Men Who Complain About Advertising

[NickAndNora]

After seeing yet another thread derailed by a dick-wielding troll complaining about the way men are portrayed in advertising I thought we should get this over and done with once and for all.

1 - If the biggest thing you have to complain about in life is advertising, or having to wear a tie to work, then you are really, really privileged and lucky. Sean Penn isn't going to star in a searing biopic articulating your struggle any time soon. You are not Spartacus. You are not Rosa Parks. Boo boo fucking hoo.

2 - Most advertising is sexist, manipulative and patronising towards women. Because you are not a woman this is invisible to you and you don't give two shits. You only see the minority of ads that sexualise or patronise men.

3 - The advertising you complain about is not made by feminists and probably not even made by women. It is made by the men who run advertising companies for the men who run companies that wish to advertise. If you don't like it tell them.

4 - The advertising you complain about does not espouse feminist ideology. Feminism is not an inversion of patriarchy, with the world existing as it does now except with women at the top. Feminism is about living under a completely different value system. The sexist fuckwits who make these adverts believe the way to appeal to women is to show women 'empowered' by behaving like sexist men. The men who make these adverts have no clue about women and no clue about feminism, hence the inverted sexism of the adverts.

Can we get back to discussing violence, the justice system, financial independence, the system of gender and other important stuff now or do we need to hold your hand while you cry into your wank-cloth about the Diet Coke ad for the hundredth time?

Interesting thread, had a similar themed one on Dadsnet a few months back:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/dadsnet/2078955-Laugh-or-offended?pg=1

Bit early in the day for you girls? Shouldn't you be sleeping under a bridge ?

I am in my late 40's and wouldn't say I'm sexist (but then I would say that wouldn't I?), are you sexist ?

Yes, I would say that I have definitely been sexist in the past, and probably still am in ways that I don't even know about. Unfortunately the way society is, I would have been sexist in the wrong direction, ie towards women, rather than being a champion for women. I am readdressing this by being more proactive about my feminism. What are you doing???

I've complained directly to advertisers about the 'Mum' stuff.

Recent examples are the Asda "Behind every great Christmas there's mum" and Homepride's "sauces that help Mums...".

I'm sure their research must tell them that this antediluvian bollocks works, but surely they must see that it's equally alienating and offensive to many mums, dads, childless people and indeed kids in families without 'mums'.

(MN doesn't figure in this, for obvious reasons)

Good to see you delurk, falafel!

Zazzles, What am I doing ? Taking a break, watching the football after ironing school uniforms and making packed "Munches".

I wouldn't say I champion women as much as championing equality, mostly that means arguing for equal rights for women, sometimes though not as much, for men.

The one that is doing my head in at the minute is politically all women short lists. It sounds irrational to support as surely the best person should get the job regardless of sex but until politics (also the logistics of it) change then it won't be appealing to women or able to get the best from them and it is only likely to change from the inside which unfortunately means skewing the methods to get more women in to politics in order ti change it.

But you're ok with all male shortlists, gambler? You know, the all male shortlists that have been happening since forever?

Why is it only the all women ones that get your goat?

If the best person got the job regardless of sex, surely there would already be equal representation of women? Unless you believe women would never be the best person for the job?

Whoah, don't understand me so fast. I guess I didn't make myself too clear. I'm actually in favour of all women shortlists but it's counter intuitive to end discrimination by discriminating. If I debate with myself the other side wins the logical debate but my pragmatic side ultimately edges it.

It's not a question of the best person getting the job, it's the way todays politics is set up that puts off a lot of people, women in particular, from even entering the arena, that's what needs changing and why, as I said,the system needs "skewed", by all women shortlists to get more women into these positions to affect this change. However it's a slippery argument, should we have all "ethnic minority" shortlists, all under 25yrs old shortlists for example ?.

As for all male shortlists, if there was a decent reason for them then I'd favour them in the same way I do all female shortlists. Although in modern times I don't think we've had rules drawn up to affect this so there is a slight difference.

falafelburger...Re the mum stuff, have you been in touch with the owners of this site. It's by parents for parents so does the 'mum' bit signify only mums are parents ?

Only kidding !

We don't need rules drawn up for all male shortlists though. They just are.

gambler I think it's easier if you think of discrimination as not the problem in and of itself. There is always legitimate discrimination (e.g. choosing the candidate with the best qualifications) in any selection process. So we need to differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate discrimination. If we recognise that illegitimate discrimination on the grounds of sex has led to the absence of women from shortlists, we can put all women shortlists into the bucket of legitimate discrimination.

The problem is that many people, particularly MRA types, are obsessed with equivalence or a very formal sense of equality: if rule A applies to men, it should also apply to women. It reminds me of this.

Gambler - I put my disclaimer about Mumsnet at the end of my post because they have a clear explanation of the fact that it isn't just for 'Mums', intending to obviate any such 'kidding'.

'Behind every great Christmas there's mum' and its ilk however are always sexist and lazy, and also potentially offensive and distressing depending on people's situation.

We don't need rules drawn up for all male shortlists though. They just are

There are one or two exceptions, although I'm not sure whether that is male choice or not. I'm thinking of things like Primary School teachers. Having said that, every primary school I've been into (quite a few professionally) generally has a male head teacher! So maybe include a female shortlist for the heads, and male ones for the teachers.

This is getting a wee bit complicated now... ...feel free to ignore me!

No, Keep, it's actually a bit of a phenomenon. That industries which are generally seen as dominated by women usually have men in senior posts. You see it in Nursing as well.

I agree Puffins. I'm struggling to think of any predominantly female industries that are not dominated by men in senior posts.

Teaching fits that as well. So many primary schools especially with all female staff and a male head

You're not worth conversing with. You have either consciously or inconsciously avoided my question. I have real doubts about you, and don't bother asking me to justify them. It is up to you to change my mind, not up to me to justify myself to you. I don't get why you want to post here. I highly doubt that you are an 'equalitist' of any description. Don't bother responding, cheers.

Explicitly all male short list right here..

edition.cnn.com/2014/10/01/sport/football/qatar-russia-world-cup-fifa-football/index.html