What Would it Look Like if Gender Roles Were Reversed in Advertising? (Video)

What do you think of these role-reversed ads?

A friend of mine linked to this video with the caption:

Advertising companies spend 5 BILLION dollars a year to tell you how to think about the other gender and your own gender, so what would it look like if gender roles in advertising were reversed?

My initial thoughts:

  • The reversed images were more interesting than I expected. I expected something along the lines of the role reversal for the “Avengers” poster, but I think because the ads weren’t cartoons they were provocative, and in a really good way. They made me stop and think about how my mind reacted to them.
  • When you reverse the genders of certain conventions, you can see just how silly some of it looks and just how ingrained those conventions are in our society.
  • The studies that were referenced are listed in the video’s description on YouTube.

What are your thoughts?

If you want to see more of this, check out a video of gender reversal at the gym (“Women Power-Lifting and Men Sipping Smoothies? Role Reversal at the Gym – Video“), and Joanna Schroeder and her husband switch clothing in a gender-bending experiment (“Switcheroo: A Confrontational Gender-Bending Experiment“).

representations-of-gender-in-advertising_youtube

Premium Membership, The Good Men Project

NOW TRENDING ON GMP TV

Flight or Fight
Forever Boogies
Are You A Narcissist?

Premium Membership, The Good Men Project

About Deanna Ogle

Deanna Ogle hails from the greater Detroit area and her work has appeared in The Good Men Project, The Printed Blog, and Provoketive Magazine. She is studying journalism and religious studies, and writes at her personal blog Soul like a Spider. Loves: carnations, iced espresso, and watching movies with her husband. Find her at Twitter, Google and Facebook.

Comments

  1. I think it’s yet another half-story view of gender roles and sexism, typical for some people to look at the harm done to women without showing the harm done to men. For instance the statistic of women living in domestic shelters and the rape stats to prove the harm done to women, yet the video is comparing the lives of men to women is it not? Men do NOT have anywhere near the same level of access to a shelter so that statistic may prove a lot of DV against women it doesn’t really compare to men because it’s apples n oranges. The rape stat also shows sexual abuse of women but not men, yet men suffer very high levels of sexual abuse, are there advertising similar to that where they show men in submissive roles being harmed? Because if men are also being harmed at great amounts but the advertising doesn’t exist, then maybe sexual abuse has sweet fuck all to do with ads?

    If gender roles were reversed in media I think we’d have an outrage. In growing up I saw on screen the violent n gorey deaths of 100-1000x more men than women, men were largely disposable. Some movies had over 100 onscreen kills (not just random bombing runs taking out 100 at a time but visible single deaths), and ALL male. Violence kills men 4-6x more than women so is media sexist against men because of that? In advertising men are treated as incompetent, stupid, etc, even in modern day advertising there is misandry yet does this video show the females in that position? There is misogyny and misandry in advertising, yet will I see the misandry addressed in a video like this? Or is it only cool to look at how women are harmed?

    Showing women as sexual beings with their posing has been normalized, just as showing crotch shots of men is normalized in advertising of underwear (and some even use socks to bulk up the male package). Abs are shown, muscle definition that very few men can achieve because you need to have little body fat to be “cut” like that, the groin showing a large penis but trying to be sneaky about it giving men the insecurity of their penis size.

    I’m all for gender roles flipping, let’s make a movie showing 100’s of women being slaughtered in the most horrific ways that is completely normal for men to experience, I’d love to see the audience reaction to that.

    • Archy,

      I agree that the video was heavy on the female stats. Especially since the only stat given about men was that they were more depressed than usual. I probably should have included a note saying that it was heavy on the female stats, but I thought the last video was interesting and started to lean towards both genders.

      Also, I hadn’t even thought about that killing/disposability thing. It’s that classic row boat thing… “Get the women and children out of the sinking boat first!” That would be interesting to see that reversed. I’m sure it wouldn’t go over well — and most people don’t even think about it.

      All good points, Archy.

      • Yep, old notions of chivalry. Google “white feather campaign” in ww1, the shaming of men into war. I really wish I could gender flip Rambo, I do wonder how society would react to 100+ women slaughtered in a video…would they notice? I notice from people I know seem to show more horror at a woman killed even though more men die from violence, it’s not expected that a woman will die from violence yet for men it’s seen as normal.

  2. I think as usual this skips all the violence perpetrated against men, which is hugely problematic. For me the standout example of this is the factoid that 50% of women in Canada have experienced physical or sexual violence. This figure is of course 100% for men everywhere, and the fact that this 100% figure isn’t being highlighted as much as the 50% figure is morally damning – it shows that we as a society don’t consider violence to be a big deal unless it happens to people of a certain class. Violence is always a big deal.

    The other flawed aspect of this is that “conventionally attractive” women were used by all the real advertisers, but the role reversal used men of various shapes and sizes very few of whom would be considered attractive according to our cultural conventions on male beauty. I feel this weakens the effect, and suspect it is something to do with the fact that male beauty is considered unimportant but can’t quite figure out how. I worry that it is playing off the “men look funny in womens’ clothing” thing which is itself a huge part of western society’s current gender disorder.

    • RMNZ, yeah, I agree it was heavy on the female stats and lacked male stats. That is one weakness of highlighting this video here.

      And yes, John also pointed out the physique issue.

      “I feel this weakens the effect, and suspect it is something to do with the fact that male beauty is considered unimportant but can’t quite figure out how.”

      This is a really interesting point and you’re definitely onto something. I’m not sure how to put my finger on it either. (This is why I love having conversations here because you all bring up really fascinating points!)

    • Hi RMNZ
      You write

      “This figure is of course 100% for men everywhere”
      Are you saying 100% of all men all over the word suffers from sexual or physical violence ?
      That is simply not true.

      • yes, i was curious about that comment, too. not at all sure what he/she was trying to say.

        did not understand either why male models weren’t used to replace the female subjects for a more equivalent comparison. i’m all for more accurate representations of average folks in advertising, though. i hadn’t seen many of those ads – the messages are horrifying.

      • I think everyone, everywhere experiences some violence, least it seems to be around here. That includes 2 year olds shoving each other though which is part of natural development of children whos instincts need to be dulled down to make them decent adults and to promote the empathy n sharing parts of our minds vs take take take.

  3. Saitek says:

    This is a perfect example of propaganda , only show one side, claim it is currently and has always been like this. Violence is portrayed like this as well, MEN are not shown as victims, when a disaster happens, if it is only men, they are revealed as workers, miners, fisherman etc, NEVER MEN. If even one woman is a victim her gender is spoken about.

    Something like “15 people were killed today in a horrific train crash, including 1 woman”.

    This is done so that women are counted when something bad happens but men are not.

    Same with this AD thing above, men aren’t portrayed as objects because they don’t rate high enough to even make it to object level, they are nothing but bumbling idiots who can’t tie their own shoe laces without a womans help.

    • Random_Stranger says:

      yeah…this kind of touches on the duality nature of gender.

      Men are not valued as men -they must become something like doctors, lawyers, policemen, milkmen, soldiers, ect to be something worthwhile. By contrast women are valued as women. This screws men when they cannot or fail to become that “thing” that defines them as something of value, or become a”thing” of lowly value. But is also screws women out of becoming doctors, lawyers, ect b/c she cannot become anything more than ‘woman’.

      Its a bum wrap for all.

  4. Its funny she had to used fat and ugly men for the “objects” so she can show us how funny it is when the gender is reversed. Now use Channing Tatum or Ryan Gosling and the end result would be very different

    • John, I assume that the people that were used in the video were part of the school project this was made for. You’re right though, she probably could have put in a little bit more effort to match the physiques. Also, interesting point about Ryan Gosling and Channing Tatum.

  5. Archy and RMNZ already covered my thoughts in detail. I’m just chiming in to say “not surprised.”

    Where are the ads that show the wife being the idiot?

  6. Conspiciously absent from this analysis are all the ads where a man is shown to be an idiot compared to his wiffe/girlfriend (or pre-adolescent daughter)

    • I think in a lot of popular media parents in general our made to seem stupid compared to their pre-adolescent kids. largely because kids are an entirely new market that advertising love pandering to because of their disposable incomes. Kids love to see kids that get one over on the parents, male or female. You can see this in commericals or shows that totally exclude parental involvement and show kids living lives like they were running the show.

  7. workingdog says:

    I don’t think the reversed-role ads seem ridiculous at all — they’re wonderful. Let’s see more!

  8. To echo and drill a bit deeper into what some have already pointed out; there are cultural and biological “standards of beauty” at work in all of this. Is there anyone -male or female- who does not, as a general rule, honestly believe that the women depicted in these ads are “prettier” than the men? Are the situations depicted highly sexualized from a male POV? Yes, obviously. Is that bad? A case can certainly be made that it propagates unattainable standards of sexual attractiveness, leading men and women alike to feel inadequate. I will point out though that these are clearly fantasies; when you fantasize, do you fantasize real people, warts and all, or do you idealize the people in your fantasies? I find the use of fantasized sexual ideals to sell stuff repugnant, but that stems from my exasperation with our contemporary consumer culture; I think that’s a much bigger threat to an enlightened society than whatever particular images are used to sell it. But I’m much more cautious when it comes to criticizing depictions of fantasized sexual ideals on the basis that “objectification” is somehow inherently demeaning to the gender depicted. Most women will never look like these models? Well, duh; I’m never going to look like Tom Selleck either. But is simply acknowledging the existence of fantasized sexual ideals (via visual depictions) a bad thing that should be eradicated from our cultural landscape? I’m not so sure about that. And I want to reinforce John’s point; replacing the highly idealized women in these ads with everyday schlumps (like me and the vast majority of my brethren) is a bit of a cheap shot, manufacturing a disparity that’s not really there. In fact, let’s carry it further with this thought experiment; replace the idealized women in the ads with “real women”, on a par with the “real” men subbed in here. What would your reaction be then? Finally, I was under the impression that science has pretty firmly concluded that idealized physical attractiveness plays a much bigger part in male mate-seeking instincts than it does for women; at our deepest instinctive level, what men find attractive in women differs significantly from what women find attractive in men. So simply swapping out sexually idealized “fantasy women” with silly everyday guys is in itself a bit disingenuous, that misses the point of what’s really troubling about the way our consumer culture yokes sex to commerce.

  9. Cute in 73 or 74 I appeared in a film version, super8, of Othello where I, the only white cast member, played the Moor… I’m hoping it never surfaces…

  10. Random_Stranger says:

    well…a couple thoughts on this:

    The dominant male and submissive female is a popular mutual sexual fantasy among men and women (eg shades of grey). It gets both genders attention and both gender linking sex with the whatever they’re selling. That doesn’t mean that exploiting and desensitizing the population to a fantasy that flirts with power and consent will not have fallout. Just saying that culpability for these ads is a gender neutral issue.

    The second things is, in their “reversal”, the authors are actually accessing an oft portrayed image of man as sexual dolt, object of ridicule and impotence. That’s not a true reversal, that’s simply accessing the same well of bad gender imagery from which the subject of their original complaint resides. A true role reversal would put Ryan Gosling on there or any number of Calvin Klein ads. I guess, inconveniently, those images are being commercially exploited and could undermine the authors implicit thesis that this form of advertising is a one-way street.

  11. Mr Supertypo says:

    interesting…

  12. O.K. , so here we have another video disparaging men(this is becoming somewhat the norm). The producers of this video say in the beginning that most of these ads are in ‘Womens’ magazines, am I correct? Well aren’t just about all of those types of magazines editorially controlled by women? (Anna Wintor etc.)

    • I think they said magazines in general. I’m confused why you would only think women’s magazines are the only issue. I think it’s fairly obvious women get it from both ends. There are obviously issues with the fashion industry and the depths it pushes to protray equally objectfying and degrading material of women. As there is with male entertainment and how it also pushes boundries in it’s protrayal of women.

      I can only tell you what I, as a woman would like to see.

      I would like to see more women stand up against standards fashion magazines set and pit up against us. I don’t want to see rail-thin-only-eats-rice-cake models on the runway. I enjoy fashion and the art of it and I like wearing different clothes but I do not like what the industry has done to women.

      I am tired of 21 year old models selling anti- wrinkle creams. Or botex celebrities doing the same while you see tv hosts interview them and lay on the charm about how great they look.

      I am tired of celebrities popping out babies and then after having their babies going on super strict borderline unrealistic and unhealthy diets so that all us regular ladies can oo and aah about how amazing she is 2 months later.

      I am tired of women following the linkes of the Kradashians or The Housewives of Whatever County.

      I’m tired of women getting sugergery at increasing numbers to distort and mold their bodies into unrealistic proportions while we try to tell ourselves that we get the work done for ourselves orbecause the work makes us “better”.

      I’m tired of seeing aging male actors with young actresses.

      I am tired of seeing men’s magazines that talk about how to hook up with women and how to check out other women behind our girlfriend’s back (yes this was a real article I saw once.)

      I am tired of Playboy and porn and Maxim that airbrushes and sets unrealistic standards about how women should look and perform to be considered worthy of male time and attention and affection and love.

      I am tired of men that rather look at these images then be engaged with real women.

      I looks like a lot of us are purposely choosing to check out of reality in the name of “fantasy”. When does the fantasy become too much though.

      • Very very very very few men would rather porn or these images to a real woman. Most, at least 90% I’d say would rather be engaged with a real woman, some of those want porn sometimes when their partner is busy or not interested, some want both but I’d say the majority of men look at those images because they aren’t able to be with a partner, or their partner is busy at the time and they don’t wish to disturb them. The entire entertainment industry seems pretty set on fantasy over reality, because reality happens everywhere…if you want to escape reality you don’t really go looking for more of it in many cases.

        Ironman wouldn’t be very fun if it was real, the first time he drops from 50+ meters with no slowdown and has a high G impact, he’d be meat paste inside that suit (not to mention where the hell does all the heat go?!?!, his suit has more power than cities use and unless he has some special metal then his suit is not think enough to withstand any of the impacts he takes like they’re nothing). Anti-aging creams are probably a load of shit too, because they’d sell fuckloads if they showed real an accurate results of it working. Quite frankly I think most of the beauty industry is a bunch of snake-oil salesmen, vitamins for your hair?!?! Hair itself doesn’t need vitamins! Your body needs it! Quite frankly if I had power then ALL ads that cannot back their claim up with real proof would be outright banned n fined bigtime. All photoshopped images that are more than just contrast and removal of a stray pimple (Rule I was told by a photographer was to edit out whatever won’t be there in 2 weeks, pimples, hot flush in face if it’s a hot day, etc) should be labelled. Fashion industry should also advertise to a wide variety of male n female body types, races, etc. Quite frankly women’s magazines damage women’s self-esteem far more than porn ever could I think, I would bet money on that. Porn is bad but probably 90% of the insecurity I hear from most women has direct links to weight and the magazines they read, then there is the issue of competing with other women to be more pretty, then after all that comes the male gaze n porn. Photographs are also far more damaging than moving video since it’s hugely difficult to “photoshop” video, if you want realistic portrayals of human in porn then you go straight for amateur-produced porn of real people. Playboy gets photoshopped to beat the censors so vulva are not realistic portrayals in that, not to mention airbrushing, etc that happens. Pro production videos tend to be very heavy on makeup, unless you find maybe a fully wet shower scene where makeup is non-existent (though I’m sure some will try use some makeup). Reality is out there, it just isn’t too common because fantasy offers more tantalization for many I guess?

        • No, not “very, very, very, very few men would rather porn or these images to a real woman”. Men are showing women everyday that they very, very, very, very much need pornography in their lives. I am sorry but the very second your partner isn’t available for sex, shouldn’t require a man having to go and run to porn. There is something very unhealthy about that mentality. When I am lonely and want a hug and my partner isn’t available the second I need it, I do not go and run to look for a temporary substitute.

          Secondly, I never said all fantasy was bad. I am strictly talking about a lot of the negative projections that get fostered on both men and women in the name of “fantasy”. I am sorry but just because something is “fantasy”, it doesn’t mean it’s “good” or “healthy” or “okay”. We need to start looking at our definition of “fantasy”. Too many people over-whelmingly put it under a blanket of “all fantasy = good” mentality. I do not believe that just because something is “fantasy”, that it’s good or okay by nature of it being fantasy.

          No woman or man will most likely ask you to dress up or perform the tricks you have seen in iron men. Every day women are give millions upon millions of subtle hints about how to improve this part of their body or that or their own partners out right ask them to perform acts that they have seen in porn movies. So sorry, Ironman..NOT the same thing.

          No, the beauty industry is not *more* damaging than the porn industry. BOTH are damaging. Porn sets up just as many unrealistic images of women and how women should look and act that the beauty industry does. I am sorry but surgery, breast implants, lip injections, botox, ageism, sexism, make-up are not non-existent in the porn industry. Most women in porn tend to be thin, young, white and with large breasts. Most women in advertising tend to be thin, white, young and with large breasts. There are models and pornstars that may deviate from the norm but the norm exists for a reason.

          If I want realistic portraysl of porn, then I will spend time with real people. I do not understand when amateur porn became this saving grace of the industry. Just because something is titled “amateur”, doesn’t mean it really is ‘amateur”. Do you not think that big budget porn companies don’t make amateur looking movies? Also, you have no way of knowing of who has consented to have their videos posted or not. There was a recent article on the newswire about how “revenge porn” has become a growing problem. “Revenge porn” is apparently when one party of a broken up couple takes previously and privately made movies or photos and posts them online without the other’s knowledge or consent. Big shock but apparently it happens much more to women than to men. I am sorry but just because something as “amateur” in the title does not mean its’ more realistic, more moral, more equal or shows more varying bodies.

          I stand by what I said previously whether you like it or not Archy.

          There is a point when fantasy is to much. We’ve reached it. People seem to want to live in fantasy more than they want to live real lives.

          • “or that or their own partners out right ask them to perform acts that they have seen in porn movies”

          • “I am sorry but the very second your partner isn’t available for sex, shouldn’t require a man having to go and run to porn. There is something very unhealthy about that mentality. When I am lonely and want a hug and my partner isn’t available the second I need it, I do not go and run to look for a temporary substitute.”

            That is up to the couple to decide, not you.

            “No woman or man will most likely ask you to dress up or perform the tricks you have seen in iron men. Every day women are give millions upon millions of subtle hints about how to improve this part of their body or that or their own partners out right ask them to perform acts that they have seen in porn movies. So sorry, Ironman..NOT the same thing. ”

            Would you prefer I used the old romantic movie cliches? Like randomly running into your love n desire in a city of 8 million people, stopping peak hour traffic and not getting a fine, being able to magically run past the TSA at the airport, the huge n unrealistic gestures of romance, etc. I am saying that people seek fantasy, it’s not always healthy as you say but reality isn’t all that special ONSCREEN. If I wanted reality I’d turn off the TV/computer n go watch reality if possible, I watch media because I can’t get to space, can’t get to those areas, and I can’t get to see naked men n women at this point in my life in reality.

            “No, the beauty industry is not *more* damaging than the porn industry. BOTH are damaging. Porn sets up just as many unrealistic images of women and how women should look and act that the beauty industry does. I am sorry but surgery, breast implants, lip injections, botox, ageism, sexism, make-up are not non-existent in the porn industry. Most women in porn tend to be thin, young, white and with large breasts. Most women in advertising tend to be thin, white, young and with large breasts. There are models and pornstars that may deviate from the norm but the norm exists for a reason.”

            All of those things came from the beauty industry before porn, porn adapts to modern beauty ideals, nothing more. Even the “brazillian” was around before porn. I would bet money that the beauty industry causes far more insecurity n harm than porn, the beauty n teen magazines are actually acceptable in public as reading and young girls get FAR more exposure to them + the beauty advertising than porn. Let’s take a poll, in the last year ladies have you seen more beauty industry + womens magazines + advertising surrounding the beauty industry or porn? Which caused you greater concern?

            And just to show how little you know of porn, the majority of porn produced is sexting so the majority of porn shows realistic bodies of all ages, there may even be some stuff of myself around. My friend sent me some a few weeks back and she has not had surgery, her body is quite average but I find it extremely sexy, she didn’t have to do anything crazy to turn me on. You generalize about porn yet forget about the most significant producer of porn, that is the home-user, over 1 in 5 people have sexted last I heard and that’s a huge amount more than the pro-industry. Most of it isn’t meant to be shown to anyone but 1 person (and that is a huge problem) but the majority of porn in existence today is taken on a cellphone and sent via MMS or whatever phones use these days. 2-300+million men n women in the us, I wouldn’t be surprised 30-60million+ of those have sexted, pro productions I doubt would have more than a million pornstars.

            “Do you not think that big budget porn companies don’t make amateur looking movies? Also, you have no way of knowing of who has consented to have their videos posted or not. There was a recent article on the newswire about how “revenge porn” has become a growing problem.”
            I mainly watch couples that consent to it because they make their own chaturbate accounts and get paid to fuck, I also watch random videos. We’ve had a woman who made her own porn site on the GMP before as well, I’ve watched some of her stuff too. “Revenge porn” is a growing concern, but it doesn’t make it any less fake, the issue of consent not posted is a different topic, it’s still realistic and far more so than many pro productions.

            “I am sorry but just because something as “amateur” in the title does not mean its’ more realistic, more moral, more equal or shows more varying bodies. ”
            Do you watch porn? Because I do, and see a HUGE variety in amateur porn of who is posted.

            “There is a point when fantasy is to much. We’ve reached it. People seem to want to live in fantasy more than they want to live real lives.”
            Then you are in fantasy-land yourself. People largely want real experiences, the MOST COMMON COMMENT FROM MEN ON THIS SITE regarding sex is the desire to have a sexual relationship with a woman, and not porn. Automatically that proves you wrong because if “people” wanted to live in fantasy, they wouldn’t want a real woman now would they?

            You can see the beauty industry, read it in public, hell I see it at the doctors office with the most sickening shit on it, the extreme focus on losing weight, the heavy makeup, the surgeries, they are basically self-esteem destroyers. There is no variety in beauty magazines that could even be compared to porn, porn has so many different combinations of people, yes there are popular trends in the pro stuff but the amateur segment dwarfs that in production (not distribution). I have seen a massive amount more diversity in porn than I have seen in the beauty industry, hell you can easily and I mean EASILY find 50+ year olds in porn, black women, men, than you can in the beauty industry. I can goto a website right now of real people making porn and getting paid for it and find pretty much all types of bodys, races, even transexual people (which is extremely rare in the beauty industry). Porn is well known for diversity, it’s usually called “fetish”, the beauty industry is well known for being very similar practically all the time. Porn has the stereotypical blonde bombshell yes but that is not all there is, and the occurrence of the blonde-bombshell is far far far far far less common than the occurrence of stick-thin models bordering on anorexia in advertising for the beauty industry.

          • “If I want realistic portraysl of porn, then I will spend time with real people.”
            By making porn? or do you mean having real sex? Because that’s not a realistic portrayal of porn, that’s a realistic portrayal of SEX. They’re very different concepts.

      • WOW!

        Thank you Erin.

      • Aliyah says:

        Took the words from my mouth Erin!!! Spot on!

  13. Erin, I pretty much agree with most of what you say. I’m just tired of the old refrain ‘It’s all men’s fault!’ you speak as if objectification was a one way street(as does the video). Who do you think those Calvin Klein and David Bechkam underwater ads made the biggest stir amongest? What about a movie (Magic Mike)(that packs women in theaters wall to wall to watch Male Strippers ? (not to mention the real thing that sells out every show) You mention Playboy and Maxim magi ends. What about a magazine ( Playgirl) that sells almost 4 MILLION copies a month? I also read in an article last year that Visa, the credit card company, stated 39 percent of on line porn purchases made with their card are made by cards belonging to women. Now, I wonder since this video seems to suggest men viewing these ads will be more likely to beat up and rape women, is the reverse true?

    • How large percentage of the 39% is lesbians looking at lesbian porn?
      And how can lesbian porn show men degrading women?
      I have never looked at lesbian porn,but surveys in my part of the world show that lesbian use the same amount of porn as men.

    • Also Erin, you’re somewhat behind the curve with the young-old coupling. Today it’s the other way around. And. No, I’m not just talking about famous couples (Demi&Ashton, Mariah Cary,42 and Nick Cannon,32), and not even just the 40,50, and 60 year old cougars you read about. My youngest is 21, and ever since he’s out of high school( and maybe even before) him and his friends have been dating women in their mid to late 20’s. The eighbor’s son was 18 when he moved in with his28 year old girlfriend. A guy I work with showed me a text meant for his 16 year old son from a 24 year old woman “get your c–k ready because I’m coming over and I need it now!”. Then he tells me she’s one of several, all in their mid 20’s , that show up regularly!( I guess the kid’s ‘well endowed’?)

      • The 16 year old and 24 year old woman is gross. The 18 year old and 28 year old isn’t ideal but at least he is legal.. barely though. To be honest, I don’t see why any 28 year old woman or man would date an 18 year old. Although this happens with WAY more regularity with men than it does with women. Your 21 year old son dating mid-late 20s women hardly even seems like something to mention. For how long have men been dating women significantly younger than that? Goodness. Please stop trying to make it sound like it’s all equal. It’s not. Women face a much more higher stigma on ageism then men currently do. That is the way it is. I don’t like it and I will continue to voice my opinion on it but just because you know a view cases does not change the facts that women are treated more harshly about their age than men are. And it does not change the fact that there are so many mainstream movies out there that highlight younger female actresses with older male actresses. You won’t even see anyone in the actual business, male or female, dispute this.

    • What I think about a movie like Magic Mike is the same thing in what I think about the book 50 Shades of Grey. Women have one semi-popuar movie or book in generations and all the sudden, everything is equal in the way men and women are portrayed. Except, I can’t get on board with that. I do think that the popularity of Magic Mike or 50 Shades of Grey can tell us about how we are seeing women’s own sexuality evolve. For better and for worse. But I don’t think that points to everything all the sudden being equally objectifying among each other.

      I’m not saying that Magic Mike was a great movie (I never saw it myself) but I don’t think one movie about male strippers equates to all the portrayls of women in the industry. Lets just simplify this to comparing movies with male strippers to movies that had female strippers in it. Here is a very loose list that I could keep adding to to start us off with with female strippers, how many movies do we really know of with male ones?

      List of female actresses playing strippers and or hookers:

      Salma Hayek in “From Dusk Till Dawn”, then again in “Dogma”, and then again in “Americano”
      Natalie Portman in “Closer”
      Marisa Tomei in “The Wrestler”
      Daryl Hannah in “Dancing at the Blue Iguana”
      Jessica Biel in “Powder Blue”
      Elizabeth Berkly in “Showgirls”
      Demi Moore in “Striptease”
      Rose McGowan in “Grindhouse” and in “Planet Terror”
      Mia Kirshner in “Exotica”
      Jessica Alba in “Sin City” .. and lets be honest..most women in that film where strippers
      Lindsay Lohan in “I KNow Who Killed Me”
      Heather Graham in “The Hangover”
      Roseyln Sanchez in “Yellow” and “Without A Trace”
      Jamie Lee Curtis in “True Lies” – wasn’t a stripper in the movie exactly, but played a role inside a role of a stripper in the movie.
      Ashley Tisdale in Sons of Anarchy
      Anne Hathaway in “Les Miserable” (Although this one is less about salciousness and more about showing her desperation as a prostitute and how hard it was for a woman in a certain economic level at that time.)
      Julia Roberts in “Pretty Woman” (Totally a movie that caters more to women though)
      Elizabeth Shue in “Leaving Las Vegas”
      Kristen Stewart in “Welcome to the Riley’s ”
      Amanda Seyfried in Chloe
      Diane Lane in “The Big Town”
      Gilliam Jacobs in “Choke”
      Paz de la Huerta in “Enter the Void”
      Teri Hatcher in “Tango & Cash”
      Halle Berry in “The Last Boy Scout” and in “Frankie & Alice”
      Jennifer Beals in “Flashdance”
      Kobe Tai in “Very Bad Things”
      Brittnay Murphy in “Spun”

      That doesn’t even get into the reality that for a lot of these films, women are younger than their male leads. Is Magic Mike a great thing? No. Does one movie about male strippers prove that we are all objectifying each other equally now? I don’t think so. But even if it did, is that somehow good or more healthy now?

      You’re tired about the old refrain, “It’s all men’s fault”. So am I. I am not interested in blaming men! I am interested in finally feeling like men recognize the issues women deal with when it comes to the media. I want to hear what men think and feel about these things. Not because I’m a terrible person or I don’t think men’s issues count but because i want to know what men think and feel about how women are seen in the media.

      I don’t blame men for being titillated by sexual images. But I just want men to understand and work with real everyday normal women more on how these projections affect us all. I don’t blame men because there are advertisements that show men stepping on women’s heads or 21 year olds in bikkinis. I just want men to say “Yeah, that’s not cool”. Instead of coming in and saying, “Men are projected as idiots WAY more” or “woman’s media is WAY worse, my male media is kind of okay”.

      And yes, men can be projected as idiots in the media and I don’t condone that either! But why does negative imagery of women and the things everyday women face draw comments from men about what men face instead of men just saying “yeah, that’s not cool of Versace” or “that’s not cool of Playboy”. I don’t get it! When I see articles on GMP about how men are portrayed as idiots, *thats* what I talk about. That’s not the time to come in and say “Yeah but this happens to women in this way too.”

      This article was about reversing gender roles. While the project wasn’t perfect I think we get the general idea. But you have guys that came into this article more eager to talk about men and the issues they face then what this article was obviously addressing. Why come into this article at all if it’s not about an issue you want addressed? If you don’t think the sexism that happens to women is as important or on as big a scale of what happens to men, why even entertain topics that don’t interest you?

      Men AND woman are getting the bum end of the stick here and we are not figuring out how to talk about the individual stereotypes we face in the media without the other side feeling ignored or pushed aside. You are tired Bobby and so am I.

      By the way, I thought I was pretty clear that both men and women contribute to the problem.I stated ways women contribute to the issue. I am open about that. I am honest about that.

      By the way, I don’t really know many women that are entertained by Playgirl like men are by Playboy. Although I do think Playgirl has a big market with homosexual men.

      • Mike L says:

        Erin,

        I suspect that you are missing the entire point.

        The reason the response isn’t just “Yeah, that’s not cool of Versace” is because the argument being made doesn’t stop at “This thing that Versace does is really uncool.”

        Instead, the argument goes “This thing that Versace does is really uncool because of the way it makes men think.”

        Believe it or not, men don’t like being told by people-who-are-not-men how they think. This is dehumanizing and a denial of the lived experience of men.

        Your own comments are littered with these types of generalizations.

        For example, you say:
        “I don’t really know many women that are entertained by Playgirl like men are by Playboy.”
        This implies that you, a woman, know how men relate to Playboy. Upthread, Archy tried to explain to you that, as someone who is not a man, you might in fact be completely wrong in your understanding of how men relate to pornography. But you’re not concerned with this. You’re just going to charge ahead and tell men how men think, because you somehow know better than men.

        I’m sure you’re going to respond to this comment with a tirade justifying why you think it’s okay for a woman to tell men how men think, but it’s not. The sooner you realize this, the sooner we can stop talking past each other.

        • “This implies that you, a woman, know how men relate to Playboy. Upthread, Archy tried to explain to you that, as someone who is not a man, you might in fact be completely wrong in your understanding of how men relate to pornography. But you’re not concerned with this. You’re just going to charge ahead and tell men how men think, because you somehow know better than men.”
          +10000, yes, exactly. Sit down, listen to men, ASK them what they think. Don’t TELL THEM what they think. ASK why the men are looking at porn when they have a partner, I can only guess as to why that is because when I have someone I pretty much want them and only them. We’re all different.

          • Archy

            Do you know when all this avalabity of porn online started?
            I mean videos and films.

            • About 10-15 years ago with some pay sites, then the napster and filesharing revolution made it far easier to find videos. It wasn’t until like 2005 I think that videos started becoming far easier to find since more people had broadband and Macromedia/Adobe Flash video helped to increase popularity dramatically with online youtube-like sites. I remember for quite a while looking at pictures.

              Amateur porn took off hugely once digital cameras got cheaper, probably 2000 onwards? Cellphones with video n pics however about 2005 onwards saw a stupidenous increase in amateur content since more n more people we making their own, and sadly quite a few revenge folk spread the pics. However there are quite a few people who also share their stuff knowingly on websites setup for that, they can even be paid for it or they can do online webcam stuff themselves or with a partner with very little setup costs (webcams are in most laptops now, or they cost 20bucks or so, good hd ones for 50). Paypal-like services also saw a huge increase in the self-made sites I believe since it was far easier to get paid for your troubles.

              The internet however is a double edged-sword, it’s led to massive increases in distribution where you can have a video hit a million views in a day (as in any video, not just porn) but there is also a lot of seedy stuff going on like child porn, revenge porn, etc. However it has never been easier to make your own porn and get it seen by many, you can even wear a mask and have thousands see without your identity known. Some of the webcam folk I believe don’t allow people from their country to look where possible to avoid issues of recognition.

              There will be another major increase in porn once it becomes very easy to have realistic 3D models, maybe 5-10 years away? Depends how good computers get. Then the next big phase will probably be immersive VR which has a real danger of people really just giving up a real existence and going into live with a full online life, hell maybe matrix-style. Somewhere along the line sexbots will be made better and cheaper which may actually tear down the need for porn since people can just go be with a real physical “object”.

            • ogwriter says:

              @Iben: I wasn’t laughing at white women, l though I must admit that from time to time I do. Lighten up! I was making a point about what you ask me to comment on. In your question was the hidden notion that white women couldn’t possibly stoop to sexually objectifying men of color. Let’s look at your admiration of Mr. Elba, who you claim is a beautiful man.. “How could you [possibly know if he is a beautiful man or if he’s a creep?”
              Unless you know him personally and have spent considerable time with him under a variety of conditions, you can’t know him.” If you don’t know him why do you give him such high praise? Because he is a good actor? I am sure there are many, many actors even better than he that you don’t even notice. You do so because of visceral feelings of desire and lust that may or may not be related to sexual stereotypes of black men.

              That you lived with a man of color, for the purposes of this discussion, is neither here nor there. After all, I am a black man. I also think it is self evident that Mr. Elba is of African descent.
              There is nothing you have written that even addresses the points I made about how some white women (I think it is most) sexually objectify men of color from a pace of privilege that they are neither aware of or discuss in any meaningful way. Principally because they vested in being victims only.

            • Hi OGwriter

              I was not angry at you,but at all bullying that takes place in some of the debates on GMP.

              The question you raise is important and you are perfectly right.

              I am Scandinavian,so things are a little bit different here than in the US,but racism exists here as well unfortunately. But we do not have the same history as you in the US.

              I do not know whether Idris Elba is a good human being or not. I am NOT stupid. I am not a twelve year old girl that fall in love with movie stars or celebrity of any kind.

              My fathers skin was dark so I feel secure close to dark skin physically that is all.

              Your laughter did not make me angry,it is the fact the moderator sleeps in the online debates on GMP. Hate speak, bulling and sexism is not stopped by moderator but allowed to develop.
              That way this website with the good intentions will never develop into be a high quality debate site internationally. NEVER.

              But that is a totally different subject.
              The more time I spend in debates on GMP the more sadness do I feel.

            • ogwriter says:

              @Iben: I would not want to be a moderator simply because one cannot accurately deduce a person’s intent without seeing and hearing a person’s words. Without hearing tone, inflection and seeing facial expressions, we can only guess at the meaning. Nonetheless, It is a jungle out there. Erin knows, as I have often complained, the same women who complain so loudly about all of the slights they endure on this site and in the world,are guilty of benign exclusion, and probably worse.
              They don’t see men of color or the challenges they face and how those challenges are blinked to theirs It is hard to take your complaints seriously since as you point out racism does exist. I didn’t a write you were stupid , but you wrote that a man you only know as a made up image was beautiful man. I do enjoy the debates when they are real and not laden and confided by the pc chains that don’t allow for open criticism that leads to reflection.

        • Mike, I think the problem is that we BOTH feel that our experiences as men or women are being denied unhealthy. I think you’ve denied my standpoint when you started this off with: “I suspect that you are missing the point”.

          Guess what? I don’t think I am missing the point. I actually think it’s a bit belitting on your end to infer that I’m the one that is missing it but it also infers that *you* are someone that gets it. Did you ever think that we both have a point? I can understand that you don’t like being told what you think as a man. But that doesn’t automatically deny the experiences of someone that has had certain experiences with other men.

          This isn’t about *me* missing it and *you* getting it. It’s about us having different experiences and coming to conclusions based on those experiences.

          I’d like to look at another thing you said:

          You said : “Your own comments are littered with these types of generalizations.”

          I am not denying men as a group on anything by stating the obvious majority. Many men like Playboy. They like porn! Many men are infact entertained by these sexual mediums that…guess what?….largely generalize women and put them into little stereotype boxes. I really don’t see the issue in being honest with the fact that a lot of men seem to enjoy sexual material of women that is generalizing of them as women as well as stereotyping.

          You do realize how much more popular Playboy infact is among men than Playgirl is among women right? Playgirl has not grown into the franchise that we see in Playboy. This isn’t a generalization. This is just a reflection of the truth. Does this mean that every man in the world likes, looks at or owns Playboy? No. But come on, it’s very popular with a good chunk of men. Do you think it feels good as a woman to see your men repeatidly and continually titillated by images of beautiful, photoshopped 18 year olds every month, week or day of the year? Why would this be offensive to you for me to say this? I am totally flabbergasted.

          There are a lot of men out there that ARE titillated by Playboy. Playgirl might have a following but that following is largely aided by the gay community more than it is women. Is this a generalization? yes. Is it a true generalization? Again, yes.

          And lets look at your last comment:

          : I’m sure you’re going to respond to this comment with a tirade justifying why you think it’s okay for a woman to tell men how men think, but it’s not.

          I think it’s safe to say that you probably have some ideas about women and what you think they believe and that some of those ideas are probably correctly based on your personal experiences with women and what you’ve observed about women at large in the world. That isn’t an erroneous statement to make right? I think I can say that also safely applies to me as a woman when it comes to having certain beliefs about men.

          Now, do you know everything about women? No. Do I know everything about men? No. Regardless, it’s no big secret that men like Playboy largely.

          As for generalizations, you make a number of your own Mike. You’ve made them of me too. You believed you knew what my response was going to be even before I responded. You generalized me. And you degraded my thoughts and opinions to just being nothing more than a “tirade”. How well do you think chalking up someone’s comments and opinions to just being a “tirade” opens up a good discussion?

          And the last part of your comment:

          “The sooner you realize this, the sooner we can stop talking past each other.”

          I hear you loud and clear. *I’m the problem.* If only I would do X, Y and Z; then this conversation would be much better because *you* certainly are not the problem here. It is me that is holding the discussion back, not you.

          Except, that’s not how I see it. I think we both got some work to do. Wouldn’t you say that’s more fair Mike?

          You don’t want a discussion. You didn’t even want to address anything I said seriously except to attempt and make me your bad guy. I get it. You find me lacking. I’m not perfect to you. YOu are clearly a more thought out and intelligent poster. I’m the problem and you are not.

          You know what though? I’m not perfect. But everything I wrote in response to this article came from my heart. Whether it’s good enough for you or not. I don’t care. I’m here to be sincere and honest about the issues I face. Not have a pissing contest with you about what a crappy human being you think I am while you obviously think your amazingly awesome and wonderful and I’m the one that needs to change while you believe you don’t.

          • Mike L says:

            I used the word “tirade” because I specifically expected a response with sentences like:
            “You find me lacking. I’m not perfect to you. You are clearly a more thought out and intelligent poster. I’m the problem and you are not.

            I’m here to be sincere and honest about the issues I face. Not have a pissing contest with you about what a crappy human being you think I am while you obviously think your amazingly awesome and wonderful and I’m the one that needs to change while you believe you don’t.”

            This is openly insulting and unhelpful. It’s clear I was correct in gauging your likely response.

            This part is particularly problematic:
            “I can understand that you don’t like being told what you think as a man. But that doesn’t automatically deny the experiences of someone that has had certain experiences with other men.”

            Men don’t want to be told what they think because they are men. Full stop. That’s it. Everything you wrote after that undermines this point. This is on par with someone writing “I don’t mean to be sexist, but…” you can be sure that every single phrase after the “but…” will be sexist, and I can be sure that your entire second sentence there is a denial of the lived experiences of men.

            • Mike, I came into this article with a lot of thoughtful responses and you came back at me with these comments:

              1.“I suspect that you are missing the entire point.”
              2.“I’m sure you’re going to respond to this comment with a tirade justifying why you think it’s okay for a woman to tell men how men think, but it’s not.”
              3.“The sooner you realize this, the sooner we can stop talking past each other.”

              In the first point you are basically telling me that I don’t understand something that you apparently believe you do understand.

              In the second point, you make a judgement about me and make assumptions about what you believe I’m going to say while demeaning my responses to just ‘tirades” in your minds eye.

              In your last point, you obviously believe that *I* am the one that needs to change, fix myself, gain understanding and you are not. You obviously have the belief that if only *I* would change, than we could finally have a good conversation.

              Tell me why it’s so obscene to you than for me to believe that you think you are a more intelligent and superior person here? And why it’s egregious to you for me to say as much?

              I felt like you put me down when you chalked up my comments and responses to being just “tirades”. I felt further put down when you went on below to say that you were correct in saying it. I’m sorry you don’t like that, but I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to see why that would make me feel put down. What did you really believe telling me all I do is make tirades and that I don’t understand things like you do, would achieve? Do you think those words draw forth a good healthy conversation? Flip those statements you made toward me and picture me saying them to you. Would you feel the same way? Would you be open to a discussion with me if I told you that you don’t understand things like I do and that once you do, then we can have a good conversation but all I really expect from you is a tirade?

              You don’t like the fact that I believe you find me lacking? It’s obvious you do when you make comments about how I don’t get it but you somehow you do and that I just make tirades. It’s obvious *you* think *you* get it more than I do. What does that suggest Mike? That you believe you are more intelligent here and thoughtful here.

              You said: This is openly insulting and unhelpful. It’s clear I was correct in gauging your likely response.”

              Of course you were. I don’t understand like you do. I deny you agency and you don’t deny other agency. I make tirades and you don’t. You were correct. …. And yet you are actually insulted by me stating the obvious of what you believe: That you are more intelligent and rationale in this discussion (in many of our discussions) than I am. What would you like me to say?

              This part is particularly problematic:
“I can understand that you don’t like being told what you think as a man. But that doesn’t automatically deny the experiences of someone that has had certain experiences with other men.”

              Men don’t want to be told what they think because they are men. Full stop. That’s it. Everything you wrote after that undermines this point. This is on par with someone writing “I don’t mean to be sexist, but…” you can be sure that every single phrase after the “but…” will be sexist, and I can be sure that your entire second sentence there is a denial of the lived experiences of men.

              I think you believing that my personal experiences and me voicing those experiences with other men as being problematic, is problematic. And it suggests to me that you actually are the one that wants to deny me agency to talk about my experiences and how they relate to my opinion of porn, sex, advertising and men and women. Earlier on you said: “Believe it or not, men don’t like being told by people-who-are-not-men how they think. This is dehumanizing and a denial of the lived experience of men.”
              And I can easily say back to you:

              “Believe it or not, women don’t like being told by people-who-are-not-women how they think. This is dehumanizing and a denial of the lived experiences of women.”

            • Mike L says:

              Erin,

              At no time have I tried to tell you how you think. I predicted that you would use angry and abusive language, and in that I was correct. If you cannot understand how phrases like “pissing contest” are inherently insulting and unproductive, then I cannot help you.

              By contrast, you have, time and again, tried to tell me how I think. You started by telling me that, as a man, my response to this video should just be “Yeah, that’s not cool,” without considering why I might feel otherwise. I explained that I might feel otherwise because the video went further than saying “This harms women,” and went into the realm of saying “This harms women because men think X when they see these images.” I don’t think X when I see those images. The other men here ALSO don’t think X when they see those images.

              The “Yeah but it happens to men too…” argument is a poorly articulated version of saying “Men do not assume that image Y causes women to think X, so why do women assume that seeing image Z causes men to think X?”

              Could this be articulated better? Sure, and I wish the comments articulated the argument better.

              All I’ve said, from the first post, is that you cannot possibly know, as a woman, what men think when they see these advertisements. The reason why is simple: you are not a man.

              Now, you can say “As a woman, I feel insulted by these advertisements,” and that would be a valid point and a perfectly valid expression of your experience. I have never, and will never, deny you agency to have those feelings and express them. Your allegations to the contrary are simply wrong.

              My problem has always been the claim: “I know what men are thinking as someone who is not a man.”

              Your response has been filled with insulting assumptions about me, insulting language, personal attacks, and supposed justifications for this poor behavior. There has never been any reason for you to act this way.

              I believe that you, as a woman, are insulted by these images. I accept your experience. I do not question what these images make you and other women think. All I am asking in return is that you do not assume what these images make men think.

            • Michael Rowe says:

              Beautifully put, Mike. Well said.

            • I don’t know how to communicate with you in an affective manner Mike. I’ve done the best I know how. If that isn’t good enough for you, I really don’t know what to tell you.

              I will say that I realize that I am FAR from a perfect person. I might not have these perfect, flawless posts, I might get a little passionate, my language might not be up to your standards; but I also don’t have ill intent in my heart.

              If you believe you are a far more articulate, understanding and knowledgeable poster than I am, God bless you for it. (And lets be honest, it sure does seem like you do believe you are all three of these things over me.) You can spend the rest of your conversations pointing out all the ways you believe I am lacking, or you can try to talk to me like I’m a human being worthy of having an equal discussion with on the topic and be specific to the points I’ve made that you do or don’t agree with. That choice is yours.

              You found the phrase “pissing contest” angry and abusive, you didn’t like that I said it; I didn’t like that you reduced my opinions and thoughts to just being “tirades” and further attempted to validate that later on by saying you were “right” after all. I thought that was condescending and degrading. You think some of my language is abusive? I think it’s abusive of you to tell me that I don’t understand something while insinuating that you somehow do understand it over me. Do you know what else is abusive? When you said that if only *I* would change, then we could have a better conversation. That’s not fair Mike. That’s not right. And *that* is telling someone else how they think and feel.

              It seems to me that you continually want to deny agency to my thoughts and experiences. But I stand by what I’ve said. I believe these messages are objectifying of women. And it would be nice for men to stand up against these images as well and say, “that’s not cool”. I don’t think there is *anything* wrong with saying that. I don’t think it’s demeaning to men for me to say that either.

              Whether you agree or not, I think pop-media messages affect men and women more than we like to believe. And even if it doesn’t, why would any man or woman want to see more objectifying images of the other gender? Especially if the gender that is the subject of these messages themselves finds it objectifying? Wouldn’t it make sense for the other gender to take note of the things that can make each other feel objectified to better understand how we are different or how we are the same? I think that would be a huge benefit.

              When I came to GMP, there were lots of things I didn’t know about men that men considered objectifying of them. I had never considered these things the same way a lot of the these men had. But hearing men talk about it, hearing why these things made them feel objectified or degraded opened my mind and made me realize how some of the behavior I engaged in was objectifying to them. Guess what ? I worked on not doing those things I use to do. I worked to improve my relationship with men because I wanted to understand them better because men are wonderful! I didn’t want contribute to their objectification. I didn’t want to just shrug my shoulders and say “Well, I don’t think that’s a big deal/I don’t think that’s very objectifying…” , and then just continue on in my own world.

              I guess because that’s been my experience, I want to see the same from men. You want to demonize me for that? I am sure you can find a way to do it. But everything I shared was 110% from a place of sincerity.

            • “You want to demonize me for that?”
              How is he demonizing you for that, he’s clearly saying you are TELLING MEN what they think, and not suggesting or asking. That’s the offensiveness, I really cannot understand why you are so intent on defending your ability to outright deny men’s agency in their own thoughts whilst implying Mike is denying yours? It’s extremely simple. Don’t tell people what they think, if you feel men think a certain way then say that but don’t state it as fact that men think X when you are just guessing even if it’s an informed guess.

              What is it you don’t understand about how insulting it is to tell others what they think?

          • Erin
            We are many that love to hear your honest feelings and thoughts.

          • ogwriter says:

            “…very popular with a good chunk of men,” is hardly the kind of knowledge one can base a thesis upon. Counterpoint: The Chippendale’s are a franchise, which means that male strippers for women is a world wide franchise with many other male stripper groups like the Thunder Down Under giving their all for the cause.
            Hell, I have had many white women and others sexually objectify me because I am a black man. Now there’s a conversation, how much do white women sexually objectify men of color? The honest truth is, as demonstrated by the evidence presented, human beings-men and women- sexually objectify each other. It is only when it is inconvenient that some people complain. If men didn’t sexually objectify women they would never muster the courage to approach, protect or marry women or otherwise co habitat with women.

            • Can you tell us more about this :”how much do white women sexually objectify men of color”.

              Tell us about it.
              As a fan of Idris Elba I am interested to learn more.

            • ogwriter says:

              @Iben: Forgive me for laughing (you certainly must have heard me wherever you are) at the absurdity of your request. Not that I won’t provide you with my the benefit of my experiences, but that you made the request speaks to the chasm of misunderstanding that exist between men and women. Absurd because it is 2013 and we do so like to pride ourselves on how open and inclusive we are, only we are not.If we were this conversation would happened 100 years ago. Anyway…

              There is so much to cover it is hard to know where to begin. Since you bring up Idris Elba, I will start there. The fact that a black man who looks like Idris Elbas is even considered a sex symbol- no objectification by women there- is quite a new phenomenon. In prior years black men with broad noses, thick lips and dark skin, features thought by Americans black and white, to represent classic African features were abhorred.
              For black people, this self loathing led to attempts to change the way they looked; TALK ABOUT BODY IMAGE PROBLEMS?! THEY TRIED, UNSUCCESSFULLY, TO MAKE THEMSELVES LOOK WHITE with skin bleaches and hair straighteners. The first black millionaire, MADAM C.J.Walker made her money appealing to these insecurities, she invented the hair straightener and other whitening “beauty aids for black women.
              However, in the fifties something unusual happened that put a different spin on black aesthetics in America. A smooth,gentle, supremely talented, and unmistakably handsome dark knight appeared on the American entertainment landscape that got everyone’s attention especially: white men and women.

              His name was Nat King Cole and he had the voice, the style and the look that everyone wanted. Bing Crosby was in awe of the man.Turns out so were white women. Nat King Cole had the number one show on television. Imagine, if you will, in today’s world that a man or woman had the number one show in American television, would have it made. America was so outraged at the of idea of white women swooning at this elegant black man, there was only one thing that could be done;his show was cancelled. Nat King Cole who looked classically black, paved the way for a man like Idris Elba. The only look that was acceptable as handsome for a black men up until James Brown obliterated black is ugly with, “Say it Loud I’m Black and I’m Proud, ” was to be light skinned and have “good hair.” like Smokey Robinson.
              On a personal note, in particular when I had long natural braids and a chiseled frame, white women fell out the sky like spent pine cones; married and otherwise.
              They had all of the usual fantasies and expectations of me as a sexual being that white women have; do you have a big cock, are you hyper-masculine in bed and edgy, will do the raped by a black man fantasy with me.
              I came to recognize that these women didn’t and couldn’t even began to see me as a whole being, having reduced me to a fantasy. They knew nothing about my struggles,my problems, my history as part of an oppressed group. Nor did they bother to even think about these things BEFORE they thought to flirt with me or dream about fucking me. On the other hand, they expected me to know their stories and be sensitive to their issues and accept them as whole flawed beings.Such are the benefits of privilege.

            • Hi OG writer

              I cohabited with a man of color.
              The love of my life was a man of color,and he is dead.

              And smile and laugh all you want of white women .
              Some of us are well educated even about Africa’s history and some of us have learned and listened to what our man have told us about their life.

              Idris is born in an African country.

              And he is a great actor and a beauful man.

          • “I can understand that you don’t like being told what you think as a man. But that doesn’t automatically deny the experiences of someone that has had certain experiences with other men. ”
            Um hello, you are not a man, you can’t tell men what they think, you can’t even say as a fact what 1 man thinks. Telling men what they think is wrong, saying in your experience you feel men say x y z IS fine. Your experience isn’t being denied because it’s logically impossible for you to state what men think because 1, men are not a monolith, and 2, you aren’t even a man so you can’t even assert what 1 man thinks. You’re pretty much womansplaining to men, saying men want this or that, not that you THINK men want this or that.

            “No. But come on, it’s very popular with a good chunk of men. ”
            I don’t know anyone that looks at playboy anymore, most of us look at online porn.

            “I think I can say that also safely applies to me as a woman when it comes to having certain beliefs about men. ”
            You’re telling men that you know better than they are by denying their experience in favour of your own to say men want x, y, z. Do you understand how stupid this logic is? Say that you THINK men think x, y, z, don’t STATE IT AS FACT. There is a huge difference between saying “I feel many men want x, y, z because of how popular playboy is” vs saying “Men want x, y, z because playboy is so popular”.

            “Regardless, it’s no big secret that men like Playboy largely.”
            I don’t. I am a man, thanks for denying my experience. It’s no big secret that SOME MEN like it, but NOT ALL DO. The way you often speak is that of monolithic views of men n women, no qualifiers but asserting as fact what one gender thinks.

            You’re not a man, you’re even less qualified to state what men think than Mike is. Mike is 100% correct in stating what 1 man things, you cannot be 100% correct what 1 man thinks because you are not a man! You cannot go telling other people their experience! Guess what we think all you like, say “I feel some men think this” if you want..hell I do it myself at times, but you can’t state for fact what a man or men think.

      • Michael Rowe says:

        Erin, since the issue is objectification and stereotyping, would you please also publish a list of the number of men playing mooks, criminals, sleazebags, murderers, abusers, and/or idiots? Clearly, since there’s no comparison, it should be a short list.

        • Michael, I’ll tell you what, If you want to write an article about how men are objectified in the media, I will post that list. Plus a list about all the hyper-masculine protrayls men get forced on them too. Because I TOTALLY agree that men get their own unfair protrayls. And I totally agree that is a neccesary conversation to have. I just don’t think it’s fair to have it under *this* subject. I don’t see how writing an aritlce about the objectification of women takes anything away from the fact that men face objectification too. And I understand this is a men’s website but do you really not want to learn anything about women or discuss anything women go through? Men and women are intricately linked. I want us to understand each other better. And on this website, I found a place where men are willing to talk about so much more then just who the hottest and youngest and newest top Maxim girl is. I like that men come here to talk. But I also want to see men that care about the issues they face and care about getting to know women better too.

          If you decide to write that article, I promise that I will respect it and not utter one word about how women are objectified. I will talk about the issues men face and I will respect the right of men to talk the issues they face in an article that is about just that. As I wish could be also done in this article. But I see that, that is perhaps an unfair request for some of you. Perhaps the way women are objectified should not be talked about at all. Even on a website for men.

          • Michael Rowe says:

            Erin, thanks for your thoughtful, gracious response. Here are some thoughts of my own, respectfully shared, in response to some of the points you raised:

            The media is full of magazines, websites, forums, television shows, and books that deal in nothing but “what women go through.” What there is precious little of is media dealing with “what men go through.” And even here, it seems, it’s almost impossible for men to discuss what they go through without women telling them what they think and feel, or why, or how.

            With regard to an article about how men are stereotyped and objectified in the media, there really isn’t any need. That type of article has been written many times, even on this site, and it has almost universally been met with a snide, dismissive chorus of, “Waaaaah! What about teh menz?”-type responses of the sort that would never be tolerated by men on a women’s website if the issue was a woman talking about stereotyping and objectification of women.
            After awhile it gets tired, it gets boring, and it gets disheartening.

            Especially since I, like so many others, first came to the GMP to find out more what men think about themselves than what women think about them, and certainly not to read women telling men what to think about themselves, or explaining the male experience to them. As to whether or not I, personally, want to know what women think on this site—sure, of course, but not nearly as much as I want to know what men think about these issues.

            • I am going to share with you what I agree with and what I disagree with and how I can see it from a differing perspective.

              I agree that there are many mediums women utilize that discuss a lot of the issues women most deal with in the modern world. A lot of these mediums are largely female-centric with a much bigger female audience and much smaller male-audience. Because they are much more largely female-centric, I guess it does not really satisfy the conversation i would like to have with men included in on the topic. I suspect a lot of women feel simliarly. For another thing, I do not agree, support or like every medium that does talk about women’s issues. Not all of them necessarily come from a good place or promote healthy exchanges. I am really unhappy with programs like “The View” and I do not like magazines like Cosmo. They often sell the same messages we’ve been hearing for far too long. Lastly, while I agree that there are many mediums that talk about women’s issues, I am not really sure how much is ever going to change unless men and women are in on a dialogue about things that affect men and women. Men need to care about what happens with women and women need to care about things that happen with men. And that is the only way things are really going to change. Because each side can have their battle cry and have a million of their own gender agree, but real change only happens when you get the other side in on it.

              Now GMP is NOT always the time to talk about women. Alot of conversation should, and I believe already does, focus on men. But I do think that GMP will miss out on important conversations if they never want to talk about topics women are affected by. Perhaps a totally separate website needs to be made that is about women and men talking about their issues equally. But I fear that it will largely turn into another website for women because I don’t think most men are very interested in sharing the conversation as it is because of what you expressed earlier in believing that women already have enough outlets to discuss their problems. I know nothing about websites or how to run one but I would be interested in certainly creating a website like that. A place where men and women can come together where it’s not just about women and it’s not just about men; but where it’s about each other and giving each other face time and a place to be heard.

              You will be hard pressed to find many articles that haven’t been done a thousand times over. But I actually believe this is important and neccesary to making bigger changes. There is *always* a new thought to learn, even on the same topic. And there is always a changing and emerging society to contend with that influences the discussion. Even on discussions that have been had over and over again. Right now men are living in a world that is starting to objectify them for their bodies in more obvious ways then previous generations. Mediums change, the world changes, the conversations might seem the same but they aren’t.

              I am sure you have read many dismissive, snide and “what about me comments”. To be totally honest, I have been and might even sometimes let it slip out again, be a part of the problem. But I am trying to be self aware enough to lead a different kind of conversation. People get wrapped up in their own pain. They find it hard to talk about someone else’s pain or issues when they feel so much of their own. If we can get people to put their own pain aside for a moment, and not feel like putting it aside means they are being put in second place, we can each embrace and address each other’s issues without having to always contend with the “what about me” comments.

              I know women aren’t perfect Michael, but they are not the only ones that can be dismissive, hurtful or snide. We are all guilty of that sometimes. I think the key is asking ourselves why these people always feel the need to say “ what about me”. It’s simply because they are hurting. They aren’t going about it the best way they can, but they are hurting. Once we understand that, sometimes it’s easier to see why they may sometimes , and I agree in appropriately, get the conversation off course.

              I think it might surprise you what is tolerate on female or male websites about how you can talk to one another. Degrading conversation is not unique to men experiencing it from women. I think this happens all around the bored. I’ve had a lot of degrading comments thrown at me and me , being horribly flawed have lashed out too sometimes. But I think part of the healing happens when even though we know we haven’t always contributed something entirely perfectly, that at least we keep trying to bridge the gap and are honest about our own mistakes and honest and gracious in telling people how they are hurting us.

              I think your last comments are the hardest part for me. I also guess it makes me feel like you value men’s opinions more than you do women’s. Which is basically what you are saying when you say: “ As to whether or not I, personally, want to know what women think on this site—sure, of course, but not nearly as much as I want to know what men think about these issues.” When I talk about issues women face, I am just as interested in hearing men’s opinions as women’s. I want men involved in the conversation. And when I talk about issues men face, I am again, just as interested in hearing women’s opinions as men’s. I guess it’s hard for me to relate to the fact that you largely are interested more in men’s thoughts and ideas that what women can contribute to the conversation.

              I guess I would like to see each gender care about the issues the other gender faces and to really put themselves in the other’s shoes to see what it would be like on the other side. I think only then are things ever going to really change.

              You can sit around with another group of men and have some great conversations. But unless you make women a part of that conversation, we are never going to fully understand the way certain things affect you. For example, a group of men can believe that how men are treated in the court system is totally unfair. But less they talk about it with women in a way that gets women to participate and see the other side, very little is going to change from the core problem. I think much the same things applies to ideas of objectification and women when it comes to things that are sold to men about women’s bodies and worth.

              So here we are having a discussion about why we shouldn’t be talking about female objectification. Instead of talking about what this actual article is about.

              I am also disheartend Michael.

            • “You can sit around with another group of men and have some great conversations. But unless you make women a part of that conversation, we are never going to fully understand the way certain things affect you.”

              Do you comprehend why he is annoyed? Media SMOTHERS us with the woman’s perspective, he wants men to be able to have a perspective without women smothering it. When the majority of discourse is about women’s perspective, even on a men’s site, then there is a problem is his message. Women enjoy massive amounts of perspective highlighted in media, if there is a social issue then it’s most likely the female perspective that gets pushed forward. Body image insecurity is heavily pushed by females even though men are just as insecure according to some studies.

              AFAIK this is the first objectification video on this site and it was framed to highlight how bad da womenz get it….this is a men’s site, surely the men should come first just as Jezebel, etc push women first? Men need space to discuss the issues, we cannot have women’s issues overwhelm men’s voices on this site. All issues should at least have a male counterpart where possible, I find it stupidly frustrating to listen to an issue that affects me n other men on this site be pushed FIRST and be pushed heavily for the female perspective on how they suffer. Highlight their issue if you want but cater to the men first, this is a men’s site is it not? Jezebel, and a heap of other female-centric sites already exist for the women’s perspective being first.

            • Hi Erin
              You write:”I know nothing about websites or how to run one but I would be interested in certainly creating a website like that. A place where men and women can come together where it’s not just about women and it’s not just about men; but where it’s about each other and giving each other face time and a place to be heard”

              CREATE A WEBSITE LIKE ERIN. DO IT NOW!

              I will come and take part in the discussions IF
              it is monitored. A website for dialogue not a ugly bar fight !

              Let the monitor stop comments that are degrading remarks,bullying, invalidation of others feelings ,hatful abusive remarks and personal attacks…….all remarks that is intended to destroy the other person.

              It can be done. We have a website for debate like that in my country and it is the country’s best debate site. The good monitoring attract persons that’s want a dialog and not a place to vent their hatred.

              This world have enough hate and conflicts. We do not need more. We need to learn how to stop conflicts and cooperate.
              That is what civilized people do.

              (When you have the website send me a message through GMP, they can give you my e-mail address and I will come.) otherwise I will not know of its existence.

            • Erin
              My English is not good enough.
              I used the word monitor. It seems the correct word is moderator!

      • wellokaythen says:

        Thanks for the list. I hope I can just copy and paste that list into my Netflix queue….

  14. wellokaythen says:

    The chosen images are powerful, and the stats are alarming. The correlation between the stats and the ads, though, are largely unstated and assumed. If one thing increases over 20 years and another thing increases over 20 years, then one causes the other, right? Not necessarily. There’s probably some effect of perfume ads in fashion magazines on interpersonal violence, but is magazine advertising a primary culprit or just an easy target? I suspect it’s the latter, more than anyone wants to admit.

    In any event, a fair analytical question would be to ask what others things have happened in the past 20 years that might also have had an impact on these phenomena. If we’re going to let youtube blurbs determine our social policies, then this is great. Otherwise I’m going to want some verifiable arguments. To me the video itself makes women look like total morons who simply absorb whatever magazines tell them to do.

    In some cases, the analysis is somewhat strained. A woman having sex lying on her stomach on a counter while she’s drinking coffee means that she’s being “submissive” and he’s being “dominant”? Huh?

    I’ve seen or heard about a dozen presentations, lectures, and blogs about the objectification of women in advertising and its relationship to violence against women. It may not surprise you to learn that I keep seeing the exact same examples used over and over. That 1970’s ad showing the nude woman next to the shoe has been making the rounds for about 40 years now. The one with the engagement ring that opens a woman’s legs has become a great favorite around the web. I’d love to see a little more variety, which shouldn’t be all that hard if the evidence is so abundant.

    In answer to the question about gender reversal:

    A fuller thought experiment about gender role reversal would also have to address the advertising tropes in which men are shown as inferior to women. Let’s say for the sake of argument that those are less common. Fine. They’re still out there, and they are part of the spectrum of gender constructs in popular culture.

    For example, I’d like everyone to imagine an ad in which a man is portrayed as a wonderful, competent, wise, experienced parent and a woman is portrayed as an ignorant, disorganized, dirty, clueless buffoon when it comes to raising children. Treat women as inherently dangerous to children and treat men as more important to a child’s health and future than women. That would also be a striking role reversal.

    • Google it. You can see way more examples. They really aren’t hard to find. They are all over the place.

      And I actually agree that men get the short end of the stick when being protrayed as loving fathers or even loving husbands without having to be some bumbling idiot. I would love to see more protrayls of men as strong father and husband figures that uphold the respect of his family. Instead of movies like the Hangover that show a bunch of 30- 40 something guys acting liek frat boys and trying to keep their wild escapeds from their loved ones. There is a new show called “Touch” with Keither Sutherland and it really embodies an excellent role of a loving father and the lengths and depths he will go for, for his son. We need more stuff like that. I want to SEE more stuff like that. I don’t want men to be exploited. But guess what? I am tired of women being exploited too. I don’t ever really see guys who say “I don’t want to see women treated like meat!” Instead i see more comments along the lines of “Well, I am a man and I love looking at beautliful women, that’s just my biology.” Which insinuates that it’s okay to treat women like meat as long as your are a man and your horny.

      • wellokaythen says:

        ” “Well, I am a man and I love looking at beautliful women, that’s just my biology.” Which insinuates that it’s okay to treat women like meat as long as your are a man and your horny.”

        There’s a massive leap in logic between these two sentences. In between those two sentences are several flawed assumptions and probably some axes to grind. There is substantial difference between A) saying that a man likes to look at beautiful women and that has some biological basis and B) saying that women are simply pieces of meat.

        Yes, some men will use some sort of pseudo-biological argument to deny their responsibility for their actions. But, you can’t say that enjoying looking at women is therefore insinuating that women are no better than meat. Unless all visual enjoyment is disempowering to women, in which case men will need to avert their eyes in the presence of all women.

  15. wellokaythen says:

    Someone else made this point, too, but notice how the men put into the original women’s role are not conventionally attractive men.

    Put a male model in suspenders licking a popsicle, and it’s a very different feeling. Put Channing Tatum nude next to a woman’s high heel, and it’s a very different advertisement.

    The fact that the video’s role reversals are so humorous is because the men are so clearly NOT conventionally attractive. That’s part of the shock value, because we have also come to expect exceptionally “beautiful” men to be male models. This suggests that in fact male images in media are also idealized and somewhat objectified.

    • Megalodon says:

      Someone else made this point, too, but notice how the men put into the original women’s role are not conventionally attractive men.

      When we thought of gender “reversal” for these advertisements, we thought it was going to be substituting highly conventially attractive men in place of the highly conventionally attractive women who are usually in such ads. However, the authors behind this concept apparently had a different kind of “reversal” in mind. Instead of substituting men who would usually be the attractive counterparts for model women, they substituted the kind of average, unremarkable men whom they imagined to be the viewers and consumers of these kinds of ads. It’s as if they wanted to say, “You like staring and leering at conventionally attractive professional female models? Well how would like it if people stared at your average, not attractive body in widespread advertisements?” It is conceived a some kind of vicarious punishment for men who view and consume conventional titillation.

      • Who is “we”? I had no preconceived ideal that the men used in the advertisments would be male models. To be honest, I responded to these ads way more with real men in them than a male model. I relate more to real men than male models.

        I don’t think this was made as a way to punish average men. I think it was an attempt to get all us average folks to see the way women are targeted and marketed.

        • Megalodon says:

          Who is “we”?

          The people who “notice how the men put into the original women’s role are not conventionally attractive men” as Wellokaythen pointed.

          I had no preconceived ideal that the men used in the advertisments would be male models.

          Well, other people did. The question in the title asked what if “the gender roles were reversed” in these advertisment tropes, so some people assumed that the gender roles would be reversed but the other factors and attributes would be controlled and constant. But it was not just the gender roles that were reversed and changed. The authors also lowered the attractiveness scale of the people presented. A more honest title would have been “What if the gender roles were reversed and the attractiveness significantly reduced?”

          To be honest, I responded to these ads way more with real men in them than a male model. I relate more to real men than male models.

          What do you mean by “respond”? Do you mean “respond” as in you view the advertised male persons as sexual objects? Do you mean “respond” as in you empathize with them? “Respond” as in viewing the subjects as ridiculous and contemptuous?

          I don’t think this was made as a way to punish average men.

          If the original ads with female persons are meant as a way to objectify and commodify women and to express vicarious and sublimated hostility against women, then punishment sounds quite plausible when the supposed perpetrators of all those bad things (male viewers) are substituted in place of their advertised female victims.

          • wellokaythen says:

            Just speculating here, and maybe reading too much into it, but this presentation seems to suggest men who are not really worthy of the women usually portrayed in advertisements. The women normally in these ads would be “out of their league.” So, part of the shock value or humor value to women seeing this video is how silly these men are to think they could ever interest a beautiful woman like, say, me the viewer. The subtext seems to be: “It’s a shame how many beautiful women there are in media images and how many ugly men there are in real life. That’s so unfair to attractive women like me. If only there were men out there worthy of me.” That seems to be a subtext here.

            • Megalodon says:

              Yes, I agree.

              A category of people that are considered deserving of punishment and humiliation are people who don’t “know their place.” The whole reason people watch shows like “American Idol” is to watch people with an overestimation of their own talent get denounced and humiliated. It is amusing and by and large, we think such people deserve the shame and scorn. And the same thing definitely goes for people whom we judge to have an inflated sense of their romantic appeal.

  16. Tom Brechlin says:

    I TIVO, or whatever it’s called, everything I watch …. I could care less these days. I fast forward through commercials.

  17. Tom Brechlin says:

    Except sports, but commercials are times for re-fills, pissc breaks, smoke breaks or lively talk

  18. Why does that have to be in *this* video about the way women are objectfified? I really don’t understand your thought mentality.

    Is making a video about how women are objectified in the media demeaning toward the ways men can be objectified by the media? How could it?

    Does the fact that men are sometimes protrayed as being stupid in the media deny the fact that women are dehumanized in the media? Again, how could it?

    Can they not both exist and should they not both be addressed in their own right without the other side always feeling the need to say, “But, but, but…what about me, me, me!?”

    If you don’t care about this topic, then why are you in it to begin with? If you only care about media that shows men as being stupid, then LOOK for those articles. They ARE on this very website. If you don’t care about how the media objectifies women, then don’t even read articles that address it. That sounds like the rational thing to do right?

    I would never want to ignore the fact that men ARE also objectified in different ways in the media. I WANT to see more positive imagery of men in the media. I would love that. But do men also want to see more positive imagery of women in the media?

    *This* topic is about the objectificiation that happens to women in the media and how it would look if the roles where reversed. If you want to talk about how men are represented in the media, you have not come into the right article.

    • Where are the videos like this about objectification of men??

      • Why don’t you make one? That’s what these people did. And then you can write a piece about it.

        • “Why don’t you make one? That’s what these people did. And then you can write a piece about it.”
          Comments are un-nested, who was this too?
          If to me then because I have very little money, very little health ability and no access. Not to mention a video about objectification should already exist in a world with 3billion men and hopefully over 5billion people that care for them.

          • I’m not sure it requires a lot of money. But I can understand your health making it difficult or impossible. I’m not sure how much “access” you would really need. I think anyone with an iphone and computer or who knows someone with an iphone or computer (or simply a computer camera) could make a movie.

            Whether information should exist already or not is irrevelant. American Indians should never have been slaughtered, we should have never had slaves, women should have always had the right to vote. There are a lot of shoulds in the world. Does that mean that men that had slaves or were married or partnered didn’t care for these people on some scale? Not always. Ideas change and hopefully improve. Times change and society sees different outcomes come through.

            By the way, just go to youtube and type in a phrase akin to “male objectification in the media”. You will see a lot of information pop up. Even videos made by women.

            • I know they exist, but not on here, GMP. I’m also a lil nervous putting my face on it and getting trolled, had enough bullying in my life and videos of that type ted to get trolled a lot. I think the canadian groups for males (CAFE, etc) are discussing the issues and may make some though. Dunno if there is a male version of Miss Representation or Feminist Frequency.

            • I’ve dealt with a lot of trolls and bullies online myself. It can get you down. But you shouldn’t let them beat you down so that you don’t have a voice.

              There are always risks when we put ourselves out there. I’ve been called a lot of names, thought about poorly because I’ve shared my opinion on topics.

              I’ve also dealt with bullying in my real life. If I’ve learned anything about bullying, practicually no one hasn’t infact been bullied to varying degrees.

              I think I got to the point myself where I didn’t care if people agreed with me or not. I knew my heart came from a good place. Even when I was on a learning curve. And even though sometimes there are hurtful things said and sometimes I can lash out in return, it’s helped me grow. But I got to be who I am even if others don’t like it. I don’t need their acceptance. And their bullying says more about them than it does me. That’s their own issues they need to work on.

              If you want to see a change, you got to be part of the change. I can’t make that video for you because like you are always telling me, I am not a man. And you can’t wait for *other* men to do it even though hopefully maybe someone will.

              But when that video is made, I will give it, it’s respect and I will not come into that article looking to talk about women instead or make that place, the place where I talk about the injustices women face. I wish we could do the same here but it is obvious that we can’t.

              So in this article about women’s objectification, lets talk about men. And in other articles about the issues men face, lets talk about men. That is obviously what most of the guys here want to talk about. So lets forget women entirely and focus on making life better *first* and *most* for men.

            • “So in this article about women’s objectification, lets talk about men. And in other articles about the issues men face, lets talk about men. That is obviously what most of the guys here want to talk about. So lets forget women entirely and focus on making life better *first* and *most* for men.”

              My guess is the disparity in articles, if say 95% of articles of objectification are about women then the male side is very under-represented and hence you get the whataboutthemen comments. I guarantee the same stuff would happen if it was mostly about men too. Trouble is I am starting to think there has been more written about objectification of women on this site, a site for men, than there has been of men….or I haven’t seen it in my travels here. The rape and domestic violence topics also of the articles I’ve seen I’d guess at least 75% or more have been about women and I find it pretty fucking annoying tbh because everywhere else has the same heavily gynocentric view. I don’t think I’ve read something like “women can stop rape” in regards to female perpetrators, but I’ve a few times the “men can stop rape” stuff. Again, on a site for men it starts to make you wonder if men are adequately catered to because most of society discusses those issues from the female point of view and if men’s voices start to become the minority on a men’s site then that’s a hugeeeeeee problem.

              I don’t mind talking about women’s issues as long as men’s issues are fully covered first ON this site. This is the only site I know of that does male and female issues in such a heavy spread between each, everything else is either heavily phallocentric or gynocentric that I’ve seen. A site for men has to be primarily about men first, especially since it’s so fucking rare to have a site like this for men yet plenty exist already for women. Hope that explains the derailing comments better because if there are too many gynocentric articles and not enough phallocentric articles on these issues on THIS site in particular then it’s actually women’s issues that has derailed the site. It’s no fun hearing mostly about how women are harmed in domestic violence n rape for instance when at least 90% of the discussions outside of this site focus on women. I honestly hope I just suck at seeing the other articles but it’s a trend I’ve noticed, and others have too I think. I would love to be proved wrong however.

    • Michael Rowe says:

      Good point, Erin. For instance, I’ve often thought, on this very website, that it would be nice to read about men’s issues, especially the autobiographical ones written by men, “without the other side always feeling the need to say, ‘But, but, but…what about me, me, me!?'”

  19. To all of you:

    I have decided to withdraw from this website. GMP.
    I came here to understand men better and I have learned a lot.
    But the bullying I see of women that take part in debates on several threads here tells me this is not a place for me.

    Only 1-2% of the men here destroys for all the other men that are decent,open and wants a dialog.
    When somebody is bullied because she shares how she FEELS then I loose all respect and know it is better for me to find another online community for important discussions.

    My last words to John:” you call me a man hater,but you are not able to formulate one single sentence to tell me why you think so”.

    I know it is a waste of time for me to be on website when men like you only want to RULE.

    • Michael Rowe says:

      Iben, this is a forum for men to discuss men’s issues, first and foremost. I suspect a number of men are very tired of having women tell them how they, as men, see/feel/believe/see/think. The fact is, if men on this page feel like pushing back against that, as long as they stay within the terms of service parameters, that’s more than their right.

      It’s propitious that you should say “someone is bullied because how she FEELS,” because one of the hallmarks of the GMP has been the unfortunate donnybrook that has occurred, time and time again, when men have expressed how they “FEEL,” often in first person pieces, only to be shredded by female commenters, and then, when they point out that they’re feeling bullied on a website that is ostensibly dedicated to men’s issues, they’re told to shut up and/or suck it up, and if they don’t like being lectured on why they’re wrong to feel as they do, they’re “sexist.”

      Female commentators on this site have a always luxury of expression than no male commenter would ever–EVER– enjoy on a similar site devoted to women’s issues. No man would ever get away with lecturing and hectoring female commenters the way men are often lectured on this site. The perspectives of women have historically been very welcome on this site, but frankly, if they think that they’re immune from having their views on men’s issues and men’s lives occasionally vehemently challenged, then perhaps that’s worth a re-think.

      In the meantime, good luck in your search for a different site, since you’re “withdrawing” from this one. I, for one, have enjoyed your articulateness, and will miss it. But if you’re not comfortable, you needn’t frustrate yourself on a site that so clearly, by your own account, is a “waste of time to be on.”

      • Hi Michael Rowe

        The first time I posted a comment on GMP I asked if I men wanted women to take part or not. I was told by men that they wanted women in the debate otherwise things would get “even worse.”

        I try understand what you say. And maybe men should have a debate site for men only to focus on their issues.

        Freedom of speech is a cornerstone in democratic societies.

        I Europe we have non stop debate a out Islam in Europe. We also have European militant antijihad movement that are as dangerous as ku klux klan. And after Anders Behring Breivik one afternoon killed 77 and wounded more than 100 after first publishing a 1500 page e-book on how to preserve “his “Nordic blond blue eye tribe, then we have been challenged about freedom of speech.
        Shall a person that fights and kills for ideas like producing blue eye blond babies in factories to prevent the extinction of the white race have freedom of speech?

        Freedom of speech is important but so is RESPONSIBILITY OF SPEACH.

        Women have the same responsibility of speech as men. And moderators also have a responsibility to stop personal attack, bullying and abusive behavior if women behave like that to dominate discourse on GMP.

        You write:”commentators on this site have a always luxury of expression than no male commenter would ever–EVER– enjoy on a similar site devoted to women’s issues. No man would ever get away with lecturing and hectoring female commenters the way men are often lectured on this site. The perspectives of women have historically been very welcome on this site, but frankly, if they think that they’re immune from having their views on men’s issues and men’s lives occasionally vehemently challenged, then perhaps that’s worth a re-think.”

        I know nothing about American women’s sites for debate.
        That women have their views of men and their issues challenged is a good thing, but look at HOW it is done. There is so much hate here.

        Maybe I react strongly because I am Scandinavian and we have a different culture and men’s situation is different from the one in US. We do not kill each other as often as you do in America, maybe we are more careful.

        If women are verbally abusive to men on GMP,then why don’t the moderator stop it?
        If women attack on persons ( we call it person attack where I live) why don’t moderators stop it?

        If that is impossible then maybe you should create a debate site for men only.

        And when it comes to the use of porn, men can talk about that without being told what women feel about lovers, husbands and boyfriends that use porn and let that influence their love life.

        But it comes a day when at least some of the male porn users also wants to make love to a human being, man or woman …..

        Here is something interesting:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSF82AwSDiU&sns=em

    • Iben, this is a site for men. Women should NOT come here n lecture men and TELL men what they think. Feel free to say “You feel like men think this” and use words to show it’s just a feeling and not an outright statement of fact and it will be all good. But I’m not going to sit by n let a woman tell men what they think because a woman is not a man and less even less authority to say what men think + not all men think the same. It’d be as dumb as me going to a site for women and saying they’re gold digging whores who just wanna use men for money, they think men’s only worth is their $$$.

      Calling people out for sexism is not bullying. Calling people out for making hateful statements of what men think is not bullying. No one here I’ve seen has an issue listening to what women FEEL as long as that FEELING is not man-hating n shaming the hell out of men as a gender instead of individual men. The porn threads are rife with this, a woman will come in and generalize about porn and that men want everything and say statements which are just false because they only apply to a subset of men who look at porn and you end up with men feeling bullied and not wanting to open up. You won’t learn anything whilst we have people making flat out lies about men, and very few women even bother to stand up and tell them to quit generalizing, quit treating men like demons. Why the hell would men want to open up when it’s so common to have a woman dismiss his entire fucking experience and tell HIM WHAT HE THINKS? I have seen women on here dismiss mens experience, 5+ men have told them differently but nooo, they still tell MEN what MEN think, what MEN want, they as a female know better than men do about what men want….and worse, the man-hating bullshit doesn’t always get moderated out. I have seen some extremely man-shaming words said without moderation and seen men not want to open up because of it.

  20. Michael Rowe says:

    Now, how about a video showing women who can’t change a diaper, can’t look after kids, can’t cook dinner, can’t shop, and can’t get dressed without asking a man if what they’re wearing “goes together?” In short, who can’t do anything but lift thing and grunt? Then we can have an honest talk about stereotypes in advertising, preferably without the interminable video montage and bad soundtrack.

    • Try media that shows women who can do it all. Can have amazing bodies, pop out a dozen kids, hold down a totally awesome professiona career while taking care of everybody else. Try media that is more interested in seeing goregous women like Paris Hilton and Kim Kradashian then highlighting women that have good hearts.

      We all have our pressures Michael. Just because women aren’t depicted not being able to change a diaper doesn’t mean women aren’t also getting the short end of the stick.

  21. It’s a good piece, but it would have been stronger if the men had been as “hot” as the women in the ads being lampooned. Doughy guys posing for perfume are not the same as waifish girls doing the same thing. At least put the twink in with the right product and the bear with his appropriate prop.

    I worry less about ads than about articles, to be honest. There’s such an emphasis on impossible behavior and appearance, with non-advertising photos to illustrate, and I think it does more harm than clearly out-of-this-world scenarios featuring nearly alien-looking models.

  22. jmundstuk says:

    I disagree that advertising tells us what to think and how to be. Advertising reflects how we think and amplifies it, agreed, but it is not a brain-washing machine. Further, it and mass media adjust to social changes by showing changing roles. Look at the number of gay or semi-gay characters in TV today; at the increased sexualization or objectification of the male body/male beauty when selling to women.

    The statistics raise a question: is violence against women increasing? Put another way, is the change in violence against women different from the change in all violence, in women on men and men on men violence? I don’t know but this video suggests that it is raging upward. The statistics and advert images suggest the ever-popular post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

    Others have made the very good point that a number of the men used in the reversal ads are not attractive. They are, in fact, a reflection of the idea that straight men really don’t know what an attractive man looks like — which is untrue; they just are afraid to admit it.

    There are also many, many straight men who like dominant women — there’s a whole industry built up around it — so my conclusion is that this is an ideologically-driven complaint about some things that are actually changing. Using a demeaning ad from the 1950s to make a point about advertising today is a dead giveaway. The 50s are gone; Mad Men is a look backward. We don’t live in that world anymore.

    • Daniel Kershaw says:

      This video has been doing the rounds on Facebook and it seems everyone has been hopping on the bandwagon about how insightful and clever it is. As a graduate from a university that had compulsory cultural studies, I can see this video DOES have some valid points about the representation of women in advertising. I think some of the ads shown are sexist and (what’s worse) not relevant or clever. But what I find disturbing about the video is how the author(s) take things out of context in a way that would make Michael Moore proud. Seriously, you’re going to talk about MODERN female representation with ads from the 50s? And then you’re going to link them, via tacky text slides, about how advertising is contributing to how women and men view the female body. Once you’re done with this flimsy argument, you’re going to make an outrageous claim that it somehow links with domestic and sexual abuse? Do they actually realise that people spend most of their time trying to avoid ads and they do not have this supreme power over us and maybe the content in magazines and other cultural and social issues are to blame for the current representation of women? I don’t know what this video makes me so mad – it’s not the assumption that advertising is a male gendered industry – when in fact there are plenty of female creatives, but rather that its logic is deeply flawed. And if you’re going to reverse the genders of the ads for a laugh (which was a pretty decent idea, poorly executed), why don’t you get an aesthetically pleasing male to do it, instead of an unattractive, obese male, and see how people react to it. Furthermore, why don’t you show how men are portrayed in television ads for female related consumables, because I can tell you something, it’s not positive – but I, personally, don’t care about it, because they are just rubbish ads and as soon as I stop watching them, I stop thinking about it. I guess a lot of you are wondering why I am on this rant. The reason for it is this – everyone is sharing this video on Facebook, but very few people are questioning its message and argument. This makes me both sad and alarmed, because every day on this site, we are passively accepting every in vogue thought without thinking about it. I am not saying I am right about it and feel free to argue passionately against me on this topic if you feel so inclined, but what I am saying is reason is one of the greatest assets a human being has. Embrace it.

      • Mmm I think I can see why you might find some of the text-based arguments in the video simplistic. In particular, some of the language that was used was fairly ambiguous (even potentially misleading) about the relationship between advertising and gender roles. Nonetheless, I think your dismissal of it is based on an interpretation of the underlying argument that is ultimately not the strongest form of the argument.

        In particular, in your response you seem to be assuming somehow that advertisements are being elevated to the singular source of all gender ideologies. The strong version of this claim would be silly, but that’s not to say that it’s not part of the equation. You choose to dismiss the ideas on the video on the basis that people like to avoid advertisements. I would say that that’s a rather flawed understanding of advertising. Clearly despite some people’s occasional attempts to avoid advertising, it is obviously effective at shaping our behaviors, attitudes, and ideas. I interpret the reference to the amount of money spent by advertisers in the video to be an implicit argument along the lines of “look they’re spending this much money, and they wouldn’t continue to do that if it wasn’t doing what they wanted” (and if this fairly reasonable argument is not enough evidence to convince you of the efficacy of advertising, then I’d direct you to any publication with the word “marketing” in it).

        Of course, if you interpret this to say that advertisers are spending this money in the hopes of influencing our gender ideologies (because they just want so badly to oppress us with gender roles), then yes that would be a poor argument. What is the origin of the gender roles expressed in these advertisements? They certainly don’t originate in advertisements; patriarchy was attested long before the invention of things like the printing press, photography, the internet, etc. Advertising while trying to influence our thoughts is also drawing on my pre-existing ideas. This is a necessity for communication in general, but it’s made painfully obvious in the pictures featured in this video. For example, in the advertisement about the ketchup bottle, I am able to interpret “You mean a woman can open it?” because I have the necessary stereotype to make sense of this statement. However, in the reversed gender condition featured in the video the line “You mean a man can open it?” seems nonsensical. The only way I am able to interpret this sentence is that I know I’m viewing a commentary on gender ideology and I can say to myself “ah yes, that’s clever because we wouldn’t say that”. In this sense, of course advertising isn’t “to blame” for oppressive gender ideologies in the sense that they aren’t the originators of them.

        Nonetheless, looking at advertising is worthwhile for a number of reasons. First, it is influential and ubiquitous. Even though we can’t say that advertisers created oppressive gender ideologies, they certainly contribute to our socialization in them, if for no other reason than that they echo them to us, and this constant exposure to these ideas is how we come to accept them. No one goes to third grade and has the teacher explicitly explain to them that women are weak and men can’t do housework. We learn these things through our socialization (which advertising contributes to) long before we get to third grade.

        Why isolate advertising and focus on it? We could in principle also study other things and reach the same conclusions about gender roles, but I think advertising is a useful place to look for these things because it represents what people do (advertisers and consumers) when they’re not being directly asked about their gender stereotypes. You could try to ask people through questionnaires if they think women should be used as sexual objects. Hopefully, they’d say “no”. Nonetheless, looking at advertising suggests that advertisers use women this way, and the fact that these advertisements work suggests we like that women are used as sexual objects.

        As far as the issue of how men are portrayed in “female related consumables”, you are correct that men are not portrayed positively. If you watch an advertisement for kitchen cleaners you will see a bumbling man who doesn’t know how to use a sponge quickly shooed out of the way while the competent woman swoops in to solve the problem. You say that you “don’t care” about these things. Well I would say of course you don’t! Even though men don’t look great in these ads, they ultimately work to suggest that men are not capable of doing housework and therefore women should do it. How convenient!

        As far as your argument about facebook goes. I have to ask you how you can entertain the idea that “we are passively accepting every in vogue thought without thinking about it” while also arguing that advertising doesn’t matter? You seem to be selectively interpreting when messages around us are worth paying attention to and when they’re not.

  23. As it’s been pointed out , not just on this’Reversal ‘ video but on the other ones you had posted with it (they seem to have dissappered) all the women appear as buff gorgeous and in the one video, ridiculing men at the gym, in control. The men in the videos,well,not so much. (In fact, in the gym one, it looks like you hired the male cast of that TV show ‘The Big bang Theory’) Actually, I want to thank you for that one. My workouts were ‘losing their steam’ and I was in danger of backsliding. Watching those men being ridiculed gave me the needed spark to ‘Bring it to the House’!

  24. Adam Blanch says:

    Deanna, you’ve asked the question what would it look like if gender roles were reversed, but you only look at one gender. The questions you should ask is ‘what would it look life if media representations of women’s roles were reversed?’.

    I don’t object to the attempt to challenge the objectification of women, but women isn’t ‘gender’ and by treating them as if they were you try to render my sex invisible. Have you had a look at the roles that media prescribes to men? Even the roles in that video, which you assume are empowering for men, are actually incredibly dehumanising and not at all representative of what most men aspire to. It’s not just women who are the victims of this advertising. Let alone the explosion of ‘stupid male’ advertising that denigrates men to sell products to women nowadays.

    I invite you to look outside your own box, stop subscribing to the feminist demonisation of men and consider how things are on the other side of the fence. What you are doing currently is sexist, dehumanising and hypocritical.

    • Excellent points Adam. Thank you for that. As the mother of 2 teenaged daughters and one teenaged son I know that we are all struggling with the images we are presented with, male and female.

  25. ogwriter says:

    Erin; I believe you are sincere in your desire for men and women to be more inclusive, but honestly, you are talking about white men and white women. Caring about someone’s issues means that you have taken the time to know them and their issues. I left GMP for awhile because people here don’t know my issues. Yes, I have been asked to write from a black perspective about issues And yes GMP has added more black male voices. However, these voices are redundant as there are feminists voices. It is a kind of blackface, and, for me is insulting. In my mind, that gesture is not about inclusion.
    The inclusion I am talking about would mean that GMP wouldn’t need to have a black person speak on black issues that is part of what divides us now. White people would be self educated enough because they did the of inclusion, to speak on black issues whether black people read GMP or not. This is inclusion.If men are to care about women’s issues and women are to care about men’s issues than must be willing to work

    • Ogwriter, I actually wrote a response to you a few days ago about your comments as a black man. It never got posted. I guess it was offensive but I didn’t think it was.

      I actually really appreciated your insights and your comments and can see the truth in them. I am not sure how we go about fixing that. Any suggestions on what we can do? There is a lot of unfairness and racism toward black men (and black women). I think that I have heard black women say how demeaned they feel in society because usually it’s lighter skinned African American women that are upheld as being more beautiful than dark skinned women.

      I also talked about how I was sexually objectified by African-American guys being a white, small, blond woman. I’ve had a few rude comments thrown at me based on my whitness, my small size and being blond. Such as “I would break you in half”, with a smug smile and making moves on me sexually. Or, “you’re a spinner huh”..and stuff like that.

      I admit that I don’t totally understand everything you go through but as long as you voice that and don’t take away from the conversation about how others are objectfied, I am so OPEN to listening to you about it.

      Unfortunetly, I think if you want people to hear you, you got to write from a “black perspective”. And you got to drill it into their heads over and over again until they get it. Social change takes longer than we think. White people can’t automatically be self educated unless black people talk to us about it. Just as men can’t not completely know everything women experience unless women talk about it and women can not know everthing men experience unless men talk about it.

      But I think I am with you for the most part. It does requires all of us to work and perhaps it requires all of us to challenege our own ideas that we’ve probably been living with for a long time now.

      • ogwriter says:

        @Erin; Hi Erin. What’s to know? I mean, consider this; except for some physical differences that may appear to be significant, I am just like you, a human being. Fundamentally, we require the same things ;food shelter, stability, love etc., if we are to have an opportunity to be healthy.This is true for men and for women, no exceptions. Certainly, with regard to fostering deeper understanding among diverse groups, relationships become more complex so, more communication is needed. However, that depth of understanding isn’t necessary in order for simple fairness be given to someone.
        I have had only two white women on this site ever engage me in dialogue about how my experiences fit into this narrative on GMP. You and Joan.

        • Ogwriter, I agree with you 100%. You are just like me. You are a human being, just as I am. We all require the fundemental needs you mapped out. And yes, this is true of men and women; as well as African-Americans, Indians, Latins, Asians, Whites, Christians, Jews, Hinduists, Homosexuals, hetersexuals, transsexuals, bisexuals and so on. And it seems like it should be easy but we are all operating against cultural differences and stereotypes we both project on others and even on ourselves. And sometimes we all need varying levels of food, shelter, stability and love. And sometimes we all go about different ways to obtain these things based on our own DNA and/or pyschological make-up. We both very well may need love but what is satisfying to you when it comes to love may be different for me. And I think that’s the hiccup of understanding we don’t always get about others.

          Sometimes it is hard to feel acknowledged on this website. But what I think I’ve learned based on my own learning curve is that people are often more consumed by their own pain and struggles than they are of others. Not because they don’t value other people but our own pain has a way of locking itself to our hearts and wrapping it up tightly, creating this pressure that threatens to explode unless we focus on solving it. Which unfortunetly, makes us ignore others.

          I’ve done that myself plenty of times. But I have tried to always be open to listening to others and what they are confronted with. Not only does it help me learn about others but it also helps me learn about me and challenge my own previously held misconceptions sometimes. Just be patient. If you want white women to hear you out, try to find ways to approach them in a way for them to personally experience what you deal with. It’s easier for people to relate to what you may encounter when they are placed in it themselves.

          Don’t get too discouraged. It’s just something you have to keep chipping away at. In all the history of the world, ignorance was never won over in a day. It required a very slow chipping away process.

          • ogwriter says:

            @Erin: I trust you can appreciate why I don’t care much for feminist or feminism. As you said, in so many words, people are selfish(this includes feminists) and only go so far as looking at their own situation. So, Why should I give a fuck about what some white woman has to say about anything?
            If what we agree on is true then it just seems to me white feminists should first DO the work on themselves before they go around proselytizing, judging and POINTING FINGERS AT OTHERS; while pretending that they are leaders in fairness and equality. In light of the truths you and I realize, their angst sounds like so much bs. This is progressiveness? Intersectionality is a hoax, a farce, a sham a and joke on the world. The white life coach on another thread says- and I am paraphrasing-…'” it is possible to be happy in prison as long as you come to terms with it and then one can advocate for change.” Welcome to the world of white liberal progressive inclusion!? This is the same shit we saw during the election campaign, where ” the war women,” not the economy, going took center stage. I can’t wait for Hillary to run!
            I mean, we don’t need to reform our prisons we just need to tell the prisoners,”Don’t Worry be Happy!” damn.

  26. I agree with jmundstuk.

    I’m just getting so sick of people blaming advertising for everything. You take a few ads that are overly sexual or silly, put some completely unrelated statistics between them, and try to come up with some crazy conspiracy theory claiming that all advertising campaigns’ main goal is to demean women and make them feel bad about themselves when really, advertising’s main goals is-and always has been-to sell products. When one advertising technique no longer works, they switch to something else. They pander to the people, because they want to sell to the people.

    Many of the ads that were used in this video are trying to sell things to women. They are trying to appeal to women. And guess what? Women like to be sexy. So if they see an ad that features a sexy woman, they will probably want to be more like her, and make the connection that if they buy this product they will become some sort of a sex goddess. Men also respond well to seeing a sexy woman in advertising because it is suggesting that if they buy a product, they will attract beautiful women. Is that thinking flawed? Of course, but that’s the point of advertising, of course they want to entice you to buy their stuff. If they didn’t, what would the point in advertising be? But I do not buy into this idea that advertisements-which hardly anybody even looks at anymore, I mean, we do have remote controls now-shape and brainwash our entire culture.

    The ads reflect what appeals to society. They have no evil secret agenda. They are not trying to make any sort of point. They are simply trying to sell stuff. And guess what? Sex sells. Maybe it shouldn’t be so pornographic, I do agree with that, this is a little overboard. But you look at a lot of these ads, and it’s simply not true that they’re sexist. Most of these ads are fashion ads, and it is no secret that the fashion industry is run mainly be gay men (just a fact), and they sexualize men just as much as women as far as I’m concerned. It’s common for advertisements to sexualize both men and women, because, like I said, sex sells. Especially in fashion, because one of fashion’s main purposes is to make an individual more sexually attractive. Of course they put sexuality in their ads.

    But I’ve seen lots of ads sexualizing men, too. Most ads lately feature an extremely attractive couple half-naked in a very sexual, steamy, make out session, with the brand’s name at the bottom. It’s basically just presenting an image: If you wear this, you’ll be as cool as these two, and this might happen to you-basically, these jeans are sexy! That’s the basic subliminal suggestion (or atleast the way the brain processes it), they are trying to give the product an “image”, quite literally. I’ve also seen ads just featuring men-usually they’re extremely muscular and tan, with no shirt, their belt unbuckled and flies unzipped, saying something hilariously stupid and provocative, like, “Hey there, kitten.” Or a well-endowed man on a beach wearing tight shorts and sunglasses. But advertising campaigns do not get any guff for sexualizing men, just women, because, of course, it’s part of their evil sexist plan to brainwash society and reduce women to nothing but objects, right? It has nothing to do with selling products…

    This is just a ridiculous notion that advertising is sexist, or has some hidden agenda to demean women, or that it’s responsible for every problem in society. Really. It’s getting old now. These statistics are just speculation and pseudo-science, completely unrelated facts lined up to lead you to a totally exaggerated conclusion and a few select ads used to try to make the point. If you look at it all at once, of course you’ll get that impression. But it’s not showing the complete picture, and completely missing the point, that sex sells, and the entire point of advertising is to sell.

    Somebody did a great article on this that I read recently:
    http://www.fashionindustrynetwork.com/profiles/blogs/sex-sells-mediaanother

    Me, I like to see an artistic expression of the beauty of the human body in ads. I like beauty, I like the beauty of the world around us and the people in it, and I see no reason why we should not celebrate the beauty, the beauty of human beings, of sexuality, of aesthetic senses. It makes it interesting, like Greek art, in photographic form. And I like it when men and women are used alike. At some point, it stops being artistic and becomes vulgar and silly. And that is a line that has been crossed too often. I don’t want to see a woman wearing nothing but perfume, if I want to see completely naked men or women going at it I’ll look at porn. Might make me look, but that’s not going to make me want to buy anything. I want to see beautiful men and women in an interesting, artistic, tasteful scene, showing off the product. Something that hints at sexuality, but not fully exposing it, something provacative and dangerous; teasing, but mainly, something that portrays a personalization of the product-cool and sexy. Something that celebrates beauty and what the product is about. Because fashion is all about beauty and art, and the ad is meant to present the product.

    And I am really tired of seeing people blame this collective force “the media” for everything wrong in the world-yeah there are a lot of bad things out there, but you can’t generalize all advertising and all companies and media into a single group of people conspiring to brainwash the public with subliminal messages. You can say that some advertising is stupid and that some of the messages we see are bad, but to just villainize “the media” and blame it for all the problems in our culture is a little silly. I do not think that advertising is responsible for all the flaws of society. I do not think that it brainwashes us, unless you’re gullible enough to buy stuff you don’t need. And I do not think that it teaches sexism. I do think that the ads should be more modest and tasteful. I do like to see beauty in ads. But not vulgarity.

    And so I think this parody is kind of silly, because it’s really not that the media is trying to tell you what to think, because they could care less what you think about men or women’s gender roles, they only care what you think of the product. And like many already pointed out, most of the men in these are totally unattractive and nobody would wear short shorts that are that tiny and ridiculous-looking on them. These ads are stupid because they would never make you want to buy anything. Most of the silliness from this is on account of the men that were used, and it would look just as silly if they used equally unattractive women.

    I personally would like to see more ads that show the beauty of the male body, but not these.

    I wrote an article about the magazines and models, and the effect it has on our society if you should like to read it:
    Definition of Beauty: A Defense and Reprimand of the Fashion Industry and Those Who Criticize It-Regarding the Problems of Obesity, Anorexia, and Self Respect
    Read on mtgrl.wordpress.com

    • ogwriter says:

      @Jamie: I can understand your frustration,however, the idea that trillions of dollars are spent on ads world wide that don ‘t work is just ludicrous. For instance, the sneaker industry has created a never ending money stream because people will buy these products even if they don’t need them. Which is how contemporary ads work. The series of commercials that Micheal Jordan made for Nike transformed an industry. Prior to that one only bought sneakers of one actually needed a pair. Now they are accepted as status symbols. Maybe and that is one big maybe, ads don’t affect you. But they work just fine on others. Advertisers know exactly what return they will get on their ad investments and the numbers are real and quantifiable in dollars.
      Now I do agree that the idea that ads are intentionally sexist and are designed to punish and or belittle women is a joke. Ads are designed to make money, period. To meet that end, everyone is a target.

      • No, I wasn’t trying to say ads are ineffective. I know that ads can definitely increase sales, which is why I’m planning on filming an ad for my new shoes line within the next month. I’ll be the first to admit that when I was younger I bought VitaminWater just because of their ads featuring my favorite singer, Kelly Clarkson, and I knew I was doing it just because I wanted to be like her. The only thing I disagree on is the intent behind the ad. I don’t believe it’s causing us to hate ourselves or be sexist, and I don’t think it’s trying to do that either. But does it make us want to buy the product? If the advertising is good, it will. But if we know we are too easily influenced by advertisements, we should change the channel, not the ads. Ads will always be about trying to make us want something; if that’s costing us our money or happiness, we should ignore them, because ultimately the choice is up to us, and we can’t blame the advertisements for doing what they’re supposed to.

Trackbacks

  1. […] what they feel would actually be a much more proper role reversal. Watch the original video here and then tell us what you […]

  2. […] what I think is a backhanded sexist or racist comment. I’ll try not to support companies who perpetuate gender stereotypes. Y’know, little […]

Speak Your Mind

*