Qubit said:

I can't understand why men's magazines have to show women in such a negative light. I don't think women's magazines are quite the same about men but maybe I am being unfair there as I know a lot of men feel victimised by them. Why does a magazine concentrating on issues on one gender have to demonise the other? It makes no sense to me.

Posted on 17 December 2008 at 3:09 PM

Anne Onne said:

Baileys ad: you know, I never got their reference until I saw it here. funny, the difference context makes. I mean, I thought they had some lips fixation, but I guess all the oral sex metaphors in the media are leaving me a bit jaded. Advertising duded: can you think about something else, please? Get laid or help yourself, but for crying out loud leave sex in your bedroom and out of all the non-sex-aid ads?

Plug in ad: for some reason there's this association of women with objects. Wonder why...The fake game 'vagina hero' wasn't real, but tapped into this idea of 'if only you could control women' that we have present in pot noodle adverts, lynx adverts, that ad for the microwaveable hamburgers, and lots of technology related adverts, this one included.

I can't say I've seen men be demonised/othered by speficially female media in any way comparably to the other way around. There aren't that many pictures of naked or half-naked men in women's mags, and even half-naked men are normally portrayed in a not-particularly sexual way by the media. There's this understanding that men can be topless and not be feeling sexual you don't get with topless women or those in bikinis.

We just don't get ads aimed at proving living men are worse than insert-random object here. We don't have ads targeted at women saying that gaming consoles are better than guys (sony has a whole collection of ads belittling girlfriends, for example), that they are easy to control if you purchase the right scent/equipment/food etc. to the same extent.

I think the 'porn for women' coffee table books featuring men ironing, and doing housework are a classic example. It's one of the few examples of portrayals of men expressedly for women's pleasure, for a start. The idea that men shouldn't do housework unless it's a fantasy is insulting to both men and women, because it highlights the role of women as cleaners who aren't allowed to be sexually attracted to men, and who should only wish men to do equal housework and other things men should do as standard, in their wildest dreams.

Sure, the patriarchy often portrays men as idiots, but that's rarely for the benefit of women, rather a way men are supposed to get away with not having responsibility, or to look bad in front of other men.

Since women's mags tend to be all 'how to please your man and take on all your relationship woes by yourself because it's all your fault', I'd find it hard to see how men feel really let down by them. Sure, they don't portray men in a great light, (and I guess men feel intimidated in that women are encouraged to want sexy, successful men, or do all the emotional work for their caveman), but it's nothing as bad as the portrayal of women. I find it hard to see how they can feel pressurised when the patriarchy rarely shows men in a very critical light, especially compared to women.

Maybe an element is that some men are uncomfortable with having any standards (even if they get the better deal), and the idea of being desired or objectified is really distressing to many men because they're used to being the ones with all the privilege. I'm not gonna cry over people who panic because they're not special any more, though.

Posted on 17 December 2008 at 7:32 PM

Saranga said:

Oh yes, that would make me want to drink baileys. No wait...

Posted on 17 December 2008 at 9:43 PM

W. Kiernan said:

Wow, that Bailey's video is gross. I say that because, based on the size of the droplets which spray forth when the drops hit the lips, that light brown stuff is most certainly not a water-based liquid; water's surface tension is way too high for a splash to make tiny drops like that. It looks like, maybe, ethyl ether. Gack, ptui! (OK, I know, it's actually really xtra-cheesy CGI.)

Posted on 17 December 2008 at 11:16 PM

Kath said:

I've just watched the Bailey's ad three times and it doesn't say sex to me at all. It just says tasty liquid that your lips will enjoy (yes obviously that sounds suggestive to me now, but honestly I didn't get that from the ad at all - and I do have a pretty 'dirty' mind). Male lips in the mix would work just as well, but I'm guessing women are their target audience.

The other ad just makes me want to cry.

Posted on 17 December 2008 at 11:26 PM

Kate said:

Agree with Kath - the Baileys ad is focused on a female audience as it is assumed the product is not macho enough for men...? I didn't see it as a sexualised advert, just pretty rubbish.

But as for the plug-in woman... that is just another story. Sadly, having worked in the industry (and seen far worse images not make it out of the board room) it doesn't surprise me :-(

Posted on 19 December 2008 at 12:05 PM

SnowdropExplodes said:

Oddly enough, in an entirely different meaning, I conjured a similar mental image with a post called The Video Game Class? with a little bit of a look at men seeing women as the sex class AND the "no-sex" class at the same time.

Which post, incidentally, reveals that even in the worldview of the ad's creators a woman hooked up to a video game controller wouldn't actually be a "better world", because you still have to go through the frustrating process of learning which buttons to press and in what order, to get what you want to happen.

Posted on 19 December 2008 at 1:33 PM

dave said:

Plug-in ad: kinda agree with you on that one though its the "keep dreaming of a better world" that makes it beyond redemption

Bailey ad: think you looking to deep into this one can see where your coming in from but don't think that how it was intended to come across

p.s. sorry about the puns didn't think about it when i wrote it but can't bring my self to remove them now they are there sorry

Posted on 22 December 2008 at 2:52 AM