https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGJSEEx2pXc
This advert is obviously very clever, and has, of course, gone viral, for good reason. It IS entertaining.
But there are so many stereotypes in it, that I am beginning to wonder why I don't just have a 'cut and paste' list of them to add in here. So here goes:
Women like pink
Women need to be thin
Women are all young
Even thin women want to be thinner
Sex is your reward for being thin
Even for men, a six pack and a good body are needed to be attractive
If you are 'good' you will be rewarded
Women all group together in 'girl packs' to be thin and attractive
Sex with an attractive male is the reward for being thin, and following instructions
Even thin, young, attractive women need to be good in order to get their man
A man is the ultimate reward that we are all hoping for
I could go on.
People accuse feminists of lacking a sense of humor, then put out offensive material that uses humor to deflect attention. That actually detracts from the general experience of humor in my life. The LACK I have is due to patriarchal views, not feminist ones.
I am just hoping that someone with the relevant media equipment can make a parody of this advert - one that still uses humor, but doesn't try to tell women that they should all be good little girls.
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Child Free Flying?
Excuse me if this post makes no sense as I am filled with incandescent rage right now.
Apparently 70% of people polled by the Telegraph would like to see child free flights, and one airline in Malaysia now has a quiet zone where children under 12 cannot sit.
Forget all the anecdata about how groups of hen parties/teenagers/business men etc etc are often louder than children, there is a very basic human right at stake here.
Children are people. Discriminating against them is discrimination.
The seat my daughter sits in costs as much as the one that I sit in, why is she treated as some kind of lesser person? Why, if I am travelling, is that lower status extended to me?
Can people really not see any parallels when they nod along to consigning the children and (almost inevitably) women to the back of the bus ? Seriously? 100 years after Rosa Parks was born, we are now in favor of segregation? Well, so long as it's only the lesser people - what does it matter?
'Women and children first' was sexist because it treated certain parts of humanity as different. It made them 'other'. Now we are saying that children (and there is plenty of fact to back this up) and women should not only be treated as 'other' but actually 'lesser'.
Of course, plenty of two parent families will be affected by this, even some one male parent families, along with the one female parent families. But in every case, children - who are people, not some kind of subspecies - are affected. Having a child may be a lifestyle choice, but it is also a necessity for the human race. Being a child, travelling with a child, parenting a child, are not some kind of dirty act which we should be ashamed of and accept being relegated to the cheap seats. Treating children as a kind of disgrace doesn't only segregate them, but also has an implied criticism of the women who gave birth to them. We should be celebrating them, not shoving them to the back out of the way.
What can we look forward to next? Less toilet facilities? Lower pay? Greater physical abuse?
Apparently 70% of people polled by the Telegraph would like to see child free flights, and one airline in Malaysia now has a quiet zone where children under 12 cannot sit.
Forget all the anecdata about how groups of hen parties/teenagers/business men etc etc are often louder than children, there is a very basic human right at stake here.
Children are people. Discriminating against them is discrimination.
The seat my daughter sits in costs as much as the one that I sit in, why is she treated as some kind of lesser person? Why, if I am travelling, is that lower status extended to me?
Can people really not see any parallels when they nod along to consigning the children and (almost inevitably) women to the back of the bus ? Seriously? 100 years after Rosa Parks was born, we are now in favor of segregation? Well, so long as it's only the lesser people - what does it matter?
'Women and children first' was sexist because it treated certain parts of humanity as different. It made them 'other'. Now we are saying that children (and there is plenty of fact to back this up) and women should not only be treated as 'other' but actually 'lesser'.
Of course, plenty of two parent families will be affected by this, even some one male parent families, along with the one female parent families. But in every case, children - who are people, not some kind of subspecies - are affected. Having a child may be a lifestyle choice, but it is also a necessity for the human race. Being a child, travelling with a child, parenting a child, are not some kind of dirty act which we should be ashamed of and accept being relegated to the cheap seats. Treating children as a kind of disgrace doesn't only segregate them, but also has an implied criticism of the women who gave birth to them. We should be celebrating them, not shoving them to the back out of the way.
What can we look forward to next? Less toilet facilities? Lower pay? Greater physical abuse?
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
That Audi Advert
There are so many things in this advert that are perpetuating sexism and
making it appear OK for these things to exist. Because it is on TV, and
shot in hi-def, it makes it appear glamorous/sexy etc and therefore
desirable. If it didn't, they wouldn't be using it in the advert.
Just from one viewing, I saw
- mom's perspective being ignored, what do women know?
- fast/loud cars give you power & confidence, even to the extent of taking what isn't yours (principle's parking space, another man's girl)
- women/girls like fairies, pink, dancing, shoes & being grabbed roughly to be 'given one'
- that if you stick it to her good, she'll become not only compliant but also willing
- gaining possession of forbidden fruits (car, parking, women) is fun, exciting, empowering
- girls, like cars, are owned by men and are there for the taking
And for anyone who says that we're overthinking it: THE ADVERTISING INDUSTRY WILL HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS IN GREAT DETAIL, DISCUSSED ALL OF THIS, KNOWN IT WOULD UPSET SOME, BUT DECIDED THAT IT WOULD GENERATE ENOUGH REVENUE THAT THEY DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT UPSETTING PEOPLE.
Comments about the media where people say 'it's only TV' drive me crazy - I can't believe how naive people are and that they seem blind to understanding how much goes into pre-production. These messages are not sent by accident. It is DELIBERATE, KNOWING AND PLANNED. A group of people WANT us to see these things and have these beliefs.
Never underestimate what the media is attempting to do.
Just from one viewing, I saw
- mom's perspective being ignored, what do women know?
- fast/loud cars give you power & confidence, even to the extent of taking what isn't yours (principle's parking space, another man's girl)
- women/girls like fairies, pink, dancing, shoes & being grabbed roughly to be 'given one'
- that if you stick it to her good, she'll become not only compliant but also willing
- gaining possession of forbidden fruits (car, parking, women) is fun, exciting, empowering
- girls, like cars, are owned by men and are there for the taking
And for anyone who says that we're overthinking it: THE ADVERTISING INDUSTRY WILL HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS IN GREAT DETAIL, DISCUSSED ALL OF THIS, KNOWN IT WOULD UPSET SOME, BUT DECIDED THAT IT WOULD GENERATE ENOUGH REVENUE THAT THEY DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT UPSETTING PEOPLE.
Comments about the media where people say 'it's only TV' drive me crazy - I can't believe how naive people are and that they seem blind to understanding how much goes into pre-production. These messages are not sent by accident. It is DELIBERATE, KNOWING AND PLANNED. A group of people WANT us to see these things and have these beliefs.
Never underestimate what the media is attempting to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)