BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Wimps, sextoys and fools...

 
 
No star here laces
08:15 / 11.12.01
It's whinging white male time, boys and girls.

A new survey shows that men are angry about the way they are portayed in advertising.

quote:
Men say they are fed up being depicted either as sex gods with
unfeasibly muscular bodies and chiselled jaws or - more often -
as incompetent, brow-beaten slobs who cannot express
themselves, hold down a job, clean the house, or keep a
girlfriend.

Ads which men have objected to this year include a poster for
Lambrini sparkling wine in which a girl tells a friend she has lost
a lot of 'useless fat'. 'So you dumped him then?' comes the
reply. A law firm promoted its divorce services with the slogan,
'All Men Are Bastards' and Lee jeans showed a woman resting
her stiletto heel on the buttocks of a prostrate, naked man.

On television, Mr Muscle cleaning products are sold using a
bespectacled wimp, and the man in the ad for Archers peach
schnapps is outwitted by his manipulative girlfriend.


Now fair play, they're just ads. And people who write in to complain about ads are scum who need to get their priorities fixed.

Buuuuut... it's quite an interesting cultural barometer. And I'd like to use it as a jump-off point to talk about male role models. I think it is true that, outside of movies, the media does tend to portray men in an increasingly negative manner. Which poses an interesting question - what is a positive male role model in today's society? How do you talk about what is good about masculinity without imposing constrictive gender norms and disparaging women and non-hets?

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Lyra Lovelaces ]
 
 
suds
08:25 / 11.12.01
i saw this in the observer on sunday and i had to say that i laughed. women have been portrayed as rapeable/killable fuck-holes, servants for men and objects of envy/lust/blame in advertising for over 50 yrs; and right now there are a few ads which depict men in a seemingly derogatory style, and they're all up in arms about it.
i laughed. how i fucking laughed.
lately feminists have been saying that women shouldn't pay as much mind to how they are depicted in ads, as there are more important issues to take matter with. the taliban regime in afghanistan and the how women in that area of the world will be treated now is one. there are still countless rapes reported from afghanistan, as well as all over the world. in the us, one woman every six minutes is raped.
and this is just the tip of the iceberg.
it seems as if men have only to worry about how they are depicted in advertsing...weird huh?
but i am getting off the subject here.
as i read the story with my housemate, i said, the advertising industry is so fucking stupid, because it always needs a scapegoat. it was women for fuck knows how long, and now it (seems to be but lets face it probably isn't) men. what next? we gonna be facing a slew of racist ads?
and coming back to what lyra lovelaces said (what a gorgeous name, by the way!): i think that throughout time both men and women have had ridiculous social stereotypes to live up to and it is not fair.
what i hate most about being a feminist is people assuming that i hate men. what feminists do is tell people how fucked up these roles we are meant to play in the world are.
so men have to be beautiful, strong, dominant, intelligent and brave?
and women have to be beautiful, super skinny, incredible in bed, virginal, motherly and docile?
these are pretty impossible standards we gotta live by.
and advertsising expects us to live by these standards.
and i say *fuck that*!
now, what's for breakfast?

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: suds ]
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
08:25 / 11.12.01
And what's wrong with being a wimp, sextoy and fool? Okay, don't answer that...

suds has said a lot of what I wanted to say in a very short space. Yay. It is worth pointing out though that, off-topic as it is, that we're surrounded by a pretty constant barrage of racist ads. There was a particularly appalling one for Bacardi or something I saw at the cinema on Sunday... you know the drill: "Jamaicans! They're so laid-back! Chill out mon!" Gah.

quote:Originally posted by Lyra Lovelaces:
Which poses an interesting question - what is a positive male role model in today's society? How do you talk about what is good about masculinity without imposing constrictive gender norms and disparaging women and non-hets?


Well, for starters what's good about masculinity is that it isn't just for straight men.

As far as "positive male role models" go - I take it you mean something a bit more gender-specific than just "men in the public eye who set an admirable example"? So what we're talking about here is that kind of John-Wayne-to-Jesse-Custer, "teach you what it means to be a man" bollocks. And I think it is bollocks. There are arguably positive qualities, attributes or personality traits that are included in what we mean when we talk about 'masculinity': it's therefore no bad thing if people in the public eye display those characteristics, but ideally they should be of all genders/sexes, and the characteristics shouldn't be associated with which gender or sex the individual holds.
 
 
The Natural Way
10:05 / 11.12.01


[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Gun Runce ]
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
12:29 / 11.12.01
One would think that the prevailing attitude in the advertising industry is that they've finally gotten Western males to the point in which they are just as succeptable to the evil advertising brainwashing that women have been subject to since World War II. Corporations and advertisers have been preying on social inequity and the result insecurity and made women (in the general sense) ideal consumers...and now, soon, all men will be ideal consumers too.

I don't think this is a reversable process, honestly. I think we can just sit back and watch it all happen again...
 
 
Dao Jones
18:48 / 11.12.01
It's perfectly true. There aren't very many good roles being offered out there for men - and that's just as much bad news for women (straight or not) as it is for men.

And yes, women have been misrepresented, abused and traduced in photography, print, society and fiction since forever (a deal longer than 50 years...) Absolutely none of this will be improved by doing the same thing to men - in fact, legitimising the state of affairs by applying it to both sexes is probably the opposite of what needs to happen.

The societal contract and the balance of risk and trust are more than a little fucked. I think we need a rethink about now...
 
 
suds
21:08 / 11.12.01
dao jones, more than 50 years? please give me some stats to back up yr findings. i haven't read about this before and would be interested to know where ou got this information from.
secondly, i don't think it makes a difference if women are straight or not, they will still be affected by the way society and the mass media dictates how they should look and behave. i agree that it will affect men if it is done to the same extent that has been women. i don't think it will ever get as bad for men, though.
 
 
Torquemada
09:17 / 08.10.02
I've noticed this 'men-bashing' trend - consider the following English ads -

Diet-Pepsi Break - When do we get to see a gorgeous sexpot washing the windows? Ah, but it isn't the done thing for men to lech...

Archers - Err..can I treat my girlfriend like dirt too?

Barclaycard - If you can't afford to take your girl out every night, she'll leave you for someone with more money (and you'll drop your pizza)

Car Insurance - 'We all know Women are better drivers' - when do we get a 'We all know Women can't be trusted with credit cards' ad? (or insert your favourite sexist opinion where appropriate)

You can find these all day - it's quite amazing how much blatant sexism against men there is in the media. It seems that both Women and Men are being encouraged to conform to a cross-gender ideal, where both have equal measures of feminine and masculine qualities. This frightens me a bit - shouldn't we be celebrating our differences as both sides of the same coin?

It also isn't enough to say 'Well men did it women for centuries so it's only to be expected' - an eye for an eye? Not exactly progress...and bear in mind, back when women didn't have a vote, we'd just (supposedly) gotten rid of slavery and stopped putting kids up chimneys...beware of judging the past with todays standards...
 
 
Pepsi Max
09:38 / 08.10.02
Well, in some ways this advertising trend (if genuine) is an indicator of a good thing. The job of advertising is to suck up to people with cash in the hope that they will buy your product. Women (or at least a segment of the female population) now have increasing incomes and the purchasing power that implies. So women are now powerful enough to get pandered to as well. Hooray.

My immediate response is: ahhh diddums. If this approach DOES sell to women (and the quote from Caroline Marshall at the end of the article suggests it might not), then this suggests it IS tapping into widely held female frustrations/desires regarding men. Then men do have to get their act together imagewise -or at the very least lighten up. Of course it may be a crude construction of "what women want" by male advertisers based on a faulty mirror image of what men want from women.

Lyra - as someone both in the advertising industry and a male consumer of advertising: what kinds of images would you like to see of men? Question goes out to everyone as well. What might post-gender advertising look like - and is it plausible?

But fear not! There is still plenty of advertising portraying women as sluts and bimbos - but it's mostly in publications like FHM with dedicated male readerships.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
12:52 / 08.10.02

I can't help but feel that the use of negative male stereotypes in advertising is an affirmation of negative stereotypes in general, and therefore reinforces silly assigned gender roles. I don't recognise any difference between adverts (or other media) that make out that all blokes are idiots and adverts (or other media) that make out all women are idiots. I just find the whole thing ugly and unpleasant, I don't really feel personally offended by any of the male-bashing stuff as it's all a bit daft, but at the same time there's something really tiring about it.

I tend to believe that absolute equality of all people will only be achieved if everyone behaves as if absolute equality were a reality here and now, and not in some far off mythical future somewhere down the line. So I tend to base all of my responses to stuff like the above on this standpoint - which would mean that anyone championing adverts containing negative male stereotypes cannot do so without simultaneously endorsing the use of negative female stereotypes and stereotypes in general.

As another, possibly clearer, example of what I'm getting at. I used to work with a person who would often send male-bashing jokes around the office. To her, it was a feminist statement in opposition to all the similarly tedious blonde-bashing jokes that would also occasionally circulate the office. Occasionally, the male-bashing jokes would be responded to with a bunch of female-bashing jokes from somebody else, which would yield further male-bashing jokes, and on, and on, until it fizzled out in unresolved resentment.

My response to male-bashing jokes is very similar to the way I feel when a 'blonde-joke' lands in my inbox. I don't feel as if the integrity and worth of my gender has somehow been 'attacked', I just feel fucking tired that this kind of childish shit is still being perpetuated and that I'm somehow being implicated and expected to take a side on something as ridiculous as "my gender is better than your gender". I'm of the opinion that the objectification of all people is equally bad, and as soon as you side with either position you're automatically contributing to a paradigm where there is some sort of 'contest' happening. I don't think this is particularly productive, as casual sexist office e-mail banter re-enforces a reality where sexism can exist and thrive. Just as casual male-bashing in advertising encourages the type of dumb 'battle of the sexes' false polarity that makes people think that 'blonde-jokes' are OK.

I'm willing to accept that I'm not seeing the whole picture here, and that I've got some blind spot which has lead to the formation of these thoughts. My main reason for posting this is to examine my thought processes and question my immediate responses to this subject. I'm not here to argue with anybody, I'm here to question my own currently held beliefs on this. My current thoughts are that everyone posting above in favour of male-bashing adverts is very clearly contributing to the perpetuation of offensive stereotyping in general, and I find that quite a weird position and would like to look at this subject from perspectives outside of my own.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
13:22 / 08.10.02
I think the trouble with thinking of male-bashing ads as positive is that they don't make for a particularly strong construction of the New Woman either. She still dates him. She sleeps with him. She appears to find his company rewarding. And yet he's a clueless prat, sometimes unreformed, sometimes childish or childlike, sometimes just plain not very bright.

At the same time, it doesn't foster a particularly positive construction of the male or the attitude which it's useful to take towards [finding/creating] him - which, if you're a hetero female, is something you may well need.

But is it something to get extremely exercised about? No. Is it something to put in the Sunday papers? Oh, yes...
 
 
reFLUX
19:53 / 08.10.02
if people want themselves represented in adverts they are idiots. a fucking advert is not going to show you or anyone like you. an advert just wants to sell you something, not portray reality. those dumb shmucks.
 
 
gravitybitch
14:11 / 09.10.02
Odd thought... Women are cast as comparing themselves to ads and finding themselves lacking (and given the content of most ads that's not surprising...), but I don't think it's reasonable to expect men to follow the same model.

Men are supposed to be competitive, right? Maybe the "schmuck ads" are designed to play on that a little, let men get a little happy buzz from being so much better than the idiot in the ad and associate that buzz with the product??

This is pre-coffee, so I may just be incoherent....
 
 
kagemaru
14:52 / 09.10.02
<< a fucking advert is not going to show you or anyone like you. an advert just wants to sell you something, not portray reality.>>

Hold on to that - they want to sell us something.
So - why are they convinced their product will sell more if it's pushed by an ad portraying half the audience as fools?

It's a matter of perception.
They are actually showing someone that's _not_ like you, and because of that _he_ is a loser.
He might do better should he start using "Whatever".
So you, the victim, who _know_ you are better, will probably want to use "Whatever".

As for finding role models in ads - girls trying that trick ended up being fed through a drip (and that's tragic).
Maybe it's time we started looking elsewhere, as a species.
 
 
Torquemada
09:17 / 10.10.02
They do indeed show ads that portray us as fools -

Two examples -

Macdonalds - remember the Gazza ad? Ooh look, isn't he stupid, he didn't plug in the mincer. Oh, but he says their burgers are lovely and nutricious, it must be true.

Zurich Bank -

Give your money to us to look after, we'll do wonderful things investing it for you...(while the ad displays, quite literally, pigs taking off and flying around).

These are aimed at both men and women - the difference is, you also find ads that are basically women illustrating how stupid/poor/lazy/etc. men are, whereas you *never* see ads where Men state 'this woman is useless, I'm off'.

I agree that most people can see through this cod-psychology, but I'd also bet that men in general are left feeling mildly insulted by this sort of thing in a curiously similar way to the manner that some women are insulted by pornography (where, in each case, the other person can always turn around and say, 'oh, grow up, don't take it so seriously!')
 
 
w1rebaby
13:23 / 10.10.02
What irritates me about the whinging on this subject is that it really isn't taken as being an incidence of divisiveness or prejudice being used in advertising generally, but just taken in the specific.

It would be nice to think that men getting the insulting stereotypes aimed at them (they've always been stereotyped in adverts as much as women have, just not in a derogatory way) would mean columnists saying "setting groups against each other and stereotyping is a bad thing" and meaning it, but if the fashion were to go away again they'd be quite happy with chilled Jamaicans and housewives. Each instance is taken personally by the group concerned.

Precisely the same goes for anyone thinking that male-bashing ads are positive in themselves. A more equal distribution of prejudice is a good thing - if it's the case that more male-bashing ads means less female-bashing, it relieves pressure on women and misogyny is still far more widespread - but more prejudice? "Ooh, poor men, now they know what it's like"... do me a favour with this "boys and girls" playground stuff.
 
 
Papess
14:51 / 10.10.02
Varis 06 wrote:
if people want themselves represented in adverts they are idiots. a fucking advert is not going to show you or anyone like you. an advert just wants to sell you something, not portray reality. those dumb shmucks


Isn’t that just it though? This isn’t exactly thousands of years of oppression, this is advertising, television broadcast adverts, which, has only been around for about 50 years. Women’s initial response to the stereotypical subordinate roles they were slotted into came from centuries of such subjugation not a few decades (and really only the last three) of mild insults. I think this issue should be put into the right context. This is not an example of oppression and really, I think it is PCness getting out of hand.

Torquemada wrote:
I agree that most people can see through this cod-psychology, but I'd also bet that men in general are left feeling mildly insulted by this sort of thing in a curiously similar way to the manner that some women are insulted by pornography (where, in each case, the other person can always turn around and say, 'oh, grow up, don't take it so seriously!')

Really, can’t people take a joke? So, the pendulum has swung the other way a bit. Until I see every white privileged male in spike heels doing, dishes and denying themselves sexual pleasure because only naughty boys do that, I really think they should stop their moaning and groaning.

Let’s not be prejudice here, we can make fun of everyone, equally. It is just the mens turn now. I am sure everyone will get a turn.

On a related note:
A friend in broadcasting had told me recently that the program writers are very careful to only write banter that is offensive to the male hosts, giving the female host the whip hand. Now, I do not have any issue with the fact the woman has the advantage, it occurred to me that perhaps a man is writing her material. Kinda twists things up for me a bit.

MT
 
  
Add Your Reply