[Clueless]

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That's outrageous. Are you sure you watched Codes of Gender and not The Lame and Stupid Documentary that Achieves the Opposite of What It Intends? We see in poster Clueless the extent of the power of the Will to Disprove Everything Feminists Say.)

Oh gosh zibber, I'm so sorry for not falling in line like a good little sheeple and believing everything your flock believes, exactly as you believe it.

The funny thing is, I never disagreed with the broader theme of the documentary which is that women in advertising are portrayed just as they say.

Let me frame it in a different light for you.

All I pointed out was that many people (both women and men) actually have the traits portrayed in the advertising. Many people in this world are willing to accept subordinate participatory roles (everyone can't be the CEO), many people do display vulnerability and fragility as a part of their personal makeup. I don't disagree that portraying all women as sharing these traits is perpetuating the stereotype but my question is; what about those people whose personalities are more or less consistent with what's being depicted? Are they lesser people, less deserving of equality?

If you can't see that by continuing to portray human qualities that aren't consistent with "alpha male" characteristics as weaknesses that we're still perpetuating the same bias, I really don't have much hope for you.

Sorry I can't fall in line and agree, but it's got nothing to do with any counter agenda. Some of us just prefer to go through life with our eyes (and minds) open.

[vermeer]

Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

All I pointed out was that many people (both women and men) actually have the traits portrayed in the advertising. Many people in this world are willing to accept subordinate participatory roles (everyone can't be the CEO), many people do display vulnerability and fragility as a part of their personal makeup. I don't disagree that portraying all women as sharing these traits is perpetuating the stereotype but my question is; what about those people whose personalities are more or less consistent with what's being depicted? Are they lesser people, less deserving of equality?

Now don't get me wrong, but I just can't see where these statements are being made in the documentary. As far as I understood it, they're just pointing out differences in the (cultural) construct of the two genders - not much more. I'd say by doing so they're trying to highlight (& illustrate) that much of what is ascribed to both genders is in fact nothing more than a cultural construct. (I think you pointed out yourself that neither of the traits highlighted is in itself particularly 'male' or 'female'.) All other points you're making, at least if I didn't miss anything, seem to be your interpretation. Otherwise I'd be happy if you can point them out.

Now if I had to interpret it, I'd come to a completely different conclusion:
They neither seem to be making value judgements about these traits nor about people who want to comply to them. It's rather that these traits are assigned to you just because you happen to be 'male' or 'female', hence the whole rather being a critique of the binary framework in which we understand gender.

[Clueless]

Originally Posted by vermeer To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Now don't get me wrong, but I just can't see where these statements are being made in the documentary. As far as I understood it, they're just pointing out differences in the (cultural) construct of the two genders - not much more. I'd say by doing so they're trying to highlight (& illustrate) that much of what is ascribed to both genders is in fact nothing more than a cultural construct. (I think you pointed out yourself that neither of the traits highlighted is in itself particularly 'male' or 'female'.) All other points you're making, at least if I didn't miss anything, seem to be your interpretation. Otherwise I'd be happy if you can point them out. Now if I had to interpret it, I'd come to a completely different conclusion: They neither seem to be making value judgements about these traits nor about people who want to comply to them. It's rather that these traits are assigned to you just because you happen to be 'male' or 'female', hence the whole rather being a critique of the binary framework in which we understand gender.

Well there's no question that what I've offered is my interpretation. I may watch it again. I absolutely understood the broad point of the documentary being about the prevalence in advertising of assigning specific traits to specific sexes. But I also couldn't help but interpret an implication of negativity associated with the trait set itself. I think that what cinched it for me was the bit about advertisers being careful to include women in ads where men were otherwise depicted as demonstrating qualities of vulnerability. It was as if to imply that "we can't portray men as having these weaknesses, it may lead people to believe that they're homosexual or something so we better include some women".

My broad point is that it's not enough to simply disassociate the stereotype from the female sex. In order to truly facilitate gender equality we must disassociate implications of negativity with the traits being depicted. Otherwise anyone (male or female) who displays such traits is viewed as weak or flawed and less deserving of the full respect all humans should be entitled to expect.

[vermeer]

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think that what cinched it for me was the bit about advertisers being careful to include women in ads where men were otherwise depicted as demonstrating qualities of vulnerability. It was as if to imply that "we can't portray men as having these weaknesses, it may lead people to believe that they're homosexual or something so we better include some women".

I see what you mean, I guess the different take I have is this: I wouldn't say that's done because the traits as such are 'bad', but rather because they don't comply with the ideas of gender we have. Basically: men can't be shown this way because it's regarded as a female trait, not because the trait as such is undesirable. More like falling out of your "destined" role in society, hence the overall idea that not the people who don't fit in these roles are 'wrong', but that our idea of gender roles is.

[Clueless]

Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I agree. Reinforcing these hideous aspects of Western gender roles seems monumentally stupid. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So now I'm curious. Would you find it acceptable if we were to keep these adverts but legally required that the roles as depicted account for only 50% of all ads, while the other 50% of ads were exactly the same but with the sex of the models reversed?

This is what's confusing me. In your mind, are these "hideous" ads offensive because of the roles or because of the traits? If it's because of the roles, the 50% rule should appease you, because the traits would then be depicted as sex neutral.

Or do you find that my 50% rule would result in 1/2 of all ads demeaning women and the other half demeaning men?

[Nicole1975]

It wouldn't happen. That's kind of the point they are making in that video

[Clueless]

	Originally Posted by Nicole1975 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It wouldn't happen. That's kind of the point they are making in that video

While I am a fan of pragmatism, I really would like an attempted answer to the theoretical I proposed. I'm simply trying to explore this a bit deeper to satify my own curiousity.

Please indulge me.

[plotthickens]

Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So now I'm curious. Would you find it acceptable if we were to keep these adverts but legally required that the roles as depicted account for only 50% of all ads, while the other 50% of ads were exactly the same but with the sex of the models reversed? This is what's confusing me. In your mind, are these "hideous" ads offensive because of the roles or because of the traits? If it's because of the roles, the 50% rule should appease you, because the traits would then be depicted as sex neutral. Or do you find that my 50% rule would result in 1/2 of all ads demeaning women and the other half demeaning men?

No. Violence and abuse is not acceptable no matter the gender of those involved. That women are continuously shown as the abused, unable to fight back or stand up or prevent the abuse, and men the abusers, without heart or conscience or humanity, is a sad reality.

In the same vein, showing dads as stupid clueless idiots to be the butt of jokes on Sitcoms is unacceptable. It's convenient but it's WRONG.

[vermeer]

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This is what's confusing me. In your mind, are these "hideous" ads offensive because of the roles or because of the traits? If it's because of the roles, the 50% rule should appease you, because the traits would then be depicted as sex neutral.

I don't know if 'offensive' really is the right term (at least for me that doesn't quite fit). I'd have to answer: neither, because I don't care too much about these ads per se. They're just an easy way to point out something that's underlying.

Discourse analysis is rather common when it comes to the analysis of social constructs. Advertising is just one part of this discourse. I think you could say that it both mirrors what many people find acceptable/desirable/etc. and reinforces these ideas. Analysing it makes sense in respect of addressing a relatively wide audience, because people are familiar with these images. It's easily accessible and also relatively easy to analyse. That doesn't mean that simply changing advertisement is a solution to the underlying issues. (To me that sounds like a 'symptomatic treatment'.) Apart from that, in your suggestion you still restrict yourself to the idea of there only being two genders.

[Clueless]

Originally Posted by vermeer To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I don't know if 'offensive' really is the right term (at least for me that doesn't quite fit). I'd have to answer: neither, because I don't care too much about these ads per se. They're just an easy way to point out something that's underlying. Discourse analysis is rather common when it comes to the analysis of social constructs. Advertising is just one part of this discourse. I think you could say that it both mirrors what many people find acceptable/desirable/etc. and reinforces these ideas. Analysing it makes sense in respect of addressing a relatively wide audience, because people are familiar with these images. It's easily accessible and also relatively easy to analyse. That doesn't mean that simply changing advertisement is a solution to the underlying issues. (To me that sounds like a 'symptomatic treatment'.) Apart from that, in your suggestion you still restrict yourself to the idea of there only being two genders.

I understand your position but my query was intended for a specific poster, I don't assume that the images are perceived as offensive by all viewers.

And you're mistaken, there are no restrictions inherent in my proposal with regard to gender, only an acknowledgment that the ads themselves are widely perceived to represent actors who are either biologically male or biologically female.

---------- Post added 06-22-2012 at 09:15 AM ----------

Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

No. Violence and abuse is not acceptable no matter the gender of those involved. That women are continuously shown as the abused, unable to fight back or stand up or prevent the abuse, and men the abusers, without heart or conscience or humanity, is a sad reality. In the same vein, showing dads as stupid clueless idiots to be the butt of jokes on Sitcoms is unacceptable. It's convenient but it's WRONG.

Thank you for the response. It was consistent with my expectations.