Why do commercials still need to use sex to sell? For how many people that object to the sexism prevalent in the highest ad-driven time spot on tv: the Super Bowl, why do we still see sex in commercials? The answer I would expect most people to give would be that sex sells? Yes I understand that but why? Why is it become the fail safe of advertising to throw scantily clad women on a product? I know more men that feel offended that the commercials feel they need to appeal to the sexual desires of themselves and not the other million senses they could appeal to. I personally feel insulted when a commercial has to delve to that level because they feel men are at that level all the time. Not only are there men that are offended but there are quite a few women that are too, if it wasn't painfully obvious. So why if so many people, both men and women, are so objective to these commercials that they continue to occur? The one reason I can see these continuing to happen is because of the incredible publicity a commercial would get by being so offensive, almost one of the only ways to get publicity these days. I feel it is necessary to stop giving so much publicity to offensive commercials and ads and the such because it only feeds the companies to follow suit in hoping off getting their own share of the mayhem.
This commercial shown on youtube is an ad for a robotic vacuum cleaner. You can watch the ad but in summary it portrays men as jackasses who aren't tidy by any means and shows women as the ones who are responsible and have to clean up after them.
In the ad it is not subtle by any means as it literally shows the man and husband as a donkey and unquestionably refers to him as a jackass although not explicitly saying it. The interesting thing in this commercial is how you look at it. You could see it from a sexist male or a sexist female approach. Either you could be offended that the commercial portrays the man as a literal bumbling jackass who cannot manage to keep a house clean for any amount of time or that the female is the one who has to clean for whatever reason. Most reasons that the female would have to clean are because she is the female and therefore has to/should. Either way portray both sides negatively and quite stereotypically.
I personally saw it as offensive to men. I also do not think anyone would actually care and take offense or take the offense seriously. That could be an incredible double standard in that because of the immense amount of female oriented sexism, the small amounts of male sexism is not taken seriously.
Ever since this blog was assigned I feel that I am keeping my eyes open for media that is sexist, racist, anti-feminist, etc... While there is quite a bit out there and most are blatantly obvious, I've found more often than not that these ads aren't offensive or wrong or what have you. I feel that when I come along a YouTube video spouting "most sexist commercial" that more often it is someone reaching or taking offense on everything. One example is a Folgers coffee ad that I do remember seeing.
[insert video here]
Here's a quick summary: daughter comes downstairs to her Dad making coffee. He says to her that she was out late last night and the daughter then puts up her ring finger showing her engagement ring and that you don't have to worry about me anymore in a half-hearted manner. Thereare quite a bit of ways you could take this from what I've read up on other peoples views. One way is the way I think it is and that is that the commercial is portraying the old fashioned notion that the Dad is to watch over the daughter and make sure she is safe until she gets married which is a major old fashioned goal and then the husband would take care of her. It's not that the woman is unable to do so herself it is that she made her choice in marriage and she proclaims that I have someone else to do that for me. The other way that some people are taking it is that the woman is defenseless and hopeless and she has to have someone watching her all the time and only once she gets married off can she stop having her daddy look after her and now have her man protect her. I think to assume that would be to assume that the woman is defenseless in the first place. To assume that she is defenseless would then assume that she needs the help rather than just reassuring her Dad who if anything is sexist (assuming he has to watch over her), that she is ok without him. There is a part that I disagree with and that would be a third option that Folgers could have shown: her not having to have a ring to say that she doesn't need daddy's protection anymore. That would definitley be the new school approach but that I believe in lies the problem. I feel that everyone who says the ad is sexist is assuming that the woman is in the third option and to show anything else is sexist. It's not necessarily to sexist to be old fashioned but at the same time to think that you must be new school to not be sexist is absurd. I feel that she hasthe choice to feel the way she feels and to assume that she should be a certain way is ridiculous and wrong. Folgers made a comparison between their old fashioned coffee and the old fashioned ideals of marriage and that's that.
What do you think?
If you watched the Super Bowl this year you may have been like half of the people watching and watched it only to see the commercials. I made that statistic up but I know it's fairly high. Regardless, you may or may not have seen this commercial. The commercial is pretty straight forward. Close up shots of different men with a Michael C. Hall's Dexter-esque voice over explaining all the things the men do for their supposed wives or girlfriends. In return they get to drive what they want to drive and the Dodge Charger is supposed to be what they want to drive. The problem with this commercial is not that they visually show women in a bad light but that they portray the things the men are saying they do, as things that the woman is nagging them to do. Not only that but the things the men say they do are deserving of anything special. Listen to what Michael C. Hall says. "Clean up the sink after they shave. Recycle. Show up on time to work and then at work actually do work. Answer the phone when the spouse calls." That is ridiculous to think that those tasks should be deserving of anything. They are what one is supposed to do, single, in a relationship, etc... The fact that somehow the men in the commercial feel like they are being emasculated and thus deserve a "manly" car is ludicrous.
Shown below is a spoof commercial made by a group of women in response. It has some explicit language so I will disclaim it as NSFW.
What do you think? Was the Dodge version wrong? The spoof commercial?
Just a moment ago I finished posting an entry to the blog and figured I'd go in and spice the layout up a little and while browsing templates I came across two certain ones titled "Mr Moto" and "Ms Moto." Usually the difference between a male a female version of something is that one is more masculine or male looking i.e. colors, designs, etc... And my assumptions are correct. While looking at the male version seen here: Male, I outright didn't see anything masculine about it. But then looking at the female version seen here: Female, it is blatantly feminine in that our minds have been "tricked" into associating pink and Barbies with girls and feminine nature. But even then looking back at the male version it doesn't show anything that could be even remotely tied to a gender let alone male. So that brings up an interesting point. If the male associated template is not visibly male but the female associated template is overly sexist and female driven then is it sexist? Is it wrong to associate Barbies with girls? Not every girl will play with Barbies but a disproportionate amount of girls will. It is sexist though to assume that no boys will play with Barbies.
I'm not a misogynist by any means. I do not hate women. I do not agree with the way women are treated in society, in both modern and old times. I am just showing the other side. This title stems from tidbits of information I hear from my girlfriend specifically just as I'm writing this. All these quotes are coming verbatim from my GIRLfriend who is a WOMAN. "Women have their roles in life and so do men." "If a women wants to be like a man then they have to suck it up and get made fun of once in a while because that's not the way of life." "Women will never have the capacities to do some jobs." "I don't think we should ever have a women president for the fact we have raging hormones and we will go to war on a whim." "Women are built differently and are more emotional." "Last semester Ms. Rellihan showed me that women are either too compassionate or they go overboard to try and prove they are capable of a mans job." "Like my Mom for example, when she's at work she takes everyones excuses and comforts them and won't punish them, she doesn't take charge of her employees, she lets them walk all over her." "Then there's my boss who screams over the littlest things and won't listen to any excuses." "Women aren't allowed to say the things I just said because all women are supposed to want equal rights but I don't think we are capable of equal rights."
Now while I don't agree or disagree with any statement above I do think that neither a man nor a woman could get away with saying any of it. My girlfriend had wanted to say these things in her class at the time she took it but she says "I didn't want to be in a big bitch-fest." This brings up an interesting dilemma. At one point it would have been ok for a man to say such things, 18th century perhaps, but now it's not ok for neither a man nor a woman to say it. So for all the women's rights movements actions towards having a voice for women it seems that even some things have slipped through the cracks. It seems there are some distinct groups that cannot embody the 1st amendment rights. Women who agree with anti-women beliefs, men who agree with anti-women beliefs, and anyone else who disagrees with the women's choice. I'm not saying that I think either of those groups are right in their beliefs but I feel that it should be dually noted that not all women are for the advancement of women as I believe there are probably more women like my girlfriend. It's similar to abortion in a sense that you can be for either: abortion, the woman's choice, or for the woman regardless of her choice. I think more people, men and women need to be for the woman and not her choices.
Please comment as to whether or not you agree or disagree with what either she or I have said or anything else you feel like commenting on or contributing.
(Also note that I will not be so negative or controversial in all my posts.)
Andy