I think people on the internet like to fight when they're bored. I think this thread could possibly turn into a good example of this theory.

::pops popcorn::

I think that nobody ever said selling was pretty. And micromarketing being what it is, some ad wizard probably caters to the non-doofus male and/or feminist market.

*fries Hot Pocket on oiled up topless chick, then spears with power drill and eats*

I think both are awful, and should be done away with, but I think it's hard to argue that negative male stereotypes are as damaging as negative female stereotypes. They may be just as annoying, just as inaccurate, or just as offensive, but there just hasn't been a history of social, economic, and political discrimination against men that such ads helps prop up.

I feel like I actually just read something interesting related to this topic; if I remember what it was, I'll post a link.

Super, I hope you recall what it was. It's actually quite hard to argue against that negative male stereotypes are as damaging as negative female stereotypes when the discussions erupt into giant gobs of ad-men hollering "I can't HEAR you lalalallalalalalalalalalala". (which sadly has been the case so often - it really is flamebait material around my professional hood).

I think both are awful, and should be done away with, but I think it's hard to argue that negative male stereotypes are as damaging as negative female stereotypes. They may be just as annoying, just as inaccurate, or just as offensive, but there just hasn't been a history of social, economic, and political discrimination against men that such ads helps prop up.

I'll buy that.

Odd thing to me is, I kind of doubt the efficacy of the 'oiled up topless chicks' ads. I enjoy watching them sure, but I can't think of a single instance in which they've made me buy a product I wouldn't buy otherwise, 'I have no need for a n70-pound bag of manure, but Golly, looka the hooters on that spokesmodel! [gets out credit card]. But they keep airing them, so it must work on somebody.

(also, what's with the Hot Pockets hate? The breakfast ones are really good.)

Some ads are creative, some are insightful, some are stupid, some are all of the above. All of them are trying to get us to buy something. All of the shouts of cultural critics of any stripe are not going to change that very much.

Oh, and people on the internet love to argue.

Sorry if this doesn't help, but I really think you're not going to make any headway with them.

A competition with the people arguing about discrimination or a competition with who can make more discriminatory ads? If the former, yes. If the latter, yes.

there's a rallying cry from ad-men who say "but we're discriminated against too!"

The essential problem with this logic is that applying a negative behavior equally still does not justify the behavior (or, as they used to say, two wrongs don't make a right). For instance, you could expect opposition to ads that made fun of, say, people from Bangladesh, and the fact that there were other ads making fun of people from, say, Pakistan, would not make either one morally justifiable.

The issue is simply one of ethics. It sounds as though the men are free to oppose the ads they find demeaning, but don't. However, just because they choose to put up with negative stereotypes about them doesn't mean everyone else must, too.

Fight! Fight! Fight!

I always thought that "oiled up topless chicks selling drills" was a lot more demeaning to guys than girls. It's like the ad exec is yelling, "I OWN YOU WITH HORMONES, AND YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT!"

I admit I'm annoyed by the ads that do so well at promoting standard gender rolls: a frazzled mom who needs help cleaning the kitchen! Daddy needs a bigger lawnmower! Jesus, is this 1950? It would be refreshing to see a more balanced look at home life in the 21st century, wouldn't it? Maybe the dad is making the pizza rolls for the soccer team while the mom is fixing the screen door. Maybe the dad is grocery shopping with his daughter. Maybe the mom is changing an alternator with her son and his boyfriend. These seem far less contrived to me.

Fight! Fight! Fight!
Oh, that's why the supermodels are oiled!

The thing I read was basically talking about how such complaints about male oppression (or other not-relevent-to-the-discussion oppressions) are a means of enforcing the patriarchy. The underlying message becomes "You're not allowed to complain, because life sucks for all of us." Which... is stupid. If life sucks for all of us, let's change it, not argue about how to keep it the same.

(I am writing this comment mainly in an attempt to jog my own memory about the damned article... argh, it's frustrating not to remember *where* I saw it...)

gender rolls:

in your grocers freezer! right next to the race bicuits, ethnicity pie, and sexuality salad!

The underlying message becomes "You're not allowed to complain, because life sucks for all of us." Which... is stupid. If life sucks for all of us, let's change it, not argue about how to keep it the same.

Well, isn't that also just silencing an opposing viewpoint? (I'm half-serious in that I think diversity of opinion is as important as anyother kind of diversity, and partly just trying to keep pinky and miko happy. when they get unhappy, she go shooting sprees. and I really don't want people to take my scantily clad Pennzoil ad girls away.)

Doofus-male ads can be harmful to women, too. I'm thinking about all the ads that seem to convey the message that men can't be responsible parents, so it's up to women to take up the slack. Mom's out of town for the week? Better fill up the freezer with Hot Pockets or load up the Hefty Serve 'n' Stores so the kids won't go hungry.

I agree w/occhiblu that it would be very hard to argue that negative male stereotypes have been as damaging as negative female ones.

I also think that painting entire industries/fields-of-creative-endeavor in broad strokes is pretty much guaranteed to be sloppy and inaccurate, and, for that matter, that getting mad at the ad industry is misguided at best. The ad industry didn't create inequality, and there are forces much more powerful than the ad industry which work to preserve it.

Isn't what silencing an opposing viewpoint? My point is that guys saying "I don't want to hear about YOUR oppression, because I am also oppressed, boo hoo" is a way to silence women's critique of society and reinforce gender norms.

Isn't what silencing an opposing viewpoint? My point is that guys saying "I don't want to hear about YOUR oppression, because I am also oppressed, boo hoo" is a way to silence women's critique of society and reinforce gender norms.

Bad phrasing on my part. It seemed like the original phrasing was saying that men shouldn't talk about being oppressed (and I think that word is abused quite a bit in discourse, but that's a whole other story) because women are more oppressed. I'm not saying I neccessarily disagree, but even dunderheaded voices deserve I hearing I guess).

(and there is a certain truth to the fact that life often sucks, no matter what gender/race/whatever you are)

(and stop the Hot Pockets bashing!)

Well, isn't that also just silencing an opposing viewpoint?

No, I don't think so -- that was kind of the point of my comment. If men object to ads that portray them negatively, they should raise their voices about them. Instead they seem to be sending the message "We're willing to accept it, why aren't you?"

I mean, ideally, everyone would object to all the stupid messages about everyone. But we have made a compact with the world of advertising in that we have shown that we accept forced messages. I feel as though I see an ad every day that offends me in some way - not only as a woman, but as a human being, as a thinking person, as an American, et cetera. I also can't believe we tolerate ads aimed at us in movie theatres, grocery checkout lines, and on toll booths...but we do. The voraciousness of the producers of consumer goods will lead them to push messages at us in every manner possible unless we object. We, as viewers, define the acceptable boundaries, not advertisers. If an ad works for the advertiser, or even just seems to work, it stays. If an ad draws too much backlash or begins to tarnish the company's image, it goes.

I agree about what mrmoonpie says, too - ads that depict men as doofuses really depress me.

About the only time manvertising makes me aware of my gender and how I might not fit the construction of its mold is when I'm in the checkout line and see some dude with an 8pack on a Men's Health and then I want to get all buffed and ripped for about twenty seconds until I forget about it. But I'm not a good data point since the supermarket is about my only exposure to pop culture.

ads that depict men as doofuses really depress me.

Agreed, especially since I'm a horrible cook, and "my man" is a great cook. I don't blame the advertisement agencies, but I don't absolve them either.

God, I hate the doofus male ads and the doofus male sit-coms. HATE! And mrmoonpie is absolutely right, they are just as harmful to women as men.

I actually find the oiled up bikini ladies the least offensive because it's SO in your face. It makes no pretense that it is anything else but a ploy to sell you something with sex. That's somehow less insidious to me. (Then again, I find the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue more offensive than Penthouse for the same reason. If you're gonna buy porn, be honest about it.)

Agreed jrossi, and perhaps even more directly to SI, if you're going to sell porn, be honest about it.

Ads are evil.

As an aside, why to television ads always pair a good looking woman with a fat, stupid looking guy? It seems to be the rule for ad couples.

court siem: I don't know, but something sort of similar I read years ago about male-female pairings in commercials is that you will basically never see a white woman onscreen with a black man. The opposite (black woman/white man) is apparently OK, and people in groups of three or more can apparently be any racial combination, but the first way is somehow considered verboten.

The article I read this in attributed it to the role of black males as threatening figures and/or competitive rivals for female attention in the white male psyche. Make of the theory what you will, but years of observation seem not to contradict the basic formula.

Nothing personal, dabitch, but I pretty much hate all advertising, find almost all of it exploitative, and can't really distinguish all the shades of disgust it brings me, nor rate various offenses against each other.

I agree with jrossi about the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue thing. I also can't stand those Victoria's Secret TV ads-talk about sex sells!?! But I have to admit that I get a kick out of those "Man Law" commercials. I think they're silly, and I don't drink beer, so they can't sway me that way. I do get a kick out of them though.

Thoughts:

Any advert that convinces married couples that men can't cook sounds like good news to me. :)

This is like Poland laughing at France when they were invaded by the Germans.

Talk of the patriarchy in this situation misses the point. I think.

Main article starts here
=================
Modern adverts are basically designed to make you feel bad about yourself within the confines of current societal thinking. That is, if a stereotype can be reinforced to make someone feel that they need product A to survive, then the advert will do that. The recent turn towards "Men are rubbish without product B" style of advert simply reflects a damaging new attitude towards men. The continuing emphasis on "Women are rubbish unless they continue buying product C" advert continues to reinforce damaging attitudes towards women. The only difference is that the men stuff is newer.

All adverts reinforce these stereotypes we have about ourselves. "What if Men don't find me attractive."; "What if women think I am unable to show I care." The list goes on. What's interesting is that it's only recently that negative male stereotypes have taken effect amongst a notable male population.

There's a question as to whether men should be allowed to rail against anti-male advertising. The argument goes "We've suffered these adverts for generations, and when it happens to you, you get all upset about it." To me, this is a perverse logic. It's the duty of people to fight against any form of oppression they feel. If that oppression is only felt by them and people like them, then they and initially they alone will rally against it. This is what is happening now.

It may feel a bit of a slap in the face of feminism, but in reality I think it's just "brothers" standing up against a shared enemy. The fact that a the more radical feminists feel outraged by this shows a lack of empathy towards men. I think that it is ironic and sad that these same feminists have demanded this level of empathy for themselves for years.

I feel angry when I read articles describing how photoshopped representations of women reinforce body dysmorphia and increase the likelyhood of diseases like anorexia. I think that the fact that there has been a substantial rise in the same diseases in men and this mirrors the use of unachievable male imagery in advertising is a damning indictment of the power of advertising. There's no reason to make this a battle between the sexes.

I do feel a degree more empathy for the 37 year old male computer programmer who suffers as a consequence of negative advertising, but this is human nature. It's just because I understand more those that are like me. As a consequence, I am more likely to make a fuss in this situation. However, this does not mean that I do not have empathy for people who are not like me.

Allow men to be outraged. And yes, gloat a little about how it's been worse for you for many years. But understand that there is a common enemy and things will be better if it is fought together.

*Rant Ends*

I expect there are holes in the above by the way. Please don't shout at me.

Of course I wrote all that without reading what anyone else said. Looks like all my points were covered much more succinctly than I could have managed.

Miko says: Instead they seem to be sending the message "We're willing to accept it, why aren't you?"

I'd like to pick up on this point though. I think the actual male thought process is slightly more complex than this. I think the message that is actually being sent is "When we complain about adverts that dismiss men, you belittle us and say that they are OK, so if they are OK then adverts which belittle women are OK too."

It's a pretty rubbish thing to say for the reasons I tried to put across in my opus (above), but I'd prefer it if someone actually sat down and just said "Sexism is bad. This makes women feel bad. this makes men feel bad. We shouldn't really do it. There was a bunch of stuff that happened and is happening that's not OK & most of it is directed at women, but basically we're all human and we should have the maturity to stand together woman and man and say No! Me and my friend say this is wrong."

"When we complain about adverts that dismiss men, you belittle us and say that they are OK, so if they are OK then adverts which belittle women are OK too."

I dunno, I think an awful lot of people, male and female, are belittled enough by their actual lives that media portrayals are pretty far down on their list of concers. Most see the media as a means of harmless escape, in my experience.

I'd like to pick up on this point though. I think the actual male thought process is slightly more complex than this. I think the message that is actually being sent is "When we complain about adverts that dismiss men, you belittle us and say that they are OK, so if they are OK then adverts which belittle women are OK too."

I think it's sort of like this: just as a woman after a hard, belittling day at work dosen't want to hear her husband or boyfriend's bitching sometimes, sometimes a guy getting home from a day stocking Wal-Mart shelves is not exactly in the mood to hear about what a 'priviliged male' he is and how he's responsible for everything wrong with the world. (yeah, I realize I'm oversimplifying, but hear it enough and you develop a tin ear for it).

Well that one's the wrong way round. Most of the time the Wal-Mart shelf stackers have little sympathy for those that have had a stressful time doing something that isn't as hard. I sincerely believe this is wrong.

I have a policy where I believe that because experience is profoundly subjective the worst thing that ever happened to me is exactly as bad as the worst thing that ever happened to you. You may not believe this but it's one of my sayings.

When I suffered my worst emotional pain (let's be euphemistic about this - it aint no pissing competition), I spent a lot of time looking for example at people who were mortified that their cats were going to the vets and thinking "You know nothing. You have no idea what real pain is." It took me a while to realise that this was a stupid thing to do. How we react to pain is based to the amount of pain we have felt in the past.

Well that one's the wrong way round. Most of the time the Wal-Mart shelf stackers have little sympathy for those that have had a stressful time doing something that isn't as hard. I sincerely believe this is wrong.

It's not the comparison of pain that bugs me, it's that after a day of being belittled and stepped on, the last thing anybody wants to hear is how 'priviliged' they are and that a little resentment is an understandable reaction that Rush Limbaugh typoes channel into anti-female agendas, since oftentimes identity politics does little to adress this.

media portrayals are pretty far down on their list of concerns

You'd think so, but it isn't true. People are literally bankrupting themselves because of media portrayals. And many, many more people have serious levels of debt.

If they were only buying one type of useless thing, you'd call it an addiction. As it is, you can just call it advertising.

Also, the songs that you love are also "media portrayals". And don't tell me that the music you love hasn't had a deep and profound effect on how you view, cope and explain your life.

(although sometimes a 'snap out of it, you whiney bastard' can be quite welcome. During my post collegiate flunkout year, when I was whining about being stuck in a shitty job, my old man said "When I was 21, I was at Ft. benning with a rifle in my hand and had no idea wheteher I was ever going to see America alive again. Quit bitching." That was a nice dose of water in the face)

Also, the songs that you love are also "media portrayals". And don't tell me that the music you love hasn't had a deep and profound effect on how you view, cope and explain your life.

Sure, but I'm attracted to the songs I love because they articulate things that I'm already feeling better than I can myself. That may result in a kind of feedback loop effect, sure, which is why sometimes hearing a whole new perspective can be valuable, but we choose what we love because it speaks to what's already in us.

I agree with Seanyboy completely. The mass media cannot be underestimated in its power to influence our thinking, our culture, our identity.

What might be more sad is that there are more men in advertising, in the creative departments that come up with the ideas for ads and generally overall. Which means the ads that are sexist towards women are more often created by men. And the ads that are sexist towards men are usually created by men as well. Although, I'm not sure what that shows.

I wonder, does advertising influence or contribute to society's gender perceptions? Or does it only reflect the perceptions already out there?

Just spitballin'.

Doofus-male ads can be harmful to women, too. I'm thinking about all the ads that seem to convey the message that men can't be responsible parents, so it's up to women to take up the slack.

Yes, yes, yes! These ads and the sitcoms that run like 30-minute-versions of them (Everybody Loves Raymond and that old Tim Allen show being the worst of the bunch) are incredibly damaging to relations between the sexes.

They suggest that men are tactless slobs with little or no self-control, with no talent for or interest in domestic tasks (including child-rearing). More harmfully, they suggest to women that all men are like this, and this is the best you are ever going to do, so get used to a life of taking care of your husband like he's a child until he leaves you for a younger, hotter woman (because men can't control themselves, remember).

By encasing these messages in a "funny" package, where all problems are resolved and loose-ends tied up in 22 minutes, it makes the messages more insidious and easier to swallow, until they are taken for granted as truth (I make the same argument about racism in Borat).

This is one of the few issues that gets me up on a soapbox, frankly.

I'm going to vacuum the house now, before I go to a committee meeting at my daughter's school. Since my wife just got a really nice promotion at work, perhaps I'll whip up a special dinner.

Yes, yes, yes! These ads and the sitcoms that run like 30-minute-versions of them (Everybody Loves Raymond and that old Tim Allen show being the worst of the bunch) are incredibly damaging to relations between the sexes.

Yes. It's TV's fault. Not ours for being fucked up to begin with. Not the world for being fucked up. TV made us do it.

If you'll excuse me, I just listened to an Ozzy record and now I have to go sacrifice a cat to the Dark Lord.

jonmc: Those cement shoes didn't push us into the river, but they certainly make it harder to swim to the surface.

Well, the smart thing to do is to stay out of the whole Battle Of The Sexes Gang War to begin with, which is easier to do than you might think.

Says a guy who can't resist commenting in any thread on this topic, so we'll take that with a grain of salt, jonmc :)

True pink, but you'll notice I almost never take the male or female side for it's own sake. I'm in favor of abolishing the whole horse race.

(box - I work as a creative (Art director actually) in advertising and the quote I was using have come from quite a few of my male collegues when discussing offensive ads in general. I didn't mean to paint my industry in broad strokes, I'm just explaining the way too many discussions have gone.)

Thanks for all the input guy. Personally I think advertising is best when it has very simple ideas, and that (usually) has the product alone in focus. You needen't insult anybody to tout the pazzaz of your hot pockets. Honestly.

And I do agree with a lot that has been said here. It bugs me that whenever some ad is banned for not following rule number one in the ICC guidelines yes, there are guidelines

Advertisements should not condone any form of discrimination, including that based upon race, national origin, religion, sex or age, nor should they in any way undermine human dignity.

This shouldn't be so damned hard to do. But then there's a spitfest where the predominantly male creatives argue that "Men are discriminatde against too" - which is just as bad and also breaks rule number one.
Problem is then either:

a) Ads that discrimintae againt men aren't reported and therefore aren't banned, implying perhaps that people tolerate such ads more.

b) There aren't that many ads that discriminate against men.

or

c) The Ethical Board of Advertising don't laugh there is such a thing simply never bans ads that discriminate against men, as they're far too busy saving women, gay people and people in various ethnic groups.

Beats me which, but I might guess.

And god yes, lets kill off the dofus man stereotype already. He can join miniscule mary and bulemic betty in the closet of old images.

the ads that are sexist towards men are usually created by men as well.

Think about how helpful the male-doofus stereotype is in preserving male privelege. If men are helpless buffoons who screw everything up and can't control themselves, then doesn't it make sense for women to continue doing the bulk of the daily work around the home, paying the bills, organizing the family schedule, and otherwise relieving the doofus of the many labors and burdens that are part of life? Nice work, if you can get it. I think it's pretty darn clear why this stereotype might be popular with certain kinds of men.

The chicken-and-egg argument (does media perpetuate stereotypes, or just convey stereotypes we already have?) is a red herring to me. Media and social reality influence one another in an ongoing cycle that becomes a feedback loop and continually amplifies. If it is to stop, it has to stop somewhere, and the point of mass distribution of social messages to millions of people at once seems like a good point at which to stop it.

The problem with discriminiation and idiotic content in media is not that media creates bad behavior, but that seeing negative behavior everywhere normalizes it. I'd rather not expose myself to messages and images which normalize sexism, violence, self-hatred, and the like.

Dabitch, I love what you say about advertising that keeps the product in focus and uses simple messages. I was just commenting recently on how much I love hearing ads on 1930s and 40s radio, or reading ads in old magazines. They're damn clear and simple and don't insult your intelligence. The message is basically "[Product] is the most effective/ pleasant smelling / tastiest you can buy. We urge you to use it / ask your grocer for it / give it a try!" What more is really needed? If a product is good or desirable, I'm going to want it, so the function of advertising should really just be to inform me of the existence and notable qualities of a product.

Ah ha! Way late, I found the article.

Discussion about capitalism and marketing and femininity at Pandagon. I'm 99% sure that's the article I'm thinking of, but I haven't reread it yet.

The first part in that Pandagon series may also address some of these points.

Thanks Miko. It makes sense to me. And I completly agree with what you say about normalising bad behaviour. I also like to whip out a Bernbach quote far toooften: "We are so busy measuring public opinion that we forget we can mold it.". Since we can mold it (and I believe we can) why not make our examples of people in ads positive? People are individuals, not stats, not genders, not colors.

Now, I interrupt this debate for some ad examples. Sadly these links can't last forever but I'l make 'em last a while.

This ad made me want to get into advertising real bad. It's from 1979 and the product - and how it's made - is the hero. That's it. Fiat handmade by robots.

Stereotypes can be used in ads to great effect, but really there has to be a point to it. Here's a 1986 example The Guardian, Points of view.

That Guardian ad is very fine.

If it is to stop, it has to stop somewhere, and the point of mass distribution of social messages to millions of people at once seems like a good point at which to stop it.

Definitely in agreement with you on that Miko.

Thanks for the link occhiblu, better late than never! :)

You're welcome -- I swear, having to go to school can really reduce one's available MeCha time. It's no good at all :)

Disclaimer - haven't read the comments above due to no time, but this is something I have a strong opinion about, so will spout off anyway.

I don't give a flying fuck whether ads discriminate against any group or groups, as long as it isn't done in a mean way. Difficult to define, politically incorrect, potential minfield for advertisers - yes, all those things. But, if you give me something funny or clever, I will watch the ad and like it. If not, don't waste your time, because I am so bombarded with advertising that 99% of it slides by without my even noticing.

The problem with discriminiation and idiotic content in media is not that media creates bad behavior, but that seeing negative behavior everywhere normalizes it. I'd rather not expose myself to messages and images which normalize sexism, violence, self-hatred, and the like.

Very well said, Miko.

metanarratives are inherently oppressive, you pretentious half-witted jackasses

I'm afraid I find the term "half-witted" divisive, fragmentary, and too self-indulgent and incoherent to offer a sustainable foundation for your claim, and further suspect that, with its dependence on impressionism and subjectivity, the very phrase itself signifies an unacknowledged metanarrative of imaginary division. May I suggest an investigation into the Lacanian concept of the "other-witted"?

Wow. A bit late to the party but I am amazed by the participation in this thread. It has hit a chord that resonates with allot of Mecha's. As soon as I saw "advertising" as the subject matter I just zoned out. Advertising to me just says background noise to be ignored. Sometimes something cuts through but that's a very small bit.