Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    It's still short, it's just not military grade short. How often do male models have shoulder lengthed hair or even long hair? Hair length is just an example of socially constructed gender stratification.
    A lot of male models actually have long hair. I think it can be quite attractive.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pandabird)
    They don't all have short hair, one seems to have a bit of a fringe going on. Because maybe it's not meant to be taken seriously?? But I see what you're getting at...


    Although, don't call female models 'anorexic'. It is a serious mental illness, and I really dislike the term being thrown around so lightly.
    This is what I mean. I'm not calling all models anorexic, some are just thin but there are some models whom are anorexic and this is reinforcing the female sterotype.

    If anorexic models weren't used at all then maybe less pressure would be put upon teens to become stupidly thin.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)
    I'm a feminist, and objectification of anyone pisses me off. Male or female.

    The thing that annoys me about the American Apparel advert though, is that she's not wearing any underwear. Why? Who the Hell lies around wearing a jumper and make up but no underwear?
    lol
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guru Jason)
    This is what I mean. I'm not calling all models anorexic, some are just thin but there are some models whom are anorexic and this is reinforcing the female sterotype.

    If anorexic models weren't used at all then maybe less pressure would be put upon teens to become stupidly thin.
    This makes me so annoyed. Anorexia is not merely induced by seeing a size 0 catwalk model. And skinny catwalk models aren't even around anymore. Most high street models are actually a size 8/10. Most actresses are an 8-12.

    People suffering from anorexia do not suddenly suffer from a severe mental illness through something as superficial as seeing skinny catwalk models. It may manifest itself in that way but it is the result of far deeper, often numerous issues. I know someone who used to suffer from anorexia who finds it insulting that people think it's as superficial as merely wanting to be like those catwalk models.

    And secondly, look at the incidence of adolescent obesity. To be quite honest, I think more pressure should be put on adolescent to be fit and healthy. Not stupidly thin, but healthy.

    Obesity is a much larger and more expensive problem than anorexia. But we're going off point.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    So it got banned. You can't argue that it's unacceptable, have society agree with you (assuming ASA's views are in line with the public's), then claim society thinks it's acceptable.

    Yes, and they are exceptions. Generally male perfume has just a man in it, and if it does have a woman it's because they're doing a joint advert for perfumes for both sexes.

    That's not the whole of it though. I can't think of a direct comparison, but perhaps the closest would be an advert for muscle gain powder where the model had pec implants and/or used steroids, no way is that selling. Part of the reason why attractive women are portrayed so much is because women (for whatever reason) buy into it. It isn't a double standard set by the advertisers, they're just responding to demand, and I don't think we need to aim for an equal amount of men objectifying adverts to 'balance it out' since the vast majority of objectifying women is done by/for women.

    Most of the objectification of women is 'self inflicted', which I don't think needs to be balanced out by 'attacking' men in an equal amount. I think you have a point when it's one gender objectifying the other, but I don't see the reasoning to ensure that women's adverts objectify men as much as they do women.

    Maybe. Though I do have some objection to selling a product using a certain thing if the product has nothing to do with that thing. It's their advert, sure, but I think it would be good for society to insist on relevant information and frown on irrelevance.

    And I'm not sure what you're referring to here
    Yes, women buy into it - because...? It's a circular thing; adverts create the impression that women have to be attractive to be wanted, so adverts can sell products that women believe will make them attractive.

    I think adverts are now trying to do the same thing for men; I've been seeing a lot of "buy this soap/moisturiser/perfume and people will respect you more" type advertising lately. In a way, advertising for men is its own type of sexism, because a disproportionate amount is geared towards "buy this and you will BE MORE MANLY", like this one for Burger King: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGLHlvb8skQ
    Salads are "chick food". Burgers are MAN FOOD. Buy burgers because YOU ARE MAN. God, I get so frustrated by this kind of bull. It's just food. Anyone can eat food, it's not like tampons where you'd have to be a very creative man to find a suitable use for them.
    (I found the link to the BK ad on this article: http://www.cracked.com/article_19758...ed-to-men.html which is an interesting read.)

    I'm not buying your argument that the vast majority of female objectification is done by & for women. Other examples - page 3, which is obviously aimed at men, by & for men, and the booth babes/grid girls thing I mentioned above. Not appealing for women at all. Women do objectify other women, of course, and so do men; but I think setting it up as a dichotomy where women are doing stuff to other women in a sphere that doesn't affect men is false, because both genders consume adverts, create adverts, and - often - buy the products advertised "to women". (Like Galaxy chocolate, the advertising of which seems to be pretty solidly aimed at women; but it's not like men have a gene that means they don't like mid-range milk chocolate.)

    Basically, I think men and women should be treated the same in public discourse, part of which is adverts. Women and men don't exist in separate spheres; in the main, both genders see all adverts, and adverts which are aimed specifically at men or at women can influence buying decisions of the non-target gender as well.

    Unilever try to sell their deodorants on the "it will get you laid!" tagline, and in a way I guess that's what lots of people buy deodorant for; they want to appear attractive. So it is relevant, in a roundabout type way. TBH the reason people buy all kinds of products is because they want to gain some variety of social status, whether it's sexual attractiveness, increased career performance, more respect from friends, etc.

    The space thing is this: https://www2.axeapollo.com/en_GB/
    It's a competition Lynx are running whereby if you win, you get sent into space. (Maybe; the T&Cs give them a lot of wriggle room because obviously the technology is still very expensive.) The advertising is very solidly aimed at MEN being MANLY and going into space, but the T&Cs don't actually exclude women entrants; in most countries. In Russia, Mexico, the Ukraine, Indonesia, and a few other countries women aren't allowed to enter the competition.

    It's here: http://spacekate.com/2013/hey-lynx-a...stronauts-too/
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    But you are wrong if you complain about a mild 'badness' but not about a major one. Any arguments you use against the milder one immediately become disingenuous when you refuse to use them against the greater bad.
    No they don't...

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ultimate1)
    Yes it is natural and by that I meant that it is the human imperative to objectify people/objects to make a connection.. If you can change this natural imperitive then all the powerr to you.
    Something being human imperative is irrelevant to whether or not it is good or bad. One could argue that a lot of things we consider to be bad actions are "human imperative".

    (Original post by Ultimate1)
    Also most female/male objectification isn't bad. I mean what's bad about seeing a man with a good body and vice versa for women?
    Well, I am a bit of a fence-sitter on this issue. It was just that particular argument I was responding to.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wildbluesun)
    Yes, women buy into it - because...? It's a circular thing; adverts create the impression that women have to be attractive to be wanted, so adverts can sell products that women believe will make them attractive.
    Because women like that sort of thing. The only people who can break the cycle are the women buying the stuff, it's not men's fault, and there's no reason to 'balance it out' by getting women to objectify men too.

    I think adverts are now trying to do the same thing for men; I've been seeing a lot of "buy this soap/moisturiser/perfume and people will respect you more" type advertising lately. In a way, advertising for men is its own type of sexism, because a disproportionate amount is geared towards "buy this and you will BE MORE MANLY", like this one for Burger King: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGLHlvb8skQ
    Salads are "chick food". Burgers are MAN FOOD. Buy burgers because YOU ARE MAN. God, I get so frustrated by this kind of bull. It's just food. Anyone can eat food, it's not like tampons where you'd have to be a very creative man to find a suitable use for them.
    (I found the link to the BK ad on this article: http://www.cracked.com/article_19758...ed-to-men.html which is an interesting read.)
    That's more acceptable though, since it's advertising men to men. If men didn't buy that stuff then it would no longer be shown. The people it affects have the power to change it, if they so wish, which is not the case for cross-gender advertising.

    I'm not buying your argument that the vast majority of female objectification is done by & for women. Other examples - page 3, which is obviously aimed at men, by & for men, and the booth babes/grid girls thing I mentioned above. Not appealing for women at all. Women do objectify other women, of course, and so do men; but I think setting it up as a dichotomy where women are doing stuff to other women in a sphere that doesn't affect men is false, because both genders consume adverts, create adverts, and - often - buy the products advertised "to women". (Like Galaxy chocolate, the advertising of which seems to be pretty solidly aimed at women; but it's not like men have a gene that means they don't like mid-range milk chocolate.)
    You're conflating two things here. A company is entitled to market a product to a specific group of people, Galaxy doesn't have to advertise to men as well as women, and presumably it doesn't do so because spending its budget on women brings in more profit.

    Isn't most objectification of women done by women? Most of the stuff you buy is advertised by a needlessly attractive woman. You'll compliment your friends' appearances far more than men do. You buy magazines filled with photos of celebrities caught without makeup/having gained weight/other physical perceived fault far more than men. Of course, these are generalisations, but you must see these to be true in your everyday life. I'm not trying to present a dichotomy, it's just that stuff aimed at women objectifies women far more than stuff aimed at men does, and women keep buying it.

    Basically, I think men and women should be treated the same in public discourse, part of which is adverts. Women and men don't exist in separate spheres; in the main, both genders see all adverts, and adverts which are aimed specifically at men or at women can influence buying decisions of the non-target gender as well.
    I think it's fair enough to target one gender over another with advertising, just leave the other gender out of it if they aren't relevant to the product.

    Unilever try to sell their deodorants on the "it will get you laid!" tagline, and in a way I guess that's what lots of people buy deodorant for; they want to appear attractive. So it is relevant, in a roundabout type way. TBH the reason people buy all kinds of products is because they want to gain some variety of social status, whether it's sexual attractiveness, increased career performance, more respect from friends, etc.
    Yeah, I think Lynx/Impulse makes sense, though I'm not completely okay with it. It can be seen as slightly degrading (if you argue that someone finding you irresistably attractive is degrading to them), but there is a somewhat valid reason for it. However, the gambling advert mentioned in this thread has no reason whatsoever.

    The space thing is this: https://www2.axeapollo.com/en_GB/
    It's a competition Lynx are running whereby if you win, you get sent into space. (Maybe; the T&Cs give them a lot of wriggle room because obviously the technology is still very expensive.) The advertising is very solidly aimed at MEN being MANLY and going into space, but the T&Cs don't actually exclude women entrants; in most countries. In Russia, Mexico, the Ukraine, Indonesia, and a few other countries women aren't allowed to enter the competition.

    It's here: http://spacekate.com/2013/hey-lynx-a...stronauts-too/
    Your first link takes me to a page where the links won't work, and your second seems to be more about getting women into science, and I'm not sure the advert's going to discourage any girl who really wants to get into it. It 'discourages' girls from getting into science in the same way that Thatcher being PM 'discouraged' boys from becoming politicians. It doesn't encourage, of course, but that's not an advertiser's responsibility.

    I also don't see the problem with saying something's "manly" to get men to go for it. Similarly for the Burger King advert you posted above, it's just targeting the intended audience.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    No they don't...

    In one shop: "£10? That's too expensive!"
    Later, in another, for the same item: "£15? I'll have it!"

    That's stupid, and wrong. The logic doesn't follow.

    I'm not passing judgement myself on whether the price is right or wrong, just pointing out that whoever says that is wrong, most likely lying about why they chose not to buy from the first shop. For this thread, you're wrong if you argue that modelling clothes is too objectifying, but irrelevantly posing half naked isn't too objectifying.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Not really. If you read my later posts you'd notice I actually said that I was bench sitter on this issue. If I said something like "you made an appeal to nature therefore you are wrong" then yes, it would be a fallacy fallacy, but I didn't; I just pointed out a fallacy in one of the arguments he used. Also, even if that was a fallacy fallacy, it would also make your rebuttal a fallacy fallacy fallacy.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    If I said something like "you made an appeal to nature therefore you are wrong" then yes, it would be a fallacy fallacy, but I didn't
    "The fallacy fallacy, you presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong."

    Presumably you weren't trying to argue that he was correct when pointing out his "fallacy".

    In any case I consider your choice not to actually address the content of his post and instead pull out the fallacy card, a use of the fallacy fallacy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mc1000)

    Her argument against this was than women's breasts are sexual, and thus it is justified that it's illegal for public exposure. .
    Haha! I love this!

    It's like people believe you have sex using breasts..

    they are sexual because we make them that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voltozonic)
    Here are a few examples that annoy me each time i see them.

    1) The Bertolli advert where the old woman orders her dog to pull the towel off the younger gentlement when he leaves comes out of the sea and back onto the beach. And then the three pervy old women sit an perv on him.

    Millions upon millions of chocolate adverts involving women playing pranks on handsome men, such as stealing their clothes when they're in the shower causing the dude to come out naked (Kinder Bueno) - Imagine that in reverse, there would be uproar!... There recent one at the moment aswell i believe where the dude falls over in a shop and the women just ignore him because chocolate is more important...

    Most women never seem to see it in reverse. Most of my feminist friends pick up on every single thing that is done in society against women and go "oh yeah i never saw that" when i point something out to them which is similar against men.
    The diet coke one where they roll the tin down the hill!

    (Original post by pandabird)
    A lot of male models actually have long hair. I think it can be quite attractive.
    Yes, yes, yes. Long hair
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    "The fallacy fallacy, you presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong."

    Presumably you weren't trying to argue that he was correct when pointing out his "fallacy".
    He suggested that since sexual objectification was part of human nature that it was therefore okay. I pointed out that this was a fallacy. I wasn't necessarily intended to prove him wrong; I was just playing Devil's Advocate.

    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    In any case I consider your choice not to actually address the content of his post and instead pull out the fallacy card, a use of the fallacy fallacy.
    Well, that was the only bit I truly cared about. I concede that I did make that fallacy though.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    He suggested that since sexual objectification was part of human nature that it was therefore okay. I pointed out that this was a fallacy. I wasn't necessarily intended to prove him wrong; I was just playing Devil's Advocate.



    Well, that was the only bit I truly cared about. I concede that I did make that fallacy though.
    Fair doos.

    I think we could go on about fallacies till the cows come home so I shall give you a dignified nod and move along.

    *nods*
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voltozonic)
    I completely agree.

    Worst yet is that all the half-wit males on here acting like they are not bothered because they're manly and they don't give a damn blah blah... idiots.

    Feminism is about complete equality between men and women. Women feel good for being feminists and of course they should be. But it applies both ways and a lot of people seem to forget that.

    Further examples of the double standards in our society is TV advertising.

    Here are a few examples that annoy me each time i see them.

    1) The Bertolli advert where the old woman orders her dog to pull the towel off the younger gentlement when he leaves comes out of the sea and back onto the beach. And then the three pervy old women sit an perv on him.

    Millions upon millions of chocolate adverts involving women playing pranks on handsome men, such as stealing their clothes when they're in the shower causing the dude to come out naked (Kinder Bueno) - Imagine that in reverse, there would be uproar!... There recent one at the moment aswell i believe where the dude falls over in a shop and the women just ignore him because chocolate is more important...

    Most women never seem to see it in reverse. Most of my feminist friends pick up on every single thing that is done in society against women and go "oh yeah i never saw that" when i point something out to them which is similar against men.
    Couldn't agree more.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    Sheila's Wheels is another ploy advertising example which takes advantage of the double standards of sexism in the UK. If there'd been a company called 'George's Wheels' or 'Andrew's Wheels' instead that pandered specifically to men then there'd be uproar.

    No there wouldnt. The only people who would care are feminazi's out to cause trouble and there's far less of them, than women who wouldnt give a damn.

    It still presents men in an unrealistic, objectified fashion with their tops off.
    unrealistic? You werent at the gay club i was at last weekend, obviously

    I get what you are trying to say, but i think nudity and sexual images are becoming more and more acceptable to everyone whatever the gender in them. I dont think this is necessarily a bad thing either.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think it's fair to say that rather than either sex being objectified, both are commodified.

    Now, I would concede this probably has some negative effects on society, on individual's self-confidence, and the like. But I also accept that this is probably an entirely predictable state of affairs in an advanced, consumer society that has broken free of many of the sexual restraints to which we used to be subject.

    I would also say that the commodification of women is, in some ways, qualitatitively different to that of men in the same way that the N-word has a lot more force and power than the word cracker.

    It has a lot to do with who historically (and still today) wields power. Objectification of men is no threat to men. Whereas in some ways we do some to be going backwards in the way women are treated and spoken of (unilads being a rather good example)
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)
    Not when I've been routinely objectified.

    However, even if it was merely for other people, it's my time to waste.
    But all humans routinely objectify each other, its what we do - is in our nature.

    We objectify based on looks, height, weight, car driven, house, job, social aspirations, hobbies, books read, films watched - the list goes on.


    (Original post by Jacob :))
    Surely the woman and the men were paid to do those adverts. If they are willing to be objectified for money who are we to stop them?
    This i agree with.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.