I thought you guys would enjoy these old commercials from Folgers. I came across these when I was in High School. They are very funny and absolutely ridiculous because today things just don’t work the same way. In the video the men would keep waking up to what they claim is “horrible” coffee that their wives would make for them in the morning. The women would take it as an insult and not know how to act. Many of the men just grabbed there meals and left the coffee. Then as the commercials progress they throw more ridiculous insults their way saying men or women at work can do better with hotplates and apparently saying the desk sergeant at the police station can make better is an insult.
However, a magical man shows up at the general store and saves the day by giving them a coffee that has a richer flavor and suddenly the men are in love with their wives coffee again. Basically the message being women need to be good cooks for the men and nurse them. Its not like the men couldn’t have made the coffee the way they wanted it. These commercials are just completely ridiculous. What do you guys think?
After watching the beer advertisements in class, I began to wonder how many advertisements that we see everyday on television or in magazines use gender stereotypes. After turning on the TV and flipping through a few channels, I came across nearly 2 or 3 advertisements that objectify or stereotype men or women in some way. The scary part of this is that advertisements for nearly ANY product or service can use some sort of stereotype towards a male or female to attract consumers. Gender stereotypes are commonly used in advertisements for clothing, and makeup and such products, but can even be seen in commercials for such things as hamburgers, computers, and other everyday products.
An advertisement that I think clearly explains how extreme gender stereotypes in advertisements today would be the “Meet the Parents” Axe advertisement. Axe is a company that is directed towards males, which sells grooming products such as soap, shampoo, body wash, etc. Since Axe is targeting a male audience, it has advertisements running through nearly every commercial break on channels like ESPN, which has a mostly male audience. The commercial starts off with a mom and a dad opening a door for there son, who enters the house. Along with him is a girl, Cindy, who he is introducing to his parents. After they greet each other, the mom begins to close the door behind her son, when he says “Mom, no”, and opens the door. After he opens it, 8 other girls walk into the house, where he introduces each with there names, to his parents. The parents are dumbfounded when they see all of the girls there son has brought with him. After this the commercial ends with the tag line, ” Axe. Use in moderation.”. The son is your average male, in his twenties probably, wearing a polo shirt with the color flipped up. He isn’t overly masculine and comes off as a ‘bro’ (your average college fraternity kind of guy). All of the women that come inside the house are beautiful women, wearing make up and dressed nicely.
Clearly, the purpose of this advertisement is to sell Axe body wash products. But what does this commercial have to do with shampoo and body wash? Although males of varying ages use Axe, Axe’s target audience is for males of ages 18-24. Axe uses multiple techniques to engage in there audience, among these being humor. The situation is clearly outlandish, making it funny to the target audience. I mean, I don’t know any guy who would try to bring home 2 girls to meet his parents, let alone 10 like the commercial has. Fear- there ads talk about how a supposedly “real man” is secure enough in his masculinity to keep his cool, putting fear in the viewer’s mind that if they can’t keep their cool, they arent manly enough. Beautiful people- the women in the ad are basically models, implying that if you use Axe you will land gorgeous women; and Association- this ad plants the association in your mind between Axe and manliness or Axe and getting lucky with the ladies. Is Axe really the difference that makes beautiful women come running to you by the hundreds? The marketing strategy tells us a few things about Axe’s way of thinking, and societies views of the young adult male. First, Axe assumes that men make fun of women for their own amusement, and believe that by doing the same they can connect better with their audience. Secondly, Axe sees women as mere objects rather than anything, or anyone for that matter, deserving of more attention than that which is sexual.
If Axe wanted to become more friendly towards other audiences, it would have to drop the female stereotypes. One example of an excluded group from Axe commercial are females. Yes, they are included in the ad, and one could even say are the stars of the ad, but not exactly in a good way. The women shown in this ad are objectified in many ways. They are not seen as someone that men are trying to get to know, but instead they only exist as sexual objects. On top of that, Axe is also stereotyping women into a few groups. According to this new campaign, girls can be sporty, brainy, flirty, high maintenance, or party crazy. According to Axe, it’s easy to figure girls out once you box them into one of these stereotypes.
Every day I take the buckeye village bus, and every day we pass one of those billboards that has 3 signs and they all rotate around showing you one of the three signs for a timed limit. Well on of the signs is a billboard for a plastic surgeon, the only image on the billboard is of a woman’s torso, that is wearing a very low cut red shirt. The billboard in very large writing says “Who said diamonds were a girl’s best friend?” The first time I saw this ad I laughed and thought “Wow that can’t be real”. This ad was deliberately seeking out insecure woman and showing them an ad that says basically “You do not look good enough but we can cut you open and put some stuff in or take some stuff out so you can feel better about yourself”
The text “Who says diamonds are a girl’s best friend?” makes women seem superficial and that they only care about their appearances and money. While the woman on the ad does not have a head or legs they still present her in a very high fashion and heteronormative way, she is white, wearing a nice looking shirt and a diamond necklace. By taking away her face the ad forces the viewer to see just a sexual object. The red shirt is very intentional, not only does it draw our eyes to it, but many studies have proven over and over again that woman who wear red are considered more attractive by people around them. The photographer also had the woman move her body in a way that would come across in that would make her breasts look bigger and still look sexy. The goal of the woman on the ad is to draw in your attention and read the ad but for the woman who look at it the ad helps perpetuate the idea that a small waist and large breasts is what every woman needs to be beautiful.
This ad also got me wondering about what an ad for plastic surgeons would like if they were gendered to men. So I spent about 20 minutes google searching trying to find a plastic surgery ad aimed at men. I could not find a single one. However, I did find plenty more ads aimed at woman most of which were targeting their breasts and claiming to make them bigger, or showing before and after images which are clearly still photo shopped. So not only are woman not beautiful enough on their own but even their before and after images from the plastic surgeons were photo shopped to look better. Ads such as these are the reason we get shows such as Amy Schumer’s 12 Angry Men because Hollywood and the media that we consume daily show woman this impossible to obtain beauty standard. Before starting this class I thought the ad was simply just stupid, but now that we as a class have learned to analyze sources that we all the time the ad makes me almost angry because it is trying to push this one idea of beauty and we see all the time that there are so many forms of beauty.
Bloomingdale receives negative feedback for an ad in its Christmas catalog for this year.
Bloomingdale is under fire for its latest ad, a Christmas ad featuring unforgivable behavior. In the poster for winter coats, a man and a woman stand next to each other with the woman turning slightly away from the man, while tilting her head back and laughing. The man looks creepily at her, and the text between them says,
“Spike your best friend’s eggnog while they’re not looking.”
…..WHAT. THE. HELL. was my first reaction. I want to know who was part of the marketing team, that sat around a table, and collectively decided that this was okay. Unacceptable! Reasons that this ad is despicable:
Spiking eggnog is not okay. Bloomingdale, how could you?? Obviously this perpetuates a culture that we all hate – rape culture. Rape culture, something that normalizes sexual violence, has absolutely no place in an ad, or anywhere, for that matter. And with the guy looking shadily at her, Bloomingdale, you really hit the greasy nail on its head this time. Also, spiked eggnog sounds repulsive.
Spiking your best friend’s eggnog is not okay. Not only is it terrible that the ad shows someone deceiving someone else, but the ad suggests that a man would take advantage of a close friend, specifically a female friend. The fact that “best friend’s” is in bold text makes me cringe furiously.
The fact that her head is turned away while the ad suggests sneak around and do something while she’s not looking is the worst of all. Come on, Bloomingdale, why do we need to explain this to you? How will this affect the people viewing the ad? Will they think that this kind of behavior is acceptable? And what does this say to viewers of the ad who have been raped before? Relationships are built on trust, and suggesting that a best friend should exploit someone’s trust is undeniably bad.
Perhaps the only thing worse than the ad itself is Bloomingdale’s sorry excuse for an apology.
We heard your feedback about our catalog copy, which was inappropriate and in poor taste. Bloomingdale’s sincerely apologizes.
Yeah. It sure was inappropriate. But “in poor taste” is a gargantuan understatement. Bloomingdale, you belong to the group of advocates for pervading rape culture, whether it be intentional or unintentional.
It’s time to nip it in the bud. Their whole lives, girls have been taught to act a certain way to avoid provoking a reaction from boys. But now, it’s time to teach boys to essentially man-up and gain some respect for women, both mentally and physically. Ads like these are a huge part of the reason that rape culture gets perpetuated. Your audiences deserve better. Come on, marketing teams, it’s time to put these rapey ads to rest. Be more creative.
I recently watched The Holiday (2006), a movie starring Kate Winslet, Jude Law, Jack Black, and Cameron Diaz. Although this movie is nearly the definition of a feel-good, easy-to-watch chick flick, I couldn’t quite get on board with it, and this is why:
The movie opens with Iris Simpkins (Winslet), an editor for a newspaper in London, learning that the man she’s been in love with for three years (despite his infidelities) has become engaged to another woman. It then introduces Amanda Woods (Diaz), a wealthy movie trailer producer in L.A. who has just broken up with her boyfriend after discovering that he slept with another woman. Iris and Amanda both decide that they need a break, and, after finding each other online, decide to do a house swap for two weeks. Each woman finds a new relationship in the other’s country, Amanda with Graham (Law), Iris’ brother, and Iris with Miles (Black), a friend of Amanda’s ex.
This movie is limited in a number of ways, one of which being that it subscribes to and propagates gender stereotypes. One of the most noticeable instances of gender stereotyping in the movie regards Amanda’s physical inability to cry ever since her parents divorced when she was fifteen. Amanda’s ex-boyfriend comments during their break-up, “Look at you. The only woman on earth who breaks up with her boyfriend and doesn’t even shed a tear.” His response, while seemingly innocent, reveals that characters in this movie subscribe to the widely-held belief that all women have to be very outwardly emotional. If a woman cannot express her emotion, people immediately think that there is something wrong with her. However, if a man does not cry when he is hurt, no one thinks anything of it. This highlights one of the glaring double standards the exists for men and women in society. External displays of emotion are viewed as a sign of weakness and therefore as feminine, but the lack of an emotional response is thought to be masculine and a sign of strength. This is, of course, completely irrational due to the fact that the method or frequency in which people express their emotion has no bearing on their status as male or female.
Another weak point of this film is its severe underrepresentation of minority groups. The Holiday – like the vast majority of popular film – features white protagonists, straight couples, wealthy characters with near-perfect lives, and the complete exclusion of any character type which does not fit those descriptions. This is a problem because obviously, white is not the only race, straight is not the only sexuality, and working women with enough job security, time, and money to switch houses for two weeks are hardly the norm. The danger of popular media is that it can make traits like these seem normal – with “normal” not necessarily meaning commonplace, but rather with the connotation of being “correct”. If such a narrow, unrealistic set of traits is being portrayed as the only acceptable one, then what does that imply to the huge number of people who do not fall into that category? The fact is, people tend to value and idealize the characteristics that they see painted in the best light. If there are no positive examples of queer couples, interracial families, or working-class people being shown to our society, then movies, as well as other forms of media directed at large audiences, have a responsibility to represent them. Humans do not have a “default setting”; racial, social, and sexual minorities are not just less-desirable variations of what people should be, which is why The Holiday fails as a well-rounded film by not giving those minorities the positive representation they need.
Whether you have seen the show or not, you will no doubt know of South Park, despite the fact that it is a cartoon, as one of the most vulgar and offensive shows produced. If you don’t know that or believe that, perhaps the episode “It Hits the Fan”, in which the word “shit” was uttered 162 times, might convince you. Despite the show’s offensiveness, and perhaps because of it, the show, at times, brings light to real social issues. One such issue is in the episode “The Cissy”, which deals with the issue of transgenderism and bathrooms. Eric Cartmen, arguably the most offensive character on the show (you will see later why), decides, at recess one day, to declare himself “transginger” (meaning to say transgender) in an attempt to use the girl’s bathroom. Why? Because all of the stall’s in the boy’s restroom were taken.
Cartman, known to all to be an anti-Semite, racist, misogynist, and all-around terrible person, is of course told on. Everyone knows he is not really transgender and that he is only doing what he is doing because he is selfish and cares only about himself. This scene shows Cartman’s selfish motives and also explains why Cartman gets away with his actions. What’s striking, however, is his understanding of what a transgender person is. He knows and accepts transgender, or as he calls it, “transginger”, people, but uses their plight and struggles in order to benefit himself. His actions, though horrible, do bring up a controversial social issue: what bathroom does a transgender person use? In the context of this episode, everyone knows Cartman is not really transgender, so the idea of what bathroom he should use is obviously the boy’s. However, as Mr. Garrison, the teacher, points out in the clip, “you don’t want this hot potato”, meaning the possible media and social backlash that could result from denying Eric the use of the female restroom would not be worth the hassle. On top of that, it is federally illegal to discriminate students based on sex. Despite the fact that Eric is not actually “transginger”, there would be no way (at least to people who do not know Cartman), to prove this, and could result in a law suit if administrators opposed him. This issue of bathroom use in schools by transgender people is not a fictitious creation by South Park either, as shown in this news article. Eric is known to be a master manipulator, making the situation more complex as Cartman is great at getting his way. By having Eric represent a transgender, the creators of South Park want to show that transgender people are not genuine and are pretending in order to receive special treatment. Or are they? Mr. Garrison, mentioned in a clip above, is (or was?) a transgender woman. So much so that he (she?) had a sex change, but also reversed it in another episode. If the last sentence seems confusing, this was the creator’s intent. The issue of transgenderism is confusing and is not clear-cut; there are no absolute truths to the issue. This may sound critical, but it only shows that gender is a spectrum with no right or wrong answers, and that’s what the creators want to show. By explaining transgenderism in “The Cissy” using non-critical demeanors and by having Mr. Garrison tell people to “drop it”, the creators show that transgender people need to be accepted because there is no way to prove that what they claim to be is not the truth. Perhaps instead of Eric literally representing the transgender community, the creators use him as a way to show how other, more conservative people perceive the transgender: lying, manipulative, special snowflakes who only want special treatment.
To fix the issue the girls at the school have with Cartman using the women’s restroom, the principal decides to give Cartman his own personal restroom. Clearly this delights Eric. He gets his own “transgender bathroom”, decked out in lights, a water feature, and music. The sign on the door reads “Other”, literally other-ing people who do not conform to the gender-sex binary. If the news article provided above says anything, it is that transgender people do not seek special treatment through the metaphorical “transgender bathroom”, but seek the same treatment that everyone who is cisgender receive. Eventually another student calls Eric out on his bull by also claiming to be transgender, and this infuriates Eric and he ends up contradicting all of the arguments he used in order to get a special bathroom. The obviousness of his contradictions highlight the arbitrary idea of gender segregated bathrooms. In the end, Eric stops using the “transgender bathroom”.
Despite the episode showing that transgenderism is confusing, and that people using bathrooms that do not match their sex seem to have no basis in logic and are a product of a gender-based society, people still have hang-ups (it’s an online poll; take it with a grain of salt). So, what do we as a society do about bathrooms? Do we make them all unisex? Private? Or do we keep the gender identifiers but change how we view gender? If the episode shows anything it is that there is no one answer. What is done to assuage Eric greatly upsets others. It is impossible to please everyone, and the lowest common denominator cannot always be catered to, but the lowest common denominator in society is not a statistic, it is a person that thinks and feels. If anything, society will dictate what happens. As issues arise, they will be addressed, to the appeasement of some and the rancor of others. What is most important is to recognize differences not as pointed guns, but as extended hands, and to accept the differences of others as differences in ourselves.
Here’s something that we all may do every day with or without intending to do so: tone policing. The comic “No, We Won’t ‘Calm Down’” by Robot Hugs brings up the characteristics of tone policing. The comic defines tone policing as “another way to protect privilege,” among other things.
Tone policing often happens in a situation where something on unfair grounds takes place and someone else feels uncomfortable about it; the tone policing happens when the aforementioned frustrated person voices their discomfort on the matter and is asked to ‘calm down.’ This can be seen as a “silencing tactic,” according to the comic.
Some common misconceptions:
Telling someone to calm down seems completely normal. I don’t see what is wrong with this.
This is exactly the problem. We first need to recognize our backgrounds and the varying amounts of privilege that we have can be very different before making such an assessment. Maybe we should recognize that we have a higher privilege than that of the person we are telling to calm down. Once we recognize this, then it is also important to note that it is not our place to tell them how to feel, since we don’t understand the other person’s adversity.
Our conversation would be more productive if you weren’t so worked up.
This is not entirely true. Productive conversations can be had without demanding that the other person be calm. Especially if the other person feels like they have been wronged; it then seems to allow the “people who hold more privilege to avoid the discomfort” caused by the initial oppression or discrimination of the other person.
People would be more willing to listen to you if you weren’t so emotional.
The point of the emotions seeping through are emphasize the urgency of the situation. Chances are, this person has already reached a certain level of frustration such that it shows when they speak on the matter. They’re past the boiling point, and they need to be heard.
What can we do to avoid tone policing?
1. Listen.Someone may be coming from an upbringing much different than where yours, and they may be trying to explain their circumstances.
2.Understand. It may not be necessary to agree, but it’s a good idea to at least understand the perspective of the person you’re talking to before you suggest them to do anything.
3. Accept. You may not agree with the person’s viewpoint, but the most important thing is to accept that their feelings are valid, and they feel the way they feel for a reason.
The sketch can be watched here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARhyKBNFHmY
For this blog post I chose the Inside Amy Schumer sketch, “You Can’t Go in There”. Inside Amy Schumer is a satire sketch comedy show, which tends to focus on sexuality and gender roles in American society. In this sketch, Amy portrays a secretary in the office in the 1970’s. Amy is informed that she is not to let anyone into her boss’s office, unless they have an appointment with him. A man rushes into the office and informs her that he needs to meet with her boss, Mr. Blake, immediately. Amy yells at him, “you can’t go in there”! He ignores her and goes in anyways. Her boss comes out asking what happened and tells her that next time she should put more “umph” when she is yelling at someone. Another man comes into the office saying that he also needs to meet with Mr. Blake now. Amy once again tells him “you can’t go in there”. The man ignores her and walks in the office anyways. Amy follows in to explain that she did what she was told. But the man states that even though she told him he could not go in he still felt like she said he could. Men continue to barge in without regarding Amy. Finally, Amy decides this is the last straw. A man walks in the office saying he is there to see Mr. Blake. Amy yells at him, “You can’t go in there”! She then attacks the man. Amy starts punching him and strangling him. But she soon realizes that he was actually supposed to have a meeting with Mr. Blake.
This sketch is interesting with how it makes fun of 70’s shows with how people always go in without the secretary’s permission. It is a classic bit. Another interesting part about this is how it shows gender stereotypes in the work place. The only people meeting Mr. Blake are men, while Amy is the secretary. Mr. Blake states that women would kill for a job like hers telling people not to come into his office. Mr. Blake assumes that this is the only job for a woman. He also states that since she is a woman she can only focus on one thing. Mr. Blake thinks that she should be able to at least be able to accomplish this. Throughout the whole episode Amy is typing on a typewriter. Her boss points out that she is typing nothing. This shows how women are looked at as not being able to hold serious jobs in the work place, and how they are servants to men in the business world.
Another interesting observation of this piece is the underlining story that takes a bit more thinking to full grasp. This sketch is about the rape culture in America. Amy continues to tell men that they can’t go in. But they ignore her and go in anyways. When Amy is questioned as to why she let them in she explains that she told them they could not. They never believe that Amy said it with enough force. They put blame on Amy. This relates how people tend to not believe rape victims. Some people believe they could have done more to stop it, which is completely absurd, as they do not respect their request. What also is interesting about this is how in order to get a man not to go in she had to use excessive force, similar to women using pepper spray on a man. Amy was defending the office, but this comes across as psychotic. It shows the viewer of how rape culture isn’t fully understood.
“Lola” is a song that was written by Ray Davies and performed by The Kinks in 1970. It talks about a situation Ray, the main character encountered in a night club with a “transvestite”. He does not have any experience with women. The opening line of champagne tasting like Coca-Cola shows how he does not have any experience in the world so he relates the taste of champagne to soda because that is his reference point. He then proceeds to lose his innocence when he meets a city woman who has experience picking up men. It was his first time a woman approached him and also wanted to kiss him. The roles of men and women are reversed in the song. It’s usually the guy who tries to seduce the woman. In this song it’s the woman seducing the guy.
“She walked up to me and she asked me to dance”, the woman is taking on the man’s role by asking Ray to dance.
“She walked like a woman and talked like a man”. This shows that Lola appears like a woman but has a deep voice that makes her sound like man. This does not necessarily means that she is a man. It could just refer to the confidence that Lola showed.
All the other references included in the song were about Lola displaying the characteristics of a man because she’s experienced and is seducing the man. Women do not typically do that. I think Ray had fun with this because he was able to have it both ways. The implication that Lola could be a man is obviously on the surface of it. People might claim that the last line reveals Lola’s identity as a transsexual. It doesn’t actually.
“I know what I am and I’m glad I’m a man and so is Lola”. Is Lola really a man or is Lola also glad that Ray is a man? The song does not commit to a meaning and Ray created it with multiple meanings. In other words Lola is either glad or a man and this makes it look like Ray intended it that way. If the narrator/writer of the song intended to have two meanings then one cannot say it absolutely has to be one or the other. I noticed that Lo in Spanish means masculine and La means feminine. The two words combined might just show that Lola in fact is a man who dresses like a woman. Because it was his first experience, Ray did not care much about how she looked. he fell for her every time they look at each others in the eyes.
The article, “Transgender Parents Speak Out About What Makes a Family” discusses the situation of two parents, Bianca and Nick Bowser. Both Bianca and Nick are transgendered; Bianca was born a boy named Jason, and Nick was born a girl named Nicole. The two fell in love and desperately wanted to start a family. Neither Bianca nor Nick had gone through a sex-reassignment surgery because they could not afford it. Bianca and Nick put the children before themselves, and Nick carried Bianca’s babies, which was mentally and emotionally challenging because he identified with the male gender. Bianca and Nick have decided they will tell their children that they are both transgendered while the two boys are young, and they believe the boys will understand. The couple lives a normal life; they are two parents working late and getting up early to take care of their kids. The transgender community is extremely supportive of them, along with friends and family.
In Bianca and Nick’s unique situation, many people are concerned about the children’s well being. The two boys must attempt to understand how their mother was originally born a boy while their father was born a girl. This concept is confusing for many people to grasp, but especially for the transgender couple’s children. Nick and Bianca’s decision to tell the boys while the boys are younger is a smart and bold decision. Some may argue that young children are not able to comprehend that their mom and dad changed genders, but keeping their original genders a secret would most likely blow up in Nick and Bianca’s faces later in the boys’ life. The boys will be much more accepting and understanding while they are young, compared to when they are older and gender stereotypes and societal norms become a huge, unavoidable aspect in their lives.
Bianca and Nick may be a little different than every other set of parents on their street, but being transgendered has nothing to do with the parenting of their children. The couple works hard to support their children, and they exemplify loving and honest parents. Anyone could tell how badly the two wanted to be parents; Nick carrying Bianca’s children is an extremely selfless act. Nick had fully identified as a male, but he was willing to use his female reproductive parts and carry both of his children for nine months. The mental and physical toll of even being a pregnant woman can be challenging for some mothers, but I am sure Nick’s confusion and frustration while carrying this child and walking around with a baby belly while being a man was no easy feat. Fulfilling the main purpose of the female body while Nick mentally felt like he was a male proves how badly he wished for children to complete his and Bianca’s family.
Much controversy has always surrounded transgender people, especially transgender parents. With gender stereotypes being so prevalent in our culture, many people cannot wrap their minds around a woman identifying as a man or a man identifying as a woman. Everything is always strictly male or female, and society believes there is nothing in between. Bianca and Nick are similar to every other loving set of parents. They will most likely not raise their children with any crazy, different values or different parenting techniques that are out of the ordinary just because they are transgendered parents; if anything, their children will grow up being much more accepting than other children because of their unique situation. Critics believe their transgendered relationship is wrong, and some may believe they do not have the right to have kids. Though the children may possibly go through confusion with both of their parents being transgendered, believing that Nick and Bianca are not fit to be parents because they are transgendered is extremely untrue.
