Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: We Will Be Creative And Free, Like Birds That Create Things Previous entry: Yo

Do advertisers believe women are people yet? Not really.

This week on the podcast, I was lucky enough to interview the amazing Stephanie Coontz, who is one of the nation's experts in the evolution of family life and women's roles in the 20th century.  In it, we spend some time talking about the amazing levels of overt misogyny women faced in the 50s and 60s, and though the words "mad men" were not uttered, rest assured, she's basically confirming the accuracy of that show's portrayal of the era.  The notion was unchallenged in many parts of the country that women were a) stupid and b) unambitious and perfectly fulfilled by fetching bourbons and wiping asses, and while <i>The Feminine Mystique</i> has many flaws---which we also talk about---it was still an important book because Betty Friedan was able to reach people who may not have been exposed to the idea that women are people before. Her recent book, A Strange Stirring: The Feminine Mystique and American Women at the Dawn of the 1960s, is well worth checking out.

Via the newly-moved Man Boobz, I found this Goodyear ad that encapsulates exactly the attitudes that Coontz is talking about:

Like David says in his post, one of the most stunning things about it is that it's not even cheeky.  The idea that women are literally too stupid to be expected to drive cars with minimal competence is taken as a given.  I'm reminded of the first episode of "Mad Men", where Joan says, without irony, that the typewriters were designed to be simple enough for women to use.  This, even though it's clear that her entire staff went to two-year colleges where they did nothing but learn things like how to use typewriters, and this despite the fact that many men in that office probably couldn't use the typewriters.

Anyway, I got to thinking about this ad and how feminism has managed to lay to rest many of the media narratives about women's lack of basic competence.  It's not that women aren't still considered stupider than men---as any woman who's had to endure mansplaining (aka, all) can tell you---but much of the time the areas in which women are considered stupid are more abstract.  I find that I'm talked down to more when it comes to understanding abstract concepts or complicated systems, but very rarely will you see anymore the ready assumption that a woman cannot operate basic machinery or work other systems that require competence more than abstract intelligence.  If anything, we're entering an era when women are considered more competent than men much of the time, which is why women are populating competence-oriented jobs in low and mid-level management and administration, while the glass ceiling is still firmly in place when it comes to more exciting life-of-the-mind kind of jobs. (You even see this divide in the sciences, with women gravitating more towards biology than sciences deemed more abstract, like physics.  You also see it in publishing, as Ann Friedman parodied brilliantly, pointing out that full-time, high profile writing jobs are mostly reserved for men, whereas women are the workhorses doing the thankless, behind-the-scenes work of editing.) But the idea that women are too stupid to breath is being put to bed, and even replaced often with an image of women as hyper-competent at tasks like cleaning, organizing, and other basic competencies, while it's often men who are portrayed as too bumbling to handle certain tasks.  The divide is no longer men smart/women stupid, but more men having higher intelligence/women excel at learned skills, but aren't so creative.  Still sexist, but with a little more space for women to be considered valuable.

On the home front, women aren't being portrayed in the media anymore as daft housewives who can barely hold it together, and men aren't playing the role of exasperated husbands who could easily do a better job at women's work if they had the time or the willingness to be so emasculated.  You don't really have TV ads where a wife has bumbled some easy task at home, been screamed at yet again by her husband, and is rescued from her own stupidity by a product---the implication behind this Goodyear ad and this coffee ad, which also brings up the threat of male infidelity to bully women into purchasing the product:

Still, that doesn't mean that misogyny is gone from advertising.  Far from it.  In fact, I would say that advertisers haven't abandoned misogyny so much as they've shifted the narrative about why women suck. Nowadays, it's less that women are exasperating because they're stupid, but that women are exasperating because they're annoying, screeching harpies who need to shove a cock in it.  If anything, women's growing reputation as being competent is being held against us in advertising, as more evidence of why we're overbearing.  Oh, we're so organized and shit!  Well, that's annoying to the men who have to tolerate honey-do lists that proliferate in the absence of men actually creating those lists for themselves. 

We've drifted from "women are stupid" towards "women have no value to men beyond sexual release and are otherwise annoying", and since our society still judges women's value on what use they are to men, this means women have little value in this media landscape. Take this infamous Bridgestone ad from just last year:

Another aspect of this stereotype is that women are portrayed as having a basic, if banal intelligence, but also as being dull workshorses who are unable to experience sensual or transcendent pleasures. This view comes out in two ways, one that's more "egalitarian", where men are shown as condescending to women for being so boooooring, and women are shown as exasperated by men who won't play by the rules governing social relationships held together by banalities.  Take this Bud Light ad:

The women in the ad are competent people.  They can read a book and understand its themes and characters.  But in this ad, they have no passion for literature.  Book clubs exist in the media landscape to show women as people who read because it's what you're supposed to do in order to be a Good Person, and the clubs are there to hold together female relationships in the absence of true shared passions or affection.  The man is portrayed as a rude loaf, but he's also---and this is important---portrayed as someone who actually lives.  He doesn't drink beer because it's there, he drinks beer because he can experience pleasure and will go out of his way to do so.  He's impulsive and fun-loving.  We in the audience aren't expected to wonder why his wife puts up with him, but to simply understand that women tolerate this bad behavior from men because men are our only door to a world where actual passion and lived experience resides.  It's the higher intelligence vs. competence thing, spun in another direction.  It's unclear what men get out of this arrangement, besides a steady supply of beer on the table.  Which is why the Bridgestone ad comes into play---at the end of the day, this is still basically misogynist and women are portrayed as being annoying and lucky that men will have them at all.

Of course, some ads don't try to balance the message "women are oppressive, dull-minded machines that will ruin your life by draining your soul out of you" with a little humor about how men are a bit childish.  Some just portray men directly as victims of women's dull-minded conformity.

The assumption is that men resent having to be responsible people who get shit done, and women relish it.  In a way, it's that different from the 50s, when the assumption was that women are completely fulfilled by wiping asses and men and only men needed to have a public life with meaningful work to feel fulfilled.  In fact, it's basically the same message.  The one thing that's improved dramatically is the notion that women are too stupid to tie their shoes without a man's guidance, but the underlying message that women aren't really people continues to dominate much of advertising.

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 09:18 AM • (111) Comments

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ou5Ens-qNRc

Feminist response to the last commercial—Woman’s Last Stand

Comment #1: stuckinbethel  on  05/09  at  10:51 AM

This is sort of tangential, but I also hate that the advertising industry equates sex with the objects of desire for hetero men (and possibly lesbian women, although it’s purely unintentional).  When people say “sex sells”, they mean that sexy women sell things to hetero men.  Probably about a decade ago there was actually a study that showed that half-naked women don’t actually make hetero women more likely to buy something, and I was just amazed that anyone was surprised by this!  So even though women make more than half of purchases, the ad industry still assumes that the hetero man is the default buyer that they should cater to, outside of specific “women’s products”.

Comment #2: bananacat  on  05/09  at  10:57 AM

It’s hard to tell because social changes tend to happen in decade-like chunks, but I sort of wonder if all of the anxious masculinity that encapsulated the 00’s (with the exception of the very brief metrosexual craze which seemed more like a vehicle for stomping that shit down than an actual trend) was a result of the impotent fears of a nation that had been “feminized” by being helpless against the attack that happened on 9/11. I wonder if, now that we’ve “gotten” Bin Laden, if this obvious ball-clutching and tantrum throwing on the part of American Men (as portrayed by the advertising industry) will cease.  I expect the next 6 months will be little more than a hyper-masculine endzone dance with lots of dick-waving, but maybe after they finally blow their manly loads they’ll roll over and go to sleep for a decade and we can go back to behaving like adults.

Comment #3: Mighty Ponygirl  on  05/09  at  10:59 AM

It seems like the major thing men get out of it is the joy of being a big A hole.  Quite the fun lovin’ entitlement there.

Comment #4: ewellone  on  05/09  at  11:01 AM

stuckinbethel beat me to it. That response makes me so happy.

Comment #5: Hobbes  on  05/09  at  11:04 AM

Did you see Stephanie Coontz’s excellent essay on how mothers and housewives were not respected in the 1950s in the New York Times yesterday? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/opinion/08coontz.html

It’s not just beer commercials and tire commercials that irk me. Almost all ads still are set in the 50s. I mean, we never see a man using a dustmop or broom in those Swifter ads, or cleaning up after the children, pets and bumbling spouse. It’s progress that the women are now in trousers, I suppose, instead of skirts. but does anyone in RL clean house in neatly pressed khakis?

Comment #6: louC  on  05/09  at  11:19 AM

The thing that I noticed back in the day (2004?) was the seeming dominance of actors playing complete dumbshits/tools in commercials as a way of selling shit. THe example I used was some Circuit City commercial where a grinning idiot in an office elevator starts giggling and pressing every floor. Instead of his fellow passengers beating him to absolute shit, it freeze-frames and cuts to some tag line like “Like buttons? Here, come to Circuit City.”

Was I supposed to identify with this shitwad? This was a few years before anxious masculinity commercials started plaguing the airwaves, which must be culminating or reaching critical mass now with the addition of new nouns beginning with “man-” and the clear homophobia of the Miller Lite commercials. I swear I heard one of the bartendresses in one of those commercials say “when you’re ready to stop giving that guy a rimjob and want to drink a watery shit-beer in a vortex can, some back and see me.”

Comment #7: norbizness  on  05/09  at  11:22 AM

Mighty Ponygirl,
The United States has been having a “masculinity crisis” since at least the 1880s.  After the industrial revolution, white men went from being mostly self-employed (farmers, explorers, craftsmen, and merchants), being employed by others in factories.  Around the same time, there was less frontier to take over.  It seems that every kind of change brings on an imaginary crisis, and society is constantly changing.  The Boy Scouts were created to boys into manly men.  I don’t think this hyper-masculinity and fear of feminization will be over any time soon.  As long as we have people who fear change AND have an inaccurate view of history, we’ll have people worrying about men turning into women.

Comment #8: bananacat  on  05/09  at  11:23 AM

The Way We Never Were was revolutionary reading for me as a young college freshman who knew she was feminist but was still sorting out her beliefs about the world.  Great post, and so apropos because I also just read on Jezebel about a Mr. Clean “Mother’s Day” ad that shows a woman cleaning a shower curtain with her daughter that reads: “This Mother’s Day, get back to the job that really matters.”  I said to my co-worker, “They might as well have said, ‘This Mother’s Day, get your ass back into the kitchen and make me a sandwich.”  Geez.

Here it is via CopyRanter: http://copyranter.blogspot.com/2011/05/mr-cleans-mothers-day-message-keep.html

Comment #9: Blitzgal  on  05/09  at  11:24 AM

bananacat—yes, but I think it tends to come and go like a tide.

Comment #10: Mighty Ponygirl  on  05/09  at  11:35 AM

One of my first jobs out of college was collating all the recipes for Gourmet’s Best Desserts. I had to go through every back issue from the beginning, xerox the dessert recipes and paste them on pieces of paper for the editor. The hilarious part was how horrible the ads were—I lost the file when I fled NYC (moved via UPS and psycho roommate threw out some boxes before the driver picked them up)—but the meme I remember most clearly was “He’ll divorce me if I don’t use [Product XYZ]!”

Comment #11: cmf406  on  05/09  at  11:38 AM

The assumption is that men resent having to be responsible people who get shit done, and women relish it. 

Which is perhaps why women don’t go into physics, and instead pursue scientific and quantitative fields that pay better and have better career prospects. Biology research might not be the best career field in the world right now, but given the mathematical skills required to pursue a physics career, a woman talented enough to do it is making a rational decision by eschewing physics in favor of something that allows her to pay her rent.

Comment #12: Tyro  on  05/09  at  11:38 AM

After watching the bulk of my network TV in digital form for the past 5 years or so, interstitial-free, it’s really odd to see these mean-spirited propaganda shorts. I’d imagine that these days only the elderly and the very young are exposed to this constant drumbeat of sexism and stupidity, but any American older than 30 has still been slammed with hundreds if not thousands of hours of this shite over their lifetimes.

It’s not just beer commercials and tire commercials that irk me. Almost all ads still are set in the 50s.

That’s because ad agency business models are still set in the ‘50s. It’s part-and-parcel with an industry-wide nostalgia for a time when they could make fortunes by appealing to a viewer’s casual sexism and racism and by insulting his intelligence. The lazy and substance-free approach demanded by the 60-, 30- or 15-second TV spot is long past its sell-by date, and it’s a sign of the advertising industry’s institutional sclerosis that in 2011 they cling to that creative unit format like grim death.

See also the major music labels.

Comment #13: Gracchus.  on  05/09  at  11:46 AM

The ads I’ve been seeing lately here in Brazil are all about how Women Suck. The phone company advertises by showing the husbands yelling at wives for squandering their money by calling the mother-in-law everyday. The flip-flops have been doing ads where women get harassed on the beach and implying that the only reason they reject the harrassers is that they’re golddiggers/shallow looking for richer/better looking men, or that the only women who can’t be harrassed are the ones who are already someone else’s property.
The cleaning products company has the slogan “The brand that evolved with women”, and the evolved women in their ads are bossy, wear men’s clothes, and tell you both that at home, the wife is The Man, and that the wife should force the husband (or train him like a dog) to help cleaning, or else deny him sex.
The only ad I remember seeing recently that wasn’t terribly misogynist is the car shop (local Volkswagen reseller) that says “our prices are so good even the jews open their wallets”. Ahem.

Comment #14: colorlessblue  on  05/09  at  12:12 PM

Amanda, it wasn’t unknown for men to be put down in commercials, as long as they weren’t white and upper-class.

Ancient Chinese Secret

Comment #15: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  05/09  at  12:15 PM

Gracchus @13 is right to connect music labels to the advertising pattern.  Add Hollywood to the mix, and we’ve got a nice feedback loop where audio & visual media forms all say Hells Yeah! to the Women Suck, Women Are Subhuman message.  Which makes an outlier of any commercial or movie or music act that doesn’t sing the same song.

Comment #16: Unree  on  05/09  at  12:32 PM

That Dodge commerical makes me want to punch that whiny asshole in the face, take poor wife out for a beer and NEVER buy another dodge.  Was that supposed me make me feel bad for him?  Poor baby has to pick up his socks!! the horror!  he deserves an over price penis extension!

Comment #17: Rare Vos  on  05/09  at  12:44 PM

I became most aware of this “woman as nagging harpy” advertising shtick back in college.  At the time, there was a 7-11 (or was it AM/PM?) ad where a man was scarfing down snacks in the convenience score parking lot.  An annoyed woman (clearly his wife) then accosted him for eating all this junk when he said he’d been going jogging.  There was a lame punchline involved.  When I watched this ad with men, there was some chuckling.  When I watched it with women, they were befuddled and sometimes upset.  “Why would she care that he was eating a hot dog?” they’d ask.

It’s a mother thing.  Men who chafed under the control and restraint of their mothers as children seem easily able to view their wives in that same role.  Just like mommy ran the household, told you what to do, and stopped you from having any fun, so does your new wife-mommy.

Sure, who wouldn’t want to run around and have a good time and have someone there to take care of the chores and logistics?  But women would surely enjoy that just as much as men would.  It’s just that men seem to get away with it a lot more often.

But I’m with Graccus, I almost never see commercials anymore, and I’m damn thankful.

Comment #18: Jake  on  05/09  at  12:53 PM

So you’re saying you share the assumption that women are less imaginative, Tyro? I disagree. I believe many women are dreamers by nature and many men workhorses, and many people are a combo.

Comment #19: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/09  at  12:53 PM

The women in the ad are competent people.  They can read a book and understand its themes and characters.  But in this ad, they have no passion for literature.

Nope, don’t see it in that ad.  Standard “male idiot interrupting adult women” story, but I disagree that there’s any “no real passion” subtext.

Comment #20: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  05/09  at  12:58 PM

I saw that appalling Dodge ad during the Superbowl in 2010 and ranted about it in my blog afterward. The idea of vile, emasculating women who are FORCING hapless males to be grownups (when if it weren’t for the vaginocracy, they’d be happy-go-lucky teenage boys for life except with lots more sex!) is frankly mystifying to me.

The ad that ran the same year that I thought provided an inspiring contrast was the Google ad, in which an unseen person searches for information on study abroad programs, Paris cafes, long-distance relationships, a job in France, a church in France, and finally… “how to assemble a crib.” Which was a story about the joy, rather than the horror, of growing up. Where the young man is spreading his wings and leaping into adulthood not because some woman is dragging him by the shirt collar but because he is elated to see what’s out there.

Comment #21: Naomi  on  05/09  at  01:04 PM

I watched the Goodyear ad, and it’s clear Ms. Marcotte is totally missing the point of it.

A big thing I worry about - now 2011 - with my wife is her having to change a tire. Despite many times trying to show her how it’s done, she’s never actually changed a tire herself. I’ve actually traveled to where her car is several times, and another time she got a parking attendant to do it.

They don’t show the woman driving ‘badly’ - the point is that the polyglass tire holds up to all this punishment - and who’d want to change a tire in the rain?

Dog whistle aspect of the Goodyear ad is that the polyglass was a ‘supercar’ tire - hence the white letters on the sidewall. It was a high performance tire - the ‘tricky’ aspect here is that perhaps the guy is being told that he can have his supercar tire, yet it’s good for protecting the wife because it won’t blow out over potholes because it’s also stronger and grips the road better - so that’s a safety aspect that protects your wife.

OK, now moving on to the newer ads, I find it amazing that you don’t connect the dots. If women are portrayed as ‘stupid’ or incompetent in the ‘60s, why is that you don’t approve of men being portrayed as ‘stupid’ or incompetent now? Shouldn’t that be something you embrace because the tables are turned?

Will you only be happy when every ad you see says men are subhuman? I see a media landscape where men are portrayed in humiliating ways every day. I guess you missed that.

BTW, all the ads I see on Pandagon? They’re for big-ol Dodge trucks, Jeeps and Ford Explorers.

Comment #22: KingElvis  on  05/09  at  01:04 PM

“the clear homophobia of the Miller Lite commercials. I swear I heard one of the bartendresses in one of those commercials say “when you’re ready to stop giving that guy a rimjob and want to drink a watery shit-beer in a vortex can, some back and see me.”


No shit, huh? I fucking hate beer commercials (especially Miller Lite).

Comment #23: Mark  on  05/09  at  01:07 PM

On the home front, women aren’t being portrayed in the media anymore as daft housewives who can barely hold it together, and men aren’t playing the role of exasperated husbands who could easily do a better job at women’s work if they had the time or the willingness to be so emasculated.

How far we haven’t come—even I Love Lucy denied the idea that women’s work was easy for men.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsPsjfm—UU
You will note that even when Lucy and Ethel are in the workforce, they are working where other women are able to do the same jobs they fluff up.  The men have no such role models.

This is sort of tangential, but I also hate that the advertising industry equates sex with the objects of desire for hetero men (and possibly lesbian women, although it’s purely unintentional).  When people say “sex sells”, they mean that sexy women sell things to hetero men.  Probably about a decade ago there was actually a study that showed that half-naked women don’t actually make hetero women more likely to buy something, and I was just amazed that anyone was surprised by this!  So even though women make more than half of purchases, the ad industry still assumes that the hetero man is the default buyer that they should cater to, outside of specific “women’s products”.
Comment #2: bananacat (formerly catgirl)  on 05/09 at 10:57 AM

Old Navy has been counterprogramming with ads with shirtless men in them.  They are good looking AND friendly looking. 

There was one with a whole cast of shirtless men.  I was so surprised I nearly fell out of my chair when I saw it.  I can’t seem to find it online except in a parody version with “The French Mistake” played over it, which suggests just how subversive this idea is that women might be looking—the assumption is that everything shown on TV is for men, therefore shirtless men in the ad must mean that THEY ARE FAGS AND FAGS BUY IT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASCIg2R5a5A

Since then, I’ve seen several more shirtless men in commercials.  I have to think someone in advertising noticed that these shirtless men might actually catch the attention of female viewers in a positive way!

Comment #24: oldfeminist  on  05/09  at  01:07 PM

So you’re saying you share the assumption that women are less imaginative, Tyro? I disagree. I believe many women are dreamers by nature and many men workhorses, and many people are a combo.

I think that women look at whether entering a male-dominated field is worthwhile and conclude that physics doesn’t have a worthwhile payoff. Since physics is considered “normal” for men, they still pursue the field in large numbers despite the poor career prospects. It doesn’t have anything to do with being “imaginative” or not. Only a few people who pursue physics are ever going to “make it” in the field, and it requires a high level of intelligence, which if you have can be applied to other fields that are more worthwhile.

If being a physicist paid $300k/yr, you’d find more women willing to overcome the institutional barriers to do it. As it is, they might as well do something else that’s a better use of their time. (disclosure: I left physics for another field as an undergrad, and the career paths of my friend’s who have stuck with it have only confirmed that I made the right one)

I think people look at the “cost” of entering a field as being the sum of both the intellectual difficulty and cultural/sexist barriers to be overcome and compare that cost to the career payoff, and for physics, it’s not there. With fewer sexist/institutional barriers, more women might do it, but only because the total cost would be lower—right now they just gravitate to fields that are worth their time and effort.

Comment #25: Tyro  on  05/09  at  01:08 PM

Re: the first episode of Mad Men.

My 55-year-old mother unironically asked for a digital camera “easy enough for a woman to use” for Christmas last year. Like, in 2010.

Comment #26: Rootboy  on  05/09  at  01:15 PM

Biology research might not be the best career field in the world right now, but given the mathematical skills required to pursue a physics career, a woman talented enough to do it is making a rational decision by eschewing physics in favor of something that allows her to pay her rent.
Comment #12: Tyro on 05/09 at 11:38 AM

Tyro, this advice is given to women in science, and a lot of them take it.  It’s not given to men nearly as much unless they seem unlikely to do well in physics for other reasons (not quite stellar math ability).

A big thing I worry about - now 2011 - with my wife is her having to change a tire. Despite many times trying to show her how it’s done, she’s never actually changed a tire herself.

So you explain and show her, but never actually had her do it?  No wonder she still doesn’t know how.

They don’t show the woman driving ‘badly’ - the point is that the polyglass tire holds up to all this punishment - and who’d want to change a tire in the rain?

Dog whistle aspect of the Goodyear ad is that the polyglass was a ‘supercar’ tire - hence the white letters on the sidewall. It was a high performance tire - the ‘tricky’ aspect here is that perhaps the guy is being told that he can have his supercar tire, yet it’s good for protecting the wife because it won’t blow out over potholes because it’s also stronger and grips the road better - so that’s a safety aspect that protects your wife.

Making it a female problem is silly.  As you said, who wants to change a tire in the rain?  My husband has had to change a tire in a suit in the rain on the way to a gig, where his appearance is very important.  Yet no one shows the guy in a suit upset about the tire changing, because real men are always ready to change a tire, unscrewing the nuts with their teeth if a lug wrench isn’t available.

OK, now moving on to the newer ads, I find it amazing that you don’t connect the dots. If women are portrayed as ‘stupid’ or incompetent in the ‘60s, why is that you don’t approve of men being portrayed as ‘stupid’ or incompetent now? Shouldn’t that be something you embrace because the tables are turned?

Will you only be happy when every ad you see says men are subhuman? I see a media landscape where men are portrayed in humiliating ways every day. I guess you missed that.

You’ve actually gone all the way to telling women they should be happy that men are treated as idiots in commercials, and why not, *then* castigated them for this supposed tendency you are encouraging? 

Are you a bad troll, or even stupider than your views would imply?

BTW, all the ads I see on Pandagon? They’re for big-ol Dodge trucks, Jeeps and Ford Explorers.
Comment #22: KingElvis on 05/09 at 01:04 PM

Pandagon doesn’t control the ads.  They’re placed based on words found in the post.  There is a wall between editorial and advertising.

Comment #27: oldfeminist  on  05/09  at  01:21 PM

“Are you a bad troll, or even stupider than your views would imply?”

Since he is apparently dumb enough to honestly thinks feminists are just man-haters, a little from column A, a little from column B.

Comment #28: Rare Vos  on  05/09  at  01:40 PM

I agree that Amanda is kind of missing the point on the Goodyear ad. It’s misogynistic - but it’s not depicting the woman as “stupid” or even incompetent, in fact she’s well dressed, stylish and presumably well educated. As a man, when I view this ad I have a similar response as KingElvis - Goodyear is telling me women are precious delicate flowers who need to be protected from the dangers in the world, and when I’m absent in my role as Lord Protector of the Manse, Goodyear is there to fill in.  Certainly offensive, but I would say less offensive and less hateful than the more recent ads.  It would seem to me that male resentment and anger towards women is becoming if anything more overt. Although that Folgers ad is just mind blowingly mean.  I wonder if the writers at the time meant the message to be more tongue in cheek than we now perceive.

Comment #29: jcnighs  on  05/09  at  01:46 PM

Re: the first episode of Mad Men.

My 55-year-old mother unironically asked for a digital camera “easy enough for a woman to use” for Christmas last year. Like, in 2010.

Somewhat related is the premise that people can convince themselves of their own shortcomings. ‘I don’t understand math’ and so math becomes a difficult subject. That sort of thing.

Not that years and years of pop culture osmosis setting in doesn’t cause this kind of thinking, though. It’s a shame, but at a certain point there are simply people who limit themselves. Whether they know it or not.

Comment #30: Santa Claustrophobia  on  05/09  at  01:52 PM

Can we also lump in those annoying ads where the man and/or kids make a big mess of something and then mom swoops in with her newfangled paper towels, vaccum or whatever and competently (and good naturedly, of course!) cleans up the mess for them?

All of them just reinforce the message that of course it’s the woman’s job to clean up behind everyone and to do so with a smile on her face.  It also tacitly nods towards to message that men are somehow incapable of cleaning up behind themselves and that children should be protected from such tasks as well.  Every time one of those comes on the tv my kids get a lecture from me about how ridiculous they are, and every time my kids (or my husband) makes a mess I point them in the direction of the cleaning supplies and leave it up to them to do it themselves.

I stopped watching Sunday afternoon football and the Superbowl spefically because I can’t stand the misogyny and stupidity of most of the ads that they run.  It’s enough to make my head explode.

Comment #31: Lolagirl  on  05/09  at  02:01 PM

Old feminist:

Jeez louize lady. Don’t you know it’s actually girls who go to Jupiter “to get more stupider?”

My wife is also at fault for not wanting to change a tire - but I’M at fault as well for helping her?

Jesus Christ, sugar. Try to mellow out there a little. I’m trying to engage in the conversation and bat around this battle of the sexes question- and being pretty genteel about it.

Maybe you could try to do the same. Maybe you have issues with casting everyone as a villain. 

One of Pandagon readers real weaknesses is this immediate resort to the ad hominen attack.

When did I ‘castigate’ a woman for the ad/cultural landscape where men are portrayed as ignorant louses. The irony is that the beer ads are probably made by men.

As Freud might say, I’m asking, what DO women want (in ads). Should every joke in every ad not offend the farthest left of women, but hey, casting men as louts and stupid losers is fair game? Or even that men are supposed to feel bad about the women portrayed in beer ads? 

But then again, how can I respond to the brilliant retort that I’m a “stupid troll.”

Comment #32: KingElvis  on  05/09  at  02:04 PM

  I was informed by an older NCO that a lot of Psyops people went into advertising when they left the Army, and frankly, a lot of psyops people can be assholes.  It’s also a male-dominated field, so whenever some dude whines about how guys are portrayed as schlubs he’s complaining about other men.

I’ve noticed that there’s a theme in commercials of not being able to say no to boys. There’s a TV commercial which features a mom talking on the phone about her kid, who behind her is destroying a fish tank and setting fire to the curtains. Say no to the little shit. Another commercial features a teen boy saying that he duplicated his sister’s five ‘my faves’, after which the daughter appeals to the dad, who grunts, “Get uglier friends.” The mom, also seated at the table, is a non entity. And needless to say,  the motif of schlubs who can’t do housework serves to get them off the hook for actually doing housework, so the message underneath it all is, “Give it up, ladies, he’ll passively resist till it’s easier to do it yourself. You want to get divorced over vacuuming?”

    I still remember Geritol ads from my childhood and how they pissed me off even at the age of five. “My wife. I think I’ll keep her.” I wanted to punch that guy.

Comment #33: ginmar  on  05/09  at  02:07 PM

You are, in fact, a stupid troll KingElvis. Condescending pet names like ‘sugar’ sort of is a big red flag to that. Stop telling oldfeminist to mellow out when you basically framed the whole ‘men as idiots thing’ as if women should be happy about it because you assume it’s men versus women. Please stop pretending as if you weren’t being an ignorant toolbox ‘Will you only be happy when men are portrayed as subhuman’. Oh, yeah, cause men totally don’t portray /women/ like that right now and then makes excuses for it and wonder if ‘men should feel bad’ about it. Seriously, you’re an asshole. Right, it’s all about women wanting men to be oppressed more. Seriously catch a freaking clue. You are clearly not here in good faith.

Comment #34: LilithXIV  on  05/09  at  02:10 PM

KingElvis, thanks for confirming my theory.

Comment #35: oldfeminist  on  05/09  at  02:19 PM

Do Not Feed The Trolls.  It has been said a thousand times.  If you are using the word “troll” and are responding, you are Feeding The Trolls.  You are not helping.

This is how you handle trolls:

ld fmnst:
Jz lz ldy. Dn’t y knw it’s ctlly grls wh g t Jptr “t gt mr stpdr?”
My wf is ls t flt fr nt wntng t chng a tr - bt ’M at flt as wll fr hlpng hr?
Jss Chrst, sgr. Try t mllw ot thr a lttl. I’m tryng t ngg in th cnvrstn and bt arnd ths bttl of th sxs qstn- and bng prtty gntl abt it.
Maybe y cld try t d th sm. Myb y hv isss wth cstng vryn as a vlln.
n of Pndgn rdrs rl wknsss is ths immdt rsrt t th d hmnn attack.
When dd I ‘cstgt’  wmn fr th ad/cltrl lndscp whr mn r prtryd as gnrnt lss. Th rny is tht th br ds r prbbly md by mn.
As Frd mght sy, I’m skng, wht D wmn wnt (n ds). Shld vry jk in vry d nt offnd th frthst lft of wmn, bt hy, cstng mn as lts and stpd lsrs is fr gm? Or evn tht mn r sppsd t fl bd bt th wmn prtryd in br ds?
Bt thn agn, hw cn rspnd t th brllnt rtrt tht I’m a “stpd trll.”

Comment #36: Punditus Maximus  on  05/09  at  02:22 PM

That’s probably closer to it, Tyro. We can’t just shrug off discrimination as an issue. Many women would kill for a lot if jobs dominated by men, but we’re quietly pushed aside as we don’t the “image” of who is believed should have that job. It’s not just women making choices not to seek those careers.

Comment #37: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/09  at  02:28 PM

The most offensive modern ad I’ve ever seen is the “short film” Beware of the Doghouse from JC Penney.

This was shown in a class of mine.  Not a film theory or gender studies class - it was a cost control class in cooking school.  The (male) instructor just thought it was funny and wanted the guys in the class to benefit from its wisdom.  And people wonder why I have trouble being in the same room as that instructor!


@Gracchus, 13

the advertising industry’s institutional sclerosis

I can’t see that word used in a non-medical context without flashing back to Josh Lyman shouting “You’re going to hell!” at the TV during the Republican National Convention.

Comment #38: Leely  on  05/09  at  02:29 PM

Advertising dumbs down everyone.  But I really do not understand at whom they are targeting the ads.  I recall one ad that seemed to be shown every TV break during the NCAA Tournament for (I think) DIrecTV:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-GS47f6JUs

I wondered—does this mean that only idiots are interested in this product?

Comment #39: James  on  05/09  at  02:32 PM

What annoyed me about the book club commercial is the women did not get angry that their club was interrupted by douchebags. Were they just so grateful that men are talking to them?

The sexism of NFL advertising seems to get worse in the playoffs and the Superbowl - that is when the most women are watching, you’d think the most sexist ads would be where the proportion of men are greatest. I think this is a problem with the advertising industry. It has their own culture, and they don’t care about any studies about effectiveness, they are doing what they want to do - sort of like the Washington Press Corps goes on about whatever even though that the public disagree.

They are trying to one-up each other in their own little cocooned world - I have the same theory about the porn industry.

Comment #40: bay of arizona  on  05/09  at  02:38 PM

I understand Tyro’s point—some careers have a lower return on investment than others.  In my field, computer science, the number of women in the field has been dropping significantly.  In the last three jobs, I’ve not had a woman as a co-worker in engineering that I did not hire.  (I try to be gender blind when I hire, but when you get 30 resumes from male candidates for every resume from a female candidate, gender balance is difficult!)  There have been studies on the topic, and if I go pure evil capitalist wink then I’ll note that ignoring half the potential brain power can hurt my bottom line!

So, the best I can do in this current environment is to do my best to highlight sexist attitudes and when I can, hire the best people I can, regardless of their gender.

Comment #41: James  on  05/09  at  02:41 PM

There was a ad for cough syrup, it shows a sick dude on the couch, whining, “I can’t reach the remote.” The voiceover says: It even works on the man-cold.

It seemed like an obvious jab at the anxious masculinity in other commercials like Miller Lite. They are apparently going for some kind of record in terms of differing ways to call a guy who doesn’t like their brand a pussy - ironic considering we are talking about light beer - wouldn’t a RealManTM drink gasoline and chase it down with mouthwash?

Comment #42: bay of arizona  on  05/09  at  02:42 PM

King Elvis, thanks for proving us right about you, babycakes.  We like it when stupid trolls are too stupid to stop being so stupid long enough to not confirm the assumption that they are stupid trolls, sugarballs.

Now, take youre crayons and your coloring book and sit in the corner like a good boy, sweetiekins.

Comment #43: Rare Vos  on  05/09  at  02:42 PM

Can we also lump in those annoying ads where the man and/or kids make a big mess of something and then mom swoops in with her newfangled paper towels, vaccum or whatever and competently (and good naturedly, of course!) cleans up the mess for them?

Those. Are. The. Worst. Only a mom can handle the complex paper towel! They would not find enough of the bodies to identify. (And of course the quicker picker upper really helped with THAT clean up.)

Comment #44: hypatia  on  05/09  at  02:47 PM

Please do not feed the trolls.

Comment #45: Punditus Maximus  on  05/09  at  02:50 PM

I heard an odious radio commercial on ESPN Radio a few months ago, about how you should go watch basketball at Buffalo Wild Wings rather than in your house. Did you know, that bitch of a wife won’t fetch you beer just because you ask? And even worse - she might inconvenience you by cleaning your home while you are watching the game? (NB: if you don’t want your game interrupted by your horrible wife vacuuming, you are free to do it yourself before the game starts.)

The life of the female sports fan exposes one to all kinds of horrendous fail. At least I’ve learned which companies don’t need my money.

Comment #46: Yawgmoth  on  05/09  at  02:50 PM

“What annoyed me about the book club commercial is the women did not get angry that their club was interrupted by douchebags. Were they just so grateful that men are talking to them?”

I interpreted their expressions and reactions as ranging from shock and discomfort to complete befuddlement until that very last shot.  The initial man’s partner is acting like he just grew a second head, and the other women keep glancing at each other like “Wtf, mates?”.  The only time any of them seem comfortable the whole 30 seconds is in that last shot, where the foreground action is a woman with a plastered-on smile trying to discuss the book on some basic level with the smile fading once the douchebag can’t engage even on that, but the background action is a woman telling one of the other guys about the book with him seeming interested.  The ad’s trafficking in the pressure that women are under to always be nice, all the time, even when the other people involved are being unreasonable boors who would never think to treat a guy like that.

Comment #47: preying mantis  on  05/09  at  02:53 PM

The last video besides being sexist also undermines the value of labor.  Besides the “I will wake up and go to work and sit through a meeting” part, the rest of the mentioned items are irrelevant to getting enough money to drive the car.  It’s almost like the voice-over dude is a child and he is naming certain chores he has to do before he can drive the car, but he’s an adult, he has to work for the money.  “Because I do this I will drive the car I want to drive”, no you drive the car you want to drive because you can afford it.  The people keeping you from driving the car aren’t your wife or your wife’s friends or your dog or those vampire shows, but the people who drive down your wages so it’s harder for you to afford the car.

Comment #48: Albert Cirrus  on  05/09  at  02:57 PM

Many women would kill for a lot if jobs dominated by men

My point was that compared to many formerly-(or currently)-male dominated jobs, “physicist” isn’t worth killing for, compared to the alternatives. Some fields, like medicine and finance, have enough natural incentives that, even though they’re male-dominated, will attract women. Some male-dominated fields just don’t have enough advantages to have women gravitate to them in any significant numbers.

I’m sure there are other examples where women are unfairly thought to be “not capable”, but someone not going into physics can only be though of as making a very rational decision.

Comment #49: Tyro  on  05/09  at  03:07 PM

Just saw two more on the dentist’s waiting room: antiseptic soap, female doctor. You’d think she’d say that she recommends it as a doctor because it’s healthy, or something like that. Nops. She’s a pediatrician doctor (they use both words to make it really clear she’s all about the kids) and above that, she’s a Mom, and she uses the soap because the most important thing is to keep her own kids safe.
Then there’s the headache pills that’s using a couple of celebrities on the ad. The wife is an actress, director, producer, writer (screenplay). The husband is a rock star, writer (books), has a tv show about literature, etc. The ad has the actress saying that, when she gets home from all her work, she gets to be wife and mom, cook and clean, and then the stress builds up and she gets tension headaches. The solution is to take the pills on a daily basis, of course.

Comment #50: colorlessblue  on  05/09  at  03:12 PM

You are, in fact, a stupid troll KingElvis. Condescending pet names like ‘sugar’ sort of is a big red flag to that. Stop telling oldfeminist to mellow out when you basically framed the whole ‘men as idiots thing’ as if women should be happy about it because you assume it’s men versus women. Please stop pretending as if you weren’t being an ignorant toolbox ‘Will you only be happy when men are portrayed as subhuman’. Oh, yeah, cause men totally don’t portray /women/ like that right now and then makes excuses for it and wonder if ‘men should feel bad’ about it. Seriously, you’re an asshole. Right, it’s all about women wanting men to be oppressed more. Seriously catch a freaking clue. You are clearly not here in good faith.

Anyone who disagrees with you is an ‘asshole.’ OK.

Please stop pretending to be human.

I guess you missed my point about how Pandagonistas IMMEDIATELY RESORT TO NAMECALLING whenever someone dares to take part in these battle of sexes posts. 

It’s a huge weakness. It doesn’t promote understanding.

And by the way, I always try to post things that I would say to someone’s face. You wouldn’t dare say that to my face and you know it.

Clearly you’re playing the part of the troll here, sister. Not me.

Comment #51: KingElvis  on  05/09  at  03:13 PM

Bay of Arizona, I think the ‘mancold’ ones are a little jab at the notion that men talk a big game but when they get an owie they really turn into wusses and want lots and lots of attention.

Comment #52: ginmar  on  05/09  at  03:14 PM

King Elvis, thanks for proving us right about you, babycakes.  We like it when stupid trolls are too stupid to stop being so stupid long enough to not confirm the assumption that they are stupid trolls, sugarballs.

Now, take youre crayons and your coloring book and sit in the corner like a good boy, sweetiekins.

OMG that’s witty. You must have a whole lotta a book learnin’ there. I bet you got that in one o’ them books by Mrs. Jean Paul Sartre.

Try to relax a little and not turn everything into a MEAN OLD MAN bullying you.

Yes, I was ribbing old feminist a little - after all she called me a stupid troll - kind of like you did.

It’s official: Call me a troll and I’m gonna come up with sweeter’n'sugar pet names for you.

Comment #53: KingElvis  on  05/09  at  03:24 PM

wouldn’t a RealManTM drink gasoline and chase it down with mouthwash?

No a RealMan(TM) drinks gasoline and chases it with a lit match, then pauses briefly before biting the head off a rattlesnake.  SUUUURRRRRRGE!!!!!

Comment #54: Sour Kraut  on  05/09  at  03:26 PM

I believe we have a Stick Rule Violation.  Judges?

Comment #55: Sour Kraut  on  05/09  at  03:34 PM

Clearly you’re playing the part of the troll here, sister. Not me.

The problem is that this is just like the NFL, King.  It’s not the first guy to throw a punch that gets flagged, it’s the guy who retaliates who gets the penalty.

Just ignore being called troll.  Anyone who goes against the Standard Group Narrative is called that.

To try to get back on topic…

<blockquote>If women are portrayed as ‘stupid’ or incompetent in the ‘60s, why is that you don’t approve of men being portrayed as ‘stupid’ or incompetent now? Shouldn’t that be something you embrace because the tables are turned?<blockquote>

The point is that ANYONE being portrayed as “stupid or incompetent” as a matter of gender is offensive.  People aren’t stupid just because they’re male or female.

Comment #56: liberalrob  on  05/09  at  03:48 PM

I guess you missed my point about how Pandagonistas IMMEDIATELY RESORT TO NAMECALLING whenever someone dares to take part in these battle of sexes posts.

Y’know, part of feeding the trolls is throwing insults at them. So I’m not going to do that. Instead, let me try to show you how you looked from my perspective. Your very first post came across as passive aggressive attempt to turn this into a ‘battle of sexes’ post. Women pointing out that advertisements (which are largely run by men..) treat women badly is not ‘starting the battle of the sexes’. You coming in and disguising your accusation as a question ‘Will you only be happy when every ad you see says men are subhuman?’ is. Nothing you’re doing or have done is promoting understanding

“And by the way, I always try to post things that I would say to someone’s face. You wouldn’t dare say that to my face and you know it.” - Internet Tough Guy, with the only purpose of being an intimidation and bullying tactic. Punditus makes a good point though, any further interaction with you is a waste of energy. I hope you can learn from your mistakes, because they were yours and you have no one to blame but yourself for the reactions.

Comment #57: LilithXIV  on  05/09  at  03:52 PM

“You are, in fact, a stupid troll KingElvis. Condescending pet names like ‘sugar’ sort of is a big red flag to that.”

I though the name was the red flag. Anyone who thinks Elvis was the king of anything is obviously an idiot.

Comment #58: Mark  on  05/09  at  03:52 PM

“I believe we have a Stick Rule Violation.  Judges?”

3/10 for Effort, 3/10 for Execution, 2/10 for Difficulty, 1/10 on the MikeEss Humor Scale.

All in all, a really lackluster effort.  Somebody’s got to step up and knock a few outta the park for Team Troll, or they won’t make it to the next round of the playoffs…

Comment #59: MikeEss  on  05/09  at  03:53 PM

Maybe this is just wishful thinking, but the Dodge ad seems sarcastic to me, and is making fun of the dudes for being stupid immature assholes who actually feel like they have big throbbing cocks because of what car they drive.

Comment #60: PhysioProf  on  05/09  at  03:58 PM

Are we sure that Elvis isn’t a parody?

Comment #61: Maureen  on  05/09  at  04:00 PM

Rare Vos wins the internet.

Comment #62: Jake  on  05/09  at  04:01 PM

Maybe this is just wishful thinking, but the Dodge ad seems sarcastic to me, and is making fun of the dudes for being stupid immature assholes who actually feel like they have big throbbing cocks because of what car they drive.

Well this does bring up another issue.  Are all these commercials actually reinforcing anxious masculinity while pretending to make fun of it?  And do most people even get that they’re supposed to be sarcastic.  There are so many serious commercials that it’s really hard to tell.  There’s the “man-hide” commercial for Dove body wash for men, the Old Spice ads, and that weird most interesting man in the world to sell some kind of beer.  I’m only about half sure that these are meant to be sarcastic, because you don’t have to look far to find commercials that are just as bad but without intending to be ironic.

Comment #63: bananacat  on  05/09  at  04:10 PM

I think the goodyear ad was more paternalistic than outright “lol women suck because they don’t know how to change tires.” The ad wasn’t a woman not knowing how to change a tire, it was more “omg this nice sweet white lady is driving to the airport (read: into an urban area!) all by herself and what if she gets a flat and when she gets out of the car (either to change the tire or flag down help) some black guy will attack her!”

Not feminist by a longshot, but maybe just as much racist as sexist.

Comment #64: Mighty Ponygirl  on  05/09  at  04:24 PM

There was one with a whole cast of shirtless men.  I was so surprised I nearly fell out of my chair when I saw it.  I can’t seem to find it online except in a parody version with “The French Mistake” played over it, which suggests just how subversive this idea is that women might be looking—the assumption is that everything shown on TV is for men, therefore shirtless men in the ad must mean that THEY ARE FAGS AND FAGS BUY IT.

Yeah, I have noticed the same thing about the Twilight movies.  Of course the movies have many problems, including the glorifying of abusive relationships and worship of purity.  But when it comes right down to it, these movies are just an excuse for teen girls (and their mothers) to look at some really hot guys for a few hours, especially in the second when one many of the guys couldn’t wear shirts.

And yet, it’s really common to hear people say that the movies are gay, or that Pattinson is gay.  I know that “gay” has become slang for just something that is generically bad, but I think there’s more to it than that.  The guys in these movies make their living by being sexually appealing to women.  That’s pretty much the complete opposite of gay.  But even when a movie is clearly made for female consumers, it is still assumed that the default viewer is male, and therefore good-looking men must be catering to gay men.  I like to joke that if, for a man, being sexually attractive to women is gay and being sexually attractive to men is gay, the only way to be straight is to be completely repulsive to everyone.  But I know that it goes deeper that.  Women aren’t supposed to be the viewers, and they’re certainly not supposed to be the consumers of sex or of sexual objects.  So a lot of people pretend that women don’t exist and assume that Twilight is catering to gay men.  Incidentally, this is why lesbians are disappeared so often from conversations of homosexuality - they only exist to be consumed by men who watch them.

Comment #65: bananacat  on  05/09  at  04:29 PM

The problem is that this is just like the NFL, King.  It’s not the first guy to throw a punch that gets flagged, it’s the guy who retaliates who gets the penalty.

Just ignore being called troll.  Anyone who goes against the Standard Group Narrative is called that.

To try to get back on topic…

<blockquote>If women are portrayed as ‘stupid’ or incompetent in the ‘60s, why is that you don’t approve of men being portrayed as ‘stupid’ or incompetent now? Shouldn’t that be something you embrace because the tables are turned?<blockquote>

The point is that ANYONE being portrayed as “stupid or incompetent” as a matter of gender is offensive.  People aren’t stupid just because they’re male or female.

OK. I can get behind that. It’s awfully easy to see when it’s not connected with “you ASSHOLE!”

I’m trying to have some fun here. I’m looking at this battle of the sexes in ad culture and stuff in terms of ‘fun.’ Like - otherwise every blog post would have to be about ‘pious’ causes like wage theft or Palestine.
I really was amazed at how quickly I became an “asshole troll” - oh well.

Let me state for the record that I think Marcotte is a sharp arrow and that’s why I look at Pandagon. I suppose the alley cat fightin’ is part of the cost of admission.

Comment #66: KingElvis  on  05/09  at  04:49 PM

I though the name was the red flag. Anyone who thinks Elvis was the king of anything is obviously an idiot.
Comment #58: Mark

FYI: He is the King of Rock n’ Roll.

Comment #67: KingElvis  on  05/09  at  04:52 PM

Somebody’s got to step up and knock a few outta the park for Team Troll

Seriously.  How can you miss the ball swinging a club that big?  It makes me nostalgic for BIRDZILLA over at Balloon Juice.  At least he had the WTF? factor going for him.

Comment #68: Sour Kraut  on  05/09  at  04:53 PM

“Are all these commercials actually reinforcing anxious masculinity while pretending to make fun of it?”

Of course. 

Rule Number One in marketing: Create a need for your product.

It doesn’t matter what it is, as long as you play on the consumer’s fears/vulnerabilities to convince them they are lacking in some important way. 

You don’t smell as good as you should, there are stains on your clothes at your pits, you’ve got too much hair in the wrong place and/or not enough hair in the right place.  You’re not as good looking as you should be, not as fashionable as you should be, your breath doesn’t smell as sweet, there are stains on the collars of your shirts, your whites aren’t white enough and your blacks aren’t black enough.  Your car doesn’t project your masculinity enough, or your frugality, or your practicality.  Other people are laughing about you behind your back.  You can’t get it up or keep it up long enough.

Thankfully, Modern Science and Engineering have developed cures for your faults.  If only you will use our product, you’ll become a better, more acceptable person.  You might even get laid!...

So if they can simultaneously make a guy feel anxious about his masculinity and offer a solution for his anxious masculinity — while mocking anxious masculinity, but not too much because they really are anxious about their masculinity while feigning they aren’t — you’ve got it in the bag.

When I’m watchin’ my T.V.
And that man comes on to tell me
How white my shirts can be
But he can’t be a man ‘cause he doesn’t smoke
The same cigarrettes as me
I can’t get no, oh no, no, no
Hey hey hey, that’s what I say

I can’t get no satisfaction
I can’t get no girl reaction
‘Cause I try and I try and I try and I try
I can’t get no, I can’t get no…

Comment #69: MikeEss  on  05/09  at  04:59 PM

I wish I could remember the thing being advertised on TV the other night that portrayed a man listening to his wife/gf as basically being torture. And not even listening to her complain—listening to her talk about her day and ask about his day.

The reason I can’t remember specifics is because I screamed “DIE IN A FIRE” and promptly poured myself a drink. I don’t watch much regular TV on account of the Interwebz, and so it caught me well off-guard.

IMHO, the best send up of sexist ads so far (though it doesn’t address the resentment factor):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85HT4Om6JT4

Comment #70: Well, what?  on  05/09  at  05:07 PM

#72 Well -

You refer to the wondrous Klondike bar ad:

http://feministing.com/2011/05/02/klondike-rewards-man-for-briefly-listening-to-wife/

Yay!

Comment #71: tannenburg  on  05/09  at  05:26 PM

Probably a good bit of homophobia boils down to envy.  Some of those gay men are pretty darn good-looking, right?  Also, jealousy:  all those girls squeeing over Pattinson, there’s no way in hell I’ll ever look as good as him, so the only way to assuage my ego is to slur him as gay.  That neatly others him into a persecuted minority and clears him off the field:  if only those girls would believe he’s gay, they’d flock to me instead!

Back to the ads…one thing Amanda said about the “Book Club” beer ad:

It’s unclear what men get out of this arrangement, besides a steady supply of beer on the table.

That’s the whole point.  The guy was going to go out and play baseball until he saw the book club women had beer, at which point he dropped everything he had intended to do and went for the brewskis.  See, beer is so desirable to Real Men that they’ll even pretend to be interested in things they have no interest in, if it will get them a buzz.  The fact that the women are gorgeous is just a bonus; it wasn’t worth skipping out on baseball with the guys just to hang around some beautiful women discussing books, but throw in free beer…well, hell, that’s a different scenario altogether.  “I’d like to hear you read some words,” as long as the suds keep flowing.

Women, want to keep your men at home instead of out at the ball field?  Serve them (our) beer!

Guys, don’t want to get put down by the hot female bartender and embarrassed in front of your buds?  Ask for (our) beer!

It’s all about selling beer.

Comment #72: liberalrob  on  05/09  at  05:29 PM

@73, Tannenberg

Damn your eyes, I had almost gotten through the day without that little vein on my forehead popping out and threatening aneurysm. wink

Comment #73: Well, what?  on  05/09  at  05:34 PM

I get all my TV from the Internet, with MSNBC.com being a big streaming video source.  Their commercials, most of which seem to be for P&G products, make me stabby indeed.  Especially hated are/were(?) the Fabreeze ones.  You know, the ones where all the modelesque women in pastel colors gather around and have smellgasms and OMG ur such a gr8 mom/wife/maid/switch-turn-onner bcs FABREEZE. And different scents and styles, best way to drop my trophy wife allowance!

When it got to the point that I was seeing that commercial after every other news segment I lost it and wrote a very pointed, very pissed off (also substantially edited for expletives) email threatening local-grocery-store-cleaning-product-bottlecide to MSNBC, P&G and their ad firm.  It must have worked, because I haven’t seen the ads since.

I can’t see that word used in a non-medical context without flashing back to Josh Lyman shouting “You’re going to hell!” at the TV during the Republican National Convention.

I shout that a lot.  Also “shut up you motherfucking assholes!”  Being an athiest, I feel the latter is a stronger argument.

Comment #74: Caelan Aegana  on  05/09  at  05:57 PM

“He is the King of Rock n’ Roll.”

Bullshit. He isn’t the king of anything. He couldn’t even handle his drugs.

Comment #75: Mark  on  05/09  at  06:02 PM

ginmar, you should enjoy the irony of these Geritol commercials aimed at women:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iu8Ln48FS8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXU5Mff0sVI

Too tired to play, ladies?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pni9ZePXR

Comment #76: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  05/09  at  06:05 PM

Caelan Aegana,

The Febreeze ads piss me off too. OMG, all it takes is some pretty smells to make women swoon and stop being angry at the men for stinking up the joint (because naturally that’s just what men do!)

Anyone else notice that those very same ads also depict the women coming into the room trashed by the men and her being left to clean up behind them?  Because of course they aren’t capable of even noticing the piles of empty pizza boxes, beer bottles, chip bags and mouldering bowls of half eaten, unidentified dip scattered throughout the room, and it’s up to the woman to whip the place back into shape.  Besides, cleaning is lady’s work, and the men are far too busy discussing football stats and napping or whatever to be bothered by such menial tasks. 

 

Comment #77: Lolagirl  on  05/09  at  06:20 PM

Oh yeah, also, basically all of the recent McDonald’s commercials.  There are at least 3 of them that basically say that “you’re smart enough to use the dollar menu, so you’re smart enough to outwit and trick this weird person that is completely different than you but that you tolerate to get sex from”.  There’s the one with the weirdo harping girlfriend that comes up with a constant stream of emasculating cutesy nicknames, and Mr. Smart McDonald’s is smart enough to come up with “Sweetie Pie”, and the annoying gf never finds out that he’s too cool and masculine to spend time coming up with nicknames.  Gf is satisfied and bf keeps his masculinity.

Then there’s the one where the shrill nagging wife gives the husband a to-do list.  He fakes sick, but she is smart enough to blackmail him into anyway by suggesting that he’ll have to come along to pick out drapes then.  Because of course no man ever could ever actually care about home decor, and his wife-mom would have to drag him along, just like his real mom undoubtedly did in the seventh grade when she took him shopping for school clothes.  And of course both women and men have to get what they want through lying and tricks, rather than just having a freaking mature conversation about it, and in this case the mom-wife outsmarted the man.  And the commercial also basically says that men are lazy and would never actually do anything without some mother figure there to nag them into doing it.

I don’t remember the third one right now but I know it was pretty bad.

Comment #78: bananacat  on  05/09  at  06:22 PM

Lots of love for this article.  I learned a lot and it gives voice to something I couldn’t quite find the words for.  On a side note, is it just me or does the narration in the last commercial sound awfully akin to Dexter?  I was waiting for it to cut to a scene of a plastic-wrapped room with butcher knives.

Comment #79: alicefairy  on  05/09  at  06:57 PM

@81 alicefairy

Michael C Hall did do voice-overs for some car commercials; I think they were Dodge.  Unfortunately I am behind the Workplace YouTube Filter of Doom so I can’t look at the video to which you refer.

Comment #80: Caelan Aegana  on  05/09  at  07:26 PM

So you’re saying you share the assumption that women are less imaginative, Tyro? I disagree. I believe many women are dreamers by nature and many men workhorses, and many people are a combo.

Unfortunately, sexist stereotyping assures that if a woman is a dreamer, it will be assumed that she really, really, wants to conform and just be ordinary, but she lacks the skills and intelligence to make conformity work for her.  Therefore she is a failure on two counts.

Comment #82: scratchy888  on  05/09  at  07:42 PM

“On a side note, is it just me or does the narration in the last commercial sound awfully akin to Dexter?”

If memory serves, they hired the actor who plays the lead in that series to do the voice-over, quite possibly to tie it in.

Comment #83: preying mantis  on  05/09  at  07:55 PM

  Yeah, and the most recent of the Michael C. Hall ads says, “Almost makes you want to have kids.” A kid playing in a parked van shrieks behind Our Hero and the voiceover says, “Almost.”  Because men don’t want kids. which is so weird because for centuries, having sons to carry on that family name, what have you, was a big honkin’ deal for men.

Dark avenger, I watched just one of those ads and went into insulin shock. Whyyyyyyyyyyy?

Comment #84: ginmar  on  05/09  at  08:47 PM

Rule Number One in marketing: Create a need for your product.

“Body Odor” was a concept invented by a soap company.

That is the barely-on-topic, mostly-useless trivia fact of the day.

Comment #85: kristin  on  05/09  at  09:08 PM

Not a day goes by when I regret giving up television.

Comment #86: felagund  on  05/09  at  09:59 PM

ginmar, here’s a brain-cleanser so that you don’t have nightmares from any of my previous suggestions:

Up, Up and Away

Comment #87: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  05/09  at  11:10 PM

My point was that compared to many formerly-(or currently)-male dominated jobs, “physicist” isn’t worth killing for, compared to the alternatives.

Unless she really, really loves doing physics.  And isn’t primarily motivated (if at all) by a need/desire/instinct to be practical, pragmatic, and/or competent.

Which goes right back to the original essay. Women are people, just like men, and make decisions for many reasons—just like men.

Comment #88: TiaRachel  on  05/10  at  02:37 AM

Fuck that stupid balloon song gets stuck in my head, even if I haven’t heard it in months or years!  Damn you!

Comment #89: Crissa  on  05/10  at  04:15 AM

I’m pretty sure people were stinky before advertising for soap was invented.

Comment #90: Crissa  on  05/10  at  04:48 AM

“I’m pretty sure people were stinky before advertising for soap was invented.”

Of course they were.  They just didn’t feel like social outcasts because of it. 

The brilliance of the “B.O.” advertising was to create a much greater need for soap products by “solving” a “problem” that had been a natural aspect of the human condition for millennia.  Later they added the need for deodorants and anti-perspirants, and better-smelling laundry soaps.  All these items became absolute necessities that were non-negotiable parts of the social contract.

The soap companies literally discovered/created gold in people’s armpits and crotches…

Comment #91: MikeEss  on  05/10  at  08:34 AM

The McDonald’s commercial that made me maddest was the one where the lady says to her helpless trapped man, “My sister’s boyfriend thinks Sundays are just for watching football.” with a tone of voice implying that her sister’s boyfriend probably molests cats too. (Or maybe he’s a Ravens fan, but I repeat myself!) The guy looks horrified before realizing that he is smart, he bought from the dollar menu. He declares the football-watcher a “jerk,” and his emasculating harpy is satisfied. Women hate football and women won’t have sex with men who like it. For reals, everybody.

*However, since the NFL is not run by idiots, commercials made by the NFL for NFL broadcasts and products actually include female fans, and the NFL has an extensive selection of “fashion” apparel for women.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-dhXeumLMc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0j3LtcIMC30

Comment #92: Yawgmoth  on  05/10  at  09:08 AM

All these items became absolute necessities that were non-negotiable parts of the social contract.

From C. M. Kornbluths’ The Marching Morons

IF THERE’S A GIRL YOU WANT TO GET DEFLOCCULIZE UNROMANTIC
SWEAT. “A*R*M*P*I*T*T*O”


MikeEss, they also discovered “foaming agents” as well, to make laundry soap look like it’s making suds and cleaning the clothes like it should. 

That’s why when Mother Avenger taught me how to wash clothes at the relatively advanced age of 16, she emphasized that one had to feel the water to determine if enough soap had been added, and not to go by how much foam it made.

Comment #93: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  05/10  at  09:09 AM

One of the things that the Goodyear ad brings back to me is the degree to which treatment of women that today you seen only in the FLDS was much more common and accepted back then. Women who simply didn’t drive weren’t bizarre oddities, similarily women who had never been taught about balancing a checkbook.

Comment #94: paul  on  05/10  at  10:35 AM

Later they added the need for deodorants and anti-perspirants, and better-smelling laundry soaps.  All these items became absolute necessities that were non-negotiable parts of the social contract.

My kids get this personal development class in middle school, which includes sex ed, but a big part of it is “personal hygiene”, where they push the “need” for deodorants and anti-perspirants.

Comment #95: rain  on  05/10  at  10:37 AM

Great post. Advertising is a wasteland, rooted in greed and dishonesty and insecurity, and it really is the refuge of a ton of outdated dumbassery. I believe its pervasiveness is a lot of why the U.S. is such a backwards culture.

Comment #96: Xecklothxayyquou Gilchrist  on  05/10  at  10:47 AM

Joan says, without irony, that the typewriters were designed to be simple enough for women to use. This, even though it’s clear that her entire staff went to two-year colleges where they did nothing but learn things like how to use typewriters, and this despite the fact that many men in that office probably couldn’t use the typewriters.

Unless she was talking about a brand new model/type, this is utterly ridiculous.  Typewriters were introduced when a majority (though a stinking one) of professional secretaries, assistants and clerks in offices were men.  Private secretaries were often women serving women, but professional ones still tended to be men at that point.  The new electric typewriters were supposed to be needed partly because it was too physically hard for women to use the robust manual kind. 
Fun family fact: my father-in-law was a clerk typist during part of his WWII service.

Comment #97: helen w. h.  on  05/10  at  10:48 AM

My kids get this personal development class in middle school, which includes sex ed, but a big part of it is “personal hygiene”, where they push the “need” for deodorants and anti-perspirants.

That’s really more for the sake of the teachers than anyone else. Believe me, no teacher on earth gets paid enough to sit in a closed, non-air-conditioned classroom with 35 middle schoolers, none of whom wears deodorant or showers regularly.

Comment #98: Well, what?  on  05/10  at  10:57 AM

@6
OT, but from that Coontz essay you linked:

And from 1965 to 1995, homemakers decreased their own housework hours more than did wives in dual-earner families. As a result, most stay-at-home mothers now have shorter total workweeks than their husbands.

I’m highly skeptical of that conclusion, that most SAHM’s have shorter total workweeks than their husbands.  I suspect that for the homemakers, only the actual task accomplishment was counted, and that they are not given any credit for household management functions, keeping track of what needs to be done and when, and making those sorts of decisions.  If we want to compare apples to apples, then we either have to include time spent on home management for the SAHMs*, or not count equivalent management functions in the workplace.  Additionally, I would bet that hours spent supervising children but not actually doing things with them or for them (feeding them, cleaning up after them, playing with them) aren’t counted either.  Maybe that doesn’t deserve 1:1 recognition (although it does get accounted for when childcare is outsourced), but it’s not nothing.

*Quite a difficult thing to measure accurately.  This study talks about some of the problems:
Time Spent in Household Management: Evidence and Implications

Comment #99: rain  on  05/10  at  11:35 AM

Maybe it’s just because of what I’m used to, but B.O. is one thing that I’m glad is mostly gone.  Although to be fair, I would also like to smell less perfume and cologne.  I can easily look away from or ignore things like greasy hair, body hair, pimples, wrinkles, gray hair, yellow teeth, and wrinkly clothes.  But odors are much harder to ignore so I kind of feel like that aspect of hygiene is more about politeness to others.  And there’s a big difference between the smell of B.O. and the smell of just general sweat that makes it really hard to ignore.  I can’t even stand smelling it coming from myself.  Maybe if I had grown up around that smell I would just get used to it, or maybe not.  But getting rid of odors is one part of modern hygiene that I would like to keep.

Comment #100: bananacat  on  05/10  at  12:13 PM

@rain: besides, SAHMs are on duty 24/7.

Comment #101: colorlessblue  on  05/10  at  12:29 PM

Count me among those who would rather not deal with body odor.  People have disliked it for centuries—aversion to stink is not a new thing.  Now we finally have really effective ways to avoid it rather than masking it.

There are some natural products, which, skillfully chosen and used, work pretty well, and I don’t mind working with or being around people who use these instead of standard chemical stuff.  Going au naturel is a different, and generally unwelcome, thing.

Comment #102: oldfeminist  on  05/10  at  01:37 PM

“And of course both women and men have to get what they want through lying and tricks, rather than just having a freaking mature conversation about it, and in this case the mom-wife outsmarted the man.  And the commercial also basically says that men are lazy and would never actually do anything without some mother figure there to nag them into doing it.”

There are times I’m tempted to believe that advertisers use these stereotypes so often as a way to validate the behavior they supposedly are parodying. The message is that it’s OK for men to be selfish, immature, lazy, and shallow, because that’s their nature. Likewise, men should expect women to be shrill, manipulative, and fatalistic about the essential jerkhood of all men. Notice that discord in these commercials stems from the inability of one party (usually the woman) to accept these implicit roles. As soon as she stops expecting more from her man and devises a way to trick or blackmail him into proper behavior is harmony restored.

Then there are times when I think of the people I know in the PR and advertising industry and doubt that they are clever enough to think in those layers. At those times I think what we’re seeing is pure projection.

Comment #103: jjcomet  on  05/10  at  01:49 PM

Looking back at this, and ignoring the Pandagon readers witticisms (‘stupid fuck’ and ‘asshole’ - WOW, where do guys come up with this stuff? College? I bet you guys went to a big college!)

I think the crux of it is this: Are ads that are aimed at men a sign of male privilege? Remember the whole function of advertising is to MANIPULATE people. Is it good that PR and AD makers view men as credulous louts?

Is it a good thing that men are being manipulated through the objectification of women? Just giving a man a picture of a hot babe is not really sating a need - it’s just stoking it.

Are men really getting what they want by being teased and manipulated through sex? I don’t think that men are the ‘winners’ because they’re being manipulated into, for example, conflating beer and hot babes.

Comment #104: KingElvis  on  05/10  at  02:08 PM

I agree with PiaToR @20.  I find that book club commercial very annoying, but for an example of women are intellegent adults and men are childish self-involved assholes and we should identify with the men/assholes, not for any suggestion of lack of passion in the book club.
KingElvis @22 for a wild swing and miss - no supprise there.  I get inappropriate ads here most of the time, but almost never for any kind of vehicle.  The tire ad is aimed at a man to safe guard his wife and is supposed to do what for the other more than 50% of the population?  Great straw feminazi you are jousting there with your assumptions that we should be happy men are portrayed as stupid, bud.  We aren’t the ones who hate men, mostly.  And sugar cakes, darlin’ etc used condescendingly is starting the namecalling.
I’m with Sour Kraut @55.
Lolagirl @31, I hate those commercials, too, and for those exact reasons.
bananacat (formerly catgirl) @63: Dos Equis.  Not sure I spelled that correctly.  and @65: does that men men are the target for Vibrator sales?
Up, Up and Away -> chorus. Damn!!!!!

Comment #105: helen w. h.  on  05/10  at  02:20 PM

does that men men are the target for Vibrator sales?

Advertisers probably think so (although you don’t see many commercials for vibrators in the first place).  Women’s sexuality is viewed as just another way to please men.  If there were a commercial to sell them, it would be either

1) An ad to men to suggest buying them as a gift for women or

2) An ad to women recommending that they can make their presumably male partner happier in bed by introducing a vibrator.

 

Comment #106: bananacat  on  05/10  at  03:19 PM

I can watch that Goodyear ad over and over again.  I was probably born within a couple years of when that ad came out—and it perfectly captures the tone of how women were talked about both in the media and regular life.  Part of the creepy factor is how the voiceover doesn’t even address the woman—it’s a man talking to another man about what’s best for his incompetent wife.  That casual presumption that of course everyone accepts that women are a different order of being, and a kind of pathetic one at that, was what turned me into a die-hard feminist from a young age.  Now when I describe the Way Things Were, the young’uns don’t believe me.  This Goodyear ad is evidence that I’m not delusional.

There is also a distinction between the Goodyear ad (or the Fogers ad) and modern-day ads depicting men as goofy louts.  Both are offensive, but the former is deadly earnest, whereas the latter are meant to be jokey and humorous.

Comment #107: Laurie  on  05/10  at  06:00 PM

Jake, 18:

became most aware of this “woman as nagging harpy” advertising shtick back in college.  At the time, there was a 7-11 (or was it AM/PM?) ad where a man was scarfing down snacks in the convenience score parking lot.  An annoyed woman (clearly his wife) then accosted him for eating all this junk when he said he’d been going jogging.  There was a lame punchline involved.  When I watched this ad with men, there was some chuckling.  When I watched it with women, they were befuddled and sometimes upset.  “Why would she care that he was eating a hot dog?” they’d ask.

There was an ad for a cell carrier about three or four years ago, they were having a promotion in which they were giving away airline tickets, and the commercial confused me (mostly as a rhetorical device, but there was some genuine confusion) first, that he was so gosh-darned excited about getting to go on a vacation without his wife (I understand wanting a little time by yourself or with your buddies, but he was acting like he was getting a furlough), and second, that he felt he had to conceal it from her.

Yawgmoth, 46:

I heard an odious radio commercial on ESPN Radio a few months ago, about how you should go watch basketball at Buffalo Wild Wings rather than in your house. Did you know, that bitch of a wife won’t fetch you beer just because you ask? And even worse - she might inconvenience you by cleaning your home while you are watching the game? (NB: if you don’t want your game interrupted by your horrible wife vacuuming, you are free to do it yourself before the game starts.)

And that sort of tack is particularly odious because it’s so easy to pitch the glories of BWW without suggesting women hate fun (you could even pitch it to sports fans of all genders, but that’s crazy-talk): “instead of crappy food and love in a canoe alone at your dark and sad house, come to BWW and have a good time!”

Not that there’s ever love-in-a-canoe beer at my house.

Comment #108: Hershele Ostropoler  on  05/10  at  09:43 PM

@109
Can you dig the music when the woman is driving?  I think I had a McMillan and Wife flashback.

Comment #109: rain  on  05/11  at  09:34 AM

  does that men men are the target for Vibrator sales?

Advertisers probably think so (although you don’t see many commercials for vibrators in the first place).  Women’s sexuality is viewed as just another way to please men.  If there were a commercial to sell them, it would be either

1) An ad to men to suggest buying them as a gift for women or

2) An ad to women recommending that they can make their presumably male partner happier in bed by introducing a vibrator.

Comment #108: bananacat (formerly catgirl)  on 05/10 at 03:19 PM

That would be the way to bet, maybe, but you’d lose.

Trojan advertises a fingertip vibrator.  Their commercials are definitely aimed at women, not men, and focus on the woman’s fun, not the man’s.  They even accept that older women are sexual!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_z13XymWVU

Comment #110: oldfeminist  on  05/11  at  02:23 PM

I’ve never seen sex toys commercials, but almost all the toys I’ve ever seen have the kind of porn pictures of women on the boxes that completely turns me off.

Comment #111: colorlessblue  on  05/11  at  02:44 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.