NationStates Jolt Archive

(Sorry if there is already a thread on this. The story is a bit old.)

The ad in question (http://jezebel.com/5050721/mcdonalds-commercial-paints-women-as-dumb-poseurs) is for McDonald's, who have started doing good coffee. In the ad, two women who are sitting in a Starbucks/Nero/Coffee Republic type place discuss this with relief: they can finally get good coffee at McDonald's and in doing so can abandon all the accoutrements of posh coffee shops: jazz (though in my experience those places generally play lo-fi subpop that would be more suitable as backing music for softcore videos), reading, wearing long skirts. Deep down, they really don't care about world affairs, and like showing off their bodies (in this case, their knees, which reminds me of a Camper Van Beethoven song).

A bunch of bloggers argue this ad is sexist. I think I agree. They could easily have chosen a male and a female to be drinking together - indeed, in terms of hitting a demographic, it would have made more sense, surely - and, arguably, are playing to the idea that women aren't naturally intellectual.

There can probably be a reasonably boring semiotic debate about whether the ad is truly sexist, or simply anti-intellectual. But assuming for a moment that it is, at least in part, open to interpretation as somewhat sexist, I wanted to ask a broader question.

In US politics right now, 'women's issues' are being given an airing because there are probably more prominent women in mainstream politics than at any previous point - Palin, Rodham Clinton, Pelosi, Rice in particular. Pay equity is a particularly prominent issue (or so it seems from across the pond) because of McCain's general opposition to it.

Is US, or to avoid charges of anti-US sentiment, 'Western', culture inately sexist? (This not denying that other cultures may be equally or more sexist.) And if so, can laws such as pay equity or abortion access truly redress that injustice? Or does sexism reside on a level fundamentally deeper, such that what is called for is not legislative reform, but a mental and social revolution in thought?

That is, to try to boil down the questions to one, does advertising such as the example I provided demonstrate that, so long as sexism sells, it doesn't really matter what we do to legislate equality?

There was an ad already that showed two guys discussing how they didn't need to wear turtleneck sweaters and pretend to like poetry or something.

Stereotypes happen. Still, you have to be trapped in some sort of groupthink paradigm if you believe that every portrayal of people in a stereotypical manner is intended to reflect on the entire group they supposedly represent.

There was an ad already that showed two guys discussing how they didn't need to wear turtleneck sweaters and pretend to like poetry or something.

Stereotypes happen. Still, you have to be trapped in some sort of groupthink paradigm if you believe that every portrayal of people in a stereotypical manner is intended to reflect on the entire group they supposedly represent.
Not pretending to like poetry isn't quite on the same level as not having ever heard of Paraguay.

This doesn't sound sexist so much as it sounds like McD's are trying to make "Everywhere else that does coffee" seem boring and beatnik-esque, and make themselves seem fun and 'cool'.

Standard fare for advertising.

By the way, you can't legislate equality. Equal opportunity, yes. Equal outcomes and attitudes, no. Social issues are resolved through social interaction, not through the iron fist of the state. If you object to the advertisement, organize a grassroots protest, boycott the McD franchise, and send letters. Don't ask Congress/Parliament/Your military dictator to fix it because they tend to make a solution that solves nothing and makes life harder for the people.

Don't ask Congress/Parliament/Your military dictator to fix it because they tend to make a solution that solves nothing and makes life harder for the people.

So one group of humans who can exert pressure on businesses through legislation will fuck things up, but another who exerts pressure through threats of boycotts and use of boycotts will get it right? Why exactly?

The one with two guys is pretty terrible, too, but I think the female one adds a hearty dose of sexism to its heapin' helpin' of anti-intellectualism, since the guys essentially say, "Now we can stop wearing turtlenecks and start watching football!" while the women say, "Now we can watch reality TV and stop pretending to have brains!" I'm not entirely sure why they couldn't at least have stuck with the same idiotic message for both, rather than making the female version strongly imply that the characters are both imbeciles.

However, leaving the McDonalds' ad behind for a moment, there's no question that advertisers have been clinging tight to sexist stereotypes for decades. When was the last time you saw a household cleaning product being used by a man in a commercial? How about the last time you saw toy cars, or Lego-type toys being played with by a little girl? Have you EVER seen any children's toy that could possibly be called "cute" (dolls, stuffed animals, etc.) played with by a little boy? How about power tools being used by a woman? I think you get the idea.

The thing is, though, it is getting better, albeit slowly. I went to the Museum of TV and Radio in NYC a year or so ago, and watched a fair number of TV shows (with their original commercials) from the 70s and 80s - and let me tell you, those were just painful. From the housewife who complained that she couldn't bear the disappointed look on her husband's face when he saw how her current detergent just didn't get the whites white enough, to the car that "has the power he wants, but now available with an easy-to-use automatic transmission for her!" the sexism was even more overt and absurd than anything I've seen in recent years (well, except for those godawful "HEMI" ads a few years ago in which the father angrily instructs his wife to stop telling his son sissy things about how the car is spacious and comfortable and instead focus solely on the engine, but I prefer to think they're an exception). As society gets less tolerant of sexism, advertisers stop using it as a marketing tool. They're just always going to be a few decades behind the curve.

So one group of humans who can exert pressure on businesses through legislation will fuck things up, but another who exerts pressure through threats of boycotts and use of boycotts will get it right? Why exactly?

because laws have to be equal and just, while a boycott can be much more specific.

By the way, you can't legislate equality. Equal opportunity, yes. Equal outcomes and attitudes, no. Social issues are resolved through social interaction, not through the iron fist of the state. If you object to the advertisement, organize a grassroots protest, boycott the McD franchise, and send letters. Don't ask Congress/Parliament/Your military dictator to fix it because they tend to make a solution that solves nothing and makes life harder for the people.
I think it would be fairly easy to organize a boycott of McDonald's lattes. Blech. ;)

Also, while I do think there is still too much sexism in Western/US society, I agree with you that legislative intervention should be kept to a minimum. Sadly, even though we already have laws that provide for equal civil rights and equal protection under the law, in the US it has proven necessary to add laws that specifically state things like, "Yes, this applies to blacks/women/disabled people/children/gays/etc, too, dammit." But as you say, these are laws establishing equal opportunity and controlling only what people do, not what they think, which is as far as government should ever go, in my opinion.

All that said, though, I do not believe the McD's adds are examples of sexism at all, except perhaps insofar as they may be taken as assuming that men would not want to bare their knees while drinking coffee, or that women would.

In my opinion, McD's is not stereotyping the sexes. They are stereotyping consumer demographics, assigning particular lifestyle cues to the typical Starbuck's/indie coffeehouse customer and indicating that, even though they are now offering the same type of product, they are still trying to appeal to a different kind of consumer. So it's not a gender-based tactic so much as a class/lifestyle-based tactic I am not convinced that they will get far with this "Hey, are you tired of trying to act like you're smart, but you still want a cup that's half full of coffee syrup and half full of sugar with some fake caramel ooze on top? Come over to McD's -- everyone will know you're dumb, but at least you'll get your mochiatta (whatever the fuck that is)" approach, but whatever.

I should also point out that, outside the US, McD's has been offering real, actual, coffeehouse fare -- espresso drinks, euro-type pastries and cakes, etc -- for a number of years now. Go to a McD's in Montreal if you don't believe me. So I guess, McD's is also stereotyping Americans as people who won't buy a cup of coffee unless it comes with an assurance that it's okay to be ignorant.

When was the last time you saw a household cleaning product being used by a man in a commercial?

One guy stands out as the voice of male cleaning products. http://croatia.org/crown/content_images/novak_vladimir/part1/mrclean1.jpg

He will kick your ass.

How about the last time you saw toy cars, or Lego-type toys being played with by a little girl?

Have you EVER seen any children's toy that could possibly be called "cute" (dolls, stuffed animals, etc.) played with by a little boy? How about power tools being used by a woman? I think you get the idea.

Amusing anecdote. As a child, my parents did their best to de-gender things like toys. So, it was not unheard of for them to hand me my sisters Barbies when I asked for a toy. As a two or three year old, I actually tended to masculinize the Barbies. Usually, they became "whackin' sticks". Before I ever owned a GI Joe, or Green Army men, Barbies were my toy soldiers. And don't blame television: I had a strict TV regimen, nothing but my daily half-hour of Mr. Rogers.

When was the last time you saw a household cleaning product being used by a man in a commercial?
I have actually. I forget which one exactly. Gist was, a man and his son make some dinner, skip the cleaning to watch the game, use wonderful cleaning product to clean kitchen during halftime.
Rolling squid;14025823']because laws have to be equal and just, while a boycott can be much more specific.

Thing about democracy is you can get a new government if the one you have sucks. You can't really stop people boycotting a company that hasn't actually done anything wrong, or has stopped doing the things that it was doing wrong.

no its not sexist.

its anti-intellectual.

and funny as hell.

I have actually. I forget which one exactly. Gist was, a man and his son make some dinner, skip the cleaning to watch the game, use wonderful cleaning product to clean kitchen during halftime.


There's also a Swiffer ad that shows a guy in someone else's house, getting so caught up in the amazing dust-lifting powers of the Swiffer duster, that he goes on a dusting rampage until someone yells at him, and the camera pulls back to show cops all around him -- the joke being that he is a detective who got distracted by the product and is "dusting" the crime scene in a terribly wrong way.

I think it would be fairly easy to organize a boycott of McDonald's lattes. Blech. ;)

Also, while I do think there is still too much sexism in Western/US society, I agree with you that legislative intervention should be kept to a minimum. Sadly, even though we already have laws that provide for equal civil rights and equal protection under the law, in the US it has proven necessary to add laws that specifically state things like, "Yes, this applies to blacks/women/disabled people/children/gays/etc, too, dammit." But as you say, these are laws establishing equal opportunity and controlling only what people do, not what they think, which is as far as government should ever go, in my opinion.

All that said, though, I do not believe the McD's adds are examples of sexism at all, except perhaps insofar as they may be taken as assuming that men would not want to bare their knees while drinking coffee, or that women would.

In my opinion, McD's is not stereotyping the sexes. They are stereotyping consumer demographics, assigning particular lifestyle cues to the typical Starbuck's/indie coffeehouse customer and indicating that, even though they are now offering the same type of product, they are still trying to appeal to a different kind of consumer. So it's not a gender-based tactic so much as a class/lifestyle-based tactic I am not convinced that they will get far with this "Hey, are you tired of trying to act like you're smart, but you still want a cup that's half full of coffee syrup and half full of sugar with some fake caramel ooze on top? Come over to McD's -- everyone will know you're dumb, but at least you'll get your mochiatta (whatever the fuck that is)" approach, but whatever.

I should also point out that, outside the US, McD's has been offering real, actual, coffeehouse fare -- espresso drinks, euro-type pastries and cakes, etc -- for a number of years now. Go to a McD's in Montreal if you don't believe me. So I guess, McD's is also stereotyping Americans as people who won't buy a cup of coffee unless it comes with an assurance that it's okay to be ignorant.

Gee -- isn't that how they sold us a President in the last two elections?

no its not sexist.

its anti-intellectual.

and funny as hell.
I agree that it's much more about dumbiosity than about gender-thing-ness. And I agree the ads are funny.

On the other hand I can see the sense of Poli's point that the guy ad is promoting lattes for sports-addicted slobs, whereas the girl ad is promoting lattes for ignorant bimbos.

But on the third hand, it's LATTES from McDONALD'S. Is there anything they could possibly have done to make this into a good thing? Does whether the ads are sexist or not really matter when we're talking about this kind of shit, which has so many layers of wrong?

Gee -- isn't that how they sold us a President in the last two elections?
Well...yes...it is. Stereotypes don't get to be stereotypes by not finding a receptive audience, you know.

One guy stands out as the voice of male cleaning products. http://croatia.org/crown/content_images/novak_vladimir/part1/mrclean1.jpg

He will kick your ass.

Yeah, but who do you see actually using Mr. Clean's products? I've never seen Mr. Clean show up and rescue a man from lousy cleanser yet. Mr. Clean and the Brawny man - both super-studly imaginary macho men clearly aimed to appeal to super-feminine housewives - are not exactly a good counterargument, I fear. :tongue:



Amusing anecdote. As a child, my parents did their best to de-gender things like toys. So, it was not unheard of for them to hand me my sisters Barbies when I asked for a toy. As a two or three year old, I actually tended to masculinize the Barbies. Usually, they became "whackin' sticks". Before I ever owned a GI Joe, or Green Army men, Barbies were my toy soldiers. And don't blame television: I had a strict TV regimen, nothing but my daily half-hour of Mr. Rogers.

Hehe, I know more than a few girls who also considered Barbies to be things to hit people with. And, anyway, no one in their right mind thinks that no boys would like toy soldiers or girls like playing house if they weren't told they were supposed to be that way - the point is rather that SOME girls would quite like playing with GI Joe and SOME boys would like a baby doll, but you sure as heck wouldn't know it from commercials. (I get particularly irritated by the commercials for toys that should not, in any sane universe, have gendered connotations at ALL, like Legos or toy cars. There is simply no rational reason to pitch those as "boy toys.")

There's also a Swiffer ad that shows a guy in someone else's house, getting so caught up in the amazing dust-lifting powers of the Swiffer duster, that he goes on a dusting rampage until someone yells at him, and the camera pulls back to show cops all around him -- the joke being that he is a detective who got distracted by the product and is "dusting" the crime scene in a terribly wrong way.

Ha, I haven't seen that one. I like it. :)

Hehe, I know more than a few girls who also considered Barbies to be things to hit people with. And, anyway, no one in their right mind thinks that no boys would like toy soldiers or girls like playing house if they weren't told they were supposed to be that way - the point is rather that SOME girls would quite like playing with GI Joe and SOME boys would like a baby doll, but you sure as heck wouldn't know it from commercials. (I get particularly irritated by the commercials for toys that should not, in any sane universe, have gendered connotations at ALL, like Legos or toy cars. There is simply no rational reason to pitch those as "boy toys.")
You should have been around to see my head asplode the first time I saw an ad for diapers that came in your choice of blue with cowboy-type pictures on them or pink with flowers/bunnies-type pictures on them. Gender-stereotyped shit-pouches!!! grrrrrr......PAFF!!! << sound of Muravyets' head asplodin'

Yeah, but who do you see actually using Mr. Clean's products? I've never seen Mr. Clean show up and rescue a man from lousy cleanser yet. Mr. Clean and the Brawny man - both super-studly imaginary macho men clearly aimed to appeal to super-feminine housewives - are not exactly a good counterargument, I fear. :tongue:


Oh, and as to Mr. Clean, have you ever checked out that sparkling clean wink of his at the end of those ads? There's a reason that stuff is marketed to women. Sex sells, baby. ;)

I agree that it's much more about dumbiosity than about gender-thing-ness. And I agree the ads are funny.

On the other hand I can see the sense of Poli's point that the guy ad is promoting lattes for sports-addicted slobs, whereas the girl ad is promoting lattes for ignorant bimbos.

But on the third hand, it's LATTES from McDONALD'S. Is there anything they could possibly have done to make this into a good thing? Does whether the ads are sexist or not really matter when we're talking about this kind of shit, which has so many layers of wrong?
its mcdonalds. land of bad food and the fools who eat it.

"bimbos" are their target demographic.

and its not like there arent women who just want a freaking latte without all the bullshit vocabulary that goes with in pretentious coffee shops.

i hear that its good coffee even though i dont see myself trying it any time soon.

You should have been around to see my head asplode the first time I saw an ad for diapers that came in your choice of blue with cowboy-type pictures on them or pink with flowers/bunnies-type pictures on them. Gender-stereotyped shit-pouches!!! grrrrrr......PAFF!!! << sound of Muravyets' head asplodin'

Yeah, that sort of thing baffles me. The babies clearly do not give a shit (har, har) about what color their diapers are, so why on earth would anyone think it important to reinforce gender stereotypes there? If you put your little boy in pink bunny diapers, will the pinkness somehow magically crawl up his butt and turn him gay? :rolleyes:

Yeah, that sort of thing baffles me. The babies clearly do not give a shit (har, har) about what color their diapers are, so why on earth would anyone think it important to reinforce gender stereotypes there? If you put your little boy in pink bunny diapers, will the pinkness somehow magically crawl up his butt and turn him gay? :rolleyes:
Maybe that's how it happens. *nods* One would think companies would be prohibited from making such products then, wouldn't one? ;)

I just thought of another Swiffer ad showing a man using the cleaning product. Perhaps Swiffer is the most gender-enlightened household cleaning products company in the world.

The ad in question shows a man eager to demonstrate to his wife how incredibly great this new floor Swiffer is. As she stands by, skeptical, he is busily dumping all kinds of garbage on the kitchen floor -- coffee, breakfast cereal, bread crumbs, etc, making a big mess. Then he takes the Swiffer floor sweeper and hey-presto, like magic, zip-zip and the mess is gone! Ta-dah! The wife is like, "Holy cow! Can I try?", and he's like, "No, it's mine," all jealous of the wonderful cleaning implement. :D

If you put your little boy in pink bunny diapers, will the pinkness somehow magically crawl up his butt and turn him gay?
So that's where they come from...

Speaking of which... our thread ads are for Sun and Earth cleaning products -- environmentally sound! Hm, what are they implying about NSGers? That we're the kinds of people who don't drink coffee with naked knees and worry about the Earth while washing our socks? :tongue:

EDIT: We're also getting ads for games that will supposedly let us "reclaim our brains", though I think they're targeting the wrong audience with that.

I have actually. I forget which one exactly. Gist was, a man and his son make some dinner, skip the cleaning to watch the game, use wonderful cleaning product to clean kitchen during halftime.

There's also a toilet wand commercial where the guy's on the phone with his wife saying "yes, honey, I cleaned the toilet" as he's cleaning the toilet with the magical no-effort wand; a tide commercial where a woman goes through complicated cleaning instructions for her husband and he just gets this super powered stain remover and does the laundry...
Usually when men are doing the cleaning on commercials, they're depicted as doing so because their wives want them to clean or a product is shown as being so easy a man can clean competently with it/silly woman, thinking cleaning takes time and effort.

I just thought of another Swiffer ad showing a man using the cleaning product. Perhaps Swiffer is the most gender-enlightened household cleaning products company in the world.

The ad in question shows a man eager to demonstrate to his wife how incredibly great this new floor Swiffer is. As she stands by, skeptical, he is busily dumping all kinds of garbage on the kitchen floor -- coffee, breakfast cereal, bread crumbs, etc, making a big mess. Then he takes the Swiffer floor sweeper and hey-presto, like magic, zip-zip and the mess is gone! Ta-dah! The wife is like, "Holy cow! Can I try?", and he's like, "No, it's mine," all jealous of the wonderful cleaning implement. :D
Yes, an ad showing how even men will love cleaning with this instrument.

I get particularly irritated by the commercials for toys that should not, in any sane universe, have gendered connotations at ALL, like Legos or toy cars. There is simply no rational reason to pitch those as "boy toys.")
When I was growing up, I loved legos without them having to make them pastel colours just for girls.

There's also a toilet wand commercial where the guy's on the phone with his wife saying "yes, honey, I cleaned the toilet" as he's cleaning the toilet with the magical no-effort wand; a tide commercial where a woman goes through complicated cleaning instructions for her husband and he just gets this super powered stain remover and does the laundry...
Usually when men are doing the cleaning on commercials, they're depicted as doing so because their wives want them to clean or a product is shown as being so easy a man can clean competently with it/silly woman, thinking cleaning takes time and effort.

Yes, an ad showing how even men will love cleaning with this instrument.
That actually was not the point of the two Swiffer ads I mentioned.

The detective with the duster was part of a series that showed men and women equally enjoying the miraculous ease of the product and its uncanny ability to hold onto dust so much that they lose awareness of their surroundings and just get high on dusting the Swiffer way. There is no particular gender identity attached to that, and the people using the product are not depicted in appropriate housecleaning contexts (i.e. the detective forgetting where he is and cleaning the crime scene with the Swiffer product while the investigation is still going on).

The floor cleaning tool ad I mentioned does not show the man cleaning the house as a chore, whether told to by the woman or not. Instead, it depicts the classic floor cleaner demonstration test -- dump a lot of junk on the floor and show how well the product cleans it up, a test that has been performed to market such items for nearly 100 years, and which is so cliched that it invites its own skepticism. There is no "clean the house, dear" context in that ad. It is merely a product demonstration from a product enthusiast to a product skeptic, presented in a humorous way. When the demo is performed, the woman's excitement over the product is equal to the man's.

The message of both Swiffer ads is that their products are so fucking awesome that they blow away both men and women equally and transcend even the most basic social niceties (like not taking it upon oneself to clean other people's houses).

Now, having said this, it is still true that the majority of Swiffer ads, just like other cleaning products, target women far more than men. I only mentioned those ads in answer to the question of when was the last time we saw a cleaning product ad that showed men using the product.

Ha, I haven't seen that one. I like it. :)

I've actually seen a fair number of cleaning product adverts featuring men. And preparing dinner. My favourite still though was for some stupid instant pizza? The women were sitting around playing cards while the men cooked and cleaned. It was funny.

I just thought of another Swiffer ad showing a man using the cleaning product. Perhaps Swiffer is the most gender-enlightened household cleaning products company in the world.


Apparently! *approves of Swiffer*

(*already approved of Swiffer insofar as Swiffers are, in fact, useful cleaning products, but decides to approve of them even more*)

A bunch of bloggers argue this ad is sexist. I think I agree. They could easily have chosen a male and a female to be drinking together - indeed, in terms of hitting a demographic, it would have made more sense, surely - and, arguably, are playing to the idea that women aren't naturally intellectual.
I suppose those bloggers have been up in arms for years over all the ads which imply that men are naturally lazy, knuckle-dragging illiterates who need their wives/mothers/girlfriends to protect them from their stupidity?

The one with two guys is pretty terrible, too, but I think the female one adds a hearty dose of sexism to its heapin' helpin' of anti-intellectualism, since the guys essentially say, "Now we can stop wearing turtlenecks and start watching football!" while the women say, "Now we can watch reality TV and stop pretending to have brains!" I'm not entirely sure why they couldn't at least have stuck with the same idiotic message for both, rather than making the female version strongly imply that the characters are both imbeciles.

However, leaving the McDonalds' ad behind for a moment, there's no question that advertisers have been clinging tight to sexist stereotypes for decades. When was the last time you saw a household cleaning product being used by a man in a commercial? How about the last time you saw toy cars, or Lego-type toys being played with by a little girl? Have you EVER seen any children's toy that could possibly be called "cute" (dolls, stuffed animals, etc.) played with by a little boy? How about power tools being used by a woman? I think you get the idea.
...


If that's what they say on the one with men, it ultimately suggests we be pieces of shit rather than real human beings. The presentation is perhaps different, but the content is the same (go to McDonald's, we're not fucking Starbucks!).

As for your rhetorical questions...

Sham-Wow!

And I've seen the later, I think.

I suppose those bloggers have been up in arms for years over all the ads which imply that men are naturally lazy, knuckle-dragging illiterates who need their wives/mothers/girlfriends to protect them from their stupidity?

The same bloggers? Who knows? I know plenty of people have mentioned distaste for those ads even in this thread alone, though.

Enjoy the ads while the last - they might very well be a thing of the past...


EU Parliament Calls for Less Sexism in Advertising

Members of the European Parliament on Tuesday voted in favor of a report which calls on advertisers to stop portraying men and women in tradition gender roles.

European lawmakers are concerned that the way women and men are portrayed in marketing and advertising is making it more difficult to dispell old-fashioned ideas of traditional gender roles.

Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) on Wednesday adopted a new report that calls on member states to make a greater effort to monitor how gender is portrayed in advertising. Constant images of women in the kitchen while men clean their cars outside are reinforcing sexist stereotypes, the study argues.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,576117,00.html

Haven't read through the thread yet so I am unsure if this has already being said.

The reason why they are using two women instead of a man and a woman or two man is because this as is targeting women. Specifically women who may feel like they have some pressure to act a certain way or be a certain way. Which they would have got through market research such as focus groups. Thus the advertisement was made with two women in it because that is who McDonalds wanted to target. The fact that some people have got their knickers in a twist may show that maybe there is some truth behind the ad.

To say that this technique of targeting a specific audience is sexist is mind blowing, after all you see beer ads that have a group of three men drinking beer, or it may be a group of men watching the football. Why? Because it is men who these people are targeting that is the demographic they want to get, if they showed women in those ads it would be off the target, as it is not women they are targeting. If I started a thread about this and its sexism I doubt that it would get the same responses and interest as this one.

But all that aside, the ad is not sexist simply for trying to market to a target audience and if they want to target a certain group of women over other women and men then so be it. Plus this ad was a pretty shit ad.

From what I can tell (I haven't seen this ad), they weren't trying to appeal to the female demographic or the male demographic, they were trying to appeal to the redneck demographic.

And, anyway, no one in their right mind thinks that no boys would like toy soldiers or girls like playing house if they weren't told they were supposed to be that way - the point is rather that SOME girls would quite like playing with GI Joe and SOME boys would like a baby doll, but you sure as heck wouldn't know it from commercials. (I get particularly irritated by the commercials for toys that should not, in any sane universe, have gendered connotations at ALL, like Legos or toy cars. There is simply no rational reason to pitch those as "boy toys.")

There may be SOME boys who like playing with Barbies there may be SOME girls who like playing with cars, but is the demographic that big to target? Is that who the advertisers and the comapany wants to target? The answer I would say to both those questions is no. The comapny wants to target girls so they will show girls playing if they showed two boys playing it then girls would not register an interest in the toy and thus would not want the toy.

(Sorry if there is already a thread on this. The story is a bit old.)

The ad in question (http://jezebel.com/5050721/mcdonalds-commercial-paints-women-as-dumb-poseurs) is for McDonald's, who have started doing good coffee. In the ad, two women who are sitting in a Starbucks/Nero/Coffee Republic type place discuss this with relief: they can finally get good coffee at McDonald's and in doing so can abandon all the accoutrements of posh coffee shops: jazz (though in my experience those places generally play lo-fi subpop that would be more suitable as backing music for softcore videos), reading, wearing long skirts. Deep down, they really don't care about world affairs, and like showing off their bodies (in this case, their knees, which reminds me of a Camper Van Beethoven song).

A bunch of bloggers argue this ad is sexist. I think I agree. They could easily have chosen a male and a female to be drinking together - indeed, in terms of hitting a demographic, it would have made more sense, surely - and, arguably, are playing to the idea that women aren't naturally intellectual.

There can probably be a reasonably boring semiotic debate about whether the ad is truly sexist, or simply anti-intellectual. But assuming for a moment that it is, at least in part, open to interpretation as somewhat sexist, I wanted to ask a broader question.

In US politics right now, 'women's issues' are being given an airing because there are probably more prominent women in mainstream politics than at any previous point - Palin, Rodham Clinton, Pelosi, Rice in particular. Pay equity is a particularly prominent issue (or so it seems from across the pond) because of McCain's general opposition to it.

Is US, or to avoid charges of anti-US sentiment, 'Western', culture inately sexist? (This not denying that other cultures may be equally or more sexist.) And if so, can laws such as pay equity or abortion access truly redress that injustice? Or does sexism reside on a level fundamentally deeper, such that what is called for is not legislative reform, but a mental and social revolution in thought?

That is, to try to boil down the questions to one, does advertising such as the example I provided demonstrate that, so long as sexism sells, it doesn't really matter what we do to legislate equality?

Jeez it's just a stupid commerical. Lots of people are poser. Why, because we're stupid scared cowards that if we show our real self, people won't like us and we'll all die afraid, and in the dark, alone.

God....I'd hate to see how such masterpieces such as Blazing Saddles would've changed if it was made today in this uptight PC world.

There may be SOME boys who like playing with Barbies there may be SOME girls who like playing with cars, but is the demographic that big to target? Is that who the advertisers and the comapany wants to target? The answer I would say to both those questions is no. The comapny wants to target girls so they will show girls playing if they showed two boys playing it then girls would not register an interest in the toy and thus would not want the toy.

Ignoring for the moment your assumption that all people associate themselves only with members of their own gender, why exactly could they not show a girl AND a boy playing with the toy?

Ignoring for the moment your assumption that all people associate themselves only with members of their own gender, why exactly could they not show a girl AND a boy playing with the toy?

Do you really want the boy to go through Hell in his social life? I mean think about it for a minute. A boy does a Barbie commerical, and then when it airs, you know, you just know that all the kids at his school are going to call him names such as "Sissy" or "Fag". It'll keep going until he decides to take a bath in his own blood.

Ignoring for the moment your assumption that all people associate themselves only with members of their own gender, why exactly could they not show a girl AND a boy playing with the toy?
Poli, this is why:

Do you really want the boy to go through Hell in his social life? I mean think about it for a minute. A boy does a Barbie commerical, and then when it airs, you know, you just know that all the kids at his school are going to call him names such as "Sissy" or "Fag". It'll keep going until he decides to take a bath in his own blood.

See, when you show boys and girls playing together, you get reactions like this (only serious) from gender-bigots.

You also run the risk of getting weirdo pervs with Bibles, home computers, and a letterhead for some bullshit morals group they just made up, calling for boycotts of your company because you show boys and girls playing together at a young age, which everyone knows is immoral.

Poli, this is why:

So you're saying that if a boy is shown to be in a Barbie commerical, he won't be picked on by his school mates.

Ok, when was the last time you've been in an American Public School?

If they are willing to pick on a cripple like me, then you can bet your sweet ass they'll do the same (if not worse) to a boy who appeared in a Barbie commerical.

Do you really want the boy to go through Hell in his social life? I mean think about it for a minute. A boy does a Barbie commerical, and then when it airs, you know, you just know that all the kids at his school are going to call him names such as "Sissy" or "Fag". It'll keep going until he decides to take a bath in his own blood.

Ah, yes, the classic "go with the majority or else the majority will hurt you" argument, used to object to pretty much every form of change in the history of society.

Personally, I prefer to try to stop bullying by the crazy, out-there method of actually punishing the bullies rather than claiming that the kids being bullied brought it on themselves for failing to conform properly, but maybe that's just me.

Ah, yes, the classic "go with the majority or else the majority will hurt you" argument, used to object to pretty much every form of change in the history of society.

Personally, I prefer to try to stop bullying by the crazy, out-there method of actually punishing the bullies rather than claiming that the kids being bullied brought it on themselves for failing to conform properly, but maybe that's just me.

Oh yes, because when kids picked on me, by taking my hearing aid or (at the time) leg braces, punishing them with suspension (Vacation days) really punished them. Yea, they get to sit on their fat asses all day long, playing video games. Yea, they were really sorry when they came back.

Please, might as well give them a time out.

Poli, this is why:



See, when you show boys and girls playing together, you get reactions like this (only serious) from gender-bigots.

You also run the risk of getting weirdo pervs with Bibles, home computers, and a letterhead for some bullshit morals group they just made up, calling for boycotts of your company because you show boys and girls playing together at a young age, which everyone knows is immoral.

I've actually noticed for a while that very, very few toy commercials for children older than about 3 and younger than about 15 feature children of both genders playing together - and on the rare occasions that they do, the children playing together must have matching skin and hair colors such that presumably we are to assume that they are siblings. It makes me wonder if advertisers' childhoods were very different from my own, because I definitely remember playing with boys as well as girls on a pretty regular basis. Sure, there was a year or so when "cooties" were a serious concern among the first-grade boys, but I really never saw the sort of total gender segregation that seems to be the norm among commercial-kids. Are there really people out there that think a six-year-old boy and a six-year-old girl building things out of Legos together is weird, deviant behavior?

Oh yes, because when kids picked on me, by taking my hearing aid or (at the time) leg braces, punishing them with suspension (Vacation days) really punished them. Yea, they get to sit on their fat asses all day long, playing video games. Yea, they were really sorry when they came back.

Please, might as well give them a time out.

So what you learned from that is "don't be different."

How sad for you.

So you're saying that if a boy is shown to be in a Barbie commerical, he won't be picked on by his school mates.

Ok, when was the last time you've been in an American Public School?

If they are willing to pick on a cripple like me, then you can bet your sweet ass they'll do the same (if not worse) to a boy who appeared in a Barbie commerical.
Ah, expanding your personal tragedy to cover the whole world, eh? Painting the world with your brush dipped in bitterness. Ah yes.

Trust me, the kid in the Barbie commercial will survive. I sincerely doubt he will end up bathing in his own blood, unless it is prop blood in the SciFi original movie he will no doubt someday star in (billed right after Kevin Sorbo himself! :starry eyes: ) -- a role he will land in spite of all the ads he will have been in for Barbie, pull-up toilet training undies, disinfectants, junk foods, and eventually as he grows older, onion slicers and herpes medications. The Barbie commercial he did when a mere lad will be a proud, barrier-breaking moment in his acting resume.

So what you learned from that is "don't be different."

How sad for you.

Hey, why else would I've gone through six ear reconstruction surgeries and four jaw surgeries. It sure as Hell wasn't because I enjoyed taking a month out of my life recovering from surgery.

Oh yes, because when kids picked on me, by taking my hearing aid or (at the time) leg braces, punishing them with suspension (Vacation days) really punished them. Yea, they get to sit on their fat asses all day long, playing video games. Yea, they were really sorry when they came back.

Please, might as well give them a time out.

So it would have been better just to forbid you to wear a hearing aid or braces, so no one could take them? Because that would seem to be what this analogy suggests...

Ah, expanding your personal tragedy to cover the whole world, eh? Painting the world with your brush dipped in bitterness. Ah yes.

Trust me, the kid in the Barbie commercial will survive. I sincerely doubt he will end up bathing in his own blood, unless it is prop blood in the SciFi original movie he will no doubt someday star in (billed right after Kevin Sorbo himself! :starry eyes: ) -- a role he will land in spite of all the ads he will have been in for Barbie, pull-up toilet training undies, disinfectants, junk foods, and eventually as he grows older, onion slicers and herpes medications. The Barbie commercial he did when a mere lad will be a proud, barrier-breaking moment in his acting resume.

*Laughes out loud and turns red from laughing*

Ahh.....it's funny to see how naive people are. Ah yea, "Oh he's breaking the barrier, he'll go on to greater things, this won't affect him at all, or very little."

Ah...I needed a good laugh.

I've actually noticed for a while that very, very few toy commercials for children older than about 3 and younger than about 15 feature children of both genders playing together - and on the rare occasions that they do, the children playing together must have matching skin and hair colors such that presumably we are to assume that they are siblings. It makes me wonder if advertisers' childhoods were very different from my own, because I definitely remember playing with boys as well as girls on a pretty regular basis. Sure, there was a year or so when "cooties" were a serious concern among the first-grade boys, but I really never saw the sort of total gender segregation that seems to be the norm among commercial-kids. Are there really people out there that think a six-year-old boy and a six-year-old girl building things out of Legos together is weird, deviant behavior?
Yes, there are, and they are called, among other things, Dr. James Dobson and Focus on the Family, self-styled moral media watchdogs.

Ah, expanding your personal tragedy to cover the whole world, eh? Painting the world with your brush dipped in bitterness. Ah yes.

Trust me, the kid in the Barbie commercial will survive. I sincerely doubt he will end up bathing in his own blood, unless it is prop blood in the SciFi original movie he will no doubt someday star in (billed right after Kevin Sorbo himself! :starry eyes: ) -- a role he will land in spite of all the ads he will have been in for Barbie, pull-up toilet training undies, disinfectants, junk foods, and eventually as he grows older, onion slicers and herpes medications. The Barbie commercial he did when a mere lad will be a proud, barrier-breaking moment in his acting resume.

<--- is seriously laughing out loud.

Indeed, if struggling actors can suffer through getting on TV and declaring to the world that they have genital herpes, erectile dysfunction, giant swollen hemorrhoids, and/or an uncontrollable tendency to pee their pants in public, somehow I think a Barbie commercial might not kill them. :tongue:

Really, the only place that I go to for coffee is a place that offers it black, strong, and in sizes small, medium and large. And at a reasonable price (A small approaching $2 is crap).

Other than that, you could summarize my views on this matter (regarding the McDonald's ad) as this:

http://p-userpic.livejournal.com/40328007/2939138

Hey, why else would I've gone through six ear reconstruction surgeries and four jaw surgeries. It sure as Hell wasn't because I enjoyed taking a month out of my life recovering from surgery.

Willy, I don't know how many times I've had to say this to you over the time you've been here, but here's one more.

What has happened to you and in your personal experience is not -- repeat IS NOT -- what happens everywhere. People get made fun of in school by those who are chronically insecure and probably assholes to boot. If you haven't figured that out by now, I really don't know what to tell you. I'm sorry for what you've gone through, but that's no excuse to assume that a little boy making a commercial for Barbie is somehow automatically doomed to a life as a pariah. I've found, over time and experience both remembering school and teaching there, that sometimes the pariah actually bring on some of the negative attention they receive. Not be being who they are, but by being obnoxiously defensive about who they are. If you seek offense, you will find it.

Lighten up.

*Laughes out loud and turns red from laughing*

Ahh.....it's funny to see how naive people are. Ah yea, "Oh he's breaking the barrier, he'll go on to greater things, this won't affect him at all, or very little."

Ah...I needed a good laugh.
OK, let me help you get your breath back but not joking anymore.

Seriously, do you really think the best way to deal with bullies picking on kids who are different is to force kids to conform out of fear of the bullies? Really? Seriously?

I know how bad bullies can be. I had a terrifying one in my grade school (I learned things years later that led me to suspect she was being sexually abused within her family, which would explain a lot about her particular brand of violence), but another thing I know about bullies is that you don't have to be especially noticeably different to get targeted by them. If you don't have a disability, or you don't make Barbie ads, then just wearing a blue shirt on a Wednesday will be excuse enough for them to attack you.

So please, enough already with this nonsense that the whole of society has to reinforce and maintain stereotypes just to keep the bullies of the world placated. If you can't see what's wrong with that kind of thinking, then, frankly, I don't know how to explain it to you.

OK, let me help you get your breath back but not joking anymore.

Seriously, do you really think the best way to deal with bullies picking on kids who are different is to force kids to conform out of fear of the bullies? Really? Seriously?

Either that or bring back corporal punishment. Honestly, whoever thought "Out of School Suspension" was a good idea was a major idiot and should be sbot.

I know how bad bullies can be. I had a terrifying one in my grade school (I learned things years later that led me to suspect she was being sexually abused within her family, which would explain a lot about her particular brand of violence), but another thing I know about bullies is that you don't have to be especially noticeably different to get targeted by them. If you don't have a disability, or you don't make Barbie ads, then just wearing a blue shirt on a Wednesday will be excuse enough for them to attack you.

Yes, I've heard this from my best friend as well. Apparently I'm susspose to feel sorry for the asshole who made me want to kill myself because his home life sucks. Yea, I'm sorry that his home life sucks, I do. But honestly, just because your home life sucks, does not give you a damn reason to take your fustration and anger out on me.

So please, enough already with this nonsense that the whole of society has to reinforce and maintain stereotypes just to keep the bullies of the world placated. If you can't see what's wrong with that kind of thinking, then, frankly, I don't know how to explain it to you.

Well we can always have the kids who are picked on fight back. I believe that what happened in Columbine.

Ignoring for the moment your assumption that all people associate themselves only with members of their own gender, why exactly could they not show a girl AND a boy playing with the toy?

First of all it is not my assumption that ALL people will only associate themselves with their own gender. But seriously Poli do you mean to say that if an ad is targeted at men then all women will automatically register with that ad and want to buy the product.

If they were targeting people of both genders such as ads I remember seeing that were selling toys such as a wet slide, then yes they would show a girl and a boy playing with the toy. But if they want to only target the boys of the world, or the girls of the world because it is selling the idea that you will have fun with this toy with other girls and other boys to this demographic, which is why when you see a barbie ad they may have a few girls around because they are selling to girls, if they had a bunch of boys playing with it, then most girls wouldn't associate themselves with this product because they would see it as a boy product rather than a girl product. Now I am sure that you know a few boys who enjoy playing with Barbie but they are not the people the company is targeting, the company is exclusively targeting girls and so will show girls playing with the toys and enjoying themselves playing with it.

Yes, I've heard this from my best friend as well. Apparently I'm susspose to feel sorry for the asshole who made me want to kill myself because his home life sucks. Yea, I'm sorry that his home life sucks, I do. But honestly, just because your home life sucks, does not give you a damn reason to take your fustration and anger out on me.

That statement makes no sense. Nobody can make you want to kill yourself. Those are thoughts that you generated in response to your situation.

Either that or bring back corporal punishment. Honestly, whoever thought "Out of School Suspension" was a good idea was a major idiot and should be sbot.



Yes, I've heard this from my best friend as well. Apparently I'm susspose to feel sorry for the asshole who made me want to kill myself because his home life sucks. Yea, I'm sorry that his home life sucks, I do. But honestly, just because your home life sucks, does not give you a damn reason to take your fustration and anger out on me.



Well we can always have the kids who are picked on fight back. I believe that what happened in Columbine.
Nice. Saying supportive things about mass murderers. Okay, regardless of the personal tragedies you may have suffered, I'm ready to dismiss you as a troll now.

Ah, yes, the classic "go with the majority or else the majority will hurt you" argument, used to object to pretty much every form of change in the history of society.

Personally, I prefer to try to stop bullying by the crazy, out-there method of actually punishing the bullies rather than claiming that the kids being bullied brought it on themselves for failing to conform properly, but maybe that's just me.
And how are you going to punish them? Have your child make an Enemies List and then personally track down the offenders yourself (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VzruTGLyEw&feature=related). Because I can guarantee you that the school won't do one fucking thing until your child decides to prove how "unique" they are by bringing a duffel bag full of guns to school. Then everyone will be ready to rush out and talk about how innocent their little darlings were, and how foul, depraved and mislead your little rebel is.

Do you really want the boy to go through Hell in his social life? I mean think about it for a minute. A boy does a Barbie commerical, and then when it airs, you know, you just know that all the kids at his school are going to call him names such as "Sissy" or "Fag". It'll keep going until he decides to take a bath in his own blood.

I got that treatment for far less than that. Generally I attempted to bathe in their blood.

And how are you going to punish them? Have your child make an Enemies List and then personally track down the offenders yourself. Because I can guarantee you that the school won't do one fucking thing until your child decides to prove how "unique" they are by bringing a duffel bag full of guns to school. Then everyone will be ready to rush out and talk about how innocent their little darlings were, and how foul, depraved and mislead your little rebel is.

You can "guarantee" that? Really? I'm impressed. I haven't even conceived this hypothetical child yet, and you already know what school I will be sending him to and what their policy on bullying will be - that's some serious precognitive skill!

And how are you going to punish them? Have your child make an Enemies List and then personally track down the offenders yourself (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VzruTGLyEw&feature=related). Because I can guarantee you that the school won't do one fucking thing until your child decides to prove how "unique" they are by bringing a duffel bag full of guns to school. Then everyone will be ready to rush out and talk about how innocent their little darlings were, and how foul, depraved and mislead your little rebel is.

I actually still have my "enemy" list from High School. Four more years till 10th reunion.....four more years. *Twitches*

That was tounge in cheek

You can "guarantee" that? Really? I'm impressed. I haven't even conceived this hypothetical child yet, and you already know what school I will be sending him to and what their policy on bullying will be - that's some serious precognitive skill!

It's a proven fact that school SUCK at dealing with bullies. They do, and I'm not talking about the normal everyday suck, I'm talking Jar Jar Binks suck, I'm talking having a classic rock song turned into a rap song suck.

Thats why some of the school shootings happened. Because the schools pretty much give slaps on the wrist and tell bullies "Don't do that again" and then send them on their way.

It's a proven fact that school SUCK at dealing with bullies. They do, and I'm not talking about the normal everyday suck, I'm talking Jar Jar Binks suck, I'm talking having a classic rock song turned into a rap song suck.

Thats why some of the school shootings happened. Because the schools pretty much give slaps on the wrist and tell bullies "Don't do that again" and then send them on their way.
I thought you started a whole new thread because you didn't want to hijack this one. Do you now want to keep two threads focused on your mood of the moment?

You can "guarantee" that? Really? I'm impressed. I haven't even conceived this hypothetical child yet, and you already know what school I will be sending him to and what their policy on bullying will be - that's some serious precognitive skill!
It is a statement based upon empirical evidence, and is no more precognition than this one:
If you drop your child off a cliff, she will travel downward rather than being whisked away by the spirits of the wind.

It is a statement based upon empirical evidence, and is no more precognition than this one:
If you drop your child off a cliff, she will travel downward rather than being whisked away by the spirits of the wind.

I will have to test this!

*drops nephew from cliff, gets arrested for manslaughter, is disowned by family*

It is a statement based upon empirical evidence, and is no more precognition than this one:
If you drop your child off a cliff, she will travel downward rather than being whisked away by the spirits of the wind.

Ah, yes. We certainly have just as many examples of children who have managed to survive being bullied as we do of children who have managed to fall up. Yep, that's not a ridiculous comparison at all.

I actually still have my "enemy" list from High School. Four more years till 10th reunion.....four more years. *Twitches*

That was tounge in cheek

The best thing about school reunions is that you can go to those people see that they live shitty lives stick two fingers up at them and say yeah, bitch I'm the one with the 4 bedroom house and high paying job, while your there shovelling shit all day.

Ah, yes. We certainly have just as many examples of children who have managed to survive being bullied as we do of children who have managed to fall up. Yep, that's not a ridiculous comparison at all.
And if the fall is short enough and the child is lucky, she'll survive impact with the ground.
The bit about the school shootings was hyperbolic, yes. However, as your post mentioned the school's "policy on bullying," I was under the impression that it was my portrayal of school administrators that you were protesting.

The best thing about school reunions is that you can go to those people see that they live shitty lives stick two fingers up at them and say yeah, bitch I'm the one with the 4 bedroom house and high paying job, while your there shovelling shit all day.

How sad to need to redeem yourself through engaging in the same behavior that...nah, fuck it. Nobody cares.

The best thing about school reunions is that you can go to those people see that they live shitty lives stick two fingers up at them and say yeah, bitch I'm the one with the 4 bedroom house and high paying job, while your there shovelling shit all day.

I'm actually in Aghanistan right now, oh...Osama wants to speak to me, be back tomorrow.

*waits for CIA to come to his door*

Willy, I don't know how many times I've had to say this to you over the time you've been here, but here's one more.

What has happened to you and in your personal experience is not -- repeat IS NOT -- what happens everywhere. People get made fun of in school by those who are chronically insecure and probably assholes to boot. If you haven't figured that out by now, I really don't know what to tell you. I'm sorry for what you've gone through, but that's no excuse to assume that a little boy making a commercial for Barbie is somehow automatically doomed to a life as a pariah. I've found, over time and experience both remembering school and teaching there, that sometimes the pariah actually bring on some of the negative attention they receive. Not be being who they are, but by being obnoxiously defensive about who they are. If you seek offense, you will find it.

Lighten up.

You're absolutely right on that. One of the worst things someone who is constantly picked upon can do is become so defensive that they lash out continously at everyone around them. I did that for far too long, expecting offense and hatred that I brought it down on myself constantly.

Of course I didn't go through anything as severe as Wilgrove did, but I do--according to a professional psychologist--have a rather sensitive personality, so it's taken a lot of time for me to recover from what I've done to myself.

How sad to need to redeem yourself through engaging in the same behavior that...nah, fuck it. Nobody cares.

Oh please Intangelon, I am hardly redeeming myself to them at all, it is merely just a way of proving a point. A certain group of people say you are wrong, you prove them wrong viola, hardly an attempt to redeem myself, but I don't know about you but I get satisfaction when later on in life all these people (including teachers) thought you would never amount to anything and just be a shit kicker when you are older, there is satisfaction saying yes you were wrong about that, and your arrogance and how good you thought you were is now underneath the big dirtpile they have to shovel everyday for work.

I'm actually in Aghanistan right now, oh...Osama wants to speak to me, be back tomorrow.

*waits for CIA to come to his door*

:D

The message you have entered is to short, please lengthen your message to at least 3 characters. (Didn't it used to be 6?)

are we still talking about sexism in advertising - because if we are then I don't get it anymore.

Oh yeah, how is it that a thread about sexism in advertising never mentioned how women don't drink beer, they just appear in skimpy outfits and hang all over men who do?

Oh please Intangelon, I am hardly redeeming myself to them at all, it is merely just a way of proving a point. A certain group of people say you are wrong, you prove them wrong viola, hardly an attempt to redeem myself, but I don't know about you but I get satisfaction when later on in life all these people (including teachers) thought you would never amount to anything and just be a shit kicker when you are older, there is satisfaction saying yes you were wrong about that, and your arrogance and how good you thought you were is now underneath the big dirtpile they have to shovel everyday for work.

Viola? What does a C-clef-reading alto-ranged string instrument have to do with anything? :tongue:

Living well is the best revenge. Going back to shove it in people's faces cheapens it.

Oh yeah, how is it that a thread about sexism in advertising never mentioned how women don't drink beer, they just appear in skimpy outfits and hang all over men who do?
Well, if you look closely, you'll realize that, in the US, nobody drinks beer. They just hold beer bottles. I believe there is a law or some regulation or something that says ads are not allowed to show people actually drinking alcoholic beverages on screen.

And I have seen ads in which both men and women are shown holding beer bottles, which I suppose is Freudian in some advertising kind of a way. :D

Viola? What does a C-clef-reading alto-ranged string instrument have to do with anything? :tongue:


Perhaps they were as wrong as a violist's attempt to sight-read? OH SNAP MUSIC GEEK HUMOR. :p

Well, if you look closely, you'll realize that, in the US, nobody drinks beer. They just hold beer bottles. I believe there is a law or some regulation or something that says ads are not allowed to show people actually drinking alcoholic beverages on screen.

Well, there's also the issue of whether you can call the beer that gets advertised as such in the US beer... I mean, I've never seen a commercial for a microbrew while visiting and the rest of the beer is either practically water or imported...

And I have seen ads in which both men and women are shown holding beer bottles, which I suppose is Freudian in some advertising kind of a way. :D
But more often it's just girls throwing themselves at the men who are drinking beer or girls as accessories or prizes to be won (i.e. drink our beer and win a golf trip where one of these beautiful women will be your caddy).

Perhaps they were as wrong as a violist's attempt to sight-read? OH SNAP MUSIC GEEK HUMOR. :p

Best kind!

Right before the downbeat of a concert, the conductor notices that one of the violists is crying. He walks over and asks, "What's wrong? We have to play now!"

"One of the brass players twisted one of my tuning pegs out of place!" she sobbed.
"Well, that was rather childish, but still, why are you crying?"
"He won't tell me which one!"

Well, there's also the issue of whether you can call the beer that gets advertised as such in the US beer... I mean, I've never seen a commercial for a microbrew while visiting and the rest of the beer is either practically water or imported...


But more often it's just girls throwing themselves at the men who are drinking beer or girls as accessories or prizes to be won (i.e. drink our beer and win a golf trip where one of these beautiful women will be your caddy).

I'm glad microbrews don't advertise. The last thing I need is for my favorite brewery to become a haven for assholes. Finding a good beer is part of the challenge of being a citizen of the US with any damn taste.

Well, there's also the issue of whether you can call the beer that gets advertised as such in the US beer... I mean, I've never seen a commercial for a microbrew while visiting and the rest of the beer is either practically water or imported...


But more often it's just girls throwing themselves at the men who are drinking beer or girls as accessories or prizes to be won (i.e. drink our beer and win a golf trip where one of these beautiful women will be your caddy).
Well, yes, of course, because everyone knows, because Dr. Freud explained it to us, that women don't have beer bottles to hold, and this causes them to suffer beer bottle envy -- on account of the beers are so refreshing and tasty, even though they can only be experienced through sublimation and projection since nobody is allowed to drink them (which is also Freudian). As a result of beer bottle envy, women throw themselves upon men who do have beer bottles (and who hold them on tv) in a wild frenzy to indirectly possess the beer bottle (via transference -- or maybe they intend to open the beer bottles using their toothed vaginas as bottle openers, you know like ancient Greek Bacchae (that method of opening beer bottles is the mystery of the Orphic Mysteries, by the way), though perhaps that was more Jung's theory of beer ads than Freud's).

Well, yes, of course, because everyone knows, because Dr. Freud explained it to us, that women don't have beer bottles to hold, and this causes them to suffer beer bottle envy -- on account of the beers are so refreshing and tasty, even though they can only be experienced through sublimation and projection since nobody is allowed to drink them (which is also Freudian). As a result of beer bottle envy, women throw themselves upon men who do have beer bottles (and who hold them on tv) in a wild frenzy to indirectly possess the beer bottle (via transference -- or maybe they intend to open the beer bottles using their toothed vaginas as bottle openers, you know like ancient Greek Bacchae (that method of opening beer bottles is the mystery of the Orphic Mysteries, by the way), though perhaps that was more Jung's theory of beer ads than Freud's).
Freud was an idiot who didn't know that a clit is so much better than a penis (twice the nerve endings and it's not going to get hit by a poorly aimed soccer ball). Men would have clitoral envy if they all knew how awesome clits are.

Freud was an idiot who didn't know that a clit is so much better than a penis (twice the nerve endings and it's not going to get hit by a poorly aimed soccer ball). Men would have clitoral envy if they all knew how awesome clits are.
I should strangle you for trying to kill my joke. Are you even going to try to touch the Jung gag?

Freud was an idiot who didn't know that a clit is so much better than a penis (twice the nerve endings and it's not going to get hit by a poorly aimed soccer ball). Men would have clitoral envy if they all knew how awesome clits are.

I do, trust me.

Also, the penis getting whacked by a football is no big deal. It's the gonads that cause all the doubling-over and fake falsettos in movies.

I should strangle you for trying to kill my joke. Are you even going to try to touch the Jung gag?
No, Freud's just so much easier. I mean, just because he wanted to kill his father and have sex with his mother doesn't mean everybody did.

I do, trust me.
Yay!

Also, the penis getting whacked by a football is no big deal. It's the gonads that cause all the doubling-over and fake falsettos in movies.
True... fine... we (women) don't have to worry about our clits getting cold in the winter because they are safely stowed away instead of just hanging there with two layers of fabric (unless other layers are added) between them and the elements.

Its just a damn commercial, who gives a fuck?

Its just a damn commercial, who gives a fuck?

Agreed.

Its just a damn commercial, who gives a fuck?

90 posts worth of gives-a-fuck so far. Seems somebody does.

Yay!


True... fine... we (women) don't have to worry about our clits getting cold in the winter because they are safely stowed away instead of just hanging there with two layers of fabric (unless other layers are added) between them and the elements.

Friction does a lot to help in winter. I go 70s down there for just that reason, and bare in the heat for the same reason.

Best kind!

Right before the downbeat of a concert, the conductor notices that one of the violists is crying. He walks over and asks, "What's wrong? We have to play now!"

"One of the brass players twisted one of my tuning pegs out of place!" she sobbed.
"Well, that was rather childish, but still, why are you crying?"
"He won't tell me which one!"


That's one of my favorites. :)

You are lost in the desert. In the distance, you see a talented violist, an incompetent violist, and Santa Claus. Who do you approach for help?




The incompetent violist, obviously. Everyone knows the other two aren't real.

please there have been so many more sexist commercials. Put them in some bikinis and/or in suggestive poses then complain to me about sexism

Viola? What does a C-clef-reading alto-ranged string instrument have to do with anything? :tongue:

:D, well if I change two letters around then it makes a bit more sense, and I know you know which two I am talking about.
Living well is the best revenge. Going back to shove it in people's faces cheapens it.

Well maybe, but I am a bastard, and enjoy it.

That's one of my favorites. :)

You are lost in the desert. In the distance, you see a talented violist, an incompetent violist, and Santa Claus. Who do you approach for help?




The incompetent violist, obviously. Everyone knows the other two aren't real.

:D

What's the difference between an onion and a viola? No-one starts crying when you slice up a viola.

I'm confused. Advert uses stereotypes to sell product. And in news just in water is wet. Advertising is probably the most immoral professional after politicians.

An advertiser's job is to sell. if putting a women in a bikini will sell more product, they will do it. If making adult women think they need to have the body of a pre-pubescent 14 Year Old girl, they will do it. Making a man look stupid, to make women feel better about themselves, they will do it.

Sexism in advertising, Racism in advertising, any use of a stereotype in advertising is rampant. If you want to talk about how advertising does a disservice to women, men, minorities, basically the entire buying public, fine, but don't suggest it shows a greater issue with sexism in the world.

:D, well if I change two letters around then it makes a bit more sense, and I know you know which two I am talking about.


Well maybe, but I am a bastard, and enjoy it.

Fair enough.


How do you get two violists to play in tune?



Shoot one.

(Sorry if there is already a thread on this. The story is a bit old.)

The ad in question (http://jezebel.com/5050721/mcdonalds-commercial-paints-women-as-dumb-poseurs) is for McDonald's, who have started doing good coffee. In the ad, two women who are sitting in a Starbucks/Nero/Coffee Republic type place discuss this with relief: they can finally get good coffee at McDonald's and in doing so can abandon all the accoutrements of posh coffee shops: jazz (though in my experience those places generally play lo-fi subpop that would be more suitable as backing music for softcore videos), reading, wearing long skirts. Deep down, they really don't care about world affairs, and like showing off their bodies (in this case, their knees, which reminds me of a Camper Van Beethoven song).

A bunch of bloggers argue this ad is sexist. I think I agree. They could easily have chosen a male and a female to be drinking together - indeed, in terms of hitting a demographic, it would have made more sense, surely - and, arguably, are playing to the idea that women aren't naturally intellectual.


It's only sexist if it's not true, and sadly, a good number of woman (and men) really do act like that.

It's not anti-women, or anti-feminist, it's anti-intellectual, which is something that runs deep in America culture, as far as I can tell.

ummm. that wasnt sexist.
bascially i read your description. 2 women are drinking coffee acting high class. The reason they act high class is that's what is expected at the sort of places that serve good coffee and that's why they came. Now that McDonald has good coffee they can act how they want and still get good coffee.

other then the reference to clothes most of the lines would only need limited change to be used by a male character. Shorts instead of a skirt below your knees for instance.

Fair enough.


How do you get two violists to play in tune?



Shoot one.

What do a viola and a lawsuit have in common?



Everyone is happier once the case is closed.

What do a viola and a lawsuit have in common?



Everyone is happier once the case is closed.

Depends if the instrument has been taken out or put back in. *shudder at the former*

A shepherd is minding his flock when a musician walks up to him holding something. 'What can I give you for this sheep?', he says, but the shepherd replies, 'Hmm...how about, I'll tell you what instrument you play, and if I get it wrong you can keep the sheep, and if I don't you'll let me have it back?' The musician agrees and the shepherd says thoughtfully, 'Ok, you are a violist.' The violist is shocked, 'Wow! How did you know?', and the shepherd replies, 'Now, put down that dog....'

I had no idea the viola was such an amusing instrument. :D