to see hwere m y points weren't relevant. You saying so doesn't MAKE it so. I can't help but notice you don't respond to the posts which challenge your outlook - the one with the facts and figures about paternity leave, Zulu's post asking wouldn't it have been nice for your dad to have paid time off to help your mum with their family etc.

I have actually experienced it, no support for stay-at-home dads, no money. Tell me why it's fair? It's not.No amount of name-calling or picking on minor points within a discussion will change that. Touche!

simu

Calm down and stop the name calling ffs!

Sexism sucks whether directed at males or females! Write to the relevant agencies to complain about sexist ads and force ad agencies to find new ways to demean human beings!

overdriver

Nasty_Girl wrote:

Yes but my point is that isnt some of the 18 weeks quoted as "basic maternity leave" is because the pregnant woman can't work?? (if I'm wrong on this correct me) So ya can't really compare paternity leave with matenrity leave on the same level.

I assume that's correct, I don't actually know, but at least some of it has to be to take care of the baby, and men get NONE. Even though any man worth his salt should help with his kids. Therefore you CAN compare them on the same level.

As for you feeling that areaction to the Corrie thing is over the top, its not, because it is merely a part of something much arger. You can't say you agree men are discrimibnated against on some levels, and then refuse to see where we're coming from on this, surely?

Zulu

BrianD3 wrote:

That in itself is interesting. You felt that using the term "reverse sexism" would grab more attention than using the term "sexism". And you'd be right. Boards.ie is male dominated and presumably many of these males would like to discuss issues that relate to men. However if you had posted the thread title as "sexism in ads" rather than "reverse sexism in ads" I'd say a lot of guys would *assume* that the post was about negative stereotyping of women and take less interest in it.

BrianD3

Super point, and it's completely correct. It is a sign of the time that men are (in some ads) now being ridiculed, and that this is considered a joke - where as if the man was replaced with a woman - or and ethnic group - is would be pulled, and advertising company/product would suffer very heavily. (Shareholder getting nervous about being associated with a racist/sexist product, customers boycotting goods, shops refusing to stock etc..)
{agreed these would be extreme reactions to such an ad - but not incrediable}

pretty-in-pink

hmmmm men giving out about sexism being sexist? "Oh no the girl said "awww poor boys", what can we do, the condensending feminist uptight girl must pay, I know, I'll show how much better I am then girls and women "Don't bother your head, run along dear". What if we used the same tactics on you?

Now if most of you kind folk would

a) pull your head out of your ass
b) listen and learn

More often then not women are not "crazy feminists", they do not demend all the world to be handed to them on a plate. In fact there seems to be a trend where we despise those who do.....as it just pushes a negative sterotype. Strange that....

Adverts that imply the vast stupidity of men bug me, and quite a few men and women that I know, as no-body is that stupid. The lacoste advert is just stupid, and don't try tell me women aren't sold as sex items for advetising purposes, even ads aimed at women- i.e. the rimmel ads. Could it be most of us like the sexy statements we are used to advertise? And is it possible that we may actually have sex drives and want to see sexy men?( and no they dont have to be naked.) Men use more porn so that should tell you how much we appreciate seeing people naked :rolleyes: God its a staple part of my diet.

Instead of thrashing around with such emotional based points how about you take your own advice over the years and be logical. If you want to give out fine, but don't act surprised when women are suddenly on a par with you. We are becomming more logical and reasonable, in the majority case, I mean you will always have your crazy feminists and anti-feminists. Men are becomming more emotional. As for us being threatened by you, don't make me laugh. Someone very wise once said "be careful what you wish for", well men wished for us to be more logical, we are and most men can't handle it.

I think a lot of confusion stems from people trying to act like we are the same. We are not, and never will be. Sure equal treatment by all means- it should mean that we have equal rewards for work well done, but we don't. Oh and if you want longer paternity leave- take it. You still have the same opportunities. We are dismissed as being useless now that a whole human dropped out of us, and even if we never manage to reproduce we would still have a glass ceiling. I'd swap a month of maternity for no glass ceiling. How bout the other women here?

Nasty_Girl

It isn't fair, I didn't say it was, and I've responded to most of these posts if ya go back and read em. Plus you name call too, so get off your moral high horse.

Tis like this, The mammy's have to have maternity leave, you say your woman went back to work and good for her and you for stayin at home with the kid, but that's not always gonna work, not every woman recovers so fast, Anit Natal Depression springs to mind,
The issue of leave really goes back to your job, eg like my parents being civil servants, if they were both given leave when I was born then they would both be being paid by the govt for not working while others being paid to cover for them.
The priority for leaves goes to the mother because they physically need time off because they mightn't be able to do the job after a point and so they can actually have the baby, there's no maliciuos anti-male agenda it's just the way it is at the mo,
I think that maybe companies could change their policies to help people out but it's gonna be a long while yet.

overdriver

BrianD3 wrote:

That in itself is interesting. You felt that using the term "reverse sexism" would grab more attention than using the term "sexism". And you'd be right. Boards.ie is male dominated and presumably many of these males would like to discuss issues that relate to men. However if you had posted the thread title as "sexism in ads" rather than "reverse sexism in ads" I'd say a lot of guys would *assume* that the post was about negative stereotyping of women and take less interest in it.

BrianD3

Well, it wasn't as considered as all that, but you're correct in assuming that "sexism in ads" might not have generated quite as many posts.

Nasty_Girl

overdriver wrote:

I assume that's correct, I don't actually know, but at least some of it has to be to take care of the baby, and men get NONE. Even though any man worth his salt should help with his kids. Therefore you CAN compare them on the same level.

As for you feeling that areaction to the Corrie thing is over the top, its not, because it is merely a part of something much arger. You can't say you agree men are discrimibnated against on some levels, and then refuse to see where we're coming from on this, surely?

I can see where you are comin from yes but that I really don't think that ad is a dig at men, if anything it's a parody on the characters of Steve and Karen in corrie.
And as for the maternity/paternity leave, you can compare them, but not on the same level, for the physical issues I already mentioned.

overdriver

I think a lot of confusion stems from people trying to act like we are the same. We are not, and never will be. Sure equal treatment by all means- it should mean that we have equal rewards for work well done, but we don't. Oh and if you want longer paternity leave- take it. You still have the same opportunities. We are dismissed as being useless now that a whole human dropped out of us, and even if we never manage to reproduce we would still have a glass ceiling. I'd swap a month of maternity for no glass ceiling. How bout the other women here?[/QUOTE]

I assume by the " glass ceiling" etc. you are referring to the attitude of employers that once you have a baby, you're not fit for promotion? If so, you're quite right, it's not on. However, if stay-at-home-fathers were more the norm, an employer would be less liable to make the assumptions which lead to those promotion decisions anyway? Paid paternity leave would be a huge step in the right direction.

I'm not sure if women are becoming more logical, and men more emotional. The only thing I can say to that is that it is now more acceptable for men to show their emotions, or confront or discuss them.

BrianD3

women aren't sold as sex items for advetising purposes, even ads aimed at women- i.e. the rimmel ads. Could it be most of us like the sexy statements we are used to advertise?

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here but if you want to talk about sex objects , what about the men in the old diet coke ads. I don't have a problem with these ads myself, I see nothing wrong with an ad where a good looking male body is used as a "hook" to attract the attention of the target market for that particular product

What I DO have a problem with are the many ads that portray men as scruffy, lazy, overweight, incompetent, lager swilling, sport obsessed slobs and show a clever, efficient, organised, well groomed, competent, intelligent woman getting the better of them and showing them how it *should* be done.

I seem to remember that there was a study done by a media studies professor in a US university which found that in something like 85% of ads on US TV which feature a man and a women, the man is portrayed in a negative light compared to the woman. I will try and dig out the study and post a link to it if I find it.

BrianD3

Big_Dirty_Pig

Overdriver,
I have had a great old laugh reading your posts. You are the reason men are being
laughed out of it on television. You're so caught up with your own ego that
you cannot see that the ad is a coronation street parody!
You have no idea how to argue your case. I pity how your son will grow up
when all his da seems to do is have silly fights with litte girls on the internet over tv ads.
You sir are a kn*b

pretty-in-pink

Sure we are more logical, how many women are the crazy bags of red lipstick we once were?

Up until your reply just now all the male arguments were over wrought with emotion.

We can still get the odd vent of sadness/blind rage, but so do men so its all the one. Anyway the concept of discrimination is everywhere, its just you have chosen to see the male side, females chose to see the female side. We are slagged off a lot more, and we get called names with more haste, its a sad fact. Also the big advert execs are mainly men , as women would not make such utter tripe. We know what appeals to us, and what appeals to men (why do ya think we kiss girls, or "accidently" say that we ave no knickers on...?) We have always had a hold over guys (or the pretty up to dammn fine I'd die for that women have at any rate). We know what works, we know what doesn't. Its become embedded in our heads. If anything I would have thought men would be trying to focus on getting on from under our thumb and their sexual delusions.

Its funny to see how men really believe they have a shot with ms.sexy thong, but women are (on the whole) more realistic. This shows how we are logical. We can change ourselves to get our way. Its manipulative but clever and if men did it they would win a prize.....YEah to link this to my previous point, we are all sold as sex objects, women are just bettre at it. Bring back the diet coke man though.........

Ms Beanbag

BrianD3 wrote:

I don't have a problem with these ads myself, I see nothing wrong with an ad where a good looking male body is used as a "hook" to attract the attention of the target market for that particular product
I DO have a problem with are ads that portray men as scruffy, lazy, overweight, incompetent, lager swilling, sport obsessed slobs and show a clever, efficient, organised, well groomed, competent, intelligent woman getting the better of them and showing them how it *should* be done

You dont mind the male sex being portrayed as a big musely handsome fit bloke displaying his washboard abs who all the girls drool over yet you dont want to be seen as overweight scruffy lager swilling etc etc?!
typical man...

I think BOTH ways display the male sex incorrectly.

Nasty_Girl

I think ads are just ads, the way they work is whether we like it or not, we all know someone like the person in the ad, we only know incompitant females, lazy males, girls who are smarter than their fellas, fellas smarter than girls, men are portrayed as whipping boys, girls as sex objects, it'll keep goin, like remember the ad with the guy drivin the car tryin to explain it to a girl, like how easy it would be for her to park and a mirror for her make-up etc? I remember the female version didn't recieve half as much airtime and wasn't half as condensending, but me personally, I didn't give a crap. Ads are just ads to me.

overdriver

Big_Dirty_Pig wrote:

Overdriver,
I have had a great old laugh reading your posts. You are the reason men are being
laughed out of it on television. You're so caught up with your own ego that
you cannot see that the ad is a coronation street parody!
You have no idea how to argue your case. I pity how your son will grow up
when all his da seems to do is have silly fights with litte girls on the internet over tv ads.
You sir are a kn*b

If all you can do is call people a kn*b, and little girls, then off you go and mind yourself. I'm not a knob, and I'm quite sure the woman in question is not a little girl. How do you argue I'm caught up in my own ego, what do you mean?

We know the ad is a parody, but it is a successful one only because it's values are so familiar to us. I am hardly the reason men are " laughed out of it", all on my own, now am I?

Zulu

brilliant post there nasty girl... no wait, naughty girl... eitherway where do I start?!? At the start I suppose...

naughty_girl wrote:

Sure we are more logical, how many women are the crazy bags of red lipstick we once were?

Women weren't logical before? My grandmother would beg to differ.

naughty_girl wrote:

Up until your reply just now all the male arguments were over wrought with emotion.

Perhaps you haven't seen my posts then, if you bother reading them, you'll find they contained point that aren't "emotionally" driven. If you disagree - please point out which ones, as opposed to completly disregarding everybody.

naughty_girl wrote:

We are slagged off a lot more, and we get called names with more haste, its a sad fact.

Who are you talking about here? People? Or are you trying to imply that women are slagged off more than men? I would imagine that people get slagged for various different reasons, but please provide proof/evidence that women get slagged more than men. :rolleyes:

naughty_girl wrote:

Also the big advert execs are mainly men , as women would not make such utter tripe.

...letting your guard slip?

naughty_girl wrote:

We know what appeals to us, and what appeals to men (why do ya think we kiss girls, or "accidently" say that we ave no knickers on...?) .

Indeed, it's a well know fact that the mention of knickers, or the sight of girls kissing mezmorises man into a highly suggestive and submissive state, not too unlike hypnosis.

naughty_girl wrote:

We have always had a hold over guys (or the pretty up to dammn fine I'd die for that women have at any rate). We know what works, we know what doesn't. Its become embedded in our heads. If anything I would have thought men would be trying to focus on getting on from under our thumb and their sexual delusions.

AAAhahahaha Class - I've to remember that one for the pub tonight!

naughty_girl wrote:

Its funny to see how men really believe they have a shot with ms.sexy thong, but women are (on the whole) more realistic. This shows how we are logical. We can change ourselves to get our way. Its manipulative but clever and if men did it they would win a prize.

More please <wipes tears for eye> ....super material! Years of evolution nad social issues summed up!

Big_Dirty_Pig

overdriver wrote:

I have actually experienced it, no support for stay-at-home dads, no money. Tell me why it's fair? !

No money?
Not Fair?
Oh poor lamb. Now explain this, why is it fair that your employer or other peoples taxes should have to pay for you to stay home?

Here's a tip, next time why don't you keep it in your pants until you can actually afford to have a baby instead of wanting everyone else to pick up after your actions?