You Be the Judge--NOW Claims This Ad Is 'Offensive to Women'--Is It? (Part I)
October 25th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Background: TV often portrays men and fathers as idiots--to watch some videos of "dad as idiot" TV commercials, click here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, or here. As Bill Maher says, "Look at television...the wife is always brilliant and ethereal and right about everything and the husband is always just a dumb jerk who's lucky to have found her."
We've done two campaigns against these types of commercials--to learn more, click here and here.
The National Organization for Women/NOW Foundation has launched a new campaign around ads which they label "Offensive to Women." The campaign involved Love Your Body Day 2007, which was October 18. In this series, I'm reprinting some of the ads which NOW tells us are "Offensive to Women," giving my own humble opinion on the matter and soliciting yours.
Maker's Mark is a handcrafted small batch type of bourbon whisky distilled in Loretto, Kentucky. NOW is criticizing the Maker's Mark ad pictured. They explain:
"What is it about selling alcohol that makes advertisers want to belittle and insult women...does it really make men feel more powerful?"
In this case, I'm inclined to agree with NOW. In fact, the ad pictured is a pretty good example of the way advertising routinely treats men and fathers, with the genders switched. Gratuitous insults for the other gender, often delivered with a kind of breezy contempt. So NOW starts at 1 for 1, in my book.
"));
19 queries. 0.427 seconds.
October 25th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
yet it ok to belittle men, and not women, where it the fair in all are equals. NOW is still a sorry group of women and with the current president they are still going down and making ass out them selves
October 25th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
I don't agree. This ad doesn't belittle women.
October 25th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
There was a similar sort of slogan with the genders reversed in the UK. The ad was for a car. Wife was opening car door and husband was in background carrying shopping. The slogan was something like "Drinks less and carries more. I wish I could say the same about by husband".
October 25th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
If that ad's insulting, then I've been insulted perhaps 47 times over the past few days and didn't even know it.
October 25th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
It is slightly offensive. It would be worse if (as is the norm for men) the woman was portrayed as an ugly person with no character.
Also, it says 'my girlfriend' rather than the 'women', which again, is the norm for anti-male advertising.
Tell you what Glenn, why don't you send an email to the person who wrote this article suggesting an alliance against sexist advertising. I know one of the posters here tried it once but perhaps if they see you agree with them on something, they might hesisate before branding us 'rapists, batterers and misogynists'
October 25th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
I think it demeans men more than women because what kind of jerk would make a public statement like that about his “significant other”. If he really feels that way about his love interest, then he should go his own way.
The same goes for women, just don’t steal his children and destroy his life and the lives of your/his children on the way out.
Kevin Merck
October 25th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
I like how the reflection morphs to an hourglass profile... where the bottle is obviously quite different.
Maybe they should change it to large-type the "Good Character" and downplay the "Great Body." Is dumping your girlfriend because she has an awful character more noble than dumping her for an awful figure?
If you're in the market, everything is on the table. And, getting disaffected boyfriends to change their whiskey brand is not a horrible crime. The pro-divorce billboard you posted some months ago was a lot worse. This ad clearly shows that a woman is valued, to some degree, for her character. Compared to hot rod magazines, it looks like progress.
In any case, denying that a woman's figure is a strong component of a man's attraction to her is just dishonest. As a man I don't like being exploited for my wallet, but I know that women care that I can "invest in flowers" and provide candle-lit restaurant outings from time to time. All in all, I prefer the honesty. So, I see nothing wrong with a whiskey that implies that women are valued for their bodies: it is true, after all. The fact that they care about character as well, just shows that they are looking for a lasting relationship. I'll try the whiskey, and the proof will be in the pudding.
As Lyle Lovett says in his song "Here I Am"
"Given that true intellectual and emotional compatability
Are at the very least difficult,
If not impossible, to come by
We could always opt for the more temporal gratification
Of sheer ... physical attraction.
That wouldn't make you a shallow person ...
Would it?"
October 25th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Actually, I think I am the dumb one. Glenn had taught me from his prior posts that there would be a link that play the commercial in question. Took me way too long to realize this was a print ad.
I don't find this ad particularly interesting, and I certainly can understand people calling it offensive.
I think a valid and telling criticism of modern feminism is the "It's NOT FUNNY!" joke. That feminists have no sense of humor. And I think this plays out in the speech codes and behavior restrictions and zero tolerance policies we see and speak out against.
I think it's wise to point out offensive materials when we see it, and speech that incites hate and violence as well, and I also think it's good to point out the nature and quality of many ads and how they present men and women, but I don't think we want to get into the speech codes and "It's NOT FUNNY" trap that the feminists are in.
Some of the "idiot dad" commercials ARE funny. And so too are some of the ads that have women in them.
October 25th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Again we fall into the trap that criticizing one woman means we criticize all women.
Judging from the quotes around the text, and the small print below I can't read, this appears to be a letter to the maker from one guy. Again, that's one woman being criticized, not all women.
October 25th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Replace "girlfriend" with "..." and the ad would be just as effective, if not more so, and appeal to both sexes.
October 25th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Of course it's offensive. Men are the only ones who judge potential mates by the attractiveness, or lack thereof, of their body shape.
Women, of course, don't do that at all! No sirree! Nope. Male baldness doesn't matter to women. If you don't have 6-pack abs, also no problem! Women aren't so shallow as to judge men based on how they look! Sheesh!
/sarcasm
Shoot, there are Hallmark greeting cards with the same message, only genders reversed. Glenn, when can we start our campaign against Hallmark?
October 25th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
I think I will drink some Maker's mark now
October 25th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Unfortunately what is good for the gander is good for the goose, and NOW had no problems with any of the demeaning ads against men, but now with the roll reversal it is problematic, it is very hard to stir my feelings of sympathy even though that would be the right thing to do.
Nutri system, had a man on that lost some weight and the man stated that his wife said "Now you're not as disgusting as you used to be!" Who complained about that commercial?
October 25th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
The ad is inappropriate, period.
But it also says this, doesn't it:
"Those who drink Maker's Mark have unattractive girlfriends of bad character"
In other words, loser men drink Maker's Mark. The kind of men who can only attract unattractive women and women with poor character.
Lousy marketing. I'd drop the ad firm which came up with that one, right quick.
And to be fair, no men here should drink Maker's Mark while they are not eating Pizza Hut pizza.
October 25th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
To be fair, I threw this out to a messageboard with a larger female population and asked them what they thought.
"It's not offensive to me--silly maybe... but there are women out there looking for a reason to be offended and this would do the trick. It has nothing to do with the ad... it has to do with their need for everything to be about them."
"I think it's offensive to his girlfriend. I do not think it's offensive to womankind. I mean, he talks about wanting a "great body" and something (don't remember what... it's on the first page I can't see anymore...) personality, but it doesn't suggest what that particular man thinks is a great body or personality. Quite frankly, a great body and personality are essential to most people, that's human nature. The wonderful thing about that is that we're individuals and therefore are attracted to different looks and different personalities. The ad doesn't promote one type, so I don't see an offense there. If anything, if we're going to seriously dissect this ad, it makes me wonder why the guy is with his girlfriend. He's not attracted to her."
But I think the winner of the "to the point" contest is:
"I only think the women who are afraid their bf feels this way find this offensive."
October 25th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Many years ago in Seattle, primarily where the blue collar working poor lived and worked, billboards were plastered with “Get even with your boss tonight!” and a picture of a whiskey bottle. I never did figure out why destroying precious brain cells turned the tables on the guy I relied on for a paycheck, but this whiskey ad said it did.
DanH
October 25th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Offensive to women generally? I'd put it in the gray area.
But dumb? Off the scale dumb!
October 26th, 2007 at 6:27 am
The ad belittles the man quoted. If your girlfriend has no character (never mind the body - she can always diet and work out), then why are you with her, you idiot?
October 26th, 2007 at 6:28 am
Wait - my bad for assuming the author of the quote was a man. It could have been written by Rosie O'Donnell's girlfriend.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:15 am
Well I suppose it's tit for tat now. Quite frankly a little MORE offense would be preferred. You don't win wars by laying down your arms. I would no longer agree with anything NOW says based on a pure political point of view. Logic used to rule, that's out the window. Everything is political nowadays. We used to believe here in other lands far away that the USA was a free country - instead it seems filled with screeching women constantly whining for legislation to stop this, that and the other. And the disease(known as victimology - probably more like genetic makeup really) is spreading worldwide. It would be interesting to know who actually constructed the ad wording - a really bad advert on tv here in SA was pulled. It was a revelation to find it was created by 2 women. I wonder how many women out there went beserk - probably 2 knowing how minorities of all kinds rule that big country. Just for the record I think all alcoholic beverage ads are idiotic. Here they are now getting in on the responsible drinking scene, responsible gambling etc, constantly told to stop this, do that - just like nanny or even Hitler(vegetarian, non-smoking, non-adulterous - non-gambling apart from playing Military roulette). How did he get his stormtroopers out so far and wide - thought the war was won by the good guys?
October 27th, 2007 at 4:49 am
This ad (when you switch the gender) is, from my perspective, a perfect example of what's wrong with the way men are far too often portrayed in television and advertising. It says "Your girlfriend is bad, so buy our product.". Sound familiar? Kind of like the common theme "Your husband is bad, so buy our product." This ad IS a problem.
I've never seen it (other than here). In general, among the ads that NOW is objecting to, those that ARE demeaning to women are low profile ads that most Americans have never seen and will never see. We should ask NOW for an example of an ad that's truly demeaning to women (as this one IS) and that has been seen more than once by more than 1% of the American population. There are dozens of recent very high profile ads in which men are portrayed as negatively or more negatively than women are portrayed in this ad.
Should we should support the dangerous lunatics at NOW in their objection to objectionable ad? Think about it.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
[...] You Be the Judge (Part I), I agreed with NOW. In Part II, I agreed with them on one out of two. In Part III, I thought they [...]
October 30th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Glenn, in comparison to the mountain of anti-male advertising, this molehill of NOW's is unworthy of comment, much less agreement. Further, if anything, use of the female form to sell products is not demeaning to the models or to women in general, but it is demeaning to the customers who are so easily manipulated into emptying their wallets. Of course, we men are no strangers to easy sexual manipulation by women, are we? But for men's willingness to pay out money when exposed to, or in order to gain access to, the female form, our society wouldn't exist. NOW will never be willing to admit to this -- so why not call them on it?
October 30th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
I don't agree this ad should be classed as offensive even though some women might choose to feel offended. It seems that any criticism of any woman is NOW unacceptable. In calling this ad offensive to women, NOW and other feminist organisations seek to prohibit any critical comment about a woman's body appearance and even her character. At the same time, women readily exploit and benefit from men's natural attraction for healthy-looking female bodies, attracting male partners through falsely representing appearance with make-up and cosmetic surgery and earning big money through modelling, acting and provocative entertainment. So men are encouraged by women to respond to and to "consume" certain body appearances (largely false and unsustainable ones) but then are also prohibited from commenting on them because that's offensive. Go figure...
Although not offensive I see this ad as undesirable because it promotes cognitive habits that threaten rather than value adult relationships. It encourages a way of thinking that will increase dissatisfaction with partners rather than valuing them and focusing on the good qualities that presumably led to the partnership. The ad therefore contributes in a minor way to the family-wrecking fashion currently damaging so many children's lives. When dissatisfied ways of thinking about one's partner is combined with encouragement to drink strong alcohol, the implications are rather more sinister.
I would respect women's groups for highlighting the socially divisive influence of this ad rather than complaining about being offended that a man might comment on a woman's appearance. However, don't hold your breath because feminists tend to celebrate family trashing as liberation from patriarchy, and of course separation and divorce provides a convenient way to transfer wealth from men to women.
Puns intended.
October 30th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Actually, I think it reflects poorly on the 'man' that's talking about the 'girlfriend' in the advertisement. The guy seems pretty unlikeable.
October 31st, 2007 at 9:12 am
Laura Says:
October 30th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Actually, I think it reflects poorly on the 'man' that's talking about the 'girlfriend' in the advertisement. The guy seems pretty unlikeable.
^^^ ^^^ ^^^
NICE!
b
November 1st, 2007 at 7:10 pm
[...] You Be the Judge (Part I), I agreed with NOW. In Part II, I agreed with them on one out of two. In Part III, I thought they [...]
November 1st, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Well that was an utter failure.
Jay R and Hans Laven have the bests posts so far, thumbs up.
This ad isn't offensive, at least to women, just dumb. You've been reading too much of NOW, it's starting to affect your thinkystuff on some of these decisions. The hypothetical guy is an idiot for staying with someone so long he obviously despises. It's just a play cribbed from sitcom books done as a one-shot. Bad ad, but not offensive.
November 2nd, 2007 at 4:37 am
hey sometimes the drink is better than the women
November 2nd, 2007 at 4:12 pm
[...] You Be the Judge (Part I), I agreed with NOW. In Part II, I agreed with them on one out of two. In Part III, I thought they [...]
November 12th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Can I have a love your body day?
November 13th, 2007 at 12:16 am
It's a joke. So, it's a little hostile. A lot of humor is. America could get a little less prissy in the humor department.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:19 am
[...] You Be the Judge (Part I), I agreed with NOW. In Part II, I agreed with them on one out of two. In Part III, I thought they [...]
February 28th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Yeah I agree, it's just plain silly. The only woman that would be offended is one who is insecure with her body or character. Anyway it was not a personal attack on all women, just someone's imaginary girlfriend. It's just a dumb ad campagin, I don't know what the big deal is about.
April 21st, 2008 at 1:34 pm
[...] You Be the Judge--NOW Claims This Ad Is 'Offensive to Women'--Is It? (Part I) [...]
May 21st, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Its a debatable point as to whether this ad was offensive, in the way that most tv ads portraying men are offensive. Is it true that many girlfriends have less than great bodies and fine characters ? Sure. I would submit that the stats on such issues as false claims of rape and DV, and women, themselves, criticising how other women look, show that such a comment is true enough to be fair comment. It surely would be offensive to women of lousy bodies and characters, but such women's own problems start at their own poor character. An ad is the least of their real problems.
So, 0-1, for NOW. Also, I would point out that whining about a RARE ad thats not butt kissing women, when MOST ads demean men, is... hypocritical of NOW. So, on one issue, they score TWO Own Goals: 0-2.