Laugh or offended?

[MarriedDadOneSonOneDaughter]

I used to laugh at such ads in ignorance and innocence, but have been so sensitised to feminism that I now can't watch without thinking "I'm supposed to be offended aren't I?".

What do you think?

Sorry that was all a bit wordy. Hope the gist came through okay!

Keepiithidden

I'm want to understand your post as it sounds like you have an interesting point but I don't really get what you are saying. Can you try again for me?

No worries MarriedDad, I'm afraid I'm not especially eloquent!

Okay, assuming we live in a patriarchal society propped up by a similar media in part. It's churning out adverts that portray women as a lower class than men, supporting the power imbalance. This is against the equality most would like (or say they would like) to see. IMO this means we need to focus on getting rid of the ads that support this structure.

The ad in the OP is against the traditional grain, possibly too far if you get upset about objectifying I guess. It (and a few similar ones - diet coke?) are not going to do a lot to alter men's position in society. They aren't going to suddenly shift the power dynamic so far that Radical Feminism becomes the new totalitarianism! Therefore, I don't really see them as much of an issue compared to the ads I mentioned previously.

Does that make a bit more sense?

I suppose, I just don't see these adverts as a particularly big or powerful backlash against the norm. Certainly not enough to warrant getting offended about anyway. In my version of an ideal, equal (utopian) society, these kind of adverts would be fine, as there would be similar quantities of adverts taking the piss out of each gender, we just don't have that at the moment and we won't until the rest of society becomes equal.

"if you get upset about objectifying"

Do you not get upset about objectification?

In fact, to take a totally non-gender view, it doesn't matter if the ad is a man or a woman. The kernel of the ad is presenting a physically ideal person, re-enforcing unobtainable aspirations, along with mocking intellectual inferiority.

Even if this was in the context of equal measures amongst men and women where gender wasn't an issue anymore, I still think it's bad.

I don't agree with your position.

No, objectification doesn't upset me. I don't have a issue of with viewing another human representing a physical, sexual ideal. I do have an issue if it is treated as aspirational to the point of extreme. To me the key word is unattainable, I think if people are realistic about what the media is, how it functions and how it can and, more importantly cannot be representative of real life then there would not be an issue with objectification.

Your other point about mocking intellectual inferiority I take completely. I confess I didn't really consider that aspect of the advert as I assumed the issue was around the image, sorry.

But anyway, I respect your opinion, even if I don't necessarily agree with it!

It's interesting that Ive only really considered objectification in the context of advancing and the like before. Your posts have made me think...

Advancing? That should've been lapdancing!

You have a good point. Confusing objectification with natural sexuality can trip up many an argument. Defining the difference probably helps to present the problem and how it could be fixed.

I don't think it's any co-incidence that I am noticing all this stuff as my daughter grows up. Constant bombardment from advertising and on screen role models is a serious concern.

Definitely scary being a Dad to a daughter, I'm in the same boat and it scares me the kind of world she'll be growing up in. Hopefully we'll be able to give her the tools to cope and prosper, but I'm conscious it's going to be a lot harder for her than my son.

Anyway, back to objectification. I was thinking about other possible examples of objectification that could demonstrate why I don't see it as a problem. The only ones I can really think of are things like athletes, Jess Ennis for example, she's a physically top notch athlete, yet no one complains about not being able to attain such an athletic record as her. Equally as unattainable to mere mortals as the physique of the chap in the ad.

I suppose it is because the sex symbol thing is everywhere, more so than encouraging athleticism. There must be equivalents in intellectual areas too, but again there isn't the same pressure to appear like these high-end examples. It is odd, not something I can really fathom out.

Ennis in a good example. I see two separate points though - 1) objectification and 2) unobtainable goals.

I think Ennis is not the same as a bikini model (or whatever) for a number of reasons.

• The goal is considered more worthy - being an athlete has health and ability at its core, being superficially beautiful does not

• A sportsman is a role model for sports. A bikini model is, at most/worst, a role model for sexual attraction.

• Ennis is popularised in part to celebrate an "acheivement". Models are popularised to celebrate other people's sexual appetite (I might be stretching the point there, but I think the comparative analysis still holds up)

• A female sportswomen is surely a positive thing to see in the media that can only help to "empower" girls and women towards equality of opportunity. A bikini model does the opposite.

I suppose it's the difference between "inspiring role models" where it's clear that ability and hard work are required and "unobtainable sexual appeal" where both the goal is not required and the method to achieving the goal is likely to lead to unhealthy outcomes. Apart from sporting injuries, no one is likely to suffer for getting fit, but lots of people suffer because they don't think they are "fit" (i.e. sexy enough).

I see what you mean MarriedDad. As I said in a previous post, I'd only really thought about in the context of lapdancing and other stripper type roles. The context was whether lapdancing (of either gender) would be acceptable within a truly equal society. I struggled to find any reason why it wouldn't be despite finding it all a bit distasteful. On the proviso that the objectification finished when the show did. I.e. those partaking suffered no onward repercussions.

In trying to answer your post I thought I could simply transcribe my thinking from there to here. Looks like that hasn't really worked!

Having said that, I think there is an awful lot to be said for society taking a bit more of a role in discussing the purpose and context of advertising. It is certainly something I've talked about with DCs (although age appropriate for a 3yr old is a bit of struggle!), and hopefully there'll come through without having unreasonable expectations of unattainable attributes (be that sexual or athletic).

Sort of linking in to this, Do they still portray male teenagers as idiots when GCSE and A levels come out on soaps?

Probably Boney. I don't watch soaps so can't guarantee it though.

I think there is still a gender divide at that level of education.