Thread: "Garbage" and a little chat about feminism

Originally Posted by JosephB

Many ads, especially those that show couples, portray the women as the one who has her act together and the man as the doofus – or the comedic foil. In general, the majority of ads portray women as a smart decision maker -- because that’s how they want to see themselves. Of course, they are attractive -- because both men and women respond to attractive people.

A further thought is the man, especially white, is outside the the advert-maker's PC radar. Safe; no discrimination card available. I don't see many ads with the doofus being old, disabled, female, gay, asian, etc.

The New Crabbie's TV AD - YouTube

Originally Posted by Rustgold

Beside the point? Are you suggesting negative portrayals of men isn't something for you to care about, that only non-positive portrayals of women are?
Surely if you were being honest in your viewpoint, you'd either advocate the same strong objections regardless of gender, or else admit your position as having a gender bias.

Beside the point of the post I was referring to. Knowing how terribly common eating disorders are among young girls, (even higher than official stats since many are not reported/treated), dealing with the self-perception & identity issues of close family members growing up in a world saturated with such images & attitudes, it all gives a greater sense of urgency, and makes it something I naturally pay attention to.

Men's liberation is a worthy cause. I don't know about the impact that sort of portrayal of men is having--are they starting to seriously doubt their intelligence compared to women? I'd support a men's liberation movement which not only opposed discriminatory depictions on t.v., but also did something about the taboo of males expressing emotions, talking about their inner experiences, and promoted better social support networks for males. There is hard evidence that behaviors commonly thought to be feminine, such as discussing personal stresses, are beneficial for men too, but there's a cultural taboo. This is important in relation to male depression and suicide, so of course it should be taken seriously.

I've seen a video made during a classic study in which baby is dressed on different occasions in either pink or blue, to investigate different treatment of male/female infants by adults. When in pink, the adult would hold the infant close, speak softly and soothingly, and generally be very gentle. The same baby dressed in blue, assumed to be a boy, was treated much differently: bounced roughly on the adult's knee, held at arm's length rather than close, and much less warm, gentle treatment. Aside from the problem with the way girls are perceived & raised from infancy, that's really heartbreaking for boys.

... An important area in itself, but now I've digressed beyond the thread's topic.

Originally Posted by Cirrocumulus

Men's liberation is a worthy cause. I don't know about the impact that sort of portrayal of men is having--are they starting to seriously doubt their intelligence compared to women? I'd support a men's liberation movement which not only opposed discriminatory depictions on t.v., but also did something about the taboo of males expressing emotions, talking about their inner experiences, and promoted better social support networks for males. There is hard evidence that behaviors commonly thought to be feminine, such as discussing personal stresses, are beneficial for men too, but there's a cultural taboo. This is important in relation to male depression and suicide, so of course it should be taken seriously.

I agree. Letting both genders express the full spectrum of human emotion is vital to a well-balanced, healthy psychological development. There's a bit of a problem now in that boys are being discouraged from expressing the "traditional" feelings associated with boys. The aggressive, rough and tumble side of them is being labeled as bad, anti-social, and to be hidden. It's akin to the "don't ever touch yourself in the naughty place" mentality that had so many puritan-raised children messed up sexually.

Girls need to be given avenues to explore their tomboy(?) side, and guys needs to be given room to explore their sensitive side. Neither of these expanded frontiers should be at the expense of the biologically driven impulses that have powered many of the stereotypes. Boys should also be allowed to be boys, and girls girls.

In the specific instance of boys, if you wanted to teach that aggression isn't bad, but has a time and a place, I think that'd be best. Tell them that competing hard in academics and sports is where aggression is positive, fighting in the schoolyard not so much. If they want to be aggressive physically they should join wrestling or boxing or contact sports.

Originally Posted by Cirrocumulus

I've seen a video made during a classic study in which baby is dressed on different occasions in either pink or blue, to investigate different treatment of male/female infants by adults. When in pink, the adult would hold the infant close, speak softly and soothingly, and generally be very gentle. The same baby dressed in blue, assumed to be a boy, was treated much differently: bounced roughly on the adult's knee, held at arm's length rather than close, and much less warm, gentle treatment. Aside from the problem with the way girls are perceived & raised from infancy, that's really heartbreaking for boys.

... An important area in itself, but now I've digressed beyond the thread's topic.

Interesting, if you can dig up a link to it I'd love to see it. I don't know if the answer is to dress more boys in pink, or get those girls in blue. From what I've seen we're raising a generation of pussies, and maybe a little knee-bouncing-at-arm's-length wouldn't be so bad...

Originally Posted by Cirrocumulus

In other words, in that particular formula, human qualities beyond those which serve as sex-stimulus typically have "little or no room" (I didn't say they never have any room). It's given as an example for wider application, but with no claim that it's all there is. Anyway, "grossly overstating"?! Even within your own misreading, in saying that, you are grossly overstating.

Let's look at your "formula" again -- and I've bolded a few things too to "help you" see where you might be overstating.

The problem is both in the common failure of males to see beyond this, and in the widespread, thorough exploitation of this appetite, especially in the commercial mass media, and promoting a cheapened view of women as mere sex objects.

For example, in the common formula:

1. Man sexually desires woman.
2. Advertiser shows product with woman.
3. Man desires product.

The thing is, that simplistic formula for advertising isn’t common – and very few ads depict women in the way you’ve suggested. I know you didn't say all ads are based on your formala -- but so few are, it's not really worth mentioning, especially as some kind of example of how women are depicted as “mere sex objects" -- at least not in this century.

Here you are claiming it’s a “widespread” practice of advertisers to depict women as “mere sex objects” for the purpose bamboozling men into buying products -- when in fact, that kind of advertising is rare these days. The only major campaign that comes to mind is the current crop of Goddady.com ads -- and they are so exaggerated and obvious that they are almost a parody of the formula you are talking about. There are a few others that lean in that direction, but aren’t nearly as blatant -- some beer ads and ads for personal care products aimed at young men -- but again those ads most often depict good looking men as well. Plus, they are more about using sexual or suggestive content -- rather that depicting women or men as sexual objects.

Advertisers rarely use your formula, because it doesn’t really work, and hasn’t since the 1970’s -- and that’s because these days, both men and women are the decision makers -- in fact, in most households, women are the primary decision makers. And I doubt it even worked that well back in the day -- because believe it or not -- men, then as now, actually "desire" and buy products based on features, benefits and price -- not because they are dazzled and duped by images of hot women -- as you're suggesting.

This is about you using condescending, divisive, clichéd feminist rhetoric to describe something that is, for the most part, no longer a serious issue -- and is pretty much irrelevant in the context of any conversation about how women are depicted in the media today. That’s not to say there isn’t any negative sexual stereotyping in advertising -- there is -- and of course, ads use both attractive men and women to sell products -- but I’ve already covered that.

Again, the ads are not common -- they are the exception. The formula is not common for advertising -- or typical or "widespread" -- and it hasn’t been for decades -- so you are the one who is overstating things -- simply to drum up lopsided examples of supposed sexism for no good reason.

Originally Posted by Rustgold

Shouldn't it be a woman and man being equal partners of their household?

Yes, what I'm saying is that the men are the enforcers of the family. They enforce the rules like policemen. The men and the women are still equal. I never once said they weren't equal or even hinted so.

Originally Posted by Raptor980

Yes, what I'm saying is that the men are the enforcers of the family. They enforce the rules like policemen.

I had to write my 10 yr. old son a ticket the other day for "Talking Back", case #34765. Next time he's going to jail.

Originally Posted by Raptor980

Yes, what I'm saying is that the men are the enforcers of the family. They enforce the rules like policemen. The men and the women are still equal. I never once said they weren't equal or even hinted so.

That's so contradictory. We as civilians aren't in an equal relationship with policemen. They have authority, we don't. They can restrict our liberty if we break one of their rules, we can't even declare a rule on them. No, there's zero equality in the relationship between a policeman & a civilian.

Your declaration is one which states that men are enforcers and have authority over & above women in a household. That's not an equal relationship.

Five Pages, must be something to it.

Originally Posted by Raptor980

Yes, what I'm saying is that the men are the enforcers of the family. They enforce the rules like policemen. The men and the women are still equal. I never once said they weren't equal or even hinted so.

Couples handle this differently. In our house, the "enforcer" is whoever happens to be around when the enforcing needs to happen. Simple. If it's a bigger issue that requires some sort of discipline, the parent at the scene of the crime will pick up the phone and we'll discuss it -- or we'll talk about it later. Mom is usually the de facto enforcer, because she's with the kids a lot more than I am, but neither of is designated as such. It doesn't make sense to us for one of us to always be the bad guy, so we mainly play it by ear. And if one of is angry or upset, sometime we let the other handle things.

I know some couples where the buck eventually stops with the father -- and they want it that way. But that doesn't mean the mother never does any enforcing. I know of others where the father never does much enforcing at all and the mom does most of it -- and some where the father is the big gun who's only called in when things are getting out of hand. And some people just aren't good at confrontation -- and mostly leave it to the other parent.

I think with most people, it's more or less equal and it just depends on the situation. In theory, my wife sees me as head of the household -- but practically speaking, we just deal with things as they happen. In general, we think it's a bad idea for one parent to be seen as weaker or stronger -- that just opens the door for manipulation -- for kids to push things and take advantage of the non-enforcer, and it puts too much pressure on the enforcer. That's not good for anyone.

Originally Posted by Capulet

I agree. Letting both genders express the full spectrum of human emotion is vital to a well-balanced, healthy psychological development. There's a bit of a problem now in that boys are being discouraged from expressing the "traditional" feelings associated with boys. The aggressive, rough and tumble side of them is being labeled as bad, anti-social, and to be hidden. It's akin to the "don't ever touch yourself in the naughty place" mentality that had so many puritan-raised children messed up sexually.

Girls need to be given avenues to explore their tomboy(?) side, and guys needs to be given room to explore their sensitive side. Neither of these expanded frontiers should be at the expense of the biologically driven impulses that have powered many of the stereotypes.

... if you wanted to teach that aggression isn't bad, but has a time and a place, I think that'd be best. ...

Some important points there, such as that the full spectrum of human emotion, is vital to healthy psychological development, including the time & place for those sometimes considered inappropriate.

Originally Posted by Capulet

Interesting, if you can dig up a link to it I'd love to see it. I don't know if the answer is to dress more boys in pink, or get those girls in blue. From what I've seen we're raising a generation of pussies, and maybe a little knee-bouncing-at-arm's-length wouldn't be so bad...

The video I referred to was shown during a sociology lecture I attended at university a few years ago. I don't know whether it can be found online, but I think it was a classic study, so it shouldn't be too difficult to find reference to in academic journals (e.g. Google Scholar search).

I agree about the knee bouncing, but regardless of gender, and balanced with closeness and warmth. Caution needs to be taken with this idea of treating boys more roughly or "at-arm's-length" rather than with more affection. It's also a worry to see various other recent comments on this thread speaking of one &/or the other parent as "police" of one's children.

There's a book which I'd highly recommend for all parents & teachers called Parenting for a Peaceful World, by Robin Grille. It discusses how differences in parenting style results in adult tendencies, and may contribute to the climate and behavior of a nation. For example, research discussed in Chapter 13, "Nazis and their Opponents: How did their Childhoods Differ?", parenting manuals and hundreds of autobiographies of pre-WWII Germany show a cold, harsh attitude towards their children.

"The quintessential pedagogical handbook of the Third Reich was The German Mother and Her First Child, by physician Johanna Haarer. ... this manual maintained the heavily authoritarian obsession with obedience, with statements such as 'Babies and young children won't obey, don't want to do what grown-ups want them to do but instead test them, and tyrannise them. ...' ... German mothers, according to Haarer, need to arm themselves with 'strictness', 'persistency' and 'will power' ... Haarer emphatically discouraged tenderness or responsiveness in mothers, for fear of 'spoiling' babies or making them 'too soft'." (pp. 121-122).

Not surprisingly, an authoritarian parenting style dominates.

Originally Posted by Blood

I had to write my 10 yr. old son a ticket the other day for "Talking Back", case #34765. Next time he's going to jail.

Twisting my words, I see.

Originally Posted by Raptor980

Yes, what I'm saying is that the men are the enforcers of the family. They enforce the rules like policemen. The men and the women are still equal. I never once said they weren't equal or even hinted so.

Respectfully, how do you define the term enforcer in the context of an egalitarian relationship?

Originally Posted by Raptor980

Twisting my words, I see.

Don't worry, when my wife talks back she get tried as an adult and handcuffed to he bed. Which reminds me, I better go let her go before she get's mad...

Originally Posted by Blood

Don't worry, when my wife talks back she get tried as an adult and handcuffed to he bed. Which reminds me, I better go let her go before she get's mad...

I thought you could detain her for 24 hours before you had to let her go? The dishes should keep at least that long.