Another go woke go broke - McCains

How is it sexualising a child's meal. He's making it for himself. No children there

"The films are packed with Baga Chipz’ iconic innuendos, framing the midweek meal occasion as the perfect time to forget the rules, unwind and enjoy the things you love."

In adverts for products made for children, why are 'innuendos' the chosen register?

This is the one that has put me off chip butties. [helpful]

twitter.com/McCainUKIE/status/1534158150424723458?t=aawoiZv9tVw_FO96bClrUw&s=19

I honestly can't believe this advert. It's like their advertising agency is trying to sink them. My family certainly won't be buying Mccains ever again.
Total contempt for women. A man in woman-face. Sexist language. Disgusting misogyny.
And sexualising a children's meal. "Lacy bits". "Great big knockers." Simply astonishing.

Well we start by being aware of the discussion we're having, instead of laughing at people who aren't saying what you think they are saying.

We're offended by the sexism and sexualisation of childrens products, numbnuts.

Yes. Every time I get called a pearl clutcher for objecting to something, a little red flag springs up in the back of my mind.

'pearl clutcher' seems to pop up every time women object to the sexualising of children.

Odd.

Way to completely miss the point.

‘How do you people make it through a whole day in the real world? Just hilarious.’

I’m not offended by a man in drag. I’m offended by the re-entry of 1970s sexism into the public discourse, under the cover of inclusion of LGBT. Why does being LGBT need to involve sounding quite so much like a dirty old man?

I was trying to report the tweet (for sexism) but it won't let me, anyone else having this problem?

Can we not call it 'womanface'?

I understand why it gets called that, and goodness knows I don't like drag. But we should be able to articulate our problems with it without just pointing to blackface. It strikes me as parasiting off the work of black civil rights campaigners.

Did the people who campaigned against blackface have anything to use as some sort of cultural shorthand for why it was offensive, when they sought to change public attitudes? I can't think that they did. They had to explain why it was demeaning each and every time. We should be able to do the same.

Besides, if women simply say that drag is like blackface without further explanation, what's to stop the audience drawing the totally opposite conclusion from the one intended? People could decide that if drag and blackface are equivalent, then blackface should be acceptable again! I am sure no-one here wants that to happen.

'Don't sexualise products aimed at children' is not a controversial statement.

OMG this is hilarious, being offended by a man in drag! Is this really the world I'm living in, God help me. How do you people make it through a whole day in the real world? Just hilarious.

You have your opinion, I have mine. Just watch what you want to watch and buy what you want to buy and I will do the same.

It IS womanface, not it's not..

I love seeing the usual apologists on these threads. It reminds me of how, six or seven years ago, I would have been just the same because I was cool.
Then began the absolute onslaught on what I believed were women’s secure rights and I realised how the structural misogyny hadn’t gone anywhere; it was just waiting for people like me to become complacent before it came roaring back.

Say it again, it's not womanface

Not sure far removed from blackface / do you find that funny too?

It's Womanface.

People found the Black and White Minstrels funny at the time too but we've grown up since realising that that's Blackface.

The right: 'Dresses, hair and make-up are not defining features of being a woman and just wanting to wear a dress doesn't make you female'

Brand uses a male actor who wears a wig, dress and makeup.

Also the right: 'YoU ArE TaKiNg ThE PiSs OuT Of WomEn StOp IiIiIiIT!!'

Woman up you lot. It's a man in a dress, he's not trying to piss in your toilets or bring his penis into your living room. He's not even trying to make you believe he doesn't have a penis, he's just expressing himself with his clothing without claiming to have access to female spaces by right - isn't that what you want?

Pearl clutchers is a tired and wanky way to try and invalidate a sensible viewpoint.

If you're not seeing the problem, its an issue with you ability to see the problem. IT doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. I'm sorry you've failed to grasp the issue, but don't blame others for your failings.

This thread seems like a good example of what we've seen so often over the last few years:

• company/organisation with purpose or product aimed at kids, does something sexualised
• company/organisation either thinks this is fine or that they'll get away with it because it has a tenuous link to the ever-expanding set of letters / rainbow which has been trashed by queer theory in action
• women point out how it's not appropriate. In this case, be it that the product is for or not for kids, the mocking of women's bodies is offensive. Be it that the product is for kids, it remains offensive and it gives them the message that women's bodies should be mocked by males.
• we get loads of "but this is for students" as though young women don't matter. Or "it's not on telly" as though its existence doesn't matter or as though a company would spend time and money making an advert for no reason(!).
• then there's the extra layer of offensive and inappropriate which is the "you could park a bus in there". And still posters come on to tell us this is fine, nothing to see / ignore well established social boundaries and decency of conduct towards women.

On the last point, I guess this shows gender ideology and queer theory quite clearly. Remove "sex" as a protection and you don't see sexism. But we do see it and we won't shut up about it.

Baga chips is her drag name. Abs that's the kind of act she does.

Thank you for explaining that, its the part I was struggling with!

Not seeing the issue. Baga chips is her drag name. Abs that's the kind of act she does. It's mildly funny If you like that sort of thing and a play on words .....
So many pearl clutchers

And no it’s not because I’m ‘vanilla’ as someone has said up thread.

It is because is utterly degrading to women.

Though I guess technically it should be a ?