So what's the difference with the shampoo advert then? I bet you 10%+ blokes use these shampoos. Shampoo isn't a career but the use of it is and it's exactly the same as computers. They're both products that enable people to achieve something, tools if you will. Yes they're washing their own hair just like the men in the advert are using their own computer. What's your point?
I feel like you skipped over this section of one of my last posts; Yes, some adverts might only show a man or a woman using a product, but those products aren't careers in their own right. This advert showed careers that are stereotypically male careers, and did so only showing men doing these things. If they'd shown one woman doing one of those things then I expect there wouldn't have been an upheld complaint against the advert.
I don't think the ad was showing 'men doing careers', that's a borderline feminist view. It was an advert using their most profitable demographic, demonstrating the multiple tasks that you can use a PC Specialist product to achieve.
I mean, of course it didn't show them doing these things properly. They're actors. Computer probably wasn't even running an OS. It's the implication. The voice over says: "For the players, the gamers, the 'I'll sleep laters'" and cuts to a white guy "the creators, the editors, the music makers" and cuts to a guy who looks to me to be of mixed race "The techies, the coders, the illustrators." and cuts to a guy who looks to me to be of Asian descent. The visual effects used are also changed per cut to show dramatised elements of these careers in a non-copywritten way (Because who wants to pay pesky license fees) that conveys the same message as the voiceover. That is the implication men doing these jobs that, traditionally, have been the sole domain of men. That is why the complaint was upheld, as per the ASA text I quoted a page or two back. Also, feminism isn't a bad word. The core meaning of feminism is advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men. Which seems a fine thing to be, to me. It's got an image issue at the moment, but I suspect that might be another threads discussion.
Yes as someone with Autism i feel that advert did not pander to me enough, therefore i find it offensive, i have had to retreat to my safe space because im so traumatised and will boycott the company until every advert they make panders to me Although News just in, as a white male i have been told that i do not have enough privilege points for my opinion to count for anything in today's climate
TBH bingo used to be a women's game when I was a kid. However, I've always played it. I think it's great fun. Wouldn't gamble on it and never been to a bingo hall but my cousin goes with his mum and he's about as macho as it gets (scaffolding). Equality is good for men, so long as they're open enough to embrace it. Like I say, losing your s**t and yelling "Bingo!" Is actually great fun.
Quite agree. I think that while feminism started out as a path to equality, it is often now used as a vehicle for male oppression.
As mentioned, I feel like the discussion of that word could take on a whole other thread. It's part of the reason I don't call myself a feminist. I think the more.. Aggresive words banded about for certain people claiming feminism as their cause are far more appropriate for their message. The OG feminism, though, tops. All on board for that.
The problem is that they used people in the advert at all... better to have had a purely product ad. & left it at that.
Women in technology is a problem. Not that women work in technology, but that women generally don't work in technology. Like it or not it is a problem. You might not personally contribute to that problem, you might go out of your way to help get rid of the problem, you might even - heaven forfend! - work in technology with women! But none of those things make that problem go away. Whether it's bias (conscious or otherwise) on the part of people who decide who gets a job, fear of toxic masculinity in the workplace, a general feeling that it just isn't for you, the rampant "tech bro" culture, or whatever... it is a problem. Generally there are far fewer women than men in technology and many women don't want to work in technology because of that. In an ideal world it would be a meritocracy - if you can do the job well enough then welcome aboard. But we do not live in an ideal world. We live in a world where people have unconscious bias; we live in a world where people think it's OK to use overt sexist abuse in every day conversation; we live in a world where people routinely regard women and their bodies as mere sexual playthings; we live in a world where women have to put up with abuse in order to do a job they enjoy; we live in a world where complaints about abuse or harassment are met with dismissive comments like "calm down dear, it's just banter" or are simply fired; we live in a world where some of those at the very top of this field think sexual abuse and sexual violence is acceptable. We don't live in an ideal world, we generally live in a pretty shitty world. But people are trying to change that shitty world and this is part of that effort. An advert which, even unintentionally, implies that careers in technology aren't for women is a problem. If you don't see a problem with the advert then fine, move on, this does not concern you. Why get so outraged about something that is in no way hurtful to you? So far I haven't addressed anything I've said to anyone specifically, but I'm going to now: Understand that in most cases these things are not being directed specifically and solely at you personally. And if you feel threatened or upset or whatever by "men" being called out for something, then just consider what the people making that complaint might be feeling. The chances are that those people have already been ignored, or dismissed, or marginalised, and now feel that being so vociferous is the only way they can be heard. Irrespective of which set of genitals you have (or don't have) in your underwear, your gender, or your sexual orientation, "feminism" isn't the problem. The problem is a failure to engage, to listen, and to understand.
So you’re saying that if we don’t see a problem with the advert, then we shouldn’t be able to discuss it in here? Yeah alright Adolf... I understand perfectly well that it’s not directed at me personally; however, just as much as you agree with it and you’re giving your opinion, I’m entitled to do the same and I’m equally happy to stand by mine. That’s what freedom of speech is about. We are allowed to have different views and air them without being told to move along if they don’t align with yours... The rest of your condescending explanation, I don’t disagree with even though it wasn’t required.
I try being diplomatic and respectful, and I get called both a Nazi and condescending. Since the message of empathy and understanding seems to be lost on you, let me try a different tack: GFY . How's that, does that work for you?
If you think your first message in which you singled me out for a wonderful little lecture was diplomatic and respectful, I’m surprised you’ve still got teeth in your head. You obviously don’t like being on the receiving end either since you took time out to link the urban dictionary, which I found quite amusing by the way, so props for that ‘mush’. Look, you’ve got your opinion, I’ve got mine. I’m all for equality and work for an employer that thrives on equality but my line in the sand is when it goes too far the other way and modern male society is oppressed at times almost as a punishment for our forefathers misgivings. That’s all, no hate involved. You hit the nail on the head with the ideology of meritocracy. I don’t care what tackle you pack, your skin colour or who you call God if you choose to. I just want the best person for the job to work alongside. Equality should be a pull from all directions, not a big push in one.
I can't help myself, I really can't. I wasn't going to get into this kind of tit-for-tat stuff because it very rarely gets anyone anywhere. But I can't help myself. Here are all of the words I've written in this thread - not counting my last post, or the quote from EG I posted earlier (since, after all, I didn't write that). Here is how much I addressed to you personally: Which means this: ... implies that you weren't paying attention. Up until this point I had even pointed out that I am not singling out anyone specific who had posted in this thread, because your voice is one among many others making similar arguments both here and elsewhere. I singled out that specific part of your post because you said that the idea of feminism is now used to oppress men, and you give no other explanation or rationale Hey, I'm not the one who started being abusive in the first place. I'm trying to have a debate and I get called a condescending Nazi for my trouble. I shouldn't have reacted to it and instead tried to do what I'm trying to do now and discussed the arguments, but that's hard work and sometimes I just don't have the patience or energy for it. It's sometimes easier just to be a **** to a faceless disconnected avatar on a sort-of anonymous internet forum. I apologise for being a **** by the way, I've got no problem in recognising when I've been a knob. I recognise that I often use 100 words when 10 would do; instead of trying to imply a question I'll try to be more direct. Help me to understand why you think that is the case: what has got you to the position where you now equate "feminism" with "oppressing men"? You agree that the fundamental definition of "feminism" is to advocate that women should not be treated unfairly because of their gender, so tell me what changed your mind along the way? And that is exactly the way I think it should work, and that is exactly how I try to live my life. And it totally works the other way: if I think someone is an asshole then it's not because they're black, or gay, or female, or whatever - I just think they're an asshole. But you also don't address the part where I said that we don't live in a meritocracy and instead live in a society that can actually be pretty shitty if you're not a straight white man (OK I didn't say that directly, it was more of an implication - again, I should try to be more direct). There are so many reasons why we don't have that kind of society, but one of the things that will help get us there is addressing harmful negative stereotypes - such as an advert implying that women don't belong in tech. Before I carry on watching The Witcher, I'll just pick up on one final sentiment: Of course I'm not saying you can't discuss these things. The point I was trying to make in that case is - and again let me be explicitly clear that this is not aimed at you personally @Sentinel-R1 or anyone else who's offered an opinion in this thread - what is the point in getting so outraged over a shitty advert getting banned when you're not even the person that had a problem with the advert in the first place? This particular point is not a free speech issue, it's a question of abiding by the rules set out by the governing body of a commercial space. The fact that PC Specialist - or anyone else - might disagree with the conclusion is irrelevant; the governing body ruled that the advert did not meet the rules they set out, gave a public explanation of how and why they reached that decision, and ordered that it cannot be shown again in its current form. PC Specialist are perfectly entitled to run that ad again, as long as they do it where the ASA doesn't have jurisdiction. I really am gonna go watch The Witcher now. No chance I'll fit in two episodes like I planned, because I need to be in bed in just over an hour!
Hey, no harm, no foul. It's a healthy debate (with a bit of unnecessary vitriol - apologies also), but these things happen when you're passionate about something. That'll never change. To answer the above, can I start by saying that I think the term 'feminism' is half of the problem. Not what it stands for though, I wholly believe in equality but the overarching goal should be equality for everyone so lets not give the term a gender. If you say 'feminism' to almost any bloke, just watch his eyes roll or mouth grimace, probably from a previous negative experience. Say equality to the same man and you'll get a different reaction, I promise you - and yet they're essentially the same thing except equality is for all genders, races, everyone. It's all inclusive - the term feminism isn't. That's my issue with feminism. It's developed negative connotations and because of that, I do believe it's become a vehicle for male oppression. Females that I've met who strive for equality are far less (militant?) than those who describe their cause as feminism. You're correct, I didn't address it (my bad). One negative recruitment principle that my employer has (and I'm sure many others do) is sex/ethnicity/religion quotas in order to meet either self-introduced or mandated targets. I despise that, so much. The military in general is a champion of diversity, particularly the Royal Air Force. I don't want to work with someone who is less capable than someone who got turned away, just because they needed to meet some diversity quota. It's absolutely abhorrent, dilutes skill, promotes problems and weakens a company - not strengthens. We absolutely do get strength from equality and diversity - but only when the candidates are chosen on merit, not to pad out statistics. Glad you responded and gave me the chance to do so too.
As a man, I prefer to watch adverts of women showering, brushing their teeth and sleeping. I would also suggest that many shampoo ads with women are targetting men. If you are offended by any commercials and the lack of representation I would encourage you to file a complaint.
Would showing a female gamer alienate male consumers? I see a lot of mobile apps being marketed by female streamers. I don't see any justification to not include a female gamer in the group as it could help boost their female base. Unless they are targeting incels. The core of the complaints is that media tends to only portray men in high power roles, STEM, gaming, tech ... and women as nurses and teachers. This is improving, but it has a strong influence on children in terms of ideas of gender norms and what is appropriate to study and pursue as a hobby. My daughter has toy guns, lego, wooden trains, a BBQ set, dolls and frozen dress up stuff. I control what she watches (she's 3) and don't play don't put on any Disney princess, barbie crap for her to watch. I much prefer something like paw patrol, where gender plays a role in their characters. I don't even correcter her when she makes a mistake between he and she. because at here age there isn't a difference, and one doesn't need to be emphasized. As for the commercials, it would have been fine a few years ago, now it isn't. The same can be said about commercials suggesting how to be a good housewife and blackface. Times change.
Dove had a whole campaign about this. Their are a number of regulations restricting women as well, including a ban on "heroin chic". If the commercial only showed a single male gamer it would be fine. It showed many gamers, all male. that's the issue.
It's kind of ironic that the reason women crave all of the products directed at them is because of the pressures men have put on them. I'm so glad I didn't have kids in that regard, because if I had a daughter and had to go through those years it would have killed me. In that regard my first wife was the ideal woman. No makeup, no gold, jeans and a t-shirt or hoodie. Perfect.
