Another crass and sexist ad

[Lunaballoon]

Anyone else seen this new Pot Noodles ad? I'm really sick of this kind of crass, sexist crap. I'm thinking of putting in a complaint to the ASA. Anybody with me?

Yes I saw this on the TV the other day.

I had a vague half an eye on it and then said to DH - FFS so the ad is basically about how this towel-man gets loads of women to sit on his face. And the ad features one ugly man and loads of really attractive women in string bikinis wiggling their arses.

Fucking trashy load of sexist objectifying nonsense.

I find it depressing that this constant sexual objectification & dehumanisation of women is considered A-OK.

Have submitted a complaint via the ASA website. Interestingly they had an ad banned in 2013 for sexism.
www.thegrocer.co.uk/companies/crass-pot-noodle-ad-banned-for-degrading-women/348868.article

Time for a boycott I think.

I have complained about a couple of sexist ads and they told me to piss off.

It's a bit of a toss-up what happens with these I think.

Maybe toss not best word choice given context!

I'm still grumbling to myself about seeing 'man strength' on a box of Tempo tissues.

Do they still use Man size in terms of tissues?

Me too LoveSardines. I was only half watching, looked up and thought WTF. I think a similar ad, also for Pot Noodles, was banned last year. Makes you wonder if the advertisers who make this kind of thing actually want to get banned in order to get a bit of cheap publicity.

McCoys crisps have on them that they are for men only and there was a campaign for yorkie where they were giving free ones out at a station and refuse to give them to women as they're "not for girls" which got people's backs up there was a thread about it.

At school we were under the impression that men needed men-size tissues cos they were wanking into them!

Whether that was the reason the company actually did it or not, I have no idea. I mean it's not like men produce more snot than women surely.

Oh dear! I'm normally fairly relaxed about this sort of stuff, but her sitting on him and wiggling is just yuck.

The 'not for girls', 'men only' snacks always make me wonder who on earth at the ad agency thought that would be a good idea. And then who let it get suggested to the client. And then who at the client thought it was a good idea. And the who authorised the money to pay for the rebrand. Ad infinitum ad nauseum.

Exchange sex for race and suddenly you have something that everyone reacts normally to:
'Whites-only' coca cola anyone?

Ah no it's not like that, toffee, because girls actually are crap and therefore it makes sense that they aren't allowed some of the stuff that men are allowed.

A crass advert granted...

but somehow all those offended would have absolutely no objection to the blatantly sexist advertising for Race for Life...

"Exchange sex for race and suddenly you have something that everyone reacts normally to:
'Whites-only' coca cola anyone?" Exactly!

Are you seriously trying to compare crass objectification (in the context of a patriarchal society) with encouraging women to fund raise for a disease that disproportionately affects them.

Wow

And dat username...

I agree the race for life women and kids only rule seems bizarre (particularly as cancer itself is very much equal opportunities). I've assumed it is just a relic from how the event started - a space for the underrepresented sex (at the time) to take up a sport-based challenge without having to deal with the usual crapfest that puts so many women off from doing sports in public (and from someone who runs everyday and competes occasionally believe me there is a limitless supply of sexist crap to be on the receiving end of out there).

I've no experience of the event myself so, though to me it looks as if it's developed enough for this to no longer be a valid reason, I'm fine to leave this to those in the know to advise. I hold the same opinion with many other higher profile events that seem to be segregated now only because they were previously (doubles olympic ping pong - really? Men vs Women players differ from one another more than Chinese vs Danish players do?)

But back to snacks (and with apologies to OP for the off-topic digression). Snacks have never had historic gender separation pre-advertising. Nor is one sex underrepresented in their consumption*. Adding gender into snack advertising is just bonkers, and having it always take the form of normal blokes eating junk food and pretty ladies eating nothing (or fat free yogurt which is practically the same thing) in a sexy fashion is just tedious and, in some cases, offensive.

*the 'pictures of women eating on the tube' team have had a decent go at shaming one of the sexes into becoming an under representation though

I always thought the Yorkie advertising was clever - men think "oooh a snack for me which is manly and makes me look harder and bigger..." and women think "fuck that" and eat it anyway.

Yes.

Because an advert which has a woman in a bikini wriggling on the face of a man pretending to be a towel is exactly the same as women working together to raise money to fight breast cancer.

How ridiculous of us all not to see that equation.

Have you joined Men United yet? You know, the charity set up by men, for men, to fight men's cancers? Or would you like women to sort that out for you as well?

GentleMenJ - all bafflement at comparing blatant objectification with providing a supportive atmosphere to raise funds for cancer research aside.....

Please explain to me how it is in any way reasonable to support the notion that because sexism against men also exists, that we shouldn't be concerned about this particular case of sexism against women?

Movember = dignified event promoted to one sex only to raise money for disease that disproportionately affects one sex
Race for life = same; though increasingly using 'cancer' generally in its promotional approach so starting to lose its justification tbh
Diet coke ad = shit sexism hoping to punch over its weight by being 'controversial'
Pot noodle ad = same. Complain away.

My DDs are very fond of Yorkies and defiantly in the Fuck You camp!

I did inwardly sigh at the effectiveness of the advertising, especially as Yorkies have shrunk.

However, we digress.

Please can people, who can word such things, complain about the advert in the OP. It's shit, I don't want my DDs watching it, I certainly don't want the boys in their classes having that view of women, but I'm useless at expressing a complaint.

The rest of the ad is just silly and, frankly, old-fashioned in its laddish vocab, but that end shot of her blatantly sexually wiggling is a real jaw-dropper.

That's verging on indecent, no? I'm complaining. If they tell me to piss off I'll just keep complaining.

Just had a reply from the ASA who say they've received a number of complaints about the Pot Noodles ad and have decided to refer it to the independent ASA Council who'll decide if further action is necessary. My guess is it will be banned, but at the end of the day, I doubt there will be any meaningful penalties and the same kind of crap will appear in the next campaign.

I've had that email too, Lunaballoon:

"Thank you for contacting us at the ASA. You might not be surprised to learn we’ve received a number of complaints about this ad. We’ve therefore decided to pass these to the independent ASA Council who will decide if further action is necessary. We’ll contact you in due course, and appreciate your patience in the meantime.

Kind regards

Emma Fuller
Complaints Executive"

Excellent!

I hope all of you contacting the ASA have also submitted complaints about the following Adverts which demean and objectify men:-

Diet Coke (the one with the half-naked men)
Maltesers (the one with the male strippers)
Oven Pride (Stereotyping men as stupid)
Tesco (the one with the baby monitor that can be construed as demeaning men)
Boots (Men are lazy / weak)

and the hundreds more i can come up with. . .

Now, cue the "its payback", "lighten up", "its just a bit of fun", "its not the same", "women have had this for years now its mens turn" etc etc comments.

Equality? No. Hate fuelled-hypocritical, double-standards agenda? yep.

[quote]I always thought one must earn one's reasonable sobriquet. Don't see much evidence you've passed the requisite, GentleMenJ.

Race for Life is an interesting one, isn't it? In the context of gender specificity. There are / were plenty of 'men only' things, Golf clubs etc, that are regarded as anachronistic. The reasons CRUK keeps race for life as female only isn't because men aren't welcome to support, but that because many participants feel that the inclusion of aggressively competitive male athletes would spoil the supportive atmosphere and that some women would be put off taking part because it would become as toffee says, more sexist. [/quote]

I understand (and actually agree with the reasoning behind RFL being women only) however, in your post you are actually being incredibly sexist yourself.

The language you use suggests that men are aggressive in their competitiveness (concerning running), and also dont mention that women are "aggressively" competitive. I assume its fair enough for Paula Radcliff or Gemma Steele to rock up and win by miles? Clearly all men are alsoexcellent runners.

You're also suggesting women are intimidated by men being present, which is again a very sweeping generalisation.

Could go on, but I doubt theres much point.