The banner ad for the flowers: is it just meant to be degrading to men or insulting to women's intelligence too?

[CelineMcBean]

The bizarre banner ad with the semi naked men (probably described as "hunks" by the ad agency). Erm, seriously? On Mumsnet? You know we have a full compliment of brain cells yes?

Scantily clad men to advertise a product is fairly insulting all round. Tell me there's something witty and ironic I'm missing in this campaign please because I am baffled as to why you're permitting sexist crap like this on the site.

Not to mention no man looks good in dungarees

[JustineMumsnet]

@CelineMcBean

Thanks for your reply Justine but it was more than a few banner ads. There was a whole campaign in Sponsored Discussions with an OP written by a MN staffer.

Would you have run the campaign if it was for, say cars, with some ladies posing without all their clothes? Or some other stereotypical male product?

While I don't expect you to preview all advertising before it goes up, I do think if the sexes had been reversed you would, quite rightly, have been all over this once it was pointed out.

Yes you're right, we would, of course be all over it if the sexes were reversed. But that's not just a simple case of anti-maleness - it's more complicated than that.

We are, for example, we are much more likely to be protective of/ delete disparaging comments about about discriminated groups than non-discriminated groups in general on Mumsnet. Women, in general, are much more prone to being objectified than men - think that's why we would respond differently.

[CelineMcBean]

I find that argument rather problematic. Sexism is sexism and objectification is objectification. As a feminist I expect equality but not at the expense of the dominant group - that just moves the problem and weakens my credibility.

To take the argument about most discriminated vs the dominant group then that would imply that there are acceptable situations to be racist or discriminate based on sexuality because of which group is being targeted. The law doesn't make this distinction so why does Mumsnet?

Plus these adverts are crass and insulting to women's intelligence. The idea that a naked man might make us buy a product... come on. I'm quite disappointed at the attitude being shown here. I would have thought equality was at the heart of the site.

[PanonOlympus]

Yes, I'm finding that position a bit untenable i.e.

" We are, for example, we are much more likely to be protective of/ delete disparaging comments about about discriminated groups than non-discriminated groups in general on Mumsnet."

The only credible position is to 'not discriminate', across the board. Not 'we're comparatively a bit easy on goading/offensive posts about or toward men in general or particular'.

Though it does explain quite a few instances where the deletion practice has been wildly uneven.

Re the hunks selling stuff aimed at women. Where does that tv ad for a Cadbury's bar with some male model talking about the choc and the female voice-over asks "was he talking?". Funniest ad for years, but wrong?

[PanonOlympus]

[CelineMcBean]

Yes I agree. The position had to be equal.

Re the chocolate ad I'm not a fan of that either really but I don't have as lofty expectations of ITV or channel 5 et al as I do of Mumsnet. They are not taking on campaigns against sexism so I don't think they have to worry about looking hypocritical in the way MN might. Plus I don't think they are selective in their advertising policy which MN is by asking us to vote on McDonalds, not taking Nestle's money etc.

Really I think MN has quite moral expectations if itself as a brand - thankfully - but in this instance I just don't understand the position that it's ok because it's men being targeted. Seems bizarre.

[CelineMcBean]

I think it may have been an Aero ad Pan?

[PanonOlympus]

Oh totally agree on the MN 'much higher threshold' across the ethical board and I wouldn't expect it any other way for obv reasons ( which as you point out they have historically demonstrated).
But one can see how/why the 'less discriminated against' position could be arrived at, given society's attitudes as a whole are purveyed through ads. And as men in a 'privileged' position we are likely to pass stuff off - as I did - with a wry smile at the 'chink in the armour' of anti-discriminatory practice. Besides to note it with concern would leave one open to accusations of being precious po-faced and 'entitled'.

[PanonOlympus]

celine - you're right. And I've got to say it looks much creepier now than back in the day. Change in perspective.

[CelineMcBean]

Yy to accusations of po-faced. I appreciate there will be people who just think I have no sense of humour but when are where does the line get drawn?

I have been racially abused once. I am white and the attitude from some is very much "white people have been dishing it out for centuries so what are you complaining about?". Well I haven't behaved like that and I don't deserve to be treated badly for things I cannot help. Once these attitudes start creeping in it's very hard to change things.

[Jux]

Agree with everything you have both said. Tbh [shamefaced] I objected to the whole thing because it insulted my intelligence, far more than because it objectified men and was generally crass and badly done (I objected to the tone and script of the VO as well).

It is interesting that (some) men can Influenced be by a half naked woman draped over something, whereas (ime most) women are not influenced by half naked men doing the same sort of job.