Sexism taken too far?

[Gunge]

This is a bit like a Brexit discussion, isn't it? Two implacably irreconcilable positions taken.

One is regressive, jaunty, populist, while simultaneously hideously complicated and ignorant of the ultimate human impact of the stance/policy.

The other is easily denigrated as libtard, soppy, easily offended, and happens to be right, fair and straight with people.

Whodda thunk it?

But sex has always been used to sell stuff ( to both guys and gals ), so why it is a problem all of a sudden I don't know. Meh, I'm not bothered either way... adverts and crafty marketing go straight over my head.

 

[Clint]

Brown sauce for me too....although I layer off the HP for around 10 years in protest after they moved production to the Netherlands AND changed the recipe. ..
I will add I was totally unaware that direct sex act reference and joking about rape had been used in an ad...totally out of order.
Are the pc people against ALL flesh on ads or just women?
Modelling. ..will this see models out of a job? DO models feel pressurised into doing some jobs? Is any poster a model or has been? We may get an actual perception of things...

 

[Ajhutch]

Are the pc people against ALL flesh on ads or just women?...

Fair question. I’m against sexist branding, not models. I don’t think, for example, that models modelling underwear is sexist, it’s a valid presentation of the product. I do think, for example, that using models wearing only underwear to sell car tyres or beer is sexist, and again, not because I think it is anything to do with exploiting models, but because it creates an impression that the product isn’t only being sold to men, which I think is wrong. When it comes to brand names, pump clips etc, the question for many will always be ‘where is the line’ or ‘how sexist is too sexist’. And for me, far the simplest way to police that line is to take a very tough stance.

 

[Linalmeemow]

But sex has always been used to sell stuff ( to both guys and gals ), so why it is a problem all of a sudden I don't know.

There are lots of things that were considered OK for years that society has changed stance on. To give an extreme but still valid example, take slavery. Slavery was just fine for thousands of years - why was it a problem all of a sudden?

 

[Wouter]

The PC people? Didn't know this was America. If you prefer we can refer to the "other" side of this argument as the redneck side? Or since this is a British forum naming it the chav side is more appropriate?

But all the kidding aside, I don't think most people here would be on either side. No, most people are far too rational for that.
There is nothing wrong with recognising that its a bit silly to have scantly clothed woman on your beer branding. Just like there is nothing wrong with thinking that its probably not a big deal.

But I really don't understand why there is so much resistant against just recognising it.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Where do we draw the line? Do we ban Cheerleaders because they show a lot of flesh at a family sport? (American football)

 

[Sadfield]

Not sure as to which side you're pitching that chippy, given that they are debating it's relevance in the modern game.

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

 

[geigercntr]

I'd probably draw it somewhere around here:

Basically telling half yr potential customer base that they're not considered as customers but as product

As an aside, I wonder what the demographic breakdown of those who see nowt wrong with this is?

Let them eat cake

 

[Wouter]

Where do we draw the line? Do we ban Cheerleaders because they show a lot of flesh at a family sport? (American football)

Line drawing?

Lets say, we would now start a major campaign throughout the UK. The message will be this.
Tea is for woman!
Tea is only for woman! Men who drink tea are just wimps. Guys who are just one of the girls might drink it. But real men? No they don't drink tea.

Btw, I don't think you should ban anything. But you can recognize that it is ridiculous and still allow people to do what they want.

 

[marshbrewer]

Nothing's been banned, this is typical Daily Mail .........

I think it's the case that the Portman group can effectively ban your products if they believe the branding is offensive, and that is now being expanded to include that which is considered sexist. Therefore, the DM is actually right in this instance.

 

[BarnBrian]

Who in their right mind would want their teenage daughter to dress in a sparkly leotard and dance for the amusement of a stadium full of men? Or parade about a boxing ring in front of thousands of men, or walk up and down the starting grid. Might as well do the job properly and oil her up and push her into a pole dancing club on weekend evenings.

If it's what my daughter wanted to do and she enjoyed it then why not. Of course if you want to dominate your daughter (or son) then lock them in your house.

 

[jceg316]

This isn't about nudity in public or that there is skin on display. It's about sexualizing women for a product which has nothing to do with sex. As above with the tea example, imagine if a women's lipstick represented all men as perverts who should be avoided as they are sex pests.

 

[Wouter]

If it's what my daughter wanted to do and she enjoyed it then why not. Of course if you want to dominate your daughter (or son) then lock them in your house.

Why do you think that was his point?

 

[Gunge]

Me neither, so if came across as condoning this sort of stuff... sorry.

 

[Linalmeemow]

I think it's the case that the Portman group can effectively ban your products if they believe the branding is offensive, and that is now being expanded to include that which is considered sexist. Therefore, the DM is actually right in this instance.

I don't think the article mentions the Portman Group though - it's a SIBA code of practice which if I understand correctly would mean loss of SIBA membership for non-compliance, though you could continue to do whatever you want as long as it falls within the law.

 

[BeerCat]

All sounds cobblers to me. Some folk take offence to draw attention to themselves I reckon. Who would be offended if sex toy manufacturers used images of beer to sell their wares? This is why society is f****d. All advertising is **** anyway... good stuff sells itself eventually.

And then you people being offended on behalf of someone else....

 

[Norfolk79]

And then you people being offended on behalf of someone else....

Exactly what I was about to say, really gets my goat!

 

[Wouter]

Who is offended exactly?
What people? I assume you mean posts in this topic?
Could you please quote multiple people which stated that they were offended here?

 

[Ajhutch]

Who is offended exactly?
What people? I assume you mean posts in this topic?
Could you please quote multiple people which stated that they were offended here?

It’s not about who has and hasn’t declared they are offended. I’m not personally offended by sexist branding. (Frankly I’m not personally offended by much, if you look like me childhood gives you a pretty thick skin, and being a middle class straight white male I’m not in a category that suffers a lot of -ism.)

But I do recognise when branding is sexist in and of itself, and think that is a bad thing. Characterising that, as some have, as being ‘offended on behalf of others’ is simplistic and wrong.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

I didn't know they were discussing banning cheerleaders what group of people doing something they enjoy will the axe fall on next.