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.

creepy beyond belief, your response typifies exactly what's mentioned in the article, and i quote "The fact that so many reflexively move to defend these light-hearted ads, comic strips, and so forth is just more proof of how insidious our ideas of gender relations are".

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 liked the part where the man protected the weak woman from the world around her.

no, he's protecting what's "precious" to him in the only way he knows how. it could be his kid, it could be a pet, it could be his parents, it could be the wife doing it to him. i think that would have made a funnier ad because it reverses the traditional gender roles but that would still be construed as sexist because it passively acknowledges those gender roles. the reason the husband is doing to the wife is because of wedding traditions, not because he doesn't respect his wife or doesn't view her as an equal.

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.

*sigh*

maybe try forming your own opinion. that way you'll have a chance to extrapolate on it instead of relying on someone else.

ok i will try. thankyou for the advice!

Moving this video to berticus's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

>> ^kir_mokum:
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. It's clear that you don't agree with berti's viewpoint, but there was absolutely no reason to get all flaming nasty with your commenting. And you accuse the poster of trying to pick a fight and being reactionary? Um...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'dumb, ass, misogynistic, shit' to 'dumb, ass, misogynistic, shit, mayflower, moving company, bubble wrapped bride' - edited by Issykitty

*dead, which is a pity, because I'd love to know what got kir's panties in a bunch.

edit: Superrapidfix by @berticus, yay!



I wonder if the Wife^tm came with a garantee...

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by hpqp.

*promote the proper biblical representation of women!

Remember men, don't you covet that ass!

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued - promote requested by hpqp.

I agree that it's dumb, but I don't see it as sexist/misogynistic in the least.

Is it because he carries her through the doorway? That's just a tradition. I could see how some would see that tradition as sexist, but I don't.

Is it because he wraps her in bubble wrap? He's just doing what comes naturally to him (in the context of the ad): being extra careful with anything he carries.

Wife // "your belongings"

How hard is that to grasp?

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I agree that it's dumb, but I don't see it as sexist/misogynistic in the least.
Is it because he carries her through the doorway? That's just a tradition. I could see how some would see that tradition as sexist, but I don't.
Is it because he wraps her in bubble wrap? He's just doing what comes naturally to him (in the context of the ad): being extra careful with anything he carries.

>> ^hpqp:

Wife // "your belongings"
How hard is that to grasp?

Pretty easy, but that's not represented in the commercial. That's your own biases coloring your perception.

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/04/assvertising_29.html

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/04/assvertising_29.html

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/04/assvertising_29.html

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/04/assvertising_29.html

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/04/assvertising_29.html

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/04/assvertising_29.html

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/04/assvertising_29.html

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/04/assvertising_29.html

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/04/assvertising_29.html

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/04/assvertising_29.html

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/04/assvertising_29.html

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/04/assvertising_29.html

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/04/assvertising_29.html

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/04/assvertising_29.html

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/04/assvertising_29.html

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/04/assvertising_29.html

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/04/assvertising_29.html

Did you listen to the audio? It goes straight from "protect what's precious" (image of wife) to "your belongings" (image of boxes). Once again, how hard is that to grasp?

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^hpqp:
Wife // "your belongings"
How hard is that to grasp?
Pretty easy, but that's not represented in the commercial. That's your own biases coloring your perception.

>> ^hpqp:

Did you listen to the audio? It goes straight from "protect what's precious" (image of wife) to "your belongings" (image of boxes). Once again, how hard is that to grasp?
>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^hpqp:
Wife // "your belongings"
How hard is that to grasp?
Pretty easy, but that's not represented in the commercial. That's your own biases coloring your perception.



But "your belongings" is not in reference to the wife. Why do you feel that it is?

Have to agree, it is sexist, but the ad is also about 40 years old. Its very tame though IMHO. Also agree about the sifts leanings when it comes to woman. Not saying I haven't viewed all the boob videos myself

Feminazi's need to get a grip and get back in the kitchen or something. It's an amusing play on two common traditions. Don't take it literally. Now go make me a sandwich.

How could you think Mayflower is promoting wrapping people up like boxes? It's a joke.

"At Mayflower, we have people who are so clumsy they can't even carry their newlywed spouses across the threshold without wrapping her up in bubble pack lest she be damaged." Yea, that's TOTALLY realistic and meant to be taken seriously. Lighten up.

Why is this video SO MUCH MORE INSIDIOUS than, "corporations are people too, buddy"?

Wow, I am really quite stunned at the things people can get worked up about.

YOU are making the jump from him thinking that she's precious and wanting to keep her safe during the carrying over the threshold tradition to her being an object and his possession.

You are truly looking for sexism where it doesn't exist.

Maybe pick your battles, fight the ones that are worth fighting, because this has NO malice, NO intent to reduce the woman to an object, PURELY thinking 'Hmmm, our movers are really good at taking stuff into houses. What could be the most precious thing to this guy? Maybe his wife. Is there any occasion where he may have to take her... ooooh oooh, the tradition of taking a bride over the threshold. SOLD!'


Just lighten the fuck up. Scream and rage against Katy Perry being regarded as some sort of female role model before you rage against this sort of harmless ad.

just because there are greater evils doesn't mean you can't comment on other ones. and who are you to judge whether there is sexism here?
i won't "lighten the fuck up" because i think this is important and it bothers me.


(edited for enhanced calm)

Yes yes, of course it's "harmless"; no one's getting their clit cut off, or being sold as a child bride, or being beaten to a pulp, etc.

That being said, the fact that this "humorous" equation between wife and property, an equation which echoes the true tradition of marriage, can be so easily dismissed by some just illustrates how easy it is to ignore/forget the struggle towards equality (even in these "harmless" examples). Equality of treatment which is far from being achieved.

Edit-NM.. pretty much what Spoco said.

Moving this video to berticus's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.