In 1988 I wrote a jokey piece in the advertising industry magazine Campaign inventing
a pressure group, “Min against Advertising” – “min” because “men” were tired
of being a diminutive of “women”. We were going to take to the streets with
banners shouting: “Min Are Rather Cross About All This.” The joke rested on
the absurd notion that men would seriously consider starting a pressure
group to fight for their rights. I might as well have called it something
equally farfetched – Fathers 4 Justice, say.
It was in that decade that we saw the first signs that advertising was
beginning to dish out the same “objectification” treatment that it had to
women for years. Nick Kamen did a strip act in a laundrette for Levi’s and a
row of watching women. The Diet Coke man was ogled by female office workers.
This was a new world, a sea change from the Life on Mars-like philosophy of
living that had lasted for generations, then disappeared quicker than
European communism.
Under this hoary old regime, men told women what to do; specifically, buy
things – more specifically yet, FMCG (fast-moving consumer goods). In the
millions of hours of 30-second FMCG spots over the decades, women were
portrayed as powerless and panicky creatures whose lives were transformed by
the deus ex machina of a male voiceover telling them that their kitchens
would be cleaner, their clothes whiter, their lives made complete if they
only switched to this washing powder or that floor cleaner. In the 1970s,
after the publication of The Female Eunuch, the genre was just shaky
enough to get parodied by smart comedians. The best parody was in The Goodies1976
show String, in which the three male stars, all fat ties and wide lapels,
repeated the mantra: “Bless her little cotton socks – where would we be
without her?” In the flash offices of the real advertising industry the
language was less sweet. The standard FMCG set-up – two housewives
discussing rival products – was universally known as “two Cs in a K”. Need I
spell it out? Look away if you’re easily offended, or work for Camden
council: it meant “two c***s in a kitchen”.
As for the products aimed at men – well, if I tell younger readers that an ad
for St Bruno tobacco showed a crowd of attractive women following a man,
Pied Piper-like, through a town because he smoked a pipe, you will realise
that this was indeed a different world, and that Gene Hunt in Life on Mars
ain’t the half of it. (In the end frame, the tough bald bouncer employed to
protect our star lets one of the lucky pipe-groupies through the crowd.) The
Guardian’s women’s page began a column, “Naked Ape”, to document the more
gobsmacking examples of sexist marketing. Naked girls astride power tools
was a regular favourite.
There may be some ageing ad-men who still talk of Cs and Ks: if so, it’s a
miracle that they have kept one step ahead of the HR department enforcers
for so long. But glass ceilings are made of tough stuff, and women are still
in a minority. So to compensate, the men who make ads have been engaged in a
20-year campaign of grovelling to female consumers. I call it the dorking of
men. The editor of Loaded, Martin Daubney, put it another way.
Advertising, he said, has turned men into “castrated dweebs”.
When I conjured up the preposterous notion of a pressure group concerned about
sexist representations of men in advertising, men were still very much
firmly in charge of the agencies and the strategies that they put out. Lori
Miles, who moved from editing newspapers to working at an ad agency in the
late 1980s, says that Fleet Street sexism was mild compared with the kind
that she encountered in her Covent Garden hotshop. “I survived the rigorous
sexism in the old Fleet Street – it was much more in the Benny Hill style,”
she says. “But in the advertising industry the sexism was more abusive and
malevolent. One of the directors grabbed a young girl’s breasts with both
hands as she was carrying a tray of drinks and couldn’t move.
“The female executives were just as bad. I was told by my boss, a woman, that
I should go to the management floor and apologise to the MD for becoming
pregnant. I was sacked the day after we had resecured one of my accounts, on
the premise that the company didn’t employ mothers.” That same agency now
has a female chief executive.
By the Nineties, however, the agencies were changing, and so were the ads.
First we saw the advent of sensitive new man, cradling babies and being
modestly heroic. Then we began to see the new power-dressing women hitting
back. In one ad a female manager marches into her boss’s office and snips
the balls of his executive toy, a Newton’s Cradle; he winces, and we are
meant to laugh at an image that you could never, ever show with the genders
reversed.
I don’t recall the brand, but I do remember thinking that something
fundamental had changed in the world as witnessed in the ad breaks. This was
a cry for help from a dying macho culture, and nowhere had that culture been
more exaggerated than in the agencies themselves. Today they’re more
right-on than the average student union, and have names like Mother. Even
the language has changed: according to Campaign, “macho, warlike terms such
as targeting, objectives, strategy and campaign have been joined by a more
emotional set of terms” – which raises the question of whether
the magazine itself should now change its name to something less “warlike”.
With their executive toys mutilated, the admen turned into the dweebs and the
dorks. One memorable slot, for the Prudential, featured the actor Mark
Williams, who later starred in The Fast Show. “We want to be togetha,” he
said soppily in his cardigan, while his sassy Scouse girlfriend in her sexy
black dress raised her eyebrows to the camera. This was also the beginning
of rampant “accentism” in advertising. You got a double whammy if you could
find a dork who also spoke with a Brummie voice. Witness the whingeing West
Midlander speaking the words to the Human League’s Don’t You Want Me
Baby? on a petrol station forecourt in a 2002 ad for the Fiat Punto.
It was the Fiat Punto, too, that showed the new stereotypes: sassy, sexy,
female who takes the car for a wild drive while doltish boyfriend lazes
around in bed. She gets it off with a third stereotype – sexy Latin man
who doesn’t, and possibly can’t, speak. Diet Coke man and Nick Kamen
couldn’t speak either. Their pecs were the point of their existence. But The
Guardian didn’t seem inclined to start a column defending their rights.
The Punto ads prove that it’s on the road where the battle of the sexes, and
the sexists, is at its most intense. The planners knew what they were about.
Zippy small cars are designed for women, making them feel independent and
“one up” – not one up on their friends or bosses, but on
their men. Big male cars such as Audis and BMWs, meanwhile, are promoted as
Ultimate Driving Machines and technological thrusts forward (“Vorsprung
durch Technik” – you can’t imagine that being said in a female
voice, can you?). The ads are deliberately depopulated and dehumanised.
Perhaps it’s because, faced with a choice of available male advertising role
models – the hunks, the hopeless or the hapless – they thought it
safer to stick to the metal. Or perhaps because it’s difficult to portray a
BMW driver who won’t be loathed by 90 per cent of the viewing public.
The hapless and the hopeless are everywhere on our screens. It might be
James Nesbitt coming second-best to the Yellow Pages, or Kris Marshall
bumbling through family life for BT. In the empowered world of TV
advertising, women aren’t allowed to bumble. Even those still stuck in the
kitchen during the daytime TV shows look as though they are about to take a
G8 conference by the scruff of the neck.
Apart from the blokes who run Loaded, Bravo and other unrepentant lads’
outfits, men have suffered their dweebing and dorking in silence. We did
have things our own way for quite a long time, seems to be the attitude. Not
so their girlfriends and wives, who are becoming frankly bored of seeing
blokes incessantly portrayed as incompetents and ninnies. As one very
successful female friend put it: “Believe it or not, we quite like men. I
don’t see all men as being like that. It’s bad marketing to go so far away
from our real experiences.”
One advertising planner, Jane Cunningham, told Campaign: “Men and women are
hardwired differently. They process information differently and have
different behavioural default settings. The smarter brands have already
started to recognise this.
“There is huge creative potential in the differences between men and women. It
provides fodder for creating realistic character and dialogue, as well as
differentiated and properly relevant brand positioning.”
Marian Salzman, a serial predictor of marketing trends, is busy promoting the
successor to the metrosexual. Her sarong-wearing sweetie is being elbowed
aside by the “über-sexual”, an uncompromisingly masculine type engaged in a
relentless search for fine and stylish things. David Beckham morphs into
Daniel Craig and Jeremy Clarkson finds himself preaching to the converted.
So here’s the message of the modern advertising industry: bless everyone’s
cotton little socks. Long live our different hardwiring and opposing
behavioural default systems. And the min don’t have to march on Soho after
all.
Grunting, dimwit, male stereotypes alarm fathers
In a smart bar lissom, single women sip cocktails and contemplate potential
mates. The prospects do not look good, however, for the men in the bar
aren’t men at all – they’re pigs. This was the premise of a
recent US advertisement for that nation’s market-leader condom brand,
Trojan. The punchline came when one pig trotted off to the gents, bought
himself one of its products and was transformed back into Homo sapiens. Ads
such as these have led to an increasingly strident protest at the way that
men are portrayed in the media.
According to Paul Nathanson and Katharine Young, two authors at the heart of
the movement, the advert exemplifies the growing phenomenon of misandry:
hatred of men. They insist that misandry is now pervasive and that we should
be every bit as alert to it as we are to misogyny.
They argue that men are now routinely defined by a limited set of negative
stereotypes: the man as fool, slob or irrelevance. And they contend that
nowhere are these archetypes more apparent than in advertising.
But is it really of concern? “Ask women why they thought it was a problem when
they were ridiculed,” says Nathanson. “I don’t think men and women are
different in that respect. Do two wrongs make a right?”
Left unchallenged, he says, these images take on the patina of truth that will
seep into the minds of those who implement laws and develop policy.
One man making a stand is Glenn Sacks, an American journalist whose newsletter
reaches 50,000 subscribers. In 2004 he was alerted to an ad for Verizon. It
showed a father trying to help his daughter with her maths homework only to
be humiliated by her and her mother.
Sacks, who has a son and daughter, says: “The worst thing about it was not
that it shows the man being an idiot, because we see that all the time, but
seeing the man portrayed as an idiot in front of his daughter and ridiculed
by her mother in front of his daughter.”
He says his campaign prompted 3,000 people to contact Verizon and the ad was
pulled.
But what most concerns Sacks, Nathanson and Young is the potential impact on
boys growing up surrounded by images that tell them there is no acceptable
or dignified way to be a man.
“If you just have a bunch of negative images, how are boys ever going to
develop a positive image of themselves?” says Young.
Sacks is appalled by the Trojan advert, and concerned about the message it
sends to boys such as his 14-year-old son. “A boy looking at that would
think that men are just inferior, disgusting animals and have to change and
jump through hoops in order to be as good as women.”
Like Nathanson, he doesn’t believe that these stereotypes stay locked
harmlessly inside the TV. After a sex education class at school, his son
complained, “It’s always the boys who are wrong; boys who are trying to put
one over on the girls,” – “and they get this drum beat,” says
Sacks. “They are just fed a steady diet of this.”
Dan Bell
You occasionally see adverts involving violent sexual assault. I saw one recently, I think it was from France, at YouTube.
Imagine the outrage if an advert depicted a man kicking a woman between the legs, causing extreme pain and damage. Though the female equivalent does not actually compare.
Imagine it - and what's going on, that doing to a man is treated like a big joke, symbolic of an issue that's accepted, depicting an attitude that's being sanctioned.
"There are still a huge number of adverts that presume women are idiots, namely those of a cosmetic nature."
The point is, Dawn of Manchester, WOMEN LIKE the representations they see of women in cosmetics adverts. Your comparison is not valid at all. In fact taking it further, the fact that this is so invites criticism of those women in the same way macho after-shave adverts does to men who think a razor makes their car drive at 120 mph and their biceps about twice as big. It is not the same thing as the topic raised here.
Joe, Manchester,
Passing a shop window the other day I saw an advert for Fly Shoes featuring a woman holding a man in a headlock, her arm poised to punch him in the face, with the caption "Fashion to fight for" (or something similar.
If this had been reversed I expect the campaign would never have made it out of the Ad Agency's door.
Jon, London,
This article has clearly touched a nerve, and several comments have correctly placed advertisements in the wider context of how society views the roles of the sexes.
The advertising industry is brain-dead. It has not had an original idea in 30 years. In the 1970s dads were portrayed as bumbling idiots, whose inability to do a simple household task was matched only by their conviction that they were brilliant at it. All point and laugh at stupid, hopeless dad.
And yet the same insulting stereotype remains today. Dad is always the family clown, laughed at by his children and patronised by his superior wife. We know women are the biggest spenders and that advertisers pander to them; so are women still seduced by the idea that men are useless clods? If so they ought to be ashamed of themselves. So should the advertisers and their paymasters. Change the record please.
What to do meanwhile? Simple. Boycott the product and tell the manufacturer exactly why you are doing so.
paul parmenter, Norfolk, UK
"I still don't understand why you are so easily upset by adverts, are your ego's that small?"
Were the ego's of women so small when it was them under this kind of demeaning attack? Why is sexism seen by femininsts as a purely female plague? The same is true of domestic abuse (female only). Sexual assault (Female only). Child molesting (apparently, only men do it).
The truth is that PEOPLE are abusive and that abuse can take many forms and none of it is exclusive of either gender.
For the information of the writer of this piece, the growing and powerful world wide men's movement HAVE been protesting against this sick hatred of males for over 35 years and is growing in numbers every day as more and more men become angry at what is going on. Their message is simple: Men will no longer tolerate being abused by the media, the politicians, their wives and ex wives, the legal system or each other. The fury is growing and it is an out of touch fool that thinks it is not.
George Rolph, London, UK
Part I
Great The TimesOnline that you finally started to expose what is horrible problem experienced as oppression and tyranny in brother-jurisdictions of UK, Canada, AU, NZ, (and many US States, but NOT ALL), perpetrated by gov. and powers of all walks of life under control of so-called "Gender/Radical Feminist".
It is great that you cited brilliant Canadian Professor from McGill U., Katharine Young (and co-author Paul Nathanson) because Canadian situation is unbearable. And what a coincidence! : only a day after this article there was a BIG WIN, a first ever, by Peter Regan of Alberta, Canada, a single father of 10yr son, and all concerned Canadian men and fathers.
Peter complained to Advertising Standards Canada (ASC) against male-discrimination in TV commercial promoting RONA, the chain of building supply stores.
(to be continued in Part II)
joanna, Toronto, Canada
Note to Rob:
Yes, it _is_ necessary to have a men's movement., just as it was necessary to have feminism to correct wrongs against women. However, one thing I have noticed about most men's rights advocates, is that they are for true equality, not about being "more equal". It is not like a pendulum, that is a gross misconception.
The men's movement will be the longest of all rights movements. It will last at least through the end of this century. Get used to it.
Norman Lathers, Thousand Oaks, California
Sorry Dawn,not true ,you want to be far more than equal,if equality was all you wanted,ie;equal pay for equal work,equality in law,no positive discrimination,no lowering of standards in the fire service,forces,police etc etc feminists would now be trying to save men from the consequences of
misandric family courts,disastrous divorces,a one sided media,recognition that women can be as violent as men and are not getting punished in the courts for things as bad as murder,false accusations ,trying to bring boys up as girls ,
getting rid of male teachers by intense pc and teaching boys
incorrectly the female way.
Some women do get it and are active supporters of mens groups but most,like yourself it seems are only to happy to retain the status quo,hardly equal rights enthusiasts.
mike savell, eastbourne, east sussex
Interesting article but I'm sorry but so what? No really...
If you believe that your children perceive gender roles exclusively through adverts than perhaps it's time you turn off the TV and participate in the lives of your children. Many are media savy and won't be as deeply scarred as some here appear to think.
Children gain their perspectives (or lack there of) from their parents. And perhaps it's time we give children a little credit. Girls and boys throughout history have been exposed to sex, violence and negative stereotypes, yet many went on to be productive members of society.
Brian, Los Angeles, USA/CA
There are lists on mras sites with offending misandric ads.
These firms are being blacklisted throughout the world and
offended people should not use their products.We know that women now control 82% of buying power at least in the uk
and perhaps men should get a grip and not allow women to
control their purchases so much.
mike savell, eastbourne, east sussex
As a supporter of true feminism, I am struck by the one such poster here who claims to be a supporter of the same. How ironic that in to make your point, you attempt to shame so many others here and with terms like "get over it" and grandizing your own self worth with proclamations of just how "secure" you are with your gender and everyone else is not. I'm sorry but what you are espousing is misandry, not true feminism. True Feminism espouses the strengths of a woman through positive example and strong belief in working together. The current doctrine of modern feminism is to degrade men in order to "lift" women from an long since dead era of control. What She and and many others in the current movement require is to silence those who challenge them, riducule and shame those who continue to voice a differing opinion, and to minimize men into a new class of citizen in order to advance women. Mysandric advertising is specific to targeting one class of emotion: unconscious retribution.
Chris Yarbrough, Memphis/Millington, Tennessee,USA
Feminism and Masculism are equally foolish, and until we have a culture that promotes a consistent, broadly acknowledged recognition of the inherent discrimination of any "-ism", we'll remain a fragmented archipelago of sectarian interests, each vying with the others for a position of advantage.
I fear for my young girls. The pendulum has a nasty habit of swinging back, usually with the help of angry hands, eager to see the other side suffer for a while. It's how we wound up here, isn't it?
I don't want to see a United Men's Front any more than I want to see the current League Of C's holding sway over our culture, but I fear it will come nonetheless. Our Western, largely Judeo-Christian oriented culture is no longer the 'only game in town', and there are others that will be considerably less sensitive 'setting things aright'.
It's time to stop the silliness, ladies and gentlemen. Get back to families, or you'll likely find that somebody else will institute a substitute.
Rob, Boston, MA
I have a daughter.
Will she be rightly educated or promoted on because she is female. Will she love her husband, or treat him as the pet toy-boy before the big divorce leaving (her property) the kids with out a father. I hope not.
I know Glenn Sacks work and opinions and he is spot on!
To fathers and mothers alike I give this unasked for advice, teach your children to respect and treat all equal. Now that really scares the dumb unmeritorious (bleach) blonde.
Stefano Genovese, London, England, UK
Maybe its time that us men band together and stop purchasing products from companies that belittle men in their advertising. I canceled my Verizon cell phone and ended service on my Verizon local & long distance line and switched to a competitor after Verizon aired the anti-father add. Now i save $40-50 a month after switching to Vonage.
Verizon is also predjudice and discriminative against non-spanish speaking white males in hiring practices. Verizon actually lowers the testing requirements for "spanish speaking" candidates as I discovered after reviewing my testing score. For candidates that did not speak spanish, their overall testing score had to be hire to qualify for the same position.
Scott Bauer, Marysville, WA, USA
Yes, and all chinese males have been portrayed as martial arts experts or geeks (e.g. Heroes, the Japanese comic book geek) on TV since the dawn of time. We've complained, yet nothing changes.
Jeff, Manchester,
A true feminist doesn't want to be a man, she just wants to be treated as an equal, a human being as opposed to a blow up doll, or a maid. And I'm sorry guys, but I still don't understand why you are so easily upset by adverts, are your ego's that small?
The argument put forward suggesting that adverts affect the way in which young boys view themselves is a fallacy. Where are their male role models? Or is the influence of their fathers and other male relatives so insignificant, that being surrounded by facets of an insipid, innane media is more worthy of attention for these boys?
I am not blonde, I am not size zero, but I am secure enough within myself to ignore the constant bombardment of these images on my person. It's called having a sense of self. Besides there are much more important things in the world to be concerned about.
Dawn, Manchester,
Frankly, even if all the actors portrayed intellegent angels, the content of nearly all ads gives the impression that all people are stupid beyond belief, blubbering over bedsheets that are white, carpet cleaners that smell fresh.
That and the fact that a typical show is more than half advertising makes commercial television unwatchable.
Darel, Tacoma, WA USA
What's this idea that we are responsible for the sexism of our grandfathers, great grandfathers and so on - and in consequence must accept female sexism as punishment. I wasn't around for the10,000 year Reich of male dominance so why do I have to be punished?
I think we have sat back and endured the put downs in the hope that it would level out, that perhaps some of this was justified and, if we were really honest, that by being submissive we might get into more than just a woman's head.
All that has happened is to create a generation of young men who have no real idea of what it is to be a man.
I've resolved that I am no longer pandering to the renaissance man vision - I'm going back to basics. Smoke cigars, watch football, grow facial hair, restore my old motorcycle, wear a base ball cap, read books about the Spitfire and not spray my body with this or that everytime I go into the bathroom. I am letting my male hormones take charge and to hell with the consequences.
H, London,
I think that the BT advert doesn't show a bungaling male but the efforts of a step father to integrate with children who arn't his. As a step father my self a lot of the situation in these adverts i have encountered and i laugthed but never once felt i was being humiliated or degraded. Maybe i have more confirdence in my self and my masculinity than the author.
Joe T, Ipswich,
I blaim Germaine-bloody-Grear.
Mark, Birmingham, UK
Dawn, adverts which portrayed women as weak in a paternalistic world did not attack the heart of femininity. In fact it was celebrated - an unfortunate fact that feminism was unable to deal with; a true feminist had to deny patriarchal notions of female identity and express herself as an equal which most often came to resemble that of a man. What is wrong with these adverts is the total emasculation of men and the denial of any validity of the role of men in our over-feminized advertising culture. Women were never denied the right to be women and to be feminine; they were denied power. Men are having everything taken away by being told that their existence is worthless. This is, for our wider society, much more dangerous and has to be stopped very soon.
PSF, London, UK
"well, if I tell younger readers that an ad for St Bruno tobacco showed a crowd of attractive women following a man, Pied Piper-like, through a town because he smoked a pipe, you will realise that this was indeed a different world"
Have you seen a recent Lynx advert?
Sexism just diversified.
FD, NY,
well done Dawn of Manchester..think u just proved the point made... two wrongs dont make a right...if its offensive for women, why is the same behaviour ok when directed at men.. unless of course u are suggesting thats its payback time? Portraying men or woman as dimwitted idiots is offensive to both.. merely portraying men as beings who truly do care that to "be the best a man can be" relies soley on his choice of razor is fatuous in the same way that portrayal of women being extra free to perform gymnastics becos of a particular winged or other panty liner she wears. The point is the portrayal of bimbos or bimbas, the advertisers best freind, the unrealistic dweeby pond life who cant handle basic cleaning products, help a daughter with maths homework wihout doh getting it all wrong sopily tripping over childs bike in the drive. thats the insipid drip drip drip of a gender being undermined and stereotyped.. and thats entirely wrong - male or female.
zugerman, zurich, Switzerland
What about all the ads that portray men as paedophiles or wife batterers? Does anyone really think that these do not adversely affect men?
Charles Williams, London,
There are still plenty of misogynist ads around --- it just uses irony as an excuse. But two wrongs don't make a right --- look at how many washing powder ads depict men as idiots who are incapable of doing a load of laundry.
Jamie, London,
There are still a huge number of adverts that presume women are idiots, namely those of a cosmetic nature.
Besides, I don't remember any men complaining when the shoe was on the other foot. Are you all so insecure in that you allow something as insignificant as advertising to rattle you? Men, get over yourselves.
Please!
Dawn, Manchester,
I don't know what the writer is worrying about. Adverts were always designed to appeal to women. Advertising Industry is an industry where they spend 95% of their money chasing 35% of the available income. Men are always portrayed as idiots in adverts - men just ignore those adverts and steer their partners away from products that give a negative male image. If you want proof that adverst are mainly aimed at women anyway, look at the adverts and the programmes that interrupt them - the biggest slots are always for "women's telly" (soaps, x-factor et al, anything with nauseating kids, etc).
Anyhow bloke adverts (drinking, smoking, laddishness) have all been banned. Thank god we can now advert zap and control the remote
Martin Wright, Birmingham, England
Both men and women are consumers so it doesn't make sense for advertisers to patronise or insult either sex. Presumably the only reason they cut down on making fun of women in adverts was because their market research showed that it didn't work with the audience anymore (if it ever did). The only reason advertisers will ever change their adverts is if their studies show them to be ineffective. Ads that portray men as idiots are as offensive to women, like me, who respect men just as any decent man is offended by an advert that belittles women. It's time the gender stereotyping stopped across the board: why does someone have to be made the butt of a joke for an ad to work?
The BT adverts that are mentioned in this article are a good example: there's no need to portray the father as a bumbling idiot. It makes the advert less effective and irritates me as a viewer. It's a sign of a childish mentality to need to make fun of or exclude a person to make others identify with you.
MB, Edinburgh,
I think linx adverts have a lot to answer for. I find them throughly offensive and derogatory towards both men and women.
Paul, Newcastle,
A great artical. This is something I've been feeling for a long time and I think it is fantastic that an artical like has made it's way into the media, although as you pointied out you first commented on it in 1988, I was 11 and didn't read The Times then.
James Whittle has also echoed some of my thoughts that the Modern White Male is the only demographoic not postively discriminated against.
Chris Murphy, High Wycombe, Bucks
Great article.
As women have increased their buying power so has the ad industry latched on like suckling piglets.
Eventually the ad industry,through research, found that women 25-54 to be the most impressionable among all demographic groups and the race was on.
The reason the ad industry attacks men in such droves is that it makes the female buyer feel EMPOWERED. And really, what is the risk to the advertiser? Men won't buy their product? They weren't going to anyway!
Unfortunately we don't need any negative stereotypes anywhere. Men don't deserve any more than women.
But hey, most people in the industry that I've experienced could care less about any lasting negative impact and could not possibly fathom it anyway.
It's all about the money.
Warren, Cincinnati, USA
There are also ads that specifically use transgendered people as a comic device to sell products as diverse as kitchen towels, women-only car insurance, soft drinks and even cosmetics. Perhaps they think they can 'get away' with picking on groups that are assumed to comprise relatively small numbers of consumers.
Rimmel recently ran a 'Glam Your Man' competition in which women were invited to submit photos of 'their men' wearing make-up which were then displayed on their website. The submitted photos were accompanied by captions that had a decidedly mocking and derisory tone to them. Furthermore, visitors to the website were encouraged to email them to friends, with frames in the shape of caricatured muscle-men 'thoughtfully' provided on Rimmel's website for this specific purpose.
Don't Rimmel realise that some of their customers actually are male-to-female transgendered people who are fed up with being marginalised and ridiculed?
http://www.morethan2genders.com/page6.
David Solomon, Cardiff, Wales, UK
I wholeheartedly agree. Thanks!
Wolfgang, Boulder, CO, USA
In a report on the problems facing junior doctors due to the chaos of the government's new job application scheme, shown on the BBC 10 o'clock news not so long ago, two images were used to illustrate the fact that many of the most highly qualified junior doctors were not being offered jobs, whereas less well qualified ones were. Needless to say the image of the doctor who had won prizes and gained a First Class degree was female whereas the poorly qualified one was male. As the mother of two boys I find this negative stereotyping of men very worrying.
Louise, Cambridge, UK
As art of my work i frequently commission adverts and short films.
In accordance prevailing trends the first half of an editorial meeting consists of ensuring we have the right balance of actors in terms of gender/race/culture/age etc and change scripts accordingly. The second stage is to determine which of these characters can play the fall guy that comedy demands or the bad guy that drama demands.
The only choice in the current PC culture is to make this character a young or middle aged white male. A choice of any other character would open our products to accusations of being something-ist and damage profits.
James Whittle, London,
All commercial advertising is crap. It's professional lying. Why should we expect it to show any respect?
Frank Upton, Solihull,
I have always assumed that the reason males are shown to be goofs in advertisements is that the people making the advetisements think that the only people who will be influenced are women?
Mick, LOndon ,