I get fairly annoyed at "Look at my boobs!" ads, no matter what they're advertizing. They don't endear me at all to the companies using this type of advertizement, but apparently they work - at least, they get people's attention, kind of like those annoying "Stop staring at me! Advertize here!" posters. It would be nice if they'd just disappear, but should the government ban them? Do the Europeans need the government to save them from their shallow masses?
Eva-Britt Svensson thinks so. Ms Svensson said: "Gender stereotyping in advertising straitjackets women, men, girls and boys by restricting individuals to predetermined and artificial roles that are often degrading, humiliating and dumbed down for both sexes."
Um, no, actually, this individual isn't "restricted," but thanks for your concern. Of course people are influenced by ads, but that's one of those things your kindergarten teachers and parents teach you when you're little - it's on TV... it's in an ad... it's not REAL. We nevertheless go through phases (the stupidity of youth) when we think these images mean something, and some of us never leave ("OMG, my Prada bag is so out of season! What will the neighbors think?") - but changing ads won't eliminate the problems of obsessing over a particular vision of womanliness/manliness because the ads were never the source of these attitudes - the ads just reflect ideas that are already out there.
Clearly, these ads don't work for everyone, like Svensson and me. If enough people say, hey, we're annoyed, the advertizers will choose new campaigns to appeal to more people (like Dove does). The solution should come from the people, not from on high.
And anyway, what if such restrictions were to go into effect? Would only men be allowed to advertize skillets? What happens when THAT becomes a gender stereotype? "Oh, you know, men and their skillets!" Who knows.
Svensson also said: "Gender stereotyping in advertising is one of several factors that have a big influence in efforts to make society more gender equal. When women and men are portrayed in a stereotypical way the consequence may be that it becomes difficult in other contexts to see women and men's resources and abilities."
Well, if you look more at ads than reality, sure, it could be difficult to see men and women as individuals with overlapping skill sets. And THAT is a problem. But controlling what people are exposed to isn't going to make them better at seeing through the stereotypes.
I'm curious to know what Svensson's idea of "gender equal" is. Does she really mean "gender equal" or "gender same"? I don't think she could be called a "difference feminist" - the feminists who acknowledge inherent differences between men and women. I guess in her perfect world, 50% of construction workers would be women - anything less would be "unfair" or the product of some enforced patriarchal blah blah blah.
The important thing is to make it so that when people want to cross the usual gender lines, they can and can do so without being harrassed. That's why we have anti-discrimination laws, which basically tell people not to be douchebags, and help women break into new fields in the REAL WORLD (as opposed to in ads). The more the real world changes, the more 1) ads will change, and 2) ads that are sexist won't be able to hold people back because fewer people will buy into what those images represent.
By the way, prohibiting ads that show sexist (including, OMG, people in traditional gender roles!) images is not the same as prohibiting discrimination. Anti-discrimination laws make it less difficult for people to do what they want - they don't FORCE them to break out of certain molds. That's the problem with Svensson's idea - its real world equivalent is some government official telling a stay at home mom that she's a bad influence on society and had better put her kid in day care and get a job. Or telling a construction worker that he has to give up his job, and starve himself so he can fit into skinny jeans because his current job and body represent that old kind of manliness.
Fortunately, the Advertising Standards Authority isn't buying Svensson's plan: "The Advertising Standards Authority however had said there are already checks in place to prevent 'discriminatory or harmful' material. A spokesman said: 'Although the ASA supports the overall objectives of the report... the approach suggested is inflexible and impractical.'"
What Svensson SHOULD do is start her own campaign - some "think outside the box" ads with women as breadwinners and men as stay at home dads and women building houses and men sewing (aside: there is TOTALLY nothing unmanly about sewing. At all.) Instead of trying to control what's out there to be seen, Svensson should join in the conversation and compete fairly for the attention of the people.
In conclusion, fuck anti-freedom totalitarian fascists. The end. ^__^
Labels: gender, silliness, society
Oh, shut up. Leave it to the Times to put a negative slant on a working mom when that mom is conservative. Nicely done, scumbags.
I wonder if, in this case, we should think of Sarah as the working Dad and Todd as the working Mom. Of course Sarah will be crazy busy! I hope her hubby will have more time for the kids. I'm gonna keep an eye out for info on this subject.
Of course, no one bitches about men in politics who leave their kids halfway across the country with moms who work. Never, ever.
Labels: douchebaggery, gender, news, politics
These long links are really messing up my layout
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1023168/Why-hurt-feelings-worth-250-000-para-woman.htmlAnyway. Let's talk about sex change operations. Well, no. Let's talk about what it means to be a woman.
Excerpt: "We meet at her home in Lytham, the small seaside town near Blackpool, and it is hard to picture this heavily made-up brunette as a respected Army captain. Her femininity may still be challenged by a husky voice and unmistakably broad shoulders, but her size 12 shape is remarkably womanly.
Her new body is hugged by blue jeans, a fitted jacket and a tight vest top which highlights the cleavage of her breast implants. She towers in stiletto ankle boots that add unnecessary inches, yet says her frame is rapidly diminishing as oestrogen hormone therapy atrophies her muscle mass.
Her flat is a paean to feminine taste, all mauve drapes, vases of lilies, bowls of toffees on glass tables, next to a Sophia Loren book called Women And Beauty."
I have no idea what it's like to feel like you're the wrong gender. Scary and frustrating to a level I have never experienced, I imagine. But when I read the above, I thought, "s/he's more girly than I am!" I am rather girly. I squeal when I'm excited. I like sparkly things, and you know, girly stuff. But it sounds to me like Jan's trying a little too hard (she does have something to prove). Or maybe she just really likes mauve. But I honestly don't understand... well, I don't understand gender issues. I went to a women's college and they tried to "shape" my life and teach me about how men were constantly making life so terribly unfair for women (but never teaching us what to DO about it, other than voting for Hillary. Um, no) but at the same time how gender is "fluid" (does that sound gross? I think it's just the word "fluid." Sorry, I'll grow up now).
And, since I recently saw Sex and the City, I'm in kind of a "NO! That is not what being a woman is about! Wasting money on expensive shoes when we could be feeding starving people is NOT womanly. It's just retarded" kind of mood.
I've neer been sorry I'm a woman, but a lot of that is probably because I've never thought "I can't do what I want because I'm a woman." Well, except lift heavy things. But that's not really because I'm a woman - it's because I'm freaking tiny, and not like my friend Dana, who has these broad shoulders and could probably carry her boyfriend up a hill if she had to and is totally beautiful.
I don't know what women are "supposed" to be in our society. People complain about how women are expected to be dainty and weak, but I don't know who expects that. Plenty of people over the years have expected women to be strong (anyone remember the Great Depression?) If a lot of people expected me to be weak, I would probably be in a rage all the time. But even growing up in what I guess was a conservative household (Dad worked, Mom raised me and planted things and volunteered) I never felt like I was limited by being a girl (except for the overprotectiveness thing... which I totally understand, actually... "Look at those girl out at the mall with no parents around! How easily could they be kidnapped? I don't think they know kung fu!" Just wait 'til I'm a mom, oh man...).
Well, there was this one time. Mom didn't think playing bass (upright... yeah, the BIG violin thing, uh huh) was "ladylike." Too bad - I'd already seen that Elvis movie where the guy lays the bass on its side, stands on it, and plays rock and roll (BTW, don't stand on your bass. They are wood and can break. Fortunately, this has never happened to me, I swear). I told my girl friends in about 3rd grade after I'd seen the movie that I was gonna play bass someday. They were like, yeah, uh huh, right. I don't know why; I think they were just being contrary. One of those girls, who I met up with a couple years ago, didn't remember saying that and didn't know why she would have. Silly elementary school things.
So, when 6th grade orchestra started, I signed up to play bass. The teacher, a woman, said, if you can carry it, you can play it. Fortunately, basses are hollow, so that worked (I can actually lift one above my head and carry it across a crowded practice room - it's more a matter of balance than strength). And now, my mum realizes that, as I'm rather ladylike (ignore the manly belching, please; it's involuntary. Usually.), playing bass does not make a woman unladylike. And of course Mom's proud of my musical accomplishments.
But, as much as you hear about glass ceilings and such, in certain areas in a lot easier for women to be "manly" than for men to be "womanly," which isn't really fair. There's no reason why men can't wear skirts (ask the Scots) or paint their nails (although, as I haven't painted mine in years, I personally would not date a man who's all into manicures... but then again, I don't think metro guys are really worried about what I think of them ^_^ ). Oh, guess who's had nailpolish on his nails more recently than I have - my DAD! Mr. former Navy so not feminine in any way doesn't want his nails to look like total crap. And as he wouldn't know how to fix them himself he's has had a couple manicures, even with some clear polish (which he didn't like, but when he realized that buffing makes his nails shiny anyway, he was like, oh well).
There are just too many issues in this gender topic to really go into it (like, what about boys who like to play with tea sets and Barbies but are straight? I remember reading an article in class about boys who think they're gay bc they like to do ballet or whatever and then realize, wait... I actually don't like guys... I like chicks... hm).
I do tend to think that men and women have some inherent differences/gender defining qualities, but they're manifested in a variety of ways, and it doesn't make sense to say "only women like such and such" or "that's a man thing." I think we cause trouble for ourselves when we try to define gender by likes and dislikes and colors and shoes and jobs.
I guess I wonder if we did that less, would Jan have felt the need to physically become a woman? Maybe, but would that be the case with all transvestites? She said it's really important for her to be seen as a woman, and I think that's similar to how it's really important for women to be seen as the type of woman they want to be seen as (hot, fashionable, strong, dangerous, whatever). *Shrug*
Well, this has been rambly. Time to be productive.
Labels: gender, society
