Do you think the Diet Coke adverts "objectify" men?

[foodworknews]

They've been going for years. It used to be a bunch of office women drooling over a window cleaner with his shirt off drinking the beverage.

The latest one a bunch of women in the park drool over a man who gets his shirt wet and removes it before proceeding to have a drink.

Isn't this basically the opposite of what we sometimes complain about?

[Janet12345]

So what can we do to stop the ad being shown ? If enough of us email them perhaps they will stop showing it ? It would be nice to show men that we are genuinely trying to fight for equality here and as most of us agree it would be bad if it was a woman being objectified shouldn't we do something about it ?

[Twiddlebum]

Oooooh I'm off to find the advert on YouTube!

[Janet12345]

Sorry for my silly questions (I am new) but how so we as a community communicate with men's groups to help and support them on issues like this ? I like to think of us all mainly aiming for the same thing (equality) and I think it would be good PR for feminism if we could work together on some of these issues :)

[Janet12345]

Oh sorry didn't mean to offend anyone I use silly when telling my little boy and girl off for being bad I had no idea it carried any negative stigma :)

[MrsMaryCooper]

Yes. It doesn't show either sex in a good light in my view. And Diet Coke is bad

[rutters1]

That Coke add is nothing..what about the Amanda Holden 'Oykos' advert where she is served by half naked male slaves! She even uses one as a foot stool!

Then there's the Barbara Windsor Bingo advert. There are 3 men lined up in kilts about to be blasted with air to raise their kilts and expose their genitals!!

Imagine if it were women in skirts about to have their genitalia exposed...it would be massive.

[sydlexic]

Yes, I think those adverts are wrong. There seems to be some idea that treating both sexes badly somehow redressed the balance and makes it right.

It does not make it any more right for you to slap me if I slap you back.

[rutters1]

My point is that men are treated worse than women not 'as bad'

Men are regularly shown to be beaten, stripped, humiliated, ridiculed and stupefied to sell a product.

Women tend to be glorified and venerated. A women relaxing on a sofa eating chocolate is seen as taking a well earned rest..a man however is a lazy slob!

It's always women who are smart and find the cheap insurance deal because of her intellect and savvy IT skills whereas it's the man who comes home soaking wet having just got ripped off on the high street.

[Keepithidden]

I'm not sure you can apply the same standards though rutters1. Knowing the backdrop of society and the places the genders have, men being humiliated in advertising is generally done in a tongue in cheek manner. I tend to view it more as slapstick comedy. When it's done to women it mirrors reality more accurately so doesn't have the same absurdity (hence comedic value).

Interesting point about the women being the smart, IT savvy financially literate partner. I think you may be right, I read (possibly on MN) that women spend 80% of the money in the Western world. Not that they have a choice on what to spend it on I might add, but they have a choice within a given market. In which case the advertisers could be appealing to the controlling partner of that particular market. I may not be explaining myself very clearly here!

I'll try again. If a women in a marriage bears the overwhelming responsibility for housework, maintaining household finances etc... Then it makes sense for the advertisers to target her, rather than the man even if he is more likely to exercise complete control over the total expenditure.

Just a couple of thoughts anyway. Advertising seems to work on many different levels, I'm not convinced that many people in Marketing appreciate that either.

[rutters1]

Good points, well made however I think it's very important not to get distracted by 'the backdrop of society' it would give advertisers carte blanche to justify whatever they want.

Best to stick with the same guidelines for both genders i.e. if you wouldn't show it happening to a woman than don't show it happening to a man.

[scallopsrgreat]

But advertisers do use the backdrop of society i.e. gender stereotypes to justify the stuff they do already .

Otherwise we would get cleaning products, shopping, diets etc aimed specifically at men as well as women.

Not sure how you get to not be 'distracted' by societal norms, especially when played out in adverts.

[rutters1]

@Keepithidden
"When it's done to women it mirrors reality more accurately so doesn't have the same absurdity (hence comedic value)"

But men are much more likely to be victims of violence than women so using your reasoning it should be violence to women=slaptick violence to men=mirror to reality.

@scallopsrgreat
using society norms OK unless it becomes offensive i.e. using a skinny, stupid Mr. Muscle caricature to sell cleaning products to women. It's like bikini clad women draped over cars (demean to opposite sex to pal up to your target gender)

I still think the best way is to treat both genders the same i.e with respect.

[scallopsrgreat]

But they don't. The Diet Coke ad isn't aimed at men for example. Those subtle messages are still there that women you need to watch your weight. Men not so much.

And bikini clad women over cars is demeaning to women first and foremost. It puts women as the sex class.

[rutters1]

Or equally...

Men."if you want to be attractive to women you need to be buff and look sexually available."

So you don't think that this ad is demeaning to men? Or puts them in the 'sex class'?

[scallopsrgreat]

Society doesn't consider men as the sex class. That's the difference. What is portrayed in the ad is at odds with how society actually views men. Therefore whilst not great it is in no way as damaging.

However the ad isn't at odds with society with regards how the women are portrayed. They are all pretty attractive (in line with current fashions) and thin and you are left in no doubt that women should be striving for that [through drinking diet coke]. Just like everyone thinks women should be.

This is just repeating what has already been said in the thread though. Have you not read it rutters?

Welcome to FWR btw.

[SPsTwerkingNineToFive]

The lawn mower ad is just dangerous. They wouldn't have been smiling of he had run it over and they were picking bits of can out of their faces.

[KaseyM]

Yeah all the women in the DC ad are attractive anyway. What we need is a dozen ads where ugly fully clothed women put on a bit of deodorant and get hot young naked men.

Then we can start yelling "what about the menz".

[rutters1]

Thanks for the welcome, much appreciated.

As you've guessed I am new. I don't get some of the terminology/acronyms. They are new to me eg 'sex class' or ODFOD, there are others to..

As for the precedence or societal classification, that is irrelevant to me. I find it offensive and that should be enough in itself.

thanks again

[KaseyM]

Sorry Rutters I'm slightly confused. Are you being sarcastic? I'm not sure, but if so, your angst is directed in the wrong direction.

You see, feminists didn't create this ad. And I doubt the feminists I know (or on this board) would create an ad that objectifies men because we know how it feels and we don't like it. An advertising dept created this ad, an advertising dept who is simply trying to catch the zeitgeist in order to make more money and who doesn't give a crap about feminism.

So fems/I get a bit peeved when we are called to account for things we didn't or wouldn't create.

As for the acronyms there's a guide down below and once you get the hang of it you'll feel part of the gang
HTH (hope that helps)

[scallopsrgreat]

I'm glad that "social classification" is irrelevant to you rutters. It must be nice to be able to be in that position.