
|
| |||||||||||||
dumb,ass,misogynistic,shit,mayflower,moving company,bubble wrapped bride AssvertisingAssvertisingtags:
who voted for this video berticus
- EDD
- gwiz665
- Issykitty
who voted against this video EndAll
Assvertising Related Videos
| Watch this Video NextFriends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week Newest Appreciated Comments | ||||||||||||
oh i see, it's just a bunch of ill thought out reactionary garbage.
from provided link:
"Finally, it simply doesn't matter that the ad is not "meant to be sexist". Intent is irrelevant. the ad promotes retrogressive gender roles. If one has thoroughly internalized retrogressive ideas of gender roles, one doesn't have to "intend" to express sexist behavior--it just comes naturally."
the only retrogressive gender roles that the ad is showing are purely those from the marriage archetype (which is def. sexist), but those archetypes are also a long fucking way off from being viewed as the archaic exchange of ownership of property, er, woman contract it really is. so i think it's expecting way too much to demand a moving company to say to an advertising firm "we think the ad is cute'n'all, but we acknowledge the sexism inherent in our western wedding traditions and we don't want to convey our acceptance, passive or otherwise, in our ads."
also, the ad emphasizes "precious" as being the common link, not property. what they handle is irrelevant to the concept of the ad.
also, THIS IS A FUCKING AD. if you're looking for progressive commentary of gender issues, THIS IS THE LAST PLACE YOU SHOULD LOOK. and in response to the first comment in the blog, the ad would STILL make sense if the genders were reversed.
it's shit-headed thinking like this that holds back the progress toward real gender equality. this reaction honestly reminds me of getting stuck in an argument with some drunk fuck looking for a fight and starts putting words in your mouth like "YOU CALLING ME A LIER?" or "ARE YOU LOOKIN' AT MY GIRL?" and proceeds to push you around while you're wondering what the fuck is going on.
are you HONESTLY asking how this is misogynistic? did you watch the ad? did you read the thread? it's pretty fucking cut and dry, the guy treats his wife as though she is furniture.
i should have known better to post something like this to the sift, though. this place is a shithole when it comes to feminist issues.
i read the article and i read the thread. both are saturated with people looking for a fight in the wrong place. the arguments are moronic and i find this is encapsulated best with the first post:
"Who was it that proprosed the "reverse gender" test? I.e, if you don't think an ad's sexist, then try reversing the genders and see if it makes the same sense. Would Mayflower have a female mover tenderly wrapping up a handsome young groom dressed in black tie?
No?
Then it's sexist."
this is not true and is also indicative of the mindset of a person looking for a fight where there isn't one. like i said, it would have worked either way and it would have worked with anything. the only reason they went straight to the husband carrying the wife is because of wedding traditions, not sexism. like i said, there is misogyny in the ad, but only because it portrays patriarchal wedding traditions.
also, the author of the blog asserts that intent doesn't matter, which is factually incorrect especially with the english language as statements can be taken in a multitude of ways and the use of common colloquialisms. i would understand this sentiment if the underlying statement of the ad could only be taken one way, but that is not the case here. at all. the correlation you're railing against is incidental and a leap in logic.
gender roles and relations are insidious, but there are much better and more poignant examples of it that this. your feminist blog completely missed the mark on this. i'm not defending the ad. it's dumb and it does reference a very common sexist and patriarchal notion, just not the one you're crying foul about. what i'm criticizing is the bad logic.
ps. sexism does not mean that genders are viewed as different because that's stupid. it means discrimination against a gender or that one gender is viewed as being better than another and that clearly is not what's going on here.
aside from wedding traditions, how is this misogynistic?
oh i see, it's just a bunch of ill thought out reactionary garbage.
from provided link:
"Finally, it simply doesn't matter that the ad is not "meant to be sexist". Intent is irrelevant. the ad promotes retrogressive gender roles. If one has thoroughly internalized retrogressive ideas of gender roles, one doesn't have to "intend" to express sexist behavior--it just comes naturally."
the only retrogressive gender roles that the ad is showing are purely those from the marriage archetype (which is def. sexist), but those archetypes are also a long fucking way off from being viewed as the archaic exchange of ownership of property, er, woman contract it really is. so i think it's expecting way too much to demand a moving company to say to an advertising firm "we think the ad is cute'n'all, but we acknowledge the sexism inherent in our western wedding traditions and we don't want to convey our acceptance, passive or otherwise, in our ads."
also, the ad emphasizes "precious" as being the common link, not property. what they handle is irrelevant to the concept of the ad.
also, THIS IS A FUCKING AD. if you're looking for progressive commentary of gender issues, THIS IS THE LAST PLACE YOU SHOULD LOOK. and in response to the first comment in the blog, the ad would STILL make sense if the genders were reversed.
it's shit-headed thinking like this that holds back the progress toward real gender equality. this reaction honestly reminds me of getting stuck in an argument with some drunk fuck looking for a fight and starts putting words in your mouth like "YOU CALLING ME A LIER?" or "ARE YOU LOOKIN' AT MY GIRL?" and proceeds to push you around while you're wondering what the fuck is going on.
JEEZ... Calm the fucking fuck down, fucker.