You Be the Judge--NOW Claims This Ad Is 'Offensive to Women'--Is It? (Part VII)
November 11th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Background: 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 eight-part 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.
In 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 were wrong on both. In Part IV and also Part V, I agreed with NOW. In Part VI, I disagreed with NOW.
NOW protests this Paul Mitchell ad. They write:
"What?!? Even our hair has to be super skinny now? Come on!"
I don't see anything wrong with this ad--the girl isn't excessively thin or anything, and I guess "skinny" is a way to condition your hair, or something. (Yes, I did do my research--I asked my wife, who didn't know what they meant, either.)
I disagree with NOW on this one, so that brings NOW's score, in my book, to 4 out of 9 correct.
"));
19 queries. 0.528 seconds.
November 11th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
This is pathetic, men are protrayed as horses' asses (literally) and yet the real offensiveness occurs to women, who are 'told' that their hair should be skinnier.
So because a women has very thick hair, and wants it to be sleeker, she is being offensive to her entire gender.
There must have been a lot of awkward logic to come to this conclusion.
Please.
November 11th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
NOW should take it up with the millions of women that think they have problem hair, ranging from it being too thin to it being too thick.
From a quick google: Hair Volume, How it Affects your hairstyle choices
Thick Hair Type
Your hair type is often very strong and you're likely to have hard to manage hair. A layering haircut can give thick hair more shape and direction. Silkening products—pomades, surfacers, and even strong hair gels can add control. Very straight, thick hair is often resistant to perms, can be stubborn about holding a curl, and likely to need frequent perming to maintain hair's new texture.
Michelle Pfeiffer Mariah Carey Cindy Crawford Julia Roberts Kirstie Alley
Perhaps one of these celebrities or their hairdresses can give us the skinny on if this ad is offensive or describes a real issue.... I suspect it's a real issue and so a real benefit of the product for some women.
November 11th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
I'm starting to think that NOW would consider having a woman at all in an ad to be sexist.
Are you sure maybe NOW didn't put this up as a joke to see if people are paying attention? That they're privately laughing at the schmucks who actually consider this one to be offensive? Because if they are, it's a great practical joke on their supporters.
November 11th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
This only underscores that the issues really important to feminism have succeeded. They have nothing else to talk about aside from ads like this, that are not offensive to the vast majority of women. I hope they keep marginalizing themselves by focusing on crap like this, because it only serves to strip away whatever shred of credibility they might otherwise have.
November 11th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Glenn said: "I don't see anything wrong with this ad--the girl isn't excessively thin or anything, and I guess "skinny" is a way to condition your hair, or something. (Yes, I did do my research--I asked my wife, who didn't know what they meant, either.)"
The "skinny" reference to hair means that the latest look that women need to strive for is for their hair to be as flat, sleek and "thin" as possible. This ad is offensive to women for two reasons:
1. Women are constantly being told that their hair (also their bodies, skin, clothes, etc.) has to look a certain way for them to be attractive. Whatever the particular style is , it always reflects whatever is going to involve the most cosmetics, styling products, processing, coloring and other procedures as possible. It's never enough to have clean, brushed hair, and as soon as women start wearing their hair one way, it changes, so they have to do yet more to get it to look "super".
Women's hair had to be permed if it is too straight and flat (to get the Farah Fawcett look), straightened to look like you're white if you happen to be black, "teased" and sprayed if you're white, but want the Tina Turner look, woven if it's not long, thick, or layered enough, dyed to cover up the gray (God forbid a woman should look like she's over 35!), bleached to look like she's a Baywatch star, and on and on.
2. Women are not only constantly given the message that their body type is not good enough, but ads that portray women as having the right look are often retouched, so that they are not even entirely real photographs, let alone looks that real women could actually achieve. There is nothing wrong with a woman being thin, but there is also be nothing wrong with a woman being stocky, or buxom, or muscular, or whatever her body type is, as long as she is healthy. Being too thin can be just as unhealthy as being obese. Encouraging women to be "super skinny" encourages eating disorders like bulimia and anorexia which can kill, and which are also associated with depression, alcoholism and other medical problems. Besides, think about who is "super skinny": starving children in Africa, holocaust victims in labor camps, people who are dying or diseases like cancer of AIDS.
Granted, some male actors also do things to their hair to acheive a certain look. But, let's get real about it. All men really need to do about their hair is keep it clean, brush it, and cut it every so often. When men get gray it looks "distinguished". And while I suppose that some men opt for hair transplants, that really isn't necessary...in fact makes them look foolish in most cases, because it's so unnatural. They can just shave it off and look really sexy. Women don't even really have THAT option, do they? (Just look at what happened to Britney Spears when she tried to shave her head...)
So even though I am not a member of NOW and don't particularly identify as a feminist, I have to say I agree with this one, Glenn, and think you are REALLY wrong. Ads that imply that women can only look good if they are "super skinny", or unnaturally "super" anything else, are most definitely offensive.
November 11th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Brooklyn girl:
So what your saying is that this ad is offensive to women because of our genetic makeup?
Allow me to elaborate. Women's looks will always be the primary factor in sexual attractiveness, this is due to various evolutionary relics. For men it usually revolves more around status, wealth and power more than looks. All this advert is doing is trying to sell a product that women can use for 'sleek' hair. If women already WANT sleek hair, one can not reasonably conclude that to provide them with that is offensive.
Advertisments do not put pressure on women to look good, women already exert that pressure on themselves. All adverts do is take advantage of that to sell products. For example, women in Iran are more paranoid about how they look than American women. This is not due to adverts containing 'skinny' women because such adverts would be considered extremely offensive. Women are naturally more paranoid about their looks because that is the best way for them to get a high status man, and so have better chance of perpetuating their genes.
Honestly, if you consider this advert offensive then you must also consider ALL adverts containing attractive women offensive to women. All adverts containing attractive men offensive to men. But why stop there? If trying to sell a product by implying that attractive people use said product is offensive, then shouldn't showing happy people with a product be offensive as well? If 'super'skinny people are offensive, are super-happy people equally offensive? Reinforcing people with the idea that they must always be positive, and leading to depression and suicide?
Trust me, I once had a friend, a male friend, who became anorexic for a time. He did NOT do it because of seeing 'super-skinny' men on tv and being obsessed with his body image. He did it as a cry for help. He was a quite boy, and it must have been the only attention he got from some people. Thankfully he is recovering now. But I'm sure he'd find the idea that the media made him do it ridiculous.
Although I do completely agree with you that unnaturally skinny women look awful. You'd be hard-pressed to find a man who didn't. The real reason fashion models are so skinny is that clothes 'hang' off them. In the words of my sister, 'they're basically walking clothes hangers'
November 11th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
BG, who is telling women that this is the latest look? Is it men? Is it Paul Mitchell? Is it some celebrity? Is it women's magazines?
Who is making women seek this latest look? What makes women such slaves to fashion trends? Is it their boyfriends or husbands or fathers or sons? Is it themselves? Is it other women?
If that is somehow the latest look, and is desired by women, why is it offensive for a manufacturer to create products and target advertising towards that look?
Compare the "retouched" image in the ad to the unretouched image of the Tracy Clark-Flory, feminist blogger at Salon's Broadsheet: http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2007/11/09/vlog/index.html -- Apart from the words "super skinny" to denote the type of hair style that women are demanding, I see almost no difference between the two images.
Should we not talk about the problems of "thick" hair for fear of offending the overweight? Should we not talk about the problems of "thin" hair for fear of offending the anorexic?
November 11th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
@Callum
"So what your saying is that this ad is offensive to women because of our genetic makeup?" Allow me to elaborate. Women's looks will always be the primary factor in sexual attractiveness, this is due to various evolutionary relics. "
This ad has nothing to do with evolutionary relics. While it is true that males (even baby boys) respond more to visual stimuli and females (even baby girls) respond more to auditory stimuli, the offensiveness of this ad is the message it sends, not the picture of the woman (who is attractive, and at least in this shot doesn't appear to be anorexic).
However, since you brought up evolution, it is interesting to note, that in most other animal species, it is the male that is "painted" and "decorated" in order to attract a female. Consider, for example, that a male peacock is bright and irridescent blue and green, whereas the hen is a bland brown. He's got to strut around and get her attention before she will even consider mating with him.
"All this advert is doing is trying to sell a product that women can use for 'sleek' hair. If women already WANT sleek hair, one can not reasonably conclude that to provide them with that is offensive."
If the ad had said "Super Sleek", it wouldn't have been offensive...
November 11th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
I guess I don't really get this whole thing about what's "offensive" to women, as if one group of women can arrogantly claim to know what is offensive to all women.
As if women who buy the product are too dumb to know when they're being insulted.
As if these same individuals don't consider it appropriate to make offensive gestures towards men whenever possible (the upwardly-raised middle finger and penis-related insults being something of a fixture on feminist blogs)
As if these same individuals wouldn't bust a gut laughing whenever a man claims to be "offended" along similar lines about commercials that portrayed men as pigs or public awareness campaigns that potrayed men as predators.
No matter. Always remember, folks: your freedom of speech must end where a feminist's feelings begin!
November 11th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
I'm with Sungjun on this. As if NOW speaks for all "women"! What horse manure! Or as if radical feminists speak for women. That is insulting to women.
NOW is nothing more than a group that claims interest in issues related to women. Any issue that benefits men, in their depraved universe, can't be an issue that interests NOW. You know what's really funny about that? The single issue that most interests normal (non-feminst) women -- you know, the women who comprise the vast majority of America, from my experience, happens to be -- men. I am certain that radical feminists who read this are putting their fingers in their mouths, feigning self-induced vomit (because, you see, they are so very clever -- that's why their favorite intellectual retort to a comment such as the one I've just made is "Ugh." Sounds like cavewoman-talk to me, but that's what passes for wit in that childish, self-righteous world). If NOW really spoke for most women, they'd be interested in a lot of issues that affect men, too -- like reducing male suicide, and helping fathers to regain their proper role as an EQUAL parent, to mention only two issues that have tremendous effect on everyone, even though they happen to concern men.
November 11th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
BG you are assuming that it is offensive, and then finding reasons for why it could be offensive. As to women being constantly told that they have to look a particular way.. its in their own heads. To iterate Jerry's comments "who is telling women that this is the latest look? Is it men? Is it Paul Mitchell? Is it some celebrity? Is it women's magazines?".
Notice how popular media portrays that a man wont notice if his wife changed hairstyles, which is not true, but isn't that saying it doesn't matter what your hair looks like? On the other hand, how many times have you heard men discuss what women's hairstyle is in fashion? I have not heard that once.. in my entire life. The source of such fashions is usually women (and some gay men) yet somehow their opinion is assumed (erroneously) as representative of heterosexual male opinion (the guys that she is intending to attract, not commenting about lesbian fashion here). Any reasonable person can see the irony in this, yet women are "compelled" to hear this? If a woman actually doesn't go "bull****" on hearing such fashion edicts rather fall in line with them, who is responsible for her behavior?
The animals you refer to as being painted or decorated, are they mammals? or are they birds? You may know that primates do not have any male (significant) coloring that plays any role in their desirability... rodent, equine, canine, bovine, feline, primates etc.
While the whole concept of visual stimuli for males is questionable, in my opinion, since the males suffer significant (~100 times more likely) color blindness and visual acuity as compared to females. Lets ignore that, yet another question is how many men actually read advertisements for a shampoo? Why would anyone think that this is shaping the male opinion about attractiveness?
November 11th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
i bet the model turn kim down for a date
November 12th, 2007 at 10:48 am
I guess "skinny" is a way to condition your hair, or something
It is so sad that I know this, but the term "skinny" refers to bone straight hair. Basically, it is another way of saying "perm."
November 12th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Brooklyngirl:
So the 'offensiveness' to women boils down to the use of the word 'skinny' rather than 'sleek'
Pleaser explain what factor makes women innately offended by the word skinny, it is lost on me.
This advertisment does not denigrate, humiliate, mock, shame or promote hatred towards women. How exactly is it offensive? If the use of the word 'skinny' to describe ANYTHING is offensive, should it just be taken out of the dictionary?
I think you're grasping at straws to be offended to here.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Let's get down to the real truth... What is more offensive:
Being told that you should look a certain way?
Being told that you should think a certain way?
By my standards, I declare NOW more offensive than all the ads combined.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Like callum says this is grasping. I get the feeling it was a slow news day and needed something to draw a few headlines.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
I agree with Glenn on this one. Having two pre-teen daughters with lots of pre-teen friends, I can tell you this- no matter WHAT type of hair they have, they want it to be different. Girls with straight hair wish they had curls (and spend lots of time and $$ trying to get curls), girls with curly hair wish it were straight (and spend lots of time and $$ trying to straighten it), etc., etc. I agree with the comment above that the ad does not CAUSE this desire, but if a girl/women wants "skinny" hair, this ad identifies a possible product to help her achieve it. Honestly, I don't know what causes this desire. Every chance I get I tell my daughters and their friends that their natural hair is beautiful just the way it is, and that the best thing they can do is to leave it alone.
I agree with the comments that any issue raised by this add seems to be pretty small fry, and suggests that NOW really doesn't have anyting more important to do. NOW seems to be accelerating their self-marginalization.
BG- Thanks again for the good laugh. You don't consider yourself a feminist?! I almost peed in my pants! You said "Women are not only constantly given the message that their body type is not good enough"- does this mean that ANY ad or photo of ANY woman, other than yourself, would give you the message that your body type/hair/skin/whatever is not good enough? Are women like you really that fragile and insecure? I mean, if a man sees an ad showing a shirtless 20-something with an oiled, hairless chest and six-pack abs, do you think he's going to get his undies in a bunch about "constantly being told that their hair (also their bodies, skin, clothes, etc.) has to look a certain way for them to be attractive"?
In case you haven't noticed (and why would you?), men are often attracted to a wide range of (but not necessarily all) body types, ethnicities, hair styles, etc.; and DON'T care about a lot of things women/girls seem to obsess over. This is good news for women, right? Unless you look like Jabba The Hutt, you'll probably be able to find a man that thinks you look just fine, if not great, but he might not be one of those oiled, hairless, six-pack 20-somethings. BTW- if you want to see how women are depicted in ads directed at men, pick up a copy of Muscle Car Magazine or Iron Horse, or some such thing, and tell me if the women in those ads look "super skinny". I'm sure you and the women at NOW would find something else to complain about in those ads, although it suggests to me that your alleged offense is largely self-imposed. You know what I'd like to see? An ad for a hair product featureing a scowling, short, squat woman having close-cropped grey hair and no make-up with the tag line "Red Hat Shampoo - Because you just don't give a ---- anymore!"
November 12th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
How many women are really "offended" by this ad? Hardly any. That's my problem with it. If women were really offended by this stuff, I wouldn't want to see it perpetuated and neither would most men. Sure, women might sometimes complain that they get sick of the pressure of having to look a certain way, but it's simply not something that's truly offensive to the vast majority of women. That is a fact. The vast majority of women readily buy into it -- without ANY help from the men. How dare some organization deign to speak on behalf of all women in this manner!
I think Glenn does a great service by bringing this stuff to our attention because we should be aware of it. But perhaps the question we need to be asking is, why should anyone care what this little fringe group says about these issues? We need to concentrate on the big issues that unfairly impact men just because we are men and leave NOW to rant against the wind all it wants.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
brooklyn girl...Do you want to be treated as an adult or a child!!
..American womens obsessive vanity, can only be blamed on American womens obsessive vanity!!
..To say it's mens fault is in effect saying women are really more like children than adults, and are not responseable for their own thoughts!!
responsible women who want to be treated as adults need to realise the " new victim infantile feminist" does not have their interests in mind!!.
November 12th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
So the 'offensiveness' to women boils down to the use of the word 'skinny' rather than 'sleek'
Pleaser explain what factor makes women innately offended by the word skinny, it is lost on me.
This advertisment does not denigrate, humiliate, mock, shame or promote hatred towards women. How exactly is it offensive? If the use of the word 'skinny' to describe ANYTHING is offensive, should it just be taken out of the dictionary?
I think you're grasping at straws to be offended to here.
It's not that the use of the word "skinny" is inherently offensive, callum, it's that this ad fits very well into the constant bombardment of media messages about women and weight, a good 90% of which is aimed at women -- diet pills, diet creams, diet plans, diet programs, diet shows, diet mags, National Enquirer pieces about "Who's Overweight in Hollywood," celebratory pieces in Cosmo about women who've lost weight "and kept it off!," glowing mainstream media coverage of a 13-year-old girl who underwent liposuction and gastric bypass surgery because her father wanted to see her "skinny and pretty" (as if the two were the same) before he died of cancer. True, this latest ad touting "super skinny hair" is only a very small, even tiny, contribution, but IMO, the problem is not how offensive the content of the ad is, by itself -- the problem is that the message that "skinny (women) = attractive (women)" has gone so far that now even female hair can be "skinny," and the ad is giving off the message that "skinny hair," like skinny-everything-else, will make women more attractive.
What kind of bizarro-world are these ad people living in, when the adjective "skinny" can even be applied to hair? It doesn't even make sense; it's just flat-out bizarre. IMO, it's evidence that our thinness-obsessed culture is going completely out-of-whack.
November 12th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
..."I THINK YOURE GRASPING AT STRAWS TO BE OFFENDED".....lol!!!
November 13th, 2007 at 9:37 am
"responsible women who want to be treated as adults"
..."I THINK YOURE GRASPING AT STRAWS TO BE OFFENDED".....
What is really offensive is that the college students and school boys (e.g. Callum) talk down to and treat women, even those old enough to be their own mothers (or grandmothers), like irresponsible children.
I suppose it's not especially surprising when the "intellectual wellspring" of the fathers' movement (as Glenn describes him) thinks that women "are the only group who get the right to vote without responsibility. Only adolescents expect rights without responsibilities. Adults know they go together." However, at least Warren Farrell had the integrity to ADMIT (in an interview with J. Steven Svoboda) that, "Nobody really believes in equality anyway"...
November 13th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
BG,
Nice try! But its not going to work.
Dr. Farrell was talking about substantial equality (equality of outcome). In the same interview, in answer to the same question, he has explained why no one really believe in such "equality" with examples and with reasons as to why they actually should not believe in it. I completely agree with him.
What you are saying is inequality is equality and if you don't agree you are a "school boy" or a "college student"? Is that supposed to be condescending? I am a college student so.... you know. Makes no sense.
November 13th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Brooklyn Girl -
When I was a teenager, the style was also for sleek, straight hair. There were no blow dryers in those days, no special conditions, no hot irons, etc., so the only manner in which a girl could get such hair if it was not hers naturally was to roll her hair in the largest rollers she could find - which were orange juice cans - and sleep that way. Or should I say "attempt" to sleep?
So many girls - including my twin sister - did just that. I eschewed the notion that my hair had to look a certain way. I certainly wasn't going to sacrifice my sleep for that. I would rather like away and listen to far-away radio stations at 3 in the morning.
Please tell me WHO has the GUN to WOMENS' HEADS in order to "MAKE" them FEEL or DO ANYTHING?
If you or anyone else is fool enough to give your power away like that, I feel no sympathy - and believe me when I say, I was a shy, quiet, insecure child and I STILL KNEW BETTER!!!!
I care deeply about my looks; I feel most women do and I believe we were "programmed " to be that way, for obvious reasons: Men like to look at attractive women. But we don't have to be idiots about it.
ARE WOMEN THAT GULLIBLE THAT WE HAVE TO PROTECT THEM FROM "OFFENSIVE" ADS NOW? Are we that unable to think for ourselves? And where is all this wonderful single-parent mothering? Self esteem starts when the girl is young - parents help her to feel good about herself for herself and train and help her to be best person she can without being a slave to anyone or anything. Dads, by the way, are essential for that
Sigh.
Are we really that dumb, ladies?
November 13th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Good point Rosemarie. For women to be so offended by this they tend to forget a few things:
1. Most of those ads run in women's magazines. If women are so offended by them why are they still running in them? Yeah men may own those magazines and make the ad choices but women read those magazines and a few months of plummeting says and protests I think would change their minds.
2. Unless these models are the best cross dressers ever or someone is good at doctoring photos those are women in those ads. If they are willing to do those ads then surely they don't think they are offensive right?
3. As Rosemarie pointed out no one is forcing women to pay attention to these ads.
And finally I have to say that when I see these on tv about six pack ab guys that have perfect skin tones, perfect clothes, perfect hair, and women swooning for them (and not to mention that most of them are white or latino) they don't bother me at all. But feminists, who like to comment on how men have fragile egos, are complaining about these ads that portray those "perfect" women.
November 13th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Danny said:: "Yeah men may own those magazines and make the ad choices but women read those magazines . . . . " Right on, Danny!
Men might own the magazines and the companies that run the ads, but they are in business and if women didn't buy into this stuff, those men would change the ads tomorrow. It is silly and childish to suggest that men are dictating how women look. Women are dictating how women look, period. For NOW to pretend it represents "Women" on this issue is a snare and a delusion.
November 14th, 2007 at 12:39 am
Rosemarie, it's great that you were such a smart and independent child. For the record, I was, too. And I was lucky to be that way from a very young age, as you were.
Not everyone is. Girls and boys of today are growing up in a culture saturated with advertisements, magazines, news pieces, TV shows, films, music, literature, and other forms of mass media. When that mass media constantly displays psychologically manipulative images of "what a girl/woman/boy/man should be," it changes the viewpoints of a good number of people who will one day be adults in that same culture. When the messages contained in those images are harmful, the culture as a whole suffers, because most humans are impressionable. Does anybody here deny this fact?
If I said that media messages featuring lunkish, doofus husbands with smart, exasperated wives were harmful to boys growing up in our culture, would anybody here disagree with me? If I said that boys and men who fall for it and buy into that culture are simply too dumb to know better and that it's their fault if they do, what response would I get? After all, where's the gun to men's heads telling them that if they're men, they can't be smart? And yet boys are falling behind in school, doing poorly on standardized tests, and dropping out at record levels. But where's the gun? What gun? ::looks around:: I don't see a gun.
Negative media conditioning goes both ways. If we can criticize media that is offensive to men, and call for its removal, and not call men who have the temerity to be offended by such media stupid, we should be able to do the same for women.
November 14th, 2007 at 3:09 am
literarycritic,
The reason media messges of lunkish, doofus husbands with smart, exasperated wives are harmful is not because they make boys think that they are supposed to be stupid, rather they are insulting as the boys know they are not true. That is they are rejecting that message. Note most of the products being sold with these ads are either for family usage (they think actual buyers will be women) or for women themselves.
The specific ads that NOW has picked as offensive.. almost all are selling to women (again! unfortunately). So you could say that the ads are defining unrealistic standards of airbrushed pictured ladies.. sure. But the buy-in into "I should be this way"... I think that is personal responsibility. But, rather than rejecting the products, women do buy them, which tells me that there is no buy-in, these are the internal aspirations of most women, somehow being projected on the mass media and scapegoating people (meaning men).
In short, there is a major difference between abrasive insulting and coercive influencing. You can be insulted in 10 seconds, influence needs lots of time, which is a fundamental difference.
November 14th, 2007 at 7:12 am
Literarycritic - you make a good point. Now I'm remembering, guiltily, what my father used to tell me when I was little: Not to get exasperated at those who don't learn quickly enough to suit me. I can see I still have that regretable tendency. Not that I'm any great intellectual; just very impatient.
Even so, I still don't understand how a grown woman like Brooklyngirl can be so obtuse at times.
November 14th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Pankaj,
The relationship between the individual and the culture is a reciprocal one. I don't agree that buying into the cultural definition of what your gender should be like is totally personal responsibility, though I of course believe that plays a part. Some of the unhappiest women I know are ones who've bought into media messages about being super-thin, super-sleek, always-made-up, with perfect skin and tiny thighs, precisely because the image is unattainable for most people. And yes, they bought into it and they continue to buy into it, but it comes from a simple desire to be attractive combined with a lack of reflection about the unrealistic nature of the images they're buying into.
But I don't necessarily blame the women for that. They've grown up with it, and some of them just honestly can't see outside what they grew up with. Most people are like that.
And that's why I think that media messages about men being "stupid, violent, and emotionally clueless" are extremely harmful to boys growing up in our culture -- because I don't put all the personal blame on people whose only sin is growing up in our culture. For the smarter, more self-aware ones, sure, it's just offensive. But what about the rest?
November 14th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
"What is really offensive is that the college students and school boys (e.g. Callum) talk down to and treat women, even those old enough to be their own mothers (or grandmothers), like irresponsible children."
I would request that you don't make my age an issue. I was repectfully disagreeing with your opinion and you seem to not believe I have the right to do this because of my age.
Simply because I disagree with you does not mean I'm treating you like a child.
And I would agree that not many people do believe in equality. Most feminists who claim to believe so act differently in stark opposition to giving men rights which would allow them equality. People like Wendy McElroy and Christina Hoff Summers actually do aknowledge men's rights and men's problems...And as a result are isolated from the feminist movement.
November 14th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
literarycritic,
You seem to gloss over the main point that the issue that the men's demonization/trivialization is the radical opposite of what you see as women's buy-in into unrealistic standards. No rational person will oppose a ad that shows a man being vilified because young boys will buy-in into it, rather the ad's insulting nature to men is the problem, which promotes distrust/apathy/hatred of all men.
I don't think I am "blaming" anyone including the mass media, when I talk of personal responsibility. I am sure everyone has had their buy-in. I was a blatantly misandric once (even though I am a man). Eg - I thought men deserved it when women hit them - they MUST have done something wrong!.
The other day, I saw a NOW demonstration on campus about female body "this is how real women look" etc. And guess what, all of them were wearing makeup! Interesting right? At a demonstration for healthy body image you had to put on makeup to make yourself look better than you really are! All of them had well proportioned bodies, quite desirable bodies. And I was thinking.. whose side these women are on? the mass medias? or the feminists' anti -"mass media portrayal of women".
On the other hand, Glenn and his Saxon Horde basically convey these male-bashing ad campaigners that if they keep it up they will loose (our) business all together.
November 14th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Pankaj,
No rational person will oppose a ad that shows a man being vilified because young boys will buy-in into it, rather the ad's insulting nature to men is the problem, which promotes distrust/apathy/hatred of all men.
Plenty of rational people I know share my viewpoint that harmful media messages have an impact on children. I mean, really -- societal influence exists, and when it's potentially or actually harmful, we have a right to rationally object to it. It's true that the harmful effects of media can be measured only indirectly, via studies and research into the impact of particular images combined with the observation of general cultural trends, but indirect conclusions can still be rational.
So, as the men in media get stupider and stupider, and more and more boys do poorly in school at younger and younger ages, it's rational to see a connection. And as the women in media get thinner and thinner, and more and more girls develop eating disorders at younger and younger ages, it's rational to see a connection. And as the people in all forms of media continue to be disproportionately white fifty years after the Civil Rights Movement, and more and more pre-school-age black kids participating in a study say that the white baby doll is "prettier" and "cleaner" than the black baby doll, it's rational to see a connection.
That doesn't negate the complaint that harmfully unrealistic media images are wrong because they're offensive and insulting to those who are actually aware of the messages being given off. That's undeniable. But they're also wrong because they skew the perceptions of individuals living in the culture in ways that are harmful to everyone.
It's both, and neither argument makes the other less rational or less true.
November 15th, 2007 at 3:51 am
Again, there is difference in the types of influence. One is very obvious very direct, while the other is contestable. The vilification of men is significantly vile and insulting. We are not talking about self-identity or being told how to feel, but a general insult that portrays hatred of men.
No boys are not doing poorly in school because of the media ads.. it is because their ways of learning are not accommodated in the school systems. I should know I have been through them, the problem is acerbated due to increasing blatancy of the misandric positions adopted in society and in school. Eg. There are far more scholarships available for women than for men at college levels. Colleges go out of their way to lure female candidates in, guess who they are neglecting in the process? You seem to give boys far less credit as if they are some mindless morons who think they are supposed to be stupid and hence behave stupid. Same goes for women too.
As for the whole "equality" thing you brought up - I don't believe, neither should any knowing rational moral person should believe in such equality of outcome. Hell no! Let there be equality of opportunity, but not this sham of substantial equality.
As for what pre-school kids are choosing, it is there preference, but if you think they are being influenced too much by TV, why are they watching the TV so goddamn much than their own parents? Besides, why are adults passing judgments on kids' choices? They are kids, who ever conducted this experiment is a horrible horrible person.
November 15th, 2007 at 4:03 am
Oh and I forgot to mention. The best way to allocate scholarships are without reference to the race, or sex of the awarded. Check out any college system, there are overwhelming number of scholarships for "females only". This is to a point where I have been told that it is easier to get loans (from the government apparently) for female students than male students, and when they do female students get more amounts in student loans than men.
At the elementary level there is the ritalin problem. Then after they get out of college, the hiring policies are also biased severely against men. If men succeed in holding on to the majority of the positions in any industry it is almost guaranteed that the profession will one or more of involve the following -
1. lower pay (any of the ones mentioned below)
2. long work hours (take your pick)
3. exposure to weather and travel (road side workers)
4. risk of life and limb (soldiers, policemen, sailors)
5. unhealthy environment (garbage men, mechanics)
6. requires significant knowledge of maths and physics
7. does not involve risk of being falsely charged for inappropriate behavior (not teachers)
8. requires a lot of experience to be successful
OR
9. they get to control their work terms (self-employed)
Check it out with your local university, if not, let me know i will move there.
November 15th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
"What is really offensive is that the college students and school boys (e.g. Callum) talk down to and treat women, even those old enough to be their own mothers (or grandmothers), like irresponsible children."
Wait a minute - BrooklynGirl - when and where did that happen? I tend to miss a lot - but then, I don't keep track of who is what age because it doesn't matter to me. From the mouths of babes (or college students)......Sure, there are some jacka$$es here, but the persons with whom I have had the most problems are women. There is one man I can't stand, but I leave him the hell alone and he leaves me alone.
Now, you, BrooklynGirl - - let's hear YOUR age. If you're under 52, I humbly request you treat me with the respect someone of my age deserves. What's good for the goose and all that.
November 15th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
PS My 8th grade classmates called me "Yoko" because I didn't straighten my hair. Meaning I had hair like Yoko Ono, which I clearly did not. It was dark and fine and wavy, but not arrow straight.
That was really hurtful to me, but I still wouldn't go through that hell of sleeping on orange juice cans.
Funny, that just came back to me. Being called Yoko. OUCH! That hurt more than the orange juice cans, but I laughed it off and it eventually became a nickname used affectionately.