This is the segment where I scour my favorite forums around the internet
and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs
told in the words of my favorite human beings.
In this edition we have a story from my local area that centers on one woman's outrage over the allegedly sexist adverts that aim to stop the public from littering. This story is the epitome of why people should stop making serious claims based on their feelings alone, especially when these allegations are over something simply trivial in nature.
_______________________________________________________________________________
http://www.essexchronicle.co.uk/Love-Essex-anti-litter-campaign-branded-sexist/story-27695155-detail/story.html
http://jeanhatchet.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/smarting-about-sexist-ads.html
_______________________________________________________________________________
The fury over these seemingly harmless posters comes from the fact that the word in bold on the advert showing a male figure is 'smart', as opposed to the word 'pretty' on the advert featuring a woman. Apparently feminists in the local area are claiming that these two posters show a sexist attitude that is degrading to women, and not as I would have assumed a trivial matter that in no way warrants a negative backlash from oversensitive morons. In my opinion these adverts are perfectly acceptable forms of media and do not dictate the roles of each gender in any way. All I can see is a campaign that shows off the benefits of binning rubbish, in the same way that a commercial advert shows off the benefits of a product that is being sold to the viewer. The purpose of the language used is not to cause offense, and actually appears to be a light pun revolving around how tidying up litter makes an area more aesthetically pleasing. It's not harmful to anyone and the purpose wasn't to discriminate, so any negative effects you claim are caused by this campaign will need evidence to back up your claims. I don't personally find that these adverts are a social commentary on each specific gender, but surely if this is the issue then why are women the only gender being degraded from the campaign? Surely forcing one gender to look smart is a negative and stereotypical perception of the male gender, yet at no point are men ever depicted as the victims in your argument. I smell the foul stench of hypocrisy. Luckily for us Natalie Collins is here to give us her opinion, without any facts.
Fantastic. Well it's great that we have a 'gender justice specialist' instigating this debate. I can't wait for her to talk about how only women are oppressed by this campaign and not men. Some 'gender justice' we're getting here. It's not as if she comprehends the idea of advertising either, as according to her, stereotypes shouldn't be used. Natalie even recognises that 'hundreds' of products use stereotypes to sell products, yet can't quite comprehend that businesses do that to carry messages to a greater number of people, even if that means offending a minority of idiots such as yourself. It seems Natalie doesn't understand that campaigns have target markets. In this case that's the lowest common denominator, the general public, and so stereotypes are an effective method of advertising in order to avoid alienating any large groups of people. You quite rightly point out that councils have a 'social responsibility', and that involves cutting down on litter, which they chose to do by implying that putting rubbish in the bin makes the place more attractive, just like the models in their poster. If that's what makes putting rubbish in the bin desirable then what's the problem with that? Who doesn't want to feel desirable?
There's still no explanation as to why this campaign is degrading. You keep banging on about what your opinion is, but have never actually explained the reasoning behind these overblown issues. Maybe I'm being stupid, but I honestly don't see the harm of displaying an attractive lady on a billboard and then highlighting how attractive she looks. In my funny little world I just assumed that human beings wanted to have aspirational targets, and if that means displaying an exemplary example to try and convince people that this is a method of doing so, then what's the problem with that? Surely you must be aware that putting rubbish in the bin doesn't instantly make you some sex magnet. The advert is not forcing you to be pretty, and it certainly doesn't dictate your life choices. I'm also interested in how this only affects women. Surely it would also be degrading to men as not all of us want to be smart, but oh no, for some reason being pretty is bad for society.
What a surprise. It turns out that stereotyping in adverts does work, even in the words of an oppressed woman. I'm quite confident that she doesn't give a shit that the advert might objectify people considering that it gets the fucking message across. Who knew that appealing to the majority of people would yield results? I know Natalie's feelings are probably going to be hurt by this factual news, but that can't be allowed to get in the way of the cold, hard statistics that clearly show she's talking absolute bullshit. In this type of scenario you have to weigh the pros and cons of each argument, and I would certainly prefer a reduction in litter to the banning of adverts that work over some light stereotyping. Still, let's see if Natalie can come up with a solution.
I take it this is the sorry state that thankfully only a minority of feminists have ended up in. It's a shame at a time when there is a great need for feminism in many areas of the world that trivial matters like an innocent advert become the focal point for activists. It's also a shame that we still have yet to get any explanation as to why these adverts are degrading to society, although apparently this nonexistent theory is worse than the very real problem of littering. I'm sorry to inform Natalie, who has reveled she lives in a parallel universe to common sense, that it does matter that the word 'smart' can be read in two different ways, as something that is implied and something that is meant are two separate issues; just the same as how your feelings and the actual facts are two entirely different concepts. Advertising is in essence an art form, and so entirely subjective. making this assumption that everyone should be offended by this advert is narrow minded to say the least, and detracting from the message that the advert conveys.
However this ignorance towards advertising and the English language are nothing compared to the barrage of sexism that comes from a so called 'gender justice specialist'. I can't quite believe the generalisation in denying that any women made the advert, despite having no evidence to prove so. Your whole argument is based on one very stereotypical assumption, making that comment the most blatantly sexist attitude in the whole argument. I can't quite believe that a gender justice specialist can be so naive as to blame men for this campaign, when in reality she has no reason to claim that these biased and degrading comments are in anyway true. Despite the fact that many women are involved in advertising, you use this false information to launch an attack on the male gender, trying to unjustly and unfairly force women into jobs that they don't merit. I don't know about you Natalie, but I can't see any fucking gender justice here. You can't justify your inherent sexism by claiming that men have different opinions to you, subsequently pushing your radical agenda that relies on vague and incorrect statements to generalise whole genders. But no, apparently it's the council at fault here, and not your hypocritical ideology.
Since Natalie has the inability to explain anything I decided to find another source to try and actually back up these claims. After a bit of digging I found a blog from a radical feminist, and not surprisingly this turned out to be more biased feelings without any facts.
Does telling an attractive woman that looking pretty is a stereotype that belongs in the 1950's a very bitter thing to say? I have to call you on that point considering that women spend a lot more money on cosmetic products than their male counterparts, indicating that this stereotype of wanting to look pretty does actually belong in the 21st century whether you like it or not. I think you can forgive the advert for trying to reach out to a great number of people, because after all it's a campaign for the general public. The response from the council is the usual fob off that complaints always get, and just like the original argument doesn't explain anything. What I will say is that if this angry lady gets her way then almost all advertising that revolves around targeting stereotypes will be banned, which as they're adverts means nearly every single one.
Can't you put up ads that claim a woman's desire is to be pretty? Maybe you should tell cosmetic companies that their advertising is immoral. Just by looking at the sales of cosmetics and fashion you can see that contrary to your belief this stereotype exists for a reason, and I'm sure that many people couldn't care less if this harmless fact was exploited for reducing litter. The adverts in question highlights the beauty of a lady in the same way as cosmetic adverts highlight how attractive the model is, all because it's seen as aspirational. This activist then goes on to talk about how this is the conservatives fault, backing that claim up with some irrelevant statistics about unrelated issues. It seems like Natalie and this campaigner just wants to parade the victim card around despite providing no evidence or logical arguments to support her claims. Complain all you want love, but it's easy to tell you're just kicking off to shove your biased agenda down people's throats.
No comments:
Post a Comment